Lbg

previous
letterboxd general

post your profile

Other urls found in this thread:

letterboxd.com/OriginalName3/
discord.gg/P6ECKqf
letterboxd.com/Smoothhands/
letterboxd.com/Snipert/
deadline.com/2018/01/steven-spielberg-indiana-jones-west-side-story-directing-vehicles-1202262857/
letterboxd.com/andrew2049/
youtube.com/watch?v=Kc6j1IAK19k
letterboxd.com/leodan/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

letterboxd.com/OriginalName3/

...

what is this, i wanna fuck it

Michael Mann general

Rude
How come Emily is a letterboxd mascot?

I'm talking about that husky APE with the big BEHIND!

Actually good taste

You must be 18 or older to post here.

Actually bad taste

Guys, what if he gets accused of sexual misconduct and his career is ended? I would be seriously angry and upset if that happened!

What is, objectively, the best movie of all time? And why is it Training Day?

Thx

You got anything of substance to say?

How?
>also literally subjective

PURPUR ISH CUT-TING HISH HED OFF WEETH AH CHAYNSOOHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

Tired of the [s4s]eething furry pedo invasion? Come to the discord!

discord.gg/P6ECKqf

this is all imdb-core, reddit-tier garbage
please stop embarrassing yourself and cease posting until you are of legal age

>How?
>>also literally subjective
When you're genetically deficient, you're naturally inferior.

A God among peons

>he doesn't like Totoro
what the fuck is wrong with you. uuaggghh i feel uncomfortable knowing that people like you post here.

@93474455

letterboxd.com/Smoothhands/
*kinos on ya*

Is this supposed to make me feel bad. You avoided my question. It's effeminate and illogical.

You're posting subjective viewpoints as if they are objective. I find it pathetic. Have you got anything of substance to say?

I dunno if this is bait. But Totoro is great.

Don't stare

im lookin at er arse and you can't stop me!!!!

Is this how cucks/betas vent their anger? They have nowhere else to channel it so they attack other people's tastes (something completely arbitrary (non threatening)).
>That would make sense
Very pathetic and kinda amusing

She's gone. ;n;

t. cuck/beta

>old people die
IMAGINE MY SHOCK
maynstremMeteor.jpg

>no u
lol pathetic

imagine being this retarded

can i see the full tity

letterboxd.com/Snipert/

>nice trips
You're still a joke of human being. Nothing you or I say on this korean fresh produce forum will change that.
>Haha pathetic

You're not wrong but ffs don't make a whole image of your films and expect no one to attack.

STOP!!!!!!!

lol is that what upset you? "Hurr this guy must have a big ego, I better knock it down". Christ.

Have original attacks next time, spouting the memes just make you look underage.

Honestly. Not being mean. Honestly. Pathetic.

Next time do a better job or just don't

>Have original attacks next time

oppz thought you were

SOMEDAY I WILL BECOME EMILY JEAN PET. This will be the best day ever. Hej Juppi Jej

I need to watch movie right now :{

TEMPO TEMPO TEMPO

Ryan Coogler's Frutvale Station (2013)

should I watch Tampopo or The American Friend first tn?

This time he's gone too far!
deadline.com/2018/01/steven-spielberg-indiana-jones-west-side-story-directing-vehicles-1202262857/

In John Ford's "How Green Was My Valley," there is a moment when two sons tell their father of their intention to emigrate to America. There is a shot in which the characters almost seem to freeze in the frame. This is an effective way of cinematically articulating the emotions of the moment, the sadness and the impending loss that everyone feels. Another filmmaker might have cut into faces, or zoomed in on them, in a way that was crudely manipulative. This Ford does not do, and the scene is much more moving because he does not do so.

