Was this the best decade for film?

>>84208844
nah, the world wars and shit ruined it

File: images.jpg (30KB, 300x450px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 300x450px

>>84208949
>1940
Didn't ruin shit.

>1940
>hays code still in effect
'no'

80s was best, had the comfort of the 60s and ideas of the 2010's but done with sweet 80s tech.

80s forever.

>ideas of the 2010

but there are no modern ideas. It's all trash or has been thought of before.

>>84208844
No, the previous decade was.

>>84209017
The Hays Code was a good thing. Only a handful of films were weakened by it. Most subjects it forbade could still be addressed with the right codedness, and most viewers learned how to read those codes, which made them more sophisticated than they would have been otherwise. If the Hays Code was still in force, audience behavior would be different, probably all the way down to their social behavior in the theater.

>>84209049
Half of the people reject 80s neoconservatism and the neoliberalism that spawned it on conservative grounds, the other half reject it on socialist grounds, so how exactly did the 80s have "ideas of the 2010s", dicksmoker? If you mean ideas about cinema, you're wrong. And how did that decade have "the comfort of the 60s"? What does that even mean? The only people who felt comfortable in the 60s, left or right, were high.

Grapes of Wrath
>>84209151

It was a better, whiter time.

>>84208949
This. The Hays Code was in effect and every other movie was WWII propaganda.

1930s > 1940s

>>84209207
Nah, the 60s up until like 1968 were still pretty much just the 50s

It wasn't until the late 60s/early 70s that society really started collapsing with the huge spike in crime, race riots, economic recessions, energy crisis, etc

>>84209230
The Grapes of Wrath is a great film, and it's from the 30s, because 1940 is a 10 - the 40s start with 1941.

>>84209282
Gone with the Wind was made during the Hays Code

Your argument is invalid

>>84209299
No, huge social changes were happening throughout the decade, don't generalize about history when you can't even be bothered to read it.

>>84209282
Give me one good reason why the Hays Code should be regarded as a bad thing.

>>84209307
>1941

So Citizen Kane then?

>>84209336
Gone with the Wind is boring shit.

File: images-10.jpg (15KB, 274x184px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 274x184px

>>84208844
70's

>>84209367
Yeah, and lots of other good stuff, but not as much as the previous decade.

>>84209391
I have always thought that the so called golden age of Hollywod was n the 20s or 30s.

>>84209374
>Gone with the Wind is boring shit.
t. scalawag

>>84209419
Frankly, Anon, I don't give a damn.

>>84209374
That's an embarrassing opinion to have


>>84209345
But most the changes didn't filter down to society until the 1970s

1. 1970s
2. 1960s
3. 1990s

anything else is wrong.

>>84209462
t. hasn't watched anything before the 60s

The 1930s was the best decade when you take into account Hollywood, independent American, avant-garde, European and Japanese filmmaking. That's just taking into account the major countries. In a lot of places, half of the 40s was spent making propaganda, the other half was spent making stuff about war trauma. The general style of films became more conservative in the 40s, not less, a few remarkable works aside.

>>84209391
Yeah this, the films I like all tend to fall in the early-mid 70s.

>>84209449
You're simply incorrect. The contraceptive pill, JFK's assassination and the racial tensions that culminated in the signing of the Civil Rights Act all happened by 1964. Those three factors basically shaped everything that followed.

The only decade that can touch the 30s is the 70s, but the 70s falls down on Hollywood productions - there are about as many worthwhile Hollywood movies made during the 70s as were made in any given year of the 30s.

>>84209549
And what do you want that niggers can't even take the bus???

>>84209613
Look back. I said:
> And how did that decade have "the comfort of the 60s"? What does that even mean? The only people who felt comfortable in the 60s, left or right, were high.

The point is, everyone was on edge at some point during that decade because of the social changes, and a lot of people were on edge the whole time, so what is the "comfort" anon is talking about?

>>84208844
Well I like the 50's as it had loads of Sci-fi B rated movies. Most started with The...Lol Like The brain that wouldn't die and The attack of the 50Ft. woman...etc.

i like the 50s movies started getting a bit riskier and black and white was much more crisper the movies looked great visually

>>84209810
this too

>>84209810
They started getting ASS and the black and white was much more ASS, you mean. Seas of gray, the dread Method acting, and some guy with a pompadour agonizing over how he might be - get this - a little bit gay.

