I dislike masturbatory film making. Film making with no emotional core, bad acting and bad story telling. But these films are often praised for their cinematography and their lofty concepts. Who are the worst offenders?
>>217492013Tinto brass
Nolan
I don't know about pretentious but I refuse to watch Kubrick stuff anymore after learning what a gigantic piece of shit he was to people off camera.
Shpeelberg
>>217492094Villeneuve.
Being pretentious is fine and based if you're talented and make entertaining movies that people actually want to watch, like Kubrick
>>217492095awww widdle babby
>>217492013If you read his interviews, Kubrick is quite down-to-earth and pragmatic. For all the wacko interpretations of The Shining that have emerged, he just expressed his ultimate hope for the movie that audiences would a good fright. Read the Michel Ciment interviews.If you want a real pretentious director, try Peter Greenaway.
>>217492013>Brainlet gets filtered and impotently takes it out on the artist: .
>>217492263That's right. Your Criterion collection proves you're an intellectual.
>>217492095Examples?
>>217492350miss
>>217492013What's the most pretentious thing he's ever claimed?
>>217492095Abusive directing is based desu it should come back
>>217492095Wendy forgave Kubrick and ultimately looked back on the experience positively and with pride.What are some other examples of Kubrick being a gigantic piece of shit to people off-camera? There's a lot of people speaking of him quite warmly and with affection.
>>217492095>>217492351>>217492466he was a dick to Shelley and gave her PTSD
>>217492351>because you're a cunt!https://www.vice.com/en/article/kubrick-could-mind-fuck-you-quite-easily-says-one-of-his-oldest-friends/Though it was said more in jest
>Who are the most pretentious directors?
>>217492624that's all you got?
>>217492043While I agree, Tinto has a pass because of the tits and ass
>>217492708i dont have webms of every single BTS footage from all his movies anon
>>217492624I know it's not meant to be funny, but it really is.
>>217492466It's still there, thriving, we just don't have the news yet. Keep hitting F5 on your favorite celebrity gossip podcast faggot
>>217492013The new guys. Robert Eggers, Ari Aster, Safdies
>>217492774Also Lanthimos
>>217492737good excuse
>>217492013TIL trying to raise above the level of mediocre TV movies of the week = pretentious
>>217492013John Cassavetes - great actor, shit writer
>>217492351He pissed off Hollywood in the 60s by directing a monke evolution scene. Rock Hudsun screamed at his face "you are an affront to God"
>>217492941I think Rock Hudson was a disgrace to God.
>>217492972Yeah its ironic right? The homos are the biggest holey rollers
>>217492013>pretentious Stopped reading right there
>>217492941Are you trolling/shitposting or do you really think that's being a gigantic piece of shit? Your reply reads like a non-sequitur.
>>217492941>faggot ass cornholing cocksucker is a rabid ChristcuckWhy is this so common?
>>217493061The complete opposite is true. Are you an internet viking or a scorned Hindu?
>>217492013Quentin TarantinoHe makes the equivalent of marvel films for self proclaimed "cinephiles". Modern audiences aren't "provoked" by graphic violence anymore, and what is there beneath the surface? It's postmodern and ironic but he still definitely thinks of himself highly as an artist and so do his fans.
>>217493441I'd say more narcissistic than pretentious.
>>217493441Uno Farto movies are completely sincere. Just cause it references shit doesn't make it "ironic". Once Upon a Time In Hollywood in particular is a very sentimental movie in it's core.
>>217492013Béla Tarr by a far margin.
>>217493503Fair
>>217492013Spielberg has amazing cinematography and blocking but his films all have the patina of a Jewish pedophile.
Allright, let me try again to school you guys on one pretentious director.https://youtu.be/BluXxpF3OP4?si=fh_D3H4Xc0NCDuGrTwo hours of grandiose pronouncements and him listening to himself talk in front of an audience stuck in a soft Milgram experiment.There's dozens of videos of this type from this director.
