Why does /tv/ rarely talk about films pre-1950? and no occasional

Not enough quips

Because its boring.

>>85511370
Goddamn, Joan Bennett was terrific in that film

;__;

>>85511370
Because they're wildly out dated.

>>85511397
Some would say more intelligent

File: My.Own.Private.Idaho.1991.Criterion.Collection.REPACK.1080p.BluRay.REMUX.AVC.DTS-HD.MA.5.1-EPSiLON.mkv_snapshot_00.02.26_[2017.03.28_22.38.42].jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

I hardly enjoy anything from pre-60s.

Early cinema such as Griffith, Murnau, Von Stronheim feels dated.

Code era in Hollywood was heavily censored.
Pre-code era naratives and moralities are hilariously naive and silly in a bad way. I can't take the films seriously. There's some sort of weird bastardazation of film and theater that directors like Griffith have and feels like they weren't aware of it and it made their films so-so to me. I don't really think they understood the difference between a stage actor and film actor.

Respect to those that did films at that age and influenced future directors but I stay in what I prefer.

>>85511370
TSPDT lists a lot of old movies. Criterion is just a distribution company. What's wrong with them?

>>85511431
I ate people like you that think you're more "cultured"for watching films from the 30s and 40s. There are certainly gems in the decades prior, but largely film didn't get good until the 60s. Other then tepid exercise in film history or a "le wrong genertion" affinity, there's no reason to primarily watch pre-1960s films

>>85511370
Criterion is a publisher for getting people to know old films.
TSPDT is aggregate list.

Are you mentally ill? Why do you attack these? Did your Letterboxd thread die because nobody posted in those anymore?

File: 1501120500489.webm (3MB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 960x720px

>>85511535
How are they outdated? Everything formally was already pretty much done in the silent era.

>>85511397
Shouldn't you be posting in a GoT or capeshit thread?

>>85511582
>largely film didn't get good until the 60s.
Most pleb award of the day goes to you. There are tons of great movies before them and I dont watch them to front being "cultured". Quit projecting

>>85511607
>Criterion is a publisher for getting people to know old films.
>>85511607
AAHAAHHHAHAHHAAHAHHHHAHAHHHHAHAHHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAAHHAH

>>85511675
Criterion literally remasters old films so they can be preserved better for generations.

Why does Criterion trigger you? Are you jobless?

>>85511661
I already said there's a few gems, but largely it's all shit that mostly looks like filmed theater

>>85511607
He saw a meme image on 4chan telling him it's not okay to like Criterion because something about Reddit or pretension

>>85511704
There are a million far better labels that serve the same purpose

>>85511743
Yes, Criterion is not the only company that does it but they've a great releases nonetheless.

>>85511711
Most of everything in Criterion is shit with far too much of an emphasis on every minor Japanese flick

>>85511773
Criterion is style-over-substance

File: archo37.jpg (77KB, 500x640px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 500x640px

>>85511535
>pre-60s.

Jesus Christ, how much of a faggot are you? I mean, I can understand silent films or pre 40's, but most films from the 50's are perfectly watchable.

File: 1.jpg (765KB, 1920x816px) Image search: [Google]

765KB, 1920x816px

>>85511783
>dude everything is shit.
You don't win e-peen points by acting like a person who hates cinema. You aren't impressing anyone.

>>85511827
Not from Hollywood that is.

>>85511827
A lot of 50s films are shot really wide and stagey looking.

I don't watch films made before I was born. They all look shitty.

>>85511850
why the fuck do you keep insisting that earlier films look like theater stagings?

>>85511370
You know, I used to -- a lot -- before the shadowban shit started. Now it's like, why bother? Who knows what's really going on?

There is nothing wrong with Criterion. They released more hidden gems than any other company.

>>85511850
>I-it takes me out of the movie!

File: Brigadoon-KellyCharisse.png (203KB, 1024x397px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1024x397px

>>85511849
>Kwaidan
One o the worst stage films. This is an example of the no-taste historically lost Criterion drone.

>>85511939
>Thinks my picture was from Kwaidan.
-F.

>>85511783
There's heavy emphasis on golden-age Japanese movies because they were, by and large, never released in America outside of a few screenings. Also worth mentioning is that it's much easier for them to secure US distribution rights to foreign films that never had proper distributors outside of their home country, as opposed to anything from the major American studios.

File: yolandaandthethief613x463.jpg (246KB, 613x463px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 613x463px

was this a thinly veiled Minnelli thread all along? i'm down!

File: Woman_1918_film_poster.jpg (1MB, 1325x2012px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1325x2012px

>>85511919
>anything in criterion
>hidden gem
Pi-related is a hidden gem faggot.

>>85511939
Brigadoon is a fucking weird movie. My mom really likes it for the music/choreography but its premise is so bizarre. Good music though, and Danny Kaye is always great.

>>85511370
Anything pre new Hollywood is essentially a different film "language" that most people can't connect with because they haven't watched enough old films to understand it. There's nothing wrong with being someone who doesn't watch older films because it's a big time investment to "get it".

>>85512015
By Danny Kaye I meant Gene Kelly. I don't know why I always swap them.

>>85511971
>golden age Japanese films
Gooks have never had a golden age. Especially if you compare their garbage to Norwegian cinema

File: jimmy_stewart_in_its_a_wonderful_life.jpg (249KB, 750x564px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 750x564px

It's a Wonderful Life is unironically the greatest movie ever made.

>>85511827
>silent films

what mate? there are good silent films made.

as for films form the 50's, i think they just had a different idea of how to make movies then, and i dont dont care for it. even the way actors talk in movies at that time was diffrent. there is something very artificial about the way most actors in movies from the 40s through the 50s talk

>>85512002
It's so good no one remembers of its existence.

>>85511397
>>85511425
>>85511535
>>85511582
>>85511707
>>85511850
>>85511867
>>85512029
I honestly hope you're trying to rustle some feathers and you all don't really feel like this. Nothing saddens me more then a film fan who closes their mind off to anything before a certain time period. I hope you're better then that /tv/.

>>85512075
There's something artificial about the actors overall before 60s. I don't think I've bought a single performance from 20s or 30s.

Old movies are for pseuds.

>>85512029
>Anything pre new Hollywood is essentially a different film "language"
It's not when everything formally is already in silent films, what many would call actual cinema

>>85511370
>pre-1950
You mean pre-1970? Don't see much that predates Star Wars around here

>>85512059
>gooks
I wasn't talking about Korean cinema, but sure.

>>85512061
It's a great movie to be sure (one of my favorites), and I watch it at least once a year, but I don't think it's necessarily the greatest movie ever made. There is something to be said for just how endlessly watchable it is though.

>>85512102
>he doesn't know
Found the criteriondrone

>>85512106
perhaps its because you can recognize an actual man's voice in them so you feel intimidated

File: Screa.jpg (383KB, 1280x536px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 1280x536px

>>85512104
I ventured in and decided it was something I did not care for at all and then closed my eyes.

>>85512107
Declaring your ignorance to the world is nothing to be proud of anon.

>>85512113
Spanish cinema >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jap flicks

>>85511384
You're kidding right? Watch any Cary Grant movie.

