Arthouse & ClassicsLGBTdition>QotDFavourite /film/ dealing with LGBT issues?Previous: >>221345629
Queen of /film/
>>221387157>QOTDTeenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma
>>221387157>Favourite /film/ dealing with LGBT issues?Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant, Fox and His Friends, Querelle, the list goes on...
>The post-war humiliation of Japan>Anti-wealth propaganda >Pornography as subversive art>even Godzilla has "metaphors" nowAre all Japanese directors just mouth pieces for the jewish left?
Don't know if it's my favourite but this was what i immediately thought of, great delirious Verhoeven kino from his dutch period.
>>221387374>Trying to continue with the bait from the last threadSad.
We're all subversive here.
>>221387445Wrong.
>>221387374Most cinphiles are NPCs who need their thoughts fed to them by the nearest "sources" and "authority". They genuinely would have no idea what they just watched unless a jewish writer using chat GPT summarizing it with leftist buzzwords.
>>221387511You seem to be arguing against voices in your head or repeating something you read on Twitter. But enough about /kdg/
>>221387511Who are these "based" cinephiles? They are busy watching man baby capeshit. If you hate leftism, you are in the wrong artform.
>>221387477Checked.
>>221387354>>...on the one hand women are oppressed, but in my opinion they also provoke this oppression as a result of their position in society, and in turn use it as a terror tactic.
>>221387157More like basedition.
>>221387445>one off from getting trips
>>221387721>If you hate leftism, you are in the wrong artform.So fucking true. Dingo rated the new Uwe Boll white nationalist action flick 3/5. Here's a list of some classics that got a 1/5 from that nigga.>Fort Apache>Sunset Boulevard>Roman Holiday>Johnny Guitar>Ordet>The Seventh Seal>Rio Bravo>Persona>Au Hasard Balthazar>Blow-Up>Patton>The Holy Mountain>Celine & Julie Go Boating>Ms. 45>Chungking Express>La Haine>Fallen Angels>Freddy Got Fingered>The Voice of Hind RajabAll those are a lot less enjoyable than a Uwe Boll white nationalist action flick. War of the Worlds, The Emoji Movie, and Morbius all got the same rating as all of those movies. They're equal in quality and enjoyment value to someone like this.
>>221388087>Sunset Boulevard 1/5All things considered, one of the more reasonable takes from Mr. Disability Money desu.
>>221387721That guy's obviously a dunce, but you're wrong about film being the wrong artform for anyone who's not a leftist. This has been argued about before, and it always comes back to some tendentious understanding of art just being about "empathy" or something and leftists supposedly being better at that. It's just bogus self-congratulation to think that film is an inherently leftist thing in any meaningful way>>221388087Dingo is even more of a dunce, and that film is embarrassingly bad, but it's ultimately a moot point. And calling the fucking Hind Rajab movie a classic (mentioning it in the same breath as Johnny Guitar or Sunset Boulevard!!!) is almost as egregious as Dingo's rating of the Bollslop.
>>221388252>it always comes back to some tendentious understanding of art just being about "empathy"Maybe not just that, but would you concede that the higher empathy you have the more you can potentially engage with film? Imagine watching a film and feeling like you don't care what happens to anyone in it. What's the emotional connection you have with that? You lose a huge layer of what makes film engaging.
>>221387157>qotdIrréversible
>>221387848Fags are often the best judges of women behaviour, since they're not blinded by the desires, expectations and projections a straight man is.
sticky this
>>221388495>Hide post
>>221388495The Bergman one should be Billy Wilder but close enough
>>221388297>Imagine watching a film and feeling like you don't care what happens to anyone in itAdmittedly the lines between the two are blurry, but I'd describe what you're talking about as more akin to sympathy but this gets to the heart of the matter.>would you concede that the higher empathy you have the more you can potentially engage with film?It depends on the type of film. Not all films have people in them that you're meant to care about in any robust sense (of course, some don't have people in them at all): you're not meant to empathise with them in the sense that you share their feelings or identify with them in any meaningful way, you're just meant to in the sense that you understand them in some sense as being an actual agent as you do with any person in real life, even the ones you consider to be fundamentally unsympathetic and unreasonable. And again, I would also protest that even if your picture were true, the left have massive empathetic blindspots that at the very least rival the right's.
