/lit/ - Literature

Entertaining schlock because the best "art" cinema has come up with so far is "LOOK HOW MUCH SYMBOLISM I CAN PUT IN EVVVVVVERY FRAME!" garbage Joycean shit

Good cinematography is a skill but at best it makes you competent

>>>/tv/

>>2983415
best not be dissing Joyce there, nigga.

>>2983416

Everyone knows that the only decent threads about film happen on /lit/.

>>2983415

You've clearly not seen enough films.

>>2983415
Read Sculpting in Time and What Is Cinema, then try to make silly assumptions.

>>2983418
Joyce is David Lynch

>No reviewer or critic or viewer has ever given an interpretation that is my interpretation, since the 25 or more years that it’s been out.

WOW! THAT MAKES IT DEEP! Oh wait

>>2983421
>>2983424
>silly assumptions
>the film considered by most critics and casual buffs alike for more than half a century to be the greatest expression of the medium is Citizen Kane
>Citizen Kane which is literally "every sentence has to have allusion and symbolism in it"

I guess it's not fair to call him Joyce, though. Joyce's symbolism and allusion was arbitrary and pretentious, and Welles' was purposeful and masterful.

>>2983433
You've clearly not read enough books, either.

>>2983436
>monolingual English major who deifies modernism accusing others of being dilettantes

THEY SAID THIS WOULD HAPPEN

THEY SAID IT WOULD HAPPEN BUT I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING ANYWAY

my favourites:
melancholia, antichrist
stardust memories
american beauty
lock, stock and two smoking barrels, the snatch

pic related

>>2983440
I guess it's fair for you to make baseless assumptions about me if I do the same to you.

>>2983433
why do idiots on /lit/ always act as if finnegans wake is the only book joyce wrote?

>>2983440
I actually prefer Romanticism, but Ok...

>>2983442
Von Trier is a charlatan.

>>2983446
Well, they call everything "symbolism", a fellow buzzword of "pretentious" and "meaningless".

>>2983452
Early von Trier is fine if unspectacular. Breaking the Waves is definitely his best. But starting from Dogma he became exactly what this guy >>2983415 is complaining about. Self-consciously trying too hard.

>>2983453
I suspect he's never heard of cinematic minimalism, one of my favorite strains in art cinema of recent

Lets at least make it /lit/ related.

What movies are there related to literature?

Dead Poets Society, Finding Forester, Freedom Writers... etc..

>>2983446
I am talking about all his work. Ulysses is bad.

Ulysses is bad.

>>2983453
Joyce uses seemingly opaque but actually simplistic allusion to reference things. Those things are meaningless to the framework of his (non)story, and only exist to whisper "CERVANTES" in the middle of page 409. That is pretentious. What are you having trouble with here?

>>2983420
no, it's exactly like /tv/ >>2983442

>>2983461
Actually, there is a very intricate structure to the work. Just about every allusion has some quite convincing purpose. I'd recommend reading some criticism of Ulysses, if you're interested.

>>2983469
>riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend
>of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to
>Howth Castle and Environs.

vicus (l) - village, hamlet; row of houses, quarter of a city + vicious circle - situation in which a cause produces a result that itself produces the original cause + Giambattista Vico.

It's deep stuff, man. He totally knows who Giambattista Vico is.

>>2983461
Lol death of the author.

>>2983472
Yes, exactly. Vico is in many ways the model of Finnegans Wake. I'm sorry if you don't find this stuff interesting, but that's OK.

>>2983478
Yes, and the recursive chiasm of Genesis represents [millennia of Judeo-Christian mysticism]. Oh wait, no, it's just a mnemonic tool left over from an oral period that looks pretty.

Why even bother trying to decipher such a boring douche? I can sort of understand wanting to spend years postulating unfalsifiable hidden meanings and allegorical labyrinthes in an important work like Homer or Shakespeare or whatever. But Joyce is an undereducated fop. He has no political or philosophical ideas and his writing is the definition of pretense. Artful pretense but still pretense.

>>2983486
Stereotypical Borges "fan".

>>2983486
>Yes, and the recursive chiasm of Genesis represents [millennia of Judeo-Christian mysticism]. Oh wait, no, it's just a mnemonic tool left over from an oral period that looks pretty.

There's actually a lot of interesting structural stuff going on in certain sections of the Pentateuch. I recommend studying it a bit, especially the J source, that is, if you're interested.