But the full meaning of this "frozen moment" lies in the way it connects with the vision Ford expresses throughout the film, in which static, highly-structured compositions and in some scenes darkness at the edges and the use of constraining straight lines and enclosing curves combine with the flashback form to give a sense that every life-filled activity depicted in the imagery is also at that very moment being lost, being re-recognized as located in the past. There is an "architecture" of social tradition and memory being articulated, a particular vision of the world being offered. Ford's formal artistry makes this vision "beautiful," and also "true." The aware viewer is moved by the beauty and the truth of it, and is also able, seeing how and why Ford structures his images as he does, to argue with it, to think, for example, that she or he wishes to more fully embrace the present -- staying with cinema for the moment, to choose, perhaps, a more Hawks-like vision over Ford's.

It is this formal architecture, which I find in most all of the filmmakers whose work I love, from Ford to Brakhage to Bresson to Markopoulos to Keaton to Hou Hsiao-hsien , which makes great cinema "worthy" of Pérotin and Bach and van Eyck and Cézanne and Brunelleschi and Louis Sullivan and Keats and Hopkins.

If, on the other hand, all that you see is the way the style flows into the emotions of that particular moment, you are perhaps only entering the substitute world of characters and their feelings. You are not thinking or feeling actively, and you are, in my view, living your own life less rather than more fully as a result.

...

AFTER DINNER I HAD ICE CREAM

cummiez

SIT ON MY FUCKING FACEEEEEE

Film is not art.

roberts > stone >>> giraffe dumont >>>>> literal shit >>>>>>>> the other emma

AN OLD GAME BUT A SURPRISE

...

STOOPID. That's right, double 'O' stoopid. One of the dumbest movies ive ever seen

Subjective insertion is antithetical. The masters already discarded it early on. Individuals are more or less vehicles of expression and at most are deconstructed by motivation and ideology. What matters is examination of the structuralist whole not case-by-case individual psychology. Ford is mostly not psychological which is commendable, but stopping action to emphasize or punctuate as a means of communicating emotion without resorting to a closeup is meager in its approach to ambiguity. It's the same for the axial cut in Menilmontant. What else does the implementation of that edit communicate besides shock. Both instances have complete disregard for contrapuntal elaboration. Griffith already freeze-framed in A Corner in Wheat, but it already had multi-faceted dialectic expression (shock, rejection, the stop of economic flow, the allusion to eruptive crisis)

>highly-structured compositions and in some scenes darkness at the edges
CONSTANTLY FUCKING STEALING!!! A FUCKING HACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>seeing how and why Ford structures his images as he does
HE DOES SO BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT LIKES THIS FAGGOT ARE THOSE WITHOUT UNIQUE PERSONALITIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you weren't depressed before, watching these two back to back will do it.

letterboxd.com/andrew2049/

My top movies of the 80s

So why would anyone watch them?

Oopsies, looks like I caused a brain hemorrhage :)

Because depressing tones are entertaining to pessimists. Perspective not intelligence.

Griffith's jump cuts are signifiers. It's him breaking seamless temporal continuity for the sake of communicating abstract importance whether through the juxtaposition of either scene or via performance.

The first point I want to make is a general one: it's fine to critique films ideologically, but one should also remember the context of their times. In fact the US civil rights movement was just barely getting started at the time of "The Searchers," and westerns sympathetic to Indians were pretty new too. I recall a friend who told me that when he was an undergrad at Harvard in the 1970s, a class on Dante kept getting disrupted by a woman who accused Dante of "sexism." Well, yeah. It was probably not very easy to find a male feminist in Italy circa 1300. Telling the story of the West from the Native American perspective wasn't common in the 1950s either.

The second point is that other side of my argument that most films that I love are, by my personal ideology, quite wrong, is that I think powerful aesthetic effects tends to undercut any ideological point. If the work is great enough the pleasure it causes is both complex and chaotic, and gives you an experience that you can't reduce to any single "theme." Most often the "themes" or "messages" of the greatest films co-exist with their opposites, or their alternatives. Thus "Dog Star Man" is a heroic celebration of individual vision yet also shows the utter destruction of its filmmaker-protagonist; "The 47 Ronin" advocates social duty and implies its negation in individual love; "Rio Bravo" depicts the heroism of a small group and also the psychologically regressive aspects of Dude's drunkenness at the opening and Chance's succumbing to the woman at the end.