>>221388087Your name is unimportant yet I have to agree. Historically, dongo's film takes are worse than catjeeto and kjohn plus he's literally rated stuff then backtracked entirely, claiming he didn't actually watch it (you know what I'm referring to).
>>221388745It's not Not Important. I just codeswitched.
>>221388610>the left have massive empathetic blindspots that at the very least rival the right's.Elaborate on that. If you mean the ultra-high net worth individuals I believe their lack of caring what happens to people and the environment if they'll profit from it justifies a lack of empathy towards them.
>>221388766Fuck, I had a hunch but wasn't 100% sure… you have to listen to this nowhttps://youtu.be/5qDhaWqeNMc
>>221388805>justifies a lack of empathy towards themThis kind of gets at what I mean: you're vetoing empathy when it clashes with an ethical commitment (and you've gone immediately for a kind of robber baron stock character as an example of someone who doesn't deserve empathy (care?) instead of someone that might cause a bit more trouble). Leftists pride themselves on being caring and empathetic but when they get confronted with the messy, concrete life of a real, flesh and blood person who might bring the train of progress to a stop, they panic and try to rationalise their way out of it. They exalt "empathy" in the way that they exalt "reason" : as tools of their will, blind or uninterested in the possibility of understandings of these concepts that might have unpalatable consequences (scepticism, quietism, etc.) and unjustifiably intolerant of those who do have alternative understandings of them.
>>221389052I'm going outside but I'll get back to you once I'm settled back home. Interesting conversation.
>>221387374You're not even making the point you think you're making. Or any point, really.
>>221388252>it always comes back to some tendentious understanding of art just being about "empathy" or somethingYou mean ἔλεος (eleos), not ἐμπάθεια. Important distinction.The idea that poietic art is mainly meant to evoke ἔλεος καὶ φόβος (eleops kai phobos) via a μίμησις (mimesis) is all about audience immersion and goes back to Aristotle. Nothing about that is particularly "leftist", and I'm not sure why you try so hard to pretend that it is.
>>221389633>You mean ἔλεος (eleos), not ἐμπάθεια.I meant what I said. I'm referring to earlier conversations had here where "empathy" was the word that was used, which is why I'm using that word.>Nothing about that is particularly "leftist", and I'm not sure why you try so hard to pretend that it is.I haven't said anything ἔλεος, ἐμπάθεια, ἔλεος καὶ φόβος, μίμησις or anything about Aristotle. I also don't believe (as I've made clear above) that the phenomenon I'm talking about is fundamentally leftist either. My point is about what has been said here in the past on this topic.
>>221389751>I'm referring to earlier conversations had here where "empathy" was the word that was usedYour post that I replied to is literally the first post that used the word "empathy" in this thread. It didn't appear in the last thread at all. Not sure how early this supposed discussion you refer to was, but it certainly didn't take place within the last few days.>I haven't said anything ἔλεος, ἐμπάθεια, ἔλεος καὶ φόβος, μίμησις or anything about Aristotle.And that's where you're wrong. Because your whole argument in here seems to revolve around that very concept, judging by the posts you and that other anon have made. You're just using the entirely wrong name for it. "Empathy" is barely ever used in the context of art analysis. The term itself is a reevaluation of the greek ἐμπάθεια (that's literally the word you used, by the way, while you claim you said nothing about it) along the lines of the original συμπάθεια. And it mostly gets used in applied ethics nowadays. Which might be where your confusion comes from, where you think that immersing into fictional characters must be the same thing as a moralistic sympathy for people around you in real life.
I just watched Three Colours trilogy and enjoyed all of them, and now I am watching the Double Life of Veronique but finding it a bit dull. It has the best cinematography out of all of Kieślowski's movies sofar, but I find the characters more flat and feel unable to emotionally insert myself into the movie. Despite her beauty, Irene Jacob's character is twee and irritating to me.Haven't seen Deklog yet.
We already dealt with this semantic bullshit last thread. Just fuck off already.
>>221389843>As Kieślowski noted in an interview with an Oxford University student newspaper: "The words [liberté, egalité, fraternité] are French because the money [to fund the films] is French. If the money had been of a different nationality, we would have titled the films differently, or they might have had a different cultural connotation. But the films would probably have been the same"Imagine, for a moment, Three Colors Trilogy: USA Edition.
>>221389843Allegedly he had sex with Irene Jacob and that was his main reason for casting her
>>221389888>this semantic bullshitHow about you fuck off back to >>>/pol/ instead with your "muh leftist" bullshit and anti-academic disposition?