>>85511580
>Criterion is just a distribution company. What's wrong with them?
They did their job well in a capitalist society.

>>85512138
Apparently I'm not the only one because this film has been largely forgotten.

>criteriondrone
What does this even mean? I watch a lot of films from different publishing companies? What now? Everything digitally restored is now shit? Can I at least like films released by Masters of Cinema or Kino Lorber? Or are they also too mainstream?

>>85512000
>Minnelli
Sorry, I can't find that name in Criterion Collection, never heard of him. I know about Jacques Demy though!

File: long good.jpg (590KB, 1280x692px) Image search: [Google]

590KB, 1280x692px

>>85512059
Hating films doesn't impress anyone on a film board. It's easy to say shit shit shit. Why don't you post your top 9 films and discuss what you like.

I don't understand how people can watch silent films. Doesn't the fact you're just listening to silence get boring? I admit I haven't watched one, but I can't imagine it's thrilling without the speaking, sound fx and soundtracks of modern movies.

>>85512225
>having a manufacturer tell you what to watch
Zoinks!

>>85512146
i am le badass i watch old movies, like a real MAN watches, as manly as beard and bacon and epic flannel shirts like a badass lumberjack

>>85512234
they have soundtracks

>>85512234
>sound fx
yikes!

>>85512247
>conflating two different things.
You need to take more lessons in rhetoric, letterboxer.

>>85512234
i dont find them boring. the thing about silent films is they are shot so you dont need talking and sound effects. (though sometimes effects were covered by the music track that was to accompany the film, like the piano plays certain key)

it's not like say watching a modern movie but with the audio muted. the actors had to portray emotion and speech through actions and facial expression. thats why you tend to get very exaggerated actions and expressions.

they are much different than modern films, so you have to understand that to get into them.

>>85512253
They do? I thought they didn't because they're called silent.

>>85512261
I mean car noises, gunshots, etc etc

File: p3118_p_v8_aa.jpg (756KB, 960x1440px) Image search: [Google]

756KB, 960x1440px

I actually managed to catch this one at a local theater. It was fun and nice to see a dysfunctional family

File: 1747567656.jpg (18KB, 400x319px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x319px

>>85512234
Some would say it's more intelligent

Link very much related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmsl9kgPgQQ

>>85512292
silent movies when they were played in theaters usually had music played with them, anything from a single piano to a small orchestra.

File: MV5BMTMzNDM3NzMxMF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwOTIyOTk4Ng%40%40._V1_SX640_SY720_[1].jpg (82KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 640x480px

Haven't watched too many 30s or 40s movies I've liked much but I like some silent movies and am always meaning to watch more. Mostly just well known stuff though. Haven't done much digging deep with that.

Actually most of the movies I like from the 30s and 40s are Hitchcock movies.

>>85512290
>the actors had to portray emotion and speech through actions and facial expression
They still have to.

Sound design and engineering isn't to bring the acting "to same level as it was before sound" as your post implies. It is to elevate the entire thing out of what was, a silent film.

>>85512267
>having a list compiled on a social media site tell you what to watch
Zoinks!

>>85512292
Silent movies didn't have embedded audio on the film but they would have live bands play in theatres.

>>85512290
Everyone understands they are different from modern film. Doesn't mean everyone should like them.

>>85512331
>Conflating four different things.
Mate you aren't good at this.

>>85512318
30s and 40s were not that great compared to the 20s and 50s, but still some gems

>>85512335
>what is Fox Movietone soundtrack
Zoinks!

>>85512354
I tend to gravitate more towards 30s and 20s rather than 40s and 50s, regarding my all time favorites, but there are great films in every decade.

>>85512354
>20s and 50s
Cancer
1910s>>>>>>>1930s>>>>>1940s>>>1920s>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>everything else

>>85512376
wikipedia says the first feature film to use it was in 1927, that leaves a lot of silent movies without it. even movies after 1927 didnt have it,

but yeah the technology did exist as of 1927.

>>85512409
No. Every cinephile worth their shit knows it goes

60s>70s>50s>20s>40s>30s>10s>90s>80s>00s

File: miami-vice-avion.jpg (80KB, 1600x570px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1600x570px

2000-2010 > everything else.

>>85512482
how many films have you seen, mr cinephile?

>>85512318
There were tons of great movies in the 30's and 40's. It's worth looking into. What's different about movies from that era as opposed to nowadays is that the blockbusters were actually usually the best movies, whereas nowadays shit like Fast and Furious is the highest grossing movie of the summer (not that there have been any great movies lately). If you're interested in exploring more movies from those decades, a good place to start are the more popular movies from that time rather than some arbitrary list from some random critic.

>>85512465
>wikipedia says
Should've just stopped there, pleb. Should've never entered the thread if you lack the most basic film history knowledge.

>>85512510
>good place to start are the more popular movies from that time rather than some arbitrary list from some random critic.
Yeah because tspdt's list isn't essentially a list of popular films

popularity ranking by box office income is just as arbitrary as some critic's word anyways.

>>85512510
>What's different about movies from that era as opposed to nowadays is that the blockbusters were actually usually the best movies
That's why they call it the Golden Age of Hollywood, doy!

File: heat.jpg (33KB, 480x320px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 480x320px

>>85511370
top of the world

>>85512534
>having a critic tell you what to watch
>having an aggregated list based on multiple critics tell you what to watch and like

>>85512534
It isn't arbitrary. By and large, the "good movies" from that era were successful at the box office as well. Going to the movies was a cultural event, a phenomenon that doesn't exist nowadays with the advent of the internet, streaming services, and TV. When a great movie came out, people would go out in droves to see it, with people often going every weekend to the movies. Movie theaters were institutions back then.

File: Paramount Theater.jpg (311KB, 964x720px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 964x720px

>>85512619
>what were picture palaces
Doy!

Another shitty thread with laughable "elitism".

>>85511370
Because most people here are teenagers or manchildren.

>>85512234
It's just an issue of accessibility. Eventually you'll see enough films that you can enjoy everything, no matter how old or strange.

>>85512789
This. The only people I know that watch "classic movies" are my grandparents

>>85512619
This is true only if we are talking about mainstream Hollywood movies. Many good foreign movies back then weren't even released in the USA.

>>85512810
>You can enjoy everything.
Then you have no taste.

>>85512234
Silent movies have soundtracks and in the soundtracks sometimes they function as sound effects too. It's actually a pretty unique experience and the majority of the story besides the few title cards there are is told through visuals. The scale of some of the movies from that era is still insane to someone used to modern movies too, and all of it was done with practical effects and actually built sets.

>>85512838
Fucking lies. Lots of theaters showed weimar films in the 20s. Many were even high grossers. It's why Hollywood tried buying up so much of their talent

>>85512842
I just meant that you can enjoy quality films regardless of the technological or narrative hurdles that come with older media

>>85512104
>trying this hard

Real kino started in the 70s with Star wars

>>85512889
But you still won't find them in top 10 box office hits.

Is this the thread where people pretend to like old boring shit to seem hip. There is not a single good movie from before the 80s

File: third man.jpg (693KB, 1000x1481px) Image search: [Google]

693KB, 1000x1481px

>>85511370
I watched this recently, absolute fucking kino boys

>>85512978
I like the idea of liking Orson Welles since his myth is interesting but I don't fucking like him.