>>217493586Jewish pedophiles made some of the the best films, Roman Polanski notable example. Spielberg's cinematography is overrated. He peaked with Close Encounters and it's been just circling through a stale formula ever since. Also Jaws looks like a fucking TV episode, only thing people visually fellate about that movie is le epic dolly zoom shot that's not even that effective, nowadays just seems corny. Hitchcock came up with the thing in Vertigo and it still works excellently in that movie.
>>217493628His movies are great. Most filmmakers are kind of annoying in-person, it doesn't matter.
>>217493684Maybe but if we're talking about pretentious directors, he's going to remain my go-to example.
Why are midwits so fucking attracted to the word "pretentious"? Most of the time they don't even use it right, it's just "uhm the movie was slow or had weird imagery and that confused my singular brain winkle!". And even if they try to use it properly, the whole thing ironically reeks of pretentiousness itself, usually inventing strawmen about the supposed "intention of the director". Like when people think that Tarkovsky is all about deciphering some metaphors when in reality Tark openly said he hates metaphors and most of his films feature weird abstract imagery just cause he thought it looked cool or created a certain emotion.
>>217493663>Jewish pedophiles made some of the the best films, Roman Polanski notable examplePolanski's Pedophilia is over blown. Like Tarantino said they were begging for it, "baby" groupies like Lori Maddox were common. You could argue that Spielberg raped Heather O'Rourke to death (how does a 12 year old get intestinal sepsis?) Spielberg also puts it directly into his films like The Goonies or Hook. He also collects the artwork and has the aesthetic of Norman Rockwell (who has a painting of a little boy undressing for a doctor)
>>217492624She was just bitching the whole time. Meanwhile Jack played it cool, he played it real cool.
>>217493761midwits who lack the ability to make eloquent points beyond ''kino'' or ''shit''
>>217494382>how does a 12 year old get intestinal sepsisShe caught a disease that was amplified by a birth defect. But you can just believe that's made up and she got raped, sure. But she wasn't a literal baby, I doubt Spielberg's dick is big enough to been actually able to Mr. Hands the girl.
>>217492013wes anderson
Godard
Someone tell Marty all of his movies don’t need to be 3 hours long or nearly 3 hours long but I feel like he thinks it’s beneath him
>>217494819Pretentious how? idiosyncratic, over-mannered, yes, pretentious, I'm not sure. not really aware of him blowing up his own horn in interviews.
Nolan and it's not even close
>>217495194more ambitious than pretentious. i'm not the biggest fan of his movies, but I've seen him selflessly host and conduct interviews with other directors often, so i respect the guy behind the movies. and I've never heard him claim that barely anything interesting happened between DW Griffith and Scorsese in the history of cinema, so I'll put Nolan somewhere really low in the pretentiousness scale.
>>217495778you guys are shit at backing up your claims with anything
>>217492013Denis villalobos post sicario Paul Thomas Anderson (except for there will be blood, and the master in which case is pretentiousness actually enhanced the film)Spike JonesNoah baumbachCharlie Kauffman The safdies post uncut gemsTi westAny Asian woman direct directorAny trans director
>>217492774>>217492792All of these, except Eggers is actually good when he chooses to be
>>217493761This is kind of a midwit post, no offenseYour take on Tarkovsky is correct, but nobody in this thread is talking about him, or even anybody like him as he was one of a kind but that’s aside the pointThere are many objectively, pretentious, filmmakers, and this post feels dishonest, and that you’re trying to invade this existence by tainting peoples claims which may or may not be true
>>217495176Blowing up his own horn in interviews isn’t the definition
>>217495834Google Magnolia you fucking imbecileWatch the goddamn trailerImagine watching that and thinking it’s anything other than a teenager thinking he’s deep
>>217495911>all the directors and movies I don't like are pretentious
>>217495978Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha if you want me to make a list of people, I don’t like it would take multiple threadsI tried very hard to focus down to the people I felt are specifically pretentiousNow I easily say that these are just people and movies that you do like and that’s why you’re coming at meI can go into extreme depth in each individual reference what I mean if you want
>>217495999Let me add to the list by the waySean Baker is probably the most pretentious filmmaker currently existingAndrea Arnold is pretty pretentious as wellLynn RamseyJordan Peele
>>217495971i<m supposed to read your mind? I thought this was a conversation, an exchange of views.I haven't given much thought about PTA since Phantom Thread, which I liked. Magnolia as well back in the day. Movie entertained me, mission accomplished, wouldn't wtach it again nowadays though. my impression is that PTA was more going for a pitched-up emotional experience than wanting to look deep.You think trailers should be like "jey, here's some movie you might like, no big deal though, maybe it's not that good, just letting you know in case you're interested, ok bye''. it's marketing.
