/lbg/

Letterboxd thread: post profiles and discuss what you have recently watched

QOTD: Recommend a lesser known film from the year that corresponds to the last two digits of this OP

Other urls found in this thread:

letterboxd.com/OriginalName3/
letterboxd.com/machill54/
youtube.com/watch?v=ucWYOLo_qIM
youtube.com/watch?v=cIFvhukS66E
letterboxd.com/smt/watchlist/
letterboxd.com/bigsmartypants
letterboxd.com/Driveanon/
letterboxd.com/film/man-eating-pastafrola/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

letterboxd.com/OriginalName3/
you need a new QOTD

your wrong actually I don't. it's a good one because it changes each time
I'll change it once I have some good recs on each of the hundred sets of digits
What's your favourite lesser known 1980 movie

letterboxd.com/machill54/

It was a good day lads
Purple rose of Cairo (35mm) is such a comfy film to watch, the idea that anyone could ever dislike a film where Mia farrow plays banjo and Jeff Daniels sings is alien to me
Cat people let me down a bit given its reputation, I think if you tried to apply and "objective" measures to it it's better than curse of the cat people (which was 35mm), but I enjoyed that more
Then illustrious corpses (35mm), a #rare Italian political thriller, really smart and interesting
Final film of the day was Third Man which I've been putting off watching for ages, mostly hoping for a cinema viewing, and worth the wait, it's absolutely gorgeous and the whole thing feels so slick

My rec for a lesser known 1980 film is Terror Express, real nasty bit of Italian sleaze confined to a train

Out of the Blue and Vivre est une solution

>it's a machill54 makes a thread so he can blog about his day and answer his own question episode

wahoo!!!!!!!!!!

I would honestly like other people to talk about what films they have watched and to answer the question

Idk other than that what the point of these threads would be

...

Out of the blue sounds real interesting, might watch soon

What's vivre about/why is it good?

Youre making me quite sad. Pls dont.

youtube.com/watch?v=ucWYOLo_qIM

it's an experimental film
youtube.com/watch?v=cIFvhukS66E
i also liked Coeur bleu, which is another film from 1980 by Courant

Pleeeease follow me pls. I just want more followers
I'll follow you back.

ew

sad

pitiful

pathetic

wow amazing

cringe

die

neet

fag

disgusting

shit

retard

yikes

...

pee-yew

>6 posters

yeah but what's it about/why do you like it

you have the worst profile itt

Discordfag can't fuck off back to his containment, what else is new?

>follow someone
>he follows back
>unfollow after a couple of weeks
this is how i farm followers

they can just unfollow you back if they realize you unfollowed like an asshole

>implying some of them care enough to do that
>implying they always notice
i got a good 20 followers like this already

but like, what if they actually FOLLOW your profile and get offended that you unfollowed them?

you gotta break a few eggs to get an omelette

rec me a good film to watch next
letterboxd.com/smt/watchlist/

Anything other than anime

there are several pages to choose from

Whoever gives Nanook of the North anything lower than a 5 only does so because they find it "boring" and don't even know how integral a work it is.

>liking hippie shit
fuck off

a lot of the movie is staged is what ruined it for me

miami vice

FUCK YOU

Why is Closeup acclaimed for being fiction, but Nanook is criticized?

I didn't find it boring at all though

i already watched that one, it was good

It's not one of the best for being "integral", but it is perhaps the most influential next to Birth. More influential on fictional movies than documentaries certainly since documentarians hate it. The entire identity of "modern film" (post-60's film) does not stem from the New Wave, it stems from Griffith and Flaherty and all those that diluted their techniques (thought more equaled better, but actually more equals less). From Epstein to Gance to Eisenstein to Hitchcock to Welles to golden age Italian filmmakers etc. That's why young "film geeks" watch Gance and say he's more "modern" than Griffith. Gance thought taking Griffith's form and amplifying it to hysterical circus levels meant "better". Gance is the forefather of Bay. Meanwhile Griffith occupies a unique distinction of both being a forefather but also not, for what he advocated and implemented is entirely antithetical to what contemporary audiences deem "modern" from the Hollywood variety. He has more in relation with what is considered slow cinema, but much like the adulation grafted onto Hitchock, Griffith executed decisive cutting as opposed to no cutting.

The same goes for Flaherty. Contemporary audiences inadvertently remark at the "modernity" of Nanook because Flaherty's design is integrated into the vocabulary of fictional film (multi-angled perspectives of individuals, moving cameras, real locations). But praise is undeservedly bestowed on Riefenstahl's amplified envisioning of Flaherty's dynamic form. Riefenstahl, herself, has admitted herself as being a beautician foremost, and it evidently shows in her life's dedication to the shallow showcasing of the human body in motion. Intellectual ideas were not of concern for Riefenstahl and neither was intelligent form. Bigger equaled better. Just listen to her praise for Potemkin.

You think like a child.

