He doesn't think D.W. Griffith is the greatest artist to ever live

>he doesn't think D.W. Griffith is the greatest artist to ever live
You parents should have wore a condom, boy.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=By6qokGa7FE
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Kubrick>Gwiwwiff

they did

I tried watching Birth of a Nation because it's supposed to be red-pilled but then it was boring so I turned it off and played video games instead.

I 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.

But the third possibility is that you may just have bad genetics. You could be the product of parents who’ve passed down genes that don’t pre-dispose you to luscious, artistic taste. There’s not a lot that I can suggest about what to do with bad genetics.

Griffith is influential, but not a brillant artist by any means. His greatest acomplishment was paving the road for better artists to come.

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.

>gr*ffith

griffith = terrific

>You parents
so you be sayin

more like shittith lol

Griffith loathes the audience. The audience wants didactic match cuts, the audience wants expansion, the audience wants explanation, the audience wants coddling, the audience wants cinema. Griffith is anti-cinema.

white "people" in general are incapable to comprehend and create art

>because it's supposed to be redpill
Imagine approaching one of the most influential films of early cinema just to check if it's Sup Forums-approved and puts blacks under a bad light

...

shitid shart shittith lmao

Best Griffith coming through.

youtube.com/watch?v=By6qokGa7FE

In A Corner in Wheat, wheat serves as the catalyst, and the independent events portrayed are shown through his intelligent crosscutting correlated by cause-and-effect. Flaherty achieves communication of ideas masterfully as well in Moana wherein primal gender roles are contrasted through distanced crosscutting but never acknowledged by intertitles, something that has to be discerned by the attentive viewer.

get back to your /lbg/ containment thread, Mega Autist

>thinking you can contain God
Zoinks!

Griffith's irises are a more subtle way to elicit voyeurism and induce conscious observation from the viewer. A technique than be interpreted in multiple ways as omniscience, isolated capturing of a moment in the midst of photographing (without freezing of the frame like Truffaut in the 400 Blows - which Griffith had already done in a Corner in Wheat), or distancing and obtaining vaster picture (superior to Kubrick's pullouts in Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon which some misinterpret as distancing but can't be because distancing is shooting in objective long shot ACTUAL painterly style which Griffith already mastered in motion)

>calling a director god

low spirituality, sign of an inferior ''man''. Not good

Shut up, slave.

WTF I LOVE D.W. GRIFFITH NOW

why don't you publish a book, Griffithfag?

Why haven't we destroyed his works yet? Dude was a fucking racist, unacceptable behavior.

>that pic
apex kek, you probably think you're making some sort of point here, but it's the opposite
The sterile actjob in Griffith's flicks cannot come close to the godlike acting in Dreyer's films.

Good thing the mise-en-scene is so sparse, gives so much more time to absorb and concentrate on the monotonous bellyaching!
What is this supposed to do? Conjure up some artificial feelings of spirituality? There's nothing to think about, because there's nothing there, and if the abusal of closeups is supposed to get us closer to understanding her emotional state, there's little to no range of that nor psychology to warrant it. Doubly so because it's a fictional historical recreation.

The emotional closeup belongs to Griffith. If he patented it, he would have been rich.

>implying he isn't just parroting what scholars have already written about Griffith

literally WHO?

get your ass back to REDDI'T faggot

Nope. Search this up "These wistful emotive camera movements can sometimes be as overexplanatory as a heady intertitle. Griffith was wise enough to abstract from such flauntingly overexpressive technique, and opted instead for the functional and the thought-provoking unmotivated."

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

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, haynes, jenkins, truffaut, godard, kurosawa

>implying you didn't just reword someone else's point
also, your prose needs work

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

you write like an English undergrad with an inferiority complex

looks like Lubezki

What do you think of the bastardized version of Stroheim's Greed? Is it still a masterpiece?

>and if the abusal of closeups is supposed to get us closer to understanding her emotional state, there's little to no range of that nor psychology to warrant it.
You really are a dense sort of autist, if you regard art as an intelectual challenge, rather than an emotional loaded work.
I won't waste my time with a lad who honestly believes film and art in general should serve solely narrative purposes, instead of soul elevating and emotional catharsis.
If you lack the empathy to connect to such an obvious and powerful range of emotions like Falconetti's in La Passion de Jeanne D'Arc, then I must say, it's better that you avoid film and go focus on sports, videogames or whatever.
I bet you think Munch's The Scream is also shit, because a human face can't make those expressions naturally.

Compared to Griffith, Stroheim is a second tier genius.

Racist piece of shit cracker.

Painfully obvious juxtapositions regarding spirituality an forced viewer perception. Certifiably not art. Any formal qualities precede including divorce of mise-en-scene with performance in Joan of Arc.

oh you are one of those "I like only movies that are old because im not a normie, no modern directors can be good"

Tom McCarthy is there, dumdum.

What about Peckinpah?

Peckinpah and Leone westerns are overindulgent ultraviolence for 12 year olds. They lack the only dignifying thing about the genre's roots, subtlety and tact. Classical westerns are allegorical and face political and social issues on a base level, rural developing civilization.