>>221389835>it certainly didn't take place within the last few daysYou are correct.>And that's where you're wrong.No, your post is the first to drag the Greeks into this thread. I'm not talking about ἐμπάθεια, which does not mean the same thing as "empathy", I am talking about "empathy" (and its close relative, sympathy). I am exclusively speaking modern English.>"Empathy" is barely ever used in the context of art analysis.It's being so used here for the reason that I've stated and I will continue to use it.
>>221390013>No, your post is the first to drag the Greeks into this thread.I repeat: The whole concept you were discussing is literally the same thing that goes back to Aristotle's ἔλεος. And as you've read in my last post, I'm fully aware that "empathy" in its contemporary meaning is closer to συμπάθεια. Which is exactly why one needs to be particularly careful when using it. You'll also notice how I explained how that "modern English" word is mainly used in the context of applied ethics (and psychology on occasion) and should have no place at all in art analysis, exactly because it then tends to be confused with the whole Aristotelian ἔλεος and the mimetic theory of poietics that comes with it - as clearly happened here.>for the reason that I've statedYou haven't stated any reason though, other than that you claim that it's somehow "leftist". What you've stated is that it apparently has come up in discussions you've had prior, but you did not further elaborate on that. To me it seems that it must have been misused back then as well.
>>221390087>you claim that it's somehow "leftist"No, I don't, as I have told you explicitly. The association between leftism and empathy is not my own, I made clear that I object to the tendentious understanding of the word and my "supposedly" (and subsequent elaboration) was meant to cast doubt on the claim that leftists are indeed better at it.>You'll also notice how I explained how that "modern English" word is mainly used in the context of applied ethics (and psychology on occasion)You'll note how here it was used in neither context to no particular ill effect to seemingly anyone but you.>should have no place at all in art analysis, exactly because it then tends to be confused with the whole Aristotelian ἔλεος and the mimetic theory of poietics that comes with it - as clearly happened here.There is no confusion because absolutely none of it has come to mind once prior to your intrusion. I don't care about your philological intervention and I think it's ridiculous that you think it has any bearing on conversations which you didn't even know existed when you started engaging with me.
Why can’t I get my head around Tarkovsky bros? I can appreciate his great composition and his films all have amazing scenes, but I find all of his work incredibly tedious and somewhat pseudo intellectual.
>>221390388>The association between leftism and empathy is not my ownWell, you brought it up in here. I have no idea where exactly you got it from and you haven't really elaborated on it either.>meant to cast doubt on the claim that leftists are indeed better at itI read your posts more along the line that your main problem was not about leftists being "better" at empathy, but about the idea that art was just about empathy (sic.). That's what my critique was aimed at: Because the arguments that followed made it clear that what you call "empathy" is similar in concept to Aristotle's ἔλεος.Either way, thanks for the clarification: We do agree that there is nothing inherently leftist about the concept, no matter what it is called.>There is no confusion because absolutely none of it has come to mind once prior to your intrusion.Just because a point has not been made, that does not mean that it should not be made.>I don't care about your philological interventionYou see, that's the thing: It wasn't philological. It was pointing out the very much established tradition in literary analysis that the whole idea you are discussing comes from. Namely that it is not some randomly made up bullshit, but a rather credible and respected almost 2500-year-old approach - and that you using the wrong nomenclature only resulted in obscuring that fact.
>>221390527>Why can’t I get my head around Tarkovsky bros?Because either Tarkovsky is too large - or your head is too small. Maybe both.
>>221390540Yeah maybe I’m just a brainlet or I should stop trying to watch his shit while drunk/ high, but seems to me every film of his is just poorly defined depressed characters wandering around the countryside regurgitating philosophy and scripture to each other. Someone please explain to me why I’m wrong because his films are gorgeous and I’d love to understand them but I feel like I need some sort of fucking Rosetta Stone.
>>221388745Why don't you fucking kill yourself? You're not important, you're a leech, you're ugly, you're a cripple, you're an idiot.
>>221390676>poorly defined depressed characters wandering around the countrysideEver read Samuel Beckett, anon?
>>221387157>Favourite /film/ dealing with LGBT issues?it do be like dat
I hate you and I hope you die in agony from back pain.
>>221387157>QotDDoesn't every /film/ deal with LGBT issues?
