Thread for the intellectual discussion of classic and arthouse cinema.Le morning after edition>/film/ Chartshttps://mega.nz/folder/FqAnBYpZ#eZiSPfuer0hlOAbmVEmdTw>/film/ Literaturehttps://mega.nz/folder/KvgWTKjQ#rGWJZs0ihnviBKDM9yxwJw>/film/ Filmshttps://mega.nz/folder/b5ggSb5T#zWQ0MqVzcYmexyzPlDBFSw>/film/ director directoryhttps://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qgdYsMPAaFWrAa_7EHLpXqpOHLaDLmytM9wJ5nhGtqs/edit?usp=sharing
Last thread doesn't exist... we need a discord
>>152180518I fucked up again...Multitasking isn't for me.
>>152160399I'm serious. >>152161246Did you just watch Fight Club for a first time?>>152161446Extremely based>>152160379Very based. Wayward Cloud is fantastic and definitely not just because it's related to What Time Is It There as the other anon said. Also the ending was pretty funny.
>>152180518as a tranny, I agree.
I watched Death in Venice. It's fucking boring.
>>152180497I just mindlessly click coomer bait now. I get in the thread and then wonder what the hell I'm doing here.
RIP Tony Scottdied nine years ago and still hurts
>>152181566Amazing well thought out opinion.
>>152181566I was too entranced by the music and Björn's beauty to be bored, although I can easily see why people might have had that experience coming away from the film.
>>152181648That looks kino. Source?
>>152181648Was he drugged and/or forced into a position where he had to do it? It still makes no sense to me considering he had just met with Cruise to discuss Top Gun 2 plans a few days prior.
>>152181648His films are not good.
>>152182737Having the talent to make me sit though an action films is talent enough.
>>152181818Quick question how many friends do you have in real life? Like people who go out of their way to talk to you?
I just saw Peresona for the first time, utterly spellbinding. The scene where Alma recounts her beach orgy was very erotic.
>>152183032Yeah, masturbated twice in a row to that scene when I first saw it(late stages of puberty).
>>152183030High chance they're autismos too. Grow a personality.
>>152183081I find it funny when the way I type things out for people to read online perturbs them so much.
>>152183119It's not ''perturbing'' anyone. They're just incredibly milquetoast, devoid of personality. It feels like I'm talking to a bug.
>>152183183I meant to respond in that manner, didn't have any deeper thoughts on the film.
>>152182900How many do you have? Is it 0 or 0? Pick one.
Fellini > Lynch
Carax > Lynch
>>152182648The Hunger>>152182674He had brain cancer>>152182737He is an acquired taste
>>152183370Most people think that>>152183499Correct
>>152139257Good morning Evachads,Only 635 more mentions, and End of Evangelion will become /film/'s mention king.Have a nice weekend.>>152181566>>152181818The film is very repetitive stylistically, and it's not like anyone watches it for the plot. I felt like after the first beach scene, which was very well made, it pretty much ran itself out. From that point on it's the same set of scenes over and over again until the film ends.
Cocteau > Lynch
>>152180497What film in pic?
>>152184554À l'aventure 2008
im stuck wtih this fucking scrpitp
>>152184597Are Brisseau's films good or just coomer baits?
>>152184739I get something out of them, many Ive talked to find him too pretentious and that he focuses to much on the lewd, give his Céline a go if you want to start with his filmography.
Animation is the final frontier of cinema but it can't be explored to its limits because the requirements for entry and production are too high. refute this.
>>152185096Mind VR productions are the final frontier of cinema but it can't be explored because of limits in technology and the requirements for entry and production are too high. refute this.
>>152185096Animation is not cinema. It's animation. The rest is bullshit, you can do animated film by yourself. Also what you posted looks hideous and you should fuck off to discuss these weeb cartoons on the board where they belong to.
>>152185096Burden of proof is on you.
>>152185096Animefags are pathetic
>>152185208>Animation is not cinemaThe principal is the same, animators and storyboarderd use a hidden camera that they control through thier art>you can do animated film by yourselfIt's ALOT easier to make a live action film.>Also what you posted looks hideous subjective.
>>152185096The final frontier of cinema was already reached back in the 20s. Exploration of human experiences to the fullest was realized back then, this applies to literature as well, the maximalist state of progression has already been achieved. What remains is for the subject, i.e. you, to reach the level of understanding where you can effortlessly parse through the presented presuppositions. What comes to animation reaching the same level, impossible. The creator has too much say, he does not direct the characters in the screen, he manifests them. Problem is, it is from a singular point, this point tries to shine through a larger whole, it is simply not enough. Animation, is not a collaborative effort to the level film is, it is by this comparison, fair to say, animation is anti-human.
>>152185449No. There is no reality in animation. It has nothing to do with cinema. Cinema films real objects and people. Animation doesn't except in few cases and those cases are not in anime.No, it's notOkay, chang go and draw in the corner
>>152185693>Cinema films real objects and people.
>>152185755Learn the history of cinema
>>152185693>You can only appreciate aesthetics that are real photographs>Reality can only be expressed through photographs>art is about realismDo you also discredit literature and painting too?
>>152185693Guys this is no good, it's not a phtograph, I am going insane!
>>152185834>Realism = realityBrush up on your reading comprehension. It seems to be lacking. Last time I checked literature and painting weren't cinema.
>>152185867Learn to read, you dumb fuck.
>>152185834>guy says anime is not cinema>bbbbbbbut paintings and literaturethe absolute state of animefags
>>152185814It tells me that animation films were also shown as films in cinemas.
