Who is the Stanley Kubrick of literature?
>>7917730
Some combination of Anthony Burgess, Arthur C. Clarke, Nabokov, Stephen King, Thackeray, and some guy who wrote a novel on 'Nam.
Contextually as an American innovator of the 50's and 60's with a technical mastery and detached style who garnered both mainstream and critical praise - John Barth
Tonally ... not John Barth. Tonally some mix of William Blake and Samuel Beckett.
>>7917741
Came here to post this.
Honestly Pinecone for dat research alone.
>>7917749
>Honestly Pinecone
Norman Mailer to some extent: New York Jew tackling the "big subjects": war, sex, death, space, God. Loves to see his name in big block letters on his stuff. A man's artist. Most glaring difference is their diverging attitudes about publicity.
>>7917758
>Loves to see his name in big block letters on his stuff.
damn, that's good
>>7917730
Kubrick made pleb-tier flicks so I imagine his literary equivalent is John Green or some such shit?
>>7917766
Actually,
>>7917766
you are so cool man
>>7917730
Gene Wolfe
>>7917787
We get it, you're not 15 anymore, you're 17 and all grown up and looking to kill your idols
>>7917800
Eh not at all
>>7917802
KEK
p good
Saul Bellow.
>>7917802
I've never liked Kubrick. 15 was my total entry-level pleb phase - New Hollywood, independent movies in the 90s etc - with a few bright spots like Terrence Malick's Days of Heaven.
17 was when I was going heavily through my Kazan phase and thinking of becoming an actor.
You don't even want to know what I'm watching now, bud.
>>7917820
Get off your ass and do something with your life, couch potato.
>>7917820
Nobody gives a fuck about your pleb history of film watching, fuck off back to /tv/ where you belong
>>7917820
Underground gay nigger porn?
>>7917820
And now you're probably 20, based on your "entry-level is pleb and bad, I only like 'hard' stuff"-phase.
>>7917855
I'm not into 'hard stuff'. Bro, I stopped fucking around with Godard and Antonioni when I was like 19. I've settled into true kino, which is neither hard nor shallow.
>>7917820
>You don't even want to know what I'm watching now, bud.
Watch out, we've got a badass over here. He's probably just seen Wavelength and doesn't give a fuck.
>>7917859
>Godard
>Antonioni
>hard
Sorry, it seems you never even went that far. But sounds like Kubrick would be perfect for you, stop denying it just because it's popular.
Kawabata.
Both avoided narrative in the desire to tell stories through emotion. Both are good artists who are overpraised by people who have never (read any other Japanese lit/watched anything more complex than Citizen Kane)
>>7917863
>Both are good artists who are overpraised by people who have never (read any other Japanese lit/watched anything more complex than Citizen Kane)
Let me fix that for you:
>Both are good artists who are dismissed by insecure people who think complex and less known works are automatically better
You think that for example the people who vote for Sight & Sound's film list (full of Kubricks' films) haven't watched anything more complex than Citizen Kane? You think Kawabata is one of the most acclaimed post-war Japanese author just because the critics don't know any better? No, it's you who don't know any better. First sign of insecurity is thinking that "entry-level" means bad, when it's the opposite. Of course there is better and more memorable stuff out there, that will probably hit you better on a personal level, but nobody thinks you're cool for shitting on the classics, that's just being ignorant.
>>7917862
I never got into dogshit >m'brakhage smeared shit onto a piece of film and I will look at it
I'm not retarded enough to get memed into that
>>7917875
>I was the pleb all along.
>>7917870
>First sign of insecurity is thinking that "entry-level" means bad
>good artists
>good
You would think that someone on /lit/ would be able to read.
>>7917870
>You think that for example the people who vote for Sight & Sound's film list (full of Kubricks' films) haven't watched anything more complex than Citizen Kane?
I think most professional film critics are culturally illiterate and very unlikely to agree on the true merits of an out and out masterwork like eg Ford's Fort Apache which doesn't wear its technique or thematic meaning on its sleeve.
>>7917863
What the fuck, kubrick's films are literally void of emotion
>>7917875
holy FUCK you are stupid, am I being baited?
antonioni is not remotely 'hard' and is an fantastic visual poet and atmospherist
breakhage, yeah take it or leave it, but some of his conceptual stuff like mothlight which i think you're referrign to here, is actually pretty darn cool and an inventive use of the medium
>>7917894
A film is - or should be - more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what's behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later.
-Stanly Kubrick
>>7917894
Unless you're watching early works like La Amiche, Antonioni is a very slow and meditative filmmaker whose style is opposed to most of the tenets of mainstream narrative filmmaking. Get a grip and go back to masturbating to films of m'Brakhage's wife giving birth to her boyfriend's baby.
>>7917900
There's no progression of mood in Kubrick's films. It's autism after autism after autism.
>>7917906
gee you don't put much faith in people, yeah antonioni's films are unconventional, they're not 'hard'.
>Get a grip and
shouldn't that be 'or'?
>go back to masturbating to films of m'Brakhage's wife giving birth to her boyfriend's baby.
i haven't seen whatever film you're referencing, but i don't see what's wrong with film of childbirth, it's a pretty significant and emotionally charged part of life
>>7917906
>The Criterion Collection is all of cinema for me.
>>7917906
>m'Brakhage's
What are you even doing here? Get off this board if all you want to do is brag about how much a film contrarian you are. This is a literature discussion board.
Just fuck my thread up
>>7917921
>La Région Centrale is a masterpiece and I watch it at least once a month
>>7917944
what's the point of strawmanning like this
nobody in this thread is mentioning 'la region centrale'
>>7917966
The post you just replied to did, you dickless wonder.
>>7917971
not sure if this is you trying to deflect the question or you're someone else who is completely braindead
either way i'm done with this shitty thread
>>7917980
But anon, it is so fun to troll this thread.
It is also incredibly easy.
>>7917966
Nobody in this thread had mentioned the Criterion Collection but it didn't stop the Zappatard from memeing it. It's rich to get annoyed at strawmanning when it has been initiated from your own side.
This thread made me piss myself laughing.
>>7917746
To call Barth mainstream is kinda pushing it
>>7917892
No they aren't, they're filled with emotion
>>7918064
That's because you're mentally retarded and you definitely don't read much.
>>7918022
Two wrongs don't make a right.
>>7918070
his first two novels were fairly popular (end of the road got turned into a counterculture movie), sot weed & giles goat boy were bestsellers
but yes, obviously Barth was never as popular as kubrick... he fulfilled mainstream and critical snesibilities if not found both types of success
>>7918078
You're actually mocking people based on their cognitive orientations and leisure time pursuits? Take a step back.
>>7918089
If you don't read, then you shouldn't be posting here.
Davos Fosters Waluigi
>>7919525
Then why are you here? You cum-guzzling bitch boy.
Salman Rushdie because that's who I thought that pic was of for a sec.
>>7917730
Stephen King
all who think Kubrick deserves serious accolades are retarded Stephen King-tier pseuds
>>7917820
Well bait, caught a lot
tolstoy
