Carl Theodor Dreyer

>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.