Things that don't matter in films:
- "Plot"
- "Character"
- "Logic"
- "Fun"
- "Dialogue"
If you can't accept that a movie can only be criticized by virtue of the ideas, themes and moving images laid bare on screen and the feelings they incite in the viewer then get fucked.
>>70154946
How's virginity treating you
If you want to send a message go to the post office. The rest of humanity wants actual storytelling
>>70154946
cute bait anon
>>70154946
>There are "people" who actually believe this
I still need to watch Lost River now that it's on HBO but I've been drunk 24/7 lately so it's making it hard to stay awake
>>70154946
>plot
>logic
>fun
Fair
>character
>dialogue
Go and fuck yourself.
>>70154946
I liked the new Starwars. There I said it
>>70155016
>>70155044
>>70155083
>>70155107
>>70155124
Omg im going crazy this guy's so edgy lol! What an exciting thread! Thanks again!
>>70155107
>>character
>>dialogue
fuck that shit. not every movie is a woody allen movie. movies are not plays.
>OP gives a version of Vertov's manifesto on Absolute Kinography as being based purely on the moving image, removed from theater, literature and other art
>people who otherwise unironically use "kino" call him retarded
>>70154946
You watch Stan Brakhage exclusively?
>>70155107
>Implying actors are nothing more than pawns for the director to move around in order to satisfy his vision rather than be beholden to some kind of "character arc"
>Implying dialog matters at all when ideas are conveyed by characters action against the backdrop of the setting and the director's intentions
>>70155210
What a handsome man
>>70154946
I agree that any one of those things is unnecessary in a film, but it's certainly often the case that they do exist and are poorly done. It's not a valid critique to complain that those things aren't there, but they're there and are flawed, it's offensive and certainly something to critique
>>70155016
>>70155044
>>70155083
>>70155107
>>70155267
We need to bring elitism back to /tv/ and purge these plebs from the board. Absolutely disgusting.
Go to bed refn
>>70154946
So a movie that has something honest and genuinely profound and deep to say, something that original and that is a portrait of the writer/directors deepest feelings deserves undebated praise even if the dialogue is written as it was something out of the mind of a seven year old?
>>70157007
Yes
>>70157019
Why?
>>70157007
I think (hope) op is saying that those don't have to be present or prominent in film, not that they can be poorly done
>>70157031
How to tell if a movie is good:
>How enjoyable is it to deaf people without subtitles
>>70155444
>unironically using kino
nobody does this
>>70156813
While this would be nice, people like this >>70157051 are retarded
>>70156622
/thread
>>70157077
I do. Not that I think there is some inherent dichotomy, or a real difference between "films" and "movies", but amongst friends who sort of know the meme, we use kino to generalize movies that are very beautiful and focus on the visual aspect of filmmaking, and are probably on the more inaccessible, or at least more original, side of things
>>70154946
>Play random slideshow
>Music in background
>Make up a plot in your head
Your next Kubrick film
>>70157044
I guess I can understand that. It's just that it sounds to me like he has to narrow a view on what cinema can be.
>>70157177
>amongst friends
it's okay, anon. you don't have to lie to us.
>>70154946
Basically /tv/ posters all the time.
>>70157558
Op is definitely memeing, but there is some truth to the idea that a films ultimate goal is to move the viewer in some way, and elements like plot aren't necessary to do that. But you certainly can critique it if it's there and is ineffective in its usage
>>70157602
K not gonna lie, I fucking wish I had friends that were into movies. My only film discussion comes from /tv/ and occasionally my brother
>>70157794
>wish I had friends that were into movies
iktfb
i have a few friends i watch movies with once or twice a week, but they're all plebs
pic related, it's one of them's top 15 of all time
>>70154946
>books are about what is between the lines therefore a book doesn't need any words.
>>70157794
>a films ultimate goal is to move the viewer in some way
Yes. That is the point of all (in lack of a better word) art. And I am not claiming that plot and dialogue is necessary to do that.
In fact, I think I'm going to start over. I don't think an idea (of a philosophical kind as I took OP to mean it) or a theme has to be present either. There can be found a lot of meaning in simply telling a good story. Not everything has to be discussion on philosophy, personal emotion and personal thoughts and ideas concerning life itself.
>>70157860
Kek, my friends don't even know what letterboxd is. I do have a few that'll get together and watch movies, but they'd rather fawn over Prisoners than watch anything out of their comfort zone
>>70157985
so ultimately what you're saying is that there's no checklist of elements that should compose a great film
way to state the obvious
>>70158008
to be fair PRISONERS is a pretty great film
but yeah i know what you mean
i'm forcing my two film buddies into ONCE UPON A TIME IN ANATOLIA this week, should be fun
>>70158012
Yeah, sorry. This discussion is pointless. I'm going to bed.
