/film/ can be achieved. Not as a board, but as an approach

I'll check out Still Walking, seeing as you seem to recommend it.

And I haven't seen this, but feel free to give us a review, account, anything. That's what the thread is for. Trying to spark up a discussion. It worked when I posted this thread a few moths ago, just takes some effort to get the ball rolling.

Now if you're willing to provide something substantive.

Good job ignoring the shitposter. Keep it up.

Once you realise not responding to them and ignoring their rampant attempts to derail threads completely disempowers them, looking at their helpless, pathetic posts becomes amusing.

Jews have been at fault for literally everything wrong in humanity since the 18th century

Sorry bub, I'm posting from my tablet so i can't say much other than if you are big on auterism and have seen the taking of power by louis then you will love it

Duly noted. I'll take a look.

Look into Hong sang-soo too! Hill of freedom was somewhat bemusing heart warming. Definitely one of the more interesting directors currently working in SK

And hilarious at times*

I've heard the name. I'll look into it as well. Cheers.

You a big fan of asian cinema in general then?

I've recently taken a big interest in Jia Zhangke. Really recommend him. His entry for venice 70 future reloaded is somewhat hilarious:

youtube.com/watch?v=0Y1RqMsySTY

Elaborate.

I'm a fan of all cinema, though, surprisingly, Asian cinema isn't really an area I'm fully developed in. I have no ambivalence towards it or anything, I just haven't fully explored it yet. I know plenty of names, just need to put the experience of watching them to them, ha! I'm familiar with Zhangke, but I'm yet to watch any of his films! My absolute favourite without a shadow of a doubt is Tsai Ming-liang, particularly his film 'I Don't Want to Sleep Alone'. Deffo worth checking out!

Be honest, you're a redditor are you not?

no it can't youre all a bunch of stuck up loser faggots

I need to get up to speed on my asian cinema too, more than yourself I would imagine.

I'll check out anything you recommend. Thanks.

As for Zhangke, I think 'Touch of Sin' is probably a nice place to start.

And I know the feeling! Lists of names, barely any of them watched. It can be haunting.

Weerasethakul is another good asian lad.

I'm also in the midst of watching Masaki Kobayashi's 'The Human Condition'. About halfway through. It's split into sic or so parts. So far I think it's worth a look. Lot's of melodramatic japanese women, but also a lot of sincere humanistic themes.

Bane?

>Well, what mainstream are we talking here?
>If you can discuss it intelligently I'm all ears.

Extremely mainstream, as in typical Hollywood fare. Me and my family generally go to the movies at least every other weekend.

I'm hoping that there's someone in this thread that can answer a question for me concerning the following:

Have any of you ever encountered an instance in either film or literature where fictional characters that have achieved some degree of cultural identity are written and portrayed in such an uncharacteristic manner as to convey a message via the dissonance between their depiction in the work and accepted norms for their character?

By way of example, I present a hypothetical scenario in which Santa Claus is depicted ignoring the whole naughty/nice rule and guilt trips the parents into buying things they can't afford for a child that doesn't necessarily deserve the indulgence, all while trumpeting a "there are no bad children" message, but in a blatantly transparent manner that he's obviously intended to be seen as a corporate stooge, the theme being that rampant consumerism and participation-trophy parenting are detrimental to the development of a child's character.

Is there a name for such a technique?

Yeah, Joe's latest (cemetery of splendour) only just got over here recently, definitely his best so far.

I'll check that one then Platform!

And as far as representation of women in Japanese cinema goes, I'll take Naruse any day.

I remember this thread from few months ago

kek

Actor as auteur, though there's no official name as far as I'm aware.

I thoroughly enjoyed Cemetery of Splendor. Would watch again. Have you watched Tropical Malady? I'm yet to watch it, but I have a copy.

Any particular Naruse to recommend? I'm unfamiliar.

You can find this sort of shit on reddit. I suggest you get your pseudointellectual ass over there, faggot.

guys >>>/film/ is 403'd, it's gonna happen soon.

old /film/ bro here.

give up. i don't mean that in a dismissive way - it's a fine sentiment and all - but it is going going to end up being a lot of wasted effort on your part. the pleb uprising was final and damning. the pace has been set now. don't find this out the hard way.

simply post in the spirit of new Cred Forums or move on.

...

Thanks. I think I recently encountered some instances of this and was fascinated by the concept.

>going going

derpderp typo.

seriously though move on. /film/ is an antiquated notion now.

What you're talking about sounds like it's somewhere between parody, satire, and farce.

I encourage you and the poster you're talking to to complete The Human Condition. It's pretty amazing.

I haven't!

