Why are Yuropean films so pretentious, vacuous, lifeless, and pseudo intellectual?
Do you faggots really buy into all that Continental philosophy bullshit? Do you keks actually believe that the aesthetic form conveys truths? Also why is the dialogue so synthetic in your films, to people with actual intelligence (not the hipster signalling sort) it is just embarrassing.
>>63128155
I don't have any b&w fish bait reaction images saved. Just pretend I posted one.
>>63128155
>Also why is the dialogue so synthetic in your films
Damn, do you know every European language? That's impressive.
>>63128575
He speaks American, idiot.
>>63128155
Don't take it so hard, dude. They're films, not your father's dick.
Yeah, I prefer the more realistic mumblecore dialogue.
>>63128155
yuropeans makes good films to be quiet honest, despite all the shit coming from hollydude, it's a good relief
>>63128575
Been there enough times and know enough German and French to detect how fake dialogue in Yuro films. Don't get me wrong, you guys talk like faggots but these movies are laughable.
>>63128783
>he thinks translations are literal
Someone's gf got plowed by the superior uncut dick it would seem
>>63128783
Hey chump, why didn't you post the actual dialogue in the original language?
And this is the kind of people who would populate /film/. So, you see, there's no salvation, really. You can't make a shithole not to stink.
It's entirely signalling. Sometimes whole projects, films and careers only exist so the director can get laid by seeming deep.
>>63128155
1. The kinds of things that most people proclaim to care about in movies are character and story. The first step is realizing that these things don't matter, because film is a visual medium. Of course, it's also an aural medium, but that's not a line that patricians repeat ad nauseum, so you don't have to worry about it. Why are character and story irrelevant even if film is conveyed through images, you might ask? Who cares? Just keep repeating to yourself that film is a visual medium until you get it.
2. If a pleb who disagrees with you dismisses your superior taste with the line that "it's all just opinions", what can you do? If you can't criticize mainstream films for being bad art and be taken seriously, you can at least criticize mainstream films for having bad politics. Be sure to label every big budget Hollywood film you despise with names like fascist, imperialist, misogynist, patriarchal, capitalist, consumerist, racist, regressive, xenophobic, homophobic, or some combination of the above. After all, people are fine with liking movies other people think are bad, but nobody wants to be taken for being a racist.
3. The more obscure your taste in movies is, the deeper your knowledge about cinema is. What insights do less popular movies have than popular ones about the process of filmmaking, you ask? I don't know either. What I do know is that it's easy to dismiss the taste and opinions of other people when you can say that director x is merely a watered down version of director y's aesthetic, vision, thematic concerns, politics, or mis-en-scene, and when the person you're arguing with can't rebuke your assertion because they haven't seen anything by the director you brought up, you've won the argument.
>>63128911
4. Use the word "mis-en-scene". Use the word "auteur". In fact, use any French words whenever you can, even if there is an English equivalent you could use instead. If you spoke in English, your ideas might actually be lucid to people who aren't ingrained with film theory, and then plebs would actually think they could respond to you as if they had anything worth saying.
5. Be sure to namedrop psychologists, leftist academics, and continental philosophers whenever you can. No person, even a person who likes arthouse films, is going to look particularly sophisticated if films are all they know about. Examples of good names to drop include: Karl Marx, Noam Chomsky, Slavoj Zizek, Jaques Derrida, Sigmund Freud, and Carl Jung. These are just starting points, feel free to expand on them as you like.
And that's it! You're now a fully certified patrician! Do you feel intellectual yet?
>>63128827
>>63128856
>implying that the dialogue is any better in French
Europeans are idiots, they want to act snobby and but the fact is they've been coasting for the last 2 generations.
This garbage is considered groundbreaking satire in France. It's below Family Guy humor.
>>63128952
>implying you understand at all how linguistics and translations work.
You're an idiot, you might want to enforcing it.
They are not. You are somehow focusing on Cannes trends in order to make a point but european films do not resemble Haneke's masturbations overall, I don't even know where do you get the actual idea considering that all new hollywood directors like Scorsese and Spielberg got heavily influenced by european cinema.
>>63128155
Of course that's your contention. You're a first-year film student; you just got finished watching some nouvelle vague cinema, Jacques Rivette probably. You're gonna be convinced of that 'till next month when you get to Godard's maoist period. Then you're going to be talking about how Truffaut's shamelessly became petit bourgeois after the 60's. That's gonna last until next year; you're gonna be in here regurgitating André Bazin, talkin' about, you know, caméra-stylo and mise-en-scène.