So you haven't seen Noon Wine, then.

The excessive dragging of Leone's flicks only makes the banality of the content even more apparent.

It's expressive, fucktard. It tries to cause a strong impression upon the viewer, deliberately provoking an impulsive reaction, rather than a reasoned one.
Again, the point you're trying to make is stupid. Although Dreyer's work doesn't qualify as expressionist, it has strong expressionist art traits, unlike Griffith's, so it's ridiculous to compare both.
I'd say they're both very competent directors each to their own right, although I prefer one to the other.

>deliberately provoking an impulsive reaction, rather than a reasoned one
You crave causal delivery, you crave entertainment.
Dreyer uses tragedy as an excuse for attention, self-conscious abusal of preconceived notions that constitute high art. Dreyer begs you to take his art seriously, but Griffith contrarily knows from the outset his parameters are what designate his art. Dreyer's manipulative stolen atmospherics and formal conceit are what drive the banal messages of his works to their conclusion. The audience is not challenged to find this message, they are brutally pummeled into submission of this message. And for all this hysterical rejection of righteous art, he is sentenced to the bottommost pits, to the gallows.

>watching Leone's films for plot related qualities
>not for narrative aspects and visuals
>muh realism in westerns
you really talk a lot of bulshit for such a pleb

>narrative aspects
TGTB&TU is a glorified trash flick.
>visuals
"The only reason this film has scope comes through Leone's use of Techniscope, and yet anyone bothering to pay attention notices how Leone betrays the composition of his own set up by cutting into close ups, simply because he's such an unimaginative hack. One can't completely blame him though, the Italian countryside is as empty as the souls of its filmmakers."

>movies must have a message
>movies that make you think are good
>feeling = bad, thinking = good
>im so smrt evry1 else is dumb
plen

I like Griffith but Peckinpah and Altman made some of my favorite movies

>The Italian countryside
I see you've never actually watched one of Leone's movies
They're not shot in Italy

>>feeling = bad, thinking = good
Emotional manipulation is antithetical to art.

What do you think are Peckinpah's best films? I used to love his violent ones like Wild Bunch, Straw Dogs, and Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia, but I've come to appreciate much more his tragic character studies like Ride the High Country, Noon Wine, the Ballad of Cable Hogue, and Junior Bonner.

Emotion and Aesthetic are literally the core of any artform
Trying to be "clever" isn't art, it's pomposity

Griffith never made overt attempts at being "clever". When you're genetically inclined, you're naturally superior

>wore
Not worn.

Do we know what armond white thinks of Griffith? This guy is reminding me of a shitposting armond white

"For many critics and scholars — myself among them — D. W. Griffith’s Intolerance is the greatest film ever made. A century later we are as close to its subject as we are distant from its art. Political specifics, moral arguments, and movie styles may look different today, yet the only real difference is Griffith’s still-daring ingenuity, which calls for a more open-minded reception than in our simplistic habits we are accustomed to: It calls for an optimistic, united popular audience, which Griffith took for granted. When Intolerance premiered on September 5, 1916, its opening intertitles introduced silent-movie viewers to an extraordinary narrative device: “Our play is made up of four separate stories, laid in different periods of history, each with its own set of characters.” Employing a prologue and two acts, Griffith called it “a sun-play,” marked by florid melodramatics developed from Emersonian Transcendentalism, which film scholar Bill R. Scalia has described as “calling for an original American literature,” for “poets with the ability to ‘see’ past the material, apparent world to the world of eternal forms, which shaped nature in accordance with a divine moral imperative. Through this connection, man-as-poet would discover God in himself."

>Emotional manipulation is antithetical to art.
Catharsis is not being manipulated

>Good thing the mise-en-scene is so sparse, that way I can concentrate on all the monotonous bellyaching!
>Wow, I really feel bad for this fictional character, Dreyer really made me feel bad by making every shot a closeup.

Is there any reason for giving dreyer's failed intolerance knockoff 3 stars instead of 1?
Oh wait, let me guess, it has a literal representation of satan in it for your dumdum brain to comprehend.

Straw Dogs and Cross of Iron are my favorites

>every scene must be crowded, negative space is bad composition
>also, close-ups are a no-no, how dare directors want to focus on facial features and expressivity of a character?

>close-ups are a no-no

Griffith understood humans better than anyone else.

>negative space is bad composition
pic related he's largely outdated and highly hypocritical (not self-consciously). His vulgarization of Griffith's contributions shows he did not gleam their purpose nor their essence, only their superficialities. He is bluntly direct in all the worst ways imaginable. Under the guise of tragedy, he's resolutely middlebrow with no inclination whatsoever to a higher echelon

I honestly don't get your point then. Wtf did you expect Dreyer to do? The film's story passed in a prision cell, focusing mostly on Joan's suffering through her martyrdom. Did you expect sophisticated setpieces? Intelectual dialogue? Philosophical discussions? A deep message?
The film is pretty straightfoward, but not a bit less powerful, and Falconetti's face is the director's main instrument for storytelling and emotion portrayal.