Sound of the Mountain, Floating Clouds and Yearning :)

And as a random recommendation; Stolen Desire by Imamura. It's a critique of the industry told through a travelling theatre - it even comes with a sappy ending (that I prefer to read as satire, haha).

If you yourself just posted something of substance instead of this jaded grumbling, we'd be well on the way.

So far in this thread alone I've picked up three new films/directors to check out. The impossibility of /film/ discussion is all in your head.

Ignore the shitposters. Contribute. Enjoy. Simple as.

For a start, have you seen any of the three films mentioned in the OP? If not, what's the last film you have seen that merits discussion?

It's easy m8

It really is, Rock Hudson in Seconds is a notable example (a fantastic paranoid picture too)

>My absolute favourite without a shadow of a doubt is Tsai Ming-liang, particularly his film 'I Don't Want to Sleep Alone'
wtf that's one of his worst movies

I'm enjoying it a lot so far. My mother is Japanese, and she tells me there was a tv series version that she prefers. I highly doubt I'll be able to find a subtitled copy though.

How about you user? Have you seen any of the films mentioned in the OP? If you haven't, is there any film you would like to discuss/recommend/etc. Get the ball rolling. I'm willing to discuss anything to the degree that I am capable of it.

Cheers again. I'm looking forward to checking these out.

I absolutely loved Imamura's Insect Woman. Have you seen it? I've been looking for another one of his to watch, so, thanks again, I'll check that out. I have a copy of "the pornographers" which looks promising.

BANE?

Big Al is essential cinema (worldwide) by now
Blissfully Yours is one of the best movie I've ever seen

Thanks! I'll check that out.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

I've barely delved into my Imamura boxset, haha. I'll get around to them sooner or later. I'm thoroughly impressed by his debut though!

>If you yourself just posted something of substance instead of this jaded grumbling, we'd be well on the way.

but i am posting something of substance: i am making direct efforts to save you a lot of time.

the altruism is neat and all and i appreciate the passion but i've been here for years and years and i can tell you that it's pointless to fight the cycles. don't bother. but i rarely lurk or post here anymore (or Cred Forums as a whole for that matter) so i've no real horse in this race. fight the cycle if you'd like -- but it's a fool's errand.

I'm off now, nice talking to you lot, anyway, hope you enjoy the films I recommended!

How can I get more into noticing good cinematography? What are some good suggestions of films with good cinematography?

I really enjoy movies with good lighting techniques, like Eyes Wide Shut, Collateral, Only God Forgives

...

seriously kill yourself
what's a pathetic piece of shit like you doing here?

>I really enjoy movies with good lighting techniques

Learn that good cinematography doesn't equate to looking nice. Cinematography is pure storytelling, and so if the frame doesn't evoke a story, the cinematography just isn't good.

fuck off, reddit

Big Al? Is that a nickname?
I've been meaning to watch Blissfully yours for ages.

He was Ozu's assistant director for while I believe. I've read that his films can be seen as guided by the cinematographic and editing sensibilities of Ozu, but turned towards more marginal and perverse characters. Made sense when I watched the Insect Woman.

You're putting so much effort in pointing out how pointless effort is.

I urge you once more to respond to the substantive questions I have offered. If you won't do so, don't waste your time replying.

Come back soon, friendo.

Try the film "Spirit of the Beehive" mentioned in the OP. Good lighting abounds. Plus it's fucking great.

You might enjoy wolfcrow's breakdowns of various cinematographers:

youtube.com/watch?v=mLh-BUaPkno

Have a copy. Will watch soon. Looks very promising.

>I urge you once more to respond to the substantive questions I have offered. If you won't do so, don't waste your time replying.

lol don't get catty you goofy little dip. i'm only offering some pragmatic advice. you could just as easily ignore my posts as snap at them.

What did he mean by this?

...

I've got some time tonight and am looking to watch a good film, can anyone recommend something good? All I've really seen that would be considered "film" (or whatever term) is Stalker and Rashomon, both of which I liked. Just looking to get more into film in general.

An essentials chart or director list etc would be greatly appreciated too.

OP what are your views on say, Spielberg?

In general do you appreciate crowdpleasing films also or not so much?

>Looks very promising.
Is a great film, watch the rest of the Abe's adaptations. Teshigahara did them also.

To actually answer your question about cinematography. I find (today) it's essentially a subjective thing. And has to do highly with the work it is appearing in.

Capeshit is the perfect example, it generally has nice shots, and well thought out shots which get shat on incessantly due to it being capeshit. Bay is an amazing film maker but because he mainly makes cheesy hollywood sellout films he doesn't really get credit where the credit is due.

I dunno, if you think it looks nice and worked in the scene, then it's 'good' cinematography. I honestly do not believe there is any form of objectively good cinematography in this day and age.

