FUCK YOU Sup Forums YOU TOLD ME THIS WAS SHIT

.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=7l0zzkJyecI
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

It is, get some taste

It's dishonest.

Explain dishonest filmmaking?

All style, no substance. You've been tricked, my freind.

Worthless film.

It portrays Hollywood in a positive light. And everyone knows that Hollywood is a hive a scum and villainy, or so the contrarians from Hollywood say.

No you

Being pure style is where the film gets its substance.

>he thought goose ever did a bad movie

>buzzwords
Get visual literacy, buffoon.

It's when the director makes an empty film with fake dismembered elements that some how garnish critical acclaim.

that doesn't make a movie bad

Here's the problem: You actually listened to Sup Forums

Dishonest Filmmaking: (Damien Chazzele, Tarantino, Alejandro González Iñárritu, Wes Anderson, Christopher Nolan, Alex Garland, Paul Thomas Anderson, Nicholas Refn, Tom Hooper, Tyler Perry, Rian Johnson, Alfonso Cuaron, Noah Baumbach, Andrea Arnold, David Yates, Denis Vilenueve, James Franco, Steve McQueen) are intellectually bankrupt moral whores and charlatans; their films appeal to the modern phenomenon of the 'Pretend Epic' or Pseudo Cinema, often tied to the criticism that "It was a movie that thought it was a film" they have no ideas of their own and are filmed purely to have fancy essays made about them. They obfuscate their lack of insight under a smug impenetrable irony and often contain scenes with disingenuous attempts at depth with characters spouting platitudes that the director takes VERY seriously
This directly panders to the IMDb reddit sensibility of quote circlejerking since these hacks are masters of the fools wit, "Quipping" (Not to be confused with the marvel co-opting of the word) , it sounds smart, cool and worldly but in reality there's nothing of substance, the Revenant's attempt at spiritualism was cheap and laughable and whilst someone like Malick has considered his philosophy, Inaurritu wears his introspection on his sleeve to give his film a false sense of depth with pathetic sermonizing

THIS is Dishonest Filmmaking

They leech the greater works that preceded them; like The Enemy being a rip off Eraserhead, but they have nothing else to say
They act under the guise of deconstruction with surface layer obvious 'social commentary' and a quirky forgettable score praised as 'innovative'. They are all inauthentic sycophants that rely on oscar buzz and post 9/11 detachment for relevance.

These directors are hacks and will be forgotten to time

Some notably earnest filmmakers include, but are not limited to:
Mike Leigh
The Coen Brothers
Werner Herzog
James Cameron
Mel Gibson
Terrence Malick
Gaspar Noe
Clint Eastwood

>he gleamed this because of the Hollywood fantasy scenes
Genelet.

It insists upon itself.

>>buzzwords
>proceeds to use buzzwords

kys faggot.

I could post the long ass pasta, but I feel like there's a simpler way to explain: it was so on the nose you might as well have hit it with a hammer. It's supposed to be "in the spirit" of old-time classic musicals, so they basically ripped off all the tropes and orchestration and pacing of musical numbers to match each scene like you see in these old films. Basically there is nothing original about it. They set out to make an academy-award winning musical that revived the genre, and that's why it's dishonest, because there was nothing original or authentic (this is the key word here) about it. It's synthesized, non-organic, on-the-nose, style-over-substance, shined up nice with an ending that "subverted" expectations. They said "let's make the next Singing in the Rain" and then wrote a script around that idea, not the other way around, and then tacked on all the confectionaries that audiences expect from modern films. That's why it's dishonest.

>Terrence Malick
Yikes
Unnecessary camera movement that communicates nothing. It is air. It is fluff. It is artifice

Are you too stupid to recognize sarcasm?

>the next Singin' in the Rain

La La Land = Two Tickets to Broadway > Singin in the Rain
The former uses Classical Hollywood as context, the latter merely ripped off several far better entries from the 30's.

It's easy to laugh at Malick since he's so honest. I don't like everything he's made but I respect his honesty.

Roastie falls in love with jazz hipster and neither of them are good at singing despite it being a musical: the movie

>Malick
>honest
Zoinks!

The wide angle lens is antithetical towards its intended purpose. Film is a dichotomy of showing and abstracting. The wide angle does neither, it distorts.

>Gaspar Noe
Wowzers! He really knew how to swing the camera like a baseball bat!

>Clint Eastwood
The Big Country > Anything Eastwood ever made

LOOK AT ME I'M MALICK!!!

youtube.com/watch?v=7l0zzkJyecI

>Gasper Noe Honest
Lel

The dishonest posters are intellectual philistines that don't know what they're talking about, more news at 11.

>The Big Country
Yes.

>Peck
>Heston
>Conners
Doesn't get more manlier than that.

Unlike the work of the majority of hacks that get praised who couldn't create proper social representation if their life depended on it, Damien Chazelle is a masterful filmmaker with a true bite for commentary, Pedestrians might mistake the film's visual aesthetic as one of earnest mimicry, but they would be incredibly wrong (as usual) and missing out on the representation of this fantastical world that Mia & Sebastian wish to inhabit, also serving as an homage to the masterful Bubsy Berkely and Jacques Demy. La La Land is by far Chazelle's best masterpiece (in a career full of them), and one of the best, if not the best, looks into the life of a Hollywood sociality and the conflicts that occur.

