Is literature superior to cinema or is it the other way around? Is it even worth comparing the two mediums?
>>12186569Yes no no
>>12186569It's a medium like another. There are many books that would be untranslatable in film, and vice versa obviously.
>>12186636It still boggles my mind that a book like Lolita, in which everything I like about it only works if its a book, has TWO film adaptations.Are either of them worth a watch? I'm extremely sceptical
>>12186569Film is superior, but has been underutilized or abused for the most part. I won’t go to /tv/ anymore
>>12186697This, it is absolutely baffling that the medium as a whole ceased to progress in the 1940s.
>>12186701I have to agree for the most part the silent era contains the finest expressions in film, or they at least contain the germ of its fulfillment, only to have been ultimately bastardized by commercialism. It happened to literature as well but the process was slower.
Possibly there is a difference, depending on what sort of aesthetic philosophy and epistemology you subscribe to.But if you don't have severe autism or inferiority complex, no, there isn't much purpose in comparing the intrinsic "values" of entire art forms.>>12186697>it's better but it's worse>I also don't like this internet community, somehow that's relevant to my main point
>>12186691No, even Kubrick's widow said his film adaptation was inferior to the source material.
>>12186706Non-commercial and underground cinema is even more infantile and regressive than any commercial strain.
>>12186701Please give me film recs if you are the film autist I think you are. Your threads on /tv/ were masterpieces. Literally pearls before swine.
>>12186701>This, it is absolutely baffling that the medium as a whole ceased to progress in the 1940s.Are you referring to the fact that silent cinema reached perfection in the 1940s and then sound came in and ruined everything, or are you referring to the fact film language hasn't progressed since thr 1940s?
>>12186709It’s not worse for being misused. And I don’t like /tv/ so I don’t get to engage about film as much as I would like. Your brain can’t into nuance I guess.
>>12186715>the fact film language hasn't progressed since thr 1940s?This one. Talkies are generally inferior, but it was by no means that significant of an innovation (nor was color for that matter)
There are two common perceptions regarding film that irritate me. First, that films are seen as the default method of storytelling which all other media should aspire to (worst case of this is for video games but this is essentially the problem with bad genre fiction) and second, that films are equivalent to novels. I would argue that films are closer to short stories and novellas with the amount that they have to work with. My favourite film of all time relies on you having seen a TV series first so it doesn't have to waste time with introductions and it can just be a 90 minute climax Yes I'm talking about the film you're thinking of But overall they are two different media. I have no interest in watching a film adaptation of Lolita and I have no interest in reading 2001, because the appeal of each of those is rooted in what their medium can do that the other can't. >>12186596This
>>12186712I’m not positing a commercial/noncommercial split, only saying that people believe blockbuster crap like Kubrick is “kino” when it isn’t
>>12186701Not really that surprising. Movies need to be massively advertised and advertisable to make money. Niche movies are simply unsustainable since they still depend on awards and other gay shit to get noticed.
>>12186727I have to disagree with you about color, it isn’t an innovation but a technical deficiency of black and white which was resolved.
>>12186569The Divine Comedy is superior to shit like Central Intelligence (2016). 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) is superior to shit like Twilight. It's not the medium, it's the work itself..
>>12186729I agree with you on that, but it has absolutely nothing to do with commercialism. Consider that the majority of the greatest directors in history enjoyed massive commercial success and were among the people that built the Hollywood system in the first place.>>12186731It has nothing to do with that, niche (I take this to mean "arthouse") films are for the most part non-filmic trash. The key issue really is that editing has become a lost art, editors began to believe that the purpose of editing was coherence, rather than dialectic.
>>12186753While the early innovators created the commercial system, which in itself is a fascinating system of technical achievements, the underlying “bottom line” of investment/return is going to invite a reductive vision, I’m not blaming the system but the investors themselves.
>>12186722>And I don’t like /tv/ so I don’t get to engage about film as much as I would like. Your brain can’t into nuance I guess.Well I was assuming that /tv/ would by default be the last place where you'd want to discuss a film, so it seemed weird that you'd complain about it.>>12186727Colour wasn't that significant, sure, but you have no fucking idea about film if you think sound wasn't a profound change in the medium.
>>12186768Sound is only significant in that it was a prerequisite for the shift towards novelistic film. I may have miscommunicated, I meant that sound was not significant in the advancement of cinematic language, though it was a key factor in its regression, you are right.
