Carl Theodor Dreyer

>does filmed theater with minimal visual precision or interesting compositions
Vampyr has tons of cool visuals
>relies on talking constantly
Also, it's a silent film

Vampyr is an exception that proves the rule. Watch his other films.

Vampyr is his only good film

Also it was his biggest box office flop

No wonder he went full christian melodrama after that

>muh medium specificity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hi 20th century person! Do you think writing that doesn't use its typographical element isn't literature but merely dead orature?

I agree
Film is not theatre, look up what Bresson said about that. I mostly agree with him, film should move away from theatre.

mean for

THEATRE IS NOT FILM!
ANY PERFORMANCE THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE UNFILMABLE ELEMENTS LIKE AUDIENCE INTERACTION IS S H I T!!

based, but this photoshop filter is ungodly

I watched Ordet, it was weird, but interesting

Soul

Soulless

Attached: MV5BNjA4YmE2M2YtNGQyYS00NzkzLWEyM2EtZTYwY2RjNmYzYWU0XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNzgzMDczNzM@._V1_.jpg (1270x768, 108.82K)

no

yes
based, Bressons version is better too

>a 1962 film is better than a silent 1928 film
wew

pleb begone

Cringe

Ordet is one of my favorite movies ever.
Just saying.
But everything else I've watched from his work, doesn't quite catch up to it.

>Ordet is one of my favorite movies ever.
Why

Imagine getting filtered by Dreyer

Dreyer's films aren't just recorded plays, retard. Watch Vampyr (1932)

before posting: read thread

Fucking retard

No it isn't

Yes, it is. If you enjoy third rate melodrama maybe you prefer Dreyer.

Lol

>no argument
As expected

How to do Ordet’s revolving take with rotating, gliding mise-en-scene on a stage?

Mise en scene is the term coined in theater. Move past that. You are using theatrical expressions to describe his films, that tells you something.

Ooh, nice dodge.

Here rotating camera

Attached: Hydraulic-Rotation-Stage-Lifting-Platform.jpg (800x800, 94.93K)

ALL FILMS ARE BAD WHICH MAY BE DESCRIBED, OR WHOSE PARTS MAY BE DESCRIBED, WITH ANY OF THE FOLLOWING WORDS
Comedy
Tragedy
History
Drama
Plot
Acting
Dialogue
Character
Scene
Mise en scene

Have you actually seen the film you fucking trog? It’s not just a spinning platform, it requires contrapuntal movement of the camera and the platform and does a full 360 degree rotation around a closed room.

ALL POSTS ARE BAD WHICH MAY BE DESCRIBED WITH ANY OF THE FOLLOWING WORDS
Autism
Cringe

stage it on ice and have figure skaters as audience

Yes. You asked for rotating mise en scene. There you have it. Of course it won't be exactly the same, that does not make that camera work in Ordet any more cinematic. It's still stagnant theater like direction.
Sure you can describe a film as having mise en scene but you are still using terms coined in theater. Drama, plot and the other shit you named is not only in theater. It's also in books for example (except for acting). Mise en scene is a term for theater, made for it and used for describing it. Cinema should not be theater.

DRAMATIS PERSONAE IS A THEATER TERM
IF A FILM CAN BE ACCURATELY SAID TO HAVE DRAMATIS PERSONAE IT IS DOO-DOO

I never said they are doo doo, he just makes filmed theater not films. I don't see the point of them.

>that does not make that camera work in Ordet any more cinematic
It literally would not work without cinematographic capture.

NO, I SAID IT
I AM CAPABLE SEPARATING MYSELF FROM OTHERS
I AM MORE THAN TWO YEARS OF AGE

Narrative in general is evil. Any attempt to simplify patterns of behavior into prescriptive forms ends up with people forcing those patterns to support those forms post hoc

THE Yas Forums TRIPTARD HAS GRACED USE WITH THIS PRESENCE!

Sorry I didn't know you were meming. I came to the thread late

This thread is pure autism

THEATER BAD

great fucking thread

Attached: 1566084869428.jpg (227x250, 4.39K)

REGRET IS NOT AN EMOTION THAT BECOMES A MAN OF SUCH STATURE AS THE Yas Forums TRIPTARD

Why are you writing in all caps?
I bet it would, anyways that's just one shot the rest of his filmmaking is so basic.
Why

I'm not that tall

The whole point is theater is not film you fucking retard. I don't want to watch filmed theater. I like my theater not filmed and with live performances.

not bad just pointless on film
gooooooood can you read?!?!?

Attached: vg.jpg (299x241, 99.23K)

YOUR SPIRIT IS, o TRIPTARD, IS OF SUCH HEIGHT THAT ALL IT COMES NEAR STAND IN SHADOW

My dick is 7.5" inches long. I'm pretty proud of that

>except for acting
so all films with acting ARE theatre? or is that one exempted for some retarded reason?

You referred to Dreyer as third rate melodrama, arguing with you would literally be a waste of time

IT DOES NOT SURPRISE ME THAT THE TRIPTARD KNOWS HIS MEMBERAL NUMBER
NO APPROXIMATION CAN SATISFY HIS INQUISITIVE MIND

Depends on the acting. The films that use different type of acting than theater are definitely more fit to be called films. Bresson understood this, some other people who direct actors in different than theatrical ways and use them as props to create certain images understand this too. That's film. Film should have very defined, unique visual language which is something that Dreyer's films except for Vampyr don't possess. It's just people babbling around with no memorable images. Cinema is about the power of visuals, acting can distract from that. Dreyer's films are so visually uninteresting and dry. He is too text focused.
>what is a hyperbole

NOOOO YOU CAN'T USE THAT TECHNIQUE IT DOESN'T FIT MY INTELLECTUAL IDEAL OF WHAT A FILM IS

Soulless and indicative of aspergers

You may feel that way, but people are still being haunted by images in Joan of Arc. It's still a relevant work, and almost entirely due to the visual elements that are still being quoted

Bergman's closeups owe their debt entirely to Dreyer's Joan of Arc tho

What about his other films then? Joan is not too text based i guess, considering it's silent and the only memorable image is closeup of the main actress imo.
Well yes i do believe that some techniques should be cut from cinema. They are the umbilical cord that denies the development of cinema as an artform.