Watch pic related

>watch pic related
>first hour is boring as FUCK with awkward silences throughout
>all the interesting stuff happens in the last 30 minutes

How is this a masterpiece again?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=tej00K8Dwgg
youtube.com/watch?v=N1ZPfqGnkBY
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Film was made in 1930's, it wrote the rules for how suspense and narrative can be carried through by sound. I forgot that Sup Forums thinks masterpieces are only things made by Michael Bay and Zach Snyder.

If your brain is so irreparably damaged that you get bored from a filmmaker as ostentatious and coddling as Fritz Lang, there's no saving you.

I though it was pretty good.
Citizen Kane was dogshit I think

"omg we should watch out for our children!!!"
The whole movie summed up in the last 5 seconds.

Griffith never made antthing that could be summed up in a few words. Griffith never made trash.

>when visual culture brainlets need everything to be intensely engaging for them because they can't engage with anything on their own

It's a masterpiece because of the first step of baking an apple pie.

>D.W. "DUDE INTOLERANCE LMAO" Griffith

Lang requires next to no thought during initial viewing. He spoodfeeds you the message every time. No Griffith work could comparably be summarized in the same fashion. Neither a Flaherty. Both actually serve to challenge the viewer beyond coddling with displays of special effects.

Name one honest formal complain about Intolerance.
Griffith was a master of form and content. He pioneered and utilized all known techniques intelligently, and there has yet to be a film more complex or far-reaching than Intolerance

Narrative weak af tbqh famalam, only the techniques could saved it

Murnau > (((Lang)))

Griffith didn't make stories. Griffith made parallels and simultaneity, ideas and events entirely independent from one another, not meant to be 1+1=2. True experimentation. True reality-piercing essence.
With Griffith, there are innumerable details that can be unpacked through rewatches, items of information that can be missed if one is not astute. For example, in the short linked below, the raising of Mary Pickford's head is timed with the waves and combined with her lethargic expression serves to signify the beginning of a daily routine. But the subsequent range of emotions she exhibits throughout the short reveals that it is through these individual moments of splendor shared with these men she holds dear that keeps her emotionally afloat above those crashing waves. This is one of infinite traits that makes Griffith superior. Buried metaphors and contextual information that can be studied countlessly bely the surface of his directly expressed content. Griffith actually employs intelligent use of a slow pace we observe actions in realtime to understand their significance. Nothing in the short serves to impress, one must consciously observe as opposed to say, Lang, where the self-conscious pseuo-philosophizing is windowdressing for lack of content and is something that can be passively absorbed. This is why Griffith leaves the feeble-minded "bored" or "unsatisfied" whereas with Lang they are "excited" and "emotionally invested". Griffith is for the intellects, Lang is for the apes.

youtube.com/watch?v=tej00K8Dwgg

>Murnau
largely mediocre in his late years

Because it's a german movie in black and white from the 1920s! kino, you're a brainlet soyboy capeshit-watching millenial if you don't like this boring piece of ass movie. I'm so patrician and original because I say that "M" is an UNCONDITIONAL MASTERPIEVE

I'd say the average Sup Forums shit poster and the average Lang fan share a lot of common thought.
The best part is, people who like Lang, actually think they have taste.

I dunno guy I thought it was pretty good, I like other older movies "three on a match" was good.
"I was a fugitive from a chain gang" was great.
Why all the vitriol? I can understand not liking it but come on

>Fugitive of a Chain Gang
Hell's Highway is better

Oh thanks I'll check it out!

>good movies duplicate real life

You faggots are never happy I swear.

>Why all the vitriol?
Because the Sup Forums patricians like to attention-whore with pre-WWII black and white movie because "muh KINO" "muh ORIGINALITY" when it's a fact these movies can be just as bad as other, most recent ones
The best movies were made between 1960 and 1980
Film has been 50% art 50% entertainement from the beginning

i was really happy when I discovered pre film code movies, I didn't feel the need to shit on anyone.
Its pretty sad that their only source of pride is sitting through films other people may find dry and boring

Ignore him, this idiot is a known shitposter.

