Who is the best filmmaker in this image?
>>66897047
Joel
The unseen filmmaker is the bestest
tough to say they all have their own lane honestly
wes has made a bad film
>>66897153
Wes hasnever made a bad film
The one behind the camera.
yikes
joel, easily, and i don't even really care for him and his bro either
>>66897276
post profile
i met jim jarmusch once. grumpy guy. joel is the best. when can i stop selecting all images with sandwiches
all of them hack
David Lynch
>>66897105
This
Inarritu isn't in that image
>>66897047
certainly not hackderson
Elliot Rodger
>>66897397
This
>>66897047
Coen > Anderson > Baumbach > Jarmusch.
the oak tree in background.
also I just selected all the trees .
Of course autists here can't appreciate the subtle genius of Jarmusch
They all made good movies. Cinema isn't the olympics, btw
>>66897548
>Baumbach above anyone
>>66897757
I don't get why Armond loves Anderson but hates Baumbach. They basically make the same movies, except Anderson's have more visual style.
>>66897805
>They basically make the same movies
Nah
Armond has no consistency in his reviews
>>66897805
It was a time when Anderson was making odes to Ford and Altman as a young director. Critics love that homage shit when ego doing the homaging is in his twenties-thirties because it shows both promise and respect. But when you're pushing forty and your legacy is a string of copypasta'd oc-tier homages..
>>66897883
Armond is very consistent in his reviews. If it's directed by Wes Anderson, stars Jason Statham, comes from Sweden, or is rooted in conservative sensibilities, it's amazing. Everything else is contrived, schlocky, liberal propaganda. Also, fuck Christopher Nolan.
Jarmusch>Coen>Anderson>>>>>>>that other faggot
>>66898100
he also really likes Jarmusch, all the Ford rereleases, and David Lynch
>>66898100
Fuck Christopher Nolan. Smug anglo shit thinks he can cite Kubrick and Hitch as influences then expect his dick sucked? He a fad and Armond knew he was a fad since day one.
How do I into Jim Jarmusch?
>>66898267
Ghost Dog
>>66898267
You don't. Jarmusch is for pretentious girls who smoke cigarettes because they think it makes them look cool. Start on Cronenberg instead.
>>66898267
start from the beginning and move on chronologically
you could skip his very first feature film, permanent vacation
>>66898267
Dead Man is probably his quintessential film. It's an interesting drug trip of a movie. Pretty unique too in the way that it portrays death according to Native beliefs pretty well.
>>66898267
>>66898313
Cronenberg and Jarmusch are on the same level imo.
>>66898313
>thinks jarmusch is pleb
>recommends david lynch: reddit scifi baby edition
I bet you don't get stranger than paradise
>>66898313
disregard this cretin's memespeak, jarmusch is great
Cronenberg without a doubt imo
literally who is that on the left
that the guy that cheated on based Jennifer with that overgrown Kiernan Shiepka aka Greta Gerwig?
>>66898267
Honestly?
Watch Coffee and Cigarettes. It's like getting a sampler platter of the actors and themes that he continually works with in his films.
The Cate Blanchette vignette is one of the greatest acting performances I've ever seen.
>>66898313
Start with Stranger than Paradise, it's his best work
>>66898610
>Stranger than Paradise
You can just tell from the title alone. Movies for pretentious girls.
>>66898656
Who was it, anon? What girl with based taste in film broke your heart?
JIM JARMUSCH IS MALE SOFIA COPPOLA I WANT TUMBLR TO LEAVE
>directed by Noah Baumbach
>>66897047
I unironically didn't recognize a single person in that image.
>>66898787
You'd probably like him actually.
>>66897704
Jarmusch is fucking amazing.
Easily the best director in that pic.
>>66898787
What's wrong with that? Somewhere is a good flick
>>66898787
Fuck off tryhard shit, Jarmusch is good.
>>66898484
Just watched the Cate short, it was laughably shit. Cate is still wins most attractive without make-up award, even if her dirty grunge version was heavily made-up. The dishonesty there was not completely undetectible. The b&w filter along with the overemphasized acting gives it away.