Ozu is my favorite though.

Have you seen the works of David Lynch? He's a great starting point, as long as you aren't averse to what some may deem as pretentious. I would especially recommend Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive.

Discuss it though, friendo. I'm not too familiar with Angelopoulos. What sets his films apart?

All three films in the OP (especially the first) are very recommendable.

What did you think of Stalker, beyond just liking it? Same question for Rashomon, if you're inclined.

You might enjoy Tarkosvky's Solaris.

>All these reddit shit posters who can't let actual discussion of film take place.

Anyways, I only just started getting into the more obscure directors and have fallen in love with Tarkovsky. Would anyone have any recommendations of obscure directors for someone who likes Tarkovsky.

>>All these reddit shit posters who can't let actual discussion of film take place.

>Would anyone have any recommendations of obscure directors for someone who likes Tarkovsky.

you might be the most reddit in denial poster on this board right now.

Dig farther into Tarkovsky. He is one of the best directors to live it's a shame he didn't gain more fame.

reddit thread
sage

I want obscure directors because I've seen all the non obscure movies that are worth seeing at this point you schlong. I've also been on for 6 years fuck right off.

>I've also been on for 6 years fuck right off.

how could you sound this new after 6 years. i don't get it...

Spielberg is fine in small doses. Jaws is a masterpiece, and some of the Indiana Jones films are wonderful. E.T. is also a lovely film. There are many more films of his worth complimenting. However, he did craft a type of sentimental brackdrop against which far too many films were to be cast following Spielberg's success. I think William Friedkin should have been the true role model of Hollywood filmmaking at that time, but his almost docu-realism couldn't compete with the eye-grabbing spectacle that Spielberg unleashed on his unsuspecting audiences.

I don't have a snobby grudge against crowd-pleasers, but I can't help but feel a bit wearied by them, like eating too much junk food or something.

If you need an idea. The other evening I watched Post Tenebras Lux, a work of sheer artwank (which I liked for the most part), and afterwards I watched the second half of Bridget Jones Diary, when I visited my mum. It was fine.

Most of the snobs on this board are reverse-snobs who live in perpetual resentment towards the tiny handful of genuine film appreciators sad enough to browse Cred Forums. Ergo, me.

I will do.

I think your argument about cinematography is fair-minded, but it doesn't really go anywhere. I tend to agree though.

Agreed. Lynch is a nice gateway director.

I've seen Twin Peaks, which I greatly enjoyed. I don't generally care about labeling of pretentiousness, very rarely have I seen something that IMO actually warrants it. I've heard of both those movies but never gotten around to watching them. Thanks for the recs.

Thanks for the chart. It's been a long time since I've watched them so my recollection of my thoughts is hazy. Truthfully, I watched them during a late-teenage "get deeper into film but only watch two movies without really knowing much about them or the directors" phase. At the time I found both to be slow and unrewarding plot-wise, and had a difficult time analyzing either beyond much of a surface level. I do remember thinking that both had great acting and it was neat to learn where the sides-of-a-story plot came from (unless I'm mistaken). While I'm reluctant to claim I'm oh-so-much-smarter now, I'm more open minded and put much less emphasis on plot, so I'm interested in getting back into film.

Thanks anons

I don't know, you tell me.

Please respect the Op and ignore the shitpost responses from that user. It just litters up the thread.

I guess you could try Japon by Carlos Reygedas. This isn't purely a recommendation thread though. Tell me what you found interesting about his films, maybe some suggestions will come out of that.

Any Lav Diaz fans on here? Has anyone seen lullaby to the sorrowful mystery or the woman who left?

OP here. Ready to embark on a Lav Diaz bender, but not sure where to start. I'm intimidated by those run times. Advise me.

I watched some clips on youtube and was seriously intrigued.

Also, when I watch his film I will make this thread again, but place Lav Diaz in the recommended discussion point part of the OP. That's really how I hoped these threads would work.

I recommend watching well regarded films until you stumble upon a film that you fall in love with. Then proceed to fairly committedly go through the director in question's filmography in chronological order.

Well of course the cinematography was beautiful and I don't know if any other director could match it. I also liked how the story, even though it was ambiguous was left to interpretation. I think the story should either be straight forward or left that way, when someone like Nolan makes a movie like Memento where you have to put all the pieces together its just tedious. Movies shouldn't be a puzzle. Using Stalker as an example (which is my favorite Tarkovsky film) I liked how he let the zone represent anything from religion to life itself. Basically anything ambiguous and up to interpretation, or any directors with a similar style to Tarkovsky in terms of cinematography. I want an experience as visceral as the first time watching Stalker.

look i don't want to come off as needlessly hostile so i'll just say that any user that is serious about legitimate film discussion should get a karagarga account and go post on the kg forums. it is literally the best place on the entire internet to talk about this stuff.

i think half of the effort to push serious film talk back here has to do with user's refusal to give up the immediacy of Cred Forums's posting style. user wants to fight against new Cred Forums and bring back /film/ talk here because they don't want to give up that familiarity. which is silly. don't fight new Cred Forums like that. it is what it is.

if you are really about film talk then there is a vastly superior arena for you to talk shop. simple.