>>84209435

underrated

>>84209810
What are some risky movies from the 50s?

>>84209282
Just look!
>>84209000

>>84209947
I fucking hate Zorro.

The 70s were the best. Industry people still had lots of pride and standards and filming technique had evolved so there was a great mix of interesting camerwork and serious storytelling/dialogue. Alien is a good example. The 80s brought us a lot of fun movies but things got dumber and started the whole blockbuster/sequel-prequel shit we're being drowned in today.

>>84210015
>I fucking hate Zorro.

t. el scalawago

>>84210015
Then why don't you kill your self?

50s-70s are the best. Tbh 60s are best for foreign films, 50s are best for Hollywood studio classics, and 70s are best for new Hollywood.

>>84210015
You have no soul, Don Quintero.

>>84210061
Jaws and Star Wars started the blockbuster shit.

>>84210061
Total horseshit. Hollywood in the 70s was on its knees, filming technique had degraded, the fact that only college kids were still going to the movies meant that barely competent young directors were promoted as auteurs right out the gate, the real greats were neglected, outside the system, unemployed or dead, and the reason so many talkpieces got produced was cheapness.

>>84209017
I'd rather have boring movies than the rampant social degeneracy of today. But since there's no putting that genie back in the bottle, might as well enjoy it.

>>84210104
The 30s was the best because it has more international masterpieces, more Hollywood classics, and more striking film art and fresh aesthetic disoveries than new Hollywood, which was the worst thing happening in cinema in the 70s by some way.

40s had the Code in full effect. This made for better movies because the filmmakers had to find ways to get around it and be more profound and subtle.

The high number of low-budget movies fromt hat decade made fimmakers stretch themselves creatively and lots of their techniques became staples of filmmaking.

>>84210179
There were some very sexy movies produced in the Hays Code era.

File: index.jpg (9KB, 185x273px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 185x273px

2000 onwards = peak cinema

>>84209939
Kiss me deadly

>>84210232
This. The fact they couldn't show stuff made them want to try and skirt and stretch the code even more.

>>84210215
Why is it better than the 30s, which had both pre-Code and the Code, and an equal number of low-budget movies?

>>84210251
What are some others?

File: d51fb6d.webm (3MB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x480px

>>84210015
t. reddit cuck

>>84210179
Just die already, old man.

>>84209151

What kind of bullshit rationalization is this?

> Most subjects it forbade could still be addressed with the right codedness

if you think making a double entendre that hints at the existence of the subject is the same thing as "addressing it"

>>84210271
Equal number?

Source.

And the MPPC wasn't in FULL EFFECT until 1942.

>>84210339
Zorro is just capeshit for film snobs.

>>84210353
It's actually better. Adressing a subject directly is not creative.

I think the 1930s were slightly better but both decades are better than what we've been served in the last 17 years.

The 70s are the best.
Sam Peckinpah, David Lynch, Terry Gilliam, David Cronenberg, Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese, Werner Herzog... At the top of their art and studios were foolish enough to give them all powers.

Guess after Heaven's Gate, studios thought that it was better to gain control on these crazies.

Now, you have to be able to sell toys, please the crowd of chinese plebs and make sure the movie is safe for the whole family.

>>84210353
I didn't say "making a double entendre", I said "addressed". There are films from that era where the entire plot hinges on a really obvious unspoken plot element that the kids and idiots in the audience won't perceive but everyone else does. On other occasions, something will be plainly depicted and then, when the entire audience has registered it, explained away with some really unconvincing token line which is designed merely to keep the Legion of Decency off the producer's back while leaving no doubt as to what's really being depicted. It was more sophisticated than what followed.

>>84210414

No it's not. If there's less restrictions on an artist then they can address the subject in more depth, and that's when they can be the most creative.

The hays code just meant that any "banned" subject could only be insinuated in passing.

>>84210389
What's your source for saying there were more in the 40s?

No, the Code was in effect from 1934.