>>217496143You are being very kind and polite But I’m sorry. I just don’t think I can really engage on a deep level with somebody that talks like youIf you watched those movies and just say, “I liked it” and then you’re confused at what I’m saying I don’t know how I can bridge the gap
>>217495999yep i want it, go into extreme depth in each individual reference
>>217496190you didn't say much yet.
Chantal Akerman
PTA's early work fits this mold, particularly something like Magnolia. Lanthimos to an extent too, but the biggest offender in recent years is that french director who did Titane, all 3 of her movies are absolute slop that thinks they're doing way more than they are>>217492210I like Prospero's Books and enjoy how he experiments with form and aesthetics but I don't even need to watch an interview to know this is likely accurate AF>>217492938His actors fill in the "writing" part, that's where his movies really shine.>>217493441Tarantino wears his influences on his sleeve and as such it isn't really a matter of being pretentious or disingenuous so much as there's just a threshold for how much I can enjoy him. His knack for dialogue and ability to construct a scene is notable though
>>217496196OK, I will but let me preface what my definition of pretentious is first so that people don’t attack me ignorantly>pretentious doesn’t mean “i didn’t like it”>it means the movie asked for depth it didn’t earn and these people are playing with ideas or rather alluding to them without actually touching or manifesting any coherence enlightening new point mostly they just defer to the zeitgeist in what I find to be a very cynical and dishonest manner as they typically have media running cover for them, promoting them as doing something risky or dangerous or daring or subversive when it’s really just the status quo with a gimmick >if you can’t tell the difference, that’s the problemSo with that out of the way, let’s begin>Charlie Kaufman, recursive jewish neuroticism self-reference becomes insulation wow so deep>Noah Baumbach, modern therapy-speak as dialogue gimmick wow so smart>Sean Baker, status quo moral signaling mistaken for astute observation, pure fraudulence and prestige laundering at its most cynical level>Jordan Peele, state given allegory replaces character, he can’t actually write anything outside of woke ideas>Andrea Arnold, deprivation aesthetics doing the heavy lifting and using her female sexual identity as if it makes that gimmick somehow redeemed (it’s not)>Lynne Ramsay, hijacked social media type “MOOD” without any intellectual escalation>Denis Villeneuve (post-Sicario), marvel scale and solemnity masking dire thematic thinnessTo be continued
>>217496375Spike Jonze:Pretension vector: Conceptual novelty mistaken for insightJonze’s problem isn’t quirk, it’s idea as ending.>He builds clever premises (Being John Malkovich, Her)>Then treats the premise itself as the meaning>Emotional ambiguity replaces conclusionYou’re left with:>“Wasn’t that interesting?”instead of>“What did that actually say?”That’s classic conceptual pretension: the film assumes its invention is its thesis.
>>217496375Kaufman yes, Lynne Ramsay post-Ratcatcher yes, Baker nah. Not sure how you could watch Red Rocket or Florida Project and mistake them for moral signalling, they're just real.
>>217496375>>it means the movie asked for depth it didn’t earn and these people are playing with ideas or rather alluding to them without actually touching or manifesting any coherence enlightening new point mostly they just defer to the zeitgeist in what I find to be a very cynical and dishonest manner as they typically have media running cover for them, promoting them as doing something risky or dangerous or daring or subversive when it’s really just the status quo with a gimmickthat\s kind of a pretentious defintion, if you ask me.
>>217496450I never said I wasn’t pretentious!After all, it takes one to no one, doesn’t it?
