File: MV5BNDQ2NTM3MTAxNV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNTY1NjgzNDE@._V1_SY317_CR0,0,214,317_AL_[1].jpg (11 KB, 214x317) Image search: [Google]

11 KB, 214x317

One of the most visually stunning movies I've ever seen.

File: Twin.Peaks.Fire.Walk.with.Me.1992.REMASTERED.1080p.BluRay.X264-AMIABLE.mkv_snapshot_00.23.34_[2016.01.11_16.03.28].jpg (1 MB, 1920x1040) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 1920x1040

>>65072083
Lubezki's instagram-youtube aesthetics get tiresome hella fast and that movie is ugly as shit.

File: Faust.2011.720p.BRRip.1GB.MkvCage.mkv_snapshot_01.54.46_[2015.12.06_01.41.26].jpg (118 KB, 944x720) Image search: [Google]

118 KB, 944x720

Much better in motion but i don't have any webm.

File: maniac-1367040484.jpg (626 KB, 750x1116) Image search: [Google]

626 KB, 750x1116

Drive
Only god forgives
Enemy
2001: A space odyssey
Beyond the black rainbow
Nightcrawler
Oblivion
Moon
Her
Gravity
Grand Budapest hotel
John Wick
Interstellar
Maniac

What is that movie with the girl who is an orphan and she has a black orphan friend, and they imagine they are having an amazing feast. Then some guy in a turban comes to visit her and her wish comes true. Does anybody know this movie?

>>65072157
>Lubezki's instagram-youtube aesthetics
Do you even think before you type?

File: a little princess.png (859 KB, 1273x713) Image search: [Google]

859 KB, 1273x713

>>65072461

>>65072052
Russian Ark
A Serious Man
Susperia
Turin Horse

>>65072157
here's your reply

>>65072510
Also, A Serious man > Leviathan, especially the use of Book of Job

File: ltd.jpg (1000 KB, 1920x1040) Image search: [Google]

1000 KB, 1920x1040

>>65072475
There's not much to think about when Lubezki is involved since his Perfect Shot Nation cinematography is never interested in adding anything to the context of the film (narrative, directing).

File: the_new_world_christian_bale.jpg (975 KB, 1920x1080) Image search: [Google]

975 KB, 1920x1080

>>65072640
>implying adding anything to the context of the film is solely the job of the cinematographer
>implying Lubezki doesn't do that in his collaborations with Malick where the use of natural light, no filters, short focal length lenses and low angle Steadicam contributes to the Heideggerian philosophy of being-in-the-world that drives Malick's films where the characters appear larger than life and hyperreal in the midst of their existential doubts
>implying you made any sense when you said that Lubezki's aesthetics are both Instagram-YouTube (which is wrong since he doesn't use filters nor a cinema verite visual style) as well as Perfect Shot Nation, which implies something even more nonsensical
>implying you're not just shitting on Lubezki because he's popular than ever and it's the cool thing to do
>implying I wasn't right when I wondered whether you even think before you type

>>65072052
>mfw I thought it would be about a leviathan and there was none
fuck

>>65072052
pleb magnet: the thread

>>65072548
I didn't get A Serious Man, at all.
Went right over my head.

File: 00004.mpls_snapshot_01.16.47_[2016.01.19_18.10.00].jpg (1 MB, 1920x1080) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 1920x1080

>>65073840
I've shat over Lubezki since I first saw him work in Children of Men.
>>implying adding anything to the context of the film is solely the job of the cinematographer
Okay, we can agree both Malick and Lubezki are terribad. I can go with that since Malick hasn't made a good movie since Badlands.

Any existential doubt Malick can muster up comes off as shit writing so I guess the issue is with both.

>>65074160
>Okay, we can agree both Malick and Lubezki are terribad.
That's not what I said at all. Please learn to read.

>I can go with that since Malick hasn't made a good movie since Badlands.
>Any existential doubt Malick can muster up comes off as shit writing so I guess the issue is with both.
What issues do you have with Malick? People don't seem to realize how deep his work really is, especially his critically polarizing recent films.

>>65072157
>>65072640
>>65074160
>doesn't like Lubezki
>likes generic hazy "cinematography"

>>65072052

The new James Bond has really great cinematography. And it's an okay movie. But the cinematography really shines (only first half of the movie)

File: Enter-the-void-poster.png (300 KB, 300x400) Image search: [Google]

300 KB, 300x400

this piece of shit

File: dvd_snapshot_00.12.10_[2016.01.19_19.43.27].jpg (193 KB, 720x480) Image search: [Google]

193 KB, 720x480

>>65074299
>Malick
>deep
His writing is shallow and terrible, his directing is much worse, and all he has is Lubezki's Youtube music video sensiblities or maybe his cologne advertisement aesthetics depending of the scene.

>>65074400
I figured One Perfect Shot Nation retard wouldn't understand cinematography that actually serves a purpose of the director instead of being cinematographers jerk off reel

>>65072461
Pan's Labyrinth

>>65074666
>Bullshit Fucking movie wjith shit direction.

>>65074666

Bright pretty colors does not mean great cinematography. That's just art design that plebs find "SUPER KEWL"

Not cinematography.

>>65075428
Yeah and wide lenses and music video aesthetics don't mean either, especially when they're so detached from what is happening in the film.

Gaspar Noe's worst shit and ideas is still better than Malickbezki

>>65075091
>His writing is shallow and terrible
His writing is based on Biblical, theological, historical and autobiographical sources not to mention his own interpretation of Heidegger's works. It is not based on any conventional three act structure, but conveys the mood, theme and emotions of his vision of reality effectively. He is a filmmaker first and foremost, not a novelist, and it shows.

>his directing is much worse
His directing style has changed much from when he started. You cannot say without knowing beforehand that the person who directed Badlands is the same person who directed Knight of Cups. But it still carries his distinct style of allowing the actors freedom to improvise within his narrative framework. His idea of shooting in the moment and creating a more coherent structure in editing is innovative as an exercise in montage and, as said before, capturing the hyperreal now.