Griffith's jump cut also signfies perhaps a past not achieved. For the medium's inherent value is through seeing a past achieved through an illusive present, he poses the question of what happens when you destroy the continuity of seamless continuity, allusion to alternate reality.

About "The Searchers," the ending is interesting -- in a way the ending of "Red River" poses the same problem vis-à-vis the Wayne character (shouldn't he have murdered Matt?), and given that Ford supposedly remarked of Wayne after seeing "Red River," "I didn't know that big sonouvabitch could act," it shouldn't be surprising that a bit of Wayne's Thomas Dunson persona in the Hawks film finds its way into a Ford.

As others have pointed out, the character of Ethan is presented as a parallel to Scar. Most important in this regard is the famous face-off scene, which lasts only a moment, in which they face each other, roughly equal in height, and address each other in similar terms ("You speak good Comanche? Someone teach you?" says Scar, echoing Ethan's earlier query to him). I believe that McBride and Wilmington pointed out the importance of this scene in their early article on "The Searchers," later included in their Ford book. Both Ethan and Scar are members of a dying breed of frontier loners, and they seem to understand that about each other, and we understand them as moral equivalents in a way. Ethan was probably an outlaw -- a bit of dialogue with the Ward Bond character suggests that he may have been robbing banks. None of this means the film is free of racism, but it does mean that its racial attitudes are far more nuanced than they first seem, and include a critique of racism.

The ending is far too important and complex and, well, great to be dismissed as merely sentimental. The ending should be understood in the context of the visual opposition Ford establishes throughout the film that is key to his meaning, between the exteriors with their somewhat wild and organic rock forms, which cannot be easily assimilated into the rectangular motion picture image and indeed seem to be always breaking out of its confines and suggesting a nature too vast for any civilized or civilizing eye to contain, and the interiors, whose rectangular rooms are a perfect match for the picture frame, a match Ford emphasizes by composing for walls and ceilings and windows. This opposition, represented on a script level in the contrast between the wild frontier and the characters of Ethan and Scar who represent it with the younger civilizing generation, represented not only by Martin but by his ridiculous suitor-rival (whose comic absurdity is part of Ford's point about the anti-Wayne qualities of the newer generations -- see the opposition between Skeffington (Spencer Tracy) and his slick TV rival in "The Last Hurrah") who is about to marry the girl who had waited "five long years in this God-forsaken windscow" for Martin, is at the heart of the film in both story and image. The sublime pre-massacre scene with unnatural sunset light pouring through the cabin windows from an outside filled its Indian-signal noises threatening the family is a key here. Those multiple windows fail to "tame" the light, and the family is all but one of them murdered, their cabin destroyed. In this context what happens in the final images is that Ethan remains outside, to "wander forever between the winds" to quote his words (as I believe McBride and Wilmington do) for the Indian whose eyes he shoots out, while the other characters enter into the rectangular space of the house.

But the house is presented as darkness, and the effect of this is to make the characters seem, as they walk inward and toward us in silhouette, to be entering the rectangular space of the movie theater too. Ford's placement of them with us makes his final shot into a bitingly ironic reference to the way civilization has established itself on the graves of its forgotten pioneers.

This ending was, I believe, recently echoed, very simplistically and way too explicitly, and in my view also blasphemously, in the ending of Scorsese's aesthetically worthless "The Gangs of New York," yet another moment of "Searchers" ripoffs in a long line of them in movie-fan-directed Hollywood films of the last three or four decades.

