New Sincerity

I feel that Nolan is a big proponent of the New Sincerity®

>>84695419
I don't know much about it.
Is it just an aversion to cliche and irony?

There is a brony section on the New Sincerity Wikipedia page. I tend to ignore it.

>>84695419
fuuuuuuuck oooooooff

Somebody told me this is what Patterson is about
I thought patterson was nice

Seth Rogen

>>84695419
isn't new sincerity for bronies?

>>84695419
The Hunt for the Wilderpeople

Wallace a shit

>>84695419
hello red.dit

End of the tour was comfy..

>>84695419
PTA, but I could just be saying that because of how much of a clear influence DFW had on him
Wes Anderson
Main two I can think of.

For me New Sincerity has to approach situations that could be taken with an ironic tone, highlighting the stupidity of the situation, but instead chooses to take all the emotions of the characters at face value.
For me it's more than just sincerity of emotion (Wikipedia says Dances with Wolves or Hook, which I disagree with), it has to have the style and some tendencies of post-modern irony but with a finishing message that these characters' emotions do in fact matter

I think Wes and PTA show this the most

>>84695468
It's more about embracing shit you know you shouldn't like but do with open arms
Think Reviewbrah: he knows he's some faggy looking kid reviewing fast food on the internet but he can accept that and accept the fact that he fucking loves it and that he shouldn't have to "ironically" enjoy doing what he loves

>>84696256

I'm convinced Dances with Wolves would be one of the greatest American films if the narration were completely removed.

>>84696256
Definitely Wes.

>>84696304
So it's basically the right side of this?

Wasn't Wallace one of those fags who just hated movies and tv and thought they were ruining everything?

>>84696432
that's a vast oversimplification of his thoughts on the matter

he didn't personally own a television because he recognized that he had an addictive personality and didn't want to give himself the chance to waste his life sitting in front of a screen

DFW: I thought "Unforgiven" is the first really smart Western since, I don't know, early Peckinpah.

ROSE: I do, too. I loved it.

DFW: What's interesting is I don't know a single female who likes the film. It's very odd. I talk to all these people --

ROSE: It's interesting you say that.

DFW: -- about "Unforgiven" --

ROSE: It's interesting you say that because --

DFW: -- and females think, "Western? It stinks." And if you can get them to watch it, it's not a Western at all. I mean, it's a moral drama. It's -- you know, it's Henry James, basically. But it's very odd.

ROSE: My girlfriend and I -- Amanda hates the film and it's the one film that I just have a wider difference with her than any other film that we've seen together.

DFW: Yeah. If I were going to try to do something, I'd want to do something like that. But that was also an enormous success story -- luck story. David Webb Peoples -- reclusive, weird screenwriter -- I don't know much about him. This script had been shopped around for years and finally Clint Eastwood bought it and Clint Eastwood's got enough juice to go, "Okay, I'll star in it so they'll make it." This was a weird Western. This is very cerebral for a Western and I think the only way that it could have got made was if a, you know, star director, you know, was willing to do it. And the thing about it is, I think for every script like that that gets made, there've got to be, you know, hundreds of these really intelligent, cool scripts --


so did DFW literally invented "films women will never undertand"?

>>84696432
I watched one of his interviews on youtube and he said he really liked Unforgiven. He seemed pretty informed on film. If he was smart I doubt he would reject the entire visual medium of film.

to me new sincerity is just postmodernism swallowing hallmark culture, there's absolutely nothing sincere about it, its success is purely a matter of market demand for empty sentiment. the newly sincere auteur is still completely insulated from criticism for the content of his work because the emotions expressed are those of a child. the overall goal of PTA and Wes Anderson is not to express a risky idea, but to create something utterly unchallenging, with essentially universal appeal. They havemore in common with Stephen King than DFW.

>>84696570
>the overall goal of PTA [is to] create something utterly unchallenging
what the fuck are you talking about

>>84696587
name one challenging idea in a PTA film. impossible mode: the film makes an unambiguous value judgement

>>84696304
Is this similar to post-irony? Or at least that's what I've been calling it. Like Tim and Eric shit.

