*Solves all philosophical questions

what's going on in this thread

Spam this anytime somebody says they don't know who DW Griffith is on Veeky Forums

>film
Spam this anytime somebody says OP is "film"

How do you live with yourself knowing you're nothing but a shallow imitation?

*blocks your path*

A momment of beauty isn't truthful tho.

>hippie faggot
He said nothing, accomplished nothing.

>dainty pictures of apocalyptic wastelands
>characters are vehicles to speak garbled regurgitated slop

He is literature, should've been a writer, but he didn't because he knows he'd be blasted as the indigestible turd he is. The medium is not sculpting in time. It's recording space and sculpting WITH time. If you do not know the most basic tenets of your medium, why should you be taken seriously as an artist? Why should be considered an artist at all? Artists think and know about their medium, he was more a craftsman.

t.brainlet

October, Birth, and Intolerance predicted the shift. They announced the shifting of the planes. The juxtaposition of various religious iconography with the onset of the October Revolution signaled the destruction, war as production, war as creation, war as God. When war replaced God, it replaced hierarchy, and it further predicted the regression into selfhood, the age of narcissism and defensive masks. Tarkovsky predicted nothing because he is film, not phenomenpresentation. The reality he creates is shaped by insularity of subjectivity and worldview.

Griffith is the only one to TRULY have probed man's folly in the conquest of truth. In his works, he imparts the futility of man's virtue, the paradoxical hypocrisy of mankind.
If you don't believe, just look at the parallels between Birth of a Nation, and the Obama administration.

GRIFFITH'S MOCKING OF LINCOLN SHOWS CONTEMPT AND THE EXCISION OF TRANSFORMATIVE HISTORICAL EVENTS EMPHASIZES SIGNIFICANCE FOR HUMANISTIC CHANGE (OR LACK THEREOF). IN THE END, WE FIND THAT REGARDLESS OF OPINION, PERSISTENCE WAS ACHIEVED, ASCENDANCE WAS ACHIEVED. HE WAS NOBODY BUT ONE OF MASS THAT ACTED AS EVOLUTIONARY STEPPING STONE, THE RACE STILL CONTINUES. THE STRUCTURALIST WHOLE STILL MOVED, ACCOMPLISHMENTS MADE, BUT LINCOLN THE MAN WHAT DID HE GAIN, WHAT DID HE LOSE, WHAT DID HE LEARN. THE SEPARATION OF SPIRIT AND INDIVIDUAL AFFECTATION

STROHEIM IS MAXIMUM REALISM, REALISM WITH LAYERS UPON LAYERS OF FASTIDIOUS FAKERY AND SENSATIONAL CAMP

HATRED AND LUST

EVIL

STROHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EGO-CENTRICITY, SELF-ABSORPTION, SELFOOD THAT TAPS INTO COMMONALITY AND BRINGS ABOUT REACTIONARY SPITE DISGUISING ASPIRATION

PATHETIC EXPRESSION AND TONAL BRANCHING THAT BUILDS WITHOUT EXPANDING TO REACH THE CENTER OF SPECTATORIAL EXISTENCE

INHIBITED LAYERS OF ANIMALISM AND DEVILISH HEDONISM AS DISTRACTION

STROHEIM LEARNED FROM THE BEST AND HE REMAINED LOYAL

Capturing the construct and essence of a layered reality stripped of artifice; juxtaposition reaching wider sum

>the DWGriffith shitposter has reached Veeky Forums

you have to go back to /tv/.

DOWNVOTE GRIFFIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sartre was a fucking joke and the only man I have wished physical harm onto

"The great book of nature," said Galileo, "can be read only by those who know the language in which it was written. And this language is mathematics."

Language as exchange is always motivated therefore language is argumentation, the matter of decision is what is the motivation and how is it delivered

Equality, Order through chaos, doors separating personal relations and larger social structure, blah blah blah. An especially watered down vision of what the great masters inscribed through the arrangement of individual components. The Searchers's ending is mere subversion. Griffith is not an egalitarian because he knows his position does not particularly allow for egalitarianism if fully exhumed. Now Griffith can ambiguously engage in egalitarianism, but whether that is gleamed, it can always truly be the inverse because Griffith is a sly linguist. The arrangement of his scenes, the breaking of performance, the positioning of his angles, the (in)direct language in his intertitles, they each interact in the form of multiplied dialectics. It's just people don't bother to look and hearken what he is saying because of this complex form of communication much like those who ignore the testament of God.

