What are some books that give an encompassing an in depth study into film theory and its history?
bump, is sculpting in time any good?
mark cousins' the story of film (also adapted to documentary) provides a good though very biased overview of film history. a good comparison is russell's history of western philosohpy
the early parts are great and it gives you a real understanding of the different stages of film's development until around the 1960's when cousins basically just starts talking about his favorite directors
movements as big as the new wave/new hollywood are glossed over and then you get a big section on 80's bollywood junk nobody has ever cared about but cousins
overall a worthwhile read, just take everything with a grain of salt and use it as a springboard for further studies instead of an authority
>>7430357
only if you've an interest in tarkovsky's films specifically
his theories really don't apply to much else
BUYP
Deleuze
Kieslowski on Kieslowski was interesting. You might want to check that out if you appreciate his work. Also, the Bresson book about cinematography etc. I forget what it's called.
has anyone ever read this? Reviews say that it is good but might be too obtuse and dense for those who have no background in film theory. I don't have a problem struggling through something if I come out smarter but if it is virtually another language I'll stay away.
>>7431152
There's some fancy-ass language in there, but it's supposed to be fairly introductory. You might have to look up a few words here and there, but you don't need any kind of comprehensive knowledge of films, their history or the process of making them to grasp what they're on about. I've only read excerpts, though, so you probably shouldn't listen to me.
>>7430690
The Story of Film is superb. I haven't read anything else with that level of scope or depth, but as film books in general go, I like Mick LaSalle's Complication Women, Greg Olson's David Lynch: Beautiful Dark, and Carol Clover's Men, Women, and Chain Saws.
>>7431145
Notes on Cinematography.
>>7431152
Yeah, this was mandatory for my film classes. We read almost the whole thing too in one summer; it's quite lengthy.
I don't know what you're expecting by worrying it's "obtuse and dense", but the book is basically an anthology of all the necessary texts about cinema from the history of cinema. Meaning almost every segment is written by someone else about something else. In that regard, the word choice and style varies from segment to segment.
As long as you're not a retard, you should be fine. It's not impenetrable, and the terminology is light. I remember Eisenstein uses the word (his translator, anyway) "laconic", which doesn't have to do with Lacan (which is also touched on in the book). That's about as bad as it gets.
>>7432321
Oh, also, if you plan on continuing to study film, this book has almost all the major and necessary texts in one volume, so you're going to have to get it anyway.
hey lit tv did not help me. im trying to remember the name of an experiementalish film that was composed mostly of the director's home videos. I think the title was a longish sentence.
>>7432328
As I was moving ahead occasionally I saw brief glimpses of beauty ?
"Get a Job"
>>7432427
not him but fairly certain its that
>>7431152
Filmfag here. This is where to start.
>>7432321
Laconic is such a common word it's in my phone dictionary m8
Hijacking this thread to ask for some /lit/ film recommendations. Fire away, boyz.
>>7432811
What do you generally like? Simply asking for film recommendations is way too broad.
>>7432817
I'm really into films by Kubrick, especially 2001, Paths of Glory and Dr. Strangelove. Though I enjoyed all of his works. I also enjoy most films by the Coen brothers.
I recently downloaded some of Tarkovsky's films, like Stalker, The Mirror and The Sacrifice. Also "The Seventh Seal" by Bergman. I have no idea whether I'll like those though, although I have good feelings about Stalker as I liked the short story by the Strugatzki bros.
>>7432839
Jumping into Tarkovsky might be a bit heavy if you are fairly new to film. By all means check him out if you feel drawn to his work, but I'd recommend starting with Ivan's Childhood. Also check out these directors to start:
>Akira Kurosawa
>F.W. Murnau
>Jean Renoir
>Victor Eríce
>Nicolas Roeg
>Ingmar Bergman
>Krzysztof Kieslowski
>Robert Altman
>Francois Truffaut
>Michelangelo Antonioni
>Wong Kar Wai
>G.W. Pabst
>Yasujiro Ozu
>Federico Fellini
>Jean-Luc Godard
>John Ford
>Kenji Mizoguchi
>Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger
>John Cassavetes
>Jacques Tati
>Jean-Pierre Melville
>Fritz Lang
By no means a comprehensive list, but off the top of my head.. Starting with their most acclaimed films.
