/film/

All necessity is rooted in a plight. Philosophy, as the first and most extreme meditation on the truth of being and on the being of truth, has its necessity in the first and most extreme plight.
This plight is what propels humans around among beings and brings them for the first time before beings as a whole and in the midst of beings and thus brings humans to themselves and thereby lets history begin or perish.
What propels humans around is their THROWNESS into beings, a throwness that destines humans to be projectors of being (of the truth of being). The thrown projector carries out the first grounding-project as the PROJECTION of beings onto being. In the first beginning, when humans first come to stand BEFORE beings, the projection itself, its character, its necessity and its plight are still obscure and veiled and yet powerful.
The necessity of philosophy as meditation consists in the fact that it may not do away with that plight but must instead withstand it, ground it, and make it the ground of the history of mankind.
Filmmaking is philosophy.
That plight is nonetheless different in each of the essential beginnings and transitions of this history; yet it must never be taken superficially and hastily as deficiency, misery or the like. It stands outside the possibility of all 'pessimistic' or 'optimistic' evaluation. The basic disposition that disposes toward the necessity is in each case correlative to the primordial experience of this plight.
The basic disposition of the first beginning is grass in the form of wonder - wonder that beings are and that humans themselves are and are in the midst of that which they are not.
The basic disposition of the other beginning is wind in the form of shock - both the shock of the abandonment by being and also the restraint that is grounded in such shock insofar as it is a creative shock.

You are talking like some FNW films didn't have interesting narrative structures. Hiroshima Mon Amour, Last Year at Marienbad, Out 1, Celine and Julie Go Boating etc. all have very impressively structured narratives.

Attached: barber.jpg (1280x1393, 988.81K)

Does Out 1 improve after the first episode? I couldn't get passed the retarded avant-garde theater shit

A people is a people only if it receives its history as allotted to it through finding its god, the god that compels this people beyond itself and thus places the people back amid beings. Only then does a people escape the danger of circling around itself and of idolizing, as its unconditioned, what are merely conditions of its subsistence. How is a people supposed to find the god, however, unless there are seekers who in reticence seek on behalf of this people and who, as these seekers, must apparently even stand against a "people" that is not yet properly a people? Yet these seekers themselves must first be; the task is to prepare for them precisely as beings.
Vespers: what else is it but the grounding of the being of these beings, the future ones of the last god?
In short, no, not yet.

The theater stuff is still there but there are other things going too, so it does improve. I would recommend watching other Rivette's films before this. Out 1 is like a final boss of his filmography.

I only ever saw a few FNW films I'll admit that, because those that I saw were such a turnoff.
A bout de Souffle was just a terrible film noir ripoff.
Hiroshima mon amour seemed like a parody of itself.

Not FNW:
Young Törless was watchable, but mediocre as fuck, like a lame soulless edgy version of Das Fliegende Klassenzimmer.
Tokyo Story was simply abhorrent, nothing happens, then the mom dies. Also frontal-to-frontal medium shot cuts jfc JUST
Persona was like the cliche overly subtle film which noone gets until he makes an in-depth analysis of it.

Yeah I know Pleb&Proud etc etc
But seriously my impression of classical cinema vs new waves and all that is like classical paintings vs le modern art bunch of squares in primary colors.

Attached: art_then_now.jpg (236x454, 31.37K)

Breathless was not a film noir ripoff. I doubt you have seen many noirs.
>parody of itself
Why
>Tokyo Story
>nothing happened
Not much of a criticism since a bunch of stuff happened.
>no one gets Persona
Considering all your statements i would not call you pleb and proud, just plain stupid.

that first episode is the ultimate pleb filter

Rivette is pleb filter the director.

>Tokyo Story was simply abhorrent

Attached: bagdad1940c.jpg (564x430, 22.16K)

You just summed up everything wrong with film culture on the internet in 17 words. The kind of person who thinks avant-garde theatre is "retarded shit" has no reason to be aware of Out 1, let alone watching it.

>just a terrible film noir ripoff.
No, not in any sense, you obviously haven't seen any of these films, you're just trying to get your bollocks tickled. Fuck off and die.

Did you like Out 1?

Masterpiece:
>Pastoral: To Die in the Country
Excellent:
>Throw Away Your Books, Rally in the Streets
Good:
>Grass Labyrinth
>Farewell to the Ark
>Butterfly
>The Cage
>The Eraser
>Video Letter
>Boxer
Average:
>The Woman with Two Heads
>The Trial
>Laura
>Fruits of Passion
>A Tale of Labyrinth
>Les chants de Maldoror
>Young Person's Guide to Cinema
>Smallpox Tale
>Father
>The Reading Machine
>The War of Jan-Ken-Pon
Bad:
>An Attempt to Describe the Measure of a Man

First time I'm hearing of Shuji Terayama, give me the redpill

>Breathless was not a film noir ripoff. I doubt you have seen many noirs.
I've seen a lot of noirs. Breathless literally starts with a disclaimer saying "dedicated to monogram pictures" because they made all those b-series noir/crime flicks in the 1940s.