>>2983492
Stereotypical English major who divides the Western Canon into uninformed lit crit camps so he can pick which one's slogans he should memorize.

Borges is OK. So is Camus. Read some classics and get out of the 20th century, English major.

>>2983509
I'm dating a Biblical scholar and I read Biblical Greek. It's beautiful and meaningful. "Toodly doo thrice around Englesh pennytowne Crablegs Viambattista Gico swivensday Irish coffee bonerlance Larry Stoffanies" is not meaningful.

Um, what happened to 'films' then pricks?

>>2983549
>Toodly doo thrice around Englesh pennytowne Crablegs Viambattista Gico swivensday Irish coffee bonerlance Larry Stoffanies

Is that what Joyce is actually like? Because that is pretty awesome.

>>2983614
You probably like Fincher and PTA or Tarkovsky and Bergman. Either way these threads are always shit.

>>2983413
>What do you look for in films, /lit/?
Lately, I'm looking for existentialist/philosophical movies, the more obscure the better.

>Which are your favourite and what is it that makes them so?

It would take too long to explain why I like them, but here's a few on the subject
>Wundkanal/Our Nazi (1984/1985)
>Secvente (1982)
>Glissando (1985)
>Pavilion VI (1968)
>The fifth seal (1976)
>Palms (1993)

>>2983670
>existentialist/philosophical movies
lol

>>2983670
have u heard of waking life??

It's difficult to pinpoint why I like certain movies. It's a mixture of things, I suppose. Lately I've been leaning toward realist films: "Umberto D" and "Killer of Sheep" are favorites. With regard to the latter (which is basically an Italian Neorealist film set in 1970s south-central L.A.), the soundtrack is paramount in its pleasure. "Killer of Sheep" runs the gamut of black music from Earth, Wind and fire, to Louis Armstrong.

>>2983705
And let me address shitty soundtracks. For example, an otherwise decent movie, lets say "American Beauty," can be rendered lame by its soundtrack alone. I hate the cookie-cutter orchestral bullshit that we hear so often in film today. I think the quality of a soundtrack says a lot about the creativity of a filmmaker. Then again, I forget that Killer of Sheep was not released because of its expensive soundtrack. God, that's fucking lame.

>>2983413
Jodorowsky. I'm actually looking for suggestions for films to see next too. Feeling recently like I'm beginning to exhaust the mindfuck genre. Any ideas?
(tipo Oldboy, Triangle, the Cube, Pi, Salo', Cobra Verde, etc)

>>2983738
>Jodorowsky
>mindfuck
>oldboy
>cube
>pi
I wish I could be 15 again.

>>2983738
Meetings With Remarkable Men
House
Amer
The House With Laughing Windows (or any other Giallo film)

>>2983738
If you haven't seen any other Herzog, I would recommend "Stroszek". It's not a "mindfuck" per-se, but is is pretty strange (and funny)--one of my favorites.

>>2983738

>mindfuck

back to /b/

Pi is pretty mediocre & very easy to follow (i've heard the same about Cube, though i've not seen it)

>>2983674
>>2983679

>>>/tv/
>>>/b/
>>>/r9k/

>>2983745
I bet you do.
What films do you appreciate at your advanced age then buddy?

>>2983670
>Lately, I'm looking for existentialist/philosophical movies, the more obscure the better.

This whole sentence, man.

>>2983745

Pretentious pseudo-intellectual hipster phaggot spotted.

>>2983841
I'm not a "man".
I can see how that may sound pretentious, but I don't mean to be.
If any of you took two seconds to research these films you'd find out they're well worth a watch.

>>2983850
>I'm not a "man".

ARE YOU SAYING

YOU'RE A WOMAN?

DID THAT COLLOQUIAL SPACE FILLING IMPLIED GENDERLESS PRONOUN GIVE YOU THE INCIDENTAL OPPORTUNITY OF ANNOUNCING THAT

YOU ARE

INFACT

FEMALE?

CAN IT BE?

contemplative cinema, focused more on cinematography etc.

Bela Tarr, Terrence Malick, Tarkovsky, Wong Kar Wai, etc.

>>2983855
This is my first day on /lit/ and I don't really know how things work. Now that I think of it, I really shouldn't have said that.

You got me. Ignore my recommendations, ignore the possibilities for an interesting conversation (inb4 misogyny), continue with your shitposting, I'm out of here.