>>84210521
They're not as good as you think. A lot of their shit was Tarantino-esque edgy rip-offs of older movies scenes, characters, camera shots and dialogue.

>>84210532

The sophistication you're speaking of can be achieved without regulatory bodies. It would just be an artistic choice, and not something imposed on the director to not offend puritanical sensibilities.

If you're that disappointed about modern movies being shallow, then stop watching shallow modern movies.

>>84210556
Full effect=/=in effect

Source is the number of American films made in the 1930s and 40s and their budget.

Besides, the 30s was the fucking Depression you historically challenged kid. From 29 to 39.
There was less movies and less money to go around on smaller projects for the studios.

>>84210521
Nope.

>Sam Peckinpah,
Talentless cokehead with a completely bogus worldview.

>David Lynch,
Nothing to do with the studios in the 70s, he was at the AFI Conservatory, a film school.

>Terry Gilliam
He only made Jabberwocky in the 70s, a British production for no money, and bits of Life of Brian, another British production.

>David Cronenberg,
His 70s films after Crimes of the Future were made on a tax shelter basis for a couple of Quebecois exploitation producers, they were low-budget, made in the same months every year, and no real commercial risk to anyone - they were sold as horror movies.

>Stanley Kubrick,
Went out of his way to make Clockwork Orange low-budget to start his WB contract on a good note.

>Martin Scorsese,
His only really expensive film of the decade was a total disaster.

>Werner Herzog
Was making low-budget films in Germany the entire decade with no "studio" involvement in the sense you mean, dipshit.

Your opinions are gabby Peter Biskind cliche, get an education.

>>84208844
70s > 60s > 30s > 50s > 80s > 90s > 2000s > 2010s > 20s > 40s > 1910s > 1900s > 1890s

>>84210535
>The hays code just meant that any "banned" subject could only be insinuated in passing.

No. That's not how the MPPC worked.

>>84210689
No, you got the date wrong.

No, that's an assertion, provide sources for it.

You've just confirmed that you know nothing about this subject and are bluffing, the Depression was great for the movie industry. There were more movies, because less was being spent on them individually, and huge profits. Smaller projects didn't come second in those days, they were the bread-and-butter. Get educated.

>>84210633
Clearly it can't. The industry adopted the Hays Code as an alternative to being locked out of certain parts of the country. These were majority values. If it hadn't been forced to for its own survival, it would never have adopted a code of restraint. Adopting it improved it.

I don't watch shallow modern movies.

>>84210825

It might have been necessary to survive then, but that's not a good argument for it. The dumbing down of mainstream movies was necessary to survive later, and that's what you're complaining about.

In both cases artists were forced to make the movies they didn't want to make.

File: 15_5.jpg (69KB, 600x363px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 600x363px

>>84210772
>american education

Just because you act like a know-it-all doesn't eman we don't see you for the uneducated pleb you are.

The MPAA BEGAN to enforce it in 1934, but it didn't reach FULL EFFECT until 1942. There was alot of legal battels fought between 1934 and 1942 between some of the studios and the MPAA. The legal disputes were resolved in favor of the MPAA in 1942. This is FACT. It coincided with the OWI (Office of War Information)'s formation and both organizations.worked hand in hand from that point on for war propaganda. The war and the need for propaganda was the main reason the courts let the MPAA enforce the Code fully and rejected any kind of appeal from the studios.

Crack a book, attitude is nothing without the facts to back it up.

80s or 90s.

The 60s is by far the most forgettable decade. Seriously, name 10 absolute classics from it that everybody knows and loves.

>>84211058
You wrecked him so hard that you killed the thread, mutherfucker!

Noice

>>84210148
This is subjective of course, but I found pre 70's cinematography often stale or pompous. Which greats were neglected?

>>84211324
Psycho
2001
Bullit
NOTLD
The Dirty Dozen
Planet of the Apes
Dr. Strangelove
Bonnie&Clyde
West Side Story
Lawrence of Arabia
The Birds
Rosemary's Baby
TGTBATU
Spartacus
In the Heat of the Night
The Sound of Music
Goldfinger

I could go on. I could even google it, but I won't.

>>84210705

so fucking what, point is that a lot of capable people worked in that period, creating a lot of great movies.