Perhaps try Malick. He's contentious, but he has some godly cinematography. Also, after the thin red line, straight forward narrative sort of goes completely out the window for him.
Try Tree of Life.

I really liked Tree Of Life and Badlands. Is Knight Of Cups any good?

How do I get a karagarga account?

And the thread looks fairly successful so far. I don't know what you're complaining about.

I enjoyed it.

I'l give it a watch, friend. Thanks for the suggestion.

As I recommended earlier, Regeydas is not dissimilar. If you like Malick, you may like him.

The film in the OP 'Post Tenebras Lux' s worth a watch. Very odd film. One of the best opening shots ever.

>How do I get a karagarga account?
Someone with an account would need to invite you.

Never heard of Regeydas but I'll give him a try. I'll also mark down Post Tenebras Lux. There's nothing I like more then a good opening.

And then I would need to be able to seed how much exactly to maintain an acceptable ratio?

Would I need a seedbox? How much dick sucking and ass licking do I have to do to get invited?

It all seems worthwhile, but also a lot more effort than just posting in this thread.
If there were more threads like this, Cred Forums would be better.

Do so. Just to be clear, Post Tenebras Lux is a Regeydas film.

Spirit of the Beehive is also absolutely must see worthwhile. Classic.

>What sets his films apart?
That's like asking what sets a Bresson or Bergman film apart from others. It's everything.
One particular thing I love about them is how the distilled photography, slow camera movements, and prolonged shots gives his actors ample room to perform with their entire bodies, not just with their voice or face. This I feel results in even the slightest movements to be greatly impactful. It's something that I see many filmmakes fail at.

Nicely articulated. Far better than posting a webm, no? Recommended starting point?

Check out the documentary "Visions of Light" and later watch the films shown in the doc as examples of good cinematography.

Holy shit. Looks incredible.

Recommend more.

Also, any film discussion in you?

>but it doesn't really go anywhere
Yeah I know, really because cinematography reached it's peak many years ago. It really cannot go anywhere at this stage in time.

I believe Kubrick was the start of the decline. Kubrick is heralded as a great director, which he wasnt, his films are devoid of anything but nice shots. He is lumped in with great directors such as Bergman, Ozu or Goddard - because he made nice looking films and that is all.

Cinematography, in my mind, is an actual film meme and is the start of when you start to get interested in filmmaking. You do not notice actual good cinematography, as it's mixes too well into the film unless you actually know what you are looking for and have studied some form of cinematography.

Ozu for instance, in most of his films have a static camera, except for one moment in his film where everything comes to a head and the camera zooms. It sounds like nothing, but done in such a perfect way it makes the film and encapsulates his style. Ozu has been described as "Anti-Holloywood" due to this style of cinematography.

>camera zooms
Or pans* the point is there is usually only one movement of camera in most of his films.

Far enough. I think there's a little more to it than what you're saying:

youtube.com/watch?v=B7T1-DemdkE

I ain't gonna argue with you over it though.

The first group wants to just leave and talk about movies, but the 2nd group will do anything they can to force them to stay and be audience to their shitposting.

It's pretty pathetic tbhonestly

What do you guys think about Bane? Why does he wear the mask? A lotta loyalty for a hired gun.

quality thread lads, fightin the good fight

Op here. I'm satisfied. Could be better. I'll post again tomorrow.

>Kubrick is heralded as a great director, which he was not
I'm curious, do people often laugh in your face, user? I mean, chances are you don't have any friends, but if you do, and you're wondering why they don't take you seriously, I'd list as exhibit A.

Also, Goddard made boring and superficially stylish trash.

not that user, but i've seen some of his films. maybe you should try watching his latest film? clocks at around 4 hours. you can get a feel for his style. static shots. i like how he frames them too. or try his norte one. no torrents for the lullaby one in public trackers that isn't a fucking camrip

Be nice.

Thanks. I'll try that.

Don't say dumb shit.

Not him, friendo. Try to say something of substance.

I hate that shut posters like you have to fuck everything up. This is why4chan will never be good.

Read the OP user. Don't respond to shit posters. I think you're literally the first one.