>and all he has is Lubezki's Youtube music video sensiblities
Again, you are spouting paradoxical nonsense. Is Lubezki's aesthetics perfect shot or YouTube? Because I seriously don't think anyone can believe that a "YouTube aesthetic" is the same as a "perfect shot". Besides I think you are criticizing the editing style ("music video") rather than the cinematography, in which case you are even more stupid than I thought.

You have no real criticism to offer beyond playground level insults and swipes and posting some very mediocre cinematographic shots. If you do not have any reasonable argument, perhaps you should go and educated yourself instead of posting your terrible opinions on things that you have no capability of understanding.

>>65075551

Malick's writing is shit. I love Lubezki but just because Malick's faggot brother committed suicide doesn't mean the whole world should suffer.

His interpretation of any philosophy is bunk. He was literally laughed out of Oxford.

Privileged cunts can never be artists.

File: house.s03e16.1080p.bluray.x264-shortbrehd.mkv_snapshot_27.50_[2016.01.19_03.09.13].jpg (895 KB, 1920x1080) Image search: [Google]

895 KB, 1920x1080

>>65075551
His directing is shit. Nolan can get Bale perform well and Malick can't even make Bale look believable in his role. Simply put, his directing is shit. The fact his turds are 2 hours long and it's riddled with shit acting every movie screams he is bad director. The fact he can't cut a movie to save his life (Thin Red Line) screams he is shit director.

The fact first 15 minutes or was it 25, hell entire Knight of Cups seems like parody of Malick's sensiblities shows he is shit director.

And we all know what Malick is telling about and shooting because he isn't subtle and spoonfeeds his audience like they're 6 year old kids. I think Michael Bay has more subtle approach to his film making than Malick. He is one of the worst writers and circled only because of his established status in canon, if this was newcomer his movies would be ridiculed because, they are, written like a retard.

>Paradoxical nonsense
Just because you don't udnerstand doesn't mean it's paradoxical. Lubezki has never outside Birdman offered anything as cinematographer outside his antics which don't relate to narrative or storytelling in any level.

File: Leviathan.jpg (1018 KB, 3840x2680) Image search: [Google]

1018 KB, 3840x2680

>>65072052
Nice one OP.

>>65074400
>Twin Peaks cinematography
>generic
Lubezki is great but you're a tasteless fag if you don't appreciate the beauty of Twin Peaks' cinematography.

>>65075639
>Malick's writing is shit.
>Malick's faggot brother committed suicide doesn't mean the whole world should suffer.
You have no real criticism to offer beyond playground level insults and swipes.

>His interpretation of any philosophy is bunk.
Have you read his work "The Concept of Horizon in Husserl and Heidegger"?

>He was literally laughed out of Oxford.
This is the same person who studied at Harvard, won a Rhodes Scholarship and left Oxford only because his interest in continental philosophy clashed with his analytic peers.

>Privileged cunts can never be artists.
Do you have a tumblr page?

>>65075788

Twin Peaks wasn't really known for its cinematography, anon.

>>65075830

>Have you read his work "The Concept of Horizon in Husserl and Heidegger"?

No and neither has anyone else.

>studied at Harvard

At a time when doing so required that one be white, rich, and alive.

>Rhodes Scholar

Which he blew.

>Left Oxford

He was kicked out.

>>65075843
it was ''known'' for it's style, which also includes cinematography.

>>65075830
>You have no real criticism to offer beyond playground level insults and swipes.

So? Playground level is Malick's level of insight.

File: untitled.jpg (1 MB, 1920x1080) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 1920x1080

>>65075843
Twin Peaks has actual cinematography that ties to its themes, goal, narrative and aesthetics Lynch had in mind. It helps the director to tell a story.

but what would a faggot loving Lubezki know about storytelling? ONly thing that matters is latest cinematogrpahy memes and gimmicks.

Go fuck yourself, pleb scum

>>65075830
>>His interpretation of any philosophy is bunk.
>Have you read his work "The Concept of Horizon in Husserl and Heidegger"?
No but I have seen his joke movies that are filled with atrocious writing

>>65075960

It wasn't at all known for its cinematography. It was known for quirky characters and non-sequitur plotlines. It was basic TV camerawork.

>>65075967
>>65075967
AYYYYY
[ ] Not told
[ ] Told
[X] TOLDASAURUS REX
[X] No country for told men
[X] Knights of the told Republic
[X] ToldSpice
[x] The Elder Tolds IV: Oblivious
[x] Countold Strike
[X] Half Life 2: Episode Told
[x] World of Warcraft: Catoldclysm
[X] Roller Coaster Toldcoon
[X] Toldasauraus Rex 2: Electric Toldaloo
[X] Pokemon Told and Silver
[x] The Legend of Eldorado : The Lost City of Told
[x] Mario Golf: Toldstool Tour
[X] Battoldfield: Bad Company 2
[x] Portold 2
[x] J.R.R Toldkien's Lord of the Told
[X] LitTOLD Big Planetr
[x] Told Fortress 2
[x] Castlevania: RonTold of Blood
[x] Cyndaquil, Chicorita, and Toldodile
[x] demon's told
[x] Tolden Sun: Dark Dawn

>>65075973
>Twin Peaks has actual cinematography that ties to its themes, goal, narrative and aesthetics Lynch had in mind.

How, precisely? Be specific you buzzword-dropping faggot.

File: Twin.Peaks.Fire.Walk.with.Me.1992.REMASTERED.1080p.BluRay.X264-AMIABLE.mkv_snapshot_00.12.21_[2016.01.19_20.12.29].jpg (1 MB, 1920x1040) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 1920x1040

>>65075997
>The Lubezki kek is utterly unable to understand cinematography that has an actual meaning and isn't relying on latest gimmicks

Lynch isn't even that amazing writer or director yet he is too complex for you to grasp.

Fucking Malickfags I swear you are dumb as bricks.

>>65075720
>Malick can't even make Bale look believable in his role.
Believability is not a primary concern in the arts. Perhaps you in your limited high school sensibilities think that realism is the be-all and end-all of artistic expression but for most of human history believability has never been the measure of good art.

>The fact first 15 minutes or was it 25, hell entire Knight of Cups seems like parody of Malick's sensiblities
Having a consistent and unique visual style does not mean it is parody. Are Tarkovsky films parody for reciting poetry over images of flowing water?