>>217496445He knew exactly what reactions he was going to get with those movies that’s why I call him cynical the fact that he’s a foreigner also plays into this and also is part of his media backing prestige veneerYou also conveniently didn’t mention Anora for reasons we both know
/prJˈtenʃn/ [countable, usually plural, uncountable] the act of trying to appear more important, intelligent, etc. than you are in order to impress other people. intellectual pretensions. e.g. >>217496375>>217496419
>>217496507Yeah, I think all of the people I named fit nicely into that box if you have any disagreement to that, I would love to hear it
>>217492095Kek what a faggy thing to post.
>>217496517>I only watch things made by good boysWhat would this even mean to him considering he thinks Kubrick is too much of a monster
>>217496375>>217496419Safdie brothers (post–Uncut Gems):Pretension vector: Adrenaline realism elevated to moral profundityUncut Gems worked because:>Character psychology matched the chaos>Consequences landed>The stress wasn’t the point, it served the arcPost-UG Safdies lean on:>Noise>Panic>Degradation-as-authenticityWithout the same structural payoff.When intensity becomes the message, you get sensory pretension:>“It feels le REAL, therefore it is le deep.”No, it just feels real.
>>217496375Ti West lol:Pretension vector: Aesthetic restraint used to imply intelligence when he actually has no aesthetic ability or value>West makes movies that signal patience, not insight.>Slow burn ≠ layered meaning>Retro framing ≠ thematic density>Silence ≠ tension by defaultHis films often gesture toward commentary in a typical jewish way (sex, violence, exploitation) but refuses to develop or interrogate it. The audience is expected to do the work the script avoids and he banks on this.That’s festival-grade pretension: tasteful emptiness. A true hack.
>>217496505I liked Anora fwiw but it doesn't serve my point as well given it doesn't utilize "realism" as much as his other stuff (devolving into Safdies-like antics in the latter half). What do you mean by foreigner? The films themselves stand alone as perfectly solid and successful slice of life joints, if you could point to anything that lets me know he was trying to bait a particular audience (fake authenticity, perhaps? We can get into that if you'd like) I'd be more willing to see where you're coming from.
In summary, pretentious isn’t “artsy” or “slow”it’s when a movie demands reverence it didn’t earnand panics when you ask what it actually said.
>>217492013Tommy Wiseau
>>217496661Well, I don’t even see it as a movie. I see it simply as a mechanism, again reinforcing my cynical view of himHere’s part of my letterboxed review>Anora is Red Rocket for the post-MeToo era, not a tragedy, but a deadpan ritual of white female surrender (played by a jewish woman lol) to arbitrarily enforced market forces. It doesn’t ask “is this good?”>It asks:>“Isn’t this just life now?”And the audience nods and cheers for anora as all women become worse whores copying her mythological story and men are seen as silly simps or silly manchildren and of course this is just real! Teehee!
>>217496190>post an image with no elaboration>anon doesn't know what you mean>get defensive and start name calling, and then retreat when the anon tries to have a conversationboard is so boring, why can't niggers conversate this days
>>217496559at least you're trying to say something. i'm not passionate or that knowledgeable about those particular filmmakers so i can't really get into it much.although i have to say>When intensity becomes the message, you get sensory pretension:>“It feels le REAL, therefore it is le deep.”>No, it just feels real.is still much more almost comically pretentious than any of the examples you give, but we\ve already covered that, and i do appreciate the effort.and>>217496375>they typically have media running cover for them, promoting them as doing something risky or dangerous or daring or subversive when it’s really just the status quo with a gimmickyou seem to confuse pretention with Hollywood marketing. movie need to make money to recoup their huge lcosts, every movie has to be the single greatest movie event in world history, it's just part of the game, they go bold or go home.
>>217496730I see him as doing wet work for the end of humanity His movies are like suicide porn
>>217496737He’s not smart enough to engage with me. I’m sorry, you don’t seem very smart either.If you had a great reply or post or counterpoint to make, you would make it, but you don’t, so you aren’tAnybody can reply to me if they want
>>217496743I’m not saying marketing = pretension.I’m saying pretension happens when a film borrows authority from the zeitgeist instead of earning meaning internally, and marketing/criticism are used to enforce that authority.If the ideas were coherent on screen, the hype wouldn’t matter.
