Hey /lit/, do you guys have charts like /tv/ of /mu/ does?

>>5652570
No

Do /tv/ and /mu/ have stickies you're meant to read before shitting up the board or are they already just shit?

>>5652578
> already just shit?

Judging from OP's picture, that

>>5652578
No one reads stickies. They are there to be written, an exercise in collective smugness.

>>5652591
It good you're efficiently smug while missing a better recommendation system than one of smug people who can't read even a chart; it will save you a lot of effort on the being smug without reading the books board. I mean, you'll still be shit, but efficiently shit.

No because these things are always terrible

>>5652611
because they are subjective, or is there any other reason?

>>5652615
Because nothing in print is obscure enough to appeal to people who like charts.

>>5652601
I think I have the right to feel smug because you can hardly write an intelligible sentence.

>>5652620
Whereas I have the right to feel smug about people who can't read deconstructionism for the allusions; it's a smuggier smug than your smug.

>>5652601
Absolutely, epic run-on sentence bro.

>>5652578

>being this bitter

calm down anon

>>5652627
My smug is all the smug I need, bby.

File: article-1177540-04B6C396000005DC-695_224x307.jpg (16KB, 224x307px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 224x307px

>miyazaki worse than wes anderson
>von trier worse than warhol

>>5652651
von trier is a fucking hack

>>5652651
its not better or worse, its which one is more obscure

>>5652656
Melancholia is the film of the decade.

File: Film depth.png (622KB, 785x3593px) Image search: [Google]

622KB, 785x3593px

>>5652651
It´s not about being better or worse, it´s about obscurity and accessibilty

Another example

>>5652656
if all of his movies are as bad as the dumb ass soundstage one then yeah I agree. I can't be fucked to waste any more time on him after that piece of absolute garbage

>>5652651
>obscurity = quality

literal scum of the earth

>>5652570
My film prof is deep down there

>>5652678
>literal scum of the earth
The scriptural description of Jews?

>>5652664
Is a Offret copy...

whoa whoa whoa wait a minute

why is Imamura all the way down in level 3?

we should make one of these and just make up the authors

>>5653579
Seconding

But the authors at the second-to-last level have to be real

>>5652651
>VonTrier
>Good

>>5652670
...Why the hell is Corra all the way near the bottom of that list? Are documentaries considered "the challenger deep" by /tv/? I mean, come on. He's a very talented compiler/director, but there's nothing really "inaccessible" about his work, unless you consider the act of documenting as somehow subverting the purpose of film, which is bullshit.

>>5652670
This is better than OP but most of Kubrick's work is pretty accessible. Soderberg and Anderson are also very accessible. All three of them are probably more accessible than Gilliam, Burton or Shamylan. Like you said, it is supposed to be accessibility, right? Nolan should be higher. Where is Jodorowsky? He should be near the bottom. Also there are three Coppolas and Francis is significantly more accessible than Sofia.

>>5652570
>Nolan
>in there at all

Yeah, some of /lit/'s charts have Gatsby in them, that's a close enough equivalent on shitrelevancy.

>>5652670
Oh god, you can't put Kurosawa that low. He's responsible for movies like Hidden Fortress, High and Low and Stray Dog. I mean he's probably the most accessible Japanese director to western audiences.

I found Jodorowsky and you have him higher than both Tarkovsky and Heneke. Heneke at least should be a lot higher. He has difficult subject manner but is not very difficult in format.

>>5652570

What the fuck is the point in talking about accessibility of texts, films, and music rather than discussing something individual in-depth?

In fact, don't answer. It's clear for the whole want-of-being-a-patrician thing

>>5652570
>Incandenza not even on that chart

fucking plebs dont know about found drama

>>5652664
Something this heavy handed isn't going to be the film of the decade. Go home, pleb.

>>5653606
I think they have a more straight forward style compared to Gilliam or Burton, but Magnolia, The Master, 2001, and Barry Lyndon are definitely less accessible than anything by Gilliam or Burton. A case can be made for Shyamalan, I think The Village and Signs are definitely smarter films if you think about them, but people like to rip on him instead of thinking about his work.

>>5653715
And there lies the inherent problem with ranking directors instead of particular films.

>>5653693

Melancholia is a great movie though and one of Von Trier's best (if not the best). I specifically like the way it confronts the potentiality for the grand destruction of the Earth alongside the destructive self represented through its two primary characters.

Reminds me of eva

>>5653725
Lars con Trier is a bit overly pretentious. He has some good concepts and his movies are usually technically competent but he thinks his is a lot more meaningful that it actually is. A lot of his work is pure pretense.

>>5652670
Lol, Wiseau at the very bottom

Where is Malick?
Too much of a recluse to appear on images posted on a polynesian cartoon forum?

>>5653788
>Malick
>Obscure

You can't seriously believe that.

>>5653749

I've think that I've seen 4 of his films and now I just put him down to being a really confrontational film-maker. Some film-makers end up being pretentious by accident (somebody like Aronofsky) but I genuinely think Von Trier does it all for the sake of making his audience react in some way.

I think I came to this conclusion when I realised how big an influence Brecht might have been on him when I saw Dogville.

>>5653763
epic rite, funny meme film :^)

File: 1411618873863.jpg (44KB, 800x388px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 800x388px

>>5653798
>recluse=obscure

>>5653808
See, dogville is the only one of his movies I actually liked. Antichrist and melancholia have far less substance than dogville. I still haven't seen nymphomaniac though.

>>5653788
Found it, right under Lynch.