When did you first realize the superiority of cinema to text?

Wait is this your takeaway from Citizen Kane? Because if so you're an idiot.

Citizen Kane is the most overrated piece of media ever created, and everyone who blindly praises it is a retard fooled by Hollywood and its trademark narrative style.

Literature (at least literature with distinct style) tends to contain both immediate and reflective qualities due to the nature of the medium. The immediate would be present in the qualities of the prose and the aesthetic produced by it. This aesthetic consists of "Sensations. Experience. Phenomena," the same as it is in cinema just expressed in a different medium and through different "tools" if you will. The reflective nature of literature is obvious, present primarily in the ideas expressed rather than primarily in the aesthetic qualities of the prose, although aesthetic qualities can express ideas as well. Most literature tends to have a focus on the latter, but the former is also present to varying degrees. I would argue cinema is the opposite, with sensations, experience and phenomena being primary while the reflective is secondary.

The idea that literature cannot be appreciated aesthetically has some basis in that it is not as aesthetic as certain immediate, visual mediums such as cinema, but it is ultimately without merit. It also ignores the existence of the reflective aesthetic that is present in a great deal of literature as well as art in general.

A book that made no goddamned fuckin sense.

Complimentary? Would you say thoughts are complimentary to experience? No, they're two entirely different things. Thoughts are situated in a causal sense. The human experience is situated in a timeless place.

One is thrust into being when one watches the events of a movie unfold.

But when one reads a book, he is forced to interpret and reinterpret every word and sentence in relation to each other. It's the nature of the medium.

>there are people who believe all films are merely "pretty moving pictures"

But the "immediate" in literature is always contextualized with some sort of ulterior motive of the author, along with the interpreted motive from the reader. There is never any sense of true freedom in a book, and the experimental side of literature is marred by an even greater interpretative smog of subjectivity.

This is why directors HATE it when people attempt to interpret their films as if there is any objective meaning. The film should be seen as an experience, not as something seen through an external prism or filter on the viewer's side.

Meanwhile authors openly encourage their readers to come up with as many bullshit theories as they can. Because it actually takes away any onus on the writer to make any goddamned sense. Which is the entire point of literature, a time-wasting exercise.

>Cinema is all about visceral appeal whilst literature is all about intellectual appeal.
Yes, this is why cinema is superior.

>Meanwhile authors openly encourage their readers to come up with as many bullshit theories as they can. Because it actually takes away any onus on the writer to make any goddamned sense. Which is the entire point of literature, a time-wasting exercise.

Not even sure how you could write something so inane. It made sense up til this point, where its kind of obvious you have never given true literature a fair shake. The same exact thing could be stated about film, and it would still be wrong. The author's creation is rarely made without purpose or meaning, and your criticism of literature has now shifted from the work to a criticism of the reader.

The base of your argument still lies in the fact that you view all reflective thought as a waste, thus allowing cinema to become the "ultimate medium," provided of course, the viewer never thinks about what they see and just experiences it, which is of course nearly impossible. If it were possible, it is just as easily experienceable with literature. Just read the words out loud and appreciate the cadence and flow of them. "Experience" the words just as you experience images. Of course, this is a poor way to appreciate a medium.

I know what you are saying here, and I partially agree with it, but your rejection of all other mediums and of all reflective thought or meaning has thrown you over a cliff with ramifications that you have not considered.

>claiming all directors discourage interpretation
>claiming all authors encourage interpretation
>asserting that interpretation somehow amounts to less freedom than an objective piece of media
Sit down, user.

I'm aware. You might like this book, btw

What a retarded fucking statement.

>Citizen Kane
>Hollywood and its trademark narrative style

confirmed for either never seeing the former or a painfully inadequate understanding of the latter

> I'd probably declare music the most fundamental.

This is fair, but the problem with music is that once again it is at its GREATEST when it is contextualized by some external event. You wouldn't get the full experience of a sad classical piece while listening to it at a moment of personal triumph. This is why music is most effective when accompanied by cinema. One is FORCED to EXPERIENCE the music as it is rigidly framed and contextualized with an accompanying event. The music at its core then becomes irrevocably TIED to the aesthetic experience.

Take this piece: ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1CNNf9iU9Y

The accompanying film is not the best example, but imagine a character at a momentous nadir in his life. The accompanying music's significance would add to the character's emotion, while the character's emotion would add to the music.

A book of course may follow two paths in attempting to emulate this character's feelings: it can attempt to externalize the event, by describing the setting, the character's actions, its causal nature (i.e. a Hemingway approach), OR it can attempt to internalize it by describing the character's feelings (i.e. someone like Joyce or Dostoevsky). But the problem with all methods available to an author is that essentially it all boils down to the author taking autonomy away from the reader to EXPERIENCE the piece of art for himself.

