"We talk about D.W. Griffith... AGAIN" Edition Pr

>>83192342
megaautist is such a brainlet that he thinks photographic realism is the same thing as the aesthetic of Realism
Sad!

>>83192531
you're such a brainlet that you can't even name a single formal innovation in cinema since the 30's. truly a sad pathetic soul you are

>>83192531
i agreee

>>83192639
i can

>>83192679
Name it then. Don't pee your pants out of anxiety.

>>83192725
emily jean

File: smug florence.jpg (59KB, 335x453px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 335x453px

1. Intolerance 1916
2. Tabu 1931
3. Nanook of the North 1922
4. Souls for Sale 1923
5. Applause 1929
6. Toll of the Sea 1922
7. Isn't Life Wonderful 1924
8. Dream Street 1921
9. The Struggle 1931
10. A propos de nice 1930
11. Abraham Lincoln 1930
12. The Greatest Question in Life 1919
13. The Italian 1914
14. Greed 1924
15. Manhatta 1921
16. Night World 1932
17. Male and Female 1919
18. Lady Windmere's Fan 1925
19. Conrad in Quest of His Youth 1920
20. Street Angel 1928


Name a me a good nongenre film that did anything better before or after these were made; Name me a good film that has done anything original formally after the 30s, film reached its pinnacle by 1939

File: film can never be art.png (201KB, 415x641px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 415x641px

>>83192779
>pinnacle
If you are implying pinnacle as an ""art"" form, that's a blatant contradiction that deserves recorrection since film fundamentally cannot be art let alone high art. It can be a lowbrow pastiche of other superior art forms but nothing more.

File: Jonas Mekas recognizes DW Griffith Henry King and Robert Flaherty's greatness.png (563KB, 651x529px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 651x529px

Why did Jonas Mekas list Griffith in greatest films of all time, Griffith is shit

>>83192639
the precedence of the filmic apparatus' material quality in post-war avant-garde and structural cinema (in line with contemporary developments in the plastic arts; the Greenbergian "flattening of the picture plane")
Griffiths did nothing of the sort no matter how far-reaching an argument you make
read some film theory you absolute brainlet

>>83192779
Citizen Kane

>>83193238
Better question: Why do you think Jonas Mekas is better than Stan Brakhage?

>>83193299
Not a single example mentioned just like I expected. Crawl on the floor babby. Doesn't matter what poststructuralist postmodern postwhatever mumbojumbo you spout. Not a single formal innovation. Film will never be art because it can't even progress beyond technical increments

>>83193544
>needs to be spoonfed examples
>thinks anything I said was mumbo-jumbo
not my fault you don't know basic avant-garde cinema and art theory, babby

>>83193399
>women
that's an odd way of spelling nigger babies

File: DW Griffith tops his hat to you.jpg (25KB, 242x339px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 242x339px

>>83193454
When asked about his opinions on Citizen Kane, DW Griffith responded:

"Oh I loved it alright. I loved everything it stole from me."

>>83193600
He was butt hurt Welles did it better

File: Look at me I'm Citizen Kane.png (305KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 720x540px

Citizen Kane is just Abraham Lincoln 1930 mixed with Power and the Glory 1934. Even has the same invisible cuts from each location as Lincoln does.

*yawn

Next

>>83193600
>>83193699
explain how the works of Michael Snow and Hollis Frampton can be explained through the filmic vocabulary of Griffiths
(they can't because they reside out of it and represent a formal departure from classical film language)
stay pleb, babby

File: la perle 1929 2.jpg (24KB, 420x315px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 420x315px

>>83193587
>not my fault you don't know basic avant-garde cinema and art theory, babby
What did any """art""" film do that wasn't already done by 1929

>>83193806
can you read, babby? I said that post-war developments in avant-garde cinema, particularly in structural film, reside outside of classical film language and Modernist aesthetics altogether
you have yet to refute this position

File: Rene Clair on DW Griffith pioneering everything in cinema.png (35KB, 914x183px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 914x183px

>>83193775
Ask pic-related

>>83192779
breathless

>>83193928
not an argument

File: early talkies did not stop moving and have just as much complex camerawork as any modern film - proven by griffith mamoulian goulding and whale.png (131KB, 1220x964px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1220x964px

>>83193879
>reside outside of classical film language
Nope. Read pic-related if you can

>Modernist aesthetics
>aesthetics
Not even ging to respond to that one. You know you're retarded by now.

