What am I in for?

A landmark of dishonesty, a tour de France of hackery.

Shut up, dumbfuck.

A very racist film. As a Jewish guy I hate it.

Mr Griffith's first production since "The birth of a nation".

dishonest filmmaking

Now say what you really want with sincerity.

I read this three times, each time completely baffled as to what you were talking about. Derrida is easier to understand than this. Upon Googling some of these terms in quotes only your posts pop up. Pathetic. Pseud.

Your forced meme proves nothing. Film is an illusion. Every edit is a lie, Flaherty proved even the presentation of "reality" is fake. If you don't realize this by now, you're hopeless.

Dishonest people hate Intolerance, because it makes their own dishonestly apparent. It's like being the devil looking at Christ.

Make a DW Griffith frog face meme

Shut up, underage.

Look at that jew hand reaching for that woman and her baby

reddit: the flick

>look g-guys I'm not a racist, I m-made this film

Griffith, circa 1917

So it's birth of a nation but with jews?

To present a semblance of truth in the illusion of images is the function of cinema. However every frame that Griffith shot screams of completely artificial and insincere platitudes. But Griffith should not be derided, in fact he should be celebrated as the archetypal master of dishonesty, the first born in the art of cinematographic deceit.

t. brainlet

Intolerance is not a libshit endorsement.

The cruel (((hand))) of intolerance

this, but unironically

>every frame that Griffith shot screams of completely artificial and insincere platitudes
Fuck off, dumbfuck. Griffith never held your hand, he reveals and hides. To be direct is to be obvious. To recapitulate is to EXPAND. You must reject expansion. You must INHIBIT. History is constant and every choice is hinged on historical precedent. When Griffith resuses this shot, he is not drawing attention, but he is illustrating the significance of this convergence point and it's malleable function. It is the implication of what is shown and when it is shown that matters. The scenarios in Nanook are always present, but they were shot out of continuity. Through editing, EVERYTHING is present. How do you know this? Pay the FUCK ATTENTION YOU DUMBFUCK. Griffith and Flaherty have shown the transparency of connection, but it is for the VIEWER, the SKEPTIC, to execute their deduction. It is to MAINTAIN the ambiguity of preexisting reality.

Cinephiles want stories and theme park rides.

Why else do you think they mock Griffith, Flaherty, Stroheim, and Eisenstein but celebrate Ford, Kiarostami, Kubrick, Lynch, Costa, Malick, Maddin, and Tarkovsky?

They don't care about language

>Mike Leigh
>The Coen Brothers
>Werner Herzog
>James Cameron
>Mel Gibson
>Terrence Malick
>Gaspar Noe
>Clint Eastwood
Name one thing any of these fuitloops did that changed things on a mass scale. Griffith shattered all notions of art. Art is bullshit. Cinema is bullshit. Griffith created a medium where he could speak to the world globally, to influence, to change, to inspire to think. Griffith is neither art nor cinema. He is neither artist nor showman. Fuck introspection, fuck self-expression. Griffith attacked all of you lying sacks of shit. That is why he is denigrated. Reviled. There is nothing people hate more than the truth.

>he reveals and hides.
The defining hallmark of the Lügendirector.

>using German buzzwords to substitute arguments
Look who's dishonest now!

>Art is bullshit. Cinema is bullshit.
Griffith is bullshit.

He thinks he can defeat God with pebbles and briefs.

Anyone want to fill me in on what a "sun play" is?

Does it delight you to be such a Lügenposter? Or are you merely emulating Griffith but on Cred Forums? It's challenging to be as deceitful as him but I think you're getting there.

Shut up, slave.

it's a movie without fun

Something I deeply perceive in post-mortem cinema is a concern for hypersubjectivity often through manipulations of framerate, slow motion, long takes with frames consumed by individuals, and use of few colors that draw attention.

Let's use this abovementioned model for comparison with Griffith and Eisenstein. Are Griffith and Eisenstein storytellers? Sure, there are events being portrayed and recorded in a perceived present that give inclination towards a form of story, but upon further inspection, do you see any examples of overt individualization and characterization that describes a story? Oftentimes, none of the individuals in Griffith and Eisenstein works are even given names. Now observe form. Anything that draws attention to details in a fashion that can be explicitly read as introspection of individual? Certainly parallels can be made towards the impressionistic, but impressionism is often one of imprint through creation and environment, not condensation.

Compare post-mortem cinema ( youtube.com/watch?v=mL0FYUpXuoo )
to phenomenopresentation ( youtube.com/watch?v=FGTWdLGMkuE&t )

And discuss what is being said in either. That will give you the answer towards the superior.
to

>muh fun
Fun is a sin. To cull into self-improvement is the goal. Nearly subsequent individual since has lost that principle.

In short, comparing Malick to Griffith is like comparing dogshit to the Sistine Chapel.

It's a compliment to the dogshit, but a greater insult to the Sistine Chapel

>Why else do you think they mock Griffith, Flaherty, Stroheim, and Eisenstein

Don't forget Godard!

Godard said film begins with DW Griffith.

Metacommentary already preexisted without Godard's influence, and the general postmodern thought of the 60's regardless of Godard spells inevitability. The difference between the metacommentary of classical Hollywood resistance in the 60's and Godard is the creaky, extra flamboyant sets and dusty plastic coloration of 60's Hollywood speak decay and inevitable collapse whereas bright and stark pictorialism of godard speak invigoration and spunk

>(Alejandro González Iñárritu, Alex Garland, Tom Hooper, Rian Johnson, Alfonso Cuaron, Noah Baumbach, Guillermo del Toro, Damien Chazelle, David Yates, Denis Villenueve) are intellectually bankrupt moral whores and charlatans; their films appeal to the modern phenomenon of the 'Pretend Epic' or Pseudo Cinema, often tied to the criticism that "It was a movie that thought it was a film" they have no ideas of their own and are filmed purely to have fancy essays made about them. They obfuscate their lack of insight under a smug impenetrable irony and often contain scenes with disingenuous attempts at depth with characters spouting platitudes that the director takes VERY seriously.
Why isn't Orson Welles on that list then?

I actually don't watch films before 1970, I just heard my film teacher talk about it and he sounded big and important so I don't wanna attack him :)

>big and important
Why don't they give due respect to the man who ACTUALLY mastered the medium? Why do they acknowledge his influence as an "innovator" yet denigrate him in favor of some boy magician repackaging stolen techniques?

Can anyone theoretically posit why Griffith's "epics" bore but Gance's excite. It's a missing link researchers, historians, and general academics have been searching for. How is Griffith editing fast, overflooding the frame with unprecedented, unsurpased spectacle but still maintaining a lack of intensity

not true

who cares what soydard thinks

Say what you want about Soydard, he knew his betters.

if his only direct legacy is autists like you, then I’d say he failed pretty hard

If your only direct rebuttal is autistic shit like this , then I'd say you failed pretty hard

nice try kid, but it’s not a rebuttal, just an insult. Griffith is great and all, but for all your talk of honesty and Satan looking at God and hating him, you should stop and reflect on your own idolatry towards a mere mortal man.

>Griffith
>mortal
Oops!!

>inb4 Lügenpresse

Griffith never died because he is a god, he is neither and never been a failure. He was light years ahead of everyone else but they didn't want to listen.

hey what movie is the Stroheim mirror shot from?

They’re hacks.