>accurate portrayal of police investigation from 1930s
>creative use of sound
Remember, M is from 1931. Sound films existed for less than 4 years. Compare its use of sound to American films from 1931.
>probably the first in depth depiction of a serial killer
It was based largely on a famous German serial killer Peter Kürten

That's actually a very important message that resonated with the contemporary audience. Germany suffered first from WW1, then hyperinflation and then the Great Depression. A lot of children lost parents and roamed the streets. They were easy pray for sexual deviants, murderers or pimps.

>The best movies were made between 1960 and 1980
Nothing substantive has come from film since the 1930s
>Film has been 50% art 50% entertainement from the beginning
Actually it's 0% art and 100% entertainment, genelet.

youtube.com/watch?v=N1ZPfqGnkBY

>The best movies were made between 1960 and 1980
t. brainlet

I'm sure a clueless parent from that time period could learn something from the film but aside from that incredibly small group of select individuals the film is completely useless.

What does this even mean? Technically every film is useless.

So you're telling me that if you had never read the words of other people and watched the clip you linked you would have been awestruck at its magnificence?

Because I got to be honest, if I watch that on mute to judge it objectively it tells no story, shows no coherent action, has no overarching narrative and conveys no motivation for any action by any person. Or to put it differently it's an observation of actions with no information beyond what I can see.

Please explain what's masterful about it without resorting to pretentious vaguery and generic drivel. Thank you.

>Compare its use of sound to American films from 1931
>Dude, motif lmao!
>Dude spoonfeed audience lmao!
All better. Sound was already creatively used in 1929. The second best sound is offscreen sound. Best sound is sound not heard at all.

see
how can these living memes can even be taken seriously? loving the movie for what it is isn't enough. to truly appreciate it, they need to use these movies as a shield to project their superiority

Good thing Griffith was smart enough to realize that film wasn't art.

>Sound was already creatively used in 1929
Examples?

Sup Forums is so obnoxiously "patrician" not even films from the 1920s or 1930s are safe, they have to be elitist about those too.

Case in point.

>PERSONALLY I TINK ROUNDHAY GARDAN SCENE IS THE BEST FILM EVER CAUSE ITS THE OLDEST

>I've never seen a film from 1929
t. brainlet

...

The formal tact is clear as day if you're not a philistine.

We never know what's in front of Mary Pickford, we don't know the context of the scene, we have to extrapolate from behavior. The natural mise-en-scene of location serves to give some whereabouts, crushing waves and wind reveal environmental detail without need for cutaway and positioning of males in relation with house serve to illuminate relationship. Each cut from one range of emotion to the next while abstracting narrative detail is a technique adopted by Terrence Malick but done in superior fashion here since the camera doesn't distract or serve to telegraph events portrayed neither does mise-en-scene serve as simplified windowdressing. Willful audience participation to dissect and interpret is encouraged as opposed to handheld.

I've seen some films from 1929.

I think in their lives they are slightly smarter than everyone else but since leaving school they can no longer slake their lust for kudos and women that even know about these movies want that same praise and acknowledgement they don't want to give it to them.

Does this film have music?

sure you did scamp : )

It's a shame he's so preachy and boring.

>slightly smarter
I have never once been incapable of moving planets and shifting tectonic planets. I have always been above everyone around me whether they realized it (in)directly or chose not to. I never tire, I choose to sleep. I never hunger, I choose to eat. I can prove anything. I choose not to.

If I say yes, will you fuck off back to whatever cancerous website you leeched from

Griffith neithers tell nor forcibly expounds. Griffith reveals and hides. Take his frontality as an example. What is in front? His windowed view disrupts the seemingly omniscient nature of his crosscuts, masks, and irises. Total omniscience and total reality is an impossibility. Griffith knows this and Griffith consciously knows you see what he wants you to see.

oh yeah well if you are so smart why have you used this quote so many times already?

Way Down East in't from 1929.

My personal trademark.

>We never know what's in front of Mary Pickford, we don't know the context of the scene, we have to extrapolate from behavior.

Which is what I asked you to do and all you provided was:
>and positioning of males in relation with house serve to illuminate relationship.

Which is straight up bullshit because the relationship between them is far better inferred from their behavior towards one another than their relative position to the house.

Then there's more pretentious vaguery that I could wiki if I was interested in pursuing a career in writing self-congratulatory dreck for the local feuilleton.

So basically you're just a pretentious cunt paraphrasing other pretentious cunts for the sake of it.