>>84211324
2001
The good the bad and the ugly
Au hasard Balthazar
Blow up
Last year at Marienbad
Andrei Rublev
Persona
8 1/2
Breathless
Lawrence of Arabia

easy

>>84211415
Then why didn't you name ONE?

Fucking lobster.

>>84211451

Half of these are shit and half of them are completely unknown to "everybody".

>>84211510
> half of them are completely unknown to "everybody".

what a dumb way to judge the quality of a movie

>>84211510
in the 60's they were
not my problem modern audiences can only deal with capeshit
also these aren't my favorites from the 60s but there is not one single 'shit' movie in there, plen

>>84211458

Clockwork Orange
Alien
Apocalypse Now
Taxi Driver
One flew over the cn
Eraserhead
Godfather
Star Wars
Stalker
and so on

are you capable of discussing things without spewing insults like a 13 year old? thanks

>>84211510
Holy shit, go watch a few movies and come back you fucking kid. What are you even doing on tv? Most people not even into movies know about them Are you fucking 11 yo?

Seriuosly, I know you're just trolling so you can "be right on the internet" but I'm fucking mad right now you little fuck!

>>84211543

I agree. Good thing no one here has done that.

fucking Contrarians. These movies are boring as shit now. They're terrible.

>>84211594
Those.. are not people.

wtf?? are you high/drunk/sleepy or something?

>>84211600
You're the one who gets mad about other peoples opinions, grow up

>>84211646
You obviously never watched any. Nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't mean that waht you think they are is what they actually are.

Comedies of that era had a faster pacing than the ones now (they make Girlmore Girls look like the slow retard child of the class). As an example.

>>84211649
You said "name one" which could be understood as reference to either movies or industry people. Either way you surely are capable of figuring out who made those movies.

>>84211646
Well, there sure is enough capeshit to keep you entertained.

>>84211600

No reason to be mad. I specifically asked for well known movies and some of those movies are not.

>Au hasard Balthazar
>Blow up
>Last year at Marienbad

Are you really suggesting the regular man in the street knows about these movies?

>>84211675
That was not an opinion. Do you even know words?

>>84211761
Yes. Ask someone close at hand now. Go ahead. I bet you my bottom dollar they know 2 out of these 3 movies.

>>84211764
Of course it was.

>>84211761
The man in the street doesn't know about 2001 or any of those movies because they don't watch movies except for stuff released in the theaters now.
Anyone who watches movies aside from modern capeshit know about Bresson, Antonioni and Resnais.

File: 1498070810762.jpg (99KB, 565x500px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 565x500px

>>84211646
Many of us actually like them. You're probably that fugly Pajeet guy who made the gay Party rocking video yesterday.

>>84211885
Depends on age. I think most 50+ people know about 2001. Anything below that, probably not. Most kids nowadays dont even know about the original star wars movies.

>>84211885
>Bresson, Resnais

Literally who? I watch movies outside of the regular mainstream stuff and it's the first time I hear those names.

>>84211926
I don't think you even know what Reddit is

>>84212012
You sould not be on this board. Not trying to be a dick, but this place isn't for you.

>>84212021
Reddit = loves action movies, superhero shit, liberal shit and "nerd" shows

>>84211885
"no"

>>84212012
Either bait or retard.

>>84212060
Most people on here dont recognize those. Your average /tv/ thread is about capeshit, game of thrones and star wars.

>>84211955
most people are retards or chinese/indian/mexican and those types of people just don't watch films made in the 60s or anything outside bockbusters, I really don't think your average Joe who used to be an accountant and is retired now gives a shit about 'art' films, at best they've heard of it but they never bothered to watch it. You really have to keep in mind the low IQ and general disinterest in any type of art the majority of people have.

>>84212094
???

Yes? Yes. Let's say yes.

>>84212118

How so? Am I really expected to know every single semi-obscure foreign director who was mostly active 50 years ago?

>>84212145
Exactly.

>>84212145
Just because you and the people you knw are like that doesn't mean all people are.

Lots of ordinary guys saw those movies on tv when tv was still decent and know these names.

>>84212187
You're trying too hard.