And I'm not saying that this is the author's fault; it's the curse of the causal nature of words and thoughts.

>Not even sure how you could write something so inane. The same exact thing could be stated about film, and it would still be wrong. The author's creation is rarely made without purpose or meaning, and your criticism of literature has now shifted from the work to a criticism of the reader.

Perhaps I was overdramatic but my overarching point was that authors are forever condemned to "explain away" (even simple prose authors like Hemingway) such that it introduces an element of infinite amount of interpretation.

Whereas a film is generally seen as a "whole" to be experienced. I think a lot of it also has to do with the fact that a film is the product of many different individuals and the sort-of chaotic approach to it leads to a perceptibly homogeneous whole. But a book is the product of the thoughts and whims of a seemingly-schizophrenic narrator who doesn't know the sky from the sea, and sometimes even sees it in terms of each other.

Again, I can't seem to understand the dichotomy between the two in any way but an internal-logic versus external-phenomena. I wish I could see books in a different light but I can't. I've honestly tried. It's kinda like the difference between discrete mathematics vs. continuous mathematics, although not entirely. Words are the "discrete" elements that attempt to add up to a whole, while film is the whole, altogether, at once.

Anime > cinema
E7 is majestic. Nothing has ever affected me the way it has.
>intellectual appeal
Goodness, don't you ever get sick of stroking your braincocks?

Anime is the highest art.

>can't properly use the word complementary

G E T O U T
E
T
O
U
T

>Would you say thoughts are complimentary to experience?
yes

>Thoughts are situated in a causal sense. The human experience is situated in a timeless place.
the human experience involves thoughts. wtf bro?

>The base of your argument still lies in the fact that you view all reflective thought as a waste, thus allowing cinema to become the "ultimate medium,"

Not a waste, necessarily, but obfuscatory. It merely creates unneeded additional internal logic. It clouds instead of elucidates.

>I know what you are saying here, and I partially agree with it, but your rejection of all other mediums and of all reflective thought or meaning has thrown you over a cliff with ramifications that you have not considered.

I didn't reject literature (we're talking about the fictional and nonfictional narrative form, excluding things like philosophy and nonfictional nonnarrative stuff, to be clear); I just increasingly find it to be a waste of time when I can just spend a couple hours on more spiritual forms of media-catharsis.

>>claiming all directors discourage interpretation

It's not that I consider directors to discourage interpretation (of a certain kind, such as the kind found in literature where every elements has potential significance); it's that they frown upon looking at their works as something to be interpreted by a common viewer and thus brought down to an interpretative format of discourse., instead of merely taken in as is.

>>claiming all authors encourage interpretation

Well I'd like to hear some examples of those who don't.

>>asserting that interpretation somehow amounts to less freedom than an objective piece of media

This is the paradox of limitation. One is most free, as Goethe said, when there are certain laws limiting his behavior: "In limitations he first shows himself the master, And the law can only bring us freedom."

Similarly, when we are "thrust into" the experience of a piece of cinema, we are forced to abide by the limiting constraints, the aesthetic, the auditory, the perceptual, which ultimately affords us the greatest scope in interpreting the events that are thrust upon us.

But a book, what sort of freedom does a book allow us? The freedom to think as the author has afforded us to in the way of his words? No, that is a false form of freedom in my estimation. Literature is a false god, the god of Chaos, the god of Kek.

>it's that they frown upon looking at their works as something to be interpreted by a common viewer and thus brought down to an interpretative format of discourse., instead of merely taken in as is.

In other words, interpretation is secondary to the work as a whole. But for a literary work, interpretation is all one has.

>the human experience involves thoughts. wtf bro?

But once one thinks, he is automatically taken out of the experience. You ever had someone tell you, "drifting off?" or "daydreaming?"

Similarly, "pay attention", or 'listen" in class? The human mind is not one for multitasking. If you're taking notes, you're not paying attention entirely to the lecture. Also, one shouldn't mistake the spontaneity of intuition while one is listening to a lecture for genuine "creative" and autonomous thought.

When one is in an autonomous mode of thought, he seemingly draws from a well of relational and seemingly chaotic knowledge constructs. That's entirely different from letting one's self go to the experience of SOMEONE ELSE'S production of sensation.

It kinda ties into the whole "discrete" vs "continuous" dichotomy.

>But once one thinks, he is automatically taken out of the experience.
no? he just enters into a slightly different realm of 'the experience.' you cannot disconnect thought from experience, they're inextricably linked.

