/film/

Been watching the Alec Guinness Ealing comedies
Kind Hearts and Coronets
The Man In The White Suit
The Lavender Hill Mob
The Ladykillers

They hold up, good stuff. Guiness is awesome

I actually really dug The Woman Who Ran. Thought it was tighter structured than his recent fare. Then again, I also liked the looseness of Grass. Maybe I'm just a Sangsoo junkie. I do agree the Petzold and Ming-Liang were mediocre stuff.

The Nun by Rivette. Not his strongest film but Karina is as sublime as always. The narrative is another man's inhumanity to man trope. The cinematography is serviceable as are the performances. Not as enrapturing as La Belle Noiseuse. Might make a good companion piece to Malick's A Hidden Life.

Attached: TheNun.jpg (750x400, 33.48K)

>In a 1968 interview with Cahiers du cinéma, former Cahiers editor-in-chief and filmmaker Jacques Rivette made the provocative comment that “the cinema is necessarily fascination and rape, that is how it acts on people; it is something unclear, something one sees shrouded in darkness, where you project the same things as in dreams” – an echo of Luis Buñuel’s assertion that “Sometimes, watching a movie is a bit like being raped."

Well, I can see this film being a prolonged thematic rape of the Ana Karina character.

Based Rivette. Unironically never made a bad film. Costa talked about this comment too.

how does rohmer do it?

Attached: qtfrenchgf.webm (720x432, 1.03M)

Haneke has equated cinema with rape too.

>Every film is manipulative, raping the viewer. So the question is: Why do I rape the viewer? I try to rape him into being reflective, and into being intellectually independent and seeing his role in the game of manipulation. I believe in his intelligence. At its best, film should be like a ski jump. It should give the viewer the option of taking flight, while the act of jumping is left up to him.

Attached: 03HANEKE-ITEM-jumbo.jpg (1024x683, 80.73K)

Nah. Blow Up and the one he made in color with Monica Vitti (Red Desert?) are better. I wish he'd made more thrillers like Blow Up instead of...whatever the fuck this and L'Avventura L'Eclisse were supposed to be.

I am starting to think these superb kinomakers lacked sufficient language skills to describe cinema. Or maybe they just had a fascination with rape and it expresses itself through their descriptions of their profession/art? Makes for a good quote, though, so good for promotion purposes. Maybe not so much in the MeToo era. Anyone think the virus era will hinder the Metoo era?

Someone recommended Cemetery of Splendour in a previous thread and this is the worst fucking shit I have watched in ages. What are you farthuffers thinking?

No and Blow Up is barely a thriller. Red Desert is completely inferior to alienation trilogy. Basically just a repeat with less invention.

We're collectively thinking you're a bit of a dunce.

That was me. Did you get filtered hard? Should have watched Syndromes and a Century and Tropical Malady before.

>Red Desert
It's basically a retread of the trilogy only in color. Stellar cinematography, too. But, yeah, I prefer the trilogy.

What's /film/'s opinion on Ulrich Seidl?

Attached: 0xAC723E18DA8304424600975A3ED80BC9.jpg (960x540, 93.25K)

The cinematography is ridiculous. Everything is a fucking static wide shot. The """plot"""" is literally nothing. The acting is nonexistent. Justify this.

Yes trilogy is much better and the dissection of relationships is great there. Blow Up and The Passenger are great too. Red Desert is a good exercise but nothing new considering what he has done with the trilogy.

Hell, why not go a step further and take to Derrida's assessment that all spoken language is rape via the insemination of unforeseen ideas penetrating the ear. Then go a step further to Deleuze that everything experienced outside of pure thought and reason is in tantamount to rape, or at least coercion, by outside forces.

>never made a bad film
Really? How's his post-2000 work?

I watched the Phantom Thread which, for some reason had fallen off my radar and I hadn't seen yet, and loved that. So thank you for reminding me to watch that. It was a very welcome time. Explain why you like this gook shit though.

Didn't you say you only watch films before 1980? What were you watching? Fucking Chaplin on repeat?

Justify your myopic perception of the film? Nah, I'm good.

Fuck you nigger. This shit is a slant with a handicam in the forest. By all means, keep posturing for your upcummies like you know something I don't

oof, dat projection. paging Dr. Freud!

So you just like the film, even though it has no redeeming qualities that the medium is about? Ok, cool talk.

Because he was a genius. Plus he was no progressive.

>Freud
This is why I know you're a retard

Va Savoir is fun film. The Story of Marie and Julien, which he wanted to make in 70s but he had mental breakdown, is one of his best. The Duchess of Langeais is great too, more conventional period piece and Around a Small Mountain is passable.

Guys I can't make myself watch anything even tho that's all I want to do. What do?

>no redeeming qualities
keep on digging that shallow hole. what you are basically saying is you dislike the film because it does not utilize techniques, narrative style, and performances you prefer to see in other films. criticizing static wide shots when they benefit and enhance the themes expressed in the film is really trivial way of viewing the film. hence, the myopic comment.

So only Chaplin?

Read

You have to do a lot of degenerate drugs to get into it like the faggots of /film/ do. It's a drug accompaniment.

Can't make myself do that either

is this anti-Apichatpong guy the same as the anti-Godard guy?

Need some help to find some directors to parrot.

reread and recognize who the real dunce around here is, bruv.

>themes expressed in the film
Like what? Me no sreep werr? Deep.

It's a very relaxing with great atmosphere, the plot is not the point, it's the immersion and feeling that arises. You can read some more professional reviews of it. Tropical Malady, Syndromes and a Century and Uncle Boonmee are great too.

Watch shorts.
Carax has 2 1 minute ones
Glazer and Eggers have a 5 minute one each
Peter Kubelka's first 4 are all under 10 minutes, with his first three all being 1-5 minutes

>had mental breakdown
oh snap, tell us more. I don't know much about Rivette other than La Belle Noiseuse is a true masterpiece.

Wow, I'm so hurt. I've been filtered by a gook with no ability to make films, but I'm supposed to pretend he's an auteur because he's a swirly chink from the third world. kys

>You can read some more professional reviews of it.
The user you're arguing is anti-critics, please don't indulge him further

See what I mean by myopic?

>I've been filtered by a gook with no ability to make films
They're not 'films' that's why. It's an 'art film' they belong in museums.

Seems like he doesn't have much going on upstairs. Oh well. Sundays are slow.

Maybe I'll give it another shot at some point. I read reviews of it, but it seemes like totebag liberal posturing to me because the guy is poor. I have no patience for cheap gimmicky shit like this when it doesn't even look that nice. No reason to waste my time if the cult of personality around the filmmaker is just a construct for brownie points. But I'll revisit it later.

I spent 2.5 hours arguing with him about Godard last night, I should have just killed myself instead.

Take a break. Go for a walk. It's summer and the weather should be nice. Draw or write or read. Think of nothing or concentrate on a personal project. Cinema will always be there when you need to recharge your creative mind.

I suppose this is a fair categorizarion. I'll put it on next time I have company and we all want to talk over something while on LSD