>>152185867Just shat my pants here actually.
>>152186658And films were shown in museums. Doesn't make them paintings.
So why do you other anons think Ross divorced his first wife? I know she was a lesbian but do you guys think that was really all that was going on?
>>152185096Entry might be more difficult for anime than for live action, but large kinos are more expensive when they're live action, are they not?
>>152186776So how does the history of cinema teaches us that cinema EXCLUSIVELY films real objects and people?
Anyone know where I can find The Goodtimeskid (2005)? Couldn't find a torrent anywhere and I dont have any private tracker
>>152180497anyone remembers that website where you are shown two films, you pick the one you like the most and it builds a ranking of films depending on your choices
>>152186946Anime isn't about money, it's about the skill. The skill is more precious than money and it's a limited resource, the bets looking anime have relatively small budgets.
Post your top3s everyone.Mine:KINOGRAPHY1. Чeлoвeк c кинoaппapaтoм (1929, Dziga Vertov)2. Cyд нapoдoв or Sud narodov (1947, Yelizaveta Svilova)3. Hoвocти дня (1954, Dziga Vertov)CINEMA1. L'année dernière à Marienbad (1961, Resnais)2. Voskhozhdenie (1977, Larisa Shepitko)3. The Birth of a Nation (1915, D. W. Griffith)FILM1. 黒い河 (1957, Masaki Kobayashi)2. Höstsonaten (1978, Ingmar Bergman)3. Dog Star Man: Part I (1962, Stan Brakhage)MOVIES1. Le voyage dans la lune (1902, Georges Méliès)2. Le Dernier Samaritain (1991, Scott)3. Offret (1986, Andrei Tarkovsky)FLICKS1. Een hagedis teveel (1960, Verhoeven)2. 七人の侍 (1954, Akira Kurosawa)3. Mauvais Garçons (1995, Bay)JOINTS1. Mo' Better Blues (1990, Lee)2. Joe's Bed-Stuy Barbershop: We Cut Heads (1983, Lee)3. Do The Right Thing (1989, Lee)
>>152181566Björn <3<3>>152180497What is the OP film pls?
>>152180673>It’s life affirming because I interpreted the solution to the image this way. The people who seethe that it’s sad are children.Fight club is some cuck fantasty
>>152185096>Animation is the final frontier of cinema>posts nip animation insteadCringe.Real nip cinema has always been about the films from the actual filmmakers like Yoshida and Shimizu. The praise for animation films should be reserved to the Czechs, Germans, Soviet Russians, and including those that utilize animation to form a unique blend of aestheticism, surrealism, and formalism. Those that utilize different forms of animation including puppet, clay, silhouette and stop-motion. Which encourages filmmakers to approach innovative techniques as a forefront to producing cinema. I can argue that Zeman's films that use both animation and live-action elements to create visually stunning stage designs. A thoughtful technique that is closer to what cinema is, than any of the nip animation. This can also be said for films like The Cameraman's Revenge, Fantasia, The Adventures of Prince Achmed, Fantastic Planet, films from Svankmajer and Trnka, etc.
>>152180497>/film/ - an excuse to watch nudity and sex
>>152189097Denny, I don't like Philip any more than I do you. The guy cries like a little baby over the commercials with the wounded cats in them. Sit through a Von Trier movie and then get back to me.
>>152185867>be web>compare boogerow to anime unironically
>>152187048I didn't say it exclusively deal with real objects. But it's the base of cinema. From beginnings of cinema, through silent to sound era. Few exceptions in realm of experimental film.
>>152188656Read the thread>>152189007Based post. Also if you notice, Svankmajer, Zeman deal with reality. Weeb trash doesn't.
>>152181613Lol, I justified it by thinking “yeah, but cinema makes you coom psychologically” so it’s probably going to be better coom
>>152189919the epic name
>>152188644HAHAHAHAHA hyper cringe
Guys, Ill use a less provocative picture next time.
if you faggots made threads about the movies you watched and replied to each other in them the board wouldn't be in the state that it's in. All generals should be banned on every 4chan board
>>152190086You are fucking retarded. Go and play with lego.
>>152190086This, but I disagree.
>>152182834Good stuff. Keep seeding.
>>152183989Tony Scott shooting Top Gun
>>1521829004 or 5
>>152189797Yes. Manifesting objects/models from reality with stop-motion animation can produce fascinating results. Also, nips had produced great cutout/silhouette animation from the early days of what people consider today "anime". But, it is very creative compared to the handdrawn 2D animation. Arguably, it is closer to the cinematic type of using silhouette animation from Reiniger's Prince Achmed.
>>152185615Absolute brainlet Definition of cinema.
I HATE MOVIESI HATE MOVIES
>>152189754>I didn't say it exclusively deal with real objects.Sounds like it though, because this is the sole basis on which you dismiss animation.
Rate my top 25. Only have 470 films logged btw. Also recommend kinos and post yours if you want.
>>152190501Movies also hate you.
Sup boys. I am watching through Lynchs ouvre. I honestly don't appreciate it. I want something that is similar to silent hill 2. The projection of the psyche on to the screen. You guys know any surreal films that use this concept?
POOP ... and stuff
>>152190548Youve got some that have impressed me. Das Boot is great. I watched it while learning German and now its made an impression on me. I liked Silence a lot. I just watched Barry Lyndon and I love and adore FMJ.
>>152190548Some very good stuff, Lord of the rings shouldnt be there at all though and you need to watch more non American films, otherwise you will be stuck in the past.