>And we all know what Malick is telling about and shooting because he isn't subtle and spoonfeeds his audience like they're 6 year old kids.
But apparently this doesn't work because people like you still do not understand his philosophical background or how they color his films.

>He is one of the worst writers and circled only because of his established status in canon
If he is such a bad writer how did he become established in canon? You are not making sense, certainly not the first nor second time this has happened.

>Just because you don't udnerstand doesn't mean it's paradoxical.
No, you are the one not understanding because I said that you are being paradoxical. Either Lubezki is "YouTube tier" or makes "Perfect Shots". Do you sincerely believe that "Perfect Shots" are "YouTube tier"?

>His directing is shit.
>Simply put, his directing is shit
>he is shit director.
>he is shit director.
Is this really going to be your level of argument or are you pretending to be a moron?

File: 2409919628_8a712001e9.jpg (69 KB, 500x261) Image search: [Google]

69 KB, 500x261

Ahem

>>65076078
>Lynch isn't even that amazing writer or director yet he is too complex for you to grasp.

Lynch isn't a cinematographer. Focus.

And I hate Malick. You are clearly confused on multiple levels.

For the record

SHIT TIER
Malick
Lynch
Twin Peaks

TOP TIER
Lubezki

>>65075907
>No and neither has anyone else.
That is not a rebuttal. Learn the thing about which you are arguing to be effective.

>At a time when doing so required that one be white, rich, and alive.
Can you link me to your tumblr page?

>Which he blew.
He "blew" it by leaving Oxford.

>He was kicked out.
Academic disagreement can never be grounds for dismissal. He left on his own accord because he did not find the academic atmosphere there conducive.

>>65075973
>No but I have seen his joke movies that are filled with atrocious writing
See my first point and my previous posts.

File: Dogvill.2003.720p.HDTV.x264.DD5.1-FGT.mkv_snapshot_00.15.56_[2016.01.19_20.17.03].jpg (317 KB, 1280x544) Image search: [Google]

317 KB, 1280x544

>>65076081
If you use actors as a director and can't direct them to a good performance, you are bad director.

If you can't cut through a movie to a respectable showing, you are bad editor, which Malick is since he does it.

>doesn't mean it's parody
No but being so in far in his own ignorant ass that only a retard or parody could be explanation makes it one.

>>65076145
>>Lynch isn't a cinematographer. Focus.
But director will direct the cinematographer unless we are talking about hack directors like Malick or Villeneuve, both belong to same intellectually nothing to say trash can.

File: Lance.jpg (16 KB, 480x236) Image search: [Google]

16 KB, 480x236

>>65072052
>ctrl f
>apocalypse now
>no results

come on people. Also Army of Shadows, Pierrot le Fou, and Crimes and Misdemeanors.

>>65076081
>If he is such a bad writer how did he become established in canon?
Lucked out with Badlands which is legitimately good and managed to fool people with Days of Heaven because of his memetography

File: 1441251357600.png (143 KB, 280x275) Image search: [Google]

143 KB, 280x275

>>65072328
breh I wish I could be your best bro

>>65076188
>That is not a rebuttal.

No, but it was a response. I haven't read it, and neither have you. Undergraduate theses are neither interesting nor readily available. Why would you want to read that anyway? It literally has nothing to do with Oxford.

>leaving Oxford

He was kicked out for being a hothead spoiled Texan retard.

>Academic disagreement can never be grounds for dismissal.

Failure to work with your advisor has always been grounds for removal from PhD candidacy.

>>65076240
>But director will direct the cinematographer

A director directs actors, dumb dumb.

Lynch isn't a cinematographer. You can't even name the DP for Twin Peaks off the top of your head.

>>65076454
Lynch has actually worked as full time cinematographer in Inland Empire and director will tell the DOP to what to do unless they are
>Malick
>Villeneueve
list goes on

File: A river runs.jpg (289 KB, 1933x999) Image search: [Google]

289 KB, 1933x999

-A River Runs Through It, pic related

Also,

Deliverance (I'm from the Appalachia area, so it's like watching awesome, Burt Reynolds nostalgia since I've rafted and hiked some of the places in the movie)

>>65076240
>complains about hack directors
>posts von Trier
Are you a joke?

>>65076240
>If you use actors as a director and can't direct them to a good performance, you are bad director.
Film is not just about performance or acting, perhaps in the Hollywood world where the most important celebrities are always the surface level people i.e actors. This is an absolute childish approach to the visual arts, on the same level as people who go to watch movies because their favorite actors are in them.

>If you can't cut through a movie to a respectable showing, you are bad editor, which Malick is since he does it.
Malick cuts the movie to his own personal vision which is thematically coherent and "respectable". I would say he is a much better editor than a director.

>No but being so in far in his own ignorant ass that only a retard or parody could be explanation makes it one.
Again ad hominems that contribute nothing to the argument and only make you, reflexively, look like the "ignorant ass".

>>65076592
Far less hack than Malick in Melancholia, Nympho I dc and Dogville. Malick will never do anything that good.

>>65076634
>Film isn't about performances or acting
Then why is Malick stuffing his films with ensemble casts, he films actors, this will be rated, he has failed time after time in directing in his actors.

>Own personal vision
>TTRL
>Own personal vision
Confirmed for liking Malick just because he is told to like.

Malick can't direct, cut his films at all. Stop slupring his dick, it's okay to not to like empty airhead dierctor like him

>>65075343
The Valley of the Gods is just awesome. You could film anything there and it would look great.

>>65076408
>It literally has nothing to do with Oxford.
And Oxford has literally nothing to do with this conversation.

>He was kicked out for being a hothead spoiled Texan retard.
What evidence do you have apart from memespouting? All the biographies state that it was he who left over disagreements with his advisor who did not want him to write about Heidegger.

>>65075343
Good choice

>>65072052
The Revenant

>>65076790
>And Oxford has literally nothing to do with this conversation.

Sure it does, considering we were discussing the reason why he was kicked out of Oxford. Err wait, lemme guess, you thought that was what he wrote while at Oxford and you just now learned it was just an undergrad essay?

Glad I could teach you something.


>All the biographies state

Cite them.