>tsar is a pseud
Who would have guessed that watching isn't the equivalent of thinking

>I'm illiterate
It shows, it shows.

stop posting little kids you sick fuck

10 points to anyone able to find a high res of this pic

do you have a point bludfire

>Griffith is boring and slow
>Griffith cuts too much
>Griffith doesn't move the camera enough
>Griffith moves the camera too much, Les Vampires is superior
>Griffith is too melodramatic, Metropolis is superior to anything he made

Which is it?

I would probably take this person's reviews more seriously is they were the slightest bit consistent and didn't contradict themselves. Of course, said person's words carry such very little weight in the first place because they don't even know what they're talking about. In said person's review, the idea of there being more than one protagonist is impossible. This tells you all you need to know. This person thinks it's bad that a certain director continually uses attractive male characters with psychological problems. I literally can not understand how you can claim to know anything about storytelling and not know that.
Reviewer: "Waaaaah main characters aren't likable."
Do I need to even address this? Does anyone take him seriously afterwards?
Reviewer: "These motivations are poor because I say so."
Compelling argument, chap.
I'm not even the biggest fan of the filmmaker this guy is criticizing, but this review is misrepresenting the film as wholly incompetent.

"The entire story and theme is relayed through dialogue"
Ok that's it. If you can't bother to pay attention or admit the truth just quit.
And here's the thing: there is NOTHING wrong with expository dialogue when it's done right. You can't show everything, I have no idea why I'm going on when this person said Star Trek Into Darkness had a good script. Reviewer conjectures that the only reason you know they ran out of food in Interstellar is because someone says it. Except for the fact that IT SHOWS PEOPLE STARVING AND BEING FORCED OUT OF HOMES. Okay reviewer. I don't like TDKR either. But don't you think that those exchanges between people about Bruce Wayne are GOSSIP?! Does this guy even have the ability to think for a second longer than possible? He sure has the knack for complaining about other people. Actually never mind. He's hypocritical enough to not stay consistent. He criticizes a scene for using literal dialogue. Then he uses a scene that also contains literal dialogue but its supposed to be "creative" The problem with the dialogue in the original example isn't that it's literal. It's that it's REPETITIVE. And even then it's functional. To him, subtext is the part of the text that isn't stated. Guess what buddy! It's still text! He gets a half point for Nolan's issue with women. It's true. But it's a half point because ITS NOT A STORY ISSUE. Actually, you know what? A big running part of The Prestige is about how men manipulate women for their own vanity. It's about misogyny. The contrivance point he makes about a plot point in Prestige is made redundant when you consider the point of the film. In fact, none of Nolans films claim pure realism. They all exist in the fantastical just made into the believable. How is The Prestige's narrative fractured? Aside from the way the film is edited with the typical Nolan jump cuts its pretty linear. This reviewer is complaining that we don't ever know how much time elapses in Nolan's films. As if its a necessity

I'm not even going to bother with his point on plot holes because he doesn't know the difference. And we're talking really bad plot holes. Like characters coming back from the dead inexplicably to indulge the audience. Look, the kind of people who complain about plot holes would look at history and say "Well why didn't Napolean wait for winter to be over?" All of these "plot holes" are easily answered, and organically. All of them. And I haven't seen it in a while. Onto the directing and he's already in a bad spot. He has no idea what shot reverse shot is. Nolan does a lot of two shots. He does a lot of swivels. I have rarely seen a shot reverse shot from Nolan. His camera is always moving. I'm a pretty big critic of Nolan's directing style, but this guy doesn't even come close to describing an actual shot.
"He blurs the background and focuses on the actors face while they're talking."
AS OPPOSED TO BLURRING THE ACTOR RIGHT?!
HE TRIES TO SHOW AN EXAMPLE OF SHOT REVERSE SHOT AND IMMEDIATELY SHOWS A SCENE WITH A LOT OF INTERCUTS AND CAMERA MOVEMENT. Shot reverse shot is used when you need attention paid to dialogue. It's not used because filmmakers aren't creative. Thing is, I know where he got this criticism from. The RLM videos. But guess what! They were criticizing it because THATS THE ONLY WAY. He uses another scene to claim sameness, even though the scene isn't even remotely shot or even edited the same. It is so rich he is complaining about Nolan's lack of auteurship (warranted) considering some of the people this guy is a fan of. Guy then compares Nolan with uncreative Filmmakers like Michael Bay. Except, you know, Bay is a pretty creative director. I love Billy Wilder, but the man was a great writer and a mediocre visual artist, only made better by his good collaborators.
"You can't issue a complaint a complaint without using the same on another."
I CANT TAKE IT ANYMORE PLEASE TELL ME HE'S JUST JOKING

The point is that after 4 years, you still haven't gotten a sliver of taste, and never will.