>>152189007>he Czechs, Germans, Soviet Russians,wow i sure do love paper cut-out animation
>>152190827This one is traditional animation amd was really fun.https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1230144/There are several others I saw too that I don't remember the name of. One where a dog gets rich and becomes a warmonger.
>>152190509I said animation is not cinema. Then I said cinema deals with real objects people which is why animation isn't cinema except few exceptions (your weeb trash isn't exception). I didn't say it exclusively deals with reality. I said reality is the base of cinema. Anime doesn't have it, therefore it's not cinema. I think anime is trash but that wasn't even the topic of discussion. You can discuss your cartoons on /a/. It's not cinema. It lacks the basic component and it will never attain it. Why are you anime fags so illiterate? Some other moron basically wrote that real objects in cinema = realism and then he compared painting to anime and implied painting and literature are cinema. Can you idiots go to /a/?
>>152190548Okay for a beginner
are you cinematically literate /film/?
>>152190827not all of them are exclusive to paper cut-out animation Svankmajer uses puppet models with stop motion animation. Zeman uses live action models with animation. Trnka uses traditional animation. The polish russian animator for Cameraman's Revenge used clay models with stop motion animation.
>>152191205correction: Cameraman's Revenge used dried out insects for the models.
>>152191097>I didn't say it exclusively deals with reality. >I said reality is the base of cinema. Anime doesn't have it, therefore it's not cinema.
>>152180497Did she poop the bed??
>>152191340>exclusively = onlyYes, it's not the only component of cinema but it's the base component.
A film with an animated sequence in it is cinema and not cinema at the same time.
>>152185096sauce, i cant find this and it lookas great
What would you change /film/?
>>152191393Oh, that's a misunderstanding. I meant "exclusively" as in "always", not as in "only".
>>152189797>Based post. Also if you notice, Svankmajer, Zeman deal with reality. Weeb trash doesn't.Lol>>152190086I too would enjoy all the replies to a Groning and Roeg thread>>1521905481/10>>152190585Shut up
>>152191700where the FUCK is hellraiser?
>>152191932It could go on tier 1 I guess
>>152192032Not tier 2?
>>152190548Too many Amerifat flicks. LotR is an embarrassment. Watch more films.
>>152191442what about him
>>152192151Idk. I've never seen it
>>152192032It Reddit dogshit like Midsommar is on tier 2 then Hellraiser doesn't deserve to go on tier 1.
>>15219222113/25 of them are non-american directors
>>152191097what kind of retarded definition is this? "cinema is real." wouldn't this mean all cel animation is cinema? then you've got "you can do animated film by yourself" -- you can also film a live-action movie yourself. have you thought about this distinction for even a moment? this whole conversation reeks of "teen boy stumbled into a firm belief and will defend it at all costs for no reason."
>>152192368And? 12 from America is still far too many.
>>152190823based piavoli poster
>>152192324go watch the first two tier 2 for sure
>>152192422>cinema is realI never said that. You should think while reading basic sentences, it might help.
>>152192328I didn't make the original picture. I'm just trying to figure out how to fix it>>152192484alright
>>152192594Half of the things in that list are some bullshit vomit porn things. There is no fixing it.
>We also talked about the astonishing outburst of rage we had witnessed when Godard turned on the actor playing the newspaper editor in the scene that had just been shot. Paule said that when she had first heard about these rages, which were apparently not uncommon, she was horrified, but having seen them for herself, she understood them better. Godard had been so furious because the actor would not produce the performance he wanted, but to tell him what to do would be to ruin the spontaneity of what was caught on camera. Paule likened Godard’s rages to the frustration of a small boy unable to tie his shoelaces
>>152185615>Animation, is not a collaborative effort to the level film iswhat the fuck are you talking about? a single animated film, depending on its budget and medium, might have anywhere from dozens to hundreds of animators, background artists, inkers, painters, storyboard artists, dolour designers, photographers, effects artists, etc. this is of course not counting voice work, sound work, etc.
>>152192624Because it's supposed to be "disturbing" films, not actual good horror films. I just figured /film/ would have some more obscure "disturbing" films
>>152192548sure, you said "cinema films real objects and people," and this seems to be the primary distinction you've drawn between animation and cinema (though i'm sure you'll retreat to some other retarded point about technical novelty when you're called on this unreliable distinction). so pedantry aside, would you like to even attempt to defend your retarded definition? if you're going to apply this definition to claim cut-out animation is cinema, then there's no reason to exclude, say, cel animation from cinema.
>>152193273Yes, that's cinema. Filming real objects and people.I never talked about cut out animation. No, cel animation is not cinema. Literally photographing paper with handrawn cartoons is not the same as filming real objects and people.
>>152190585You might like Elias Mehrige’s BegottenFirst time I saw it, seemed like a nightmare printed straight to film.
>>152193433OK, sure, well someone with identical talking points made exceptions for animated cinema that appeared to include media like early cut-out animation or even things like Planet Sauvage or Fantasia.
>>152193674I agreed with Svankmajer and Zeman being cinema rather than animation. I have not seen Fantastic Planet or Fantasia so I can't comment
RIP Hong Kong Cinemahttps://twitter.com/rebeccaludavis/status/1403227684885434374?s=20
I just attempted to go for a run in the first time in years and almost passed out on the side of the road. /films/ for this feel?
>>152191700Snuff R73 seems to be bullshit.>>152193209Vomit porn is more disgusting than disturbing.
