/film/

>not great means bad
Great reading comprehension there lads.
I'm not very well versed within the terminology used to describe editing.

It is great though

I only need an axis.

MORAL
Kiarostami
Yang
Koreeda
Kitano
Scola
Fellini
Kobayashi
Lean

DECADENT
Cronenberg
Roeg
Mann
Malle
Ozon
Luhrmann
Sono

It's worse than The Cremator. It's decent.

Nice casual anti-Semitism...

thoughs on Mizoguchi?

Attached: picking_a_3dpd_waifu.webm (540x395, 2.9M)

They're completely different movies with the same central plot element.
You don't compare movies just because their central plot is similar, do you anons?
Kubrick is probably the best director to ever live for being able to work under any genre, and appeal to both mainstream and artsier crowds the same with 0 compromise as far as the movie goes
That takes a lot of skill, and people dismissing him because "dude popular" forget to consider the reason of his popularity

>You don't compare movies just because their central plot is similar, do you anons?
I just did.
>Kubrick is probably the best director to ever live for being able to work under any genre
That does not make him the best director ever. Just because he worked under lot of genres does not mean he mastered given genre.

It does, a director's job is not to master a genre, it's to work under any condition to produce something everyone enjoys
You could say he isn't the best auteur, and he definitely isn't by leaps and bounds, but he is definitely the best director you'll ever come across
The cremator for instance is a movie that you love because
A) it's not in english
B) it's a great movie
C) it's got arthouse vibes
take out any of those 3 and you wouldn't look at it twice, yet here we are. Its director (other than based furrykino) hasn't done anything as good since nor will he

He’s the father of modern cinema

>It does, a director's job is not to master a genre, it's to work under any condition to produce something everyone enjoys
No. You can never produce something that everyone enjoys.
>Its director (other than based furrykino) hasn't done anything as good since nor will he
Well yes, he is dead. Morgiana, Beauty and the Beast, Oil Lamps, Fragile Relationships are all good.

Where would Edward Yang?

I don't know who is a jew and who isn't.

Bogdanovich is moral, Polanski and Allen clearly immoral.

You can come close
Also those movies other than beauty and the beast are mediocre, it just adds to my hypothesis that you just like them because dude foreign arthouse
Grow up, will you

So far I've seen 22 of his films.

Excellent:
>Ugetsu
>Sansho the Bailiff
>The Life of Oharu
>Street of Shame
>The 47 Ronin
>Miss Oyu
>The Woman in the Rumor
>A Geisha
>Utamaro and His Five Women
Good:
>The Story of the Last Chrysanthemum
>The Crucified Lovers
>Sisters of the Gion
>Osaka Elegy
>The Downfall of Osen
>Oyuki the Virgin
>Women of the Night
>The Sword
Average:
>The Water Magician
>Tokyo March
>Song of Home
>Mistress of a Foreigner
Bad:
>The Morning Sun Shines

>it just adds to my hypothesis that you just like them because dude foreign arthouse
You havent seen them, especially not Fragile Relationships. Also not everybody is American so foreign is really a stupid way of describing films.

Not so sure about Bogdanovich, the guy took the murder of his girlfriend weirdly

Of the Japanese golden age alone
Ozu > Mizoguchi > Kurosawa

>you haven't seen them
That's a big hypothesis coming from you
>not everybody is american
Statistically speaking you're most likely to be a middle-class american hating the american middle class if you're here

He's a moral filmmaker, I don't care about his personal life.

Céline was a moral author, even though he was a crazy nazi.

To nie je hypotéza, pokiaľ nevieš po Česky alebo po Slovensky, tak si minimálne jeden z tých filmov nevidel.

>Frantisek Vlácil not only had the clothes painstakingly researched and hand-sewn, he had the cast live in the forest for the two years of shooting so they could get into the 13th century mindset.
top fucking kek

The Valley of the Bees was better tho

Attached: MV5BM2Q0N2VhNGEtYjYyOC00ZmQ5LTk3YTAtOTczNmUxZDUwMGY4XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyODUwNTM2ODI@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,711,1000_AL_.jpg (711x1000, 133.66K)

What is the deal in calling certain films, film Noir? They never used that term when they shot them, they were all just crime flicks in a same way that they had westerns.

If you post this thirty more times I might start believing it

Based Vláčil. They wanted to use some locations and sets from Marketa for Valley but locals had already taken them apart so they shot elsewhere.

>Think can't find the kino I want to see
>ok.ru saves you
based russians

Attached: Awesome_Welles.gif (420x315, 333.38K)

this but with vk.com

imagine putting luhrmann instead of ken russell. imagine mentioning luhrmann in /film/ at all.

>Moral
>Fellini
You misspelled De Sica there.

Attached: Thinking_Muco2.jpg (225x357, 9.22K)

Ken Russel is a moral filmmaker. Film is also a medium not just for the elite, Luhrmann has a popular aesthetic, even if it might be the most venomous and horrific nadir of plasticity I've ever seen.

De Sica is only moral in the sense that Dickens is moral, except Dickens was sincere since he lived it and it was relevant. It's banal posterity, like a picture of a kitten. It's inarguably wonderful on its own, but then one must question the creator for such a blase and unnuanced offering.

And Fellini is incredibly moral. An immoral filmmaker would not make the choices he made.