The only modern day rival to Griffith's excellence is perhaps Emily Jean Stone. Apart from her, he has never been topped.

>preach
A fact is not a sermon. Dum dums think otherwise. Griffith, like any great intellectual, equally maximalizes and inhibits. Is Birth of a Nation tribute or indictment? Are the hypocritical tendencies that linger in audience backlash precisely what Griffith strived to reveal?

Does Sup Forums rate this movie?

>Griffith neithers tell nor forcibly expounds
Except he does both. In every single one of his films.

That's one of the worst films of 1930 and nowhere near the best war film of 1930

Considering its Griffith their relationship is probably explained in intertitles.

>dat scene where the girl is murdered and you only know because you see her ball rolling away and the balloon flying off
>boring as fuck
you have no heart my man

>paraphrasing others
I dare you to find somebody that has quoted exactly those critical sentiments regarding that short. When your genius has bled its stake on over 500 works without a single detriment to quality, gold is not something that is a concern it is a guarantee.

Thanks for confirming you're a retard
Go back to Sup Forums

>a fact
Yeah, like here. Papa Griffith will tell you what to think about everything.

It is about time that D.W. Griffith was rescued from the false pedestal of an outmoded pioneer. The cinema of Griffith is no more outmoded, after all, than the drama of Aeschylus. When one observes in the bird-in-a-cage telephone-booth image in Hitchcock’s The Birds a derivation of a similarly objective viewpoint in Griffith’s Broken Blossoms, the alleged antiquity of Griffith becomes more dubious than ever. Only in film history is half a century treated as a millennium. This is particularly true of the liberal, technological, or Marxist historians who have embraced a theory of Progress in contradistinction to all other arts. By their standards, the cinema does not rise or fall, as do all other arts, in relation to the artists involved. Instead, the cinema is subject to a certain mystical process of evolution by which Griffith’s Babylonian crane shots are on the bottom rung of a ladder that mounts to Eisenstein’s Odessa Steps. Conversely, the fallacious assumption that the cinema rose progressively from Griffith to Murnau to Eisenstein in the period from 1915 to 1928 implies that the cinema was betrayed from 1929 onward. The fact remains that Griffith, Murnau, and Eisenstein had differing visions of the world, and their technical “contributions” can never be divorced from their personalities. The recent rediscovery of Griffith in New York and Paris centered not on the relatively familiar landmarks, The Birth of a Nation and Intolerance, but on such underrated masterpieces as Broken Blossoms, True Heart Susie, Way Down East, Dream Street, and Orphans of the Storm.

Oh dear I guess Griffith really got BTFO this time!

Thats an odd choice, I've never heard some say "Go back to Sup Forums"
Thats the music board isnt it?
whats the stereotype there?

It's a mediocre melodrama about two sisters in Paris during the time of the French Revolution, but it starts with this sermon.

Oopsies!

Which would be common for movies without spoken dialogue, would it not? I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination but to me it would be masterful if I could infer their relationship, history and motive from the scene itself and discover an overarching narrative that would be meaningful or compelling. But like I said I'm no expert just an average consumer who was curious about why that scene is supposed to be masterful.

It's absolutely fucking horrible
It is the only board on Sup Forums that is liberal and needs to be purged now before it spreads to other boards!

>awkward silences throughout
M wrote the book on modern sound films. This is a film from 1931, when sound didn't become commonplace outside the US until around 1929-30. Watch some early sound films, it's constant yapping and if not there's music. They just wanted there to be lots of sound so people would notice the difference. M went the opposite way, and treated sound in a minimalistic fashion, where what makes the sound stand out is the absence of it in other scenes.

Yes, yes, very well, HOWEVER one thing that's true is that this wasn't because Lang was such a genius. I think Lang, who was a painter, was a visual genius, but with sound film he just got lucky. M and The Testament of Dr. Mabuse are Lang's first sound films, the only ones made in Germany. Notice how his directing is still very reminiscent of silent films, especially the overacting.
However, since M was shot on such a meager budget, the production would only rent sound equipment for actual dialogue scenes. Other scenes without dialogue were filmed silent, and to save money they just didn't dub any sound effects over it. Same goes for the lack of music, which was an easy way out to not spend money on music.
The modern sound film was basically born out of low budget productions that couldn't afford having dialogue and music all the time like american films of the time. Necessity is the mother of invention.