"Pretentious, vacuous, lifeless, and pseudo intellectual"? You got that from Cahiers du Cinéma n° 97, page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you, is that your thing, you come on 4chan, quote some obscure opinion and then pretend - you pawn it off as your own, as your own idea just to impress some virgins, embarrass my tripfriends? See, the sad thing about a guy like you is, in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're going to come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life: one, don't do that, and two, you dropped 150 grand on a fuckin' education you could have got for a low ratio warning on karagarga.
>>63128952
Can you post the original and your own translation?
Yes, a Haneke trashing thread!
Cache was one of the most pointless psychological dramas of the past decade. By the time it's over, you don't come away with anything resembling "enlightenment", you just watched a really boring anti-Western drama. Nymphomaniac, while certainly LVT's weakest outing, had a lot more going for it than Cache. For one thing, it didn't take itself seriously at all.
>>63129005
>You're an idiot, you might want to enforcing it.
irony
>>63129023
>Nymphomaniac, while certainly LVT's weakest outing, had a lot more going for it than Cache. For one thing, it didn't take itself seriously at all.
>>63129017
>that pasta approaches the subject of plagiarisms and not having original thoughts
The irony is not lost on me here, I can assure you.
>>63128155
I came on here to tell you that you are an over generalizing fuck and was going to list off a bunch of European movies that are light-hearted and not all serious and pretentious but then I could only think of three movies (Dead Snow 1 & 2 and Trollhunter)
>>63129005
if you think that stilted dialogue is the result of linguistics you are retarded. There Yurofilms with decent dialogue, just that we rarely get them here and they are not the films that discussed on /tv/. Instead all we get here is Cannes bait and pseudo intellectual trash.
>>63129075
thatsthejoke.jpg
Cache is a dull exercise in fearmongering anti-European propaganda. OMG WE'RE SO DESENSITIZED AND DESPERATE TO REMAIN HARMONIOUS! Haneke has the morals of a 14 year old edgy SJW teenager
>>63129023
Haneke is generally an insufferable prick, but Cache is one of the finest European thrillers ever made. You should be ashamed of yourself.
>>63129035
Please don't tell me you think languages are directly translatable?
That they aren't subject to the person who is translating it?
>irony
I don't think you understand how that works.
Have you read a fucking book before?
>>63129133
Cache is a trite story that desperately wants its bougie audience to feel uncomfortable with their lives and their choices which are inevitably a microcosm of brown people who get fucked over by said choices on a daily basis, at least according to Haneke's finger-wagging race-baiting parables anti-western. Pretty much all of his movies are like this, at least the ones people give a shit about.
>>63129107
>if you think that stilted dialogue is the result of linguistics you are retarded.
But this is literally the case. The person translating has a shit way with words, so you don't get the intention of the director, at all. Well you can, if you take their emotion and expressions into account. But you know, you're a fucking retard.
That's literally how translations work, and why one book can have extremely different meanings with only differing translations.
Please, stop being a fucking idiot and educate yourself.
>>63129139
I don't fucking know, I'm not the person making this thread.
You called someone an idiot and then in the same sentence misspelled(or misused) a word. That is irony my butthurt friend :^)
>>63129090
Those are good, I have seen some Scandinavian and Easter yuro films which come across as authentic.
>>63129215
>trite story
>bougie audience
>finger-wagging race-baiting parables anti-western
:^)
>>63129226
Holy shit, this is not irony. This is being a pedantic little cunt.
I made an innocuous mistake, the point remains.
When you slit your wrists remember to go upwards, that way you will actually die.
:^)
why are so many of you faggots anti-cinema?
>>63129215
I don't even give a shit about black or brown people or French colonial history, it's just a well made, suspenseful film.
>>63129216
there is a massive difference between the dialogue in a JLG film and a Louis de Funes film. It has nothing to do with translation and everything to do with poor screen writing.
>>63129262
Everything I have said about Haneke and his work is true: He gets off on making upper-middle class Westerners uncomfortable and guilty. He made a whole movie blaming the Third Reich on traditionalist Christianity. Not even getting into Funny Games and all of the sermonizing bullshit that entails it.
>>63129271
MAXIMUM DAMAGE CONTROL
>>63129215
>caring about story
Holy fucking pleb
>>63129303
>there is a massive difference between the dialogue in a JLG film and a Louis de Funes film. It has nothing to do with translation and everything to do with poor screen writing.
But you are posting direct translations and not the original dialogue, even though people in this thread are asking for original dialogue.
