/film/

>organizing your torrents by director's surname
disgusting

For some reason there's an overabundance of people hating on silent era films in these threads. I hope it's just a meme.

Where did you download Bound for the Fields, the Mountains and the Seacoast?
I can't find a seeded torrent. Very few Nobuhiko Ôbayashi films in general are available. Can't find Lonely Heart either.

I'm fine with people not being able to get into silent films, I imagine most people here are zoomers with ADD who will either grow into them or stay pleb forever, but what pisses me off is that they think their opinions are worth a shit like this faggot who thinks Cache is better than anything Murnau has done.

>torrents
But those are my video files and not the torrents.

The bird website is good for japshit.

anybody got a karagarga invite?

How to into?

I keep finding various charts and what not but honestly I've got more hits than misses. I like most of Kubrick (though I probably like the idea of Kubrick more than, say, rewatching the Shining), 20% of Lynch, Tarantino, some Welles, Jodorowosky in small does, all Wes Anderson, Cassavettes in color, Putney Swope, PTA, early Scorsese, Coppola, some Bergman, 10% Tarkovsky, Badlands, Passion of Joan of Arc, Ivan the Terrible, some Kurosawa, small doses of Pasolini...idk most black and white shit is boring as fuck to me (Bresson, Tarr, Mizoguchi), often times subtitles seem like a bulwark, and overall I feel more like a redditor than a budding arthouse connoisseur even though ive read delueze.

I'm pretty sure there aren't any.

*more misses than hits fml

forgot to mention the critics who make the most sense to me are Richard Brody and Pauline Kael

sad!

Maybe you just need to dig deeper. Or maybe it's just not for you and genre films are more your thing. It's nothing to be ashamed of. I'm not being ironic here.

>am gearing up to write my next screenplay
>for some reason decided in preparation I need to write a three act play that the characters will be performing on stage
>only short excerpts from it will actually appear in the film, but for some reason decided I need to write out the full thing
>also decided it must be written entirely in iambic pentameter
>have just begun writing the stageplay itself
>have realized verse is a PAIN IN THE ASS to write in
whelp no turning back now boys, wish me luck

Attached: 1568622970465.jpg (480x360, 15.66K)

please tell me someone in this thread recognizes some of these films

Sounds like this is your way of procrastinating instead of writing your screenplay.

I wish that where true. Then I'd have an excuse to skip it. But it's like I've been edging myself for months now. Not a day goes by where my head isn't swimming with shit for the movie. I'm hyped as fuck to write it. But I need to take things slowly, I'm prone to rush this shorta shit.

Yes.

Attached: chart arthouse.jpg (1704x1744, 1.24M)

I guess I just need to stick to /film/ threads instead of trying to talk to regular anons about movies

>Dreyer is theatre
>Italian Neorealism is bad
>Ozu films are too difficult to differentiate and remember

>Do you think these posters are actually the same person?

I never said anything about Ozu. I called neorealism a sham, i did not outright dismiss every film associated with it. Dreyer theatrical.

>so is Syberberg and Greenaway
Correct and wrong. While Greenaway uses elements of theater, he distorts them and his cinematic language is certainly not theatrical. He merges theater and cinema with interesting results.
Yes. Pretty well known films. The Cremator is a masterpiece. Check that out.
Murnau

>Yes. Pretty well known films.
That's what I thought too. No one in that thread seemed to think that though

You gonna share?

I share them on Slsk for people who are also sharing nice movies.

Most of Yas Forums has ADHD and an incredible hatred towards things they haven't seen ads for, yeah.

damn that poster of a short film about love is goofy compared to the film

I've marked with red the films that are 100% accessible. Yellow movies require you to read ahead on Wikipedia (so you know what's the deal with Italian new realism), or that reading would make you appreciate them a lot more (8 1/2).
All films are fine in general without reading anything, but reading afterwards would help you understand why most of them are considered essential (well, a few there clearly aren't).
I've marked the shit with brown. If you enjoy any of the brown films, please leave.

Attached: Arthouse_(Entry_Level).jpg (889x1745, 564.74K)

Are you really using Soulsick? I thought it was dead years ago. Why would anyone use it rather than public torrents?

Look into Wong Kar-Wai, Tsai Ming-liang, Kobayashi, Come and See, middle period Fassbinder.

Privatefags worked hard to get in to their exclusive sekrit club and refuse to accept there's absolutely zero benefit to using them over public trackers

>require you to read ahead on Wikipedia
Fuck that shit. Go into a movie as blind as possible. The movie should always speak for itself. You can read up later if you're interested

why would anybody mark Eclisse as entry level instead of La Notte or Avventura is beyond me. It is the least accessible of the trilogy.

>Why would anyone use it rather than public torrents?
When you listen to niche shit Soulseek is better for finding those weird neofolk or industrial releases that only ever had 20 copies or so.