>>2983850
>If any of you took two seconds to research these films you'd find out they're well worth a watch.
Because no one knows who Fabri or Aristakisian are, right? I guess I should tell everyone here to "take seconds to research" Mababangong bangungot before commenting something about my silly "the more obscure the better" comments or to mention my trendy "philosophical" term thrown in~.
>>2983857
>malick
>wong
>contemplative

>>2983454
Riget is by far the best thing he's ever made. Also the most entertaining.

I, for one, also really like Dogville and Manderlay.

>>2983862
you need to upgrade your troll detector, my fine bro

>>2983855
Of course not, xis obviosly a non binary genderqueer MTF trans*
How can you be so close minded?
check your privilege pls

>>2983863
how is "philosophical" a trendy term even? I know this is hard to believe but what if I was just trying to describe the topics dealt in those movies?

>>2983873
I know it's a troll, I just genuinely didn't think /lit/ would be like this.

I'll be here if someone wants to talk about movies otherwise sage because I don't want to start an argument.

Two great films that everyone should watch:

-The Fountainhead (1949)
-Atlas Shrugged (2011)

John Cassavetes' A Woman Under the Influence
The most literary film ever made, if you ask me.

>>2983413

>>2983887
If any of you took two seconds to research the general usage of that term you'd find out why it's trendy.

>>2983901
The writing to that movie was superb.

>>2983884
I'm fucking sick of this tumblr, cis, trap, aspie, neurotypical, "look at me daddy, I'm going to be a girl now" bullshit.

They are teenage boys, who don't fit in. Their fragile little egos are struggling to cope with the post-puberty realization of self, in an age where the value of aesthetic perfection and social hierarchy is rated as the ultimate aspiration.

They are scared and feel defenceless, don't know why, so succumb to the allure of putting on a wig and swallowing hormone tablets; a new identity seems to offer the hope of happiness.

I fully sympathize. I know how hard it is to find existential meaning in a seemingly absurd world. I know the longing for a real ideology, whether it is God, drugs, a sex-change, every waking hour in the gym, or relentlessly focusing on an academic endeavour, they are clinging to something that seems to give a life ending in death a real purpose. Unfortunately, twenty years from now, the hormone replacement theory will be another regrettable avenue in the pursuit of self discovery, and invariably leads to suicide, alcoholism, or replacement with another psuedo-ideology.

Why the fuck can't you tumblr faggots grow up, and stop trying to label everything to justify your pathetic irrelevance, instead of actually doing something productive?

This thread has it all

All that makes /lit/ so shit, that isand that includes my meta post, obviously

>>2983915
show some sympathy, it's a serious mental disease.

i pretty much only like star wars

I hardly ever find myself watching films.

>>2983946
You say that as if you wouldn't be aware of making the decision to watch a film. Like you could walk into a room and catch yourself watching one.

>>2983951
That isn't what I meant, obviously.

I'm afraid I don't look for very much in films.
Mostly I'm drawn to the art direction, the cinematography, and the ability to evoke a sensation that is not possible to state in words.
But, really, a film doesn't have to mean shit and I might still like it. With film I'm very much drawn to the imagery over the substance, the signifier over the thing signified. Aesthetics over content. I like the way a lot of Jean Rollin films look.

I get a bit impatient watching movies most of the time

It's a very passive form of media, whereas books are less so because they require active participating on the readers part (ie, the book only moves forward as long as you are reading it).

Okay, two fairly recent films you could not possibly get bored watching are Gus Van Sant's Elephant and Fatih Akhim's Head On (German: Gegen die Wand). Enjoy.

>>2983901
what is this film??

Nothing much really. I kind of defiled my view reading by getting into the mechanics of it, so I never intend to do that for movies. I'm rather plebby when it comes to film, actually. I like David Croenberg (eXistenZ is my favorite) and Refn, but I also like most of Liam Nesson's movies like the Grey, Taken, and Unknown.
Also, where is the best place to start with David Lynch.
Also, sage, because, also, OP, this is a book board, you fucking idiot.

>>2984006
Elephant was bullshit. If you have nothing to say about an event, and constantly emphasize how you aren't saying anything about it, why make a movie about it?

Gegen die Wand was good, though.

>>2983991

yea I also get kinda impatient when I listen to music. all you have to do is press play, what's up with that??

>>2984056
Clearly you missed all the VISUAL symbolism in Elephant.