>>63129287
yo can't trust /tv/ the meme board
>yuros being this butthurt that their films are being made fun of
absolutely booty blasted lmao
>>63129357
if you think the original dialogue is any better you are fucked
>>63129331
>only idiots can make mistakes
Rightio.
>that post
Jesus, that's actual irony.
>>63129290
Fine, you can think that, but I personally don't think a movie that relies on racial tension, character contrivances, and a mystery that falls apart under close scrutiny is all that "thrilling". This is also exacerbated when pretty much every character is a stock type, being written only to react to situations. Contrast with Code Unknown, Haneke's only "perfect" film, as it's pretty much the opposite of Cache in every way while preaching the same anti-Western themes.
>>63129394
>if you think the original dialogue is any better you are fucked
>I refuse to provide evidence that would directly back up my claim
>instead just trust me
>:^)
Yeah, no. If you make a claim, be prepared to back it up. You're literally retarded.
>>63129287
because the so called cinema is fill with all sorts pretentious nonsense. It is embarrassing that the shit considered cinema is so intellectually vacuous.
>>63129323
>He made a whole movie blaming the Third Reich on traditionalist Christianity.
He's not wrong there. Also there was more to The White Ribbon than just the strict anti-masturbation priest.
>>63129354
When there is NOTHING else noteworthy about the movie, and I mean nothing, then yes, I will look to the narrative itself to find something worthwhile. There is nothing to Cache, to the point where I think Haneke wrote it in a week.
>>63129445
>pretentious
This is pretty much the new Godwin's Law
>>63129399
Learn to differentiate between posters, this isn't reddit.
pro-tip 'anonymous' is multiple people.
>>63129463
You seem to have find a lot noteworthy about the movie simply by being so mad about it. I wonder if your reaction would've been the same if the old guy in Cache had been a European instead of Arab.
>>63129507
>trying to claim you aren't samefagging
Holy shit, just stop, don't even bother with a shitty shop. What are you even doing? Is your life that sad you are that desperate for attention?
>Look I R oldfag
Nice try, newfag.
>>63129446
There was also the abusive rapist Christian baron and the abusive upper class Christian doctor, rounding out the three characters in the story who hold all the power and inspire all of the evil in the movie!
>>63129463
How does it feel to be such a living and breathing retard? Or, arguably worse, pretend to be one on /tv/ to rile people up?
>>63129561
cringed
>>63129563
Wow, characters in a turn of the century German village were Christian!
>>63128911
>>63128942
This is probably pasta but still very underrated post
>>63129496
pffft, it is the case today that no one wishes to call out intellectual importers. The cinema, the art scene, and the yuropean academy all need to be criticized.
>>63129543
>I wonder if your reaction would've been the same if the old guy in Cache had been a European instead of Arab.
If the old suicidal man had been white instead of brown then it would have completely dissipated whatever buzz the movie had. Nobody would care about Cache if there wasn't any race-baiting; It's a movie made to make liberal college students and white housewives uncomfortable. Nothing clever about it.
>>63129463
>narrative is the last thing you look at a film for
Stop trying so hard
>>63129632
>>63129563
Your /pol/ isn't showing, you fucking reek of it
Take a break from 4chan for your own mental health
>>63129581
>literal 30 seconds in-between replies
Just how much are you spamming f5?
>>63129632
I don't get it, do you only enjoy works that actively stroke your narrow political viewpoints?
>>63129632
People would care. It would still be a Haneke film, high-profile, on Cannes. Stop embarrassing me, please.
>>63128155
>Also why is the dialogue so synthetic in your films
Can you name some films with synthetic dialogues and some with authentic dialogues?
>>63129603
>missing the point completely
Haneke made a movie about evil Christians who create an even bigger evil. The movie looked gorgeous but the sermonizing was out of control, to the point where even Hollywood (whose movies are 50% sermons and 50% titillation) took notice.
Also it had this awful scene.
>>63129723
>>missing the point completely
No, tell me how it would be possible for German villagers in the early 20th century to not be Christian?
>>63129563
>>63129723
I saw it a long time ago, remind me how it's made explicit that the baron and the doctor were Christian?
I seriously doubt their behavior was inspired or guided by Christianity.
Haneke said the movie is about the roots of totalitarianism.
The reason why today cinema is inferior to the 20s is because too many kids from the 60s and 70s were influenced by the precary self-referentialism and masturbation of the banal evidenced in Godard and Rohmer cinema and ignored for complete autheurs of the caliber of Ruttmann and Sternbeg.