>no? he just enters into a slightly different realm of 'the experience.' you cannot disconnect thought from experience, they're inextricably linked.

It's not something that can be quantified or rigidly delineated as one would like to think. Your problem (a problem that is indicative of all literature), is that you think in discrete terms, definitions, well-established (in your mind) conceptions of reality.

The delineation between thought and sense is something scientists are still trying to experimentally verify, and possibly never will be able to.

What is the relationship between the chaotic elements of reality, or sensations of reality, and our (we'd like to think as free will) thought?

You can attempt to argue that thought is the same as experience, but that would be--as Wittgenstein would say--just another language game.

For example, I'm using "experience" as a metaphor for something that is "thrust upon you", an intuition, a sensation. You may be using it as an overarching term for everything that happens to man, including the notion of decision making.

This is how Oxford defines experience, for example:

en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/experience

>Practical contact with and observation of facts or events.

>An event or occurrence which leaves an impression on someone.

To me, the word usually connotes with it some notion of lack of free will on the person who is "experiencing" things

In other words, cinema is the superior medium, got it.

You're such a fucking idiot. I can literally "experience" "thoughts". That sentence is valid, and so your entire argument is not.

>I can literally "experience" "thoughts".

What is "literally"?

What is "experience"?

What is "thought"?

Even if I concede to you that one can experience thought, that just means that I conceded to you in your own language game.

But that's not the game I was originally playing. We can replace the word experience with a few other words, namely "sensations not involving free will". Of course, we'd just be adding additional language games.

So in effect my argument goes from:

>But once one thinks, he is automatically taken out of the experience.

to:

>But once one engages in free will, he is automatically taken out of the sensation of lack of free will.

Which just becomes kinda a self-proving tautology.

Is this what you wanted? You've bastardized my romantic literature into some thoughtless internalized logical form.

I hope you're happy.

>autistic screeching
Wittgenstein was a self admitted hack kiddo, cut that pseudointellectual bs out.

>Wittgenstein was a self admitted hack kiddo, cut that pseudointellectual bs out.

What you ironically fail to realize in your blind mania to come out on top, is that all literature is pseudointellectual bs

Language itself is pseudo-intellectual bs. Can we finish now?

>Can we finish now?

We could have been finished if you just admitted that cinema is the superior artform, but you had to draw it out like the pseud that you are

Nothing is superior to anything.

A moral relativist. Now i KNOW you're a pseud

I used to be a bit of a filmfag but honestly even 90% of arthouse shit pales in comparison to even the most rudimentary classic novel. It's also all painfully the same, try to find a film that is truly the work of an outsider or moral deviant; it is mostly just banal self-gratifying """shocking""" criticism of institutions that have been endlessly mocked and pilloried since Voltaire. Wow dude um I made a movie about a suburban housewife and um her perfeclty life actually sucks and she decides t ofuck black men lol? Dude I fellated a statue of Mary WTF !!! LOL. Dude um hes like a corrupt conformist with no values and A SEXUAL DEVIANT who LIKES COCK WOAH!!!!!!! Shut the fuck up.

Cinema is a medium populated by decrepit moralising authoritarians who are drawn to the ability to create perfect believable "mini-realities" that trick other people's minds into accepting what they see as real.

Never because it isn't.

ITP: Arthouse = New Wave cinema

It isnt though. As a conveyor of ideas and emotions it pales in comparison to text

What are you accusing me of, "pretending" to be a sophist? Sort your memes out.

Literature allows for much more freedom sinve it can be done with paper and pencil, is not controlled by kikes, and not controlled by box office. Cinema is juvenile garbage for brainlets

Cogito ergo sum. Besides cinema hasnt come up with anything new. It hasnt offered mankind anything comparable to great writers. It is a shallow medium for avant kids

I could easily reduce any "classic" to platitudes as you have done with the films you mentioned. "Whoa he thought he was a communist then he got imprisoned by the communists so spooky lol xD," "What if you could, like, see inside the minds of a whole family and shit," etc.

This entire discussion is pointless because comparing separate media is a fool's errand. But to reject an entire medium because another is "better" shows nothing other than your philistinism.

you can compare mediums, dear brainlet. cinema is just ineffective. two books three countless countries into civil wars and influenced world wars. thats the power of text
cinema in 120 years of its existence hasn't achieved anything greater than box office results and personal pleasure to some.