>>85512914
>>85512956
Good bait, I got angry for a second

>>85512789
Exactly the type of people who watch this shit thinking they are so smart. Literally if you pretend to like old shit you should grow upq

>>85511370
Because there isnt anything worth discussing. Old movies aged like milk. Pick ANY new movie and it will still be better than black and white shit

File: Old AF.png (837KB, 634x4163px) Image search: [Google]

837KB, 634x4163px

>>85512978
>dat zither

Because there were like 1 good movie a year if you were lucky.

File: 1344829547777.png (38KB, 195x193px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 195x193px

>>85513096
>>85513018
>>85512956
Sure is samefag in here.

File: men in white 1934.png (322KB, 700x519px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 700x519px

Why doesn't tv talk about movies from the 30s more often?

>>85513187
Sgt York deserves to be on that list.

>>85513204
no, at LEAST 20 great films per year in the 30s and 20s

Most film productions, what got greenlighted and what didn't, was on a kike lockdown due to high cost of making a film. No wonder most American films before New Hollywood feel so artificial when it's kike infested propaganda 99% of the time.

Nowadays things are better since no creative person can pick up a decent smartphone and make a film with couple of bucks.

MCU makes more enjoyable kino

>>85513277
>what is pre-code
>what is united artists

>>85513322
>What is pre-code.
The same.
>What is united artists
the same.

We talk about old movies often enough, however we never talk about old TV shows besides twilight zone. A shame because a lot of old shows are pretty good. People like peckinpah or lumet started with TV shows.

>>85513314
how many posts have you made itt you fucking autist?

>>85513366
Which Dick Vn Dyke episode you wanna talk about?

>>85511370
>criterion shit doesn't count
You're a pseud retard, please kill yourself.

>>85513322
Who cares

File: Metropolis-gold.jpg (125KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1000x1500px

>>85511370
>>85511370

the ONLY pre 40s kino, prove me wrong

>>85512978
Try Double Indemnity too, the psychological tension in that noir-kino is stunning.

>>85513413
Let me guess, the only one you've seen as well?

>>85513413
The General and Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are pretty great. Sunrise is pretty good too.

All arthouse is avant teen tier. /tv/ is above that, we have actual taste

>>85513521
answer my question, how many posts have you already made itt? 50+?

>>85513490
Nothing else worth watching

the letterboxd threads talk about these gay ass boring movies.

>>85513552
2 now. Upset no one likes your grampa tier crap?

>>85511370
Because most anons here are plebby capeshit obsessed faggots with adhd.

>>85513619
There is literally nothing wrong with capekino. Fuck off to /r/oldtimerscinema

>>85513674
Shut up faggot its basically the same boring shit for the last 5 or longer years.
>muh diverse cast
>muh heroes who don't do anything but fight cgi monsters

Capeshit is literally nothing but mass produced garbage for people who don't care about cinema.

>>85513588
They don't ever since they got spammed to death by few autists

>>85513619
BVS:UC is a great film.

>>85513732
It was fucking boring dude.
It was just both superman and batman being edgy against eachother.

>>85512059
There is not a single good Norwegian film pre-2000 (that's not directed by a woman)
Fight me

>>85513721
>I hate fun, god forbid if someone actually enjoys life

>>85513829
Its kino at its finest you turbopleb.

>>85513936
Seventh Seal

>>85513978
>the same old formula is fun when the characters have different names but do more or less the same shit

>>85513992
>let me call him a pleb while my taste sucks michael bay's cock

File: 1487200629664.jpg (20KB, 345x309px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 345x309px

>>85514009

>>85511370

A majority of this board has very basic taste. It'd be like if /mu/ solely discussed what's on the top 40. I feel like as time goes on, even pre-1970 films become more and more of an acquired taste.

>>85512200
>>85511384
arsenic and old lace has some pretty based quips

>>85511370
it's weird jerking off to women who are dead now

>>85511654
sauce?

>>85514038
Its the same with /v/ desu.
There is a reason /tv/ and /v/ are known as the shittiest boards.

>>85514070
Nigga please.

>>85514038
/mu/ has the worst taste on this site

>>85514114
lol, /mu/ on average has far deeper knowledge of music than /tv/ has of film.

>>85514123
Why dont you go back there than

>>85514114

All the superhero shit makes me think otherwise. We're living in the golden age of capeshit, though It's like how the 30's were the golden age of horror, but those movies were better. /mu/ knows more about music than /tv/ does about film, from what I've seen. Haven't been a /mu/ guy since 2013.

>>85514070
that or they are 80. but kind of weirder with teh ones who are 80 as i find myself thinking, even thought they are wrinkled and disgusting, i think id still do them because of who they are and what they used to look like

File: Screen Sharing Picture July 27, 2017 at 1.59.33 AM PDT.png (6KB, 1090x22px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 1090x22px

>>85513234
I hope it will be. Thanks anon!

>>85514123
this is true, but most of the plebs on /tv/ have at least given up pretending to be patrician

File: 1498364021102.jpg (109KB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 500x280px

>>85511816
>makes a thread for pre-60s movies with film noire image, a genre literally dedicated to style over substance
>complains about style over substance
Ok so op IS stupid and hasn't the faintest clue about what he's talking about or film in general.

File: Sunset.Blvd.1950.PROPER.720p.BluRay.X264-AMIABLE.mkv_snapshot_00.02.34_[2017.07.27_11.09.48].jpg (56KB, 976x720px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 976x720px

>Yup, that's me. You're probably wondering how I ended up in this situation

defend this, you so called patricians

>>85512104
Not trolling, and not saying all old films are bad or unenjoyable, but in my attempts to watch pre-'90s movies I have found them overwhelmingly inferior to newer movies. I know there's something special about Citizen Kane, and I can see it well; I just don't like it.

>>85511370

Because the requirements for a film to be discussed on /tv/ is it has to be

>recent
>part of some pleb genre (crime/sci-fi/fantasy/action)

If it doesn't meet these, it's never discussed. Even older films talked about on /tv/ always end with 2001 SUKED IT WUZ OVERRATED WAT WUZ W/ DA ENDING and DUH THING IS DUH EPICKEST MOVIE EVER

/tv/ is pleb central. Not hard to understand.

>get recommendations from Grandma on films
>African Queen, 39 Steps, Charade, The Apartment etc
>get recommendations from /tv/ on films
>DUDE WATCH SPIDERMAN LMAO

>>85511535
>leftist
>brain dead plebian with no genuine appreciation or understanding of film
No surprise there.

>>85511827
>I can understand silent films or pre 40's
You're a fucking pleb, and I can tell you're not b8ing.
You have no understanding or genuine interest in film, leave this board forever.

>>85511816
Criterion has an almost 1000 film library including some of the most important and influential films from pre-50s and beyond and you'd have to be an absolute contrarian retard to make a blanket statement like that about that many films.

>>85514570
Where did you even get that I'm a leftist? Is this just another newspeak for fedora/reddit?

>>85514664
It's just some faggot from Letterboxd threads.

>>85514601
Not that guy, but (most) pre-40s film (well, pre-Welles film) operates with an entirely different cinematic language and it's understandable that it's harder to get into for people who haven't seen as many films.