>>65076769
>Then why is Malick stuffing his films with ensemble casts, he films actors, this will be rated, he has failed time after time in directing in his actors.
Because he wants characters and the human element, but it should not become the primary focus nor take over a scene or even the entire film. Malick's actors are placeholders for the emotions and words which they represent and voice. This is the exact theatrical interpretation of film acting that Bresson had problems with.

>Confirmed for liking Malick just because he is told to like.
Do you know what a personal vision is? Because The Thin Red Line (which is a very loose adaptation of a book) carries his personal vision, again of the Dasein, temporality and up/rootedness of his Heideggerian interpretation.

>Malick can't direct, cut his films at all.
I already addressed this. Directing is not just limited to telling actors what to do. Once again you betray your adolescent view of film.

>Stop slupring his dick, it's okay to not to like empty airhead dierctor like him
Perhaps you should go over my previous posts and look things up and read them.

>>65076557

Working a digital handycam isn't cinematography.

>>65076882
LMAO

File: The-Assassination-of-Jesse-James-by-the-Coward-Robert-Ford-jeremy-renner-18446839-853-480.jpg (40 KB, 853x480) Image search: [Google]

40 KB, 853x480

I actually was one of the first to use a tilt-shift lens artistically in cinematography. SCC, 1999.

>>65076950
There is nothing human in Malick's movies, and there are terrible characters because of the writing, in fact he has very few characters in his movies. Intentional or not, it's hilariously shit.

>blaa blaa Malick has vision
and terrible execution of it.

>Directing is not limited to what actors do
Mind stating the obvious bit more? He can't make a film that's not a joke, that's also a huge fault in director. First 30 minutes of KoC are GRRRR SO EXISTENTIALISM MUCH THINKING tier shit it made me laugh my ass off.

>>65076936
>Sure it does, considering we were discussing the reason why he was kicked out of Oxford.
Yes, and that has nothing to do with his films or Lubezki's cinematography, which is what started this entire argument.

>Err wait, lemme guess, you thought that was what he wrote while at Oxford and you just now learned it was just an undergrad essay?
Not at all, it's one of the few writings we have that lay out his approach to philosophy and film in his own words.

>Cite them.
Tucker, T. (2011). Terrence Malick film and philosophy. New York: Continuum.
Maher, P. (2012). One big soul: An oral history of Terrence Malick. Peterborough, N.H.: Paul Maher Jr.
Maher, P. (2012). One big soul: An oral history of Terrence Malick. Peterborough, N.H.: Paul Maher Jr.

>>65076967
Fucking ignorant moron, what else could I expect from retard that likes empty, shallow shit like Malick or Lubezki.

>>65077157
*Woessner, M. (2011). What Is Heideggerian Cinema? Film, Philosophy, and Cultural Mobility. New German Critique, 129-157.

>>65077031
>There is nothing human in Malick's movies
Except for the fact that all his movies deal with existential themes, a philosophical movement that explicitly centers the thinking on humans and the individual.

>and there are terrible characters because of the writing
The writing is in how the characters

>>65077157
>Yes, and that has nothing to do with his films or Lubezki's cinematography,

So? We were still talking about Malick getting kicked out of Oxford. Just because you got BTFO doesn't mean it's suddenly not a topic you autist.

>it's one of the few writings we have

We don't have it. It hasn't been published. You never read it.

>by all I mean both

Are either of those critical of Malick in any way?

>>65077239
the grasp of 'human' escapes malicks simpleton mind. he cant write about anything, beliavably. i dont even believe he believes this schlock he writes.

'thats where the god lives' 'operatic shit playing while space is shown'

fucking cringe 3000

>>65077186

Again, I despise Malick. And I like Lynch, I just don't find anything unique about the cinematography of Twin Peaks.

>>65077212

That's not a biography of Malick, dumb dumb.

>existential themes

Themes aren't human.

>>65077259
>So? We were still talking about Malick getting kicked out of Oxford.
And that's not true. See the works I cited.

>We don't have it. It hasn't been published. You never read it.
All theses are published and publicly available. If you had any library resources, you can easily request a copy.

>Are either of those critical of Malick in any way?
They are biographies and academic articles that refer to the biographies. Why on earth do you think they should be critical or on the other hand lionizing?

>>65077333
See above.

>>65077285
>Working a digital handycam isn't cinematography.

>I just don't find anything unique about the cinematography of Twin Peaks.

Seems liek you can't even fucking understand what is being spoken 'bout.

Why are you babbling about digital handycam in relation to TP? And it doesn't even matter what you think of anything, Lynch was dop in Inland Empire which you clearly mixed up somehow with Twin Peaks (where he also DIRECTED the cinematographer or is it a fucking accident the episodes are (mostly) staying with same set of rules cinematographically?

>>65077031
>Mind stating the obvious bit more?
I was merely stating your teenage approach to film. I did not make the claim, it is you who languish in it.

>First 30 minutes of KoC are GRRRR SO EXISTENTIALISM MUCH THINKING tier shit it made me laugh my ass off.
Merely confirming your teenage sensibilities. Read all the posts I have made, perhaps you can appreciate films more.

>>65077492
You were assuming things and putting words into my mouth, fresh calling other people teenagers when you act like fucking one lol.

>>65077549
>You were assuming things and putting words into my mouth
But you were the one who said that "If you use actors as a director and can't direct them to a good performance, you are bad director." here >>65076634
I only summarized what you said to show how childish your approach to film is.

>>65077455
>Tucker, T. (2011). Terrence Malick film and philosophy. New York: Continuum.

That's not a biography and deals nothing in Malick's early education.

>>65077457

Say, what was the camera used in Inland Empire?

And who was DP in Twin Peaks?

And how many seasons of Twin Peaks was Lynch involved with?

>>65072310
Pleb.

>>65077695
It talks about his life and academic career. You can search in it yourself.
https://books.google.com/books?id=nEa_33WQkDkC

>>65076454
>A director directs actors, dumb dumb

A director, if he is any good and has a strong vision, directs and oversees every aspect of the making of a film, dumb dumb.