>much like those who ignore the testament of God.
The power of the layered documentary - to become the polysemitic didact
The delicate balance of offense. Potemkin, Birth of a Nation, Greed, and Nanook are some of the few silent works that still offend years later and create raucous debate. We must create layered offense that is not absurd to the point of empowerment or too poetic to the point of stark enrichment. Offense that riles and detests with a prevailing dominant ideology that is not overt but dubious on part of authorship. We must challenge. Take advertisement and commerce from the top and learn to harness challenge. One that does not incite petty interest and questions, but challenges to motivate in proper.

Birth (Reproduction) of a Nation (synthesis)

How to balance between the augmented and unmitigated realities to the point of dubious discernment

How to Griffith

How to distill reality and subsequently balance the augmented and unmitigated to the point of dubious discernment

How to communicate between metaphysical imprint and inhibited ideology

How to metaphorically question the separation of socio-structural affectation and introspective transformation in the midst of ever-persistent events

How to suppress and convey intra-dialecticism

How to Griffith

This is the closest to perfection I've ever seen a film be, as well as singularily innovative. Note how precisely composed the first two images are (both shots were based on The Angelus and The Sowers by Jean Francois Millet respectively) compared to the rest of the film - this is the exact historical moment where we move from painting into montage. I first saw this in 2008, and I reacted more directly to the radical politics of the piece - probably since it seemed so timely to the 2008 recession: I was emotionally overwhelmed. But returning to it now (if one does not get caught up in the sheer skill and precision of the piece - aka the emotions themselves) I'm able to see the full scale of its importance. The leap from shot #2 to shot #3 is a mammoth one: the sudden discovery that cinema has spacial and temporal qualities which no other art form has - singularily through the act of montage.

But once over the shock of this first cut, we would likely realize that the combining of two shots is meant to make comparison: the worker and the buisnessman. Shot #4, the auctioning pit, is perhaps unnecessary - we don't need it other than classical dramatic purposes - its only once we get to the dinner party that we realize such spacial and temporal shifts are in the purpose of showing a chain of command: that of producer, distributor, and consumer.

Perhaps unlike the Soviet's here, Griffith is deliberately using these stylistic techniques for clear and distinct purpose rather than abstraction (the temporal shifts are not the point, just a gateway): that is to say - there is no point made YET, this merely shows factual occurrence. But it's the shot after the dinner party which recontextualizes everything: though this is implied within the first two shots of the producer, we now see an opposing force to the dinner party - class - which now makes the focus of the film to be how wealth is distributed. The next two shots work in the same sense as shot-reverse shots do today: extended comparison - this is fascinating because of the action which takes place in the dinner party: within the three shots we see in this space, the dinner happens unabated, the "wheat king" enters, is celebrated and sits down, and then they all get up and leave to go to another room. None of the actions performed here by the actors matter. The 2nd shot here in particular serves no purpose other than to have something to cut to when we go back to the store. This is unbelievably sophisticated thinking, well beyond most filmmakers of today: Griffith in 1909 is well beyond thinking of only "the shot" - the shot only matters in how it will sustain the juxtaposition.

We are not reminded of the temporal dissonance until we return to the farm - after having returned to the dinner party. This temporal juxtaposition now positions distributor as the key exploiter of both producer and proletarian consumer. This is of course also a spacial shift, but the return to this specifically is to remind us that all is taking place within the same span of time - accentuated by the significant shift in mileu (indoors to outdoors). Following this, the belaboured montage accelerates - reminding us today, of a cinema we do recognize.

But the cinema of today has been neutered, placated with 19th century narrative devices - certainly something Griffith himself helped usher in later, but this precedes Intolerance more than anything: storytelling through the device of montage rather than narrative. It's political effects remain timely, but its devices are still ahead of its time.