Sup Forums: Griffith, Stroheim, Flaherty, St. Clair, Demille, Stoney, Barker, Tourneur, Brown, Strand, Eisenstein, Chazelle

reddit: malick, tarkovsky, bresson, dreyer, ozu, bugman, kubrick, costa, weerasethakul, lynch, duras, brakhage, straubhuillet, benning, beavers, diaz, tarr, hou hsiao-hsien, hong sang soo, ming-liang, piavoli, leigh, coens, herzon, cameron, gibson, noe, eastwood

For a guy that hates on empty film-making, you sure write a lot of empty prose.

the movie has 0 substance and both characters are complete human trash

>0 substance
And garbage filmmakers like Malick and Eastwood do?

>Inarritu
Unlike Welles, the long take is not noticeable, it is seamless, water. The long take does not distract or imprint on the content. The blocking does not work as contrived mathematical deduction, it is exchange. The camera maintains a distance and is selective with its closeups, the camera neither dances pettily like a Malick, neither does it control like a late Dreyer.
The camera in Birdman is peculiar. It occasionally wanders, but doesn't do so to hide and reveal information like a Hitchcock establishment in Rear Window, instead it continues in an ever-evolving stream.

Birdman is, dare I say, one of the only successful one-take exercises, an equilibrium of sorts

When Lilian Gish was being shot for The Wedding (1978), she told the cameraman "Why are you shooting from below? Shoot up, UP!" Her reply for why was that Mr. Griffith, her longtime mentor, told her you shoot from below for a devil, from above for an angel. What does this shred of evidence say of Griffith's dialectic form?

Low angles are used prominently in the second half of Birth of a Nation, and most significantly for the famous Ride of Klan sequence. Here, Ride of the Valkyries is playing throughout the duration. What indication does this give?

Perhaps a suitable comparison would be another famous Ride of Valkyries implementation, one in Apocalypse Now. What angle is the helicopter napalm sequence shot from? What does this indicate? Apocalypse Now is unmistakably a petty anti-war flick. Why has nothing been misconstrued in this scenario?

This is what is communicated by visual literacy. Some would say, like language in general, we, as a collective species, have seen degradation in our expressed native tongues over the years. I'll leave that for you to decide.

But he's so pretentious and cares only about style over substance! He is nothing compared to the pompous hokum that Gasper Noe and Terrence Malick fart out!

It was pretty damn gud. The ending scene messed me up

Reminder that La La Land's haters can't handle "racism".

Breaking a movie down into what specifically makes it enjoyable is pretty dumb imo

I refuse to live Damien Chazelle's fantasy in where the ideal white couple romanticizes the oppressive studio system and the only major representation of a person of color is portrayed as the temptation to selling out in a perceived bastardization of the culturally black musical genre of jazz. Audiences need to realize that this makes zero sense.

based griffith autist

Overdose, soyboy.

>fart out
ooh!! sexy!!

>goose movie
>complete shit
Pick one and only one

Easily best movie from 2016. La La Land was robbed from best picture. This is one of the few movies from this decade, which will be watched 50 years later.


BTW: Sup Forums secrectly loves this movies, but they are just ashamed to admin that they like romance and musical. Easily one of the best musical ever made.

Is Sup Forums ashamed to admit they like Griffith and Intolerance?

doesnt potray Hollywood in good light, did u retard watch this movie? Mia is gettin fucked on auditions, and seb poks fun and dis hollywood. Its just odde to dreamers around the world not for hollywood, idiot.

How do I get into Griffith? Which one of his flicks should I watch first?

All Griffith's works are equal.
>flicks
Zoinks!

>film
I despise it. don't see new, I see vulgarity. I don't see advancement, I see oversimplification and degradation. How Griffith is lightyears beyond anybody else since goes to show how most that are attracted to "film" are autists that wish to capture life in the same self-contained isolated way they see the world, and that does perhaps the most damage to their work. But alas, genes cannot be changed. Kubrick was born this way, Ozu was born this way, Bresson was born this way, Tarkovsky was born this way and so on ad infinitum. This near-indomitable pile of backwash sludge that permeates the entire medium and is praised beyond aptitude is what makes me agree with Griffith's indirect notion that he never once made a film. I don't know of Flaherty to have either.

Ahhh, user reminded me of the Oscars card fuck up that Beatty tried to save. Holy shit...

By the way, musicals suck and would often ne better with normal dialogue without the stupid singing. One generation from being forgotten.

You've got spirit love
don't let the soulless cunts bring you down

DW Griffith's legacy largely forgotten by todays ignorant youth - he will soon be erased from the history books and replaced with soviet propoganda makers!

There is nothing special in Sunrise. It's a pleb trap. That's why it was forgotten largely after release and lost in a fire. It has only grew in acclaim because people have gotten dumber.

but it won 3 academy awards

>nostalgia
>emotional appeal
>acting-centric
All the core tenets of Oscarbait. Even the showbiz musicals of the 30s have more social significance and layered representation than Sunrise. Every single theme Sunrise touches on was already done in the 1910's, and its bag of tricks are just rehashed techniques. Where's Sunrise in pic related?

>Still hasn't found out Sup Forums is filled with contrarian faggots
Unless a film is trashed by both Sup Forums AND critics you should always watch a film Sup Forums shits on. Except for capeshit/starwars ST

Emma Stone a cute though

love love LOVE emelee jeane!!! cutie patootie!!

what if emeelee wore nothing but a white tank top, tight cargo shorts, and black leather commando boots

...