The thread was a success.

user said that Kubrick wasn't great because his films were merely good shots. I responded appropriately. Now, stop trying to police your little try-hard thread, friendo.

Are you always this angry?

dank meme

No, just when haughty do-nothings make absurd statements about universally renowned geniuses.

So you got mad because the bad man said bad things about a director you like?

Anyway, I'm out. Good thread (no thanks to you)

>gets told
>fucks off
Typical

So angry.

You know what, if you want something of substance, here you go...

I find it interesting that Kubricks critics often complain that his films lack a certain ""human element"", yet it seems human beings have talked about his films more than any other's. 2001, alone, has generated more discussion than most filmmakers entire oeuvres, and yet imbeciles still feel the need to spew this line about how his films were "all style" or some bullshit -- for me, it's pretty much a litmus test for how much of a pretentious faggot someone is.

The fact is, Kubrick didn't hand people raw emotion on a silver platter, he let the audience do some of the legwork themselves. They were great stories, and every single one of them were compellingly rendered... even the worst of them.

so reddit

u still here OP i wanna ask stuff about the films you saw

What are people's thoughts on Kurosawa's Samurai films vs. non-samurai?

Personally I prefer the non-samurai. From the noir's stray dog with it's architypal mystery elements, to the character driven variety of drunken angel, to the thrilllers that peered all too clarvoyantly into the upper class world of japenese culture like high and low and the bad sleep well. The versatility and precision of his efforts at various genres prove how he really understood how the screen worked and how to evoke emotions using it.

highly recommend this to everyone in the thread, very unusual story and interesting techniques used.

However... I usually have a pretty good attention span, but something about women in the dunes made me exhausted. Are all other Hiroshi Teshigahara like that? I have pitfal and man without a face downloaded but I dont' realy feel like being so emotionally drained again

Treat every image as a photo. Pause the movie once in a while to see if you can tell what the director was trying to say with how he made the shot.

If you relaly want to start to start out easy, go watch a bunch of hitchcock. He was the master.

Playing devil's advocate here...

Was 2001's discussion because of the story or because of the direction?

The Story of Film: an Odyssey is another really good film series. It covers cinematography but isn't exclusive to it and covers film as a whole. I personally like all types of films but my favorite director is Keaton.

Absolutely both. The story was direct, in that the general theme and storyline were discernable enough to grasp onto; however, there was enough ambiguity to last you a lifetime of speculation. And on top of it all is Kubrick's masterful framing and famous attention to detail. Not to mention the minimal effects and sets which are timeless.

>Learn that good cinematography doesn't equate to looking nice
Fucking this, holy goddamn fuck Deakins worship by imdbdrones of this board rustles my jimmies

That fucking narrator completely ruined it for me. It is hands down the absolute worst narration in the history of narration. I get irritated just thinking about it.

Not user btw.

>Swallow your clever ripostes.

stopped reading there

But what about /kino/?

Does Resevoir Dogs count as film?

Yeah, apparently faggot OP is unfamiliar with "arched dialogue" -- it tends to ruin shit.

Who would you recommend as an alternative, or some movies to watch? Genuine question here. I'm pretty ignorant of cinematography and I've liked every movie I've seen on which Deakins was the cinematographer.

I agree wholeheartedly. As a bookfag the story made the movie possible, but Kubrick does so much to raise it to another level.

The Director's number one job is to make sure every aspect of a movie works together in harmony to create a consistent film. And thehe whole fucking tone of the 2001, from the music, to the shots, to the costumes, to the sets works so well to exude that late 60s scientific optimism while drawing you into the story headfirst.

Are you considering the Blade Runner narration?

I'd recommend great directors that don't rely on cinematographers to fix their films (like Deakins does for Villeneuve). De Palma is a very film school example of visual storytelling of which cinematography is part of, I suppose his filmography, despite not really being a fan of his work.

This user is right, probably try Norte first or the new 4 hour one (I haven't seen it online anywhere)

Initially his films might seem like a bit of a hard pill to swallow, but I've always found I adapt to his rhythms pretty quickly and the hours seem to fly by, at least for me anyway

Death in the Land of Encantos, Melancholia and From what is Before are my favs

I've actually never read the book. As far as fiction goes, I tend to gravitate towards film, but I may just have to finally check out the book. I take it that you enjoyed it?

I liked it. My only qualm was he jumped around chronologically a few times. The section on 1920s films shows a lot of non20s films.

I'm part of few film trackers but only Secret-Cinema has some Lav Diaz films (Melamcholia, Norte, Heremias).

>tfw no KG account.

Worse. I'm serious. It's the all-time fucking worst.

And it's a shame, because he obviously spent a massive amount of time and effort on it, and it was very impressive... yet he managed to sabotage the entire thing by having the most awkward, dull, unvarying, and supremely irritating narration.