>>12186701I think one of the many reasons film is dying is that it resembles real life way too much. Silent cinema was where the shit was at.
>>12186753What I'm saying is that movies are for the most part about budget (including advertising), and this has limited the market enormously.
What is the need to compare both mediums specially when considering Cinema is such a young art. Literature is more developed than Cinema but there is still a lot potential in the latter, which makes it exciting for me. Neither is superior.
>>12186569Film has enormous potential strictly as a medium, its ability to hold attention is undeniable and unmatched. The reason it is so horrifically imbalanced in favor of unutterably and irredeemably awful garbage is quite simple: films require incomparably more time (man hours), money, and collaboration than any kind of literature ever will. This means film is inherently more complicated, error-prone, subject to centralization of control, and subject to dictatorship-of-the-market and/or marketers, since we aren't talking about home movies shot on handicams. Virtually no artist, screenwriter, or director could ever fund a feature length film by himself, including all postproduction and licensing/rights acquisition and distribution costs. Imagine if all fiction writing was controlled by an oligopoly of ten publishing houses. Also the Jews and communists (how redundant) took control of the whole thing about 80 years ago.
Imagine Gravity’s Rainbow or Finnegans Wake as a movie, now image Full Metal Jacket or House (1977) as a book. Each has its own merits as an art form and it’s own weaknesses. For example, Finnegan’s wake would work better as a novel becuase of the prose and House would be a better movie becuase the break-neck speed and allowance for visual comedy is essential to the movie.
>>12186715Talkies became standard in the early 30s not the 40s. But your point is essentially correct. Film qua film had its most significant advances in the silent era. Sound made cinema filmed drama in a sense, something Hitchcock himself noted. For Hitch the only way to study cinema as its own art form is to study the classic of the silent era e.g. the films of Murnau, Lang, Griffith
>>12186829Full Metal Jacket is pretty much the same as the book, though. Just like No Country for Old Men.
>>12186829>Imagine Gravity’s Rainbow as a movieImagine the part where they literally eat shit, yeah
>>12186781>Sound is only significant in that it was a prerequisite for the shift towards novelistic filmAs I said, you have no fucking idea about film. It literally offers an entirely new sensitive channel of expression, giving the actors a new vector of communication, and the whole a massive space for manipulation and combination of sound and image. It might as well be a whole new art form. How this or that style or era abused those possibilities is irrelevant if we're talking about the intrinsic value of the art.Watch some Ilyenko before you speak to me again, pleb.>>12186807>movies are for the most part about budget (including advertising)I really, really doubt this is how things work outside Hollywood and the similar few hyper-productive and commercialized systems.
>>12186728Can people please stop qualifying things with 'of all time'? We get it, you really like it, it's the best of whatever limited amount you have consumed. Don't aggrandise it
>>12186854>I really, really doubt this is how things work outside HollywoodSmaller movies still cost millions to make, it's not even comparable to a medium like books.
>>12186852Hitchcock's selections not mine. But I do wonder what revolts you. Is it because they're German?
>>12186844Personally I find the movie version more moving than the book. Especially the scene with the dying child sniper. It may be the same but the movie version is more impactful
>>12186875They don't cost millions, no, and neither are they "about the budget". They calculate how much it'll cost, milk the money from various sources, and film it.
>>12186728>relies on you having seen a TV series firstm neither well read or film aficionado, so which film is it?if its some simpson trek shit ima kil u bish inb4 firefly/serenity
>>12186927not him but its probably EOE lol
>>12186963>EOEim still clueless
>>12186963end of evangelion?
>>12186701Out of interest, what works do you consider to be peak cinema? I agree with you that the medium has largely stagnated since the end of the Second World War, modelling itself on literature and theatre, as opposed to focusing upon editing.
>>12186714>thinking Doug could write such a neutral paragraph without caps lock puking his schizo thoughts everywhere
>>12188190You’re right. Wish he would post here though.
>>12186569I think it depends on a LOT of things. Literature is a great medium because it's easier to write a book than it is to write a movie I'd argue. It's an art form that anybody can participate in, and so that's why there's more classic literature than there are classic movies. But I'd also argue there are more classic movies than there are novels from the same periods, because literature got oversaturated.I think it's not really worth comparing the mediums, though. Can you really compare something like Drive to "We?" I'm sure there are great comparisons, but i think movies have more things that they can be judged on, while literature has their own set
Text is vastly superior. Film is brain popcorn and it honestly bores me to tears.