>>152189007>both animation and live-action elements>tfw half the animation of the 1910s-20s is more aesthetically valuable than almost all animation of the last 100 years because these cartoons used the framing device of the animator's hands
>>152194010Start cycling, stop running
>>152191452Anne Frank anime, it's not good.
>>152194010the first few are rough, i started again and it felt like my lungs were bleeding, it gets better though and the runners high kills my depression for a bit at least
>>152193846So stop motion animation is cinema?
>>152194239I don't know how all stop motion is made but in case of Svankmajer or Quay brothers who use real objects yes.
>>152194335Is Popeye Meets Sinbad cinema?
>>152194087I don't have a bike>>152194178Yes, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything>>152194225Thanks for the encouragement
>>152194335is celluloid, ink, and paint a real object?
>>152194411I don't know what that is so I can't tell you.
>>152194469>pedantry asideLol. No, cel animation is not cinema.
>>152194449>nearly passes out after running for a while>is AmericanYou know the connection.
>>152194532>photograph lovingly hand-moulded clay>cinema>photograph lovingly hand-painted cels>not cinemaexplain
>>152194620Clay = 3D objectHand painted cels = drawings
>>152190213You know I'm right cancerfag. You better hope I never get un-rangebanned or these threads will be nothing but shitporn
>>152194590I'm not a fatass though, just very out of shape. I only weigh about 160lbs (72kgs)
>>152194687Go play with lego, idiot.
>>152189007>The praise for animation films should be reserved to the Czechs, Germans, Soviet Russians, and including those that utilize animation to form a unique blend of aestheticism, surrealism, and formalismWhy? >utilize different forms of animation including puppet, clay, silhouette and stop-motion. Which encourages filmmakers to approach innovative techniques as a forefront to producing cinema. I can argue that Zeman's films that use both animation and live-action elements to create visually stunning stage designsI won't ever defend anime on the whole, but this describes things like Belladonna of Sadness, Mind Game, Cat Soup, even something like End of Evangelion. Apart from that, I don't really understand. You're saying praise should reserved for, what, mixed media animation? Animation that's technically innovative? While I greatly respect both these films, I'm not totally sure how this would include things like Fantasia or Fantastic Planet while also excluding all anime.
>>152194721Imagine being this much of a dumb faggot. You know I'm right. Make actual threads you giant pussy
>>152194673why don't you reformulate your animation/cinema distinction for me. from where i'm standing, cel animation is just a highly austere form of stop-motion cinema that uses exactly one shot and medium.
im the least gay person in this thread
>>152194864No I am
>>152194818I don't give a shit where you are standing. You said pedantry aside and then you come up with the most pedantic, autistic questions one can think of. Cel animations is drawings. Not cinema, there is no engagement with reality.>muh the paper is realNot an object that makes any difference. Everything in the frame is drawing.
>>152194673is this 3D enough for you?
>>152194789Back to legos
>>152194986i'm just pressing you on what is obviously an untenable distinction. note that, because cel animation has fit all previous definitions you've given for cinema, you've had to retreat to this esoteric argument that film has to involve the photography of "an object that makes a difference" to maintain your definitions. what does this even mean?
>>1521949902D with depth is not 3D
>>152195093is this 3D enough for you?
>>152195161lol, isn't that literally what the third dimension is?
>>152195123>lol no pedantry dude>BUT IF YOU PHOTOGRAPH A PAPER, WHICH IS A 3D OBJECT IT MEANS THE FRAME IS FULL OF REAL OBJECTS DUDEYes, sure. No pedantry involved. There is no real object in the frame, you can photograph it on paper all you want. There is no engagement with reality in that type of animation. It's drawn. Drawing doesn't take existing objects like Svankmajer does.>>152195162>drawingNo
can we admit that Bazz Luhrman is the best director of his generaiton.
>>152180497wow, so this is the high art i always heard about
>>152194735Innovative in general. I don't regard anime as innovative. Mixed animations tends to lean toward cinema.
>>152195330>BUT IF YOU PHOTOGRAPH A PAPER, WHICH IS A 3D OBJECT IT MEANS THE FRAME IS FULL OF REAL OBJECTS DUDEyes>There is no real object in the frame,are you working off some rarefied lacanian definition of "real"? from where i'm standing, celluloid, ink, and paint are all real. >drawingso this is where we've actually hit bedrock. we can ignore everything you've said about "the real" and "engagement with reality" and "2D vs. 3D" or "objects that make differences." the axiomatic belief here is that cinema doesn't include anything that's drawn (or at least anything that's exclusively drawn), and this is where your beliefs become self-referential and self-justifying. so just say that next time someone questions you on the distinction between animation and cinema. >drawing>nobut it includes a very Real set. again, refer to Popeye Meets Sinbad, a great piece of Cinema by your reckoning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIwUpvf2jXY
>>152195653I don't think most anime is innovative, and the vast bulk of it is standardized commercial garbage, but there are absolutely Japanese animators with exceptional and distinctive styles.
>>152194990>>152195162Why even play along with this presumptuous way of defining what cinema is?
>>152180497naked whores>>152181648pop starswow, this is truly the only highbrow thread on /tv/, thanks for saving the board from all the other retarded shit guys, keep it up!
>>152195658No. Things in frame must be real objects. Their products are not real 3D tangible objects but drawings.I didn't say cinema doesn't include anything that's drawn.The centrepiece is drawing, there is no sufficient engagement with reality so no. You might think it's a great piece of cinema. I don't.