The languid, aesthetically void, intellectually bankrupt and vulgar suddenly became the example to be followed, and eximious craftsmanship and concise intellectual work demonized and put aside.
>>63129759
He criticized Hitler bro, you can't do that.
>>63129782
Again, I saw it like 5 years ago, and I'm a turbopleb, how does it tie in with Hitler/Third Reich?
Was there some text at the end explaining
>and they all went on to become Nazis
Or what was meant to make us assume that?
>>63129718
Yeah people whose livelihoods rest in film would care sure, but the layperson like you wouldn't give a shit if Cache didn't tickle your "white guilt fix".
>>63129707
I prefer to watch movies that don't scream at me or mock me or patronize me for being a capitalist.
>>63129842
>I prefer to watch only those movies that fellate my worldview
Europeans still have World War 2 in the collective consciousness. Americans have not suffered recently. Life threatening conflict is a foreign concept to them, and they are well shield against such notions. It's probably why Americans are so shit to their Veterans, they don't want to accept the reality they lived through.
Almost certain that OP has never read a book in his life beyond high-school level.
>>63128155
I didn't even know we had films.
>>63129436
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XPclSSgUOA
keep believing that faggot
>>63129874
I prefer movies with no worldview. And if they have a worldview, which is fine, then they better not be self-congratulatory and spiteful about it. Three Kings and Cache are trash for the same reason.
>>63129928
It's only us that have films
>>63129874
You mean like how European art films all have the same tired politics that critique capitalism/masculinity/white homogeneity because they're conservative and that makes them bad? They're no different from every other affluent first world yuppie's opinion.
>>63129968
Where do you get your info hahahahahaha
>>63129968
You watched every european art film? Impressive
>>63129932
That literally proves you wrong though.
Is this the first movie you have ever seen that wasn't made post 2000?
>>63129133
So European thrillers are all garbage? Good to know. (Not surprising, to tell you the truth.) Cache is just Cape Fear minus the interesting parts and plus a bunch of plot holes and a juvenile hack at a racial-justice angle.
>>63129759
>movie is about the roots of totalitarianism
from the perceptive of Critical Theory, Critical Theory is intellectual toxic waste. That is why the film is laughable. If he wanted to trace the roots totalitarianism he would of made a film about Hegel, Wagner, and Goethe.
>>63130023
>he thinks that is naturalistic
have so more https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lcrs6m2-zQ
>>63129990
Well, not that they all do, but moreso that any European art film that takes a political stance can always be counted on to take the same tired political stance. You will never see a European art film that venerates the existing power structure (unless it's hostile towards white male racists or some other fascist boogeyman). Any films that critique communism are made from the perspective of the downtrodden citizens of communism, never from the perspective of outsiders fighting communism. European art films, like all art, are a product of their times and places.
If you want to know why Sweden and Germany are what they are today, you need only look to their cinema.
>>63130026
What does Wagner have to do with totalitarianism? His greatest work, the Ring, is radically left-wing, anarchist-socialist.
Parsifal was banned from performance at Bayreuth from 1939 onwards as "ideologically unacceptable".
The leading ideologist of the Nazi party, Alfred Rosenberg, perceived this and made it very clear that Wagner was not one of them. Hitler would try to force his generals and officers to attend the operas and they would slink out to go to beer-halls. Hitler would then round them up and force them back in, and they would yawn and fall asleep, so he gave up.
Almost everyone but Hitler hated Wagner, some secretly, some openly.
>>63130125
That clip is actually awesome
>Do you keks actually believe that the aesthetic form conveys truths?
Can you tell me how it doesn't?
>>63130125
>implying this proves anything.
>implying there has never ever been a human interaction like that, ever
So yes, it was the first movie you had ever seen that was made before the 2000's.
It's fine. But now I understand you're just a retarded 4chan memer. I won't bother replying again.
>>63130213
the director inserting his infantile philosophy into a soliloquy, pls
>>63129772
desu the older I get the tru'er It gets, I used to love Cannes films but now I find them garbage
>>63130192
>European art films, like all art, are a product of their times and places.
You realize you aren't the only person who thought that before, right? You vastly underestimate the mind of the artist. That it's somehow foreign to you that an artist can know of art being byproduct of time and society, and thus attempt to transcend and pry mastery of art and aesthetic from outside influences, snipping the tethers of the exterior, I doubt you've EVER come to a film, a novel, or a piece of music with a truly open, truly humbled perspective. Your mind is controlled absolutely by the exterior world and the systems you name-drop. You can't think for yourself, you have no sense of a human being's interior world because of your barren inner wasteland, and the last thing you should be appraising is art.