>>2984056
deciding not to say something is saying something. elephant is not valueless but it's a waste of time in the sense that you could just have gone straight to bela tarr.
>>2984042
baise moi

>>2984054
>Also, where is the best place to start with David Lynch.
I think Mulholland Drive is generally accepted as his masterpiece, so you could start with that.

>>2984062

Uh, I fail to see how the two are comparable (Tarr and Van Sant, that is). It's like saying skip John Waters and go for Bresson.

Yeah, obviously Tarr's mastery of the medium far outstrips Van Sant, but they speak to almost entirely different modes of experience, no? In an all but "essential" sense, if you want to be a humanist about it.

>>2984062
wrong, it's naked by Mike Leigh and baise moi was a piece of shit movie.

>>2984042
Naked (1993)

>>2984079
Ooof, really? Probably my least favorite that I've seen, but perhaps I need to revisit, as it was also my first. Eraserhead and Inland Empire I LOVED, though.

>>2984080
And besides, Bela Tarr bores most people. The terrible truth. My suggestions were geared toward the attention-grabbing, given the post to which I initially replied.

>>2984093
It was one of the two movies made this century that made Sight and Sound's critics' poll. The other was In the mood for love.

>>2984108
Well, if In the Mood for Love made it...

>>2984108
Yeah, but that doesn't really mean anything to me. I suppose I wasn't specific enough. Why do you think that it's his best? As in, what is it about the work?

>>2984124
Part of its brilliance lies in how it wasn't meant to be a theatrically released movie but the pilot to a TV series (It originally ended after Rita's haircut). The philistines at ABC decided not to continue the project, and Canal+ bought it and gave Lynch more money to turn it into a theatrical release. Lynch had some 50 minutes worth of screentime to resolve plot points that were meant to last for at least 13 episodes. His solution is so perfect and out of the box (if you'll forgive me) it's really difficult to believe he didn't plan it from the start.

>>2984272
>the pilot to a TV series (It originally ended after Rita's haircut). The philistines at ABC decided not to continue the project, and Canal+ bought it and gave Lynch more money to turn it into a theatrical release. Lynch had some 50 minutes worth of screentime to resolve plot points that were meant to last for at least 13 episodes. His solution is s

Okay. I didn't mean objective facts with no argument. Just the work, as you experience it as you watch it. The form, the structure, whatever, as it is. What about that?

>>2984296
I was trying not to spoil it, but you can tell when the post-TV pilot part starts. It turns everything that happened before on its head and makes the movie extremely sad, but not in an obnoxious look-at-how-clever-I-am way. In fact, there's no way to guess the twist before it happens, which makes it all the more effective.

How come /lit/ can have better film discussion then /tv/?

Anyway my favorite films tend to be character driven. I dont know why but I tend to enjoy character driven films that has a main character who is flawed and has major problems. Some of my favorites are Persona, The Searchers, Raging Bull, and Synechode, New York. Basically most of Bergmans and Woody Allens films fall into this category

>>2984672
Because /tv/ is full of self-conscious plebs who will call you a hipster if you dare only mention a french new wave director.

fast and entertaining dialogue. words with emotion and subtle meanings which come clearer with each viewing.

Burn After Reading is great, OP. I love the Coens.

Kubrick, PTA, Lynch, Ophuls, Bresson, Clouzot, Woody Allen, Charles Burnett and Pasolini are also some of my favorites

I like Danny Boyle's films a lot, but it's possible that what he does may be thought of as the film equivalent of purple prose.
Whatever, really, I enjoy him a lot.

>>2984714
except /tv/ knows how bad they are
there isn't one decent film posted here, maybe only >>2983670 and >>2983901

>>2984729
>there isn't one decent film posted here

Dude, Withnail and I is just two posts above you

>>2983442
Stardust memories? The Woody Allen film?

>>2984741
yes, that is decent.
correction, there isn't one good film posted here.

The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover, Peter Greenaway
Enter the Void, Gaspar Noe
Far North, Sam Shepard
The Holy Mountain, Alejandro Jodorowsky
Irreversible, Gaspar Noe
Last Train Home, Lixin Fan
Poison, Todd Haynes
Le Quatro Volte, Michelangelo Frammartino
[Safe], Todd Haynes
Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf?, Mike Nichols

I look for unique drama, and these films deliver, some on a glacial level, others on a brutal level. Either way, entertainment ensues on a pleasing level. And slight admiration is exuded toward its creators.

