What does Sup Forums think of DW Griffith?

What does Sup Forums think of DW Griffith?

tryhard cuck, probably a virgin hhaha

I too, enjoy picking my nose.

Daddy

he appeals to redditors that love memes

Shame he gets remembered, often negatively, for Birth of a Nation more than he is for Intolerance

#11 of 1103 on 1001 Movies To See Before You Die list.
This film marks a great achievement for me as it is the last D.W. Griffith film I will ever have to watch as it is the last of his films on this list. Maybe it's cinematic blasphemy to dislike his films but I loathe his films with a passion as I round out the fifth film of his I've seen and this one got the highest rating I've given him. Maybe it's just that I haven't got over the fact that the KKK were the heroes of the first film I saw of his, Birth Of A Nation, which was used as a recruitment for the KKK for a long time and that completely ludicrous film followed by Broken Blossoms in which a Chinese man is known as Chinky have only fueled my annoyance of his work. Not to mention that his films are all too long to the point that even if they weren't racist, I would find them tedious.
Orphans Of The Storm focuses on two girls, one of them found on a doorstep who are raised as sisters. An aristocrat takes fancy to the seeing sister and abducts her, leaving the blind girl alone only to have everything interrupted by a revolution.
This film in itself has some really interesting moments and that extra half star given is for that alone. Griffith knew how to build suspense in the silent genre and that comes into play toward the end of the film. But this alone cannot contain what is ultimately a rather boring story that drags on for way too long. I do commend the film for it's cinematography and Lillian Gish but otherwise the only part that had my attention was the guillotine sequence and even that ended predictably.
I understand that his films are of great cinematic significance because of the many innovative things he did with the camera and story structure of film, but that doesn't mean that it's good just because it's important. Either way, I look forward to this list getting better with no more of his films on it.

Intolerance was a steaming pile of shit.

But back to the original topic....

If someone wants to be a fan of outdated melodrama, fine. But why would intolerance be considered any better than Broken Blossoms or True Heart Susie?

D.W. Griffith is objectively bad. His films are everything that people have stereotyped about silent film; costumes, elaborate sets, melodrama and flamboyant gestures at the camera. Unless you like the history of American cinema, you skip them.

Racist

Intolerance is a weaker version of Metropolis. Way worse acting too.

How was he racist?

people who talk shit about him are literally retarded. He's not the best filmmaker, but he was revolutionary.

Shitlord Nazi who should be erased from history.

>He's not the best filmmaker
Why not

Because he's boring :(

he probably fucked gish so he's based

When boredom is your only criticism of something, that's your problem for having a short attention span

I think there's a case to be made that he wasn't even the best director in his time period/country. Von Stroheim was also pretty good. Plus, this is my OPINION but I think these directors are better than Griffith: Lang, Eisenstein, Tarkovsky, Bergman, Wilder, Lynch, Ozu, Melville, Buñuel

>but he was revolutionary
Now this is retarded.

Yeah, because he's not the biggest director responsible for crosscutting, ya idiot

You're not saying why not, you're listing names.

>responsible for crosscutting
Porter. Now's the time when you kill yourself, griffithfaggot

the ten commandments (both versions) are kino

That's demille, you fucking tard

There being things that are better is a good reason why something is not the best.

I'm just saying that calling someone "the best filmmaker" is a difficult thing to say for any filmmaker, especially since I can think of many others that are on the same level or beyond. I wouldn't make a claim that any director is the best, but I can see that saying Griffith is the best is difficult to prove. You should really be saying why he is the best director

Because he's boring :(

>he made the KKK flick so now I have to rationalize how he is actually the most important director in the history of mankind
Why are Sup Forums posters so obvious

I enjoy his park and observatory when i visit LA

>You should really be saying why he is the best director
Well, first, you actually have to use your brain when watching any of his works. Something that can hardly be said of anybody else that has worked in the vapid medium known as "film".

>he's not the best because these are better
You argue like a 4 year old. No wonder you can't into Griffith.

That's a good intertitle. Actually have to think to dissect the prose, and the content actually forces me to think. Much better than Metropolis

Can't think of anybody else that has exploited the uses of every facet of their medium to their maximum potential while also basically inventing the medium.