>>84212156
Lets say no, as in, no, not everyone who dislikes capeshit knows those guys. I dont know them and several other people here neither.

>>84212187
Those are entry level and if you post here you should have at least heard of them before.

>>84212260
Au Hasard Balthazar is posted here every other week. How have you never heard of them?

>>84208844
2010's
don't (you) me

>>84209462
How is the 90s the best decade for film? Because Waterworld?

Everyone knows its the 1980s! The 1980s changed our entire culture.

>>84212260
You don't belong here. Not joking. Why would you come on a MOVIE&TV board if you don't know about movies&tv except for the *Fresh* new movies?

>>84212264
>>84212343

Stop trying too hard.

>>84212195
>>84212216
You misunderstand me what I meant to say there's a distinction to make on what the OP meant to say with 'everybody': if he meant the majority then we're talking about the low IQ individuals who make up most of the populace, who haven't watched either Kubrick or Leone or Bresson so no matter how famous Kubrick is for them he's at the same level as Bresson.
If we're talking about 'everyone' as in everyone who interests themselves in movies just a bit then they're probably heard of Kubrick and Bresson just as well.

>>84212366
Now you're just repeating what was said here >>84212240

File: 1497112948659.jpg (233KB, 1052x1363px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1052x1363px

>>84212093

>>84212264
They're not entry level. They are what the key to the door to the lobby of the Entry Level is made out of.

>>84212370
Dude, evey hick knows about Kubrick and Leone. wtf? Anyone with a tv knows about them.

>>84212343
You can know about other movies than capeshit and still not know about every succesful director from the 50s/60s. Why do you come here though? Those types of movies are virtually never discussed here.

>>84212511
But.. they are? Wth the hell, is this the Barenstein universe or something?

>>84212498
that's not reality unfortunately, Leone and Kubrick are still too artsy for most people. The only old movies they've watched on tv are absolute Hollywood classics like Gone with the wind or stuff that gets broadcast at least once every few years on prime time. Kubrick and Leone, at least where I live, are never broadcast on tv apart for some special art-house series or something.

>>84212437
okay then, give me example of ones that are in the lobby mr patrician

>>84212680
No. You're an idiot. Every fucking Joe and Jane McNormie knows about 2001 and TGTBATU what the hell, man?

>>84212680
Where the bumfuck do you live that they don't show The Good and 2001 at least once a year on the regular channels?

>>84212576
Where? I never see those threads. Like has been said here before, almost all things discussed here are about modern stuff

>>84212747
>Joe and Jane McNormie knows about 2001 and TGTBATU
go outside and ask them, I assure you 9/10 have not heard of them let alone watched them.

>>84212794
Netherlands, we get stuff like gone with the wind, the wizard of oz, singing in the rain etc. quite regularly though

>>84212804
Get out of capeshit threads and look in the catalog.

I have talks in a classic movie threads every fucking day.

>>84212862
Dude is just trolling. They dont show that stuff here neither.

>>84212862
Netherlands? Maybe, but in the US and Canada, everyone knows about those 2 movies.

I mean Every. One.

I kind of wish I was in your country because they keep airing that shit over and over and Gone with the Wind never fucking airs.

>>84212887
Ok, so thats what, 1 out of 50 threads? Exactly my point, this place is filled with discussions about modern stuff, so you cant say everyone on tv knows those movies. They dont.

>>84212895
Yeah, AMC never airs TGTBATU and 2001 50 times a year every year.

Oh, wait...

>>84212957
I'm not talking to you anymore.

>>84212931
stop deluding yourself, 2001 and tgtbatu are not Star Wars and maybe 50%-60% of the population has seen that.
Anyway I wouldn't know what they air now on tv since I haven't owned one in 8 years.

>>84212895
The fact that you think - they don't know those films just tells us more about your shit social circles than it tells about the fame of those films. Don't mistake the uncultured swine you call your family for the average pop. Leone is extremely popular world wide.

>>84212957
ask around on the board

you will be told that you're an idiot and to get the fuck out

>>84212895
US here. TCM, Sundance channel, IFC, AMC, THIS and many other channels air those movies all the fucking time and that's just off the top of my head.

>>84213098
You're serious, aren't you?

Wow. Just... wow.