>>70157985
Yes, you're right. An abstract film that focuses on visual storytelling and pushes boundaries on dialogue or plot use can be good, just as a straightforward narrative with technical perfection can be good. And most films fall somewhere in between. Clearly op was purposefully being narrow to get (You)s
>>70158052
no discussion is pointless, but your point was a lot simpler than you thought
that realization should probably make it worthwhile
especially because now when you think about a film you don't have to watch it and think "wow, everything was great but i guess there was no character development", when that film is something like ONLY GOD FORGIVES or BEYOND THE BLACK RAINBOW where that's not really the point
>>70157860
I envy you. My friends just watch capeshit (for them all capeshit is good except x-men), star wars, Adam Sandler tier comedy flicks, "horror" joints and the shitty kids animated movies. Not even the patrician ones like The Incredibles, Ratatouille and Zootopia.
Oh, and no exception, they pull off their phones at least three times a movie run time.
>>70158126
ZOOTOPIA isn't very patrician but i see your point
i guess pleb taste friends are better than normies
>>70154946
>If you can't accept that a movie can only be criticized by virtue of the ideas, themes
Which are best presented through plot and characters
>moving images laid bare on screen and the feelings they incite in the viewer
And without context or further substance you have no great feelings, just pretty images and basic metaphor
This "muh visual artform" argument is and always has been retarded. You aren't defending avant-garde film, you're saying you like the pretty neon lights and violence and don't care about the stuff in between so you dismiss it. Having a poorly developed plot and character is not the same as not having any. If it's there then it should be criticized.
>>70158033
I wasn't a fan of it, but good luck with the movie. I want to show them Inherent Vice, if I were to show my group something foreign, I'd probably go easy, with say The Seventh Seal
>>70158126
True. I doubt they've even heard of in the mood for love
>>70158204
>I doubt they've even heard of in the mood for love
that guy only watches foreign films when i make him
good luck with INHERENT VICE by the way. most people i know, even those who are already PTA fans, can't really see it as more than an obfuscatingly convoluted mess. which is stupid, because it's his best film.
>>70158239
Here is a list of movies if you enjoyed Inherent Vice
>>70158325
i've seen this list floating around recently. rewatched SUCKER PUNCH last night. definitely appreciated it more than when i saw it in theaters - kind of funny, because it advertises itself as escapist fantasy, then turns on its heel in the last 20 minutes to vehemently condemn that shit.
>>70158239
>his best film
I agree, which is really saying something, because The Master and There Will Be Blood are masterpieces. I'll give them a heads up ahead of time for sure.
Although just thinking about it, I find it way harder to enjoy movies with friends because I'm worried about what they're thinking of it. Everytime the pace slows or something, it feels so exaggerated because in afraid they'll be bored. Maybe we'll marathon True Detective instead
>>70154946
Things that matter in film:
-Anything and everything that you see or hear.
You idiot.
>>70158352
i get you, dude. i used to hold open attendance movie nights but i found myself really anxious every time people i didn't know would show up, constantly concerned about what they were thinking of the film instead of enjoying it myself. came up most prominently when i showed SOLARIS.
>>70158350
Yep. That's the titular Sucker Punch.
Those last moments are definitely meant to leave a strange uneasy feeling, if not one of outright disgust.
>>70158386
not always true, dude. Antonioni's work, for example, is as much about what he doesn't put on screen as what he does.
Ryan Gosling is such an attractive man
>when you watch a movie, you reflect on the themes and subtext, deconstruct the mise en scène and cinematography in order to analyse how the director's choices affect the mood and characters arcs, question the ethos it proposes about its subject matters, judge its authenticity, come up with a list of intertextual references that deepen your understanding, examine the narrative structure as if you were in the writer's head to get his creative process and where he's headed, all this while sensorially appreciating the aesthetics, marvelling at the layers in dialogues and noticing many odd details, pondering how this film overall fits into its auteur's oeuvre, observing what it does similarily and what it does differently... as well as its place in film history, amongst many other active ways of studying a film
>other people you're watching the movie with are "just enjoying the plot"
>>70158325
Can't lie, I do love Spring Breakers. And while Tree of Life is still my favorite Malick, Knight of Cups was fantastic and I know that you're going for more divisive movies.
I loved Valhalla Rising, will I like OGF?
