Why doesn't /tv/ watch more pre-1940s movies? TSPDT and

Movies didn't really have the pacing and tension down yet.
And no I'm not saying that because of short attention span. I like slow movies. But there is a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it.

>>86864052
>>86863883
This. I can watch Griffith films and appreciate recognizing all the cinematic techniques used even today in certain scenes, but as a whole they are not as tightly edited and precise as the film of post 1940s are, the best term to describe them is "raw".

Though I admit I didn't watch a lot of them besides D.W. Griffith and the classics like M or Metropolis.

>>86864052
>>86864271
>tension
You're watching movies for the wrong reason in my honest opinion.

Films tested by the ravages of time survived the test of titans for a good reason, they're eternal classics.

Reminder that Bruce Melvin (OP) is a mouth breathing retard.

>>86863883

I do. It's just that no one here wants to talk about them. They'd rather discuss shit like Game of Thrones, Star Wars and all that.

>>86864943
Shakespeare is pretty dated, amirite?

Pre-1940 movies I've watched this year
>The Four Feathers (Zoltan Korda,1939)
>The Real Glory (Henry Hathaway, 1939)
>Zéro de conduite: Jeunes diables au collège (Jean Vigo, 1933)
>Bed and Sofa (Abram Room, 1927)
>It Happened One Night (Frank Capra, 1934)
>Things to Come (William Cameron Menzies, 1936)
>The Lady Vanishes (Alfred Hitchcock, 1938)
>King Kong (Merian C. Cooper, Ernest B. Schoedsack, 1933)
>Morocco (Josef von Sternberg, 1930)

What about you, anons?

>>86865634
I love The Four Feathers. What a fucking great film that is. Watching it again tonight now

>>86863883
>TSPDT and Criterionshit doesn't count
okay so nothing on your 3x3
got it

File: diary_of_lost_girl.png (755KB, 960x738px) Image search: [Google]

755KB, 960x738px

>>86865634
Just finished Pabst's Diary of a Lost Girl

Louise Brooks a cute! CUTE!