Is it just me or are a lot of old films really incoherent? Like I have trouble following the plot.
>inb4 you're just retarded

>>85514743
Some of them, I guess. A lot of older noirs have labyrinth plots anyways.

>>85514688
>Pre-code era naratives and moralities are hilariously naive and silly in a bad way
Wrong! You must have watched very few films from that period. The best ones are surprisingly timeless.
>>85514720
Then they're plebs who should educate themselves or be quiet.
>>85514743
You're just retarded.

>>85511867
Nigga you better be 101.

>>85512978
There's a radio series prequel with Orson Welles. It's great, but a little more lighthearted.

>>85513366
Our Miss Brooks is tv kino. Forget I Love Lucy, OMB is 20X better.

primitive cinema is shit

Cheyenne is a good tv series.

>>85514373
>>85512152
Leave this board now.

>>85514483
I like your grandma. You should go visit her more often and talk movies with her.

My grandpa is all about Elvis movies. Nothing else. It's weird.

>>85512249
i am le epic limp-wristed left-winger i downboat on reddit and passive-aggressively make fun of masculinity like a real INTELLECTUAL as intellectual as starbucks and macbooks and cuckolding

>>85514743
They were made with the idea that people were paying attention. Some key plot point are brought up once and in a casual manner, compared to the storytelling techninques of mainstream Holywood movies of today who repeat key plot point and make sure it's in a dramatic scene so you get it even if you're playing with your phone or talking to your friends.

People who saw Mission: Impossible (Cruise, De Palma) tought it was too complicated. They literally tell you the plot in the movie but since it wasn't hammered to death in your head by the script, people were confused.

Every movie that doesn't follow that Hammering formula gets accused of having "plot holes".

>>85511370
because most of them aren't very good

>>85511370
Honestly because they're hard to find.

There's a couple I'm interested in right now but don't know where to look.

>>85512234
>I admit I haven't watched one
Holy fuck, /tv/ really is the worst board on this garbage heap.

File: tipped.jpg (26KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x450px

>>85511370
I myself, as a gentlesir, only enjoy cinemas produced before 1960, when men had class and women knew their place. It is understandable that redditors cannot comprehend these worlds full of enormous moral complexity.

*tips*

>>85514570
agreed, these plebians cannot appreciate fine cinemas like intelligent, enlightened individuals such as ourselves.

We must laugh as they are relegated to watching such plebian things such as Jersey Shore and the Kardashians.

I can't believe I share a board with such lowly uneducated peasants who cannot appreciate good kino such as me. I truly feel sorry for these plebs, as they are not intelligent enough to understand the sophistication and subtlety of old movies. I bet they are leftists as well, top kek my friends!

>>85515255
The internet. Many sites have free public domain movies (don't let the name fool you, some are great and classic. Their copyrights were never renewed for many reasons, that's all). A quick google search should yield many results.

Some tv channels (not sure about the us, but here in canadiana we have Silver Screen Classics and TCM

Youtube. Lots of free older movies in full lenght mode. Or there used to be, I haven't used youtube that way for a few years.

The internet archive. Many, MANY old movies to stream and/or download.

>>85515315
>Being a movie buff that only watches hella f*cking epic modern movies is alright because anything else is fedora! Probably virgin misogynists too omg ew! Upboats to the left!

>>85515315
Woman didn't knew their place even back then. Even 1920s and 30s movies had girl power. It just wasn't the retarded kind of girl power we see today.

File: fedora says.png (184KB, 332x396px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 332x396px

>>85515271
>I am a superior ubermensch, for I enjoy old films unlike the plebians

>>85515398
>>85515368

>>85515115
thats pretty cool

Some of my favorite movies are 30s and 40s era. Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein was something I watched as a kid and was my gateway drug into monster movies. And older movies in general. I think the Wolf Man is still one of the greatest horror movies on account of its creepy atmosphere, great make up, and legitimate drama. The performances really elevate it as well, but it had what amounts to an all star cast.

File: 5eb.jpg (26KB, 600x750px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x750px

>>85515368
Why are you quoting me like that fine sir? I agree with you, old movies are far superior to anything to modern pleb trash puts out. We are superior intellects for watching old movies and anyone who disagrees is probably leftist scum.

File: Lili_Damita_and_Victor_McLaglen.jpg (163KB, 521x708px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 521x708px

I am ashamed to be on this board after reading this thread

post qts

File: maxresdefault2.jpg (79KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1280x720px

DAE only enjoy old movies? I feel as if... I was born in the wrong generation. Please upvote this comment if you're one of the 1% who still watches REAL cinema and remembers that swag is for boys and class is for men.

>>85515440
I LOVE Cat People (the original). Perfect mix of noir and horror. Wolf Man is great too. Universal Monsters had a lot of good movies and a pretty good cinematic universe, as we call it today.

File: redditor.png (256KB, 468x365px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 468x365px

>>85515448
>>85515491
Like omg hilarious! Really nailed these stupid right-wing fedoras.
Why can't everyone be enlightened redditor berniebros/sistahs like us? Old movies were so misogynist and racist too, besides they're super boring lol.

File: Annex - Pickford, Mary_NRFPT_12.jpg (1MB, 1974x2500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1974x2500px

>>85511654
I've been watching a lot of silent movies lately and I really love them. They had to be creative in the ways they told stories because they couldn't speak, and that included using creative camerawork. The acting was amazing too. Emil Jannings gave two of the best performances I've ever seen in The Last Command and The Last Laugh. Lillian Gish in The Wind and Broken Blossoms also stands out. There were so many fresh ideas and so much imagination during that era, I'd gladly give up today's technological advancements to get that back.

I try to talk old movies sometimes. The threads never go beyond 10 posts (half of them my own).

You're doing well for yourself, OP. Almost 200 posts so far. That's amazing for /tv/.

File: 1468430949933.gif (324KB, 401x353px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 401x353px

I am truly enlightened by my own taste in film, I am simply too intelligent for most normies to understand. This woman tried to show me this movie that was in technicolour. The nerve of these fucking roasties trying to show me modern movies.

I told her to shove that modern pleb trash in the garbage where it belongs... I fucking hate plebs so much.

>>85515504

I haven't seen Cat People but I'll keep it in mind. I did pick up the legacy collection sets for the Universal Monsters. It's why I was so invested in the potential of the Dark Universe and ultimately why the Mummy is so disappointing. They could potentially fold all of these into it.

>>85515532
Looks like the fedora posting hit a nerve.

>>85513366
Series are for entertainment, kino is art. Thus it's okay to only watch plebian series, as that's the purpose of the medium.

>>85515585

It'd be great if the fedora memers would fuck off. Worst thing about this board is that people don't just talk about stuff they enjoy.

File: tipped2.jpg (133KB, 976x1300px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 976x1300px

>>85515532
You are a coward and not a true intellectual like I am. I sincerely doubt whether you are sentient or not. You do not belong on /tv/ if you cannot appreciate old cinema.