There is a quality to the imagery in all the best Ford films that converts the sentimentality of his scripts into something else. His static compositions, with their liquid light that seems to vibrate across surfaces, are filled with emotion and loss; they evoke a tension between a unity achieved and a feeling either that the unity is itself about to be lost (as in "How Green Was My Valley" with its two incredible "frozen moments" when the characters literally seem to freeze when, for example, two sons announce their intention to emigrate to America) or that the unity was achieved at tragic cost (as in "The Searchers.")

What's great Ford's compositions is partly lost in video mis-translations of his films. And it's what's great about his compositions that makes the ideologically confounding aesthetic effect so strong.

A) I'm already depressed
B) When you're already in that headspace, the shades of gray are more enjoyable

youtube.com/watch?v=Kc6j1IAK19k
Who /hype/?

Whoever wrote this slop only cares about subjective insertion. He wants to metaphysically live in someone else's shoes to avoid his own reality. It's ignorant entertainment he craves, and the medium he attests for is in strict discordance with Griffith and other masters' complex visions. Griffith sought to teach through constructive criticism, but if the student doesn't want to learn, what can you do? Let them waste their minds through programming.

"The great book of nature," said Galileo, "can be read only by those who know the language in which it was written. And this language is mathematics."

Language as exchange is always motivated therefore language is argumentation, the matter of decision is what is the motivation and how is it delivered

Equality, Order through chaos, doors separating personal relations and larger social structure, blah blah blah. An especially watered down vision of what the great masters inscribed through the arrangement of individual components. The Searchers's ending is mere subversion. Griffith is not an egalitarian because he knows his position does not particularly allow for egalitarianism if fully exhumed. Now Griffith can ambiguously engage in egalitarianism, but whether that is gleamed, it can always truly be the inverse because Griffith is a sly linguist. The arrangement of his scenes, the breaking of performance, the positioning of his angles, the (in)direct language in his intertitles, they each interact in the form of multiplied dialectics. It's just people don't bother to look and hearken what he is saying because of this complex form of communication much like those who ignore the testament of God.

Ultimately, Griffith's works highlight the dialectic between modernity and a Victorianism then seen as innately traditional. Despite upholding Victorianism as a cherished ideal, his work points to its limitations for Progressivism's very different society - one with its own understanding of public/private spheres, gender, progress, and vision. Griffith was not an old-fashioned director - his work displayed the Progressive era's modernity and his dialectic didactism intervened in its dilemmas. For example, this approach is encapsulated in Griffith's dialectic between voluptuary and spirituelle women. His excess of rhetorical flourishes and incompatible systems of graphic inscription belie his own dreams of representing the medium as a form of universal language. This would be utterly meaningless without the emphatic display of the opposite: a representation of femininity that vilifies all of the excesses of the body. The one cannot exist without the other. Indeed, many of the paradoxes and problematics of female embodiment in his works can be traced as a metaphysical conduit for vestigial beliefs and sociological concern

which one of you stunted amoebas is this?

letterboxd.com/leodan/

you did

Why do you like about Dragon Inn?

I wouldn't know. I'm not a mongoloid like the owner of that profile.

Well, I won't be following you, in any event.

Dropout_bitch likes Sternberg a lot, but I highly doubt he actually understands what he looks at based on his deleted reviews. He most takes the opulence and skirts with fatalism at face-value (emotional).

In the same vein dumdums think the "opulence" in Intolerance is merely ostentatious grandeur

At face-value Griffith's suppression deflates your emotions, but scrutiny evolves them. That is why he is not hearkened in the same vein as God. The interesting element of Intolerance is that he is not suppressing through mundanity, but the immediate response is still largely the same compared to a Gance. That is what separates a genius from a meager craftsman

Intolerance, October, Foolish Wives, Moana, the list goes on!

Shut up, slave. Don't tamper with forces beyond your comprehension.

>Griffith, Eisenstein, Flaherty
Filmschool 101babby.

This has to be the worst general on this site. A mixture of leftist betas, griffth autist (and those who reply to him) and nonsensical shitposting. It's incredible that even alongside all the shit on Sup Forums, this thread sticks out as the worst.