>>12188223>It's an art form that anybody can participate in, and so that's why there's more classic literature than there are classic movies.Not really. Cinema is a young art still, in the future there'd be classic movies as much as classic literature today.
>>12188229I suppose that's true, but it's still a medium that's extremely hard to get into. It requires a much higher investment than literature does today. There's hardly brilliant films being filmed on a smart phone camera, for example.
>>12188228Lately I've found myself as having no patience to watch any film or series whatsoever. And I think it may be due to the fact that film is a passive medium, it unfolds before your eyes without you even thinking or making an effort. While literature on the other hand, is like a game where you have to work for it, to construct the story with your imagination, to look for themes, symbols, etc.
All great cinema does what a book can't and likewise in reverse.So no, it's not worth comparing them (at least not in the dick-measuring sense you mean).
>>12188255>And I think it may be due to the fact that film is a passive medium, it unfolds before your eyes without you even thinking or making an effortThis says more about the quality of the films you are watching than it does the medium itself.
I honestly don’t get why the focus of the criticism against cinema is always commercialism. You could say the same about literature, but auteurism still exists. If you look outside hollywood you will find an enormous quantity of great films being made each year. Why don’t you disregard commercial trash when talking about cinema as most of you do when talking about literature or music?
>>12188278>I honestly don’t get why the focus of the criticism against cinema is always commercialism.I think it's because the higher the budget the less creative freedom the creator has. Guillermo del Toro has talked about this. Some producer offered him a decent budget to make Pan's Labyrinth in the US, but he had to make serious changes, like no violence, no horror, no weird-looking faun, not his vision.>If you look outside hollywood you will find an enormous quantity of great films being made each year. True. But unfortunately the Hollywood machine overshadows these works.>Why don’t you disregard commercial trash when talking about cinema as most of you do when talking about literature or music?We do, though.
>>12188278The problem isn't commercialism, it's that filmmakers in general have lost the essence of what film is, and have been replicating other mediums instead.
>>12188255Everything you say about literature applies to film. When watching you aren't given a list of themes, symbols and motif, you have to pick and analyse them no differently to reading a story. I don't suppose you write of Shakespeare because his medium is not pure prose? Reading is not nor should it be the mental masturbatory experience you seem to think it is.I understand why you think the way you do - high culture favours the written word whereas pop culture is biased toward the more accessible medium of film.Based on your description of watching a film you've only seen capeshit and Adam Sandler, and I know that isn't true so why inflict such terrible reasoning on yourself?
>>12186569Yes. Show me a film that reaches the heights of Shakespeare or Dante. Tarkovsky doesn't even come close.
>>12188337/lit/ doesn’t know about opera either.
>>12188255Thats a great point. Reading is extremely active, film hardly at all.>>12188265Not him, I got into movies a bit a few years ago watched a bunch of David Lynch, Kubrick, and some items from Gaspar Noes favorite 10 films list (Angst, Onions Cuba, Amour, Eraserhead...).Taxi Driver and the first Godfather are pretty great too.Dont get me wrong Mulholland Drive and 2001 A Space Odyssey are very intelligent and exciting movies, engaging even. If Im going to watch a movie I try to watch something like this. But even a great movie leaves me feeling kind of tired and bored after 2 hours. Sitting and staring at images creates a kind of passive glut that just has me itching to get up and do something after a while. I went to see Star Wars with some friends, I knew it was not going to be fun but man I regreted it. I would have rather sat in a room by myself with nothing to do for 2 hours, honest to God.Maybe its my ADD.
>>12188303>filmmakers in general have lost the essence of what film isAre you in an alternate reality where literature is striving? No, because the same is true there. All the arts are shit today, that's why 95% of what /lit/ talks about is 50+ years old. Commercialism fucks every medium, no matter which you are talking about you invariably have to look outside the mainstream to see "pure" authenticity or artistry.
>>12188356Who does desuAt least film has accessibility in its favour.
flicks>films>cinema>modern prose>modern poetry>>>>>>>>powergap>>>>>>premodern “literature”
>>12188349You view Shakespeare and Dante and their characters as the immortals they have become by virtue of their veneration.If tomorrow you saw a film or read a book that in centuries would be revered as a classic, would you really be aware of it?