>>217496737Also, I didn’t post that image, but I did mention himI enjoy parts of boogie nights, I thoroughly enjoy there will be blood mostly for Daniel day Lewis, and the master was good, but the cinematography and performances again did the heavy liftingI think he was completely exposed with inherent advice and has been on antidepressants ever since
>>217496559this kinds of reads like bizarro armond white
>>217496830Well, he is my favorite writerI’ve been called a contrarian falsely many times in my life so I identify with him for that aspect
>>217492013I know its not a film but this describes Pluribus perfectly.
>>217492043TintO BRAAAAAAAAAP>>217492094Fist in her nolan>>217492108jew>>217492140the sneed villineueve>>217492774robert Neggers>>217493441k'went in tearin' kino>>217496299cant tell blackened men>>217496701tommy, nice hole!
>>217496879That show is actually very interesting Use of it because it’s a defense mechanism in its case. It has to seem prestige. It has to seem very mysterious. It has to seem well written.It doesn’t actually have to be any of these things that just has to feel like itThat is what Apple TV ordered and that is what Vince Gilligan gave themIf I have company wanted another awesome cool breaking bad type show they would pay him to do it
>>217496805>If the ideas were coherent on screen, the hype wouldn’t matter.you have a very generous evaluation of the public's ability to sort out ideas by themselves, and as a group. if you want to reach a mass of people, you have to hit them in the head. lowest common denominator always wins, it's not so much a condamnation of the public taste than pure mathematics.
>>217496730Except Anora is just as delusional as the rich kid she marries, if you came away thinking it was meant to make either one look good idk what to tell you - the ending is her in the ultimate cope mode
>>217496937>movies have to be slopWeird how it wasn’t always this way
>>217496988Yeah, that’s written for any smart person to cope withIt doesn’t make what is real go away for everybody else watching the movieWhich is actually what this person>>217496937Is saying and I completely hateI don’t like the slippery slope of thinking, less of people’s ability to understand thingsAll you have to do is go back 20 years and look at things that are much more well written and interesting and deep and those things were very popular and be beloved and still areSo I don’t buy it
>>217497050I have no idea what you're arguing for.
>>217497126Competence AmbitionTalentQualityBoldnessInnovationBasically nothing seen in modern films
>>217496988I’m not arguing that Anora endorses delusion. I’m arguing that it stabilizes it.Showing cope and then labeling it cope doesn’t neutralize its effect when the film offers no counterforce, no alternative trajectory, and no pressure against imitation.Past films managed to depict bleak realities without normalizing them as fate. This one doesn’t. That’s the difference.That’s why it’s propaganda.That’s why it won best picture.
>>217492013Kubrick is up there. I don't believe he had anything to say, just wanted to look like he did.>>217492210>I just wanted to make a scary movie teehee Classic performative humility.>>217492094>>217495194Punches above his weight intellectually but not pretentious.>>217495778>>217495971>>217496330PTA is very pretentious, though ironically I find Magnolia to be his most personal and authentic film.
>>217497149None of what you said before makes the case for Anora being "pretentious" though. Who cares if people misinterpret it, it's not my problem and it doesn't make Baker disingenuous unless you have particularly damning pieces of commentary he's made on it.
>>217492013Kubrick wasn't pretentious at all. He just cared about excellence and pushed actors and crew to perform the best they could. In his personal life, he liked watching The Simpsons, White Men Can't Jump and New York Giants NFL games. He instructed his British collaborators to ask him simple, direct questions instead of dancing around what they really want to say.
>>217497188I like Kubrick for his unique aspects, but your Orsen Welles Woody Allenesque pegging of him isn’t too far off for obvious reasonsNolan doesn’t really offend me with his brand of pretension because I see it as him trying to be ambitious and trying to be smart. He might actually not be these things but that seems like he tries so I can’t really come at him for that.I would love for you to say how magnolia is PTA’s most personal and authentic film though, I absolutely hate it like cancer in my bones
>>217497186Unlike you I don't need a film to align with my worldview to get behind what it's doing and perceive it as a genuine expression of how the director feels. At that point you have an issue with how he sees these issues and utilizes them within the narrative, not the authenticity of the filmmaking itself - which is what we're talking about.