>>83192779
Persona

>>83193986
I'm not referring to art-house or narrative cinema, you illiterate embryo
>Not even ging to respond to that one. You know you're retarded by now.
that was a correct and precise use the the term aesthetics. do you even know what that word means? probably not because you're a brainlet with no knowledge of film or art

File: the_coward_1915_thomas ince and reginald barker.jpg (14KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x360px

>>83193933
Handheld camerawork and on-location shooting already done in 1914 by Thomas Ince and Reginald Barker. You clearly don't know shit and it's actually pretty funny

File: Ingmar Bergman influenced most by DW Griffith.png (34KB, 804x312px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 804x312px

>>83194033
>Bergman
Pic-related

>>83194070
Ince was a hack. Barker was fine. neither are anywhere near Godard. just because you did it first doesnt mean you did it best

>>83194132
early Bergman, sure. Persona stands alone.

>>83194055
>I'm not referring to art-house or narrative cinema
Yeah, you're referring to nothing except your little 30 second shorts 27amdi34. Sit the fuck nown, downy. Shorts are the anti-cinema.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B5PkGVaqWeY

>>83194162
>drawing on the frame
We can go even further back to Melies

27amdi34 EXPOSED

>>83194254
Yeah, but you wouldn't consider Melies art film.

>>83194196
not an argument
many of the essential films in history are shorts
there is nothing innate to the medium that constitutes a suitable length, only that which it draws from literature to establish proper narrative arcs (which are not relevant to non-narrative film)
and Wavelength is 43 min long

File: 1406146430716.png (373KB, 975x971px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 975x971px

I've never posted in these threads, are they good?

>>83194196
>Shorts are the anti-cinema.
Why?

>>83194152
>just because you did it first doesnt mean you did it best
If you're not going to do anything original, might as well be a sequel. Sequels are always uninspired shit so that fits

>>83194328
Everyone with some variation of the 'shorts aren't film' mental block needs to read this post.

>>83194365
There's nothing new under the sun motherfucker

File: godard short anti cinema.png (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>83194345
Ask Godard. You mentioned him in defense >>83193933
>>83194152

>>83194454
That was my first post in the thread.

>>83194396
After the 30's they don't count because everything formally had already been done. The rest is just regurgitation

File: underworld 1927.gif (2MB, 500x335px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x335px

>>83194405
What DW Griffith did was new. Nobody did this video specifically before him or really even since.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tej00K8Dwgg

Everything else is a pale imitation

>>83194470
Good for you, now this is your last. Fuck off, plebbit.

File: The_Love_Flower_(1920)_poster_DW Griffith.jpg (147KB, 617x804px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 617x804px

>>83194328
>non-narrative film
The beauty of Griffith, the only poet of the screen. He did narrative and no narrative. It's why Bergman cites him as influence over his own kind.

File: 1e0a69e669c8f4340f5af1f3bf30fa02.png (482KB, 1027x534px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 1027x534px

letterboxd.com/albion

>>83192996
>film fundamentally cannot be art
name ONE (1) other medium that explores the cinematic reality

>>83194684
The Steel Helmet is great. Makes good use of a low budget.

>>83194710
the scene in which he puts his helmet on the officer's grave made me tear up, top movie

>>83194684
stupid weeb

File: Hearts_of_the_World_poster2.jpg (106KB, 653x475px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 653x475px

>>83194684
What's a single thing any of these films did that Griffith didn't already do better

>>83193775
structuralism didn't expand filmic vocabulary at all; it's a deconstructivist style

>>83194612
>What DW Griffith did was new. Nobody did this video specifically before him or really even since.
fair, but with a static camera even with development in the frame composition is still drawn from painting, not that I want to summon "Film is not art" shitposters

>>83194706
Theater, plebbit. But you wouldn't know anything about that. It's why Bergman majored in theater first and foremost. Only backwater hicks give a shit about flickies, aspie.

>not watching films on nitrate

>>83194733
>tearing up over flickering images
seek help. film is nonreality bubble incapable of even capturing real emotion or intellectual depth.

File: 1488396164203.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>>83194612
>Good for you, now this is your last. Fuck off, plebbit.
It's funny how since you don't have any strong arguments all you can do is call people names and threaten them. Like the force of your invective and death threats are supposed to convince anyone of anything other than your lack of logic and psychopathy. Too funny.

