>Only the cinema has the possibility of truly fighting against time, thanks to montage. This microbe which is time, the cinema can come right to the end of it. But it was more advanced on this path before the sound cinema. Most likely because man is greater than language, greater than his words. I believe more in man than in his language.
LITERATURE ETERNALLY BTFO
Will /lit/ ever recover?
Now try communicating that concept through film.
I'm a complete pleb, I have no idea what the fuck he's saying.
What does he mean by fighting time? Cinema coming right at the end of it?
>>8271226
the eternal struggle
>>8271172
Have a guy read it as a voihceover?
>>8271167
Go be a fucking mute if you love it so much
>>8271373
it seems /lit/ wont recover
>>8271365
That's not cinema. That's the written word.
>>8271167
"Cinema will have one century, that's all." - Chris Marker
cinema is a meme word
>Only the cinema has the possibility of truly fighting against time, thanks to montage. This microbe which is time, the cinema can come right to the end of it
Has he never heard of a summary?
>>8271949
Didn't even get that lol
It's this same inema spammer all the time.
>>8272100
yeah, cinema "got" the 20s thru 70s, peaking in 1969 before dying in 1981
Too many memes OP!
Full of dankness.
>What is important is to be able to speak one’s own language, the language of cinema. It is often said that the cinema is a synthesis of the other arts, but I think this is wrong. For me, it dates from the tower of Babel, from before the division into different languages. For technical reasons, it appeared after the other arts, but, by nature, it precedes them. I try to make a pure cinema, which owes nothing to the other arts.
BTFO
T
F
O
>>8271365
underageb&
This is a pretty good thread OP
Never seen /lit/ this rustled
>>8271167
and cinema can't capture the stream of consciousness
it's a tie
>>8272141
DELETE THIS YOU FUCKING FAGGOT!
>>8272129
Plenty of good cinema since then. Just a few examples:
Time Bandits (1981)
Fanny and Alexander (1982)
Au revoir les enfants (1984)
Vagabond (1985)
The Mission (1986)
Thérèse (1986)
The Sacrifice (1986)
Babbette's Feast (1987)
The Killer (1989)
Francesco (1989)
Hard Boiled (1992)
The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ (1993)
Three Colors (1993-1994)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Rushmore (1998)
The Prince of Egypt (1998)
Padre Pio: Miracle Man (2000)
In The Mood for Love (2000)
The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)
The Devil's Backbone (2001)
Fat Girl (2001)
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Secret Sunshine (2007)
Everlasting Moments (2008)
Fish Tank (2009)
Antichrist (2009)
Certified Copy (2010)
Tiny Furniture (2010)
The Tree of Life (2011)
La Havre (2011)
>>8271172
https://youtu.be/dnBGr6VsDVU
Here you go
what is "truly" fighting against time and why does it matter in art? painting fights against time, even literature does.
>>8273318
>Mel Gibsons gore Jesus
>The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ (1993) What is this?
>Wes Anderson films
>The Prince of Egypt
>Malick's most pompeus film
But thank you for including
Gilliam, Fanny and Alexander, The Sacrifice, Three Colours, In the Mood for Love and Le Havre on this list
tip-top-tier cinema
>>8271172
>>8273399
You reckon I can find this online? Been itching to see it for a while now and I fear it's only on KaraGarga and the likes
>>8271167
the microbe of montage isn't time, it's light.
the end of which cinema can come to is light, which is essentially plebeian.
Imagine if literature was about ink.
>>8273287
yes it can. It just can't do it as well (yet)
>>8273411
https://kat.cr/behemoth-2015-bluray-720p-x264-dts-hdchina-t12311272.html
>>8273287
>>8273420
Well Stan Brakhage, Mekas and Robert Todd managed to do so convincingly, at least in my opinion, and I'm sure there are plenty more that manage to do so as well. I was at a indie fest (as in, people with <200 followers on Vimeo and on a first name basis with each other) and almost all the movies tried to weave a stream of consciousness type subtext in how they were shot and edited.