A Corner in Wheat is a modern film, about the conditions of modernity, crafted through and past those conditions - one of the few truly revolutionary works in cinema, and more modern than most films of 2017.

How do you know how to augment reality if you don't even understand reality

Griffith is too advanced. One has to be educated in physics, metaphysics, philosophy, history, economics, linguistics, sociology, etc. in order to understand what he's communicating

Fuck off reddit

cinema is a higher artistic theatre (grander ability of set, scenery, nature, visions) permanently captured

what do you mean by this? that person invented the idea of putting different ideas back to back?

that nose...suddenly everything is clear

So this guy who made this thread is copy-pasting posts from /tv/'s archive. They were originally made by a poster nicked 'mega-autist' who has now spent like 2 years shitposting in /letterboxd general/ threads in there.

And when you debunk his arguments he starts posting pics of little nigger kid in bed.

Art should be censored

>cinema is a higher artistic theatre
It's not because it lacks any and all actuality.

im gonna assume the maker of this chart meant polysemic and not polysemitic?

Cinema is a medium not a genre, pleb.

>It's not because it lacks any and all actuality.
if only there was anything of worth that you think you knew you accurately meant by that

This is not an image of Immanuel Kant.

If only you weren't such a brainlet and had read bit more about the Greeks and their interpretation of theater you would understand what I meant.

cinema is everything theatre is and can be and infinitely more, it is in the chain of evolution, and you can say the monkeys or some such other have things we do not now have we may wish we did, but this is an evolutionary chain in which everything contained in the current closer to final form possesses that which came before

>cinema is everything theatre is
Absolutely not. Action and meaning may take various forms of actuality in art, which glorify deed/accomplishment by transformation/condensation to show some extraordinary thing in its full significance. The specific revealing quality of action and speech of actor playing the agent and speaker is indissolubly tied to the actuality of the acting that it can be represented and made concrete only in a moment, as it was originally, a moment. The imitation of theater (which Aristotle said prevails in all arts, but is only captured in drama (dran, to act)) indicates that playacting is an imitation of actor. Drama comes fully to live only when it is enacted in theater. Only the actors and speakers who reenact can convey the full meaning of the agent's life such as Achilles - not the story itself, but the heroes who reveal themselves in the story (in Greek tragedy, story's direct/universal meaning comes from the chorus which does is pure poetry). Agents in the story escape all generalization and thus every attempt to made concrete through reification means that they can only be conveyed through an imitation of agent's acting, in a living flux of actuality. The only art whose sole subject is man in his relationship to others, theater.

Neck yourself /lbg/ pleb

>And when you debunk his arguments
Nobody has though.

>that it can be represented and made concrete only in a moment, as it was originally, a moment.
captured on film just fine with big scren and surround sound or VR... will read on though..

Your argument is about stage actors being better natural actors than screen actors (written in a bevy of superfluous jargon), that they are not interupted by cuts, and next scene 10 miles away: so they cannot possibly be talented enough, and give a performance each time as if they were doing so live on a stage with the crew as their audience....even if many of them are also stage actors...

And there have been plays, with theatre actors.. filmed before..

the guy just idolizes his uncle a little too much and is vying for monetary attention to his estate

>Your argument is about stage actors being better natural actors than screen actors
You COMPLETELY misunderstood my point. There is no actuality, no living flux to what is essentially production of a disc, not art.

21st century viewers conditioned by vulgarization latch onto the fancy antics of the later 20's because of generalized theoretical ideas that stressed formalism as expression of content to be unique to film. They reject Griffith precisely because Griffith is counter to this notion even if he pioneered the use of such techniques. Griffith knew form was limited, it was the matter of the arrangement and application of it. Griffith sought constantly the advancement and further suppression of his form, using it disparately as an interactive assemblage with the content. Any proof is there in America, America like later Eisenstein is really a documentary before sound (intertitles really reading like critical voiceover as opposed to exposition), suffusing, contradictory and supplementary elements working together that do not immediately register as comprehensible, but when reading between and around are all the more comprehensive.

