for example:
How well acquainted should I be with Nietzsche's work and philosophy before I watch The Turin Horse, if at all (some reviewers have said it does address Nietzschean concepts) ?
and, I guess, what are you thoughts are about intertextuality in film, in particular references to works of literature (this being Veeky Forums, ofc)?
another example:
the opening credits to Pasolini's Salo includes a bibliography and suggest reading list
Other urls found in this thread:
Everyone on this board seems to think they need to read the western canon before they can so much eat a sandwich
honestly i've found it easier to use film as an introduction to literature/philosophy. supplementary materials that allow you to visualize ideas sometimes will allow the language to manifest itself more clearly earlier on.
for example, terrence malick's films really allowed me to get into heidegger
And they're correct
This. I would bet good money the fuck who made this movie sure as shit didn't start with the greeks
>eating a sandwich
>not starting with hunting gathering
>"start with the greeks"
>being influenced by a nation and its ideals that FAILED
I've seen this film and I think that worrying about its intertexual relations (which might not extend beyond the title and the opening text in which the title is explained) would only be detrimental to your appreciation of it. It's very much its own thing and it's best viewed as such. It deals with human themes and not "Nietzschean" themes. Just go ahead and watch it, no homework is required, only some patience.
he started with krasznahorkai
honestly you're better off familiarising yourself with krasznahorkai's work seeing as how he's the guy who wrote it, and also because he's a fucking good author you should read
its literally peasants doing nothing and eating potatoes for 95% of the movie and then this weirdo fat ass comes in and talks about nietzsche and the horse
It doesn't really touch upon Nietzsche in a thematic way. It's more derivative of Beckett and the myth of Sisyphus.
That said, this is by far the most pretentious movie I have ever seen. It is excruciatingly boring and bleak beyond imagination. It will likely leave you with a hollow sense of futility.
>riding with horse
>getting dressed
>cooking potatoes
>eating potatoes
>fetching water
>trying to get horse to walk
>drinking palinka
>chopping wood
>washing clothes
>repeat until death
This is an accurate 1:1 summary of the entire movie.
By a rule of thumb, non-experimental film is too immediate a medium to need to prepare for. I'd advise just watching the movie, then going to read something by Nietzsche, then coming back to the film in maybe six months time. Arguably the changes you find in viewing it for a second time will be more interesting to you than loading up on the correct pre-requisite material first time round.
Also consider watching Werckmeister Harmonies because that movie is dope.
Have you ever seen Sátantangó? Is it worth it? I read a bit about it, and some commentator opined that the establishing shot, which is ten minutes of cows scattering on a field, signifies the anomie in post-soviet Hungary.
That just sounds so fucking insufferable.
Book >>> Movie
>Have you ever seen Sátantangó? Is it worth it?
Haven't seen it.
That scene sounds pretty normal for Tarr.
Tarr is great and you don't need to have a
background in philosophy to get him.
Yes, and the Odyssey is about some guy trying to get home before he gets cucked. What is the point you are trying to make?
It is absolutely worth it. No shots in his films are gratuitous and none of them are insufferable. Try to understand what he is trying to do. Try to imagine yourself living in such an environment. It's desolate, but that's how some people perceive the world. It's not all that depressing, though. Tarr's films contain some really amazing soundtracks. They are also imbued with funny and heartfelt moments throughout. By avoiding this work of art you are basically committing a crime. You will be worse off, believe me. And those seven+ hours just fly by once you come to inhabit the world.
You'd probably be wrong.
satantango is honestly the greatest movie experience of my life
>Pasolini's Salo includes a bibliography and suggest reading list
but it's nothing but sexual sadism and perversion for 2 hours, topped off with torturous, ritual killing
tell me more films you like so i know what to avoid
people who cite satantango as one of their favorites are the ultimate pseuds
spirited away, my night with maud, mulholland drive, the flavour of green tea over rice
last two are good, you're trying to fuck with me by muddying the waters
are you implying that my night with maud is not good?
sounds like the greatest movie ever made desu
This is the greatest film ever created and there is nothing you can do about it.
cross-media intertextuality is postmodern
>implying you can fully appreciate a sandwich without reading the western canon
When did Veeky Forums get so plebby?
best post in months
>an autist triumph
Damn
And...?