>>221390528>You see, that's the thing: It wasn't philological. It was pointing out the very much established tradition in literary analysis that the whole idea you are discussing comes from.You were told from the outset that I disagreed with what you were saying about what I meant and that what was being discussed had its basis in something with which you were unfamiliar and you responded by insisting that your linguistic orthodoxy simply had the authority ("To me it seems that it must have been misused back then as well") in any case.>Just because a point has not been made, that does not mean that it should not be madeThere's a difference between noting edifying parallels between what I'm saying and Aristotelian ideas and repeatedly insisting that what I'm saying is just an aberration from good, Aristotelian orthodoxy that needs to be corrected for me to continue properly discussing the topic with someone else. What I am talking about is broader, partly because its origin is different, and partly because I consider the disciplinary boundaries that you brought up to be porous.>I read your posts more along the line that your main problem was not about leftists being "better" at empathy, but about the idea that art was just about empathy (sic.).I disagree both that art is just a question of empathy and that leftists are more empathetic and therefore inherently better at it.
>>221391146is heterosexuality even possible in /film/?
>>221391187>what was being discussed had its basis in something with which you were unfamiliarFrankly, it seems more like you are unfamiliar with the broader academic context of what you were discussing. Whereas I was unfamiliar with whatever misguided debates you might have had in the past. I don't think you can blame me for assuming that you bringing up a specific term and associating "leftism" with it would be a critique rather than an endorsement of that idea.>your linguistic orthodoxy simply had the authorityWell, let's just say that my "linguistic orthodoxy" enables me to explain that the thing you're describing has been around in academia for over two millenia, while your misuse of words made you think you were engaging in some 21st century political discourse.>insisting that what I'm saying is just an aberration from good, Aristotelian orthodoxy that needs to be corrected Not what I was doing. I was pointing out that you were discussing an Aristotelian concept (and in what you were saying not too far off from what would be considered academic consensus or "orthodoxy" by the way) while using a word that was obscuring that connection - and also lending itself to a confusion that seems to have indeed crept into the discussion you've had with that other anon: That of a moral judgement of fictional characters, which really shouldn't be part of that same debate (although there is a rather interesting tangentially related debate in academic philosophy on whether Arisotle's use of σπουδαῖος includes an implied moralistic aptitude).>I disagree both that art is just a question of empathy and that leftists are more empathetic and therefore inherently better at it.Well, and you're justified to do so, regardless of whether we leave "empathy" as what it is or replace it with Aristotelian terminology as it would be used in this context. Since Aristotle himself would not claim that his mimetic theory suffices to describe all there is to poietic art.
I watched Memorias del subdesarrollo on behalf of an anon who posted it yesterday. What did I think of it? I'll have you know what I thought.WELL FOR ONE THING M'SIEURS IT WAS VERY HARAM OF DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM, that is to say IT REJOICED IN HARAM WITH CHARACTERISTICALLY DECADENT JOUISSANCE AND WHILE I DIDN'T MIND I STILL WOULDN'T LET MY CHILDREN COME NEAR IT. THE PROTAGONIST REMINDED ME MIGHTILY OF MYSELF WHICH MADE ME FEEL A BIT ITCHY AND AWKWARD AND EVEN MY WIFE (WHO HAPPENED TO BE SITTING BESIDE ME ON THE COUCH) GIGGLED AT SOME OF THE PARALELLS, EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT NEARLY AS HANDSOME AND DON'T SCORE CHICKS AT STREET-LEVEL.stylystically it aped on Nouevelle Vache and European films of the era to an obscene degree.On the grand scheme of things it suffered a rampant case of insisting-upon-itself. I *rather* enjoyed it but still a far cry from M. Kalashnikov's Je suis Cube. I rate it a 6 out of 10.And you?(There is also interspersed footage of war victims and war criminals and Hemingway memorabilia and what not, so be forewarned.)
>>221391485>it aped on Nouevelle VacheNouvelle vache? New cow?
>>221391531I prefer the regular cow.
