/lbg/ - Letterboxd general

Rate, hate, discuss

QOTD: Which genre of film has had consistently the worst output?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=u85u2ymDl8M
youtube.com/watch?v=tl7zXYsuMTw
letterboxd.com/Smoothhands/
letterboxd.com/thepartyoftea
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

horror.

capeshit? is not even a contest

There are two movies that are currently made: horror & blockbusters
blockbusters are boring and samey
horror is also boring and samey

Mr. BIG MEATY CLAWS gives Atomic Blonde a 4 star rating.

slashers are worse than capeshit imo.

>oh no he gon kill me! :(
every slasher ever

Born Today, Dec 12, in 1881, Film Pioneer Harry Warner - Co-founder of Warner Bros Pictures with his brothers Sam, Albert and Jack.

"If the producers of pictures, see only the dollar - then I believe those production efforts will fail."

Right on, it's not just about the money. It's also about getting to fuck young talent .

Horror and superhero

/whizzblue
need recs for tonight

watch Science Crazed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What is better
Greed or Satantango

Greed

Shit taste

>On Monday morning, the Golden Globes reinforced the notion that Hollywood is still a boy’s club. The organization, made up of about 90 foreign journalists, seemed to go out on a limb not to nominate a single woman for best director. Not Greta Gerwig (“Lady Bird”). Not Patty Jenkins (“Wonder Woman”). Not Dee Rees (“Mudbound”).

what the heck, /lbg/???

What is better Intolerance, Fallen Angels, or The Mirror

>Tarr's method of realism is to leave the camera on for 10 minutes
How genius!

How Green Was My Valley > Citizen Kane

Bruce doesn't agree

Buster Keaton

Terrible. His best flick was the one where he tried to kill himself, but couldn't even mnage that.

Garbage. Watch real comedy.
youtube.com/watch?v=u85u2ymDl8M

...

Griffith's genuine humor is a trait that separates him from a Murnau, whose selfconscious poeticism in Sunrise only lets up for forced wacky shenanigans like a pig drinking alcohol. He realizes that many of life's most tragic moments are already humorous unaltered without purposeful manipulation. Much like his crosscuts elicit ubiquity, Griffith's humor is never divorced from tragedy, they work in tandem. How Kubrick thought such a simple concept like 2001 or Dr. Strangelove could work as masterful comedies is completely unfastened by his ham-handedly deft approach. Through his streamlined yet maximized portrayal in 2001, he gives the viewer nothing else to concentrate on BUT the very joke he thought he was hiding through obfuscated metaphors and stretches of silence. With Strangelove, Kubrick use a mallot when a hammer suffices in his constant revisiting of jokes time and time and time again. His deadpan delivery laced with absurdist redundancies is a dichotomy that persists in his entire oeuvre and unshackles any notion of him being the intelligent satirist many of his middlebrow drones think he is.

>...While CITIZEN KANE was loaded to the rafters with tricks and techniques to achieve its subtle visual splendour, VALLEY used no such sleight of hand. Its visual glory, from the marching of the tenors through the town to the imposing dangers of the mine are all on display.

Some ""people"" actually have the gall to call Citizen Kane's visual style subtle. What the fuck?

>and critics and scholars consider (correctly) Citizen Kane to be far better than Intolerance
No. That is a supreme lie. No one has surpassed Griffith in that regard. Griffith is the only one to achieve the perfect balance of miseen-scene. Griffith is slight, natural, and selectively painterly. The dove kiss in Birth before the war has the slightest tilt of adjacent trees to foreshadow the oncoming hell. The indoors of abodes are occupied with the same density that an actual person residing would exhibit. The scatterings that tell the identity of a person equally as much as their actions, one that does not impress but exists in an objective field. Scatterings that are nearly nonexistent in lesser directors like Lang that rely on one dimensional shadows to mask and hide or explain to the audience as elementarily as Welles in Citizen Kane when Kane's face is covered in shadow before he signs the deal with Joseph Cotten's character. A shadow combined with the angle that clearly foreshadows Kane's lying with the luminosity of a Broadway billboard

what a faggot

D.W. Griffard is the videogames of film

is that pete

>Citizen Kane's visual style subtle
>muh every shot is a low angle

youtube.com/watch?v=tl7zXYsuMTw

film buffs united

Who's better
Josef von Sternberg or David Lynch

Tsukamoto

>Born Today, Dec 12, in 1881
Still younger than Griffith

Lynch? Kubrick? Lucas?

Spielberg? Tarantino? Peele?

PTA? Villenueve? Godard?

I f*king LOVE film

Japs are irrelevant, they are a footstool

Intolerance unironically

...

See, I think we need to get away from the tenancy to deify certain artists simply because those teaching the subject have.

We're talking film, but I'll give you an example from other field...

... who is a better artist, Andy Warhol or Norman Rockwell.

Now, I think we all know the answer we are EXPECTED to give.... that Rockwell painted a world that didn't exist and that Warhol was a true artist who held up a mirror to the commercialism of America....

but.... is that really objective? Does Warhol copying paint cans somehow express the nature of art more than Rockwell painting the myth of small-town America?

And is Warhol's art somehow "better" because the meanings he tried to express are more popular with the left-leaning art teachers than the meaning Rockwell was trying to express?

Again, I think the same thing holds with film. Griffith isn't a genius simply because those teaching the class say he is. And his greatness doesn't hold up against the whole history of film just because we would want it to.

Back to the cave art example I gave.... should we consider cave art to be better than Da Vinci? It came before Da Vinci so it has earned a place in the history books, but does being first automatically give you the edge forever?