>>12188358Novels are generally a more active process, but you should look into the history of film. Look at Eisenstein, Griffith, Dovzhenko, Ford e.t.c. All of these filmmakers reward active engagement with their work, and demonstrate the medium's potential.>>12188367>Commercialism fucks every medium, no matter which you are talking about you invariably have to look outside the mainstream to see "pure" authenticity or artistryYes, but I'm saying that non-mainstream films are also lacking in artistry, or at least they are inferior to the films created at the medium's inception. Commercialism doesn't have anything to do with that.
>>12188349That’s because films portrays a different brand of art. You can’t expect the same expression of something made 500 years ago in something made less than 100 years ago. You could definitely compare films to XIX century and modern literature though, they reach similar heights.
>>12186691Lolita was the only Kubrick adaption weaker than its source material.
>>12188337(Not him)2 major problems with film:1. you cannot get into a characters head the way text lets you. You cant jump from scene to scene, from backstory to present, you cant show the characters inner self observing a situation.2. Prose is nonexistent. Narrative style is absent. A poem, for example, simply cannot be made into a film.
>>12186841Hitchcock wasn't an auteur, he was the Nolan of his era and made thriller trash, its like saying Arthur Conan Doyle was the peak of 18th century literature.
>>12188386>If tomorrow you saw a film or read a book that in centuries would be revered as a classic, would you really be aware of it?Film is pretty different, since it requires little to know effort (merely sitting quietly for 2 hours), this "hidden masterpieces" fallacy or whatever, does not apply to it. Film is barenaked, literature is something to be discovered. The movies people venerate today are the same movies people will venerate in the future, or maybe they'll be largely forgotten, but certainly people in the future won't look back and say "oh remember those Adam Sandler flicks? They're actually masterpieces!". I can bet my soul on that.
>>12188395True. Even Kubrick's wife admitted so.
>>12188389>I'm saying that non-mainstream films are also lacking in artistry>inferior to the films created at the medium's inceptionSo you think Chaplin, Snow White and Nazi propaganda pieces are superior to anything made after that?I agree early cinema is excellent but there have been films in the same ball-park if not the exact calibre right up until this year.
>>12188401>A poem, for example, simply cannot be made into a film.Of course not, you can't replicate rhyming and such, but poetic films do exist, like Un Chien Andalou. Sadly, films today are shit.
>>12188401>you cannot get into a characters head the way text lets youThis isn’t a problem. It can be by passed by voice or text narration, or even be left completely untouched and abuse the intrinsic impenetrability of the medium. Good filmmakers have played with this since the birth of cinema.>You cant jump from scene to scene, from backstory to presentYou can and it has been done>you cant show the characters inner self observing a situation.first answer>>12188401>Narrative style is absent. A poem, for example, simply cannot be made into a film.this is just wrong
>>12188426>You can and it has been doneI think he was referring to the fact books, the physical objects allow you to jump from past to present, while in movies, if you blink or get distracted you may miss a detail.
>>12188418>So you think Chaplin, Snow White and Nazi propaganda pieces are superior to anything made after that?If this is the extent of your knowledge of pre-war cinema, you need to watch more films. I would also be happy to accept that Disney's films, particularly Fantasia, and Chaplin's films are superior to the vast majority of films made since then.>I agree early cinema is excellent but there have been films in the same ball-park if not the exact calibre right up until this year.Which ones?
>>121884011. Why the perverse need to be inside his head? You can read a character without hearing his thoughts.2. Narrative style is absent - This is a non-point, what do you even mean? It is a different medium so obviously the style differs. Are you saying that audio-visual representations can never be as beautiful as a poem?
What an exasperating question and thread. Is 1940s cinema better than modern cinema? Sure. But can any film from the previous eras match the pleasing visuals and aesthetics of BR2049? Can a description of a sunset be more beautiful than the sunset itself? Would the opening lines of Lolita work just as well if HH said it in the movie? Well, it all depends, but really, all of these questions are incoherent. Film as a medium isn’t monolithic, nor are novels, words and their varieties, and to attempt a comparison of which of the “two” mediums is better, is absolutely fuckdumb.
>>12188410Nobody thinks Adam Sandler flicks will be remembered fondly Anon. You are naive if you think mass obliviousness about the true nature of a work of art is inconceivable.
>>121867422001: A Space Odyssey is overrated
>>12188450Maybe I exaggerated a bit, but tell me, in the 100+ years of cinema, when has people actually went back and said "Yeah, now, this film we forgot about and nobody saw it's actually a classic!"? When has that happened? I know it's a younger medium and whatever, but still.