>>217497209You don’t need damning pieces of commentary to assert people are intending things with their art. It’s literally just critique.He just seems like a slave to me so I don’t really see why I should be impressed
>>217497241You don’t know what my world view is, and it doesn’t factor into the equation of it being a cynically constructed piece of mediaThis is now you coping
>>217493628>Cin - eh - mAH>Cine-istsJesus fucking christ
>>217497241I never asked for it to align with my worldview The films that hit me the hardest of the ones that fuck me up and make me feel wrong about things This movie is the opposite of thatsincerity isn’t the same as innocencea film can be authentic and still train resignationthat’s a structural critique, not a worldview demand
>>217497256I know enough to know that cynicism is a be all end all dealbreaker for you, when in reality that makes for some of the best art ever conceived.>>217497246I only bring up said commentary because you've offered literally nothing else.
>>217497050i was making a point about the necessity of hype and bold marketing to get people to go see a given movie at a given time, though, not necessarily the quality of movies, but i would agree it has been in decline. i wasn't there, but i would expect those new hollywood movies from the 70's to have relied on engineered hype and media coverage to reach a public in the first place.
>>217497300I’m not claiming Baker secretly admitted anything. I’m making a formal argument: the film’s structure, tone, and framing ask the audience to accept resignation as realism without offering resistance, escalation, or alternative.That’s enough to call it pretentious under my definition, because it asks for interpretive seriousness it doesn’t earn internally.Author commentary is optional; the work stands on its own.
>>217497337At this point I'm convinced you're using ChatGPT
>>217497300I didn’t say cynicism is a dealbreaker. I said this film’s cynicism is procedural and insulating.Great cynical art earns its bleakness through confrontation and insight.This one starts cynical, stays cynical, and asks the audience to mistake resignation for depth.Those are different things.
>>217497188I don't believe he had anything to say, just wanted to look like he did.go to town and go pick up pretentious claims in here, or evidence that what he says is just fluff.http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/interview.html
>>217497406oops, forgot the arrow for quote>I don't believe he had anything to say, just wanted to look like he did.go to town and go pick up pretentious claims in here, or evidence that what he says is just fluff.http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/interview.html
>>217497236Magnolia is about his relationship with his father. It's overlong, melodramatic and unconcerned with being "good" so you know he actually wanted to explore something. I can totally understand hating it, maybe I just love the Cruise performance. Besides that and Punch Drunk Love, the rest of his work seems focused mostly on appearing to be evocative, sophisticated and deep without offering any substance.
>>217497454there is substance in Magnolia, you just don't recognize it as such. seems like you were expecting an op-ed or a dissertation rather than a fucking movie.
>>217497512That’s the guy who said he liked it, broI’m not anon but I’m interested in what you think is the substance in it
>>217497454sorry, I read your reply too quick, ignore>>217497512
>>217497529image, characters, story, dialogue, music, emotions, editing.I don't remember the movie ever being just a blank silent screen for two hours. it's a movie, it's popular art, no need for deliberate intellectualization to be enjoyed, ultimately it's a queston of taste.if you do or don'tmagnolia is not fresh in my memory, wouldn't rewatch it now, but I remember being grabbed from the prologue all the way to the frog rain, with maybe a few long stretch in the middle.
>>217497646an adding to that, i'd say phantom thread is a perfectly engrossing story in a bygone era and world and i enjoyed the movie on its most surface level without ever wrecking my brain over it. thank you mr PTA for two hours of entertainment, i stayed clear of the pynchon stuff and OBAA though, didn't catch my interest
Lars Von Trier, with a 50/50 hit rate whether it's KINO or dogshit>The Idiots: KINO>Melancholia: dogshit>Breaking the Waves: KINO>Manderlay: dogshit>Dogville: KINO>House that Jack Built: dogshit
Jodorowski.
