/film/

Once a shithead forever shithead.

Anthony Mann

What film is this?

stagecoach is the official western hater's breakthrough movie

thoughts on Eisenstein and Prokofiev? Any other great director-composer duos?

Attached: volkwin.png (1459x1080, 1.65M)

Here's a subverted leftist post-western that's pure kino, might be your speed.

Attached: mccabe-1.jpg (600x338, 49.31K)

Watched The Turin Horse, it was great.
Tried to watch the new version of Hard to be a God, turned it off halfway through and was severely disappointed.

Greenaway + Nyman
Angelopoulos + Karaindrou
Vláčil/Švankmajer + Liška
Fellini/Visconti + Rota
Tarr + Víg
Leone + Morricone

wouldnt tony visconti have been too young to collaborate with fellini?

he meant they both collaborated with rota

Why is arthouse and classic cinema always thrown together? Classic cinema is quality entertainment made thinking of the audience, arthouse is not entertaining and made only to impress critics.
They're polar opposites.

to scare plebs away, like a head on a stick

find it hard to believe. according to wiki, rota died in 1979. same year visconti was doing lodger. visconti would have been too busy for the rest of the 70s to collaborate and too young to do so before then.

I think it's because neither one can support a thread by itself unless it's a "post your favorite" or thread about some normie director.

I'm not that user so idk what the substance of that comment is. Though as an Italian cinema noob I seem to recall that the leopard (1963) is directed by Visconti with music from Rota.

So lads, how do I tell the difference between a foreign film thats just a foreign film and a foreign film thats arthouse.

>Parasite
>Midsommar
>Joker

Pick one

they collaborated with rota separately

>only to impress critics
Yeah, that's why arthouse directors like Carlos Reygadas, Bruno Dumont, Lars von Trier and
Philip Gröning notably either divide crititcs or a hated by critics.

no tony visconti is a music producer.

he meant luchino visconti you fucking retard

you pick the ones that remind you of your favorite pieces of art. This is called "aesthetic." Then you come on Yas Forums and post the films that match your aesthetic, and Yas Forums shits on your choices and suggests better ones .

the only difference is the marketing campaign the movie gets mate

>either divide crititcs or a hated by critics
lmao no they don't, a lot of the critics suck up to them
maybe I shouldn't have said "critic" but "critics and PSEUDS"

I have never watched a good film and I have two hours to live. What should I watch?

there are obviously critics who like their films, but they're often not in a majority, which means that those films weren't made specifically for all critics you fucking retard

Ugetsu

Not the height, silly. Down there.

why do you want to spend your last two hours looking for a good torrent of a movie

a good question, for another time

>two hours to live
definitely this

Attached: 79049.jpg (2001x1875, 428.92K)

>not made for critics
>not made for a wide audience
so who are they made for? the apparatchiks that give out the grant money?

Since you replied first and the clock is ticking, I'll get on it right away.
If I don't find one in the first ten minutes I'll just play Diablo or something.

ugetsu won't resonate with an incel like you

PTA and Greenwood is the best we have today

>Every Man For Himself
I didnt like except for those shots with the girl riding a bike and the inner city scene with the two men fighting for the girl.
>First Name Carmen
The star was cute, i think the whole incest context was not needed
>Passion
Well shot, reminds me a lot of Nouvelle Vague except more femineme
>King Lear
Its history and cast and very odd, i think it helped it, molly ringwald was cute.
>Keep Your Right Up
It seemed like a retread of his earlies 60's films Breathless and My Life To Live, which i think Detective did better enough that it influenced Nolan

Attached: Keep.Your.Right.Up.1987.SUBBED.1080p.BluRay.x264-SADPANDA.mkv.jpg (1440x1080, 244.93K)

Arthouse (I prefer "auteur") films are not "made" for someone, they're an expression of artist's worldview and themes that interest the artist, just like any art.

If they're not "made" for someone, who pays for them and why?
Most anyone can pay for a canvas, a brush and some colors. Almost noone can pay several million to make a movie.

>arthouse

What about Hail Mary?

also why would you choose such an elaborate and costly way of expression, where you spend more time trying to get financing and organizing the production than actually expressing yourself?

Plenty of people consume those films. You know this, what are you really getting at? Von trier is profitable AND critics and mainstream audiences don't show him the same love as jordan peele or michael bay.

Haven't watched it

Is this the Boring Movies thread?

All of Von Triers films are made with government grants. As are almost all european movies.

Dunno, what's your idea of a boring movie?

All hollywood movies are funded by huge for-profit corporations.

It's public art, like a building. How can architecture be a form of expression if it's big and expensive and subject to all kinds of conditions unlike sketching on a napkin.

I call bullshit on this. Many non-arthouse films can be argued to be an expressionof art while i think all films are made to be judge in some sense. Films would have alot less meaning without critics and audiences judging them so I think even arthouse directora have this in mind when making a film. They want to make films other people see as good.

>architecture
>a form of expression
what

also film is a form of entertainment (apart from possibly being art), architecture is not. The comparison is utterly absurd.

this whole conversation is getting silly

main main point in the beginning was between the crass difference between classic cinema, a popular form of entertainment, and arthouse, which by the very nature of not being "made for" anyone is not a popular entertainment, it's clearly directed at a minority of the audience.

So again, why are those two commonly thrown together?

why are you such a tragic, argumentative dilettante?

>why are you such a tragic, argumentative dilettante?
>says the guy replying with an ad hominem lacking any kind of argument
the irony

I don't have to argue the point any further. As far as I'm concerned anyone reading this reply chain can easily see who's right. You're just dithering.

that was my first post in the thread, and I asked you a question, unless of course you meant you're an ironic dilettante. In that case, I figure you're probably more miserable left alone than bothered.