>>63130232
>gets btfo
>uses ad hominem in an attempt to cover his ass
>>63130125
>>63130268
If a soliloquy somehow invalidates the artistic worth of something, I'd love to know what books you've read (or likely, in this case, haven't read).
>>63130317
>completely ignores point
>posts an extremely unnatural movie as an image
Lel, thanks for proving my point, memer.
>>63130312
He is not underestimating Yuropean artists, read some critical theory and you have 98% of Yuro art films covered. They are all products of broken worthless intellectual theories.
>>63130375
>implying the dialogue in LoA is unnatural
>>63130312
>I doubt you've EVER come to a film, a novel, or a piece of music with a truly open, truly humbled perspective.
I watched this film just the other day, and I was taken aback by the totally nonchalant and unironically masculine approach it had for the subject of revenge. It clearly spoke of the differences between cultural Christianity and cultural Islam. In the United States or Europe, such a serious film would almost certainly never be made as this was, there would be endless pondering about how the act of killing his brother's murderer was tainting the boy's soul.
It managed to be more eye-opening than 1000 Haneke exercises in audience sadism and contempt for European culture.
>>63130366
a soliloquy does not invalidate the worth of something, it does when the artist hamfists his philosophy into one
>>63130409
You read what is essentially an outline that tells you what to think, and are making it blatantly obvious that what you think was fed to you. And yet you somehow think you're intellectual superior to every European art director, each and every one of which you outclass because you know buzzwords and make reductive claims that they're all basically the same person doing the same simplistic, reductive thing that's 100% true, according to you, the master of the form.
>>63130442
>ignorance
When will the memeing stop?
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abI8cdLvJp8
>so natural
>>63130470
That's not an example of being open, though, because clearly it aligned with your pre-set needs for what you demand a film give you.
>>63130485
no, it is because Yuro art films are so obviously created around a set abstract ideas and because they have so few interesting particulars. The directors have no understanding of life outside of their pathetic theories.
>>63130561
Only your own openness truly counts. Epiphanies only matter if they're the right ones. Only European intellectuals can guide you to the one true path. :^)
>>63130531
it is dramatic, but it is not unnatural. Compare that to JLG and Cannes bait
>>63130671
>the memeing continues
Just stop. You didn't like the movie, THAT'S FINE. Don't fucking act like it's somehow objectively 'bad' when it's your own subjective opinion.
You're literally proving nothing except how much of a pleb and memer you really are.
>>63130615
Ignoring how that's just not true about many euro directors, you take it for granted that they're even attempting to make films about common life. The intent of a lot of art is to make art about art. That's no less valid than any alternative MO. Also, who the fuck are you to say that a director doesn't understand life? That's such a flawed statement. What do you know about life, anon, and how can you tell me this or that film or director is off base? Off base of what, exactly, your specific experience of doing nothing all day? Is it somehow unknown to you that of all present life, of all past life, there are people who don't live according to your daily reality? What you know of life is almost guaranteed to be limited, and I find it shocking you would claim that someone twice your age, living or dead, understands less about life than you, a person who is literally incapable (as you claim of them) of thinking outside of theory and buzzword.
Is there anything worse than a shitposter who takes himself seriously?
>>63129939
>I prefer movies with no worldview.
How is that even possible?
>>63130772
>Posts I disagree with are shitposts
>>63130800
the entirety of New Hollywood has no worldview.
>>63130829
Are you kidding?
>>63130744
it is terrible as with the rest JLG films, one would have to be a turbopleb to think that anything he has done has any worth outside of jump cuts
>>63130664
As if art directors have never thought about pluralism. The supposed dogma of the art scene exists, yes, but your absolute and total generalization of it across all the directors and films you've never seen is bonkers.
>>63130842
Tell me the worldview of anything by William Friedkin, Scorsese, Altman, Malick, etc.
My god, this thread is awful.
Stop being such insufferable cunts.
> watch American movie
> have to sit through an unskippable intro playing of the star spangled banner
> McDonald's and adult diaper commercials every 30 seconds
> actors break character to clap at the end of the movie
Honestly, I don't know how you guys enjoy this
>>63130843
>still trying to force his own subjective opinion onto others
>thinking it proves anything but how much of a pleb he is
Just stop.
>>63130807
Not necessarily, but when you start a thread by spelling European as Yuropean, using words as faggot and c u c k, it's pretty obvious.