>>66899236
he's beingironic
>>66898267
Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OoFRr_-eAA
>>66899276
The poster or Jarmusch (or Cate)? Is there even a difference?
>people actually pretend that Jim Jarmusch is bad to posture as having better taste than the rest of the board.
/tv/ is pathetic.
>>66899356
>is there a difference
No, if the director creates a film through a postmodern light it automatically envelops whatever intention the actor had. Cate was probably in on it though. It's like Lynch using the melodramatic soap opera actors on Twin Peaks.
>>66899398
he's not bad but he's not that good either. ill give him credit for being interesting and his films are worth watching, but he's clearly never going to become great (im not talking about commercial success, don't be a retard) even if 2 or 3 of his films are or are at least close. he's also kind of a hack and even admits it, which i guess does beat the alternative, but still.. also really bludgeons the same themes to death in such a heavy and obvious way, it gets old and predictable and after awhile he's just not adding enough to the table or doing enough with what he's already put on it.
sorry, anon
>>66899434
o god please with this ventured interpretation. ima 90s kid, i am the grungy Cate. i have siblings and friends who are millionaire corporate yuppies, i've lived those kind of reunions. it's not as artificial and bumbling as Jarmusch's depiction, but it's no affirmating hugfest either.
Jarmusch is an upper middle-class fag who caught a break in the wrong end of the 90s. the subtext is too obvious. he wants to ridicule and distance himself from the poverty-fetish ruling the artistic community of his era while at the same time portraying the naked ambition he yearns and is trained to pursue as not altogether malignant. mastery of the illusion of false dilemmas. that's what showbusiness is.
>>66899740
he's really one of many spokespeople for the near-triumphs and almost-travails of people who have never and will never be punched in the face.
>>66899740
I actually agree, it's just that he's not shit.
coen bro > jarmusch > wes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beer shit I took this morning > noah
wes/jarmusch is a tough pic cause I think wes has a better track record (he hasn't made a bad movie) but I like jarmusch's best way more than wes'
>>66899740
>>66899846
I think the problem is that Jarmusch isn't pretentious enough.
>>66900718
no, or more closely he is as correctly pretentious as an artist can get. look, art is a game where one tries to get away with as much as possible while maintaining a semblance of prestige and relevance as one can obtain. it's a balancing act. but the limiting factor is reality. no one can escape outside their own milieu. the most daring ones can, at most, speculate on alternate, virgin milieus and then fantasize about it--about ways of escaping, altering it.
Jarsmusch is trapped in his own upbringing as anybody else i've met. he has nothing to say, but for some he represents timebound virtues of what it takes to agree living a hollywood life.
i wonder if those other three enjoy the films of wes anderson
>>66897047
Tarantino
>>66898313
I thought plebs went to reddit first?
fucking hell...
>>66901173
I've only seen his early films up to ghostdog and I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say about him. He a guy that makes movies.
Wes and Joel are the best
>>66901283
kinda figurerd out you were a timeless commenter three posts back. jarmusch is a diary entry.
>>66901360
More than one person can see your posts and respond to them in case you're new to the place. You're still just talking nonsense tho.
>>66901431
same. your posts are the most generic rile-em-up one-liners ive seen deployed a hundred-thousand times. you literally think i care you care what you read from me when you're birth year starts with 2.
Jarmusch >Coen > Baumbach > Anderson
>>66901606
Well if I was trying to rile you up I would have pointed out that you're projecting on a director over petty interpretations of some of his films.
But honestly I was just trying to get you to pull your head out of your ass enough to actually explain what the fuck your deal is so I could understand your point better without just riling you up.
But this is a very touchy subject I guess?
>>66897337
Who thought that was a good idea?
