Is DW Griffith the greatest director?

No.

File: dorothy-gish-hearts of the world dw griffith 1918.png (104KB, 493x384px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 493x384px

>>83167292
Why not?

He founded
-naturalistic acting divorced from from the stage
-neorealism
-crosscutting
-closeups for emotional effect
-longform films
-camera placement to elicit deeper intimacy
-emphasis on environmental, rhythmic, and lyrical storytelling
-no plot
-made film equivalent of Ulysses before Ulysses was written
-underwater shooting
-dejected wandering camera
-anti-war film
-existentialism on film

What am I missing? What didn't Griffith do?

>>83167416
make a good film

>>83167434
What's your favorite film? I doubt there's anything it did formally that Griffith didn't already pioneer

>>83167455
I doubt there's anything Griffith did that Yevgeni Bauer and Victor Sjostrom didn't already pioneer

>>83167480
Griffith came on the scene in 1908. He precedes those two hacks. Know what you're talking about before you speak, pleb.

>>83167503
And even Alice Buy Blache precedes Griffith

>>83167522
Technique-wise, no. Griffith invented decoupage.

*cue you looking up 'decoupage' definition on Google

>>83167544
You really think you're special for knowing babby's first film theory vocabulary and director?

File: DW Griffith directing the Mother and the Law 1918.jpg (91KB, 564x877px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 564x877px

>>83167571
No, I think Griffith is better than you and anybody you favor

>>83167597
Intolerance is better

>>83167618
Griffith made other films, ones arguably better than Intolerance. You would know that if you knew anything abut film history

>>83167634
I doubt you know who Mauro Bolognini and Sergei Parajanov are, babby

>>83167668
All shit compared to Griffith. They invented nothing

>>83167685
Griffith didn't invent anything either

>>83167709
Griffith had jump cuts. Name somebody around his time that had jump cuts in their films.

>>83167724
Eisenstein, Kirsanoff, Melies

>>83167742
>Eisenstein
Not without Intolerace he didn't

>Kirsanoff
Reginald Barker is better

>Melies
Griffith used them intelligently for psychological effect, not for cheap parlor tricks like Melies

The problem with the way people read film history is they forget that movies were fucking minstrel show affairs, big top tent religious revivals that had to compete with actual fucking revivals which were huge at the time. Movies overwhelmingly got toured, not wide-released, and then they were gone. Millions of people only got to see any particular movie one time in their life. Film libraries weren't particularly available, even to folks who made movies.

Most film technique developed pretty fucking naturally around the same time across the world without the majority of filmmakers having real access to other movies. But that doesn't make for a good story when you're trying to sell your brand, so we get these cheap easy narratives about "X was first."

Griffith might not have been the greatest, but he was certainly one of the filmmakers whose work has hallmarks of what we traditionally accept today to be (based upon an evolution of the style and techniques he had and used) great.

>>83167268
DW Who? Never heard of him...

t. Academy