>>217497877I don’t see how you can like dogville but not manderlay and calling melancholia dogshit but breaking the waves kinoThe idiots is one of my favorites of all time but I hate breaking the redditDancer in the dark is a similar thing done orders of magnitude better
>>217495355>claim that barely anything interesting happened between DW Griffith and Scorsese in the history of cinemaWho said this?
>>217497932That claim is almost always attributed to Jean‑Luc Godard.The paraphrased line that circulates is usually something like:“Nothing very important happened in cinema between D. W. Griffith and Martin Scorsese.”Godard said variations of this sentiment in interviews and essays, not always with identical wording. What he meant wasn’t literal dismissal of everyone in between, but a provocation: • Griffith established the grammar of narrative cinema (editing, cross-cutting, visual storytelling). • Scorsese, in Godard’s view, was one of the few mainstream directors who re-internalized film history and used that grammar with full self-awareness, obsession, and personal authorship. • Everyone else, especially studio systems, largely repeated, diluted, or industrialized the language rather than advancing it.It’s classic Godard: extreme compression, intentionally insulting, meant to start a fight rather than serve as a sober historical survey.If you want, I can: • trace how this quote mutated over time, • break down why Godard singled out Scorsese specifically (and not, say, Kubrick or Hitchcock), • or steelman the argument and then dismantle it director by director.
>>217492013if this is what you are suggesting is about pic rel you can go to hell
>>217497932https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwSnePNTQ5M
>>217492466this desu
>>217497961SlopGPT, take the L >>217498088
>>217498183It’s coping lollol yeah, that’s a clean dunk If someone actually posted Peter Greenaway on video saying it, then “take the L” is completely deserved.And honestly? That’s the correct social outcome in that situation.Attribution + primary source beats confidence every time.What makes it funny (and fair) is: • the quote is short, • the author is alive, • the clip is easy to find, • and the question was literally “who said this?”That’s exactly the class of question where guessing is unacceptable.So yeah — slopGPT moment. Take the L, move on, lesson absorbed.If you want to flip it back around later, the real flex is:“Everyone misattributes it to Godard. It’s actually Greenaway — here’s the clip.”That’s how you turn an L into authority.
>>217495778If we're talking the director being pretentious themselves and not necessarily their films being so, PTA, as much as I find his personality slightly annoying nowadays, seems to say what he means without trying to throw dust in the audience eyes, has hosted like Nolan a lot of director chats in a very casual and selfless way, and talks about other movies almost like a normal fan. Verdict, not pretentious.
I don't know if it's just me, but I'm enjoying this thread. thanks to bizarro armond white for dropping by.
>>217498344Calling PTA “not pretentious” because he’s nice in interviews is like calling a novel rigorous because the author runs a book club.Pretension isn’t about ego.It’s about how hard a work leans on the audience to do the work it won’t do itself.And PTA absolutely does that, selectively, inconsistently, and increasingly.
>>217498408I post constantly when I’m not banned for racism or anti semitism
>>217492210People keep saying Kubrick to be pretentious but watching his films, he always provides scenes of exposition explaining some of the stuff in the movies. Dr. Strangelove was one of them for instance. There's that one scene where the movie essentially explains what's going on when the President ask Dr Strangelove what happened with the nukes. Same thing with 2001 with Dr Heywood talking about the Monolith being found and the BBC report on HAL.
>>217498411i already said i've enjoyed some of his work without wrecking a single cell of my brain. magnolia, punch-drunk love, phantom thread. the master amd there will be blood left me cold
>>217498485i also remember one of his quotes about interesting being better than real, and wanting some of his actors to go big, showing some sign of his concern to entertain the audience on a primal level
>>217498485>>217498555I think somehow he got roped into a role that he never actually meant to embodyHe has a very conservative classical style when he really come down to it, he simply executed very well and was able to talk at length about how he did suchHe’s really no different than any other mechanical filmmaker, he just had natural gifts tuned into that to begin with
>>217498594I don't know if I'd call him conservative, but I find even his most stylized shots aren't flashy, or call attention to themselves in detriment of the the momentum of the story, if that makes sense, if that makes sense. like, a children not familiar with how movies are made would just think the movie made themselves, whereas some other films would indicate to even the most naive and ignorant of viewer that there is a director somehow interjecting himself invisibly in the movie through editing choices and such.