>>12188464I don't think I said great classics have been overlooked, what I mean is that we are not qualified to judge whether these works are timeless because we are still living contemporary to them. Hitchcock may well be in the future what Shakespeare is to us, but we will not know because he represents basically the same era we live in.
>>121884401. Thats a weak point and you damn well know it. Gee I dunno, everyone from Shamespeare to Dosto to Joyce seemed to do it.2. A film cannot obtain the aesthetic of a poem, never, not even close. related:I think of cinemas, panoramic sleightsWith multitudes bent toward some flashing sceneNever disclosed, but hastened to again,Foretold to other eyes on the same screen;And thee across the harbor, silver pacedAs though the sun took step of thee yet leftSome motion ever unspent in thy stride...
>>12188499>we are not qualified to judge whether these works are timeless because we are still living contemporary to themThat's complete bullshit considering Shakespeare was venerated in his time.
>>12188410There have more than a few movies than have been reevaluated by critics and the public years after they were released. For instance blade runner was a box office flop and yet the movie is well-known these days. Same thing with movies that were very successful and well-received that have grown to be regarded as overrated. The viewers can form interpretations of movies that are just as complex as books. And new interpretations can be made as times change and we're able to see the movie from a different perspective than when it was released.
>>12188531So was Hitchcock
>>121885291. Shakespeare used only dialogue. The narrative tools he had at his disposal are no different to those of the filmmaker. How you think it's not possible to "get in someone's head" without literally using a train of thought is beyond me, I'd rec you just go and watch some kino.2. Okay, I concede everyone has their own sensory biases towards this or that artform. I'm sure you've never appreciated the aesthetics of an actresses arse before. But damn you chose an ugly poem to follow that point. Y I K E S.
Neither is superior to the other. Reject hardline hierarchical thinking.
>>12188590Ugh i figured this was going to happen. Drama, text and film are not necessarily distinct. You could have film that does nothing but show text. You could have a play where no acting is done, only recitation of text. You could have a play or film with no words at all etc.They overlap in certain cases. To have an intelligent discussion about the differences between film and text, we have to keep in mind what characterizes these forms. I dont care to splice so much, so restate my opinion in less polite terms. Film is for idiots. It predominates in this idiotic era for a reason.
>>12186569>Is it even worth comparing the two mediumsNo.Cinema is far superiour in every way that matters.. Go to /tv/ and don't come back here.
>>12186569One’s a self-driving car, the other isn’t. One’s passive, the other’s active.
>>12188542Commercial success and critical success are different things. Also, what you're referring to is called a cult film.
>>12188655>Cinema is far superiour in every way that matters>Go to /tv/ and don't come back here.You should probably follow him there.
>>12188644It's no secret that most films, if not the overwhelming majority, are fluff made for idiots to throw their money at. Anyone who watches them in place of reading is doubly an idiot because they do not serve the same function. You wouldn't look at a painting in place of reading.That said Film is an offshoot of literature - and through it part of enlightenment tradition - which I believe is a vital part of invigorating that tradition. It's too early to say in what way but I think film is more historically significant than any previous visual artform.Your opinion is based on the false assumption that the feats of mental acrobatics involved in poetry and prose are artistically/morally superior but i can't convince you otherwise.
>>12188255Yeah, that's also why I refuse to listen to audiobooks.
What is some good literature about film?
>>12186569I always think of Hugo's "Ceci tuera cela" chapter when comparing mediums.Literature would be dead if movies weren't so damn difficult to make. But they require so many people and have so many moving parts... so movies will never fully take the throne of the reigning medium of expression, even if you could argue they've become slightly more prominent than literature.
>>12188776>that's also why I refuse to listen to audiobooks.I only listen to audiobooks of 19th century literature because the medium matches the writing style. 19th century authors, especially in britain and france, often expected that a large portion of their audience would have their novels read aloud to them.As soon as it gets to Joyce or Woolf and the like, I prefer a hard copy, unless I'm just re-reading it.
>>12188756You got to work for the goods, sorry
>>12188190Are you guys talking about Griffithposter?
>>12186697>>12186819>>12188590>>12188967Following this logic, both film and literature would be dead if animation wasn't so "commercialized". Animation is the synthesis of the three perfections: art, music, and writing.
Form > content
>>12188349>Yes. Show me a film that reaches the heights of Shakespeare or Dante.