>leftshits>empathy>>221390020Thank you mr Rohmer for the plentiful shots of Dombasle's lovely arse
>>221391439>I was pointing out that you were discussing an Aristotelian conceptAgain, no I wasn't (and if I'm unfamiliar with the broader academic context of what I'm discussing as you think I am, how can I be?). Would you chime into a conversation between Chinese aestheticians or something and browbeat them with Greek if you noticed convergences with Aristotle, you fucking pedant?>Well, let's just say that my "linguistic orthodoxy" enables me to explainWhat have you explained? What is the explanandum and what is the explanans? It seems to me that you're just making assertions (of which almost all of them about me are wrong) and expecting me to bow down to them.>a confusion that seems to have indeed crept into the discussion you've had with that other anon: That of a moral judgement of fictional charactersThe only confusion is yours. I'm using a more expansive conception of empathy (or rather relating different, closely-related conceptions) that is not Aristotle's ἔλεος which i more fit for the discussion at hand.>your misuse of words made you think you were engaging in some 21st century political discourseI am engaging in 21st century political discourse. Politics was the spur to the conversation.
Ride With the Devil is easily Ang Lee's best film
>>221389349Nevermind the other guy can keep carrying the flame. It's gone too far for me to chime in.
>>221391813>if I'm unfamiliar with the broader academic context of what I'm discussing as you think I am, how can I be?Because it's a rather simple idea that got absorbed into cultural norms and gets reiterated every now and then through the grapevine. In other words, people tend to be quite familiar with the general concept, but cannot put a name on it or associate it with the right terminology. Happened to quite a few of Aristotle's ideas in different fields. Besides, since you already told me that you got the idea from prior discussions, who's to say that the anon you got it from didn't know more about Aristotle than you do (and still used confusing terminology)?>Chinese aestheticians>convergences with AristotleCare to elaborate on that? Sounds interesting, if accurate.>What have you explained?My main point was that what you were discussing with the other anon, while having merit, should better be left within the context of (literary) analysis and not so much in the context of politics OR in the context of judging fictional characters in terms of their morals (which this particular discussion was indeed drifting towards).>I'm using a more expansive conception of empathyAnd that exactly is the problem I saw: Your starting point was Aristotle's mimetic theory and as long as you stayed there it made sense. But once you brought in what essentially amounts to socioeconomic/socioploitical relatability and moral judgement based on that, it really started to get off the rails.>I am engaging in 21st century political discourse.And I'm saying that that's not the way to go when discussing art. At least not art in general or art at its core.
>>221391991I'd rather just ignore him and hear what you have to say. All he's doing is nitpicking for divergences from good Greek.
>>221391531Picked her up from the country fair last Thursday. European breed, sturdy-looking and not quite two years old. On the expensive side but fortunately I could haggle my way into it. Anyway, she seems to be adjusting well and will make a fine addition to the farm. Planning on having her mated by fall.
Nouevelle Caballo
>Lloyd Kaufman has called this his favorite film, stating that he has only viewed the film once as it was such a powerful experience that he feels that he will never equal it (he compared the experience to losing one's virginity).Is not that good, not even at Mizoguchi's top ten. I suppose he lost his virginity with a prostitute in a 1 minute sex session or something.
I wonder why rightoids think leftists have no empathy, from my POV rightoids just hate everyone and want everyone to be clones of them.
>>221392178It's literally just "they were mean to me so they have no empathy" and not any deeper than that.
Favorite Steely Dan song? I'm partial to Kid Charlemagne myself
>>221392208King of the World, someone should make a film based on it.
>>221392178From my (a leftoid) POV rightoids hate people based on involuntary traits while leftoids hate people based on their voluntary actions. You could say there is hate on both sides but what arouses the hate is so fundamentally different that it seems a false equivalence. Racism is essentially a caste system and caste systems are ridiculous.
>>221392203"I reap what I sow and I don't like it"
>>221392362If you imagine yourself as the main character of the universe and your entire morality is based on just how something makes you feel then yeah
>>221392173Top ten most transcendental endings thoughbeit.
>>221392003Holy fuck you are dense. I think this is going to be my last response to you.>Because it's a rather simple idea that got absorbed into cultural norms and gets reiterated every now and then through the grapevine>who's to say that the anon you got it from didn't know more about Aristotle than you doThat's both a ridiculously high burden of proof (essentially guilty until proven innocent) and open to the challenge that as it's something that Aristotle taxonomised (psychologically and linguistically) and not created ex nihilo it's open to perpetual rediscovery (even that would be to misrepresent the phenomenon however because the question of individuating concepts is not at all an easy one).>Besides, since you already told me that you got the idea from prior discussionsI didn't get my idea of empathy from prior discussions, I got the word associated with leftism in a prior discussion. >My main pointYou've made no points about my points other than "you are diverging from Aristotle and therefore wrong". >At least not art in general or art at its coreThat's not the discussion. My conception of empathy (that relates to/incorporates things like imagination and curiosity among others) is important when discussing something like "what are some virtues necessary for an artist" and people centre empathy, which is what this is more about than what goes on in experiencing a work of art.>judging fictional characters in terms of their morals (which this particular discussion was indeed drifting towards)It was not.>Your starting point was Aristotle's mimetic theoryIt was not.