>>152195700True. I can agree with that. Most Japanese animators will always look up to Ofiju as the legendary animator whose work has been innovative ever since he used cutout and silhoueltte animation to create art, followed by his traditional animation. His style lingers onto the works of contemporary Japanese animation.
>>152195700I don't even know why anime specifically has to be innovative while other films don't. It should be enough for anime directors to have their own style like live action counterparts.
Other than Twin Peaks and Dekalog what are some kino tv shows?
>>152196175Check the chart in the mega
>>152196175>Twin Peaks and Dekalogi think you'd like bojack horseman and family guy, try some anime as well.
>>152194010Watch Tony Richardson
>>152195653>Mixed animations tends to lean toward cinema.You anime fags being so insecure about those movies you discuss with this person as if you are not all underage is what's really disgusting about this.
>>152196215Anime is much better than those two>>152196175Eastbound and Down, Vice Principals
>>152196324Anime is bad. Like comic book flicks. Both fanbases full of faggots seek validation for their abhorrent taste.
>>152196175The Terror and Chernobyl were very entertaining - whenever Jared Harris is in something it's usually alright,goes for mad men as well.
>>152180497>WOOOOOW DUUUUDE IS THAT A PAIR OF NAKED BUTTOCKS? >SO FREAKIN HIGH BROW ART
>>152196450NGE is okay, outright bad is Miyazaki, It serves it's purpose.Having met both, and dating one 'weeb' in college and after, so to speak, Anime fans are much better.
>>152195886>I didn't say cinema doesn't include anything that's drawn.You don't have to explicitly state your definition. I'm trying to draw out this definition via questioning, because you don't appear to be aware of your own definition, and it seems to shift whenever one component of it is challenged. When we hit bedrock (or appeared to), we found that your idea of cinema basically just means "isn't made up completely of drawings." Except now you've been challenged on that, presented with an example of animation that appears to fit all your previous criteria (contains drawings, but also includes "real" 3D backgrounds, found objects, etc.). so you've retreated again to some esoteric notion, this time of "sufficient" engagement with reality, which could mean anything.
>>152196450To dismiss a whole genre like that can only be due to an obviously ideologically blinkered worldview, I don't agree that's a desirable state to be in. There's pearls to be found almost anywhere.
>>152196175>Neon Genesis Evangelion>Texhnolyze>Zeta Gundam>Tatami Galaxy>Yu Yu Hakusho>Ergo Proxy>Stand Alone Complex
>>152196644SAC is a bit of a stretch, the films are fine, but SAC is a bit overblown.
>>152196654i'm not american, i just hate whores inserting themselves in everything and simps allowing it, that's how things get derailed.
>>152196597 #The need you feel to convince this obvious brainlet only shows how mentally retarded you are as well.
>>152180497anyone have a gif of OP's pic? i need to see her tits.
>>152196597Next he'll say who framed roger ebert isn't cinema becaue it has cell animation and then he will have to discard films that have post processing effect i.e 90% of all films.
>>152196760>whores>simpsYou need to go out or read more, your choice. This vocab is no good.
>>152196768i just like arguing. i don't have any illusion i'll convince this guy of anything>>152196826based
how many schizophrenics come here
>>152195816>you can't talk about The Hunger, Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence, Twin Peaks, Godard's Detective, Funeral Parade of Roses or Kurosawa's Ran because they feature pop stars
>>152196803twitter buzzword for someone who doesn't put up with whores.>>152196864simp or faggot, can't really tell.
>>152196917whores are good, though
>>152196908Don'g forget Chunking Express, Faye Wong
>>152196947faye wong is hot
>>152196908who's the pop star in Ran?
Finished watching the station agent. It was quite lovely.
>>152196908good, fuck pop culture
>>152196597No. My definition was firm since the beginning. You just went on and on with some pedantic bullshit about cel animation although it's all on paper and if you flip the paper you don't see the objects. If you touch the paper you don't feel the objects that are supposed to be real. They aren't since they are drawn. The centerpiece is animation. The backround might as well be animated. One can't tell the difference. There is no engagement with reality. >>152196826That is cinema so wrong. Learn to read.
>>152197064It was you...
>>152197048the fool and the king of france
Just finished Keaton's Go West and while it wasn't bad, it's definitely the worst Keaton I've seen to date. The stampede part was fun, and there were some good gags on the range, but overall it was still a weaker Keaton. I'd still recommend it though for anyone who likes Keaton's films
Be honest /film/ how much anime have you seen and what are your favorites? this is an anime website afterall, we are all weebs here, no need to be ashamed.I have 80 or so completed titles on myanimelist. Logh, Yu Yu Hakusho and Evangelion are my favorites.
>>152197174i love the fool so much
>>152197313As far as films go, I've seen pic related. For shows, I've only seen Attack on Titan, DBZ, Promised Neverland, and Yakitate Japan
>>152197560Which ones you liked which one you didn't?