What does Passion of Joan of Arc do that was new though? It's not even the best Joan of Arc silent.

is griffithfag Sup Forums's quentin?

>Dreyer's films aren't for the thinking man
>Dreyer's films aren't transcendental

pick one

There's nothing to think about, because there's nothing there

don't waste your time, griffithfag doesn't believe films can be trascendental
he is too autistic for art

In your brain, right.

AYAK?

Why is Griffith criticized for the qualities late Dreyer is praised for?

How is Passion of Joan of Arc state-of-the-art, but Griffith is primitive? Dreyer even admitted he loved Griffith's works and that he was his biggest influence. Pic-related is 12 years before Passion of Joan of Arc. Joan of Arc isn't even the best silent Joan of Arc film.

noone cares about griffith, you fucking loser
your precious director will just go down in history as a racist cunt who's a sore product of his time
nobody will keep watching his stuff, and he'll soon be no more than a footnote in cinema history

This.
DOWNVOTE GRIFFITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why is megaautist a retard, I learn a lot from him when I stop mouthing off like a hooligan with Tourette's.

stay mad, nerd

What are you going to do? Remove every reference to him from wikipedia?

Day of the rope soon, Kike.

DOWNVOTE GRIFFITH! DOWNVOTE GRIFFITH! DOWNVOTE GRIFFITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do mini golf courses usually have a pipe for the balls? I haven't been to many, but at the few I went to you just took the ball out of the hole with your hands and reused it. Seems far more practical.

I won't do a thing, I don't even care about it. But it's a fact that the tides are changing for straight white men, specially the ones who reinfornce a mentality that is no longer well seen. Griffith's works are too controversial for him to keep being praised in this manicheist society, so he'll either be made a strawman for the racist white film makers of the past, or vanish into oblivion, as people simply think it's best to avoid controversy by stopping talking about him.

really makes more sense, imagine if it rained, the pipe would just drive the water into the club house

Why was Dziga Vertov called a hooligan in his time, but now is in the top 10? Why was Flaherty considered the peak of film art in his time, but isn't in the top 250 now? Why is a holocaust propaganda piece in the top 250 now? Why are there several holocaust propaganda pieces in the top 250?

Is A Brief Encounter that good? Which should I watch next: Brief Encounter or Doctor Zhivago? I watched Lawrence of Arabia and Bridge Over The River Kwai, and loved both.

>David Lean
"If there had been no newspaper strike, and mine were a lonely voice instead of an only voice, Lawrence of Arabia might now be festooned with the superlatives accorded such previous superproductions as The Best Years of Our Lives, Around the World in 80 Days, The Bridge on the River Kwai, and Ben Hur. But like its almost forgotten predecessors, Lawrence is simply another expensive mirage, dull, overlong, and coldly impersonal. Its objective is less to entertain or enlighten than to impress and intimidate. It is not as stupid as The Longest Day or as silly as Mutiny on the Bounty. Some of its acting and technical effects are interesting. But on the whole I find it hatefully calculating and condescending.
The film begins with a short prologue re-enacting Lawrence's fatal motorcycle accident and the dedication of his bust in the crypt of St. Paul's Cathedral in London. After several of his acquaintances—some historical, some fictional-historical—have been briefly interviewed the plot flashes back to Lawrence in 1916 as a junior officer in the Maps Division of British General Headquarters in Cairo. This reverse opening suggests a possible "Kane" approach to the mystery of the hero—that is, a depiction of Lawrence as others saw him. However, David Lean's meticulously bloated direction and Robert Bolt's limply epigrammatic dialogue quickly dispel that notion."

who are you quoting?

that doesn't answer my questions at all

In short, comparing Lean to Griffith is like comparing dogshit to the Sistine Chapel.

It's a compliment to the dogshit, but an insult to the Sistine Chapel

Michael Gira, Mark Gonzales, Rick Owens and Goya are my picks.

But I didn't compare shit, you fucking illiterate. I asked if I should watch Dr. Zhivago or A Brief Encounter next. If you can't help, don't bother answering.

My answer: don't.

"The critics are intellectuals. I'm always frightened of intellectuals. I don't know, I think one tends to take the critics too seriously. I suppose we're all terribly sensitive about critics. Because you can't, as it were, meet the general public, and if your mother or aunt tells you the movie is great, you say, "Yes, very sweet of you, but you would.' The only people who really don't give a damn, who are out there giving their opinions, are the critics. They are the only people, as it were, you can believe. You read it there in black and white and think it must be true.
The trouble with me is that I'm what is known as 'commericial.' I'm too popular and thus highly suspect with the highbrows. After *Ryan's Daughter*, I didn't like going out to a restaurant because I thought I'd be pointed out as the chap who made that disastrous, terrible, horrible film. I felt very ashamed. I thought 'What the hell am I doing if my work is as bad as this?' I didn't want to do another film. I thought 'I'll do domething else.' and I went travelling round the world and I didn't make a film for fourteen years. I thought, 'What's the point?'"