Go out. Ask anyone. Or go online and ask anyone. Go in another thread and ask. Just... do it.

No, the 70s were.

>>84212862
I don't know about Gen. Z but most boomers and millenials in the US are aware of those movies.

>>84212931
AMC shows 24 hours of GWTW every Thanksgiving.

>>84213267
Really? Cool. I'll know for next time.

My favorites are the 80's and the 40's.

>>84213179
I can't believe you're serious either.
Maybe you only hang around 4chan all day and have no clue what normies actually really are like irl. At my job I would say 1 out of 10 people had heard those names. On facebook, same. Most people don't even bother to watch old movies because they already know they'll find them boring.

>>84213241
boomers, yes, but most millennials? no fucking way. and those are just two demographics, that's a long fucking stretch from 'literally everybody'

>>84213406
see
>>84213174

>>84213406
Millenials are 20s and 30s and most of the people I've met from those groups had seen those movies before. I know it's just hearsay but I really do think a large amount of millennial Americans are aware of those films.

>>84213464
Millennials are 18-19
-the retard poster you're talking to

>>84213453
>>84213464
even if they get aired often there how many 20 or 30 year olds normies actually watch them? How many of them are interested in 'old movies' out of 100? Maybe they had seen them as a kid on tv, fine, I have trouble believing a kid watches 2001 by chance on tv and even remembers who the director was. But okay, they've at least heard of them.
I'm still convinced at least 80% of people under 60 don't even know who they are and we just have to agree to disagree.

>>84213596
You were wrong on the internet. Deal with it. You're just making yourself look like a retard right now.

>>84213596
>80% of people under 60
Okay that's just flat out wrong. That's closer to how many probably don't know about Hayes Code era movies.

>>84213464

I don't get the "millennial" term. When I first heard it, I thought it was people born in the new millennium who never experienced the world without the internet, smartphones, social media and other modern crap. Then all of a sudden I get told that I, who was born in 1984, am one. Fuck that shit.

>>84213629
I wouldn't mind being wrong because that would mean the majority of people are smarter than they actually are, but I'm not. That's pretty sad that in your head 'winning' an argument on the internet on an anime imageboard means anything, but whatever makes you feel better retard.

File: 1497766199580.png (56KB, 554x400px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 554x400px

>1940s
>Not 2011

I bet party rocking in the house doesn't even play in those flicks

2010s. Though it started specifically in 2008 when one brave studio decided a single universe is vast enough for a single continuity.

>>84208844
40s was hands down the worst, you have to be a real nostalgiafag to say that

>Production Code is at it's height
>WW2 puts every non-english speaking nations cinema on hold for at least 4 years, others longer
>every Brit film is war propaganda
>westerns and musical haven't yet hit their 50s height, screwball comedies run their course quickly after the 30s but stick around way too long. Noir is cool but that and melodrama are really all hollywood has going for it in terms of genre innovation
>technicolor's progress is halted to save silver for the war
>neorealism pops up at the end of the decade but it's influence doesn't spread until the 50s

>>84213822
>every Brit film is war propaganda

The Ealing comedies started in the 40s though.

>>84209391
this, by a long shot
>new hollywood ftw

>>84213859
There's exceptions but if I skim over one more British wartime melodrama on TCM I'll firebomb london myself

>>84210402
You know where to go.

File: 1497981602644.png (65KB, 554x400px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 554x400px

>>84213730
>1941 movie
>NAZI ROCKERS IN THE HOUSE TONIGHT

>>84209939
All that Heaven Allows

>>84209939
Anatomy of a Murder

>>84209363
There isn't one

File: arino.png (94KB, 240x222px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 240x222px

>>84210705

File: 1493955856984.jpg (20KB, 434x431px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 434x431px

>>84210614
>Tarantino-esque

60s New Wave, especially French, Czech, and Japanese.

American cinema is utter shit, not worth dissecting into decades.

>>84217735
American cinema is the best in the world, pleb. No other country even comes close.

File: terrofrormaras.jpg (72KB, 573x694px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 573x694px

>>84217216
J
O
Y

L
A
N
E

File: Intolerance_(film)_1916_poster.jpg (897KB, 1421x2112px) Image search: [Google]

897KB, 1421x2112px

Beginning of cinema to 1939

You reached a pinnacle and nothing more.

