What is the literary equivalent of this informative chart?

What is the "film" ?

Problem Child 2, someone just made it black and white in photoshop.

Dear me I seem to have erred, here it is.

those Vietnam fucking shits are all the same though silly

for real tho I want to know

first is paris texas, and the last one is tree of life. third one is probably days of heaven, and the second one is the world of apu(¿?)

The first is RR by Benning. That's enough for you to discard the rest of the image

Never heard the term psychosophism, but it beautifully covers him

...

Inconsistent.

swap the first two.

philosophy is more about mending a broken heart and literature is about stimulating the brain.

no its not you fucking tard
no its not you fucking tard

Are you clinically retarded?

eric, simply eric. Dumbest thing I've read on this board in months.

What the bottom left movie?

the 'movie' might be stalker? not that knowledgeable on film though im not sure

i think you are right. started, never finished. its a big movie worth checking out. /tv/ goes nuts over it, for the few on the board that did watch it.

>started, never finished
patricians of Veeky Forums everyone

>no its not you fucking tard
i think im at least correct with half of those.

you got flick thats it

I'd rather read something that is entertaining, thought provoking and has emotion

The Tree of Life is pure kinography

for plebs

It's pleb bait, but some of us patricians are able to grasp its nuances

Are any of ya'll fans of Terry M?
I introduced my gf to his films with Knight of Cups, and so far that's her favorite

What'd you think of Knight of Cups?

My personal ranking (I'm excluding badlands because I've yet to see it)

>Days of Heaven
>The New World
>To The Wonder
>Tree of Life
>The Thin Red Line
>Knight of Cups

The Tree of Life >>>>>>>>>> Days of Heaven > To The Wonder > The New World > Knight of Cups > The Thin Red Like > Badlands

even fewer patricians can see past its cheap sentiment and weak experimentation. total non-event, easily one of his worst

what do you think was the misstep in TTRL?

I liked it.

The experimental elements of the film, including all of the digressions and its disregard for narrative structure, exist in nearly every other Malick film. I don't see how you can consider it "one of his worst." Either you like Malick's style or you find it insufferable, but if you like it TTOL is one of the best examples of it.

It's an early example of the style he's cultivated since he came back, and because it's so early it doesn't feel like Malick quite found his footing yet. It's the only film of his where the voiceovers feel unbearably pretentious.

i find it very conventional but in no film was it ever used as some grand statement about all of existence so some rich white architect could find some sort of closure about his brother's suicide. if you didn't walk out of the theatre asking yourself "why should i give any fucks about this dude and consequently this entire film" then you fell for the meme. i'm sorry but piano music isn't going to evoke in me any emotions even if i'm looking at jessica chastain

Yeah, the VO certainly feel out of place.

Why'd you put Badlands so low?

Sean Penn's character isn't supposed to be the subject of your empathy; he's basically just a stand-in for Malick himself. The substance of the movie was the family dynamic, and how Malick portrays God's answer to Job concerning human suffering. If you weren't able to relate to the family dynamics, fine, but to knock a film for not being able to elicit an emotional response from you towards a character who has a total of about 4 minutes of screen time is absurd. That's not what the movie's about.

>rich white
This isn't a pejorative.

Test

>white
Stopped reading here.

Badlands was his most conventional movie. It doesn't have the aesthetic he's been cultivating since Days of Heaven.

Film>literature

Prove me wrong

You didn't think it would be this easy did you.

the character is present throughout the entire film. it is about him. i'm not sure how seeing a character's early life play out in some surrealist way isn't supposed to influence an empathetic response, especially with the use of conventional sentimental devices.

i'm knocking the film for trying to have something to say but not coming up with anything. i feel like that was actually the point, it's pointlessness. i just think it could be done more consistently, or more bravely, or more thoughtfully -- just anything to make it memorable.

i'm highlighting how much an unremarkable dude the character was. i'd like to offer a sincere apology if i offended you in any way

The film had plenty of things to say. About man's place in God's design, about the nature of suffering, about the philosophical distinction between materialism and gnosticism. I can try to explain all of the Job parallels, the Heideggerean underpinnings, the Christian symbolism, but that shit does not matter at all. The Tree of Life isn't a movie like Donnie Darko; it's not a movie intended to be solved by smart people, it's intended to be felt. If the images don't evoke memories from your own childhood; if the pairing of those images with the music doesn't elicit an emotional response, then the movie failed for you no matter how much you understood what was being said. Malick isn't Godard, he's not the type of director who tries to convey a relatively simple philosophical idea in the most obtuse way possible, he's just trying to elicit awe the same way great musicians do. The first time I saw To the Wonder I didn't understand it; none of the themes were all that clear, and the ideas being presented felt vague. Yet I wasn't thinking about that because the vignettes were so beautiful that it kept me in a sort of reverie. I know it sounds really pretentious, but if most movies are prose, Malick is poetry. Sometimes unclear, but often beautiful.

Literaturefags will never know the feel of seeing a crowd of people leaving a screening of your years final films completely crushed because of how redpilled all the films were when taken together collectively. They will never know the feel of seeing a professor leaving the auditorium in tears because he understood the hidden messages you snuck into your animation. Being an art student is awesome.

this is why i say it's pure kinography 'for plebs' -- the kind of people for which film conventions elicit responses, the kind of people who aren't asking for more. it's too inconsistent to be a masterpiece, too non-linear to be a successful narrative, too conventional to be an experimental achievement. it sits nowhere. it's the same kind of poetry that you hear at an open mic night that sounds like it could be good poetry, or maybe you just think it is because you want something to be good at this event so you can't say you wasted your time. in any case, you leave the venue without remembering the poet's name.