File: Social Network.2010.BD.Remux.1080p.h264.Rus.Eng.2xCommentary.mkv_snapshot_01.52.47_[2016.01.19_21.04.57].jpg (708 KB, 1920x1080) Image search: [Google]

708 KB, 1920x1080

>>65077605
Well you are a bad director in that case, simply bad in directing actors and thus you have no reason to get a fucking ensemble cast but seems Malick's head is so lost in his brother's faggot ass that he can't see the retarded mistake he makes with likes of thin red line and koc and as of, IDK, about Thin Red Line he can't even direct a honest convincing scene that doesn't make me question if the director is simply retarded or pretentious. Every scene moves liek they're having gravitas of fucking funeral but skips to parody or near laughable instantly he tries to hold it.

>summarized
put words into my mouth and pretended to win argument :v)

Feels like watching dishonest lies made by a man that enjoys sitting in self-pity in some cabin. He really should do a straight forward movie about self-pity sometime

>>65076240
>>65075973
>>65076262

How are these good cinematography?

>>65076454
>A director directs actors, dumb dumb.
AHAHAHA^

MALICKFAGS

AHHAHAHA

CALLING OTHER PEOPLE TEENAGERS IN FILM

AHAHHAHAH

HOLY

SHIT

>>65077816
>Well you are a bad director in that case, simply bad in directing actors and thus you have no reason to get a fucking ensemble cast
So you agree that I was right, that you think directing is just about directing actors? Thanks.

>thus you have no reason to get a fucking ensemble cast but seems Malick's head is so lost in his brother's faggot ass that he can't see the retarded mistake he makes with likes of thin red line and koc and as of, IDK, about Thin Red Line he can't even direct a honest convincing scene that doesn't make me question if the director is simply retarded or pretentious. Every scene moves liek they're having gravitas of fucking funeral but skips to parody or near laughable instantly he tries to hold it.
I have no idea what you just wrote. Can you please enroll in a grade level English class and come back to me?

>put words into my mouth and pretended to win argument :v)
No, I only repeated what you said. Don't be upset that you were proven to be wrong by your own words.

Besides, all the "cinematography" you posted is just bland and uninteresting. Makes sense that you are a cyncial teenager who can't appreciate film that falls outside your narrow, presumptouos, cinematically and philosophically illiterate views.

>>65077983
No I'm stating he is bad director when he has to film actors with his stupid ensemble casts and he is too ignorant to see his own weaknesses. He is also bad director when it comes to overall mis-en-scene (he used to be good, in fact Badlands has quite the conclusion)

>Malickfag rating cinematography based on one still of a movie.
>Malickfag canonically saying director only directs actors >>65076454

Yesus wept you are stupid

>>65078065

Again I'm not into Malick at all. Hate his flicks.

And yes, a director directs actors. He doesn't direct the DP. He tells the DP what he's looking for. That isn't directing.

>>65077854

A director directs actors, yes. That's what directing is.

>>65077797

Overseeing isn't directing. Informing of your desired outcome isn't directing.

>>65077772
>https://books.google.com/books?id=nEa_33WQkDkC

That's fine, but it's not a biography.

One Big soul is, and I'd be interested in reading it, but I doubt if there will be anything negative about Malick in it. It won't be a tell-all. So things making him look anything other than a genius philosopher who sacrificed academia for art probably didn't make it in.

File: yWEBGr3.png (1 MB, 1920x1080) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 1920x1080

Ida.

I really need to get a Blu Ray drive for my laptop so I can make some webms. These threads are so deficient of webms it's unreal.

File: Capture.jpg (143 KB, 613x1005) Image search: [Google]

143 KB, 613x1005

>>65078269
>He doesn't direct the DP. He tells the DP what he's looking for. That isn't directing.
That's directing you twat.
>Informing of your desired outcome isn't directing.
Informing of your desired outcome isn't directing.

Or do you think it's fucking accident that despite everyone else but DIRECTOR changing in various auteur films (from Mann, Guillermo Del Toro, Ford etc) the movies looked the same in general terms?

fucking ignorance running wild here, but you are malickfags, you are ignorant by nature as is your director.

File: Apocalypse Now (2).jpg (2 MB, 4320x2739) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 4320x2739

>>65076262

>>65078269
>He tells the DP what he's looking for. That isn't directing.
Stop being a pedantic cunt. For all intents and purposes that IS directing. DP may have an idea, director shuts him down and DIRECTS him towards something he does want.

>>65078428
There will never, ever be another film like this ever again. Who could possibly risk that much time, money and effort? I'm just glad it's a masterpiece because at least we know what can be done with the medium if everybody involved in such an ambitious project is firing on all cylinders.

>>65078414

Now click on "director" in definition 5.

>>65076124
Wtf is that anon? I've seen it, and can't remebriate, and need to know.

File: Capture.jpg (90 KB, 620x639) Image search: [Google]

90 KB, 620x639

>>65078305
lmao

are you really in a thread about malick

without knowing what directors do, even more so what auteur directors do

>>65078520
And? You got absolutely blown the fuck out. Directs the interpretative parts of film making.

B
T
F
O

What you are saying is that auters don't exist and any visual consistency is **ACCIDENT**

Goddamn if that ain't ignorance about what directors do, the I don't know what is.

File: 1428420038805.webm (3 MB, 960x720) Image search: [Google]

3 MB, 960x720

/tv/ is starting to wake up the the fact Malick is a hack.

>>65078414

The movies tend to look the same from those directors because those directors tend to respectively use the same DPs in their work.

>>65078472

Sorry I should have been more clear that I was referring to the film and television definition of the word "direct" on the film and television board of this site.

The DP has an incredible amount of autonomy.

>>65078603
>>The movies tend to look the same from those directors because those directors tend to respectively use the same DPs in their work.
Haha, no.

What a fucking ignorant attitude about film making, it makes perfect sense that you are die hard Malickfag.

>>65078603
>film and television definition of the word "direct" on the film and television board of this site.
You don't know what that word means, the dictionary knows it far better.

>DP has incredible amount of autonomy
ONLY from hack directors that have literally NOTHING TO SAY OF THEIR OWN.

>>65078585

Right, manages. The director is like the manager.

The visual consistency is based on the consistency of staffing the same DP.

>>65072052
Tarkovsky. So many goddamn shots that look like masterworks of still photo composition I wouldn't even know where to start.