>>221392302>leftoids hate people based on their voluntary actionsAnd what is behind those "voluntary actions"? If they are determined and predictable, how voluntary are they? If they are undetermined and random, how voluntary are they?
Leftists>I want you to respect muh pronounsRightists>there's only 2 genders lolMeanwhile, the statu quo is the same as it ever was, degenerate elites force the poor to remain poor, the wagecucks to wagecuck, there is no social mobility, and people lose their rights more and more every day. Just end the world already.
>>221392503Leftists are the only ones challenging the status quo.
>>221392528Both sides are retarded.
>>221392503You strawmanning leftist politics into "muh pronouns" tells me you don't really want to engage with the topic at hand or even try grasping leftist politics so we should drop it. It's more of a liberal thing anyways to focus on mending and maintaining the status quo while still keeping the base structure the same.
>>221392563People only say this when they fundamentally don't understand what's being talked about but are too up their own ass to admit it.
>>221392601Looks like Mia Goth here.
>>221392608Maybe it's just me, but I tend to say this when there are two sides and they're both retarded.
>>221392628So you're status quo neutral or?
>>221392640I'm status quo ante bellum.
>>221392601Both sides are obsessed with retarded bullshit while basically helping nobody. Both sides are about having the "correct" identity and nothing more. Both sides are egotistical and uninterested in changing shit. When dems win, shit is the same as when republicans do, but with a woke flavor and viceversa. At the top, I think both sides are run by the same people. I think the binary system only exists as a way to create the illusion of choice, while the elites know we live in a permanent plutocracy ran by the same people since forever.
>>221392615She looks like Ana de Armas here
Movies about sidesfags getting chained up and dragged behind a car until they die?
>>221392659>When dems win, shit is the same as when republicans doYou're confusing liberals and leftists. Leftists are usually opposed to both parties, and liberals. Some are anti electoral.
>>221392659This is quite fundamentally left-coded thoughbeit.
Billions must die.
>>221392416>a ridiculously high burden of proofProof of what? What is anyone of us supposed to prove, exactly? I'm citing Aristotle and noting how a significant portion of what you said echoed a concept of his, just using different words. That's pretty self-evident. Not much more to prove.>not created ex nihiloErm ... Aristotle's poetics are mostly descriptive, not prescriptive. Aristotle bases his theories on empirical data taken from litarary works and plays known to him. Of course it's not "ex nihilo".>it's open to perpetual rediscoverySure it is. But what's the point? That reinventing the wheel is possible even when there are wheels all around you has merit?>I didn't get my idea of empathy from prior discussionsWell, you once again refer to those discussions without really telling me much about them or their content. I have no idea what you got from them and what you did not. And I have no way to verify.>You've made no points about my points other thanI recommend you reread my prior posts.>It was not.It most definitely was. In both cases. Even if you weren't fully aware of that.
>>221392456The lack of responses is telling.
>99 posts of offtopic drivelNot reading allat.
>>221390741mm yea how bout no
>>221387157fuck LGBT. they should all commit sepuko. kys OP
I was too harsh on Eddington, Ari Aster was 100% right about sidesbrained fags.
>>221392745>I'm citing Aristotle and noting how a significant portion of what you said echoed a concept of his"Echo" is a very slippery, equivocal word here. And it again leaves the heart of the matter untouched. I don't deny similarity (and therefore echoing him in that sense), I deny anything like substantive influence and thus the relevance of your intervention.>Aristotle's poetics are mostly descriptive>Aristotle bases his theories on empirical data taken from litarary works and plays known to himIndeed.>What is anyone of us supposed to prove, exactly?I'm trying to make you accept that I'm not a wayward (crypto)-Aristotelian (and that I see very little value to bringing Aristotle to bear on what I've said to critique it) and you refuse to accept that I'm for all intents and purposes independent of Aristotle (and therefore not, knowingly or unknowingly, taking his perfect concept and wrecking it with my modifications) and have different concerns because the possibility that I or my interlocutor have consciously or unconsciously absorbed a whiff of even second-hand Aristotle can't be ruled out.>Sure it is. But what's the point?That identifying my concept with Aristotle's, saying that I start from his concept, etc. is both wrong and pointless.>It most definitely was. In both cases. Even if you weren't fully aware of that.See the above for the point about the mimetic theory. As for the second, I don't deny that it's beyond the purview of my concept of empathy, but that's not the discussion that I was intending to have and I have no reason to believe the other anon was going to take it there.
