Who is the greatest director?

Who is the greatest director?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=pB81KMhGpqk
archive.4plebs.org/tv/search/filename/smirks/image/U-1xYRlMQpYDD-tnYZyOxw/type/op/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Kubrick for me.

soyboy

Bergman

>Kubrick
youtube.com/watch?v=pB81KMhGpqk

uridon post one of your reviews so I can dislike it.

>Bergman
Oops!!

Howard Hawks

why do you keep making this thread
archive.4plebs.org/tv/search/filename/smirks/image/U-1xYRlMQpYDD-tnYZyOxw/type/op/

Scorsesee

Getting warmer...

Guy's a soft exploitative manlet.

quentin tarantino

Have you actually seen Cabiria? It's shit. Have you seen anything before Cabiria? It didn't do anything new. There were already epics in America dating back to 1911 and 12. Griffith moved the camera back in 1908. Porter moved the camera in 1903. That entry on Wikipedia is only there because Scorsese is pissed that the Italians didn't invent shit and made mediocre silents, and he constantly tries to sneak and connive his way into exploiting plebs that don't know shit about film history.
>the modern movie was invented with Journey to Italy
Pic-related has all the elements Journey to Italy has.

Yikes!

...

Orson Welles, subjectively speaking.

James Cameron, objectively.

kurosawa

mifune best actor obv

The most simplistic piece of trite that has been misconstrued as false 'genius.' A work that can be summarized as "humanity killed itself and things were reborn anew." Everything else incumbent to showcasing special effects. It's a theme park ride of his envisioned future with the intellectual weight of such. 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 appropriated classical tunes Kubrick hoped would elevate his work beyond the middlebrow tripe it actually was.

John Ford?

>James Cameron
3d was already done in the 20s, Gen Z
>Orson Welles
pic related

>Dude, you can't be good if you're influenced by someone else, lmao

name 3 (three) ways in which Kurosawa influenced film that Griffith didn't already accomplish 100 times over

>he thinks 3d is important in filmmaking
holy fuck you're a brainlet.

>he who did it first, did it best
This is top tier brainletism.
Griffith's work has been improved on and outdone countless times.

what's your favorite DWG film and why? genuinely curious

But is he wrong, tho?

Fucking this, might as well have the Lumier brothers be the best directors for thinking to capture a moving image

Massive misnomer which makes me chuckle when most people bring his name up as some type of sole pioneer or should only be regarded as such. Griffith arguably didn't invent anything. What he did was is mastered everything. He knew life. You would know this if you read any of his interviews or the words spoken about him by the countless people he engaged with. His unique and traveled lifestyle combined with his vast self-taught knowledge of the arts attributed to his innate ability to psychologically capture the ultimate power of a motion picture camera.

Not one above another. They are all absolute perfection like the God himself.

>somebody that only gives high scores to Griffith's epics
The biggest pleb indicator

>John Ford
wannabe Griffith that never left his shadow. Even copied Murnau.

Griffith never divorces environment from character.

"What's missing from cinema nowadays is the wind in the trees"

Eisenstein is largely shit. He thinks using disparate scenes or content to make 1+1=2 or 2-1=1 is smart. It's not. It's basic fucking math. What makes Griffith and Flaherty vastly superior is that their scenes are independent but contrasted and paralleled through intellectual crosscutting and camera movements. And what idiots think is great "irony" by matchcutting opposites or playing the opposite feeling music or playing opposite narration, etc. is really just that. Doing the opposite. It's not bold, it's not genius. What Griffith and Flaherty did is genius. They don't immediately show you their irony. You have to pay attention and recall to know the irony in their works. Nearly every age in Intolerance ending in bloodshed and death while the boy gets a trial is ironic. The heft given to the boy's trial in comparison to literal ancient civilizations at war is ironic. The idea that Flaherty's subjects in Nanook or Moana never really existed is the greatest irony ever put on screen because it's an irony that takes place OFFSCREEN, you have to know that with your own knowledge.

Nobody asked.

why does the Griffith user become incredibly triggered by the mere mention of Kubrick?

Hitchcock and Leone imo

But he is right

Theme park rides aren't art, sorry, Kubrick. Maybe instead of going to films, you should have went to life first.

>Hitchcock
Oops!!

I bet Griffithanon is a failed writer of some kind I just know it.

>Leone
Made stale trash.

There is nothing "ironic" about Eisenstein's montage.

>the greatest irony ever put on screen because it's an irony that takes place OFFSCREEN
What did he mean by this?

I hope you're not implying anything that vulgarly constitutes fiction, film, cinema, or a movie.

but its every single thread. do you ever think "I cant be bothered to moan about Kubrick today"?

How many countries have you visited? What's your highest level of formal education? What languages can you speak? What is your net worth? How would you describe yourself in seven words or less?

Griffith was a pioneer in film technique but his movies are objectively shit.

What is up with all that autistic red lining.

So he is a hack because what he did was done before?

I ship Griffith and Griffithfag. I hope they kiss and snuggle under some blankets.

>Griffith was a pioneer in film technique but his movies are objectively shit.
This. He moved the camera too much!

Probably Bergman.

>Griffith was a pioneer in film technique but his movies are objectively shit.
This. Griffith moved his camera too little!

>he hasn't seen Intolerance

>Griffith was a pioneer in film technique but his movies are objectively shit.
Zoinks! Griffith never made a film.

not him but answering for the fun of it.
>How many countries have you visited?
11 I think
>What's your highest level of formal education?
chartered
>What languages can you speak?
English ,German
>What is your net worth?
about half a mil guessing.
>How would you describe yourself in seven words or less?
hard working,(I know ironic posting here saying this) open minded, quiet, patient, loner.

...

There is actually a scene in marriage market in Intolerance. It's not that scene.

I liked the Babylonian flame thrower. But I doubt Griffith knows what intolerance means.

>But I doubt Griffith knows what intolerance means.
And what does that mean. Intolerance is a name, not solely what it's about. It should really be called Hypocrisy: The Injustice of Mankind, but it doesn't have as much a ring to it.

Intolerance is mentioned numerous times in intertitles.
>hypocrisy
What is hypocritical in the Babylonian story?

>directors
Cinematographers and writers are the true kinographers

>i didn't see Intolerance

But Sup Forums hates Karl Struss!!!

Griffith made a racist propaganda movie, that eliminates him from GOAT director discussions by default.

Satyajit Ray is my answer

>I'm a film buff!

Who are your favorite directors?

>Wong Kar-Wai, Edward Yang, Bela Tarr, and Hou Hsiao Hsien!

Favorite cinematographers?

>Umm

Have you seen anything by DW Griffith?

Who? You mean that racist guy?

I watched it. Please explain. Who was hypocritical in that story? The priest of Marduk?

Same here.

>The priest of Marduk?
No, it's the baby in the beginning!

The irony is by using and commenting on the past, Griffith predicted the future over a 100 years later. This is the type of irony that Kubrick wanted but could never achieve. TRUE subtlety. TRUE offscreen irony.

David Lynch

(((Berg)))man