Figures, go watch your reality tv trash like the 75-IQ subhuman like you are

File: troll.png (80KB, 576x477px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 576x477px

>>85515608
Epic reddit-bro. Really got those right-wing neckbeards!
<---- My face when u trolled the whole thread lol

>>85512985
I loathe young Orson, but love old Orson

File: tipped3.jpg (85KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 500x750px

>>85515670
Why are you attacking me? I merely come here to discuss truly patrician cinemas with you, but you attack me

I suspect you are some butthurt fan of modern "entertainment media" who is upset that this thread is full of enlightened redpilled individuals discussing truly high art that your minuscule brain cannot comprehend.

>>85511654
kek the way they looked at those lesbians. Source?

>>85515544
The Wind was great. I've watched a few silents in the last 2 years and found that the ones who get rec all the time aren't the best ones. Phantom was okay, but not great. I felt the same about Nosferatu, Metropolis, Caligari, etc.

But The Wind, Sparrows, Chicago, Orphans of the Storm, etc. were fucking great.

Also:

Buster Keaton>Charlie Chaplin

There. I said it.

College doesn't even feel that dated as far as college experience go.

File: bernie_bro.png (677KB, 800x498px) Image search: [Google]

677KB, 800x498px

>>85515718
Lmao AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Right-wing retard virgin! Why don't you get a gf and stop being a virgin dude. I bonded with my lady over our shared love of hella f*cking epic marvel movies, that let's you actually meet other cool enlightened nerds. Get with the times!

>>85515601
Cat People is great. The sequel is really good, but not the same kind of movie at all. The remake is decent, but very 80s tits and blood.

Yeah, I felt the same about The Mummy. Dark Universe could have been so good. There was a few tries over the years to make it happen (Van Helsing, Dracula Untold, House of Frankenstein remake, etc.) but it always fizzled out.

The real problem with the new Mummy was that it felt like a superhero movie, not a Universal Monsters movie, or even a Brendan Fraser Mummy movie..

File: 1400944869886.jpg (82KB, 900x1344px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 900x1344px

>>85515813
Typical unenlightened leftist scum is unable to see the true magic of cinema. I truly feel bad for you sheeple, you do not possess the superior faculties that gentlesirs such as I have that allow them to enjoy cinema.

I feel sorry for lower lifeforms such as plebs such as yourself. You are not erudite like me, for I enjoy silent films. Now, if you excuse me I have a date with a bag of doritoes and Merle Oberon

File: THEMOSTORIGINALJOKEYOUEVERSEENPAYATTENTION.png (49KB, 836x571px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 836x571px

>>85515813
>>85515718
>>85515653
>>85515597
>>85515491
>>85515448
>>85515398
>>85515315
le hat joke ad nauseam
Kill me

I feel like people forget the age range they started browsing, which leads to them forgetting the target demographic that is probably still the majority of browsers.

File: bernbro.jpg (22KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 320x240px

>>85515940
lmao dude, watch your old boring white people gargabe while I go enjoy the heck out of the newest marvel capeKINO

>>85516008
>someone actually drew that picture thinking it was good reply
>someone actually saved it and used for another reply
lmao

>>85514373
Jesus fucking christ just kys

>>85516034
>You disagree with me,you probably wear a hat
>It's on greentext therefore it's true

>>85516008
the stereotype exists for a reason, i.e. young socially maladjusted men feigning discerning taste in a pretentious attempt to cling to a fleeting sense of superiority because they have nothing else going for them

like wow, the consumer culture you partake in is older than the consumer culture i partake in, you're so smart and erudite!!! it doesn't work that way

this thread is garbage and belongs on reddit

>>85513018
Found the manchild

Last older movies I watched:

The Red House (1947) 8/10
Topper Returns (1941) 6/10
He Walks by Night (1948) 7/10
Anne of Green Gables (1934) 8/10
King Kong (1933) 8/10
Stage Door (1937) 9/10
Wings (1927) 9/10

File: Girls.jpg (77KB, 600x536px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 600x536px

>HE PLAYED A BLACK AND WHITE MOVIE ON NETFLIX TO IMPRESS ME

>>85513978
>capeshit
>fun
It's boring cookie-cutter bullshit

File: 1476125572001.jpg (129KB, 1300x957px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1300x957px

>HE SAID HE ENJOYS "CINEMA"

>>85516146
Wings made me discover Clara Bow. That girl really liked to get nude.

>>85516068
Awesome. Do you study psychology? The badass way you just saw right through these nerds that watch old white people shit is fucking epic. I want to be abe to do badass take-downs like that too. Love it when they do that in marvel movies.
>like wow, the consumer culture you partake in is older than the consumer culture i partake in
Right?! It's all just consumer culture, nailed it dude! Marvel films are just as valuable as Ozu pretentious bullshit.

>the state of /tv/

>>85516186
Sounds like someone's butthurt because he realizes his "films" have the same intellectual weight as capeshit movies. Sorry you had to find out this way that movies are a pleb-tier medium.

>>85516182
During the trial of Daisy DeVoe, it was reported that Bow had sex with dogs.

File: Rich_evans.jpg (116KB, 500x390px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 500x390px

>the mere mention pre-1950 cinema has caused 200 posts of seething butthurt
This place is fucked

File: tipped4.jpg (23KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x400px

>>85516251
Agreed, these plebians do not understand patrician cinema like us intellectual gentlesirs. What a wretched state the cultural wasteland of /tv/ is.

File: atheism.jpg (50KB, 780x437px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 780x437px

>>85516277
I cannot understand how the /tv/ board on a website based primarily on anime can be so uncultured. A lot of phiillistines here that can not appreciate true intellectual cinema such as myself.

>>85516219
Oh man, you're actually patrician as fuck dude! Cynical and cool. Bet you only consume the finest literature because movie's as a whole is a pleb medium. Wish everyone could be as enlightened and cool as you. You just see right through ol' boring ass movies that use tricks to seem high-brow.
But I bet a patrician like you shouldn't waste anymore time on a board for film and tv.

File: fedora meme.jpg (29KB, 367x500px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 367x500px

>>85511370
Because most people who have actually watched them are senile or dead. You need a critical mass of individuals who have seen something to get a good thread about it going. There are not enough of us who watch silent films or early talkies to build the necessary momentum yet.

>>85516235
Meh, that's not as rare as you would think. My grandmother told me a story about her roomate putting peanut butter on her clit and letting her dog go to town on her. My grandma is a funny and dirty old woman lol

I really like Asphalt Jungle and It's A Wonderful Life

most "film noir" I find enjoyable

>>85516251
>and no occasional tspdt and criterion shit doesn't count
It was a bait from the start.

>>85516330
>he doesn't realize his entire argument could be applied in favour of capeshit

>>85512996
>getting angry over the tastes of anonymous strangers
embarrassing t b h

>>85516330
Oh man, you're actually patrician as fuck dude! Cynical and cool. Bet you only consume the finest films because capeshit as a whole is a pleb genre. Wish everyone could be as enlightened and tasteful as you. You just see right through ol' boring ass capeshit that use tricks to seem high-brow.
But I bet a patrician like you shouldn't waste anymore time on a board for film and tv.

>>85511397
it's really not. Most of these movie last 80 minutes and are tightly written

>>85516411
>He doesn't know what an argument is

>>85516433
>it's really not
Actually, yes they are. 80 minutes is a long time to be bored and "tightly written" is subjective.