Attached: 1492024487429.jpg (1000x899, 187.97K)

The idea that a work of art shouldn't require any formal education is plain wrong, and "art house" sort of suggests that some knowledge is expected from the viewer.
All these films are accessible, but a film like Rome Open City gets much better when you understand the circumstances in which it was made, and the ideas it tries to convey.

There was someone saying that Ozu films were to difficult to differentiate and remember. I thought it was just another of your incoherent opinions.

Not me. Also my opinions are very coherent, that was proven multiple times, you are free to disagree, but they are coherent and understandable.

It's pretty amazing how /film/ is maybe the only refuge on Yas Forums to get away from people on a spectrum of normies to those who think Drive is an arthouse masterpiece.

Somehow the /lit/ board has managed to weed out 90% of the morons, but we're still in a losing battle.

thanks friendos

This guy is so hilariously pathetic, I love it.

Based Fassbinder

Attached: reinhold.jpg (325x390, 50.15K)

Not sure if it qualifies as arthouse but I watched Paterson yesterday and enjoyed it quite a bit

>Daisies being marked brown
you're a faggot

No. I've never heard of Kurosawa, Bergman, Dreyer, Cassavetes, Fellini, Hitchcock, or Eisenstein

It's because, as a whole, movies are much more accessible than books. Yes there are plenty of obscure, artistic movies out there, but the barrier to entry is much lower than with books. With books, you at least have to have some knowledge to even want to pick up and read a book. With films you have trash like the MCU and Star Wars being the only films that some people watch, and then they want to come on here and talk about. And they never want to expand their horizons and watch anything new

I get you're being ironic, but there were people in that thread who actually hadn't heard of them.

>Somehow the /lit/ board has managed to weed out 90% of the morons
Most morons aren't deeply invested in literature (some are). Film is generally seen as entertainment, not art, so of course it attracts a lot of morons. Also this board isn't just for film, it's also for television, a medium that's rarely ever used artistically

I mean, it all depends on why you're delving into arthouse (or Deleuze while we're into it) in the first place. If it's only as a need to stand out for the crowd then it really doesn't matter whether you actually like arthouse cinema or not. If you're exploring different directors out of pure love for cinema and a real interest in expanding your horizons then it really doesn't matter if you're a "connoisseur". The only people that genuinely care about labels tend to be pseuds and extremely insufferable people to deal with.
Just keep watching films and challenging yourself. It's ok to not like everything you watch.

Speaking of, I know this is Yas Forums but an unreleased gerogerigegege album recently came out with a limited amount of copies, can you tell me if it's on slsk? I don't feel like reinstalling it just to check

Daisies is arthoe core.

>to difficult
Never said that, but I see you still haven't learned English pajee ;)

Why would you need to read about Passion of Joan of Arc before watching it?

sent ;)

I just tried to watch Richard Kern's short films, i stopped, had fun till got to the one that shall not be names, i had enough of his short 30 minute films, the ones i liked most were Thrust in Me and his firsts show film from this collection. I had to stop, it got too Yas Forums for me to a point..

Attached: New York Underground Collection - Richard Kern - Cover(1).jpg (1900x2847, 2.24M)

Literally none of those are obscure.

I got a hot take for you:

In the mood for love FUCKING SUCKS.

desu I think this is really smart. The more you know about your film, the better.
Plays are really difficult to write though. Beyond the iambic pentameter (which seems a bit unnecessary) not having the camera as a tool makes storytelling way harder.
But props to you for trying. I hope it works out

Link me the discogs entry for it.

discogs.com/The-Gerogerigegege-Piss-Shower-Girlfriend/release/14921655

So, I just watched this film. I've been putting it off for quite some time, never really was interested in watching it, I had more intriguing films in my backlog, but I finally did see it now.
Don't really understand what the whole deal with secret societies is when people say this is essentially Kubrick exposing the elite. Not how I saw the film at all. It helped having seen Buñuel's Belle de Jour, as I felt this film was an exact mirror part to that. The doctor going through the mystical underbelly of sexual reawakening triggered by the revelation that his longtime partner had secrets of her own when it came to "sex". The feeling of a student knowing he has to repeat a year, he goes on a journey to reassemble himself as the mode of conduct he was relying previously, was proven to be far too weak and nonviable.
Belle de Jour is almost word for word the same, but instead of a male perspective, it's from the perspective of a woman. What Kubrick sought, was to create a counterweight to Buñuel's masterpiece, essentially molding these two, to become the deepest look into the sexual navigation of a young adult. A must watch, both side by side. I gave EWS a 9.2/10.

Attached: ews.jpg (1920x1080, 1.5M)

Not him but Slsk is down for me and found nothing my torrent search engine

that's why I posted it here. no one in that thread had heard of any of them

then I'm an arthoe, because Daisies is kino