>>152197313back to /a/, stop spamming the threads with your nonsense
>>152197756I liked all the films. Some are much better than others, but they are all worth watching. I'd say Grave of Fireflies or Angel's Egg are my favorite. For the shows I really liked the first 3 seasons of AoT, but I don't know how I feel about the 4th season yet. DBZ I watched as a kid, so I don't really remember. Promised Neverland had a good first season, but the second season was pretty shit. And Yakitate Japan is dumb fun
>>152197132>My definition was firm since the beginning.wrong. you've had to retreat to retarded nonsense like "cinema is the photography of things that matter" or "cinema is when there is *sufficient* engagement with reality" to maintain your distinction. you've now moved onto the claim that cinema is when everything that's presented as Real in a film is or once was tangible as the very thing it's presented as on screen. i'm not sure what this means for someone playing a role or for sets or special effects or any other level of artifice common to film. whatever. i'll clue you in. this cinema/animation distinction is kind of like trying to draw an exact line between a chair and a sofa. i'm just pressing you on this because i think the distinction is unimportant and not useful, and everything you've said to defend this distinction can't hold up to scrutiny. you'll eventually have to bite the bullet on something to maintain this distinction, so maybe just own the "can't be made only of drawings" thing (even if that means Popeye Meets Sinbad is now Cinema). or if you want to be really esoteric, just go for the "i know it when i see it" defence, as this probably is your actual position.
>>152198164No. I said from the beginning that base of cinema is reality, the base of cel animation is not reality. The objects there are not real, you are photographing drawing. Are the objects on drawing real? No. The base is not there, it's not cinema. It's quite simple really. You can have CGI, animation in film if it fulfills the basic requirement of having reality as its base. Not my fault you can't follow this.The scrutiny you tried to apply to it makes no sense if you think about it for more than 2 seconds.No, Popeye's base is drawing. Like I already explained 50 times.
>>152197019More like faye right, am I wrong?
>>152198483How do you come to the definition that "cinema" has the basic requirement of "having reality as a base". Did you get that from somewhere or is it your own private definition?
>>152198624You watch films
>>152198678So your own private definition, got it.
>>152198903Bruno Dumont>I think cinema is naturalistic art because it films people, it films landscapesTarr says something similar over and overShould I find more quotes from filmmaking saying the same shit I said or is this enough?
>>152198483>>152198483a series of drawings representing a man are as "real" as a series of clay sculptures representing a man. this definition of "real" as is totally arbitrary, and it seems like "real", for you, just means "having more depth than a sheet of celluloid". this is why i'm suggesting you just bite the bullet on the "cinema is when a movie isn't exclusively made up of drawings" thing, even if this categorization has some unfortunate consequences for the distinction you're trying to maintain.>No, Popeye's base is drawing. Like I already explained 50 times.it fits all your criteria except this "the base can't be drawing" stipulation you've just now introduced, which is evidently only a means to get around your previous admission that cinema can be partially made up of drawings. you've even tried to exclude it on the basis that "the background may as well be animated," which is rich. i think Pasolini's Gospel According to St. Matthew is an animated film because it could be rotoscoped. and for that matter, i think Bakshi's American Pop is cinema because i may as well re-shoot the thing in live action.
>>152199219I'd be more interested in dumont saying animation is not cinema.
About to watch The Big Parade. What am I in for?
>>152199219can you explain what utility we even get from this categorization? why bother with the claim "animation isn't cinema" instead of "animation is a kind of cinema"?
I asked this last thread but it died:Does anyone know if there's a website that shows all forthcoming releases but includes "good" -- or festival or arthouse or whatever term you want to use -- films? I can only find ones that cover blockbuster schlock type stuff.
>>152199532>I can only find ones that cover blockbuster schlock type stuff.
>>152199412How else would you have a seething discussion on a Cambodian tie-die forum? By exchanging ideas about films? Get broken, bucko.
>>152199643Just google the films retard
>>152199347No, they aren't. Real object is real object. Not a drawing. Drawing is a reproduction of the real, that's why it doesn't have weight or further dimensions. Clay while being a reproduction has weight and dimensions while being a it holds a texture unknown to drawing. You are wrong in what you are saying so I don't have to bite the bullet in any way.>you've just now introducedYes, that's why I said that base is reality and said anime (where the base is drawing) isn't cinema like 100 posts before. Yes, it's just now.No, I excluded in on the basis of it having drawings as its base.That film has people and real objects. It doesn't have animation with one real backround that isn't even recognizable>>152199349Then why did you ask about something completely different in your first post?
>>152199742But I don't know what films are coming out... that's the whole fucking point. Jesus Christ who would've guessed that the people who frequent /film/ are enormous fucking faggots. Enjoy spamming >muh Tarkovsky! >muh Tarantino! for the rest of your pathetic life.
>>152199864Look up festival schedules and pick the films that interest you. There
>>152198624See >>152185814 ff.It basically comes down to "animation isn't cinema because most films aren't animated".
>>152200003Films are about filming real tangible objects and people. Animation doesn't do that.
>>152199939>>152200003This is an entirely fruitless discussion, I hope you idiots are aware of the waste of life you are committing right now. Fighting about definitions like bean counters, truly the Dreck of human society imagining themselves to be smart. Everyone involved in this conversation is a buck that needs a bbc deep in their throat.
>>152200132>Films are about filming real tangible objects and people.But why? Is this >>152200003 actually your argument?>>152200164>le enlightened meta-post
this thread is retardedmoving images = cinemano matter the techniquewhat kind of moron would make a distinction depending on the object in front of the camera to determine the cinematic quality of a moving image?a fucking 2 frame animated gif loop is cinemasorry
>>152200455This and yes.
>>152200310>but why?Have you ever seen more than 20 films in your life? From Muybridge to Bi Gan the fascination has always been with people. Body in motion, people and their environment, people doing stuff. The movement of their faces etc. That is cinema. Animation is animation. That's something else.
>>152200455>chink cartoons are cinemaBugman cope. It's not cinema.It's not about quality although anime is indeed trash.