>>parody of itself
>Why
the whole mise en scène is ridiculous. don't know how else to explain it. unconventional for the sake of being unconventional.

>a bunch of stuff happened
I doubt you have read theory on writing or screenplay

>i would not call you pleb and proud, just plain stupid.
and there it is, instead of explaining why I'm wrong the insults start coming. Probably because you don't have any proper arguments to justify why you'd think I'm stupid.

alright I'll check out some of his other films first. I've been meaning to watch celine and julie forever
>that first episode is the ultimate pleb filter
I guess I got pleb filtered then
How is watching people writhe around and scream for an hour not retarded shit? I get that they were going for their primal state or whatever, but that doesn't make it any less retarded.

>"whenever I ask this most people just reply insulting me"
>anons don't explain why the films are good, just insult me
pottery

That doesn't mean it's a ripoff of noir. If you don't see the difference then you are not watching.
Hiroshima is not even unconventional.
>theory on writing or screenplay
Yes. Correct. They are theories not every film has to be made according to theories.
I mean the whole Breathless is a noir ripoff is enough to know that you are stupid.

For me, it's a tie between Sophia, Monica and Vivien.

Attached: w.png (1969x935, 1.52M)

One of the best Asian directors. Unique phantasmagoric style and weird personal life.

>They are theories not every film has to be made according to theories.
theory on writing screenplay isn't rules, it's principles.
>Rules say you have to do it like this.
>Principles say this works and always has.
You don't have to follow principles if you don't want to. But then you have to find something that works.
See, unlike youI can actually explain why I take my point of view. While you just keep insulting me and thus proving that you're a pseud.

If those movies are so good you should be able to say something more than just *angry NPC noises* and insults.

Please, go on, explain to me the appeal of any of those films. Can you do that or can you just throw insults? Because if you can't it would seem to me that clearly you're the stupid one.

Interesting, I'll look for some of his movies. If you should make a comparison, what movies are similar to his works?

>"ripoff"
>plotfaggery
Filtered.

Attached: plebbingo.jpg (950x1118, 209.77K)

It's just a theory if everyone was doing everything according to theory we would have the same shit over and over.
Yes, those films work.
Your point of view is based on your own stupidity and ignorance. Like one post before you could not explain why Hiroshima is parody. You can't properly explain why Breathless is a film noir ripoff. I don't need to prove the films are good. The burden of proof is on you and you provided zero comprehensible reasoning that would justify it. Most of it is misguided or just unexplained.

another webmless thread

Go to gif retard.

Yes, it's one of the greatest films ever made.

>How is watching people writhe around and scream for an hour not retarded shit?
No, again, this isn't for you, watch Sidney Lumet films or something instead.

i always thought the word arthouse was stupid. there's just good movies and bad movies, just calling your movie art doesn't make it special.

>Breathless literally starts with a disclaimer
No it doesn't. Monogram made no noirs. You're literally just reading stuff from Wikipedia. Fuck off.

What did you guys think of this?

Attached: a hidden life.jpg (1001x1500, 584.86K)

>It's just a theory if everyone was doing everything according to theory we would have the same shit over and over.
That's not how theory works, you'd know that if you had ever bothered to read up on it.

>more insults
just say that you're stupid and don't know shit, less typing

Arthouse refers to specific exhibition venues and cultures.

>it's one of the greatest films ever made
Care to explain why you think this?

well being at a specific venue doesn't make something art now does it

>skipping over half of the post because he can't explain anything
Lmao

and also this general often talks about stuff that gets wide releases anyway so if that's the case it's not really just an "arthouse" thread

Well, some people like to cite Chytilova's Daisies (1966) as visually similar, but the feel, themes, etc. are all very different. His actual influences include writers like Comte de Lautréamont, and he comes from a background of experimental theatre, which is why his films often play around with theatricality which is often symbolic or ironic. He's also heavy on surrealism, and since he was also a haiku poet, photographer and boxer, he incorporates these interests and their meanings into his films as well.
His films also predominantly deal with his childhood memories (most importantly his parents) and his relation to them as an adult. There's also a lot of traditional Japanese religious iconography (Buddhism, Shinto) in them. His films are usually scored by the psychedelic rock maverick J.A. Seazer.

imagine being this much of a pseud

Attached: monogram_breathless.png (962x536, 412.53K)

I literally started out by saying I don't get arthouse/new wave films, and asked for people to explain the appeal

this turned into people insulting me and expecting me to explain why they're no good, when I literally started out saying I don't get them.

jesus you NPCs really get angry over this stuff

Sophia's milkbags are unrivaled; obvious choice