>>65078661
It literally reads director is responsible for interpretive aspects of film.

DO you fucking speak English you negroid?

>>65078660
>Haha, no.

OK then let's talk about two movies by any director that look the same but have an entirely different camera crew.

Maybe you want to pick two Malick flicks, for example?

>the dictionary knows it far better

I agree totally. A film dictionary would solve this. Feel free to cite one.

>ONLY from hack directors that have literally NOTHING TO SAY OF THEIR OWN.

I think you overestimate the influence a director has on the final project.

>director is responsible for interpretive aspects of film

That's fine. That doesn't mean the director is the cinematographer.

>>65078705
see>>65078749

Find that film dictionary, I'm taking my dogs for a walk.

>>65078749
Director literally directs and tells dop what to do if he isn't a hack.

That's what has been happening since I don't know, Fritz Lang with auteurs?

Are you afraid to admit Malick is airhead?
>>65078800
>find a film dictionary
just go check up wikipedia article for it too, you are ignorant and scared that you will find out Malick airhead.

>I leave
pussy.

>>65072310
OGF was monumental, as was Valhalla Rising. Thin Red Line is also in my books, and say what you may of Revenant, but the cinematography was brilliant.

>>65078828
>Director literally directs and tells dop what to do

No. For one thing the DP is usually far more educated.

I agree Malick is an airhead. I don't like Malick. I don't know how many times I need to say this for a pattern to emerge in the conversation flow.

>just go check up wikipedia article for it too

I will accept that. I love wikipedia. Right after I get back from walking my dogs.

>>65074097
It was something of a tragedy/comedy in a Shakespearean way. I'm not sure it meant much besides how much this guy suffered. Loved it though. Need to rewatch in the hopes I missed something.

You two retards, there are no hard and fast rules determining what directors control or hand off to their DP. It even varies by project. Sometimes a director will want to frame & light & shoot certain shots exactly his way in one film, and in the next, be excited to work with a DP he gets on well with or just respects, and hand it all over to that DP's autonomy.

It's always different.

I feel that there is a difference between filming a location or set that is already beautiful/cool looking and actual "good" cinematography.
If I am making sense, can someone point me in a direction of the latter?

>>65078943
Exactly. Do you really think that Sam Mendes knew better than Deakins on Skyfall? Do you think that Coppola knew better than Gordon Willis?

>>65078682
Tarkovksy was a fraud
You only think his images are beautiful because you are forced to stare at them for so long

File: image.jpg (453 KB, 1772x1688) Image search: [Google]

453 KB, 1772x1688

>>65078682
The opening shots of Solaris are just drop dead gorgeous.

And then there's...

>>65079093
lol

That is genuinely funny.

>>65079115
>[muffled cheeki breeki in the distance]

>>65078380
What you want is something that is impossible to find save for the most well known people in history.

>>65079151
lol
your post sure changed my opinion

>>65079184
Why would I want to do that?
I just said I found the thing you said genuinely funny. Cause those long shots are indeed sooo fucking long.

Your opinion is your own. I have mine.

>>65079184
Why would anyone care for changing the opinion of a) a shitposter, b) a tasteless pleb or c) a redditor?

>>65078943
>, and hand it all over to that DP's autonomy.
You mean non-auteurs like Villeneuve, Malick, Mendes.

>>65079322
Malick is an auteur. And the other 2 are more of simply directors, but Villeneuve is hopefully evolving

>>65079321
>says the Tarklover
Go jerk off to your time sculpture more, pseud.

>>65079382
Go suck a knife

>>65079379
Villeneuve has been devolving actually. Went from copycat director to a non-director.

>Malick is an auteur
Visually you can't tell when you are watching a Malick flick. You'll just end up describing Lubezki to me.

>>65079299
>I can't argue, it's all subjective, let's all sing Kumbaya

>>65079416
>being this aggressive
That's not what your Slav manlet idol would've wanted.

Tarkovsky had a talent for holding a shot. Never got bored of him doing that. Never seen any other director being able to hold a shot, scene, like him. Effortless really.

I don't even like him that much, his movies are for himself or his ilk and that's not me, but gotta give credit for him anyway.

>>65079451
What a gutless faggot you are

>>65079451
Ok then.

>>65072461
>>65072506
this movie is comfy af

File: file_595631_mr-turner-quad-poster.jpg (199 KB, 640x482) Image search: [Google]

199 KB, 640x482

Not a great film, but had a bunch of amazing shots.

>>65079534
>more insults instead of substantive argument
Tarbabies are really the pinnacle of defending their opinion, aren't they?

>>65079568
OK.

>>65078546
The Fall

>>65079586
>implying opinions even need to be defended.

>>65079581
Really? I thought his performance was the best of the year.

This is a cool video if you've not seen it. https://youtu.be/OnMgmzH1koQ

>>65079745
>this is what liberals believe

>>65079762
*grunts*
*rapes maid*
*spits*

>>65077822
Apocalypse Now won the oscar for best cinematography

>>65079762
I liked it, but it wasn't that great imo 2bh.

>>65079869
So did Life of Poo

>>65079778
>Lets make America great again.

Glad to see all these posters realizing what hack frauds Malick and Lubezki are. They are the cancer killing the American art film scene, while auteurs like Harmony Korine and Joe Swanberg are trying to save it.

hey is the malickfag back i'd like to get his steam or letterboxd account :3

>>65078749
>That doesn't mean the director is the cinematographer.

Nobody said he is. The director directs the DoP to film a movie in such a way as to bring his vision to life. Most directors are heavily involved in the selection of lenses that will be used, framing, etc.

You can just as well say
>The director doesn't direct actors, he just ''manages'' them, because the actors are the ones who give the performance.

>OK then let's talk about two movies by any director that look the same but have an entirely different camera crew.

David Fincher has maintained a very consistent visual style throughout his career and has used several different cinematographers.

This is a dubious point to make anyway, because what you are implying is that if a director changes cinematographers and the look of the film changes from what he has previously done, therefore he is not directing and it's 100% the cinematographer's work. Take someone like Soderbergh, for example, who has been the DoP for lots of his own films, and they can look very different.

