Why do cinephiles hate these men?

Why do cinephiles hate these men?

>He watchs old shit
kek

who gives two shits

Only in film history is half a century treated as a millennium. This is particularly true of the liberal, technological, or Marxist historians who have embraced a theory of Progress in contradistinction to all other arts. By their standards, the cinema does not rise or fall, as do all other arts, in relation to the artists involved. Instead, the cinema is subject to a certain mystical process of evolution by which Griffith’s Babylonian crane shots are on the bottom rung of a ladder that mounts to Eisenstein’s Odessa Steps. Conversely, the fallacious assumption that the cinema rose progressively from Griffith to Murnau to Eisenstein in the period from 1915 to 1928 implies that the cinema was betrayed from 1929 onward.

I only recognize Griffith and Eisenstein.

I will not waste time reading this. Nobody here knows these guys btw

Where's Renoir?

Reddit.

Jean Renoir?

Does renoir have a big butt

Jean Cocktoe

David Wark Griffith. The master of us all. The greatest director to ever live. I would uncover my head and kneel before his tomb.

Emily Jean Stone. The master of us all. The greatest director to ever live. I would uncover my head and kneel before her tomb.

Only one there I recognize is Eisenstein, and he's universally respected

but its fair to judge cinema differently from other art, no other artform is as tied to the technology of the time as cinema.

Cinema is tied to technology yesterday but application does not change. Name a single formal innovation post-48. Like many language systems, they devolve over time as opposed to advance. To disregard that film and photography are industrial products is to be foolhardy as well. If the archaic dramas of Aeschylus and the Bible are still upheld as the topmost prestige of literature why then is a medium which coalesced in the early 20th century subject to a contradistinct mode of "advancement"

say it in english, doc

>universally praised

"The conventional critical line on Renoir is that everything he made before Grand Illusion in 1937 is primitive and everything he made after it is decadent. Ironically, Grand Illusion continues to be preeminent in its obviousness"

They set cinema back a decade.

Expound

What good is Stanley Kramer's GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER now that interracial couples are accepted now? What good will a MOONLIGHT be once gay blacks start living perfect lifestyles? Griffith will always be relevant. Griffith is immortal. Throughout his career he sought to suppress the dilemma (the conflict) to reach solidarity, equilibrium; to duplicate his dialectics, circumvent them then reach singularity, to illustrate the inherent juxtaposition over spaced intervals. Compare that to "message" films which seem to seek a direct real life GOAL to be fulfilled by the audience. Griffith is universality. He chooses to attack and reflect, not to impose or demand. He chooses to capture and reveal, not to lecture or manipulate.

idk if they are "hated", stroheim and flaherty should definitely be canonized (apart from nanook and greed, which are relatively well known), eisenstein is well respected by "cinephiles" and griffith's case is just historical revisionism, postmodernism and jewish trickery, by far the most awful case, a griffith retrospective is almost unthinkable now and i can't believe most of his films still remain in an awful vhs format

eisenstein is well respected by "cinephiles"

What the fuck is thread on about? All of these men are often quoted, referenced and studied by all major film theorists. Their names will continue to be uttered and written down for as long as film exists.
>that one numale posting letterboxd ratings
How much soy do you have to be on to think that has any baring on the study or history of film

What of postmodernism prevents Griffith from being acclaimed. He already accounts for the susceptibility of historiographical malleability. The message of Griffith's works and their codification, if anything, exceed postmodernism

They were masters of dishonesty.

>The message of Griffith's works and their codification, if anything, exceed postmodernism
What a meaningless and ridiculous claim.
This particular artistic achievement exceeds this loosely connected set of ideas used to defined an analysis a wide range of things in a certain time in history. It’s like saying an orange exceeds sleeping.

...

Put Griffith on there too.

honesty only came along when the Hollywood code was stablished

Drop dead.

>tells me to drop dead
>I don't
There he goes being dishonest again

>reading comprehension

>dishonesty arrows

Why do cinephiles hate these men?

Because stop filling your mind with useless trivia, you stupid goy.

Being "patrician" has nothing to do with the quantity of shit you've (((consumed)))

This boy represents Dishonestposter. Content in his ignorance, gleeful of his situation, sporadic and immobile

some old fucking farts

i mean really, who the fuck watches this crap
no fucking audio
black and white
looks like crap
boring as hell

i mean really shit, i an't saying black panther is a fukken masterpiece, but it least it has colors, sound, not boring. tons of actions. shiet, is that too much to ask?

some old fucking farts

i mean really, who the fuck watches this crap
no fucking audio
black and white
looks like crap
boring as hell

i mean really shit, i an't saying black panther is a fukken masterpiece, but it least it has colors, sound, not boring. tons of actions. shiet, is that too much to ask?

some old fucking farts

i mean really, who the fuck watches this crap
no fucking audio
black and white
looks like crap
boring as hell

i mean really shit, i an't saying black panther is a fukken masterpiece, but it least it has colors, sound, not boring. tons of actions. shiet, is that too much to ask?

I already explained. You're making excuses because you don't know what postmodernism is and nothing about DW Griffith. Neither are my problem. I'd tell you to be subtle next time but that would require you to apply yourself

Based

You don't know anything regarding DW Griffith let alone his methodology and the significance of his content

>I only watch BASED E-CELEBS
Kill yourself my dude