This thread is not about theatre, not about cinema, not about film, not about literature Leave if you wish to prattle on about those mediums

Film is materialistic crap prancing as art, it can go fuck itself

/tv/ meme where a guy spams movie charts and quotes about Flaherty and Griffith.

Massive misnomer, the notion that Griffith is a pioneer and nothing else. It's a constant perpetuated myth that Griffith is "classical continuity" or is a "basic pioneer". He certainly influenced classical continuity, but only because he was so beyond his peers that they only gleamed his superficialities (see: Ford). Griffith's works are the most complex of any known medium. They are not film because no one within that medium has replicated or advanced his metaphysical dialectic in any known quality. You can like what you like, but if you're serious about, you should come to realize that almost the entirety of "film" has never even came close to the likes of Griffith or Flaherty. I don't see new, I see vulgarity. I don't see advancement, I see oversimplification and degradation. How Griffith is lightyears beyond anybody else since goes to show how most that are attracted to "film" are autists that wish to capture life in the same self-contained isolated way they see the world, and that does perhaps the most damage to their work. But alas, genes cannot be changed. Kubrick was born this way, Ozu was born this way, Bresson was born this way, Tarkovsky was born this way and so on ad infinitum. This near-indomitable pile of backwash sludge that permeates the entire medium and is praised beyond aptitude is what makes me agree with Griffith's indirect notion that he never once made a film. I don't know of Flaherty to have either.

Flaherty resurrected tradition within selected sects of peoples that had moved on, he made peoples enact their own myths. Flaherty equalized these elements into a transparent continuity that was entirely divorced by the nature of his rigorous studies. He invested and sought connection to the metastructural framework of continuous reality therefore I'm always hesitant to call anything by Flaherty, Stroheim, or Griffith a film, but if Moana occupied that medium, it would be the very best of it without a doubt, no question. Flaherty has suppressed conflict, Flaherty suppressed juxtaposition, the prolongued sound implementation only enhances. A non-diegetic done through gestated diegetic capture. All of his elements are divorced and suppressed yet still united, Flaherty long achieved his sought distillation of essence, but Moana in particular quesitons the essence of life without ever asking the question. Every element in a Flaherty work is divorced but they are united together contrapuntally to ask the eternal questions regarding time, space, and history with allusions to a future enacted in the present.

Griffith abstained from math. Intolerance is not math, it is polysemic independence. Through spaced intervals, Griffith supercedes the immediate juxtapositional crosscut. And the independent events that are contrasted do not serve as the basis of constructing a tightly compacted form of synthetic meaning. Through what can be extrapolated from the outset of what is immediately portrayed and contrasted as well as what is already being intrinsically juxtaposed, Griffith sought the duplication and suppression of his dialectics. Intolerance's shear breadth of representation exhibits expansion, but evidently the expansion did not simplify like a Persona as many have derived conflicting meaning from it, so Intolerance additionally works as a theoretical missing link for this concept of expansively suppressed augmentative reality.

This. Fuck off faggot. No one gives a fuck about your boring outdated pictureshows.

The progression of mediums and technology is inherently linked with the ontological goal of preserving oneself and time.

Why else does the Library of Congress preserve youtube videos

This is an important part of his game. He swears up and down that Griffith is "not just continuity" but when another director is positioned as better, 9/10 times he disproves this purely by stressing continuity through thinnly compared shots. A especially good example is here though not a movie shot it is the same technique, "these two people dress alike, theft and therefor the earlier one is better". He emphasizes this because timelines are easier to understand than technique. Despite his tossing of old terms like "photoplay" he has little to say about photos. Instead he looks for logical proofs that eschew the need to understand filmmaking form. Earlier = better, honest vs dishonest, all rubrics to prove art and not have to argue for it. Notice how when confronted with ana rtist he can't simply call dishonest or a copy cat, he turns to schoolyard bullying. His judgements of Ozu go little beyond "he used scripts and doesn't have the resolve to make movies". He might as well call Bresson a poopy head as its as intelligent as his usual claim of "Bresson published some notes once so hack". It is fitting he's a Kael-fag, as another prominent Kael-fag on /tv/, Armond White, similarly emphasizes things such as ideology over technique in the fear of people realizing the self proclaimed expert can barely describe an f-stop without looking it up.