>>84696732
one and the same
see also: adults who watch pixar movies

>>84696670
does inherent vice count ?

>>84696787
I don't mean challenging in the sense of difficult to work out, I mean statements that antagonize the audience. PTA's movies are all essentially designed to please people and rather than make them think.

>>84696732
Tim and Eric is absurdism. But yes, New Sincerity is just the name for the movement of post-irony, creatorside. As opposed to finding a post-ironic enjoyment in a serious film, for example.

File: post-ironic-v2.jpg (673KB, 1500x1859px) Image search: [Google]

673KB, 1500x1859px

Wes Anderson, Michel Gondry, Paul Thomas Anderson, Spike Jonze, Aki Kaurismaki are the quintessential New Sincere filmmakers.

Post-Irony is the reaction to the New Sincerity movement. New Sincerity is based on the dichotomy of irony and sincerity. New Sincerity is opposed against postmodernist irony and cynicism.

Post-Irony denies the dichotomy of irony and sincerity. In post-ironic cinema irony and sincerity become one. Post-Irony is dissapointed in New Sincerity. If the movie couldn’t be seen as a satire on Wes Anderson’s ideals, it’s probably not post-ironic.

Both New Sincerity and Post-Irony are part of Metamodernism. Perhaps, it is more convenient to just use the term "metamodernist" from now on.

Pic related is a guide to Post-Ironic Cinema that I made in 2012, five years ago. I don't think it can be really updated, since the zeitgeist since then has become so completely metamodernist, the guide should include hundreds of movies.

>>84697057
What makes the mumblecore genre fit in here? Is it the sort of rejection of convention (or rather not rejection, but simply not taking it into account)?

>>84696570
I feel like pta and wa are challenging in their own way: it's not like it's a part of mainstream narrative to empathize with people who fucked up a lot in their lives. Also i don't get how is there nothing sincere in their movies: they feel about stuff in a way that they show it, at least they try to. I guess their characters are usually more expressive than regular humans and feel like caricature but regular people are often not aware of their own emotions to a point where if you approach the story of a regular person they would end up experiencing stuff that they think they have to experience, not what they actually feel.

Still i guess for me for example manchester by the sea is better than any pta or wa movies but their movies are still great and have their place.

>>84697658
>it's not like it's a part of mainstream narrative to empathize with people who fucked up a lot in their lives
yes it is, loads of protagonists are underdogs, from classic film forward. and flawed protagonists are a staple of 70s film. the thing is PTA took all of these elements from prior, superior films (like those of his mentor Robert Altman) and turned them into a pop art confection, filled with meaningless, bawdy cartoons.

>>84696845
we can talk about purposes and post irony and all those retarded terms but i think some people, like PTA, don't give a shit about those things and want to make just a good fucking movie and that's it

>>84696732
>>84696764
>>84696859
Post-irony isn't the same as New Sincerity. It's difficult to explain but first of all New Sincerity is more like a movement while post-irony is a description. New Sincerity is basically what it sounds like (from what I understand) where you leave all the irony behind and actually return to sincerity. Post-irony on the other hand muddles irony and sincerity. Post-irony can be a sincere statement made using irony for example.

>(i) having something absurd taken seriously or (ii) be unclear as to whether something is meant to be ironic

Please correct me if I'm wrong. If someone who knows this better than me then I would like to pose a question as well:

How can we differentiate between post-irony and satire? Doesn't one of them encompass the other? I wonder if any of the following sentences are true:
>All satire is post-ironic, but not all post-irony is satirical
>All post-irony is satirical, but not all satire is post-ironic

Infinite jest is the worst book I ever read

>>84698317
so you can talk about these things as different all you want but people have used post-irony to describe new sincerity stuff too.

>>84698386
I'm aware, I just think it would be beneficial to differentiate between them. It's a tricky subject so I'm just trying to help explain it.