>>221392811AAHHHH STOP SKINWALKING ME ALREADY
Knighthood honor.
I watched this
>>221393109You first ;)
>>221392829
>>221392988>"Echo" is a very slippery, equivocal word here.It really is not. To "echo" basically means to repeat, though usually not it the original form, but very much in content or sentiment.>I deny anything like substantive influence and thus the relevance of your interventionWhat makes you think that my remarks are only relevant if there was a direct line of influence from Aristotle to what you said? Even if you had rediscovered all of it on your own without any of the cultural context you grew up in, pointing out that it is not a new idea and that a different terminology might benefit the discussion is very much appropriate. It's something that happens all the time in academia when someone introduces a "new" concept.>(and therefore not, knowingly or unknowingly, taking his perfect concept and wrecking it with my modifications)That's not really what I'd accuse you of. I'm simply making the suggestion to keep things simple and not take literary analysis to a foreign field like sociopolitics via a terminological shortcut. Bringing in Aristotle, I thought, would make that point clearer. I'm sorry that it seemed to have had the opposite effect.
>>221388745Catjeet seems to pump czechquirk and shit on koreaslop. Seems based to me
>Shijie.2004.LiMiTED.DVDRip.XviD.AC3.CD1>Shijie.2004.LiMiTED.DVDRip.XviD.AC3.CD2
>>221393421>pump czechquirk and shit on koreaslop.That's great but does he like Daisies?
Is this movie actually any good? I know >we rightfully hate wkw here, but I tried watching it twice for maggie and was too drunk both times to properly assess things.>>221393453Hi harperbro
>>221392412>dude ghost reunion and wind moves a door lmaoI bet it was done before 1955
>>221393536>before 1955I bet it didn't have Tohoscope or Technicolor thoughbeit.
>>221393475Hi fren
>This film is an excellent example of Mizoguchi's understanding of the traditional arts. However, since he had insufficient historical material, the recreation of ancient Chinese customs is not just imaginary, it comes across like an unreal painting. Though Mizoguchi took the help of a Chinese in writing the script and making corrections to suit the times, the film still lacked a Chinese ambience. Mizoguchi put all his strength into the love story of the Emperor and Kwei-fei. Scenes like the one when the Emperor and Kwei-fei walk in disguise among the people during a festival are most romantically shot; but the story never goes beyond a syrupy, sentimental melodrama. >Japanese critics judged it as completely lacking in the intensity that had been the hallmark of Mizoguchi's other films. Princess YangKwei-fei was not rated highly in Japan, but film-makers and critics in Europe and America saw it as a work of great importance. Since we in Japan are familiar with Eastern clothes, objects and rich colours, we don't see them as par ticularly striking, but this exoticism might have held an appeal for others.>Nagata Masakazu, the president of Daiei,felt that exoticism was Japan's best tool for increasing its film export. Mizoguchi agreed with Nagata. He chose for his film his much-loved theme of lovers' devotion and clothed it in the exotic. However, the rejection of history for the sake of a pure love story turned it into a hackneyed exercise.
>>221390527Seems to me from your post that you fully understand him actually.
>>221393407>It really is notIt is because of the aforementioned question of individuation (how can I be repeating what Aristotle's said if there's not an underlying identity to be repeated?)>Even if you had rediscoveredSee above.>pointing out that it is not a new idea and that a different terminology might benefit the discussion is very much appropriateExcept you didn't really do that. You presumed to tell me what I really meant and when I protested that I meant what I said, you said I was simply wrong and that you were simply right.>I'm simply making the suggestion to keep things simple and not take literary analysis to a foreign field like sociopolitics via a terminological shortcut.In other words, not so much trying to benefit the discussion as you say, but trying save us poor idiots from the mistake of having it in the first place. Thanks.
>>221393725In content and form that film is in the zenit of Mizoguchi's career as a craftsman auteur though. Come to think about it.Saying the content within the story 'never goes beyond sentimental melodrama' is oversimplifying.