>>84217735
What makes any of those films special? The editing? Breaking the fourth wall? Already done in the 20s and 30s

>>84209391
yep, I would say 60s-70s when companies like mgm put out lots of relatively unknown movies that they never play anywhere on television, maybe tcm from time to time.

>>84210061
This, the relaxation of obscenity standards and the studio system created a whole generation of auteurs that are still legends today

80's was a period of commodification and commercialization

1980s

undisputable

>>84219373
Why? Is it nostalgia for children's movies you watched on VHS?

>>84219333
>the relaxation of obscenity standards
When did gore and vulgarity become art

>>84221862
When did film become art

File: images[1].jpg (12KB, 300x450px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 300x450px

>>84221862
when pic related was made

>>84221892
True.

File: trashcan.jpg (30KB, 328x445px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 328x445px

>>84221920
>vampireshit

>>84209299
>Nah, the 60s up until like 1968 were still pretty much just the 50s
1960 was the year of A Bout de Souffle anf L'Avventura. You're fucking retarded

I'd say the 2010s. Cinematic universes really became a big thing. Very rewarding feeling to know that the film/movie/kino you're watching is contributing to something larger.

I'd say the golden age of cinema is now.

>>84222008
>he thinks Possession is a film about vampires

you made me kek out loud

>>84212012
Well, it seems like you don't
Those are two of the most famous filmmakers of all times

>>84208844
70's was the last decade for really original bold moves and cerebral mainstream movies.
80's was the most culturally impactful movie decade, most of our major movie icons, genres and shit come here. Called the last era for new ideas by cunts.
90's was experimental stuff and the rise of early CG.
00's was when everything started to go wrong.

>>84209939
Paths of Glory

>>84222366
>clearly defined heroes to cheer for and bad guys to jeer at and hate
No.

File: get better taste.png (4MB, 2428x1002px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2428x1002px

>>84222101
Learn the difference.

>>84222023
He's talking about society you fucking tard not criterion festivalshit.

File: neverforget.jpg (41KB, 922x339px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 922x339px

>>84222509
shut the fuck up imbecile

File: DW Griffith smirks in disgust.jpg (345KB, 789x994px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 789x994px

>>84222735
>babby doesn't even know his own country's cinema
Stay mad.

>>84222153

Keep telling yourself that

I personally think it doesn't matter, so long as you're having fun :)

>>84222153
Bane?

Directors plebs know:
>George Lucas
>Steven Spielberg
>Martin Scorsese maybe? idk

>>84222799
stick to your 30s melodramas retard, you couldn't understand a story with actual substance like Possession's because your brain cells are all dead from watching simple-minded age flicks which don't require any thinking.

File: DW Griffith laughs amusingly.jpg (31KB, 451x587px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 451x587px

>>84222980
Vulgarity isn't art.

Reminder that art isn't art.

File: ulysses and melodrama.png (67KB, 1087x651px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1087x651px

>>84222980
>melodrama
People like to throw this word around, but they don't really know what it means

File: birthcotton dw griffith poetry.gif (3MB, 615x463px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 615x463px

>>84223102
Learn the difference

File: 123462368837.jpg (105KB, 640x476px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 640x476px

Check these

>>84222799
Witnessed

>>84223315
Checked those armpits

20s had passion of joan

enough said.

The 80s when Schwarzenegger and Harrison ford were in their prime.

I'm partial to today's capekino so I'm going to have to say the 2010s. Only makes sense since technology only moves forward.

>>84223669
>>84223745
you people can't be real

>>84223897
get better taste

>>84223897
Let me guess, tarkovsky, bergman godard, kubrik

grow up

70's through 90's. Only shit I watch.

>>84224671
yeah the goonies and indiana jones were pretty ebin i guess

File: PhiladelphiaStoryTheCuck.jpg (485KB, 1446x1103px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 1446x1103px

30s or 40s.

File: WaitingForGodot.jpg (43KB, 247x350px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 247x350px

the 50s if we are counting plays

>>84210521
you forgot Tarkovsky