Reminder that you don't know your Tarr unless you own the physical copies of all of his films from Autumn almanac onwards
>living in the UK
>being a UK
Ethän toki tarkoita minua?
my negro
>tfw I had to opportunity to watch all of Tarr's films in the cinema
>on film, not digital
Congratulations, now try do draw some parallels between the movie and your life and the human condition in general, maybe you are not too retarded and there is hope you can get something more out of a movie than the basic description of different scenes.
>tfw when you find out the local kino ran a Tarr retrospective in 2011 but you didn't know about it until now
>tfw you will probably never get the chance to see Satantango in cinema unless it's in honor of Tarr's eventual death
>watching translations
>what are subtitles
nah, he did actually
OP, just listen to
don't be so plebian... his first film, Family Nest, is one of his best. Though I have the feeling you can only get Hungarian editions... never seen a UK or US version.
>the western canon
that's Ulysses, Gravity's Rainbow, and Infinite Jest, right?
Alfred Hitchcock's Rope deals with the ideas of Nietzsche and the superman.
youtube.com
>tfw there are no cinemas that air kinos here and you'll never see these works of art on the big screen
just buy an 70"+ 4k TV and sit like a foot away from it
surely you can be serious
Who is the Harold Bloom of cinema?
Pauline Kael
>roger ebert
Harry S. Plinkett
Oh man, I haven't seen Jags guy in years
This film feels a lot more literary than most literary films I hear talked about despite being far more cinematic than them. Marguerite Duras writing the script sure but it manages to provide great thematic depth without resorting to the elements of theater ala Bergman.
Jonathan ((((Rosenbaum))))
So much so to eat a so and so sandwhich with sandra Oh!
Where the fuck do I get a physical copy of the Werckmeister Harmonies for the US? I'd ask /tv/ but they just talk about capeshit
well, you do.
this
Amazon?
is that actually good? i downloaded it off a private torrent tracker like last year during the winter when it was cold as shit cuz supposedly its a cold themed movie or sth, but then i deleted it to make room for audiobooks, didn't watch, lol
>inb4 pleb witchhunt
Krasznahorkai studied the Classics in his undergraduate, I wish you could actually bet good money with me so I could make some $$
He's also the only novelist of the last 40 years who will be remembered in 5 years.
Krasznahorkai didn't direct the film.
>Western Gannon
Actually Gannon's background mimics that of the Eastern world.
>eat a sandwich
Start with the gyro.
Nope, they only have the UK-only version
>not starting with fruit, vegetables, nuts and meat
The most Nietzschean film is Stardust Memories by Woody Allen.
he wrote the screenplay retard
Ray Carney. Better scholar than reviewer
That doesn't count as "made the movie." Did Shakespeare make Orson Welles' Macbeth because they have the same script?
>just the western canon
>not being familiar with both the western and eastern canon before even thinking about eating a sandwich
They don't have the same script. Even though they take the dialogue the play itself does not give any film like information for the director to work with. If you read the actual script there would be descriptions of actions and the like.
even though bela tarr is autistic as fuck, his films are pretty collaborative with krasznahorkai. it's not like he just read his book and decided to adapt it, the two of them are pretty tight and work together on all of his films
>That just sounds so fucking insufferable.
How do you think Hungary was under Soviets
>b-but the russians liberated europe
Liberated Europe from Germans. Only to replace them.
Fellini is rolling in his grave
As Bela Tarr put it himself, there is no 'director' Tarr who makes these films
The 'director' Bela Tarr is a team of four people: Bela Tarr, Agnes Hranitzky, Mihaly Vig and Laszlo Krasznahorkai, who together have created the films, collaboratively, ever since Vig and Krasznahorkai joined the Hranitzky-Tarr team in Damnation
underrated
How do you think places were under Austro-Hungary?
>just desserts
David Cronenberg is one of the best directors for adapting literature.
>Naked Lunch
>Crash
>Cosmopolis
All amazing films.
Special mention also to PTA's adaption of Inherent Vice, better than the book, even if that isn't saying much.
Every civilization reaches an end you dumb nigger.
Just watch it, read afterwards if you're confused.
This is the only good answer.
Jonathan Rosenbaum
Mike and Jay.
Unironically Gene Siskel
Doug Walker
Manny Farber