Call-back humor. Foreshadowing, flashbacks, callbacks, running jokes, orphaned punchlines, book ends. That's why movies like Pulp Fiction and Snatch seem so great to me.

I also liked Fight Club, Taxi Driver, and the Machinist. Take from that what you will.

I like Blade Runner, and I like it better than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.

DEAL WITH IT, DICKFAGS.

I'm sure 50% of /lit/ knows shit about film. The worse thing is that they're outspoken about it anyway.

Imagine the conversations you have in real life with people about literature. Imagine the lack of respect you have for the normal people who you consider to have far less knowledge than yourself and who don't consider literature to be as important as you do. That's how the other 50% of /lit/ feel.

>>2984949

Well compared to anyone else on 4chan /lit/ knows the most about film

>>2984953

They do but there's too many people who don't look at literature and film as two separate mediums. Film as a medium does a whole host of great things that literature does not, or can not, do and vice versa.

I deleted my post because I posted it after initially only reading the first half of this thread. It became a lot more constructive after that so didn't need me bitching.

>>2984798
Jorodowsky sucks [Santa Sangria]. Haynes is a genius [Dottie Gets Spanked]. How can these be on the same list???

>>2984965
>opinions, how do they work?

>>2984912
>Blade Runner
fuck your shit

>>2984965

Santa Sangre is terrible, I agree, but The Holy Mountain is great. It's comical and very interesting visually. The Mole and Fando y Lis are good too.

If a film is able to demonstrate a particularly interesting theme or concept, or if it's unique enough to stand out and resonate with me in some way then I'll respect it.

I like literature because it's able to elaborate upon things. It is able to hook me into a world and keep me there for a while. Film is a more short-lived experience and I appreciate the level of visual splendour and the small theme that the film-maker is trying to say. I think a lot of you expect too much from film coming from a literature perspective. A film is rarely able to demonstrate the same amount of grand ideas within its short time frame. I don't care much for the concept of taste either but I care greatly about authenticity in cinema. Thankfully, it's a medium where its pretty easy to spot the authentic from the pointless.

I don't really have a collection of favourite films. I like too many films and I'd probably find them a bit too different to compare. I never find myself watching films that I'd call bad or feel outraged about (some people turn films off but I never do). I think a lot of that is because I enjoy the experience of films and because I steer clear of modern Hollywood. It's really not interesting at all any more.

>>2984988
>the Holy Mountain is great
Yes, brother. We are united in this opinion.

>>2984988
Yeah, but generally when I read/watch/whatever a shit work of fiction by an author/auter/whatever I love, I abandon him/her as much as I can. Such is the cult of genius. Trite, I know.

>>2984999
It's not trite, but ultimately ensures your disappointment.

>>2984994

Obviously literature can do things film cant but film offers things literature cannot offer. I wouldn't say one is superior to the other

entry-level /lit/-core cinema

also "TARD SPASM" is the greatest thing ever committed to film (or I guess VHS) but i didn't include it since it's not really cinema like these are

>>2985004
No, actually, it doesn't. There are many authors still close to my heart.
e.g., Pound's early work, which is incomparable to his later work, is still fucking great.

>>2985021
gummo-branded to kill or something-what's that-even dwarfs...
dunno, playtime?-dunno-hollywood cis male thing-hollywoodblah
what?-what?-what?-what?
la notte? that's antonioni for sure-belleville wasn't that good- either nevski or ivan-dunno

>>2985021

>Posting film stills without the titles

>>2985035
1st row: Gummo, Branded To Kill, Crumb, Even Dwarfs Started Small
2nd row: Mon Oncle, Soy Cuba, The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, The Last Movie
3rd row: The Unknown, Addio Zio Tom, Withnail & I, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
4th row: L'avventura, The Triplets of Belleville, Alexander Nevsky, High and Low

>>2985021

My Hipster sense is tingling

>>2983915
>in an age where the value of aesthetic perfection... is rated as the ultimate aspiration.
Crawl back to your critical theory coffin, cisprivileged

>>2985077
I don't think anyone could read critical theory properly and be that politically ignorant and disgusting.

>>2985046
Colour me impressed.

>>2985046
Yes, yes, yes, Cassavetes.

>>2985109
would have added more cassavetes and herzog but i only wanted to get one from each director