The fact is that every culture has or develops a form of art that's dominant, a medium that becomes the "form" of imagination. That's going to reflect in any other medium one way or another. I'm pretty sure that if we compare novels from before and after the diffusion of film as a pervasive media we'll se much more cinematic descriptions, plotting or action.
I have defended film in this thread but after visiting /tv/ it's pretty obvious that it should be taken in moderation and severely scrutinised and analysed lest you become a caught up by the rhetoric of most of the brainless shit in the medium. The power of film is in its form, but equally it can be used in a very sinister way that text isn't so susceptible to. When reading you are more likely to spot bullshit, basically.
Eyes Wide Shut is the most visually beautiful film of all time. The cinematography lit by Christmas lights was 10/10.
Manhunter > Red DragonForbidden Planet > The TempestNosferatu > DraculaSherlock Jr. > Sherlock HolmesRan > King LearChad cinéma > pleb word-booksYou all know in your hearts this is true.
>>12191483I agree with all those, specially manhunter.
It still amazes me that you guys actually think mediums, which are merely different types of mirrors, can be superior or inferior to eachother. Every medium is simply its own mirror, and none but themselves can reflect what they do, the way they do. Literature in the purest sense involves language, which is the realm of sound and symbol.Then one has visual art, say painting, which is the realm of visual depiction, typically of things concrete, though capable of abstract representation as well.There is music, which is again sound and symbol, but of a very different kind. No longer involving the eyes but now the ears, no more about literal meanings but those of an abstract kind. It's very difficult to describe Music. Photography is a still image, capturing not paint but reality. Film is an amalgam of many things, of photography, music, literature and more. Sculpture shows us a stationary depiction made of some material.Then you have hybrids like graphic novels, combining literature and visual art, and many others like it.All of these are merely mirrors, reflecting an essence as only they can. When you compare mediums, what's occurring is your own ego is attaching itself to its favorite medium or the one it considers superior, and by this attachment, comes to glorify its own self by its association to something it considers valuable. Do not do this. See without judgment. Don't be like I was, where I used to think there was an "exact answer" to all these questions. A best medium, a best artist of each of medium, a best work of each medium, and so on. Seeking to rank literally everything. Ranking is the function of the ego. Do not lose yourself in such nonsense. Just sharing my lessons to you guys.Art is an infinite enterprise. Today, there are some X number of artforms out there. 1000 years from now, there will be many more, and on an indefinite timeline of civilization, the number only grows. So don't be silly enough to think that these mediums you see today are some end all be all, and to attempt to rank them between eachother.
>>12191076I really loved the cinnabontography too. Here's a prized image I've always loved from it.
>>12191483Child of God book > Child of God movieLolita book > Lolita moviesAll the Pretty Horses book > All the Pretty Horses movie>calling literature "pleb"Movies are the plebbiest of the Arts. Let's be honest, it requires zero effort from the audience's part.
>>12191483>hey look, these movies elevated this genre books! haha books suck! you fucking plebs!Cringe.
>>12187729the 20s were the single best decade in the history of film. The advent of talkies were a huge blow to the art form, and it took about a decade for things to adjust. I honestly think that film continued well, despite massive shifts in the form, well into the 1970s. In the 80s, though, you definitely see things turning to shit
>>12186691Lolita was easily Kubrick's worst movie.
lol ofc literature is better just due to the fact that its a "purer" form of art. if i want to convey an idea, regardless of how complex it is, i can easily put it in written form to communicate it to the audience. if i tried doing the same for film i would need so much equipment and there would be so many steps to consider that the vision be infinitely more difficult to convey. plus the addition of having your own vision of what a specific scene is like rather than having it forcefully shown adds a whole new elementart mediums power ranking:literature, painting (and other visual arts like sculpture), musicfilmtv (ew)there are others like food and performance art that im not 2 sure about its real late and i have a lot of homework fuck
Major films have many obstacles these days.1) Forced to include Chinese culture and censorship to be allowed into China.2) The average IQ of someone watching a movie will undoubtedly be lower than someone reading a book. Thus, film directors know they can dumb things down without worry of "insulting the intelligence" of their audience. 3) Length of a film is centered around profit, not the artistic direction of the piece.
>>12194633>watching hollywood shit
>The Chad Cinema: Pure non-conceptual experience, literally sculpting with reality itself >The Virgin Literature: Gay ass linguistic profilerations that don't even exist and are completely separated from the immediacy of realityLiterature is wack.
>>12196321Heh, it's a joke I use.
>>12194501>the easier it is to make the better it isWhat a fool.