/lbg/ - Letterboxd General

2017 Review

Other urls found in this thread:

letterboxd.com/machill54/
youtube.com/watch?v=GB2yiIoEtXw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

letterboxd.com/machill54/

Can we please all agree that 500 hours is the cut off

I must admit that I viscerally hated Tarkovsky's "Nostalgia" and completely hated the use of Beethoven in it. I've seen it only once, but none of the Tarkovsky films that I have seen did I think are really good.

I don't log all the rewatches but yeah, i'm a filmlet

Nostalghia came to be one of my least favourite Tark, I regularly rewatch them and adjust my ratings. It feels to me that Nostalghia has too much "philosophical" or spiritual "circlejerking", which is one of Tark's trademark but he overdid it in this film I think. It drags on for too long.
If you haven't seen it, watch the Mirror, and if you've seen it already watch it again. It's his undisputed masterpiece in my opinion.
Andrei Rublev deserves to be watched with notions of Russian history. The same could be said about any of his films, they're much better if you're familiar with Russian history and culture.

how do i share my year in review?

email should have come through

yea i got the email
i thought there is a share button somwhere

No take a screen shot you silly idiot

thats so primitive
youre an ape

...

>Most Watched Actor: Vin Diesel

What the fuck

>actually write reviews

Isn’t Letterboxd a hive of Tumblrinas?

...

yeah, the vast majority of popular reviews and accounts are absolute Twitter/tumblr trash (see 'brat pitt') but it's useful for logging films and seeing reviews from legit film enthusiasts

Watch out guys, patrician coming through.

Embarrassing

Looks like I'm the only Patrician here

how are ozu's works "contrapuntal"?

>Nolan
My man

Did you watch all of the Fast and Furious movies this year, or what?

how the fuck do you get those stats without letterboxd pro
I didn't get no email

...

sorry megaautist

Name's Bond.
Ward Bond.

...

>tfw watched all of Louis C.K.'s comedy specials over the summer and he's my most watched actor and director for 2017

I watched so few films in 2017 that, since Casey Affleck was in two of them, he counted as my 1 most watched actor

Yeah it sort of is. Full of people who are really trendy because they don't capitalise and ignore punctuation, at least. But it's nevertheless a good place to log what you've been watching.

man, preteen Twitter memes are so funny!!!

Remembering Loretta Young on her birthday, here with Cary Grant in THE BISHOP'S WIFE ('48)

I just validated my e-mail, does that mean that I'll never send me somthing like this?

I watched so few films in 2017 that I don't even have a most watched actor

Happy Birthday to the Black Adder: Rowan Atkinson. A graduate of both Newcastle University and the Oxford University he wrote his Oxford thesis on what topic?

Post yfw your hear Mister Bean has died.

Emily Bean

He maintained an excessive amount physical contact

...

Only started using letterboxd in november

Wow you must be smart because you watch old and or foreign films

I didn't get an email, how do I do this? Been using it since September

The fact that so many books still name Alread Hitchcock as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" film director ever only tells you how far film still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz music critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Film critics are still blinded by commercial success. Hitchcock was all the rave back in his prime (not true, by the way), therefore he must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Film critics are often totally ignorant of film of the past, they barely know the highest grossers. No wonder they will think that Hitchcock did anything worthy of being saved.
In a sense, Hitchcock is emblematic of the status of film criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it Spielberg or Coppola) and too little to the merits of real artist. If somebody produces the most divine film but no major studio picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of critics will ignore him. If a major studio picks up a filmmaker who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of film criticism: film critics are basically publicists working for major studios, distributors and video stores. They simply highlight what product the film industry wants to make money from.

Good morning asshole(s)!

Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great artist like Gene Saks, who never sold as much, and commercial products like Hitchcock. At such a time, film critics will study their history and understand which artists accomplished which feat, and which simply exploited it commercially.
British Hitchcock wasn't entirely suspense. British Hitchcock wasn't visceral. British Hitchcock requires necessarily more thought than American Hitchcock.
Contemporary artists never spoke highly of Hitchcock, and for good reason. They could never figure out why his films should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that Hitchcock were simply lucky to become a phenomenon (thanks to "The Master of Suspence", which is nothing unique to Hitchcock). That phenomenon kept alive interest in his (mediocre) cinematic endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants Hitchcock more attention than, say, Otto Preminger or Edward Dmytryk. There was nothing intrinsically better in Hitchcock's films. Joseph L. Mankiewicz was certainly a far better director of actors than Hitchcock. William Wyler was certainly much more skilled formalist than the 'Master of Suspence'. And Billy Wilder was a far more accomplished storyteller, capable of film noir such as "Double Indemnity" to screwballs like "Ninotchka"; not to mention the filmmakers who followed Hitchcock in subsequent decades or the US filmmakers themselves who initially spearheaded what Hitchcock merely repackaged to the masses.
Hitchcock is considered great not because he is the greatest filmmaker but simply because his films were easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They excited the audience and they had star-studded casts. If somebody had not invented "The Master of Suspence" in the 1960s, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial director.

The audacity of this Griffithean, not replying with "GOOD MORNING!"

youtube.com/watch?v=GB2yiIoEtXw