>I-I dont want people to know im a paedophile
yikes!
you have problems m8

Nolan's editing functions because it FLOWS. Do I have a problem with his trailer style editing? Somewhat. Does it inhibit the film? No. He's contradicting himself on editing. First Nolan keeps it dull and flat but now he's jumping all over the place??? At this point it's just "shoot and edit the film the way I want it to" not "this is violating what it is setting out to do and here's why" This man has no clue what visual grammar is. He wants a scene filmed one way when it would undo the scene's tone, atmosphere, and purpose.
"No dolly, zooms, pans, tilts, extreme close ups, juxtapositions, or anything else."
You mean except for the scenes you use as examples?
"You have to go out of your way to find a scene in a Nolan film without music."
Then why are most of your examples scoreless?
Hey reviewer. Your precious Star Trek Into Darkness might as well have a costar ring credit for Michael Giacchino.
"There's a joke in TDKR about Wayne peeing in Mason jars and it's funny because pee."
Or it's a reference to Howard Hughes.
"I'm not wearing any hockey pads. It's a literal line of dialogue."
Where does he outright say "you guys are a bunch of vigilante amateurs!"
Nolan's sense of humor isn't bad because it's immature. It's bad because Nolan's humor is too dry to even be funny.
Okay. Several things. Earlier you were complaining about sticking to the basics, but now Nolan shoots a period film differently and its bad? Christopher Nolan is a flawed filmmaker. An amateur level screenwriter? I'm sorry. You mean Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, For the record, for a guy who claims to want more art, he sure has an aversion to it when it's actually in his face.

For instance, there is this review:
"The film is shot well, with skillfully framed scenes and sequences… the problem is that perhaps nobody is more aware of how good the cinematography is than director Andrey Tarkovskiy, who vastly over-indulges himself in making use of it. There are scenes where he zooms in on someone’s ear or another body part, apparently for effect. The film frequently has abrupt shifts between color to black and white to tinted monochrome; there may be a reason for this, but I never figured it out while watching the film. There are extended sequences where Tarkovskiy films a still scene for several minutes, or a simple walk or drive for a great length of time with nothing to move the plot or characterization along, and without even any dialogue to evoke interest. On a technical level all of this is done very well, but none of it serves the movie itself; it is all very tedious and tiresome. I am not exaggerating when I say that there were times when I had to check to make sure I hadn’t accidentally paused the film."
"I get it, Tarkovsky, you're making art. The message sounds very loud and very clear. But I watch movies to be emotionally engaged, and none of that paragraph is compelling me to watch this film. In fact, it's done the exact opposite. I don't find extended shots of the human ear to be emotionally engaging. I don't care who's ear it is. To me, that is the director pummeling me with the fact that he's an artist. Subtle is the last word I would use."
"Again - maybe I'm way off in my estimate of the film, but I know what I like and what I don't like, and this sounds like the kind of film I want to turn off before it's half over."

>Griffith is too sentimental and meldramatic, Metropolis is superior to anything he made

Nobody should bother arguing storytelling with someone who thinks "Protagonist" means "good guy". You also should not argue directing with someone who does not understand the concept of shot reverse shot. Especially don't argue with them about acting in cinema when they think body language is of absolute importance over expression.

This review is emblematic of a larger problem in film culture: Visual illiteracy. Nobody wants to do the work anymore. Filmmakers now have to resort to laziness in order to communicate to an audience that is incapable of thinking about why a filmmaker decided to do something for longer than 5 seconds. This leads to a lot of reviews that simply go for the easy "All style, no substance" route which ironically is far more shallow than anything. You know what tells me that you're an intelligent and cultured film viewer? You try to engage with a film and talk about what it presents.

huh, what's this?

>Why is Closeup acclaimed for being fiction, but Nanook is criticized?
This needs to be legitimately answered. Why do 21st century undergraduate film geeks adulate Kiarostami and Benning, yet have never seen nor acknowledged the works of Robert Flaherty. They'll surely acknowledge Murnau's bastadization of Moana, but certainly not Moana itself. Flaherty never considered himself a filmmaker, and It's because of this they want to appropriate the works of someone more esteemed and elevate their finger paintings to high art.

sounds like you're the one who could do with getting some taste
post your profile coward

Film will never be art, dropouts.

letterboxd.com/bigsmartypants

...

mega retard EXPOSED

love a good novelty account
1/5 for marketa and ldv and 5/5 for la la land, it's beautiful

kek

Of all the old /lbg/ members to stay, why did it have to be Tsar?

>Bruce gave high score to Shaw adaptation
Only makes sense since he's illiterate

Bruce the Retard's autism knows no bounds.

Marketa Lazarova is lowbrow fluff

>Bruce the Retard's autism knows no bounds
His micropenis sure does!

...

Bruce?

Why does Moviebob hate BvS more than Batman and Robin?

He finally did it.

Camp > grimdark

explain

Camp at its extreme calls for indirect ideological attack, something brainlets will never understand.

Camp is the peak of intelligence

idk if only he would make an 80 minute video explaining why

tl;dr

dude... it was one sentence
how do you even get out of bed?

He IS a retard after all.

letterboxd.com/Driveanon/
lmao just tried watching suicide squad, realized what the actual fucking "threat to the world" finally at an hour in and gave up.

Pis prob the nicest dude in the community lmfao people are so mad

It's one autist samefagging.

Now who could be behind this post?

me lmfao I left my trip out

>letterboxd.com/film/man-eating-pastafrola/

Dumb weeb.

Smart weeb.

pastafrola

love is life
life is love