>>85516442
>he thinks liking old movies makes him intelligent

>>85516452
You need to leave /tv/.
>>>/capeshit/
>>>/r/movies

File: best years of.jpg (250KB, 1500x1182px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1500x1182px

Literally my favorite movie tbqh

>>85516472
>i enjoy le cinema therefore i am le smart dae le wrong generation?
>calling anyone else reddit
I will stay here and there's nothing you can do to make me leave. How does it feel being this impotent and pretentious?

>>85516466
>He thinks writing off an entire are of art and entertainment that he has no real understanding of off makes him a true patrician while also justifying him for liking capeshit.

>>85516508
>le I go on a board about something I have no interest in, understanding or knowledge of
>u mad lol?
>le epic troll

Great thred. Jus a bunch of virtue signaling.

>>85516519
I have more understanding of old movies than you do. I've forgotten more about them than you will ever know.

That's what enables me to mock you for thinking that liking them makes you more intelligent.

File: 1365829531311.png (327KB, 495x498px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 495x498px

>>85516219
>I'm the real patrician because I watch capeshit
>It's all the same anyway lol
You're actually retarded

>>85516452
Most of them have a faster pacing than modern movies. Watch an Howard Hawks movie and you'll find the dialogue is more quippy than capeshit (but they are good quips) and twice as fastly delivered than the fastest Girlmore Girl speech.

>>85516565
It depends. Horrors were slower than modern ones. Also there were less cuts in older movies.

>>85516560
>thinking that liking them makes you more intelligent
No one's saying that though. I believe the argument is that your dismissal of them entirely makes you an idiot.

problem I have is it's hard to tell if a character is being natural or not

I like Harvey, but I don't know what bar etiquette was then so it's hard to tell how comedic or dramatic they're being

>>85516562
But other anon is right, there's nothing special about "films"

Watching a certain genre of movies doesn't make you an intellectual and pretending otherwise is posturing.

>>85516565
I just watched The Thing from Another World, Bringing Up Baby and His Girl Friday back to back.
Good times.

I'm kinda gay for Grant now tough...

I simply find most pre 1960s films exhausting to the eye and the ear. The Third Man and The Big Sleep are examples of 'good' films that literally give me headache. The earliest films I can really say to enjoy are Dial M for Murder (1954) and 12 angry men (1957). Age only stopped mattering after Blow-Up (1966).

Safety Last! (1923) is one exception.

>>85516430
Anti-capeKINO nerds BTFO!
Thor >>> boring ass old films

>>85516597
>No one's saying that though

see
>>85512789
>>85511431
>>85512306

>>85516608
Ok, but dismissing an entire era of film in favour of watching capeshit is a pretty strong indication that you're mentally handicapped

>>85516650
>Ok, but dismissing an entire era of film in favour of watching capeshit
When did I dismiss old movies in favour of capeshit?

Maybe if you could read, you would realize I was making fun of the pretentious fedoras who think that watching old movies makes them smarter or more cultured than anyone.

>>85516594
I sort of disagree. Many modern horror movies wait the 45 minutes mark before they trully begin. I guess it depends on what movies you've watched.

I do like my movies with less cuts tough, but that's mostly due to the way movies are cut these days. It's not so much about the number of cuts, it's about the kind of cuts and when they happen, if you know what I mean.

>>85516650
He didn't dismiss it. He flatout states that film is a mediocre art form, which it is, due to the insanely high costs, political correctness w/r/t is released and million other things.

mean while a great writer that can change the world only needs a 10 cent pen, rubber and some paper.

>>85516675
Watching old/good films does make you more cultured though, all butthurt capeshit fans aside.
Someone who's read the greeks is more cultured than someone who's only read John Green and Rupi Kaur.
Same with films.

>>85516742
>Watching old/good films does make you more cultured though
No it doesn't you fucking fedora faggot. There was plenty of forgettable pulp trash produced in the 30s and 40s.

>>85516608
Why did you put films in quotes? Are they not actually films?

>>85516808
Just call them movies you pretentious twat.

>>85516742
>>Watching old/good films does make you more cultured though
Watching old films makes you cultured, in old films. Watching new films, makes you cultured in new films.

but again film industry was so kike controlled up until the last 20 years where even the smallest ambition could go and record a film that it doesn't really make you intellectual to watch some jew orchestrated propaganda from the 1920s/10s, let alone code era crap or war propaganda.

>>85516713
Books are almost all shit now. Great writers don't get picked up anymore, it's all about muh YA money. Most decent writers these days don't have a style of their own, either they're generic as fuck or just copy an earlier writer(s) they admire.

I'm an avid reader and I find myself going back to older books more and more. I just can't deal with the shit that comes out now. A lot of it wouldn't even have made it to publication just 2 decades ago.

>>85516817
Explain exactly how the word film is pretentious.

>>85516817
film means the same thing anon

>>85516713
>mean while a great writer that can change the world only needs a 10 cent pen, rubber and some paper.
>due to the insanely high costs
>Production costs have anything whatsoever to do with quality

>political correctness
>all good art has to be politically subersive, and this is a good proxy for quality
>no films have ever been politically controversial/incorrect

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Kill yourself.

>>85516757
>strawman
1.) Run-of-the-mill films are likely to be forgotten with time, so the old films we still remember are more likely to be good
2.) Old films has a longer period in which they can have influenced others so watching them may give you greater understanding of later films and the history of film.

>>85516843
>all films are made by Hollywood
>old films were war propaganda
>all I need to say is jews, and I have a point
You're irredeemably stupid.

>>85516843
Not only USA produced films in 1920s, you know? And what's wrong with Jewish filmmakers? You sound like a dumb, butthurt anti-Semite who has nothing interesting to say.

File: 41252639-Angry-redneck-yells-and-shouts-while-smoking-a-cigarette-Stock-Photo.jpg (152KB, 1300x866px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1300x866px

>>85516817
>mfw somebody calls the looky talky box a "television"

>>85516862
pre·ten·tious
prəˈten(t)SHəs/
adjective
adjective: pretentious

attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

>>85516848
Spoken like a someone that does not read.

>>85516925
You failed. Get out.

>>85516938
Give me some good authors post-2000s. I read a ton, but maybe I don't read the right things.

>>85516871
The tremendous cost of film making essentially strips film as a medium, from the actuality of the art such as novel or dancing, or even architecture.

The tremendous cost of film making makes film a product of work and not art. There is a monetary risk, gain and compensation involved as like in no other proper art which makes it hollow.

>>Production costs have anything whatsoever to do with quality
Have everything to do with the quality of the medium as art itself.

Just because you are not politically correct does not mean you are politically subversive, do not play half-assed word tricks here.

>>85516969
Calling something a "film" when "movie" will suffice is extremely pretentious my man and anyone who isn't pretentious will agree. Now kys.

>>85516985
Like, what do you mean? Do you want authors born on 1st Jan. 2000 or authors that have written book(s) in the past 20 years?

>>85517017
Second one, you autistic cutie.

>>85516996
Is this 1920s? You know there is something like independent film?

>>85517076
I know. That is why I dislike old films. That is why I love newer film making era.