Going to sleep now tho
>>63130878
They all have widely different worldviews
Malick's is unabashedly Romantic
Altman's is based around populism
70s Friedkin and Scorsese prefer a fascistic view of survival of the fittest
How can you even think that someone can have no worldview?
>>63130878
Are those the only people you allow yourself to idolize? Do you only allow yourself to read Hemmingway, too? And yes, they all have worldviews, they're just simplistic and based on deference. Which is entirely valid, their art is good - but that's just one kind of art.
>>63130758
art about art is quickly becomes shit, just go to any modern gallery to confirm. My basis for saying that Yuro art directors do not understand life is their schematic films built around intellectually laughable theories. I work for a living and have to interact with many people on a daily basis. Seeing daily life through the lens of Marxist theory is good for a laugh, but it has nothing to say about the lived in experience of life.
>131 posts
>29 IPs
WEW
This thread is 100% shitpost
>>63131078
>discussion is now shitpost
Go back to /sp/
>>63130932
>still thinks that Yuro art films are good because various pseudo intellectuals say they have value
>call other plebs for thinking for themselves
Just stop
>>63131110
>missing the point this hard.
>still trying to prove subjectivity = objectivity
>he is actually still going
>>63131052
>art about art is quickly becomes shit,
Why and how? That's an empty statement.
>just go to any modern gallery to confirm.
I wasn't talking about modern art, of which you seem incredibly conditioned to reject based on what you've heard.
>My basis for saying that Yuro art directors do not understand life is their schematic films built around intellectually laughable theories.
Please, give me an example that isn't incredibly reductive of a film and missing its point.
>I work for a living and have to interact with many people on a daily basis.
That's literally what a director does.
>Seeing daily life through the lens of Marxist theory is good for a laugh, but it has nothing to say about the lived in experience of life.
Not every life is the same or operates under a system or society informed by the same philosophies, internal or external, especially across time. It's not an art director's job to make films that seem real to an average American's everyday life in November 2015.
this thread is funny, some people actually try and dismiss art because it's not made to be watched with 3 pounds of butter on your pop corns
>>63130202
>His greatest work, the Ring
Not that guy, but Wagners best is Tristan und Isolde.
>>63131178
>argues against me
>argues everything is subjective
>>63128155
>implying you are capable of telling the difference between intellectual and pseudo intellectual
>hint: you are not
Just shut up and wait for Taken 5.
>>63131261
You're literally arguing your own opinion and getting butthurt when people don't feel the same way.
I don't even understand what you are doing anymore, this has shifted so far from the original point, and it was you who shifted it, why I wonder?
You don't have to worry, I am not going to reply again, you're simply wrong. Or at least, you have no fucking idea how to argue a point.
>>63131078
It's mostly two /pol/tards
>>63131255
>it's not his best because it's popular
The Ring Cycle is probably the greatest artistic achievement of the 19th century
>>63131403
>He doesn't go to /pol/
Stay bluepilled, Reddit faggot
>>63131434
Why would I? I may as well stay here, it's /pol/ 2.0
>>63128972
>but the fact is they've been coasting for the last 2 generations.
This perfectly describes the USA
>>63129842
>I prefer to watch movies that don't scream at me or mock me or patronize me for being a capitalist.
Proud capitalist here. I enjoy being challenged on my beliefs and hold no delusions about my way of thinking being infallible and can enjoy the views and works of someone who is anti-my worldview as long as they bring up valid points or come from a place of sincerity in the least.
You need to get some thicker skin, you sniveling faggot.
>>63131509
You should be with your own kind. I'm sure you understand that.
>>63131214
art about art losses any connection with life or reality. Have been to plenty of modern galleries, yield rate of modern art is very low. When it does yield it is usually stolen from other sources (Roy Lichtenstein). See the White Ribbon. Haneke's explanation for the rise Fascism is so obviously shit because the abstracted explanation given is incapable of differentiating between Great Briton and Germany. Being a director is being in bubble. No society operates under anything resembling what is postulated in Marxist or Critical theory.
>>63130878
Each of those directors is influenced by European directors.
>>63128155
You should have just posted a pic of Peter Griffin and typed "shallow and pedantic" as your post
>>63131572
Which ones?
sources?