Post the films you rate 10/10.

Yeah I liked it, although I can't tell how much of my enjoyment stemmed from my love of the movie.

It's actually a quick read at about ~200 pages. The main differences are the direct implication of alien involvement in our evolution (the ape scene is much more involved) and some thematic stuff including: the capability of species to play safe, humanity tackling the physical and mental aspects of space travel and what evolution really is. Oh and that space is fucking crazy to think about.

As soemone who has read a fair bit of sci-fi, I'd say it's one of the most accessible. It doesn't waste time on the science part and mostly uses those things to study the themes i discussed and more.

So yeah, overall i'd recommend.

>sunrise
>10/10
Nah
>Magic Mike XXL
>anything but trash

>he actually unironically likes Kubrick
Kek.

You had one job and it was to post yours.

Spirit of the Beehive didn't do it for me. I read it described once as "Pan's Labyrinth without all the blah-blah," which made me interested because I love Pan's Labyrinth. But after watching this I realized what I like most about Pan's is "the blah-blah." I recognize that the child actress of Beehive is incredibly talented but found the story rather dry and the suggestion of fantasy wasn't strong enough for me to actually /feel/ her viewpoint, just sort of know what it was on a basic level. There were some scenes I really liked (particularly the one with her sister. You know the one) but overall it was a meh experience.

My point is, you will always notice "obvious" cinematography. Like you proved with that link. What you will never notice is actual good cinematography, as it's so in depth it requires actually study to notice.

filmmakermagazine.com/92859-watch-kurosawa-and-the-geometry-of-a-scene/#.V-9XQ_l96kA

>you will always notice "obvious" cinematography
Sure, thoI do not get why you have quotations over obvious...

>What you will never notice is actual good cinematography, as it's so in depth it requires actually study to notice.
>Links to Akira Kurosawa

but Akira Kurosawa is one of the most obvious ones? This does not make it worse or bad cinematography. He never tried to obfuscate or hide anything from the viewer.

Well, I can't go wrong with 200 pages. Sold.

btw did I discuss Akira in a thread with you last night? I was the one that never liked him

>They were great stories, and every single one of them were compellingly rendered... even the worst of them.

You understand he didn't write any of his stories? That's literally my main beef with him. He utilized authors who wrote the stories which he was adapting. HE had nothing to do with them past hiring the right people, just another reason why he doesn't deserve to be in the ranks of top director. He didn't actually write a single one of his critically acclaimed stories, literally every single one is an adaptation, and every single one has another author on it.

>2001, alone, has generated more discussion than most filmmakers entire oeuvres
Kek, no? Literally never heard of that movie past my dad and this place. You are thinking of something like Spielberg, or Cameron.

Read your post, you literally did not make one single point past subjective reasoning, you did not critique his works past "it's great", you simply used buzzwords to express a meme opinion.

But go ahead, using your own words, what makes Kubrick a great director again? To answer this, first actually do some research behind the movies.

He is acclaimed inside of America, that's pretty much it. Same with Lynch - neither are worth their weight in the international market.

Use words this time, honestly being angry gets you nowhere.

Do you guys generally torrent, stream, or buy these films? I like to watch in high quality so usually I torrent (I buy some, but I'm poor) but often it can be difficult to find torrents at all, let alone with enough seeders for it to not take a literal eternity. I resort to streaming a lot but I hate to do it.

>You understand he didn't write any of his stories?
So? He directed them and had his own vision (like you can tell with changes to adapted stories).
>That's literally my main beef with him
Chasing fake authenticity here and 'tryhard' auteurism fanfare (if you write and direct you are only legit then and only then).

>but Akira Kurosawa is one of the most obvious ones?
Why? Because he is entry level Japanese director on Cred Forums?

>He never tried to obfuscate or hide anything from the viewer.

Why does this make good cinematography? Nah.

Torrent mostly. Sometimes rent stuff from my local library if i can't find it online. Stream if i'm really really desperate to watch something right-fucking-now.

"rustar" is an amazing torrent site. It's all in russian, so it takes a while to learn your way around, but let google auto-translate the site for you and it should be fine. They have some pretty rare stuff on there, and almost everything is seeded.

I save the ones that I think I will rewatch, make webms out of or the ones that are hard to get.

>You understand he didn't write any of his stories?
Yes, I'm aware, I'm just pointing out the fact that he had a good eye for a good story, and he always managed to reel the audience in with his attention to detail. Even with The Shining, which certainly wasn't his best (and people never seem to stop complaining about it), it has been discussed, debated, and lambasted more than most filmmakers best.