>>65079949
Korine's Spring Break was very good honestly.

why the spiteful comment

>>65079885
And Life of Pi had great cinematography, just using non-classical techniques. What's your point?

File: Heavens-Gate.jpg (346 KB, 800x450) Image search: [Google]

346 KB, 800x450

I mean seriously, it looks like a fucking oil painting.

>>65079949
How lovely you believe in your delusions after pathetically sperging through the whole thread. I recommend suicide, friend.

>>65079949
HELLO REDDIT

>>65079992
Because inauthentic pseudo-intellectuals like Malick deserve only spite.

>>65080063
Turneresque

File: rtuk_feature_fall_07.jpg (203 KB, 640x360) Image search: [Google]

203 KB, 640x360

>>65078546
The Fall

And what are some movies with meme cinematography?

Hulk 2003

>>65076675
>Nympho
literally the most hack film ever created

>>65075343
>plebs will try to deny that Ford was a genius

File: transformers_2007_movie_tribute.jpg (1 MB, 1920x1438) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 1920x1438

>>65072052

File: Birdman_x_Dr.Manhatten.png (984 KB, 917x985) Image search: [Google]

984 KB, 917x985

>>65080428
Birdman.

>>65075343
That beautiful rule of 3

>>65080553
It is a good looking film. (and I enjoyed it)

>>65080480
It's directors cut is very good. Why don't you like it?

>>65080553
There was nothing wrong with the First Transformers tbhfamilia.

Its just that the sequels gave us nothing new and were generally shit.

File: a true poet.webm (3 MB, 640x360) Image search: [Google]

3 MB, 640x360

>>65080553
Too dense. Just packed. Gross mass in place of world building. Probably doesn't even rhyme.

>>65072402
Into the wild was gorgeously shot

File: fook off white dog .webm (3 MB, 1280x586) Image search: [Google]

3 MB, 1280x586

dem slow movements

File: comicbook_zps77b403b9.png~original.png (150 KB, 402x218) Image search: [Google]

150 KB, 402x218

>>65080473
This desu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSGXERUKBj4

File: 1508.gif (2 MB, 378x288) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 378x288

>>65078477
well said anon

File: the-white-ribbon-movie-poster-2009-1010547964.jpg (15 KB, 266x309) Image search: [Google]

15 KB, 266x309

>>65072052
This

>>65080754
Haven't seen the director's cut. Only saw the original and thought it was a bunch of pretentious garbage, peppered with shitty acting.
Not really interested in seeing any more of it

>>65072506
Thanks anon for bringing this up. I forgot about this movie

File: Nymphomaniac.Vol.I.2013.Directors.Cut.1080p.BluRay.REMUX.AVC.DTS-HD.MA.5.1-RARBG.mkv_snapshot_01.12.31_[2016.01.19_22.46.47].jpg (897 KB, 1920x1080) Image search: [Google]

897 KB, 1920x1080

>>65081121
I've never thought of von Trier as pretentious, what is it that makes you say that he might be, dishonest - pretentious? I think he is very sincere and open director, his movies are simple and straightforward.

I do wanna say that splitting into two did more harm than good.

>>65080553
surely for a laugh, right?

File: the-girl-with-the-dragon-tattoo-12.jpg (459 KB, 1920x798) Image search: [Google]

459 KB, 1920x798

>inb4 blue filter

>>65072310
>ooh pretty colors means good cinematography

Fuck off back to /v/ you pleb.

>>65081398
All of the symbolism he throws in there signifies absolutely nothing other than "look at me! fibonacci sequence! three! [insert other pointless thing]"

>>65081403
If you're a redditor, maybe.

/tv/ likes Michael Baysed

>>65081503

omg so blue ebin cineamtogehrhpy ;^)

File: skyfall.png (1 MB, 1436x551) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 1436x551

James Bond Skyfall and Spectre.

The James Bond movies, especially the Daniel Craig ones have amazing cinematography. Skyfall has some of the best out of any film I have seen.

>>65081818
It's non-contextual pretty bullshit images for the most part in both.

File: valhalla-rising-02.jpg (746 KB, 1920x816) Image search: [Google]

746 KB, 1920x816

>ctrl+f
>valhalla rising

0 results.

>>65076090
>not the gramophone sequence

>>65082030

Good, pleb.

>>65082119
Ebin m8, here is your (you)

File: LOTR Fellowship of the Ring 229.jpg (638 KB, 1920x800) Image search: [Google]

638 KB, 1920x800

Is this the best shot in history of cínémá?

File: 14959099-Suicide-concept-man-pointing-a-gun-at-his-head-white-background-Stock-Photo.jpg (112 KB, 1300x866) Image search: [Google]

112 KB, 1300x866

>>65072157
This x100.

I still enjoyed it, but the camera work really wears out its welcome an hour into the film.

It's like we get it, nigga. Move on.

>>65082249
no

>>65082149

Yeah bro nothing but 00s shit like valhalla, cfraig bond, and fincher's dragon tattoo are the EBINEST CINEMATJGPRAHHY!!!!

Nice pleb thread, plebs. Nice pleb choices, plebs. Stay pleb, plebs.

>>65082249
yes

File: 1453238084530.jpg (312 KB, 1920x800) Image search: [Google]

312 KB, 1920x800

>>65082249
you just KNOW

File: fallenangels.webm (3 MB, 1000x552) Image search: [Google]

3 MB, 1000x552

malick is a hack. Lubezki is a hack

They're also thieves.

>>65078595
This. Using nature for "good" cinematography is such a fucking copout.

>>65082271
(you)

>>65082271
Fincher has definitely cinematography that's worth talking about, at least his late career stuff that's pretty influential even.

File: images.jpg (20 KB, 300x450) Image search: [Google]

20 KB, 300x450

>>65072461
A Little Princess.

Love this movie

>>65082345
Doyle is so underrated.

>>65082345
that looks pretty bad dude, like amateur ad.

is the malickfag back .3

>>65080216
>I have no idea what I'm saying

In the Mood for Love
Night of the Hunter

>>65082345
>Hey everyone, look what a contrarian I am, I'm trashing the most talented and visionary person in his field to create the impression that my taste is superior. Pls like me.