File: schwartzbard.png (2MB, 1489x991px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1489x991px

don't know about new-sincerity, but the comedy is definitely the most post-ironic film i've seen, and is probably the most realistic and realistic portrayal of someone who lives post ironically.

>>84697057
i've had this image saved on my computer for the longest time. thanks.

>>84698415
if you want to come up with useful words, take a lesson from the clusterfuck that is the 20th century and never, ever use the prefix "post". all it means is after. it's a big useless catchall that leads to exactly the kind of retarded hairsplitting we're doing right now

>>84698335
care to say why? im about to do it.

>>84698169
>want to make just a good fucking movie
>with no purpose

Sam Hyde's vertical vids are some of the most devastating post ironic videos ever made, prove me wrong.

Is the alt-right a form of new sincerity?

>>84696304
So it's bullshit? Cool.

>>84699671
>>84699671
Nah, Sam Hyde used post-irony and that sort of humour is a pretty big part of the alt-right.

>>84696432
He absolutely loved David Lynch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wie8uPgQOYE

>>84698574
Are you genuinely interested? If so, read this article. Its one of the most briliant book/author reviews ever written : http://exiledonline.com/david-foster-wallace-portrait-of-an-infinitely-limited-mind/

But in short: book is full of overcomplicated pretentious language that serves no other purpose but to scare readers into thinking they read something profound.

>>84695419
Not film, but honestly I'd say Doctor Who, Moffat consistently phrases his ideology through similar terms to DFW

>>84699899
That's an embarrassing review you should be ashamed of yourself.

>>84699861
How could he love that shitty movie so much, is there something I'm missing?

>>84695419
I will never not laugh at the greatly deserved ridicule of this hack fraud. Why bother reading someone who couldn't even live with himself? The only sincere moment in the life of David Foster Wallace was when he kicked away the chair. The rest of his life was a lie, the New "Sincerity" a joke whose punchline was the creaking of a leather belt around the rafter. His literary career was nothing but a menagerie of self help lies told to keep his depression at bay - the audience pussy and drugs were the ghosts at that feast of hypocrisy. The depression was warranted because behind all the self-awareness, gimmicks and bandannas was no discernible talent.

>>84701391
He seemed very aware that his book was shit. Probably even more when writing his second and realizing it was even worse. That's why he looks to others like Lynch, where you can't pinpoint if it's objectively good/bad as easily, so it's based around hype of mouth.

>>84701391
>>84701450
He said while staring mouth agape at his eternal entertainment machine.

>>84701015
Yes. It's one of the most loved and acclaimed movies of the 80's.

>>84701391
I love this copypasta

>>84697057
most of those movies are shit tho

Tim and Eric is the exact opposite of New Sincerity, their stuff is patently post-modern, cruel (for lack of a better word) and ironic. Whilst they are funny they mock and do shy away from genuine emotion.

Wes Anderson would be an example of a New Sincerity, his films are human and not afraid to show emotions which is exactly the traits >pic related describes

>>84702848
What I see in Tim and Eric is that their roots are in satire/parody of public access/shitty television, but they become so far detached from the source material they are making fun of, that their style is based on the pure aesthetics. Hence not ironic, but post-ironic. It's not being shitty for parody anymore, it's based purely on the enjoyment/comedy from those aesthetics.

File: 1496799562653.png (12KB, 246x200px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 246x200px

>>84699899
holy shit this was an astonishingly bad review

File: 1494624998877.jpg (7KB, 249x250px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 249x250px

>>84703021
>their style is based on the pure aesthetics
While I can't speak for Eric, you need only look at Tim's "I'm a Cuck" song and his recent fixation with internet culture to see how steeped in ideology his work really is, rather than aesthetics.

>>84703427
That's true. Even that cooking thing they did on Youtube was clearly a parody. But if you take something like their movie, it's sort of an extension of Awesome Show but without any real base to make fun of.