/Film/ - Theory/Analysis/Criticism

Stanley Cavell

How do you guys feel about Kubrick? I was watching FMJ and it was extremely mediocre and hammy.

>hammy.
YOU DID IT
YOU DID IT
HOly shit guys, he fucking cracked it!

also Amos Vogel's Film as a Subversive Art

2001 will always be a special movie for me. But he's one of those filmmakers I've found myself losing interest in lately. Another one is Tarkovsky. I feel the two of them (especially on here, or /tv/) have a tendency to get lumped together as the epitome of film making as an art form and while they make some beautiful stuff, these days I find them both overplayed and under analysed.

>have a tendency to get lumped together as the epitome of film making as an art form
My fucking sides you are retarded. If anything they're underrated at places like this because they are always labeled as overrated shit.

I haven't read much books on film but I love pic related so far. Has anyone read this btw?: amazon.com/Agee-Film-Criticism-Comment-Library/dp/0375755292

King of New York was one of the worst films I've ever seen. A monumental waste of collected acting talent.
Thanks for baiting me faggots

This is quite good.

Heretical Empiricism
Sculpting in Time

Name ONE (1) better film

The Geopolitical Aesthetic

I consider Tarkovsky's work to be the best example of blending personal philosophy, technical expertise, and appreciation for the form there has ever been. Kubrick is close because he had respect for the medium and a keen eye for photography too, but he lacks the philosophical approach Tarkovsky had.

How to Read Film - A very technical, if a little too academic book.

Ebert's "Great Movies" - Sure, they're available online for free, but it's a blend of enthusiastic writing and decades of knowledge. The fact that they're retrospective rather than reactionary makes it much better.

Sculpting in Time - Just read it.

David lynch's book. he doesn't tell you what his movies mean directly but he explains how he gets his ideas and what his biggest writing influence was so all his movies make nearly complete sense. feels good to btfo casual lynch fans and their "theories".

His movies add up to something more than aesthetic experience? I mean eraserhead and elephant man sure but the rest too?

>all his movies make nearly complete sense
Making sense of something like Mulholland Drive simply devalues it. Like it offers so much more than what life delivers. And so often analyzing a film like this will only lead to statements that aren't very interesting.
Boiling it down to concepts of fatalism or parallel worlds or something is just not as rich as the film itself.

I found Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire pretty comprehensible, actually, and they seem to comprise a duality. In a nutshell both are about women who lose, and then find, their identities. In Mulholland her self-realization has dark implications, but in Inland there is light at the end of her journey.

But then again I haven't read Lynch's book so perhaps once I do I'll get BTFO

>tell friend pleb to watch mulholland drive
>he at least appreciates good film sometimes even if he doesn't know why
>ask him how he liked it
>great movie! So good! Really good!
>ask him what he thought it meant
>regurgitated youtube analysis

At least he liked it and watched it

Favourite critics? Don't say Armond White, I'll know you're from /tv/ and you don't belong here.

Ya I just don't think analysis for that particular film really ever lives up to the actual watching of it.
This is exactly what I mean. Shit like this is about as uninteresting as it gets. It's a real sleight against the film.

Uninteresting as it may be, it seems to be what the narrative suggests. Personally when it comes to Lynch my primary interest is in his aesthetics and the visceral feelings they elicit. His sense of visuals, the sound design and score, the acting, all of it coheres to create a totally otherworldly but nonetheless emotionally compelling experience. That's what I appreciate most about Lynch. I just also think it's bullshit when people go
>dude meaningless gibberish lmao
to describe his stories.

you're on the right track, but not quite. the book is a 2 hour read at most. after reading it, you'll be able to enjoy his film more rather than looking at them like a frustratingly bizarre puzzle.
well you're simply wrong. sorry I know I'm being stubborn, and I understand your mentality of "the mystery is part of the experience" but it doesn't ruin the beauty of his films at all. they are still mysterious and intricate. the only difference is now I know where he's coming from and I understand what is going on with his characters, rather than guessing what is going on. if you know lynch at all you know he is a true artist and values his life's work more than anything, he wouldn't ruin his art by writing a book. he merely talks about where he gets his ideas (why elements of his films are seemingly "random"), and the short story that was a huge inspiration to him (all his movies share this recurring theme). he does not tell you what the movies "mean", especially not to himself personally.
it's absolutely crazy to me how many lynch "fans" I've talked to about his themes and none of them have read his book which is shorter than his damn movies! it's absolutely insane. his book makes every single "in depth analysis" obsolete.

amazon.com/dp/B0024NP55G/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

and to add, it's simply a good book. if you enjoy listening to him tell stories on the bonus features of the dvds, you will enjoy the book. it's the same exact anecdotal style, just in written word so he goes a bit more in depth. it's not like an "educational" piece or anything.

Abel Ferrara is a hack. New Rose Hotel is a very strong contender for the worst movie I have ever seen. Sure he has 1 or 2 decent films in his filmography but it is mostly trash.

>literature board
>film thread

I'm not talking about the mystery of it. I'm not sure why this is hard for you to understand.
>You're simply wrong
Except that all you do is continue to prove my point. I don't even get your post as a refutation of what I said. If anything you're agreeing with me.

just read his book.

That's not the fucking point. Kill yourself.

excellent book, written by the guy who wrote Taxi Driver. he's actually incredibly knowledgeable about theology and artistic movements

My lad! Is it something like Godard on Godard?

Notes sur le Cinématographe made me understand more his creation process and made me like way more the movies

>cringe
what? how?

bump

I've not read that, but I looked it up and yes it appears to be of a similar format

Just finished reading a collection of Antonioni's writings/interviews with Antonioni called The Architecture of Vision. Fascinating stuff, there's a great interview with him conducted by Godard.

What's wrong with it?

Sometimes controversial but Richard Brody

Paul Schrader is the man. I really wanted to like The Canyons. Shame it sucked so bad.

I'm reading a biography of John Ford (gonna rewatch a bunch of his movies at a retrospective next week so I thought I'd prepare) but it's not quite a working biography, just a life. Anyone know any good books about his films?

I usually like Brody, even if I disagree with him.

I'll throw out another name while I'm here: I've really enjoyed David Bordwell's writing over the years.