>>70157077
Reminder: Kino is pure audio-visual flow, kinetic: movement, film as music ie based around tempo, intuitive and sensitive visual storytelling, rather than filmed theater or possessing didactic pretenses
It goes back to the abstract nature of silent cinéma, genres may vary, it can be arthouse poetry like Malick, experimental autism like Brakhage, genre potboiler like Mann or even mass blockbuster like Miller
Other various examples: Buster Keaton, Robert Bresson, Andrei Tarkovsky, Sergio Leone, NW Refn, even JL Godard
Criticisms of kino you'll often hear is 'it didn't even have a script!' 'it didn't have a story!'
Hope that helps
>Jean-Luc Godard, I respect him a lot for how he sees things and approaches filmmaking... Some of the things in his films are admirable, however I cannot consider him a complete filmmaker. What he does isn't cinema. He uses cinema. It's like Ingmar Bergman, who uses cinema to create literature. Godard uses cinema to paint with music. (…) He is the filmmaker I feel the closest to today. Godard's work intersects with mine. We share a common trait. Everything we do relies on inherently cinematic writing. We only express ourselves through images and sounds.
- S. Leone
>[About potential Mad Max spin-off kinos]: It would be wonderful if it was someone like Guillermo [del Toro] or someone like that it would be fantastic. There are several. I would say there are three, but I won’t say who they are. I keep talking about this being visual music, you need someone very, very strong on film language and syntax. It’s not just lumping a whole lot of action together without any coherence.”
- G. Miller
>>70158416
Good point. Here is my revision:
-Anything and everything that you see or hear or have seen or have heard in your entire life.
>>70158424
I just realized that I do try to "reflect on the themes and subtext, deconstruct the mise en scène and cinematography in order to analyse how the director's choices affect the mood", although I'm probably not that great at it.
There's nothing wrong with enjoying the plot, but I do also "sensorially appreciate the aesthetics, marvelling at the layers in dialogues and noticing many odd details, pondering how this film overall fits into its auteur's oeuvre, observing what it does similarily and what it does differently"
>>70158488
This reminds me of how bad and trite the new Mad Max was.
>>70158386
>>70158416
>Mauro Bolognini invited me to a dinner in honor of Robert Bresson who had been in Rome for the past few weeks preparing an episode of The Bible, a movie produced by Dino De Laurentiis with various directors. Bresson had chosen Noah’s Ark. Before I was introduced, Bolognini told me that Bresson was in a rather bad mood and briefly explained why.
>That morning, while Bresson was lecturing, Dino De Laurentiis had gone to the studio and witnessed huge cages containing wild animals arriving in pairs: two lions, male and female, two giraffes, male and female, two hippos, male and female, etc. A few hours later, Dino told Bresson that he was excited to be the only producer on earth able to bring the elevated Maestro down to earth, to produce a film with real production values…
>'On ne verra que leur traces sur le sable (One will see only their footprints in the sand),' Bresson whispered to Dino. An hour later he was fired.
>>70158488
It fucking pissed me off when I read reviews of Knight of Cups saying "Malick has run out of steam" "he needs to find a new writer". Jesus, why do these people get paid to watch movies?
>>70158488
>Godard uses cinema to paint with music
What a meaningless sentence
>>70158473
>and I know that you're going for more divisive movies
Thanks on being one of the first anon's to figure this out.
OGF is very trying. It's one of those examples where the director lets loose almost completely and all we have to enjoy is his visual id on screen, without the pretense that it is anything but that. Though it's possible Neon Demon might be topping OGF.
>>70158652
I look forward to Neon Demon. As for divisive movies, I don't think a film should strive to alienate viewed, but I do think that if it splits audiences, it's doing something right
>>70158196
Paging Dr. Pleb
>>70158473
OGF is true kino.
>>70158614
>the uncanny valley is a hypothesis in the field of aesthetics which holds that when features look and move almost, but not exactly, like natural beings, it causes a response of revulsion among some observers.
Malick's case is interesting, because he uses Hollywood actors and has big budgets at his disposal despite making spiritual, poetic and experimental films, so he gets exposed to different kinds of audiences and it creates a sort of "uncanny valley" effect. Audiences are conditoned to expect something more conventional, then backlash against it because they deem it too empty or pretentious. If he did what he does in Thailand or Romania with unknown actors, then festival hypocrites would go way easier on him and plebs with narrow-minded sensibilites simply wouldn't get exposed to him.
I'm convinced a 5 year-old child, a blank slate without any pre-conceived notion of what should or shouldn't be cinema, or entertainment or art, would see his films' beauty, be emotionally affected and understand his intents more clearly and effectively than an adult who thinks he knows it all. All I know is that I know nothing.
>>70154946
change "film" for "kino" and we are set up
buumpp