>Literally never heard of that movie past my dad and this place
It's not because you're European (or whatever), it's because you're young. There can literally be no other explanation.

And no, I'm not going to sit here and write you a fucking essay on why Stanley Kubrick was a great director.

>he is acclaimed inside of America
I wish you would have started with that. Moron.

No because Akira clearly explored visual themes and motifs in his films and wasn't trying to hide this in any way. I don't really know why you think he wasn't obvious with it. Doesn't make it bad.

>So? He directed them and had his own vision (like you can tell with changes to adapted stories).
Did you miss the point where he didn't write ANY of his movies? He literally did not do that. The authors of the stories he was adapting made the changes to suit - sure he made further changes to adapt them to film, but yeah actual directors write their own stories, ya know? Just for you consideration of the 60-70 films Ingmar Bergman directed, he DIDN'T write 8 of them.

There is a lot more to direction than cinematographer. And there is a reason why most of his movies do not have coherent plots. He could not direct, or write one.

nice thread OP, good job. ill watch all the films mentioned. ill see if i can copy this and implement it on /p/ too. we need it badly.

>actual directors write their own stories.
the story is as the camera presents it, he had enough style in him to have substance.

>The authors of the stories he was adapting made the changes to suit
Stan King Kubrick most definitely made the screenplay to the Shining that most definitely changed a lot of the source material so you are wrong here and probably elsewhere too

You do not understand what I meant by obvious film-making. I really cannot express this idea because it's subjective to me. It's stuff like long-shots, stuff that looks stuff on the surface, but thats it. Stuff where a lot of "nice looking things" happen, stuff that you actually notice as it stands out to be so obvious. But that's okay because films are a visual medium, but really, trust me when I say you will never notice all the work which goes into a shot. Unless of course you are actually working as a cinematography, which I highly doubt you are (neither am I and I miss most things). But yeah, again the age of proper cinematography is dead. Most of the directors being listed now (older ones) had cinematographers of their own which they worked in tandem with. Today directors get mixed with them.

Nolan's films are higher up in the top 250 list.

The Dark Knight - #4
Inception - #14
Interstellar - #32
Memento - #47
The Dark Knight Rises - #62
Kubrick:

The Shining - #58
A Clockwork Orange - #80
Full Metal Jacket - #87
2001: A Space Odyssey - #90

Nolan also has way more votes. And his movies are much better.

What's the link?

>You do not understand what I meant by obvious film-making
I clearly do not.

>It's stuff like long-shots, stuff that looks stuff on the surface, but thats it
The word you are looking for is 'shallow' and not 'obvious' I believe.

How do you just forget a word like that

>actual directors write their own stories
That is entirely subjective. I understand some people like auteurism but it is silly to discredit a director because he is not.

>rustar
He probably means rutracker

rustar (period) org

>he literally did not do that
He literally did. He'd make changes to the scripts practically every day. Stop posting, user, seriously.

You understand writing a screenplay and writing a story are 2 inherently different things? He did not write the story for The Shining, Steven King did. Like, Jackson gets praised for LOTR THE MOVIE, not LOTR the story. You see where I am going with this?

And with movies, style is not more important than substance. You can say it is, but that's a literal pleb in the purest sense and why movies are so shit today.

Essentially
>just turn your brain off.

There are shades of auteurism, only the most retarded people accept director as an auteur if he also writes the story and screenplay when there are so many directors with distinct visual style and visual storytelling that connect over their body of work (despite them not writing the story)

Obvious is not always shallow. The link you post for example, is not shallow, but it's obvious as all fuck.

Oh, so because he wrote the screenplays for his movies with help from literally all the authors who wrote the source he therefore wrote the stories?

kek.

>style is not more important than substance
Style makes the substance, you'd think you know this as person that's (trying to) parade the most hardcore form of auteurism (writing+directing) because the film is as the camera presents its because its a visual medium first and foremost.

>turn your brain off
not once have i even implied this.

He changed a lot in the Shining for example, so much that King hated it

yep i meant rutracker, my bad

>not once have i even implied this.
You are advocating style of substance. That's essentially what it means.

>Style makes the substance
Kek, no. If style is all the substance it has, it's the literal most pure example of style of substance.

>If style is all the substance it has
The stories have been told thousand million times over the centuries and only difference a film maker can make is to show them in a new light through lens of camera

But King is a hack in the purest sense. Why should I care if he thinks someone butchered his source? His source was shit. (this is actually the only thing I can 'like' Kubrick for),

You were responding to a comment by the user about how Kubrick had his own vision, and that it was obvious due to adaptations in the stories. And then you decided to strawman the fuck out of it, and respond with, "he didn't write any of his movies". Well, based in the quote you were addressing, he DID.