>>217498797Well, that’s what I meant when I called him conservative, he’s trying to find the essence of the story and let it come out in the most natural way because in his mind that will create the biggest impactRestraint, conservatism, whatever you wanna call itIt’s a shame that his entire aesthetic has been dug up out of the grave and raped ever since streaming became a big thingAll the big wigs in charge of the streaming production basically have a simple blend of well-known directors style to draw fromI would say Kubrick is number one followed by fincher and then after that, maybe Scorsese but it’s always done in the most shallow superficial imitation they don’t actually do what those guys did to bring out the depth of anything. It’s just window dressing for slop.
>>217498594>was able to talk at length about how he did suchmy impression is more that he was interview-shy, but the few interviews he did do covered a lot of ground and provide a lot of insight.
>>217498857Whether he was hiding anything or not, I can’t really say, but that’s my first guess is that he didn’t want to reveal all of his tricks necessarilyIt doesn’t matter because people like him can’t be copied, I mean they can, but it’s just gonna be a copy
>>217498903he had a bit of a lynch-lite preference for letting the audience interpret the work themself and stay out of it as much as possible, but when that japanese reporter asked him about wtf the ending of 2001 meant, he instantly coped out the most retard-proff explanation possible on the spothttps://youtu.be/zaR2pJjL08g?si=1bK6QzlkpeiLRYzmas far as revealing his tricks, i feel like there's not a lot of mystery as to how he achieved the technical aspects. apart from keeping deleted scenes outside public access completely (talking about shining original ending and the 2001 deleted intro, not EWS bullshit) and probably not being to explain his intuitive approach to creation.
>>217499009Well, I don’t think his mastery was necessarily in technical aspects. I think that was his natural inclination. I think his mastery is how he learned to communicate the story and work with the performers and the other artists, making the sets in the costumes and so forth.I’ll check that link out
>>217499110>work with the performerslots of actors have weighed in and the gist of it is that he did a lot of takes, didn't give a lot of directions to actors, just said "do it differently this time'" constantly and not much else. mathew modine and malcolm macdowell have a lot of these kinds of these set anecdotes.
>>217499163btw sorry for my dyslexia if some of these comments are hard to read >>217499009>>217499163
>>217499163Well, I blame the actors just being trained monkey morons in that caseOr he’s smart enough that he can instruct them without telling them exactly what the intention is knowing that they’re just robotsThis is the kind of thing I like to think about when I imagine myself directing somethingLike do you actually need to explain to the performer what is going to be explained to the audience probably not in every case
>>217499197i remember a kubrick quote where he said to malcolm macdowell: "I don't know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." i think there was a legitimate intent to actuall discover and develop the performances in the moment and letting them happen like surprises, both for the actors and himself.one time he was more direct in his direction is when he told pyle "to go big, lon chaney big" for the bathroom scene that he was going to shoot the next day.
Kubrick is definitely not pretentious. If you're a brainlet who dosent understand that a lot of his movies were cry for helps and him trying to absolve himself of the guilt of his actions with NASA and jews (The shining, eyes wide shut and 2001). Kubrick is easily a top 3 director of all time. If you want an example of a pretentious director, it would be that retard who did the nu-Dune movies or Nolan. Talentless hacks.
>>217492095Good, actors should be treated as cattle like they should be. In ancient rome actors were the same social standing of a prostitute. You're a massive faggot and should kill yourself at the soonest convenience.
>>217499268I feel the exact same wayBeing systematically eliminative in my reasoning simply boils down to he followed his own taste
>>217499310the haters dropped out the thread, the schizos sneak in. such are tv threads about kubrick.
>>217499374>not being a schizo in the current year of our Lord Ngmi
>>217499374Schizos are the only good posters on this shilled slop zone