>>83194828
Film isn't art. It's fundamentally impossible for it too be.

>>83194770
idk i've only seen judith of bethulia
I will admit the action scenes in judith of bethulia are better than in the steel helmet though, no idea how he managed to stage those battles

File: 1495758885081.jpg (282KB, 1242x1179px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1242x1179px

>>83194706
define cinematic reality

film are fucking shit i haven't watched one in two years

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

104KB, 493x384px

>>83194966
>no idea how he managed to stage those battles
Because Griffith was the only poet of the screen.

I wonder how PUNQ's wife would react if she found out he loved another man more than her and had hundreds of pictures of nigger babies saved on his desktop

the funny thing? megaautist is actually correct
even movies supposed to be examples of daring filmmaking like Tarr's Damnation and Satantango haven't developed new vocabulary. It's all fresh iterations of techniques developed several decades earlier

File: greed_poster.jpg (382KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 1000x1500px

Greed>Satantango

Bela Tarr is for redditor pseuds like Amaranth

Stroheim's ULTRA-realist art films!

File: foolish-wives-erich-von-stroheim-1922.jpg (30KB, 366x488px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 366x488px

Erich von Stroheim on the legacy of DW Griffith:

"He was the first to bring poetry and beauty to an otherwise tawdry form of amusement. He made the first truly great pictures, the first to draw the intelligentsia from that of the theater. "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frNv-tVBafo&t=196s

>>83195253
dumb redditposter

Now that I REALLY thought about this, I don't think there's any example of spitfire contemporary action movie editing in Griffith. the Bourne movies, for instance
It's definitely an expressive use of technique instead of a contextual/deconstructive one, and the earliest instance I can think of is Sam Peckinpah's shootouts

>>83195726
If you prefer haphazard editing over duplicity in the frame, look to the Russians of the 20s. They explored the limits of editing

By the late twenties, the silent reached their peak.

By the late 30s, the talkies reached their peak. And the entire gamut of cinema was formally run dry.

>>83192383
>Is James Healey better than Griffith?
No clue who either of those people are.

File: king vidor.jpg (14KB, 214x317px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 214x317px

When asked about why movies about young people doing nothing aren't made more often, Godard responded:

"The Crowd had already been made in 1928."

File: image.jpg (84KB, 387x518px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 387x518px

Griffith never made movies that explore hypnagogic vision.

File: image.jpg (112KB, 500x691px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 500x691px

You:
>D.W. Griffith, Jean-Luc Godard, Robert Faultman
>entry level pleb

Me:
>Robert Beavers, Larry Gottheim, Sandra Davis
>exit level patrician

I hate you all

>>83195210
except for his countless refusals to accept non-narrative (especially those less-than-feature-length) films as rebuttals to his argument

File: image.jpg (243KB, 824x1325px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 824x1325px

>>83194287
Exposed as what? The only adult in the room? I could've told you that!

>>83192779
>adaptations
nice shit taste retard

I wonder how PUNQ's wife reacts when her wedding ring is shoved up the ass of PUNQ's nigger babies

redpill me on PUNQ

PUNQ already watched and reviewed 8 feature films today. How about you, embryo?

I wonder how PUNQ's wife reacts when she watches movies with him and he cant stop looking at his nigger babiesp

File: 1494122480300.jpg (13KB, 229x220px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 229x220px

>>83198150
>57 mins
>58 mins
>54 mins
>56 mins
>57 mins
>57 mins
>55 mins
>57 mins
>70 mins
>65 mins

>>83198060
Look at his highest rated films.
>The Revenant
>Mad Max Fury Road
>Swiss Army Man
>12 Years a Slave
>Antman

I wonder how PUNQ's wife reacts when he frames photos of his nigger babies on the wall.

>>83198563
taste is subjective
his flight hours, on the other hand, are objectively superior to yours, mine and everyone on /lbg/

>>83198563
what's wrong here.

I wonder how PUNQ's wife reacts when she is awaken by his nigger babies crying as he rapes them

>>83199110
you're not funny

I wonder how PUNQ's wife reacts when he screams the names of his nigger babies when she has sex

>>83195938
What a sad life you must live. Oh, your mom wants you to move the laundry along down there when you get a chance.

I wonder how PUNQ'S wife reacts when...

File: 1494093170451.jpg (64KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 500x500px

>watching illustrated text