>in depth discussion of a flick
you all clearly did not get the point of the image, at the very least discuss film instead

библиoтeкa = кинo
Bibliothek = Kino
Canon = Cinema
Title = Film
Book = Movie
Page-Turner = Flick
Genreshit = capeshit

>too conventional to be an experimental achievement.
Name a non-Malick film thematically, aesthetically, and tonally similar to The Tree of Life. That's irrelevant, though. A film's quality isn't determined by how closely it follows popular conceptions of narrative, or art-film notions of experimentation. The criteria by which you judge a movie should be far more complex than whether or not it fits into pre-conceived boxes of "experimental" or "conventional." If you want to criticize the movie come up with something better.

i don't think you understand the point i am making

Not the user you responded to, but although I like Malick generally I found TToL to be his weakest by far. It is also no accident that plebs gobble it up and proclaim it his best.

I am completely uninterested in Christianity in general but I'm especially uninterested in Malick's brand of wanky brooding Kierkegaardianism, so all Malick really has to offer me is his aesthetic vision. I suspect it wasn't compelling in TToL because it's the film in which he becomes too on-the-nose with his Christfag shit. KoC was borderline.

There's no denying that Malick has talent; TTW and TTRL are both great. But his incessant existential foray into the Knight of Faith meme is boring at best and repulsive at worst, and your ability to appreciate a Malick film hinges heavily on how much he forces that shit into the particular film you're watching.

novel
tome
page-turner
book

ew, no.
stop this meme

What are they then?

It's one of his lowest rated films on every site where users are able to rate movies. The notion that "plebs gobble up" a film as loathed by the general populace as The Tree of Life is ridiculous.

>TTW
>great
To the Wonder is basically part of a thematic trilogy with TToL and KoC. You find the slightly more subdued Christian themes of the former obnoxious but enjoy To the Wonder, about a third of which consists of a priest's prayer to God? Either you're having trouble discerning the themes all Malick films share in common, or you're utterly inconsistent.

BNSF
Gaav
Reminiscences of a Journey to Lithuania
Tree of Life

Stephen King FTW bb. Such fun. Can't wait for 3rd in Bill Hodges trilogy.

You're entire criticism consists of labeling. The film isn't experimental enough; it's for 'plebs;' it's too conventional to be avant-garde and too avant-garde to be conventional; it's like amateur poetry. This is all tertiary bullshit. These are the worst criteria by which to judge a film.

>It's one of his lowest rated films on every site where users are able to rate movies.

Except it's not.

>To the Wonder is basically part of a thematic trilogy with TToL and KoC.

And it's the least Christfaggy of the bunch. TToL beats you over the head with it and KoC, while not too overt, is still obvious to anyone paying attention.

People can shit on king all they want but the man has basically mastered writing the entertaining story.

>Except it's not.
Up until recently it was. To the Wonder and Knight of Cups are now lower rated.

>And it's the least Christfaggy of the bunch.
youtube.com/watch?v=Vqc20CO4zqs

It's not. The entire movie is about the Christian conception of love. It's actually his most overtly Christian film to date.

...

kek

Literature>film

Rekt.

Its fine dude, you can just admit you didn't understand the movie

Clockwise top left:
Paris Texas,
Battle of Algiers/World of Apu (?)
Stalker,
Tree of Life

i cant tell if this is a joke since you have at least on serious answer

3. is the only one i'm not certain.

The Paris Texas is the introduction part.
The Stalker pic is from where the author walks towards the house.
The last one is from one of those artsy ToL clips they inserted into the film to appeal to hipsters.

see

you lost this one user

there's grace and dignity in admitting defeat.

Thanks

...

kek'd

>a self-cucking linkin park christfag on the top left and the guy who turned philosophy into a fedora tipping secular neo-christfag wankfest and ruined it forever on the top right

hitchens looks like socrates next to those clowns

>The last one is from one of those artsy ToL clips they inserted into the film to appeal to hipsters.
Literally every image in the movie means something you fucking pleb shit

I'm a rather big Malick fanatic... Did you know that he translated a work of Heidegger's and actually met him. Totally crazy.
Anyway. I loved "Knight of Cups". It was fantastic and I think his new films are actually better than his old ones. With each film he gets more poetic, more lyrical, more radical in his approach to the medium of film.
You should check out Badlands though, it is really good.

Embarrassing samefag, and also objectively wrong.

Nah

People don't realize that Malick is the closest thing mainstream film has gotten to a legit intellectual. Not only did he translate Heidegger, he taught philosophy, worked at MIT, was a Rhodes Scholar, graduated from Harvard with highest honors. He's not an intellectual fraud.

Yah

Terrible. If you think faust is the protestant equivalent of the first two, you should just give up.

/tv/ please keep your AIDS on your designated containment board.

hahahaha

>7960903
there's no reason for mainstream film to have intellectuals in it

>s-see g-guys? I didn't w-waste my muh-money getting this degree-re. Honest-st.

I prefer this version.

...

>Malick is the closest thing mainstream film has gotten to a legit intellectual

I would say Kubrick qualifies too.

Be careful, tryhards will shit on you with this choice (despite being correct).

>Protestantism
>not Paradise Lost

>Kubrick
eh, i'd say he's great at aesthetic choices in movies, but an actual writer. That's why he only did adaptations of books, and his best movies where done with the help of the original writers.

>but an actual writer
*but not a great writer. what the hell happened