How does it compare to /who/? A lot fewer tripfags here, at least.

They are only introductory in the sense of generalized history and impact. Discretely, they are unrivaled and only vulgarization has devolved since.

fucking garbage ass thread, faggots. kill yourselves.

Which are your posts above?

>they are unrivaled
Not really. None of them did anything nearly half as advanced as Straub-Huillet. You would know that if you graduated from your community college film history course

THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING GENERAL I'VE EVER BEEN TO. SERIOUSLY, WHAT WAS OP THINKING WHEN HE SHAT OUT THIS PUTRID DUMP? I MEAN, REALLY: A TRANNIEBOXD GENERAL? WHAT KIND OF DRUG FUELED PSYCHO CAME UP WITH SUCH A SHITTY, ASININE IDEA? THERE ISN'T A SINGLE HALFWAY-INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION TO BE FOUND ANYWHERE ON THIS SHITHOLE, THERE'S NOT A SINGLE FUNNY FUCKING LINE IN ANY OF THESE MISERABLE EXCUSES FOR THREADS, AND THERE'S NOT EVEN ONE DECENT MEME THAT'S COME OUT OF THIS PLACE IN ALL ITS MISERABLE LIFESPAN.

POSTING ON THIS GENERAL IS LIKE PISSING INTO A SEA OF PUTRID SEWER WATERS. READING ANY OF THE POSTS IS LIKE HAVING A DRUNKEN MONKEY PERFORM A LOBOTOMY ON YOU USING WOODEN STICKS WHILE RIDING A ROLLERCOASTER DURING AN EARTHQUAKE. IT TURNS YOUR BRAIN INTO A FUCKING SHITSHAKE OF EPIC PROPORTIONS.

I'D RATHER GARGLE A CAMEL'S PISS WHILE AN ELEPHANT SHITS DIARRHEA ALL OVER MY FACE THAN BROWSE THIS GENERAL FOR EVEN A SECOND LONGER. I'D RATHER EAT THE ROTTING CORPSE OF A SKUNK, VOMIT IT UP AND EAT IT AGAIN. I'D RATHER SHOVE BROKEN GLASS UP MY ASSHOLE, SHIT IT OUT AND RUB THE BLOODY GLASS-FILLED FECES ALL OVER MY BODY. I'D RATHER GET MAULED BY A RABID GRIZZLY BEAR AND THEN RUB HOT SAUCE IN EVERY OPEN WOUND. I'D RATHER FUCK A GARBAGE BIN FILLED WITH USED HYPODERMIC NEEDLES AND RAT POISON WHILE BEING RAPED UP THE ASS WITH A CACTUS. I'D RATHER SUCK A TYRANNOSAURUS'S ANAL JUICES OUT HIS ASS AND WASH IT DOWN WITH TOXIC WASTE.

>Straub-Huillet Beavers, Val de Omar, the list goes on!
Ironic

>cherrypicking
Doesn't change what I said. Move beyond caveman paintings and maybe you'll reach modernism, pleb.

>modernism
Ironic

You comparing Joyce to Griffith only proves how delusional you are

>paralleling poetry with mundanity
>nonlinearity
>imitation of various facets of language
The connections are obvious, but Intolerance is various steps beyond. The only reason why that would not be congealed by those who are ignorant is because dumdums can turn off their brain and watch Intolerance to its conclusion. They can reiterate what they saw, but they did not read it. This is proved by the countless dummies who have missed the point of its creation.

Come back after you've graduated preschool.

Oh I understood it, I can assure you it wasn't complex. I'll admit it was influential, but that doesn't mean it's good by any stretch of the imagination. And superficially comparing it t Joyce is laughably foolish. Intolerance is really just a dumb epic and childish oversimplification.

>96 replies
>20 posters

>Kiarostami, Tarkovsky, Weerasethakul, Straub-Huillet, Costa, the list goes on!
Prove you're not middlebrow. What's the message of Intolerance