>>63131320
I gave reasons for my argument, all you fall back upon is the critics say it is good or your opinion is subjective
>>63131563
I'm not the one rejecting every single film that doesn't allign with my views
>>63131569
You speak about art as if it isn't part of reality, and that's where the root of your problems arise. We get it, you don't like Haneke. Barring your narrow perspective on his work, he's not every art director. Why do you speak in such absolutist terms? Why does it matter if a film's reality isn't directly comparative to real forms or structures? You've failed to say anything of any value, which is ironic because your gripes are all about vacuity.
>>63131533
not him, but how many films are championed for being 'challenging' when they are nothing more than impotent rants?
>>63131569
>Haneke's explanation for the rise Fascism is so obviously shit because the abstracted explanation given is incapable of differentiating between Great Briton and Germany.
What?
>>63131569
>he takes all of your points completely head-on
>you totally ignore all his points while just fucking repeating yourself
holy shit you are a pussy lol
I won't be bothered to read all those text walls, can someone give me a resume of the thread?
>>63131768
If the rant is well written then bring it on, my friend.
>>63131774
Because the joyless protestant upbringing portrayed in The White Ribbon could just as easily apply to a turn of the 20th century small town in England as it could to one in Germany. Yet one nation gave rise to fascism, and another didn't.
Haneke fails to clarify between these two cases, he just says 'stodgy Christians are evil and create Hitler'.
>>63131768
>>63131891
Oh also there's a difference between "challenge" and "challenging" I hope you realize.
>>63131601
>Friedkin
https://www.criterion.com/explore/185-william-friedkin-s-top-10
"Five of the films on this list are French and another is about France. One is from Japan, one is Danish, one is from England and one is from the U.S. Six (and a half) are in black and white. None were made later than 1979. I could easily have chosen scores of others from different countries and years."
>Scorsese
"In the 2012 Sight and Sound Polls, held every 10 years to select the greatest films of all time, contemporary directors were asked to select 10 films of their choice. Scorsese, however, picked 12, which are listed below: 2001: A Space Odyssey, 8½, Ashes and Diamonds, Citizen Kane, The Leopard, Paisà, The Red Shoes, The River, Salvatore Giuliano, The Searchers, Ugetsu Monogatari, Vertigo
http://collider.com/sight-sound-directors-list-quentin-tarantino/
Several of those were European.
>Altman
Notoriously guarded about his influences, but it'd be insane to say he only liked films from his own country.
>Malick
Also guarded, but he for sure is influenced by Europeans: "Malick studied philosophy and worked in journalism before he turned to film. He produced a translation of one of Heidegger’s short texts (1) and the philosopher’s writings appear to have influenced the films greatly."
http://sensesofcinema.com/2002/great-directors/malick/
>>63132002
Can you provide a source for that? Haneke blaming Christians for Hitler, I mean.
>>63132002
Actually the kind of sexually repressed Protestantism that you're talkng about would've found much clearer parallel in turn of the century America (where a cereal company was created due to its founder's efforts to eradicate masturbation) rather than Anglican Britain. I don't know why you're picking on England, when it has literally nothing at all to do with the film.
But I still don't understand what you're getting at. Haneke doesn't even directly say this is what led to fascism, merely portraying the strange events that happened before the World Wars. Perhaps it's telling of humanity's failures in general, or pointing to an uncontrollable (the various unexplained, freakish occurrences in the film, which have nothing to with strict Protestantism) force that is the source of evil.
>>63131748
Of course it is a part of reality, the problem arises when language games become nonsense. I am not saying that this art should not exist, I am saying that the cultural value of it needs to be diminished. Also the people making and championing these art films use comparisons to real forms or structures in criticizing mainstream films, so the criticism goes both way.
>>63131774
in that Haneke's explanation is so poor that can not different why Fascism gained traction in Germany and not in Great Briton.
>>63131787
take your head out of your ass, I responded to all of them
>>63132247
>Of course it is a part of reality, the problem arises when language games become nonsense.
Art about art is diverse, and you need to explain why it's a problem and what 'nonsense' constitutes, otherwise it seems like you're generalizing something I'm not sure even exists. I can't think of one film that's about language and nonsensical.
>I am not saying that this art should not exist, I am saying that the cultural value of it needs to be diminished.
Why?
>Also the people making and championing these art films use comparisons to real forms or structures in criticizing mainstream films, so the criticism goes both way.
Provide an example.
>>63131601
Malick is continental philosophy on film
It's no wonder he was disillusioned with the analytical philosophy rampant in academia
>>63128155
Yes Europoor movies are pretentious and lifeless.
But it makes you feel good (more artistic) when watching them.
There are some decent euro movies but French movies are very overrated.
