Equal to Kubrick, or better?

Equal to Kubrick, or better?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=pB81KMhGpqk
youtube.com/watch?v=mL0FYUpXuoo
youtube.com/watch?v=FGTWdLGMkuE&t
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I don't know who that is but he looks like the soyboy version of christian bale

He should do an Oswald Mosley biopic film.

>Kubrick
>Aronofsky
Both shit. Some of the lowest of lows for "arthouse" and one of its biggest justifications for never deserving credence. When you EXPAND, you become obvious, you become trite, you eliminate the preexisting reality's ambiguity through an over-colored gaze. Even if what you are striving to achieve is an ambiguity, you have created a fake, artificial ambiguity, a contrived ambiguity, a Kubrick ambiguity. Does Aronofsky not understand that humanity's vices are inherent to life and the medium, and not just the Bible? It's hinged on it. So why make a film about it, especially without regards for self-reflexivity or self-critique?

Weak jaw

You divulge into: IT COULD MEAN THIS OR IT COULD MEAN DIS
or:
IT COULD MEAN ANYTHINGGGGGGG!!!!!!! (blatant forced metaphors like the slab in 2001)

It’s the kike that sticks his dick through JLaw’s meat curtains

Did Griffith ever use a blatant forced metaphor?
NO!
He let the ideas become the metaphors and the allusions. He let the edit become the metaphor. Just like individual is never divorced from environment, or politics are never divorced from human dilemma, Griffith knew idea was never divorced from metaphor
Griffith sought SUPPRESSION not OBFUSCATION!
OBFUSCATION IS MANIPULATION! IT COLLUDES THE AUDIENCE INTO INTERPRETING, IT FORCES THE INTERPRETATION, AN INTERPRETATION THAT EITHER BECOMES MIND-READING OR IMPOSITION

based

Pretentious tryhard. Somehow worse than Nolan.

Kubrick knew how to light and compose shots

what?

...

absolutely based

Griffith suppressed any talent he had as well lmao

Oops! Then why did your favorite middlebrow clown love him?!
youtube.com/watch?v=pB81KMhGpqk

Kubrick was shit too

>Bergman, Fellini, Tarkovsky, Truffaut, the list goes on!

So much fucking worse.
This guy is like a mentally retarded blind infant next to Kubrick.

All garbage, what's your point?

not anymore! jlaw pumped and dumped that idiot after she realized he couldnt save her career

BASED GRIFFITHPOSTER

The greatest pleb filters to ever exist.

>posts picture of random human being
>could literally be anyone and for all we know it's this kid's dad
>asks a very specific question
>expects everyone to know his life and interests
>has a very cowardly brain
Good grief you are a creepy little shit, aren't you?

>filename is aronofsky

whos that

Aronofksy is such a fucking hack, he may be THE edgy teenager's filmmaker.

see

He's shit but Kubrick is vastly overrated as well, but much better

that's zack snyder

This is the most offensive shit I ever saw in thsi whole web, Sup Forums included

>every single one of them collapsed with the introduction of color and sound

>Louisiana Story got an Oscar nomination
Oops!!

>Oscar Academy
>ever being anything more than a popularity contest for the rich, insulated hollywood elite

>Flaherty is popular
Then why have cinephiles went out of their way to denigrate him since then?

Equal to Griffith, or better?

does anyone else look at him and see a fat Ryan Gosling with darker hair?

>Malick
Something I deeply perceive in post-mortem cinema is a concern for hypersubjectivity often through manipulations of framerate, slow motion, long takes with frames consumed by individuals, and use of few colors that draw attention.

Let's use this abovementioned model for comparison with Griffith and Eisenstein. Are Griffith and Eisenstein storytellers? Sure, there are events being portrayed and recorded in a perceived present that give inclination towards a form of story, but upon further inspection, do you see any examples of overt individualization and characterization that describes a story? Oftentimes, none of the individuals in Griffith and Eisenstein works are even given names. Now observe form. Anything that draws attention to details in a fashion that can be explicitly read as introspection of individual? Certainly parallels can be made towards the impressionistic, but impressionism is often one of imprint through creation and environment, not condensation.

Compare post-mortem cinema ( youtube.com/watch?v=mL0FYUpXuoo )
to phenomenopresentation ( youtube.com/watch?v=FGTWdLGMkuE&t )


And discuss what is being said in either. That will give you the answer towards the superior.
to

Because the "cinephiles" are actually "pseuds"

You think you're mocking me but that's an accurate assessment.

>using Song to Song, Malick's hands-down worst film aside from Tree of Life, as an example
I'm not mocking you, i'm mocking the people who claim to be cinematically-literate while being incapable of accepting or analyzing film history while confusing obscurity and "difficulty" with true artistry, propping up no-names in modern and past film over the classic masters and contemporary artists. My opinion on the Oscars as an institution still stands. Particularly in recent years, the awards show has only served as a way of Hollywood validating itself in the eyes of its peers, not actually touching on the films that impacted the medium or film culture.

Why is Griffith criticized for the qualities Antonioni is praised for?

Not being a fan of most "criticism" particularly in recent years, I can't really comment on how critics reacted to both artists. I can only speculate, but I think that one of the reasons that Griffith was overlooked but Antonioni praised was that in Griffith's time film had not yet become either an industry or "art" in the eyes of the majority of filmgoers, and thus "critics". But as the medium became more and more popular and "taken seriously" by more and more people, contemporary artists at the time started receiving more attention than already-forgotten masters. You can especially see that in the last twenty years, where movies outright ape eachother with increasing degradation from the original, but "critics" in particular and the culture don't notice or don't care, reveling in hack derivatives and copycats who were nowhere near as talented as those they copy. We've gone from someone like De Palma, lovingly taking scenes from other movies and blowing them up/satirizing or spinning them into his own style to incompetent stage-play and television directors like Tarantino, Barry Jenkins stealing the images and remaking them without any of the texture, context or style of the original. Film becoming as popular as it is and as commercial as it is has certainly hurt the artform.