>>152200519cinema is a subset of animation
>>152200674Actually true, as moving images have existed long before photography in things like zoetropes and flip books.
>>152199819>Drawing is a reproduction of the real,like acting, sets, special effects, sound, music, etc. Every aspect of filmmaking deals with some level of abstraction from The Real. in the same sense that no one mistakes a putty head for a real head or a painted backdrop for a real setting, no one mistakes a drawn and painted head for a real head, and it remains that the depiction of any of these things on moving film entails the photography of Real things. >that's why it doesn't have weight or further dimensionsdrawings absolutely have weight, dimension, texture, etc., especially those drawings stacked on top of 3D sets or captured via multiplane cameras, as in early Fleischer animations. again, just bite the bullet here, and fuck off with this retarded esoteric nonsense about dimensions, "sufficient engagement with reality," "things that matter," "the base of cinema is reality," etc. just say, "cinema excludes films where everything depicted is drawn" (popeye is cinema) or say "i know it when i see it."
>>152200857>Still aimlessly discussing some guys silly definition like an idiot.
>>152200519>it is because it isbrain genius. categories only exist because they serve some use to people. these categories of "cinema" and "animation" don't exist in nature. i don't see any utility in maintaining the distinction you're trying to draw in place of something like "animation is a type of cinema"
>>152200552>It's not cinema.wrong>nime is indeed trash.true
>>152200857Yes, you certainly do photograph music in films. I never said filmmaking doesn't differ from real in any way but it's based in reality. Even in sets, table is a table most of the time. So your blabber was already addressed by me many many posts ago.No, they don't. It's a drawing. Drawing of a bottle can't be compared to either a real bottle or a bottle made from clay lets say. I claimed base of cinema is reality in my first post. Not my problem you are too retarded to read what you are even replying to. I won't say that since you are still stuck and can't comprehend quite basic things. You will get there, don't worry.
>>152200990Yes, watch more films and maybe you will understand. They do exist, that's why animation is called animation.
Ashes and Diamonds is pretty good
>>152201206You don't understand that cinema as a word has a definition. It differs from your definition. This is why people see you as a buck.
>>152201510It's a bad definition
>>152201170>Yes, you certainly do photograph music in films.your claim dealt with "representing the real" not "photographing the real">Drawing of a bottle can't be compared to either a real bottle or a bottle made from clay lets say. why? they're all various abstractions of a Real Bottle. >I claimed base of cinema is reality in my first post. a claim so broad and vacuous that it by definition permits animation into the category of cinema, as we've clarified. the insistence on weight or dimension or texture hasn't held, the statement about "objects that matter" is meaningless, the insistence on "reality" is arbitrary as you're willing to grant significant abstractions the designation of Real, etc. when we really drill down here, your bedrock belief is "cinema doesn't include works made up of drawings -- or well it does, but it can't be too many drawings. yeah, that's it, the 'base' can't be drawings." so again, skip all this fluff about The Real and just say that.
hard to be a god, on the silver globe or stalker? which one do you prefer and why?I don't really like any of them desu
>>152180497Nice turd cutter.
>>152185096>>152191452>>152194220/his/ did it better
>>152200519>(narrative) cinema has a strong anthropocentric disposition>therefore anything that differs from that dogma isn't cinemaWhat kind of essentialism is this?
>>152201897The levels of cinema:Film only about objects - pure cinema Film containing objects and people - top tier cinemaFilm about animals - low tier cinema Film about drawn objects - animation cinema Film about drawn animals - animation Stop motion animation using everyday objects - cinemaStop motion animation showing abstract elements - not cinema >It's not that hard, keep up buckerino!
>>152201697I never used the word represent. So you are wrong.Clay bottle has dimensions, you can touch it feel it, hold it. Drawn doesn't.No, it doesn't. Based in reality = photographs/captures real people, objects. Objects that mattered meant objects in frame of what you are watching. Not paper they are drawn on. That was pretty clear. Not significant. The objects are tangible representation of the real but they are real, you can touch them feel them and they have dimensions. Drawing doesn't. Not really, that's you still incapable of understanding the basic premise.
>>152201897Experimental does that too, with very few exceptions. Animation doesn't, it's not cinema.
>>152202076Stroking out already buck? You're hardly broken in!
Really hate to break it to you people....
>>152196888Checked - source?
>>152201718stalker is indeed amazing on a visual level but I never watched a film that had the pretense of being a representation of the human nature in its entirety as much as that one
>>152201718Didn’t really understand any of them, but I’d go with Hard to Be A God because more stuff happens. > t.Burger pleb
>>152202649nta, but I'm pretty sure it's Innocence
>>152202129What is experimental doing? Having that disposition or differing from it? The problem here is that you think an ontological question about a medium can be answered through something as subordinate as its contents.
>>152202880>understand>>152202816You're overstating the issue with that film, in a way to look smart, but you're 'right' in some sense.>>152201718>I don't really like any of them desuwhy not?
>>152202456Fun Fact -Cinema is short for cinematograph, which comes from the Greek kinema graph - so it was originally pronounced with a hard “C”
>>152201718Hard to Be a God
>>152203004Does that mean cunny is cinema?