>>85516996
>Have everything to do with the quality of the medium as art itself.
What the hell are you on about? Justify yourself or get out, in what way does increased production costs detract from something as a work of art?

>The tremendous cost of film making makes film a product of work and not art
Why is there a dichotomy? Why is the work that goes into a film different from the work that goes into a novel?

>There is a monetary risk, gain and compensation involved as like in no other proper art which makes it hollow.
Wrong, there is "monetary risk, gain and compensation" in all art, until the money stops existing.

>>85516146
>Stage Door (1937) 9/10

my nigga

>>85517098
Because it filters the people who can even craft a film down to a bunch of controller persons with monetary gain and other strings attached to them. It's dishonest to call it art on the level of theater or singing.

> Why is the work that goes into a film different from the work that goes into a novel?
Do we pretend here that a cultural marxist subversion of western values by degenerate works of film is not a real thing and high profile film making is not factually closed to 99% of people who hold a camera?

>Wrong, there is "monetary risk, gain and compensation" in all art, until the money stops existing.
No. A man can sing out of sadness, a man cannot direct a film in 1910s out of his sadness, and even if a man could have done that the product would have been work, not art, a consumable product (as the production of film is not that of creation of art, but is indifferent from creating a VHS tape itself or CD et cetera.)

>>85517098
>Wrong, there is "monetary risk, gain and compensation" in all art, until the money stops existing.
It's disingenuous to say that the monetary risk involved in writing a short story is the same as the monetary risk in producing a 50-million-dollar movie.

>>85517188
>50 million dollar movie.
Boy you broke? That's barely a budget. You can barely make a film with that in Hollywood.

>>85517169
>It's dishonest to call it art on the level of theater
You also need money to stage a play.

>>85512295
Check out "It's a Gift" by WC Fields too... he has an awful family in it. Some very funny scenes.

>>85517219
You're wrong. There's plenty of less than 50 millions movies in Hollywood, even now.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/budgets/all

>>85517232
Oh no, I have to get 8 dollar wig when I play the Sun King. Updating the wardrobe is still less expensive and accessible to more people than producing a film.

But the matter of the fact is that theater is a creation of art because it holds the actuality that a film as a product of work.

>>85517169
>Because it filters the people who can even craft a film down to a bunch of controller persons with monetary gain and other strings attached to them. It's dishonest to call it art on the level of theater or singing.
Writers used to (and someplaces still are) killed for writing the wrong thing. Plus gov's and publishers dictate what books are published and what not. All expression is controlled, that does not make it not art.

>Do we pretend here that a cultural marxist subversion of western values by degenerate works of film is not a real thing and high profile film making is not factually closed to 99% of people who hold a camera?
Are you implying all films are that? Are you implying that only art that absolutely everybody has equal access to produce/distribute is "art"? Cause if so, nothing is art, as there is nothing everyone has equal access too.

>product would have been work, not art, a consumable product
You still haven't justified your dichotomy between "work" and "art".
>(as the production of film is not that of creation of art, but is indifferent from creating a VHS tape itself or CD et cetera.)
Why isn't this the case too with physical books, staging of plays, construction of buildings etc?

You have no idea what you're talking about and are obviously simply grasping desperately for straws to justify your plebianness. Don't post again.

>>85517316
>You have no idea what you're talking about and are obviously simply grasping desperately for straws to justify your plebianness
Not an argument.

>>85517288
You have to pay the actors and big names are not cheap.

>>85517342
No that's an insulting categorization, you'll find arguments above it. The fact that you respond to it and not them, implies my categorization is correct.

>>85517169
>cultural marxist subversion
>complain about old Hollywood movies made by Jews which were almost always very conservative
>praises indie movies which are almost always left-wing or avant-garde
Whoa.

>>85517285
Damn it's cool to see I can make a film with 1 million USD, I'll just get that out of the bank right away - I've already addressed that modern cheap cameras even smart phones have brought more of art to film than there used to be hundred years ago. I do not deny it anywhere.

>>85517316
>Writers used to (and someplaces still are) killed for writing the wrong thing
Yes, and? Putting your life on the line for your beliefs (something a film cannot do, its controlled process by its producers) is amazing feat.

>Plus gov's and publishers dictate what books are published and what not
You can self-publish in the Internet, /lit/ has published a book ffs.

>All expression is controlled, that does not make it not art
Sophistry died like, 2000 years ago mate. Plato buried it.

>You still haven't justified your dichotomy between "work" and "art".
Film lacks the actuality that a sad man writing a poem spontaneously out of his heart can have. The production of a film is indistinguishable from what you call work, production of a bluray, or a car, or an old factory. The process is largely the same, the actual "art" part is the most miniscule part of the process and is monetized more often than not.

>Why isn't this the case too with physical books, staging of plays, construction of buildings etc?
Because you can write a book on a bunch of papers, you can sing at the moment. The actual physical process of copying the book et cetera. comes later and is wholly distinguished. You will not mistake a man writing a book to a man using industrial machine to copy the book.

>>85517346
No you don't. Get your friends, moron.

>>85517441
I've only been positive about the logic of modern film making

>>85517465
>No you don't. Get your friends, moron.
Yeah, it will be as successful as a film made with your friends.

>something a film cannot do, its controlled process by its producers
You know very little about early filmmaking. Stroheim, Vigo, Yamanaka, Bunuel and many others did what they wanted, often tricking the producers or even insulting them with their works.

>>85517014
They literally mean the same thing you fucking idiot

>watching films post the pre-code era

mmmmmmm

>>85517824
t. pretentious faggot butthurt

>>85513413
>What is Trouble in Paradise

>>85517632
I have never denied people mocking the producers, but even you say, they had to trick them so the control was there.

Who knows if one of the friends is a great actor.

>>85517990
it's a movie

bump?

>>85517990
Ernst Lubisch is terribly underrated. The Smiling Lieutenant is one of the best films I've ever seen.

>>85517465
>Yes, and? Putting your life on the line for your beliefs (something a film cannot do, its controlled process by its producers) is amazing feat.
A film can very well do that moron, it's just that more people (usually) are implicated, even so the publisher might get in trouble too.

>You can self-publish in the Internet, /lit/ has published a book ffs.
Yes, same with film, you can distribute your film independently on the internet for example.

>Sophistry died like, 2000 years ago mate. Plato buried it.
Not sophistry, control of information, which is a constant. And which you use as an argument for films not being art, but all art is controlled to a certain extent. That does not make it not art. Most places, for most of history you could not write what you wanted (and be able to distribute it) why does that make it not art?

>Film lacks the actuality that a sad man writing a poem spontaneously out of his heart can have
Pre-thought does not preclude artistic quality, in any case this just reflects your completely flawed and overly romanticized view of the creative process. Most great novels have been edited, fixed up and re-edited, by the writer himself and the publisher.

>The production of a film is indistinguishable from what you call work, production of a bluray, or a car, or an old factory.
What does it matter what the production looks like? A writer sitting by his desk, or a camera team filming actors while being given direction by the director. Why does any of these exclude the possibility that the product is art?

>Because you can write a book on a bunch of papers, you can sing at the moment
>You will not mistake a man writing a book to a man using industrial machine to copy the book.
The papers are produced by industry, but why does that matter. Paper, pen, camera, lighting all just material things which are used to produce art as tools. Does the form of production of these tools matter? Of course not.