I maintain that the best way to discover films is browsing around film sites and/or forums and seeing what tickles your fancy.
>>7432870
>Ivan's Childhood
i found this movie very confusing
>>7432870
Thanks a lot mate, this really helps. Any other website recommendations? I want to avoid /tv/ as I get the feeling that they don't know shit about film, apart from turning them into tedious memery.
>>7432870
>to start
where the fuck would you go after this?
>>7432908
2 da grave
Seriously though, thank you for that list.
>>7432891
No problem. Letterboxd is also good for community lists, ranging from comprehensive to extremely specific. This is a good one compiled from a book by respected critic Jonathan Rosenbaum:
>http://letterboxd.com/jwier85/list/jonathan-rosenbaums-1000-essential-films/
I'm working my way through this one currently, watching what I haven't already.
His own site (http://jonathanrosenbaum.net/) can be useful if you find your taste often aligning with his, as is the case with most critics.
And here's a random example of a more specific list:
>http://letterboxd.com/col/list/weird-weirder-and-wtf/
I'd also recommend the books of Pauline Kael and the writings of Roger Ebert in general.
>>7432908
Down the rabbithole, friend. If you want some more names I can give you some.
>>7432914
WHAT SHOW IS THIS FROM?
>>7432939
Seinfeld
>>7432939
The Wire.
That's councilman Thomas Carcetti, about to bomb Annapolis in his endless struggle against federal despotism.
>>7432939
Invocation of My Demon Brother by Kenneth Anger
Celluloid Closet
>>7432870
>Jumping into Tarkovsky might be a bit heavy if you are fairly new to film
Nigga I showed Solaris to my borderline uneducated (but open minded) mom and she loved it. If it's good then it's good.
>>7433248
>evidence that plebbery might be genetic
innaresting
>>7433248
The key word in my post being "might". Being open to new experiences is very important, of course, but jumping from Kubrick to Tarkovsky will for many be like a slap in the face.
I took my time getting to his work so I can't speak personally, but my brother was shown Stalker in film school and absolutely hated it. He hasn't gotten back to Tarkovsky since. Granted, it might simply not be his thing.
>>7432939
The Battle of Chile by Patricio Guzman. In that scene the CIA is about to overthrow Salvador Allende, (AKA Big Guy).
>>7433248
Meanwhile my dad didn't really care for Solaris and was dozing off in the last 40 minutes.
>>7433770
solaris is low tier tarkovsky anyways your dad is probably just more patrician than you
>>7434368
Agreed.
Top Tark is Andrei Rublev and Stalker.
>>7434422
Power ranking:
>Mirror
>Andrei Rublev
>Ivan's Childhood
>The Sacrifice
>Stalker
>Nostalghia
>Solaris
>>7429835
follow me on letterboxd senpaitachi
there youll learn true film theory
http://letterboxd.com/smoothhands/
cinephiles are so far up their own asses they don't even know what good film is
Who /missesEbert/ here?
>>7435792
you and a whole horde of other plebs
Film Theory hype.
>>7435612
>http://letterboxd.com/smoothhands/
You should get on Benning's California trilogy desu
>>7435651
What do you think good film is? I don't pretend to know, but I'm certain of what I like.
>>7434518
This is correct.
>>7432767
And? I didn't put it in there as an example in order to stump your iPhone, tyke.
You and your phone are smug as shit; like idiots, really.
>>7435612
i learned so much
>>7432923
>I'd also recommend the books of Pauline Kael and the writings of Roger Ebert in general.
Fuck off philistine
http://issuu.com/signossalvajes/docs/notes_on_gesture._giorgio_agamben
>>7429835
Sergei Eisenstein wrote more essays than any other director, so hes a good source in regards to early film theory.
>>7441358
Are you implying that their writings are anything but very useful for someone who wants to get into film?
>>7432870
Terrible recommendation.
You just listed a million major filmmakers, some of them extremely archival, impenetrable or plain bad.
>GW Pabst
Yeah great for someone getting into film. Good choice.