>in Griffith's time film had not yet become either an industry or "art" in the eyes of the majority of filmgoers
Wrong. He was acclaimed as late as 1952 by critics, as evident in pic related. In spite of Andrew and Pauline Kael's infamous feud, the one thing that they could both agree on is Griffith's resounding significance.
>You can especially see that in the last twenty years, where movies outright ape eachother with increasing degradation from the original
True. It's a constant perpetuated myth that Griffith is "classical continuity" or is a "basic pioneer". He certainly influenced classical continuity, but only because he was so beyond his peers that they only gleamed his superficialities (see: Ford, Dreyer, Gance). Griffith's works are the most complex of any known medium. They are not film because no one within that medium has replicated or advanced his metaphysical dialectic in any known quality.

If you mean to correct me by associating critics with "filmgoers" and how they relate to Griffith's reputation, let me add that the connection between Griffith and audience is inconsequential regardless. Griffith loathed the audience. The audience want thrills, the audience wants entertainment, the audience wants cinema. Griffith is anti-cinema.

>it's boring
>it's pretentious
>it's problematic

P L E B F I L T E R

Like I said, I can only speculate, because I don't really take much criticism seriously in entertainment, particularly now. Maybe instead of the industry/art label i threw down what I should have said was popularity. Like back then film was nowhere near as big as it is now in the eyes of the populace as a commercial industry, and likewise there's never been as many people going to see movies now in any point previous. And with the current polticization and immaturity of audiences, you can definitely look at something like this and understand how moviegoers who consider themselves "cinephiles" dismiss anything that doesn't conform to certain expectations, styles or accepted viewpoints. I believe that like many artforms, as soon as they become popular and widespread, you see an almost instantaneous degradation of the majority. There are still many quality filmmakers and films being made constantly, but they're swamped in a world of corporate hype, "art"-circuit shilling and generally go underwatched and overlooked. I think that Griffith was an example of a guy who was monumental both as an individual artist and as an inventor in the medium, but that he's underappreciated, particularly now, because the commercialization of film to the extreme that it has become says "Don't look at anything old, it's all junk". Griffith was a victim of hollywood.

You have better understanding of the phenomenon of film than 90% of the people on here. I respect you. All the other posters just dish out snide comments to compensate for their ignorance (see: Dishonestposter, almost all /lbg/ users).
>the commercialization of film to the extreme that it has become says "Don't look at anything old, it's all junk".
Why is Griffith considered outdated but Dreyer is praised?

Indeed.
Not as bad as that hack what's-his-face, Malick, Bela Tarr, et al.

>kubricks shit

There's nothing in this shot that remotely looks like a painting. Only the fact that it's long and has high headroom really. Anyways, it looks like any washed out 70s flick. 19th century paintings feature stark shadows in the frame to delineate foreground from midground to background and to create depth. Lyndon is always flat and his physiognomy is completely opposed to the 18th century paintings where individuals are relatively near. Here he's forcing a distance and dissimilar look from that of the time frame, the models are alien and sterile compared to the generally flowery presentation of 18th century paintings. So Pauline was right in assessing that it's Kubrick making an amateur Bresson version of a 30s costume picture

These are paintings for people that have never been to an art gallery and have seen a maximum of 20 pre-19th century paintings in their life

It's not a movie, it's a painting gallery

>It's not a movie, it's a painting gallery
When did paintings get shallow depth of field?

>average flick

Looks familiar

...

Looks familiar

Absolute fucking hack. All needs is a beret and he would be indistinguishable from parody.

Insanity

Looks familiar

I'd put that on my wall!

You are absolutely delusional

Those Barry Lyndon shots look way better though. Maybe not this one that actually looks pretty cool other ones yawn

Looks familiar
>cool
You crave entertainment.

>There's nothing in this shot that remotely looks like a painting.
3rd row, 4th column

>simple crowd shot
Zozzles

I'll give Barry Lyndon props this shot. That's it.

Tell me what you like about it

Visual communication > aesthetics

better

this. and I don't even like kubrick

time immemorial

The Griffith autist should stop posting because other people posted here before him. Repetition is redundancy, redundancy is coddling.

Shut up, slave.

Make me

I don't see how any of that look familiar

>Kubrickians are blind

Intolerance sucked tho
As for it's reception with our contemporain what did you expect ?
It's an old silent movie. It's outdated. People barely stand long shot and you want they to like something that his written with a cinematic alphabet the farthest from their own ?
It might as well be written in another language, that is indeed exactly what it is.
They do not speak neither understand his language

Describe how you find them to be similar because I think most people here aren't seeing it

>People barely stand long shot
Why is Griffith criticized for the qualities Kubrick is praised for?

No. I like his films, but come on.

>Intolerance sucked tho
This. He moved the camera too much!

>Intolerance sucked tho
This. Griffith moved his camera too little!

>Intolerance sucked tho
This. Griffith is too melodramatic, he lacked realism!

better. hes a genius, a jewnius if you will.

>Intolerance sucked tho
This. Griffith was too realistic, he lacked layers!

What are the essential /GriffithCore/

>D.W. Griffith
>birth of a nation