You just might be retarded.

>>85518111
So, writers have had to trick publishers and governments?

>>85519416
>A film can very well do that moron, it's just that more people (usually) are implicated, even so the publisher might get in trouble too.
A film can perhaps nowadays with it being less of a controlled medium do that.

>>85519416
>Yes, same with film, you can distribute your film independently on the internet for example.
Give me example of 1910s -director, actor, writer, screenplay author, distributing "his" film in the internet.
You can't. Besides, few directors own the copyrights to their films. Many aren't that rich. Speaks volumes about how shit of an art form film is.

>>85519454
And with a lot more freedom for a lot longer time.

>>85519416
>What does it matter what the production looks like?
Creation or producing of something is essential to that which is being created. And film, most definitely, looks more like work.

>>85511370
Because everybody was an overacting loud talker.

>>85519480

>A film can perhaps nowadays with it being less of a controlled medium do that.
Moron, a film could always be politically unacceptable. Tons of films have been banned, just as books.

>Give me example of 1910s -director, actor, writer, screenplay author, distributing "his" film in the internet.
Give me example of 1910s- writer distributing "his" books in the internet.
Can't? Whoops, guess there is no pre-internet art.

>Besides, few directors own the copyrights to their films.
Many writers are dead, or sold their works for scraps to buy food, does art necessitate any specific conditions regarding copyright?

>And with a lot more freedom for a lot longer time.
So? The essential is still the same. Film is a younger medium than literature, does this make it not art? Why does the age matter? Painting is older than literature, is literature not art?

>Creation or producing of something is essential to that which is being created
But you're only touching on the absolute most superficial aspects of creation, ie what it freaking looks like to an outside observer. Even so, a man writing a masterpiece work of literature may be indistinguishable from a man writing a law commentary.
>And film, most definitely, looks more like work.
Again, what it looks like. Doesn't matter at all. If I'm dictating my novels to a servant dressed as a clown while jerking off, that doesn't exclude my writings from being art.

>>85519667
>a film could always be politically unacceptable.
The potential is different from actual.

>Give me example of 1910s- writer distributing "his" books in the internet.
You conflate my post about modern film making and modern writing to my disagreement with old film making and new film making. Stop lying about what I've compared.

>Many writers are dead, or sold their works for scraps to buy food, does art necessitate any specific conditions regarding copyright
You do understand that a film director without copyright to a film he made (another sign of work) would get a good fine and probably jail time for distributing it? Film makers generally are too beta to do this.


>The essential is still the same.
Level of actuality is completely different, but it has turned better for film in the past 20 years but still very high in comparison. Early cinema is out of the question, it's nothing but a product of work for money.

Writing a commentary on law might or might not be its job, thats not at issue here. What it looks like matters very much, or why woudl you be interested in a visual form of art?

>>85519776
>The potential is different from actual.
Many films have been politically unacceptable, there's not mere potential.
So no literature up until the first politically unacceptable literature were written is actual art? So then the works of Homer are not works of art?

>You conflate my post about modern film making and modern writing to my disagreement with old film making and new film making. Stop lying about what I've compared.
Hey faggot, you claimed film is a shit medium as a whole. Besides, you absolutely CAN distribute your ind.prod film online, just as you can distribute your shitty fanfics online.

>You do understand that a film director without copyright to a film he made (another sign of work) would get a good fine and probably jail time for distributing it?
Same with a writer or publisher. Does not matter anyway in the slightest.

>Level of actuality is completely different, but it has turned better for film in the past 20 years but still very high in comparison. Early cinema is out of the question, it's nothing but a product of work for money.
1) You claimed film as a medium is shit, 2) Why does "work" preclude something being art? 3) All art includes work, sculpture, literature, whatever.

>Writing a commentary on law might or might not be its job, thats not at issue here. What it looks like matters very much, or why woudl you be interested in a visual form of art?
1) It is the issue here, because the commentary on law would not be art, yet it looks like the writing of a novel, which could be art.
2) Film is a visual medium, but the visuals only matter in the final product, what the production looks like to an outside observer absolutely do not matter. Or why does it? A writer writing, or a sculpter or painter working away may not "look" like much either, yet it does not exclude the possibility of the works being art.

File: this is not pure actuality of thought according to tv.jpg (19KB, 316x499px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 316x499px

>>85519971
>Many films have been politically unacceptable, there's not mere potential.
And yet that is the outlier, since the level to require to even make a film in 1910 was reduced to select few.

>So no literature up until the first politically unacceptable literature were written is actual art?
Again, you conflate what I've said about freedom of expression to the sole meaning of art.

>Hey faggot, you claimed film is a shit medium as a whole
I have not once said this. Stop lying.

>Same with a writer or publisher. Does not matter anyway in the slightest.
What in the bajanas? I can write and have a copyright instantly to my work. You couldn't shoot in the 1910 and have copyright to your film unless you were v. rich. Go check how much of his work Griffith owned. Not only does film look like work, it behaves like work!

>1) You claimed film as a medium is shit
Stop spreading lies, I have not once said it film as a medium is shit.

>Why does work preclude something being art.
Because of the actuality of the art is incompatible with work.

>Commentary on law would not be art.
It is essentially philosophy of the law and philosophy, is, art. Cashier writing a check is not a form of art, as it is bears the markings of work.

>>85520127
>And yet that is the outlier, since the level to require to even make a film in 1910 was reduced to select few.
Books being politically unacceptable too are outliers. Literature not art?

>What in the bajanas? I can write and have a copyright instantly to my work. You couldn't shoot in the 1910 and have copyright to your film unless you were v. rich. Go check how much of his work Griffith owned. Not only does film look like work, it behaves like work!
Why in the fuck does copyright matter? Copy-right wasn't even a thing for most of human history, so literature produced before copy-right law cannot be art?

>Stop spreading lies, I have not once said it film as a medium is shit.
Then you''re some other retarded faggot than the one from longer up in the chain:
>Besides, few directors own the copyrights to their films. Many aren't that rich. Speaks volumes about how shit of an art form film is.


>Because of the actuality of the art is incompatible with work.
1) What does "actuality of the art" here mean? 2) Why is it incompatible with work? 3) Why is the work necessary to produce literature so fundamentally different from the work required to produce films that it renders the one thing capable of being art, and the other not?

>It is essentially philosophy of the law and philosophy, is, art. Cashier writing a check is not a form of art, as it is bears the markings of work.
1) Philsophy isn't art.
2) Law is most definitively not art
3) You're now just re-defining terms away from their actual meaning retarded faggot. Commentary on alaskan fishing laws is not art for fucks sake.
4) "What" was being written was not important, it could just as well be someone practicing terms from a foreign language, in any case two different things, one art, the other not may have a prod.process which looks alike. Ie, what the "production" looks like, wether it's a writer sitting by a desk or a film crew, director and actors working DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER IN THE SLIGHTEST.

because 1950's was when cinemas turned into absolute kino

>>85511535
watch some kurosawa, pleb friend.

>>85511370
Because this board is a turd, and most of the people here are shitflies.

>>85512191
si si si senior si yes bueno si