File: tips.jpg (26 KB, 213x237) Image search: [Google]

26 KB, 213x237

>>65082640

>>65082640
Malick isn't talented or visionary.

He has been spinning wheels for three dacades, riding off the meme 'Lubezki is good'

>>65082779
no

>>65076560
hey anon, this is less on the topic on cinematography or maybe it is. I loved A river runs through it because of the shots and the setting. Do you know of any other movies with similar landscapes shot in a similar light? Stand by me was a movie I felt had same visual to emotion appeal

>>65078595
What film is this from?

>>65082779
Please point out one example of poor technique/execution in any of Lubezki's works and how it can be improved.

>>65082840
Heh, hard to say. I know EXACTLY what you mean with River Runs Through It & Stand By Me aesthetics.

It's just not any shot of landscape, but those certain scenes in these movies involving nature.

>>65078885
>No. For one thing the DP is usually far more educated.
The DP is educated in everything camera and light related.
>I agree Malick is an airhead. I don't like Malick. I don't know how many times I need to say this for a pattern to emerge in the conversation flow.
Your opinion matters.
>I will accept that. I love wikipedia. Right after I get back from walking my dogs.
Good to know?

>>65082978
All of it.
>How can it be improved
By applying it properly (Birdman) with intent.

Not by using it randomly (Malick)

>>65082345
so they're both shot handheld with ultra wide lenses? i love christopher doyle, he's my favorite cinematographer, but i don't how he has a copyright on doing that.

>>65082982
Yup! Recently watched 7 Years in Tibet and had similar scenes but I was captivated by other topics in the movie. I'll keep looking. Thanks.. I was looking for the term "aesthetics" I guess

>>65083039
>Not by using it randomly (Malick)
Give me examples from Malick'f films, so I can prove you wrong.

File: 1846298885941.gif (506 KB, 294x233) Image search: [Google]

506 KB, 294x233

>>65083039
...right. I think it's safe to assume you have don't actually understand what constitutes well executed cinematography. I'll go ahead and disregard your criticisms.

>>65083039
Malick doesn't use images randomly. Your eyes and sensibilities are simply juvenile and weak.

>>65083251
>>65083253
>>65083267
nice samefag from the MIDF

>>65082030
This

File: Capture.png (7 KB, 380x136) Image search: [Google]

7 KB, 380x136

>>65083312
You wish.

>>65083312
Take one for the team and kill yourself, reddit scum

>>65083253
Good cinematography is one such that lends itself to storytelling instead of being removed from context of film and being a highlight reel of latest gimmicks

so that makes Lubezki trash instantly, in the same IMDB sensibility category as Deakins is.

>>65083410
You integrated buzzwords in your mind like if they actually have meaning

File: 04-jesse-at-sundown1.png (465 KB, 1024x433) Image search: [Google]

465 KB, 1024x433

>ywn see the director's cut

>>65083039
>applying it properly
>obviously fake one shot gimmick

File: 1436634707459.gif (1 MB, 720x720) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 720x720

>>65082923
Lads pls.

>>65083525
You are so fucking stupid if that's your idea of criticism in relation of Lubezki's cinematography in Birdman.

Literally whining about its intended purpose and how well it worked.

just how keked out of brain work are you malickeks

>>65079966
>David Fincher has maintained a very consistent visual style throughout his career

Pick two Fincher films that look alike and have different DPs. Stop fucking around.

>>65080647

>le floating lotus meme

>>65083749
>>65083749
>Pick two Fincher films that look alike and have different DPs
literally everything starting from Zodiac onwards is progressing the same visual style and cues..

You malickfags are really fucking uneducated in film

>>65083848

Pick two Fincher films that look alike and have different DPs. Stop fucking around.

>>65082840
Lord of the Rings is an obvious choice, although a bit different than the meandering river and streams along mountainsides that Montana and North GA showed in the aforementioned movies.

Rambo had some great shots honestly, but cheesy. The Hunted I think had kinda a comfy feel.

I know exactly the feel you're looking for, but nothing else is really jumping to mind. I actually loved the feel the show The Detectorists gave. Different landscape in the UK, but a similar feel for me. Also a very solid show imo.

The Patriot has some nice scenes, but other than that I'm afraid I haven't been much help. Sry anon.

>>65083883
lotr doesn't share the same atmosphere or aesthetics as those two movies, or rambo.

not to me at least.

Apocalypto

>>65072506
>>65079580
>>65081387
>>65082405

A little princess is an Cuaron film with Emmanuel Lubezki as DOP wtf.

>>65083883
>>65083932
Thank you anons.

All helpful

Tell a pleb what exactly cinematography is...just how good a shot/image is?

Does anyone have the barry lyndon shot? the one that looks like painting

File: 188453-barry-lyndon.jpg (198 KB, 1272x720) Image search: [Google]

198 KB, 1272x720

>>65084156
I have this, anyone have a better quality one?

>>65084045
Okay, in english: cinematography is everything that you see filmed, it can be good or bad.

>>65083883
And in regard to the suggestions, LOTR definitely had the scenic looks like you suggested but like the other anon mentioned the atmosphere being captured in those scenes was so different. Maybe in the beginning and the end when "everything was peace".

I'll give the rest a go. The Detectorists esp. Ty again

>>65084188
it is the entire mise-en-scène and its implications (because how else would you have thriller or horror)

>>65084231
not sure but the other anon mentioned Deliverance (the post you originally quoted), maybe try that? I agree it has same aesthetics of the nature as SbM & River Runs

>>65076124
Came to post this.

File: stalkerdog.jpg (222 KB, 1200x778) Image search: [Google]

222 KB, 1200x778

>>65083605
>its intended purpose and how well it worked

It doesn't work. The one shot is forced as fuck. Lubezki had to throw in a fucking timelapse to make it fucking work with the script. That's not even including the idiotic scene with Birdman flying around with tons of FX where there's literally no point in having it a one shot because you know you're not watching something real anymore. The cinematography's primary concern in the movie is to show off what great cinematography which is bad cinematography.

Lubezki's alright usually but his work on Birdman sucks because of that piece of shit hack Inarritu and his direction.

Also, fuck Malick and his shallow, tone poem filmmaking. He disappeared up his own ass ages ago.