Griffith is not melodrama. He is layered juxtaposition. What John Ford and David Lynch vulgarized.

Why should I care about some guy's opinion? Like why did you even post this?
>Lang requires next to no thought during initial viewing. He spoodfeeds you the message every time.
Griffith literally explains every scene with an intertitle inserted before it.

>M wrote the book on modern sound films.
Oopsies!

Not really. For example Murnau films weren't like that. Lang also didn't explain the scenes this way. In Die Nibelungen most intertitles are dialogues, not explanations like in Griffith's works.

What's the message of Birth of a Nation

Really intelligent intertitle

How did Griffith establish sound conventions if he never even made a proper sound film?

Fucking idiot.

Oops!!

If this is the only thing you understand from Metropolis then you shouldn't even discuss it.

You need to absolutely kill yourself you assbirth Redditor

Niggers are evil rapists and the KKK were the good guys.

>sound film with all the defects of early sound films
>established conventions
wew lad

do you even understand the difference between "making a sound film" and "establishing the modern sound film conventions"?

>illiteracy
You won't be spoonfed.
>film
Vulgar. He used sound as early as 1921.

Oops!!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHA

FUCKING BRAINLET

>He used sound as early as 1921.
WRONG. He experimented with it. So did Edison in the late 19th century.

Whoops!

>making a film in a large scale = being innovative in the use of sound
Oops!!

You're right. Mulattos are the true evil, niggers are just dumb animals. There.

>experiment
Experimentation is for the unconfident and emasculated. Griffith doesn't experiment, he executes

FUCKING BRAINLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTT

Uh, no, sweetie, he experimented.
see >experimented with sound in 1921's Dream Street, which featured music and effects
>music and effects
>For Pavements, Griffith added a few scenes of dialogue and songs
>a few scenes of dialogue and songs
>dialogue and songs
literally what every experimental sound film was doing in the mid 1920's

But I just said it's about this. What's your problem? Your own intertitle agrees with my interpretation.

cool story third year film school fagglet. both ford and griffith were libshit commike kike nigger lovers. if they were still alive today, both would have a BLACKED.com account.

Thank you for the correction. Which movie(s) roughly from that era would you recommend as masterfully done while keeping in mind obscure techniques, that the person obsessed with Griffith ITT labors on about, would be lost on me?

Implementation is not experimentation.

Truth, what is the truth

I agree. Fritz Lang didn't experiment with sound, he implemented it.
Griffith, meanwhile, just experimented.

...

Ford is a niggerlover and he's a fucking traitorous hound.

Griffith captured and probed the evils and hypocrisy of civilization and mankind more than any other. Just look at the parallels between Birth and the Obama administration.

>Your own intertitle agrees with my interpretation
Get basic reading comprehension, brainlet

You mean silent films? Murnau made in 1924 a film with almost no intertitles. It's called The Last Laugh.

its not but its german so naturally hitler and nazis and jews and you get the picture

We might observe that Griffith’s silent films, like Sternberg’s and Stroheim’s, are often carelessly evaluated in terms of their absurd titles. When Griffith is mistakenly called naive, the titles of his films are usually responsible even when the images belie them. However, in recent years, both Jean Renoir and Josef von Sternberg have explicitly repudiated the titles connecting their films. Griffith, underhandedly more than any other, was a filmmaker of extraordinary complexity and depth. When Richard Barthelmess first confronts Lillian Gish in Broken Blossoms, the subtle exchange of emotions between the two players would defy the art of the greatest novelist, but the scene is almost invariably measured by the dime-magazine title that “explains” it. The same critics and historians who denounced the intrusion of dialogue into the silent film were guilty of reducing the glorious images of the silent cinema to the feeble conventions of the explanatory title. Very early in his career, Griffith mastered most of the technical vocabulary of the cinema, and then proceeded to simplify his vocabulary for the sake of greater psychological penetration of the dramatic issues that concerned him. Like all great artists, his art had become so deceptively simple by the time of Abraham Lincoln that most critics assumed that he was in decline. Yet today the stark simplicity of Lincoln looks infinitely greater than the once-fashionable razzle-dazzle of Mamoulian’sApplause.

Yes that's what I mean. Thank you, I will see if I find a source for the last laugh.