>>152202960on the silver globe couldn't stomach the schizo dialogues dialed up to 11stalker basically >>152202816hard to be a god might actually be my favourite of the three, really liked the concept, german's style while being really overwhelming it's definitely worth of praise but it felt too abrasive to mebut again it's just my opinion these three films seem to be very liked here
>>152202931It deals with reality. It also has anthropocentric disposition lot of the times.It's also form that distinguishes cinema and experimental cinema from animation
>>152203181always has been
>>152203202I haven't seenThe problem was the theological dillema was overstated and I really had no idea what Tarkovsky was bitching about. It was kind of a hollow film that thought it was more important than it was aimed towards overly-emotional sentimentalists. Nostalghia was more detached and did it better. From an aesthetic achievment Stalker was still a masterpice.It's supposed to be abrasive, it's about theological development and the transition from the Old Testament God to the New Testament's God. He's depicting the world as evil only to be reconciled by spiritual salvation.
>>152201718Hard to Be a God is the best one. Overwhelming experience. >>152203202>couldn't stomach the schizoWhy do you post here?
>>152203298>It's supposed to be abrasive, it's about theological development and the transition from the Old Testament God to the New Testament's God. He's depicting the world as evil only to be reconciled by spiritual salvation.You know the film is political, right?
>>152203309>Why do you post here?I only come here to get recommendations, I rarely engage in any discussion at all
>>152203343No that's just one interpretation that interests me very little, a theological approach to it is more fulfilling, Idc about any Stalinist allegories or muh refugees or the Czar, the film is an aesthetic achievment not a stroking of hollow ephemeral political allegories.
>>152203473It's not even an interpretation. It's what he meant by the film. If you have seen more than 2 German films you know where his interests lie, that is Russia. It's not an allegory for Stalin either iirc.
>>152203298>Nostalghia was more detached and did it betterit felt more "real" to me because it's much more personal, you can feel he cares about what the film's about, in stalker he seems cold as ice
>>152203577Okay so humble me then.>>152203587Stalker felt like it was aimed at a wider audience imo, and thus less personal and more abstract. The problem is the abstraction seemed childish too me (no pun intended).
>>152202076>I never used the word represent. sorry, "reproduce" ("produce a copy or representation of") the real. whatever. >Clay bottle has dimensions, you can touch it feel it, hold it. You can touch and feel an inked and painted bottle. It's not a matter of tangibility vs. intangibility. Apart from that, we continue to run into the same problems. You can touch, feel, and hold the backdrops of many early sound animations. These films depict a substantial number of 3D "objects that matter." Once again, Popeye Meets Sinbad is now cinema. Or more than that, what's to stop someone from running with your definition like this: cinema captures real objects, a drawing is a real object, animated films capture a series of drawings, therefore animated films are cinema. You might say, "oh, a drawing represents something that it isn't in reality," but you've already permitted that false reproductions of things (say, a non-functional prop) is still Real, and a drawing is still a Real object being photographed, even if it's standing-in for something else (the way a prop bottle stands in for a real bottle). Apart from that, you still haven't given anyone any reason to support your distinction. It doesn't appear that a cinema/animation dichotomy serves any purpose that a more universally accepted live action/animation distinction doesn't.
>>152203662I can't. I don't want to read your German is political hack takes for 2 weeks.
>>152185275not him, nor do i even agree with him but this statement has been so overused since 2008 that it's probably the most reddit thing anyone has ever said.
>>152203716K my Car and Ivan Lapshin used a political framework to evince universal ideas and aesthetics. The political is secondary to the theological questions, even if they're about Russia. It's why he's good and Costa is boring.
>>152203679Yes, clay reproduces the real, because of the nature of its reproduction it also becomes real tangible object with weight texture, then you photograph the new real in the form of clay bottle.No, you can't. You can't turn it. You can't pluck it out of paper and hold it. You can't sed it from behind if you turn the paper. It's there unmovable little drawing.Backdrop doesn't equal base of given film.Somebody who runs the definition like that still doesn't understand it. I have explained the same shit to you 20 times already. The drawing doesn't contain real objects, you can't take objects and move them from the drawing, the objects there don't have texture, dimensions and mass. You can't rearrange them. You can move a prop, it has weight texture and mass. You can rearrange props. False reproduction of things that are tangible and moveable things, so something like clay. Not a drawing. Already explained that 20 times. Drawing might be real, the things in it are not. The things in it fill the frame, those are the objects of importance. The paper doesn't matter. The objects of importance are completely removed from any form of tangible, touchable, moveable things they are meant to represent. So once again that analogy you are running doesn't work at all.
>>152203859They are both about him trying to correct representation of Russian history
>>152204330Just like SJWs are trying to correct representation of American History right?
>>152203748>It's also form that distinguishes cinema and experimental cinema from animationNot in the more general sense of the art form itself, concerning the ways the films are/can be shown, distributed, received, etc.>>152203748Didn't hear it THAT much, but whatever.
>>152191097This is your brain on dilettantism
>>152204192>You can't turn it.yes you can >You can't pluck it out of paper and hold it. You can't sed it from behind if you turn the paper. It's there unmovable little drawing.Never claimed a drawn and sculpted representation of a thing have identical properties, only that they're both incomplete representations of that thing. >Somebody who runs the definition like that still doesn't understand it. I have explained the same shit to you 20 times already. The drawing doesn't contain real objects, you can't take objects and move them from the drawing, the objects there don't have texture, dimensions and mass. You can't rearrange them. You can move a prop, it has weight texture and mass. You can rearrange props. No, you misunderstand. I'm claiming that a drawing in itself is a real object (which it is), and an animated film is the documentation of those 100,000 objects. The "objects that matter" filling each frame are the various layers of cel animation (3D depth), the background, etc. How does this not fit your description of cinema?And again, I'd like you to justify this retarded, worthless distinction you've invented. Of what use is this to anyone?