Griffith is just a technical pioneer at best, there's nothing about his films that hasn't been done better from Welles and beyond.

Griffith is in retrospective only interesting for his technical level, but not for his good films. Other silent Directors like Lang, Murnau, Pabst and Lubbitsch are more important.

everything having to do with art is subjective, I'm giving my opinion you duncecap

and my opinion is that you pretend to believe that average cinematography from 1910's holds up to average cinematography today

the
medium
has
advanced

letterboxd.com/Smoothhands/
my Friends!

you are irrelevant

More renowned for refining the technical aspects of film making, rather than having any particular insight into the human condition. Real talk, if Intolerance resonates with you on the same level as anything by Tarkovsky or Lynch, you may be a brainlet.

What's the greatest film

more like smoothbrain

Inland Empire or Barry Lyndon

Kotoko is better
2001 is better

1. Մեր դարը (Peleshian, 1983) !

Despite his immense technical talent. Griffith was comically out of touch and lame, even for his time.

>implying this garbage is any better than Eraserhead or Inland Empire
brainlet

>weebshit
Suffocate.
>2001
No.

>it's yet another "megaautist sets up strawmen so as to tackle them with his copypasted arguments" episode

>person who spouts memes on letterboxd has awful taste
WOW!
SURPRISED!

no, i don't think so. there are plenty of silent films that were substantial works of art. Griffith made amateurish reels in backyards and called them epics. directors who grew up believing in his cache worship his "emotional depth" and "innovation". his films are devoid of either. from a technical standpoint, i've seen better home movies. he had absolutely nothing going on and was immediately trumped by lesser known filmmakers.

holy fuck the amount of retards here praising that Wind River film is really getting to me, I might SNAP

It is I. The Goose Marvin.

That's a man in drag.

Bruce likes husky-voiced manwomen!

You don't really think you'll win, do you?

>My favorite may be Lolita
What did he mean by this?

Now HERE's a guy!

James Mason + Peter Sellers > literal who's in 2001

Chained
Cemetery Man

Romance.


letterboxd.com/thepartyoftea

...

what was hitler's top 5 ?

griffith's real talent was making movies so boring nobody could watch more than 15 minutes of them therefore people could latch on to them and pretend they were GOAT and nobody could disagree because they weren't able to finish them

Intolerance, Greed, October, Moana, Phantom

wtf i love hitler!

GENES

literally /ourguy/

As far movies from the 20s go, I still find Man With a Movie Camera pretty engaging. So much energy on screen. Whereas I can respect but can't really watch Griffith, I find his narratives to be boring convoluted shit, innovative or not.

Inolerance>Fallen Angels>Mirror

Finally, someone admits Griffith's turds being boring.

Oh, whatever. You think you know everything because you've seen a few silent movies. You act all snide because most people don't have the patience to sit through your winning horse's overlong, boring silent movies.

I've seen silent movies too, you stuck up faggot. Fucking Griffith doesn't hold a candle to most of his contemporaries in the Silent Era like Murnau (not American, I know), King Vidor, or Buster Keaton, who was no schmuck with editing and created stunt scenarios Griffith never could have imagined. Jesus, I'd rather sit through boring ass Dovzhenko than rewatch the Griffith movies I've seen.

Boredom is a symptom of low attention span, low attention span is a symptom of infantilism, infantilism is a symptom of bad genes, bad genes are a symptom of delayed evolution.

>Murnau
Oops!!

Griffith's boring as watching paint dry. Get better taste.

>Griffith's boring as watching paint dry
Maybe if you're a brainlet that can't handle searching a frame and accepting narrative information at the same time

Auteurathon: Griffith

Not very romantic. Far fetched and underdeveloped, racist and stupid, visually boring and full of uninspired acting. But no, not very romantic no.

Must have stuck a nerve with some embryo today.

Fallen Angels isn't that as good as Bullet Ballet/Tokyo Fist

AMERICA is an overlong and at times amazingly dull depiction of historical events told through disjointed sequences of been there-battle scenes and melodramatic intrigue with boring characters that just won't do anything. Whatever cinematic power you'd recieve from the film is lost in formal, book-length, high-falooting intertitles with more words than space (eventually I went "Please, no more!")

D.W. Griffith's films, in term of content, are garbage, but they're pretty influential and groundbreaking if you're looking for the very first formations of modern film styles. Watch the original Birth of a Nation and the film he made after the backlash, called Intolerance. Intolerance in particular got really, really funky with the editing, leading to what we now know as the montage. They're both extremely boring, though.

This is why /lbg/ will always be intellectually inferior. They haven't even read the basics of film theory let alone caught up to date to know the theoretical reasons for academic appraisals of works.

learning from another man is the highest form of cuckoldry, learning from another man about art is the highest form of plebeiancy.

Melies is okay, Griffith is boring.

>learning from another man is the highest form of cuckoldry
Reminder Abel Gance worshipped Griffith, so if you like any of the films he directed, you tangentially love Griffith

I'll never ingest a piece of art that was created by a man named Abel, you plebeian cuckold

Is that a matte painting? How'd he get that shot?

very easily

Reality bows to Griffith, not the other way around

Movie magic!

are these different pastas, or different samefag strawmans from megaautist, or just another autist?

DW Griffard has never made anything.

Weles built upon the things that D.W Griffith invented with Birth of a Nation. Look at most American films before Citizen Kane. The cinematography is boring for the most part. It's just a camera placed infront of a couple of actors talking.

He made shit more dynamic. Made good use of shadows and focus.

oh its just letterboxd reviews lol
>bullet ballet
agreed
>tokyo fist
back to r/imlecinephilexD