>A especially good example is here (You) though not a movie shot it is the same technique, "these two people dress alike, theft and therefor the earlier one is better".
Everything Joyce is praised for was accomplished in superior fashion by Griffith and Eisenstein first and foremost you dumbfuck.

>he used scripts
Literature. Go be a writer. Most film praised by cinephiles is dominated by writers concerned with shaping around their thoughts and perceptions. They are so obsessed with this paradigm trying to copy literature and other mediums in transparent attempts to lift their inferiority complex, that I discard the notion that Griffith, Eisenstein, Flaherty, and Stroheim ever made what could be considered "film." They advocated language, ideas, and the capture of reality as imprinted by their expansive worldview and vision. One aspect that largely separates the mediums is the "clothesline" theory. Phenomenopresentation is concerned with the capture of reality. Total reality is an impossibility, so what is done? The edit. Improvisation. Shaping. We throw various aspects of life onto the screen, shaped beforehand and melded afterwards. We jump. We think. We cry. We get angry. Conflict is the concern and conflict is omnipresent. But conflict does not always have to be HYPERconflict. We now suppress and we integrate, we harness conflict. All these elements are encapsulated by multiple components: performance being one of especial importance for its high malleability, the dynamics of life and expression. So now that we have our components, now it's a matter of arrangement.

>gets told
Cringe

We arrange by exploration of ideas, and the clothesline is the hanger of life that is captured to supplement idea. What is must be judiciously concerned is not to emphasize complementary. We must destroy complementary, and rebuild from the ashes. Phenomenopresentation works as beneficial for self-improvement and betterment. To better understand. It is not to blatantly present and neither to obfuscate. It is neither to expand to the point of obviousness, nor abstract to the point of loss. What is to be desirably achieved is the branching and intercommunication of components (augmentation) and content (reality, idea). Conflict is persistent, and language is motivated therefore language is argumentation, communication is political. Motivation comes from prevailing dominant ideology.

...

That has to be the most pretentious image I've ever seen

Dumdums needn't apply.

To let the ideas become the metaphors and the allusions. To let the edit become the metaphor. Just like individual is never divorced from environment, or politics are never divorced from human dilemma, Griffith knew idea was never divorced from metaphor

>His judgements of Ozu
Ozu was a hackworker

Thats proof that they were right about literally everything

t͓h̸̖̘̖̼̥e̮͚̟̮̙̩̦ ͕̙̣̮̬̖̜t͇̻̯̗̙ͅr̳ut͈̮͟h̜̝̗̹͘
̖͉̦͇r̙̳ͅe͖͓͢m̧̭͕̟a̜͈̰̞͕̭i̤͍͔̳͇n̷̹̥̝̫s
́H͉͚̙ ̡͍I̦̫D̮̝̜̱͈́
̫t͈̟̹̼͘ͅh̹̞̞̫͇̬i̹̰̤͘n̷͓̝͔͖é ̭̣̞͈̺̟̀ͅe͚̠͕ͅy͓es̩̥̮ͅ ̱̤̥͈̟͔̣
̘̻̠wà̙̣̘͖̝̩͔k̳̯e̩̦̠̭̼̼̺

>Instead he looks for logical proofs that eschew the need to understand filmmaking form
Film is vulgar. Griffith executes ambiguous subjectivity - proximity of space in relation to camera and subject as well as structuralist relationship within that space, Griffith's use of tonality and filtering of events through comparative screentime lends subjective aspects without invading mindspace and making mindspace visualized through tricks like multi-exposures. When the audience sees ahead of time (objectivity) Griffith divorces from ambiguous realm of subjectivity and now sees causal relationship, if anyone knows Griffith, you also know this adds another opportunistic layer for misleading

Griffith wants to maintain as much divorcement from individual as he possibly can WITHOUT becoming detached. What Griffith achieves better than any other is the ability to use technique as tool not as toy, neither as trick. Griffith is often misleading, but that is because the reality he creates is a duplicate of the former with respect to its preexisting qualities. Griffith, himself, is complex so it only makes sense that he creates a world that suits his vision.

