/film/

I'm hoping it will be kino. The only film I've seen from Puiu is Aurora, but I seemed to enjoy it more than most people.

i hate this meme so much

>meme

Yesterday someone asked for everyone's disliked canonical film. Now, what's a film that isn't canonical but should be?

Same.

more like this?

Attached: 1C7FF70F-718D-4C34-B9F5-95EE9E9DA599.jpg (1125x1393, 433.13K)

Any graphs for essential kinos for starters?

Attached: 1583102589899.jpg (2718x1737, 1.54M)

What do you mean by canonical?

I have a bunch, but this is one of the only ones I have on me at the moment

Attached: 1535317026680.png (1350x2700, 2.36M)

The Criterion Essential Arthouse is a good starter collection.

Thanks. I'll start watching after finishing with cassavetes's works.

If we go by directors the most accessible classic auteur cinema there is are New Hollywood directors.
Denis Hopper, Arthur Penn and Sam Peckinpah are the most accessible ones.
Altman and Cassavetes are more difficult but still fairly accessable.
Leone's american output can be considered a part of New Hollywood.
Scorscese is definitely an auteur but with mass appeal, and he is well known. What is not so well known is his best movie - After Hours, which feels more like a Jarmush film than a Scorscese film.
Then go for two French New Wave directors: Most of 60s Godard and Truffaut.
After that you can start with more slow cinema, start with Bergman (The Seventh Seal is the best place to start with him being his most accessible and popular movie) , then go for Tarkovsky, then for Antonioni's trilogy L'Avventura, La Notte and L'Ecclise. Then you can watch some early Bunuel, Lynch for surrealism.
Italian neorealism is good if you want to know where the trend of more realistic cinema actually started, but it's somewhat overrated movement (still not actually bad as some say) because it doesn't really have that many great films, and something like Bycicle Thieves is not really "realistic" for modern standarts, and more like a conventional drama.
I also forgot to mention Fellini, who is his own thing (his earlier output that is considered as neorealism I don't really consider to be fitting into neorealism category).
After that you pretty much prepared for more difficult stuff. Rivette for example is pretty uncompromising director, making surrealist films like Celine and Julie Go Boating, experimental extremely long film Out1, a 4 hour film about the making of a painting La Belle Noiseuse. Bunuel moved from surrealism to social dramas like Los Olvidados, also had many paycheck films while in Mexico which are not worth watching, moving back to surrealism but with now political undertones like Belle De Jour or Phantom of Liberty.

>Rivette
Absolutely based madman

Attached: poster-46.jpg (1600x900, 497.81K)

This is actually a really good way to get into /film/

You forgot Visconti and Powell & Pressburger. Very accessible for someone who is used to conventional modern Hollywood flicks.

From my experience Visonti is not too easy for many people. He has a ver varied output, but for example Leopard is a big and long costume-drama which is not everyone's thing. The Damned is an angry surrealist political critique. Death in Venice is about an old guy falling in love with a teenager. Much of his older neorealist stuff is fairly forgettable, but I'd say that The Obsession is ok if you're new to film. Rocco and His Brothers too.
Powell and Pressburger are definitely very good and pretty accessible, I agree on this.

>A Visitor to a Museum
redpill me on this. is it just another stalker-lite?

Watch Robert Bresson

Attached: DCoGaiKXsAIaoaY.jpg_large.jpg (968x544, 132.76K)

How the fuck does this retard loves Jodorowsky but hates Lynch. It's like, loving red apples but hating green apples, it's so weird and specific.
I honestly believe he actually has no taste in cinema and pretends to like the directors and films he says he likes. And to create the fake "unconventional taste" he picked Lynch (and also Tarr along with Weerasethakul) as a directors he'd hate or consider to be overrated.

was talking about this faggot* , YMS

Attached: 1586959388863.jpg (256x256, 5.65K)

Do you guys like Black Moon(75, Malle)

Very surreal stuff, though the symbolism is easy to pick out

Attached: 01-580.jpg (1280x790, 47.13K)

>is it just another stalker-lite?
not at all

Who cares? He fucks dogs

Bresson is more difficult than Antonioni, I don't get why people always suggest him to starters.
He is incredibly minimalist. His only fairly accessible film is The Diary Of A Country Priest

I understand why he fucks dogs more than I understand his taste in cinema (unless my theory about fake taste is true).

>loving red apples but hating green apples
They're not the same?

>intellectual discussion
>intellectual

Attached: JesusPhone.jpg (640x480, 25.29K)

They have differences but in core - are almost the same. Maybe not the best analogy I had there.

>though the symbolism is easy to pick out
how do I become a symbolism veteran

I disagree. The perception that Bresson is somewhat inaccessible filmmaker is overblown imo. A Man Escaped is also fairly accessible. Antonioni, well it depends on the film. Some people are bored to tears by his style (read plebs). In general i don't think he is that accessible apart from La Notte. Something like L'Eclisse is quite a challenging film with its structure and narrative.
Bresson on the other hand makes swift 90 minutes films. While they are different from other films, he is fairly emotionally resonant filmmaker.

He has only seen The Turin Horse by Tarr yet loved Jeanne Dielman. Strange. Also Tarr>>Akerman.