>Ken Russel is a moral filmmaker.
but he is also decadent

Attached: lisztomania_roger_daltrey_penis_lyre_1200_514_s.png (929x398, 370.54K)

Luhrmann is a degenerate ugly fashionist faggot. But is right about he not even being acceptable to be mentioned on /film/ at all.

Cock humor doesn't make one decadent. Monty Python are as morally pure as children despite their dick jokes. Jodorowsky rapes his actresses, but even he isn't an immoral filmmaker. As a person he's a lunatic, but his artistry is not evil.

I'm talking about decadent morality. The type which makes films with perverse worldviews, the Freudians, the menstrual feminists, the ones which make body horror into an ideology, the pervy old "intellectuals" who perv on their students, the ones who assume violence is the greatest answer to their foes. This includes "subversives" which gleefully goes full into anti-morality without either paying heed to the costs or establishing the characters vulnerabilities.

High culture is full of these types.

>Thread for the intellectual discourse of arthouse and classic cinema.
Most cultured people have the decency to masturbate in private.

Luhrmann has his own aesthetic, and ignoring popular new things just because they're shit and hideous just means film will take the course of liteature, it will die and it's corpse will be taken over by upper middle class wankers who only consume self affirming garbage and any interested in the art will read the same old stuff written over a century ago to which all conclusions have already been made.

Luhrmann is unique in that he's taken itone step further. As commercial as Hollywood can be, there's at least a pretense that it's making movies for humans. Luhrmann on the other hand is weaponised advertising. It's movies specifically catering to an aesthetic dreamt up by the crypto-mysticists which are the advertising agencies, catering to markets which don't exist. The entire aesthetic is just a Frankenstein's monster which continues to give birth to itself like a mutated phoenix. It's almost fascinating how every single frame can just be so fucking ugly.

Wanting to look past this just means you're unwilling to look into the abyss which is where you always need to look, because humanity is always there on the brink.

I didn't go to Polish Film School, I went to Poland.

Jodorowsky is unironically a satanist

So I'm trying to blind buy one /film/ from my local store that has a quarantine sale - trying to diversify my criterion as most are American

>stalker
>piano teacher
>la haine
>mulholland drive

I've seen next to nothing of any of these filmmakers. Just heard good things.

Attached: IMG-20200320-WA0011.jpg (1600x900, 84.5K)

All good-to-great films except La Haine

Doesn't matter, it's what you put into the films which matter. I've never met these people, I'm not gonna judge them as people. I've seen their films, so I'll judge them as filmmakers.

Satanism is also just an anti-ideology, and not a particularly serious one at that. Not much worse than being a hippy. It's dumb yes, but not evil.

Now this was kino. Any other Marker's films worth watching? Did he only make docs or also features?

Attached: 853b00a8a9c327e3f0158cae8f7d2827.jpg (1600x2400, 298.83K)

can't go wrong

>Roeg
>decadent
why? because his films show sex and naked people? that's not a good criterion

>It does, a director's job is not to master a genre, it's to work under any condition to produce something everyone enjoys

Who told you what a director should or not do? As any art everybody is free to do the things they want to do in their fields.

La Haine is good, it's just not faithful to the reality it's supposed to be predicting. And it's a step down from the other three
Nothing quite like that. You can try Sans Soleil, you have a higher chance of enjoying it if you enjoyed this, but it's not for everyone. Come to think of it there is a similar focus on time and temporality, an expanded discussion of the themes of La Jetée, more reference to Hitchcock

>It does, a director's job is not to master a genre, it's to work under any condition to produce something everyone enjoys

And... this is the reason why cinema is dying, thinking that you go to film school or made films to entertain people, but... I'm quite scared that even tho you see amazing and beautiful old movies, they are not powerful enough to change this mindset, very sad indeed.

Thanks. I will check out Sans Soleil then.

So La Haine is off the list - I'll catch it on Criterion Channel eventually.

Since I'm trying to diversify, I guess Stalker would be the strangest, yet right choice.

Gallo knew this.

>Leaders are people who take you where you don’t want to go, and I feel a lot of filmmakers are more interested in making what they think that people already want or what they think is going to be popular. I tried to make the film that I wanted, so I don't understand that criticism of "self-indulgence". If something is self-indulgent and it's good, then it's good; if it's self-indulgent and it's bad, then it's bad.

Attached: 1580393507784.png (1405x1054, 666.25K)

The amazing and beautiful old movies were 100% made by such directors, you forget
The reason recent movies suck dick is because there are no longer directors that control every aspect of the movie from the big budget point of view ( therefore even talented directors get drowned out), while on the arthouse point of view everything is up its own ass or too politicized because they're like half the posters here, forgetting they're making a movie and trying to force a political agenda or point of view down your throat
You're lucky enough to get a Villeneuve or a Miyoshi Kurosawa

Kiyoshi*
Anyways all this is lost on you, you'll probably grow out of it at some point like I did

>He doesn't understand the kino of D.W Griffith
What you are saying is not even new, he also received this type of commentaries after the release of The Birth of a Nation. Which lead to him creating the most powerful statement in all cinema: Intolerance.

*blocks your path*

Attached: 6A13FF87-1D34-4824-941C-1962331CEB5C.jpg (1242x1957, 1.11M)