>uses the word "mediums"
>calls other people brainlets

We're not talking about clairvoyants, bud. And anyway, you're not really making an argument. The "effectiveness" (in the sense you use it, i.e. historical efficacy toward political influence) of a medium has nothing to do with how interesting it is or can be. And in any event, your assertion isn't true: look at how effective Nazi propaganda films were, and how effective propaganda films still are.

Who are some Veeky Forums directors?
>Tarkovsky
>Bergman
>Bresson
>Ozu
>Truffaut
>Kobayashi
>Teshigahara
>Kieslowski
>Dreyer
>Antonioni
>Fassbinder

>look at how meekly the medium was translate to the service of the tyranny.

this is also why theater is superior to cinema.

>"films are not historically effective!"
>given a historical instance in which they were effective
>"b-b-but that's not how I want them to be effective!"

You're just adding to the heap of shit my dude

Why do you have to make it about appeal?

I'm pointing out how it has no backbone. Theater has. literature had. they csn eays resist because they aren't limitrd by money

>I'm pointing out how it has no backbone.

What did he mean by this?

>you cannot even compare

youre correct, but the wrong way around; preferring cinema to literature is like preferring another person's sensibility to your own-- it may sound good, but it just isn't possible. The idea that this is even possible sounds rad (or whatever) I suppose, but one actively engages a text, while another sits eating popcorn, watching. Sleeping is better than being awake too, I suppose. Learn to read.

Her butt is art

Cinema lacks object description,
At least in the literary sense.
You see the object, but you don't get a description of it.
>On the rugged table stood a tiny, blue glass,sheltering some cheap wine
Instead of this description you just see it.

It's different

G>wtf i love movies now

>Those legs

Well, user, that's retarded. It's plainly evident to anyone who isn't a fucking shill that whatever bullshit can be said about authorial intent, can also be said about directorial intent.

For me, I prefer paintings/photography, music and literature over movies, because the movie gives you everything. It's almost like life. You have music, you have subtitles sometimes, you have sounds, talk, and an image which is even moving and that's a lot. Basically every art form combined into one. It's nice if I just want to reax, I'll just watch something and be like wow. But my imagination isñ't working. When i listen to good music, I imagine pictures and colors in my head. When I read, I imagine pictures in my head, when I look at images I imagine a sound and a story. I can't imagine anything when watching a movie. It's just there like whatever. I like every type of art, but i think its way harder to make good music or write a good book than to make a good movie. Movies to me are below comics on the artness ladder. I like them, but I think literature is better.

When I reread the beginning to my erotica short story...

She was standing in the door frame, her thigh-high socks had a glossy sheen under the summer sun, her chiffon dress wafting as she poked her toes out to feel the breeze; the roses and lilies printed on her dress danced. I was sat on the staircase behind her, admiring her healthy thighs that showed between her dress and socks. Though she was my older sister, I still wanted to protect her, so when my friends had made comments about her body I told them to stop and moved the conversation along. But sat on the staircase, seeing her curves outlined by the sun, my penis had become hard and engorged.

I think he just wrote that hoping youd shut up, filmfag. Go away from this board and discuss how Kubrick isnt overrated with your hipster friends

>E7
with that shit taste

>aren't limited by money
If you think all films have a big budget, you're a literal plebeian and it's no wonder you compare the value of disparate media.

You can analyse film while you're watching it. An intelligent filmgoer engages a film rather than waiting for parts of the film to "strike" or "affect" him or her.

Director's style is the equivalent of object description in film. Each director is going to shoot the scene you've described differently.

/thread

>with respect to 2nd comment

i have no doubt what (you) wrote here is true, but every word (you) read is YOUR WORD, is packed with YOUR history, YOUR learning, YOUR associations, YOURself-- no one who has read a book and seen the movie it was based on is going to have imagined previously what they wind up seeing at home, or at the theater. If the book the movie was based on is any good, the majority of viewers who have read the book first are inevitably going to leave off dissatisfied because reading by its very nature is more intimate than film, in all senses of the word, and people crave intimacy. 'Intellect,' in the end, has absolutely nothing to do with why literature, which film itself relies on in a way that literature will never rely on film, is the superior form-- language by its very nature just comes closer to who we think of ourselves as truly being moreso than audio-visual imagery does, howsoever continuous : and I do mean language by itself, printed language.

Does film even have an answer for poetry, i.e. for a style expressive of JUST itself? The only instance of a film's even remotely answering that question successfully in the affirmative is Fellini's 8 1\2, which is a movie that convinced me that what I saw was specific to film itself, and could neither have come from literature, nor go back into literature. But that's it. Generally film relies on narrative, and narrative's but a part of lit..

see

>Here I am on a Chinese comic forum, launching an all-out attack on an entire form of art.

Lit please.