How to metaphysically represent and resurrect through a preexisting reality

How to Flaherty

how is this not tacky, gauche, gaudy, camp, cliche, average, common, mundane, banal, trite, tripe, trivial, kitsch, basic, simple?

Since we're having this autism fest anyway, can someone recc me some good film theory?

I will check out his films bro...but you dont gotta pit him up against and shit on james joyce to gain attention: "hey hey my nephew can beat up mike tyson I swear to it, put him in the title fight, million dollar entrance fee! my nephew...next to mike tyson... someone youve never heard of...next to a great...name...but mine is better...look at mine...flinging shit..."...shut up...

>nephew
*giggles

>tacky, gauche, gaudy, camp, cliche, average, common, mundane, banal, trite, tripe, trivial, kitsch, basic, simple?
Plebs can't into layered representation.

Why is The Struggle criticized for what Godard is praised for? There are no characters in the Struggle, only individual vehicles for Griffith to metaphysically imprint upon and continue an ever-evolving self-reflective dialogue. They clash and circumvent ultimately leading to self-affirmation as condemnation. The Struggle is a seething hatred muttered in wheezing breaths

>films
>cinema
>kino
Fuck off.

>Everything Joyce is praised for was accomplished in superior fashion
that would be true if there were absolutely no quantitative and qualitative difference between images of artist x and words of artist y, or at least, what you are suggesting, x's images being superior to y's words, in which case you are a lazy illiterate psychopath

Images are worth a thousand words. He applied the basis of broken continuity, mimicking prior epochs for dialectic parallels, polysemic and intellectual montage to literature. He stole everything from Griffith and Eisenstein. To not realize that is to admit ignorance.

>seriously defending a guy who made a movie idolizing the KKK

>>>/reddit/

I know dont judge a book by its cover but it looks like every other 'yaeh, see, put em there kid, what do you say old pa, yaeh, partner, I have to be home frank around noontime to give the old wife a good smacking, tell the fellers down at the bar I said hello will you dear old boy' fedora detective crime movies of the 20s30s40s

>Images are worth a thousand words.
that doesnt necessitate they are good words (you would admit there are bad 'many images'(movies) that exist) and your many words have offered little proof of your extraordinary exclamation

>He applied the basis of broken continuity, mimicking prior epochs for dialectic parallels, polysemic and intellectual montage
this is absolutely nothing compared to the veracity, subtlety, nuance of language, and joyces language at that. This is a black people invented music so an african drummer is equivalent or better than mozart tier argument.

>your many words have offered little proof of your extraordinary exclamation
This is the dumdum defense. You won't get me riled up by explicitly being a doofus.

>this is absolutely nothing compared to the veracity, subtlety, nuance of language, and joyces language at that
*yawn

In order to reach truth you must eschew "good taste". Good taste seeks to empower (see ecstasy), and at junction, prior forms become dubiously discarded as "outdated". It is the conflagration of various expression that reaps comprehensive truth.

Irish

The European nigger.

Certainly the strongest element of Griffith’s influence is the way in which he respected his own films as a manifestation of a true new art form. Above and beyond any of the mechanics of photography and editing, this is what stands out. He recognised that film required a new method of acting and a new way of storytelling. In an interview published in the New York Times shortly after the premier of The Birth of a Nation, Griffith stated, speaking of the influence of film, “… the human race will think more rapidly, more intelligently, more comprehensively that it ever did. It will see everything – positively everything. … The time will come, and in less than ten years, when the children in the public schools will be taught practically everything by moving pictures. Certainly they will never be obliged to read history again.”

Griffith used history to shape history. He knew the malleability of truth. He knew passage of experience versus the written word by victor.

He imparted the wisdom of acknowledging historical precedent and it's persistent place in consciousness. History will come back to attack, and it is a matter of how it is dealt. To overcome and achieve.

dude, I love cinema..film, I just dont see the need to contestly battle it against literature, you obviously are only talented and ambitious in one field, so feel the need to do so