Aesthetics are the only way to convey truths to the layman.
>>63132352
> I can't think of one film that's about language and nonsensical.
Film Socialisme, hell the vast majority of JLG work.
>Why?
because theories that are outright wrong deserve to die. If they have cultural currency via 'intellectual' 'arthouse' film they are harder to kill.
>Provide an example.
See pic. Can provide plenty more. Pretending that people making and championing these films do not criticize the authenticity of mainstream films is disingenuous.
>>63132690
>>63132734
>Film Socialisme, hell the vast majority of JLG work.
Alright, so that's Haneke and JLG that you don't like. Can't you just not like them? Why must it be come every European art director?
>because theories that are outright wrong deserve to die.
Explain how the theories are wrong.
>Pretending that people making and championing these films do not criticize the authenticity of mainstream films is disingenuous.
That's not what I was asking. You said that when criticizing mainstream films, people compare it to reality also, as a cause for criticism.
>>63132785
This image does not function as a response. Artists and geniuses are the modern day prophets, gifted with the ability to convey "God's" truths to those of us who lack such talents.
>tfw everyone drags Continental philosophy into discussing left-wing ivory tower trash art
>tfw right-wing Continentalist
>tfw I Stand Alone by Godsmack
>>63128155
Because those are movies for adults, not teenagers like you
>>63132879
I can expand the list (Antonioni, Sokurov, Tarr, ect)
Critical theory, Marxism, and psychoanalysis are all terrible theoretical framework. The refutation of these theories is easy enough to find.
Just take your favorite art direction google their name + "Hollywood" + authenticity.
>>63133137
>I can expand the list (Antonioni, Sokurov, Tarr, ect)
OK. Don't you have many american directors you dislike, too? I still don't see why you're disposing anyone European. That's stupid.
>Critical theory, Marxism, and psychoanalysis are all terrible theoretical framework. The refutation of these theories is easy enough to find.
So, you're just shooing me off in a different direction. Are you incapable of coming up with your own arguments? I think it's especially transparent by this point that you just let others tell you what to think; that's basically what you're telling me to do. Also, there's support and opposition for any theory, ever, and not every European art director ascribes to the same theories.
>Just take your favorite art direction google their name + "Hollywood" + authenticity.
I did that, and it showed me anecdotes of Tarkovsky giving a fair assessment of the Terminator, which he liked.
>>63133458
plenty of American director I dislike
Are you honestly saying that those theories are not central to the majority of yuro art films and Cannes bait? I fail to see how I let others tell me what to think because I hold those theories in low regard. I expect people to have their theories backed up by empirical evidence.
yes, in the most detached way possible
>>63133711
>Are you honestly saying that those theories are not central to the majority of yuro art films and Cannes bait?
They're not central to any of the art films I love, and I can't speak for the majority. If you don't like certain brands of thinking, why not watch different art films? They're are lots of them.
>I fail to see how I let others tell me what to think because I hold those theories in low regard. I expect people to have their theories backed up by empirical evidence.
Empirical evidence? You realize this is art we're talking about? Why the fuck should art operate based off empiricism? That's totally counter-art. God, even if a film about a brand of ideology I detest was well-made I'd have to give it that; are you sure you should even be watching art? What art do you enjoy, might I ask?
>yes, in the most detached way possible
Lmao, so Tarkovsky didn't like a movie the 'correct' way for you? Jesus, man. You're so biased against a generalized concept that exists solely in your head that you can't even begin to breech the idea of individualism. Which, again, if you can't think in terms of individuals, why are you suffering art?
>>63133879
certain brands are held up, so I am just doing my part in tearing them down
no, but if that art is being held up a intellectual then it should
not the way he liked it, the way he communicated his like
>>63134044
It takes nothing to tear something down. Why don't you build something up? What is it you're pushing for, what is intellectual to you? What is intelligent? What is essential? What is valuable?
>>63134258
>It takes nothing to tear something down.
Then stop holding up JLG, who would be nothing at all without all of the cinematic beauty that had been established before him for him to 'deconstruct'.
>>63134637
?
I never said anything positive about JLG. Thank you for completely ignoring any questions that would make you out to be an idiot if you attempted to answer them, though.
>>63134678
I'm not the other dude you were replying to.
>op getting btfo
pretty hot opinions though
>>63128972
>This garbage is considered groundbreaking satire in France
it's not, like not at all
charlie hebdo was considered a trash satirical paper and was in a bad financial situation before they got BTFO by the sandniggers and managed to milk every cent from the tragedy