OP, find a director you like and dive deep into their filmography. When you start discovering some lesser known, more idiosyncratic films that are still emblematic of their particular style, that's very satisfying. And remember, movies can be artful and fun.
I like, and you might too:
>Hitchcock
>Billy Wilder
>Max Ophuls
>Ernst Lubistch
>Howard Hawks
>Powell and Pressburger
>Buster Keaton
>Orson Welles
>Robert Aldrich
>Vincent Minnelli
Andrew Sarris and Anthony Lane are my favorite writers who write about movies.
>>7441965
>some of them extremely archival, impenetrable or plain bad
I'm sorry, what? Firstly, what do you even mean by impenetrable?
I simply listed off a bunch of directors I found early on and who served as a personal entry-point to world cinema. If you don't personally like their work that's obviously fine, but arguing that some of them are plain bad? Out of curiosity, which would that be?
Also, making the point that some of them are "extremely archival" doesn't merely seem wrong to me, but pointless. I don't see how that should be a factor. Only going for the most acclaimed pieces robs you of the context within which to appreciate them.
And please, do explain to me how Pabst is a terrible recommendation for someone getting into film. Pandora's Box and Diary of a Lost Girl were two of my earliest encounters with silent film, and I still love them both dearly. Arguably among the most accessible films of the era.
>>7429835
>reading a book
>about movies
just kek
http://letterboxd.com/michaelj/list/sight-sound-the-critics-top-250/
get on my levelfriends
>>7442029
Impenetrable
>Antonioni
>Ozu
>Fellini
>Bergman
>Godard
Archival, by which I mean, too slowly paced, or otherwise too of its time, that someone who isn't already interested in that era of film is going to find it slow/boring/strange. Honestly I find most dramas of the silent era to be this—though there are many I quite like, not many I would recommend. So...
>GW Pabst
>early Fritz Lang
>FW Murnau
I would say are all pretty archival, except for maybe Sunrise.
Plain bad is hyperbole, but I think John Ford has many more bad films than good, and Bergman never did anything for me.
Keep in mind, this is all for someone who wants to GET INTO film. Advanced viewers can and should watch all the Pabst they can.
bump..
>>7442069
>1 - Vertigo
>2 - Citizen Kane
Pleb list. I'm irritated that I have over 50.
>>7442565
>these movies are all bad
>i haven't seen four-fifths of them
>>7442680
I never stated how much I've seen. I just said that I've seen over 50, as in 50 is too much for such a garbage list.
>>7442118
If you find Antonioni, Fellini and Godard 'impenetrable' you're retarded, no matter how well versed you are in film
>>7442688
well, enjoy your obscure hipster moviesfriend
>>7442069
This list is so shit. Ahahahaha, oh my god, I'm so much better than all the movies here. lol I'm superior
>>7442069
I got so fucking triggered by that list I'm gonna bite the bait
> À bout de souffle ranked 13 while Pierrot le fou 45
> Were you watching with your eyes closed ?
> Having Lynch on that list and not even mentioning Inland Empire and Mulholland Drive
> Myazaki at the very bottom of the list and ranked lower than shit tier Disney Wall-E
So what's the most /lit/ film ever made?
Submitting Wrong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJMEEiz6jhw
>I've never seen a Welles, Lang, Ford, Chaplin, Fellini, or Godard film but Tarr, Angelopoulos, and Ming Lang are my favorite directors
>>7442840
Something by Raúl Ruiz or Peter Greenaway.
>>7442863
People's lists tend to be exclusively American or exclusively non-American.
And that's when they go in the trash.
>>7430814
While I think Deleuze's influence on film is fascinating I would in no way suggest it as an introduction. Source: I have a 7 pags paper on Deleuze, schizosnalysis, and cinema due Tuesday
>>7444199
It's fine if you've actually seen 50% of the films he references so that you can actually make sense of his points. If you don't watch much then it would be horrible.
>>7444061
This guy knows what the score is
>>7432870
>forgetting Hou Hsiao-Hsien
>>7444841
>to start
One of the greatest working filmmakers, though.
>>7446866
>One of the greatest working filmmakers, though.
Why?
>>7435612
smug kike midget