Kek. That's a great argument as to why Kubrick didn't write his stories. Great argument. Yet for some reason actual directors are still able to write their own stories?

What is wrong with you? You can stop posting, and think about what's being said - you know?

>"he didn't write any of his movies"
I actually said this.

>You understand he didn't write any of his stories?

In this sense movies = stories. It's not something separate because you can argue semantic meaning of 'movie'.

Nice try.

>actual directors.
Your chase of fake authenticity has lead you to a grave where you are yelling Kubrick wasn't a director.

Have fun

Bergman wasn't his own cinematographer so he doesn't even count.

This man not only writes his own stories, writes the screenplay, but he also handles the cinematography and editing of his films.

The only true auteur posted ITT

I never browse Cred Forums bc of the shit show
but I saw this thread..

I really liked Spirit Of The Beehive and I'm legally downloading Post Tenebras Lux rn. Any reccs? Doesn't have to be art-house or anything.

Recent watches that I liked:
Spirit of The Beehive
The Tenant
The.Assassination.Of.Jesse.James
Oasis (Lee Chang-dong)
The.Hudsucker.Proxy

on top of obviously directing his films

If you liked TAOJJ you should try Meek's Cutoff

Are meta questions OK?

I'll ask anyways: Do you guys find you enjoy films more, the more you watch? Has it turned into more of a mental exercise?

Nice mental gymnastics, but you're really reaching now. The fact is, he played a big part in the writing process. Period. And even if he didn't, the assertion that it would somehow take away from the quality of the films, or Kubrick as an artist, is absurd.

But go ahead and tell me about Bergman or Tarkovsky or a bunch of other unrelated filmmakers and why they're "better".

>Do you guys find you enjoy films more, the more you watch
yes

>Has it turned into more of a mental exercise
im not a film school student so no

>wasn't a director.
great director* ftfy.

>>Has it turned into more of a mental exercise
>im not a film school student so no

Do you not find that the 'deeper' you get into film, the more analysis they require to make sense of and thus the more thought goes into watching them?

>the more analysis they require to make sense of
i don't watch purposefully shit vimeo short films, so no

Not that guy, but I don't force it. The more you watch the more you learn and the better you get at analyzing. Sometimes I watch a film and understand very little of it. But that's ok, It keeps me motivated to watch more.

>the only true auteur posted ITT
This is "/film/" in a nutshell: anons posturing over who is the truest, purest, most perfect example of an auteur, and then, acting like they're above more conventional filmmakers, without being able to compartmentalize and critique something for what it is.

I was only pulling the other anons leg who doesn't think Kubrick wasn't even a director because he didn't write. Bergman wasn't credited director & cinematographer & editor & writer unlike Soderbergh on his films

not that user, but what makes you recommend meek's? Looks interesting but just curious sincce TAOJJ is so unique

>I was only pulling the other anons leg
(you)

Because Kelly Reichardt is good director and it's a better westerner than TAOJJ

Yeah, I figured. I was just using your sarcasm to point out he fact that anons should learn how to critique things for what they are, rather than what they want them to be. Every time I see one of these threads and someone brings up a famous director, anons compare them to completely disparate filmmakers and then act like it's an airtight argument.

ok lets hug and chill :3

do you like soderbergh?

Yeah, I think he's made some above-average films -- nothing extraordinary, but he's undeniably talented. Actually, one of my favorite films is his adaptation of Solaris; which I realize isn't the most fashionable opinion, but I thought it was like a good poetic translation.

The Knick was really good, I recommend it to you with all of my heart. Even better if you are familiar with his late career style and his interests (he has sickly topics/themes like in Side Effects, Contagion, Erin Brockbitch that he likes to explore).

The Knick is incredible. I'm surprised it's not discussed more often here.

>Surprised by the lack of taste in Cred Forums
really?

Heh, yeah, but miniseries are often drooled over, and The Knick certainly has many of the juicy elements that anons seem to latch onto.

I can see it now...
>tfw Eve Hewson will never risk her job and freedom to bring you dope and then fuck you while stoned
>WHY LIVE??
Kek

It's really amazing as a Soderbergh fan. 20 hour long episodes of his auteurism, I can't ask more as a fan.

Yeah, it's unique that an established and widely respected filmmaker would take on something like that. I remember reading somewhere that from now on, he was only going to work in television (or long form, I guess)

nah hes doing film next year

Can you two retards either start fucking, or start saging?

t. user who said Kubrick isn't a great director.
Fuck, why did I say anything?

What the fucks your issue

Oh, nice, I'll have to look that up.

Well, I'm off. Nice talking with you.

>why did I say anything
That's a good question. I told you to stop posting a while ago.

who is this tight cunny bunny