They fucking RUINED the cover. God damn I'm pissed.

>>8440558
Use your words, son.

>>8440558
muh bresson worship

ozu did it better, dreyer too

File: bresson.cinematograph_2048x2048.jpg (431KB, 1280x2048px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 1280x2048px

>>8440574
before

>>8440585

That cover is much better. I wonder why they changed it?

>>8440592
because bresson is hbo-core now

bresson is like lena dunham's girls series

>>8440584
>Ozu

He's the fucking Norman Rockwell of film.

>>8440584
Congrats on having read Paul Schrader, fucking pseud

>>8440598
>>8440611
shush :(
(you mean bc of the gay subtext)


I was excited for the other cover

the pdf (of a different translation?) is floating around online

This is like when someone posts a picture where everyone looks terrible except for them. The woman in blue is the one posting this book cover.

>>8440585
The new cover looks significantly better. This one plays to every film undergrad's fantasy of the director as some regal and stuffy great artist privy to a unique vision beyond us. It's drab and seems like they just grabbed the first reasonable picture of Bresson they found. No it's not awful, but it's not very good either.

The new one has intelligence and life. It doesn't just show an image of the artist, it shows his actual craft. It's better composed, the colors are more engaging, the photography is of better quality, and it says something about the artistic process. Each time I look at it I see something different--Bresson in the act of getting his perfect shot, the young woman closely observing him at work, and the other looking to the viewer. Three perspectives, all intertwined, all represented within the pages. And what is it he's photographing? Why it's a book, not unlike the one in your hands. Nice touch.

>>8440613
no

ozu is pure cinema par excellence

dreyer's joan or arc is better than bresson's, who was he kidding?

bresson was a pseud

>>8440738
> the new one is better because it's better, c-can't you see?

cringe

tell your boss you guys really fucked up this one

>>8440592
women were not being represented on the old cover.

you're fucking a white male!

>>8440611
Nothing wrong with Rockwell desu

>>8440738
>And what is it he's photographing? Why it's a book, not unlike the one in your hands. Nice touch.

I hope to God you are memeing friend

>>8440744
>> the new one is better because it's better, c-can't you see?
This is exactly what you're doing and exactly what the poster you're replying to did not do. I think on some level you're aware that you're acting like a retard, but you only know how to express this knowledge by attributing your stupidity to others

>>8440739
they were going for completely different things...bresson wasn't trying to be better than dreyer

>>8440775
he called out dreyer as a 'collection of grimaces' and not really 'cinema'...still at the level of filmed theatre

he was jealous he could never make anything as powerful and subtle as ordet and getrud

>>8440744
kys