>Only literature has the possibility of truly fighting against reality, thanks to language. This microbe which is language, literature can come right to the end of it. Literature is most advanced on this path than cinema. Most likely because man is language and becomes greater through his words, not through his images. If one wishes to define and deny reality, one can only do so through language
>>8273457
The asshurt
>>8273458
Anything you can find on his Vimeo page really, Artificial Atmospheres and Cove are personal favourites - I don't know his works so well myself though, if I'm to be honest.
>>8273458
>won't you get banned for this?
apparently not
>>8273423
Thanks mate, much appreciated. Guess it wasn't there last time I looked for it.
>>8273470
some of the shots were surprisingly amateurish in Artificial Atmosphere, imo. Especially between 2:45 and 3:00
Though I suppose that comes with the territory, conceptual films and all.
Other than that, it was certainly interesting. Reminded me of Under the Skin actually.
>>8271943
No, it is the spoken word. They are entirely different. Or have you not read any Plato?
>>8273318
Your opinion is eternally invalid for enjoying the films of Wes Anderson
>>8273949
Nice meme
>>8273949
I don't think its that dire a problem to like Anderson films, they look, feel and sound fantastic
My problem with Wes Anderson is mostly his stories and characters, which are shit
>>8275070
almost wholly false
>>8275209
This is almost completely wrong
>>8275070
My problem with Wes is that, though his concepts and premises differ, their execution in each film is nearly uniform. The same words can be used to describe his entire filmography: charming, picturesque, earnest, even magical. Wes for all intents and purposes is the author of many children's picture books.
>>8275263
>their execution in each film is nearly uniform
This I enjoy. Rather have a steady style than sell your ass for the different producers like Ridley Scott.
Every good directors has a steady handmark and a few adjectives to describe their whole filmography: Ozu, Bergman, Fellini etc.
As Ebert said of Kaurismäki: 'Once you've seen one of his films, you've seen them all. But you have to see them all.'
>>8275289
It's not as easy to draw general terms for Kubrick or Paul Thomas Anderson.
I see your point, but there is a third option:
1) Pre-fab style = copy and paste = no innovation past the original
2) Inconsistent styles = weak degree of authorship = low artistic merit (meaning)
3) The third is a mastering of disparate styles, a conscious and continuous effort to challenge the self, to search for new "truths" in new territories. Here, what is consistent is the will, not the logistics. Kubrick, Picasso, Cage, maybe Tzara are examples.
It's obvious I still haven't seen much film, but I've experienced a good amount of art and music to learn to be wary of an unchanging style. Very simply, nothing new is being said.
>>8275357
I appreciate your opinion and I think our differences are mostly caused by what we are looking for in film
I like filmmakers who show themselves on the screen and perfect their vision film by film without much variety, as in Bresson who found redemption in a jailbreak in A Man Escaped and an ass's death in Balthazar, while you look for great artistic innovation and progress which isn't as personal, as in Kubricks evolution from back-tracking trench dollyshots in Paths of Glory to the wildly forthgoing steadicam work in the hotel corridors in Shining
Also, to better understand my point of view, I suggest looking into Andre Bazin and the Cahiers de Cinema people, not necessarily their films, but their film critique and the auteur-theory
>>8275407
A "perfected vision" is that artist's masterpiece. It is a masterpiece not solely because it "resolves" the personal history of the visionary, but because it can now stand autonomously in the company of other masterpieces, even from different mediums. Masterpieces can be compared to one another because they are so refined as to enter the "general case" - they are like examples or maxims whose meaning can be understood regardless of context. Perhaps what I'm getting at is that the masterpiece, the "perfected vision," exists beyond the creator, in a way that I can't yet articulate.
Thank you for the recommended reading and conversation.
Can we all at least agree on this?
>>8271943
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106438/
>>8272420
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106438/
>>8275622
what is this even saying
>>8276224
tf do you think embryo
>>8271167
This guy would've loved video games.
>>8273287
Sans Soleil
>>8276435
I think he meant stream of consciousness as its more commonly understood.
Though you're quite right