>>66901782
It's about one scene where an actress play Jekyll and Hyde in the 90s. Anyone who actually lived thru that era would have understood what a joke it was. Any Jarmusch cocksucker younger than Jarmusch would have inserted all sorts of pretentious transmitted shit about how the ouevre reflects or distorts upon their life. The most articulate defense of Jarmusch in this thread is no better than two sentences exhorting to buy a one local beer brand over another, changes of respective nouns notwithstanding. Go on. Tell me about what Jarmusch really whispers to your soul.
>>66897047
jARMUSCH
>>66897047
Tim Burton. Just for Pee-Wee's Big Adventure.
A true visionary.
>>66902085
Well I haven't seen coffee and cigarettes so I can't defend that particular piece nor did I come into this conversation desperate to champion a director I like.
Have you seen any of his other movies tho? What did you think of them?
And again you seem way more anal ravaged over him than I feel is appropriate over a short film.Also are you a different guy or did you just suddenly start capitalizing all your sentences?
>>66902215
Stay on point pls since you decided to pretend youre new wading into an already-started conversation. Since a five-post thread already confuses you, let me refresh the prompt. Jarmusxh a fake shit. And your response?
>>66897047
whoever took the picture
>>66902359
Uh, you're a petty butthurt little boner lover and are completely off base about something you don't really know much about in the first place.
You probably lack in some key cognitive areas and I base this on you having an opinion with which I disagree with.But really you should try taking yourself a little less seriously.
>>66901173
>art is a game
Oh shit fellas, the art master has deigned to post in our midst! The man who's lived a quarter century and has the single most interpret-able endeavor all figured out! We better stop talking lest we make a fool of ourselves in the eyes of the Man Who Knows All.
>>66902479
>>66902529
so jarmusch touched your lives how? please be artistic-minded how you shitpost.
>>66902085
>Anyone who actually lived thru that era would have understood what a joke it was
I bet you think of yourself as the only authentic person in the world, huh. You're like veterans sitting around and mumbling about HOW IT WAS BACK THEN, MAN, except you have no actual life experience with anything that isn't holding yourself up over others.
>>66902593
But first you have to explain how you are not a petty butthurt little homo. Otherwise I have no reason to bother discussing anything with you.
I also need confirmation that you have seen more than one of his films.
>>66899740
Mate Wes Anderson bludgeons the exact same themes in everyone of his films too.
>muh quirky family
>welp i guess life isnt what i thought / or all its cracked up to be
>but im okay with that
>>66899740
>also really bludgeons the same themes to death in such a heavy and obvious way
If it's so obvious to you, you should be able to eloquently analyze and explain what those themes are to me, right?
>>66899740
Many great filmmakers kept revisiting the same thematics all over their careers. This isn't inherently bad.
>>66902618
>>66902668
Tell me how hard Jarmusch influenced your lifestyles and posting habits please
>>66902732
What art has influenced your petty attitude? What stirs your soul, anon?
>>66902675
>>66902713
>>66902724
>2 hour old post
I'm sure he's going to come back and be totally euphoric over all these (you)s.
>>66902732
Confirmed anally ravaged petty shit sucker.
>>66902778
>>66902816
Are these pretentious templates of replies all youve learned in two months of lurking an actual arts board?
No wonder you rush the penis of a husk named Jarmusch.
>>66902724
nothing is inherently bad
>>66902984
aids is
>>66902892
So for all your talk about art, you don't really get anything out of it, huh? Unless you can name something that's very special to you, that has turned your life on its current righteous path, I'm just going to assume you're a nihilistic shell that can't like anything for fear of seeming vulnerable.
>>66903051
Who do you think you're replying to, vro?
>>66903013
why
>>66897104
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>66898178
The only correct choice.
They're all pretty good, desu
But The Coen's have made the most great films. Jarmusch makes films that are entirely unique. Wes has a visual style that feels fresh and recycled at the same time. And Noah is still coming along, but he has a couple gems.
I guess I'd say the Coens are the best.
>>66903177
Film B0$$
Direction
>>66902892
>shitposting about directors you haven't watched
It's like I'm really on /v/
directs
realisateurs thread
>>66897176
Wes has never made a great film.
Kim Sung Park Wu Er would direct movies for everyone