>>221393811>how can I be repeating what Aristotle's said if there's not an underlying identity to be repeated?Well, I'll repeat myself then: Because whether or not you knowingly said (in essence) what he said - doesn't change that you did say the same thing. If you were a monkey sitting on that keyboard and by pure random luck typed out what typed out, never having heard of Artistotle before and not even being aware that what you typed were words: You still ended up echoing him. Intent is not necessary.>You presumed to tell me what I really meantNot quite. I told you where you made sense (where you were close to Aristotle), where you made no sense (making points about sociopolitics) and why I thought this could be avoided by sticking to the former with a more on-point vocabulary choice.>the mistake of having it in the first placeNah. I think there was some actual merit to it, initially, but also that it was quickly taking off into a debate about political views rather than art critique.
>>221392302You have a very simplistic and reductive view of both the left and the right, and your views of the latter seem to be almost exclusively based on what you've only seen from online right niches//pol/ discourse.
>politics>philosophy
Funny how every long discussion that happens here is always one guy going "you said this" and the other going "no i didn't".
>>221393934>Intent is not necessaryI never said intent was necessary. You brought up the question of Aristotle's influence (direct or indirect) to justify saying that he's relevant (in spite of my protests to the contrary) because my concept is an intellectual descendant of his (and ultimately, at its the core, the same concept that has merely had some stuff tacked onto it that you'd be kind enough to remove). I denied any close descent and I further denied that even if there were close descent that would mean that we were saying the same thing (indeed I think that the very question of sameness of meaning/sameness of concept is not at all a simple matter) for various reasons that I will not repeat again. >Not quite.>>221389633>You mean ἔλεος (eleos), not ἐμπάθεια.>>221389835>And that's where you're wrong. Because your whole argument in here seems to revolve around that very concept>I think there was some actual merit to it, initially, but also that it was quickly taking off into a debate about political views rather than art critique.It was, from the outset a debate about the intersection of those two things (less art critique proper than discussion on the nature of artists). Your point seems to be that that conversation just shouldn't be had.
>>221394250>You brought up the question of Aristotle's influence (direct or indirect) to justify saying that he's relevant (in spite of my protests to the contrary)No, I brought up Aristotle's influence simply because you cannot escape it no matter how much you try. His was the first systematic approach to literary analysis and whenever we talk about media analysis of any kind, we're relying on several of his deductions implicitely. We can even go all Brechtian in our analyses, and we'll still not escape Aristotle's influence.I didn't tell you that to justify anything, I told you that to make you understand that just because you didn't know of a particular theory of his, that does not mean that it didn't in some way find its way into your mind anyway. Different argument altogether.>You mean ἔλεος (eleos), not ἐμπάθεια.Yes. I maintain that that is what you should mean and stick to. But my assumption that you did mean it was obviously wrong. That's what we had this back-and-forth for, afterall: Understanding one another better.>Your point seems to be that that conversation just shouldn't be had.I think that you can have a very fruitful discussion on artists and their mindsets (although my impression was more that the discussion was going in the direction of audiences' mindsets, really).I simply think that political stances are better kept out of any such discussion for obvious reasons.
They should take Rodri's Ballon d'or back. What a fucking hack.
>>221394432>No, I brought up Aristotle's influence simply because you cannot escape it no matter how much you try.As part of your argument that I was "discussing an Aristotelian concept" >>221391439 which you still hold/held to here >>221393934 in spite of my unyielding NO to you. The whole point of bringing up his influence was seemingly to say "you're doing Aristotle even if you're ignorant of him like I say you are". Even if you were right about his influence being inescapable (there's a sense in which this obvious and other senses that are not so) and consequently behind my concept, my point was that that was ultimately irrelevant the question of the concepts being the same (or even sufficiently similar).>I simply think that political stances are better kept out of any such discussion for obvious reasonsI more or less agree and my purpose in engaging with the other anons was to challenge and deconstruct, not to propose an inflated counter theory vindicating my politics.
>>221394220It's literally autism
Y'all self-important zoomer summerplebs don't have an inkling on Leftism as far as it was understood as far as the late 20th century. Your lens is vitiated and dumbed down by the hopelessly psychotic climate of our days yet you fancy yourselves cultured and prone to vindicate. I am sorry to say you're all retards regardless of your ancient Greek or philological background. You will never be /film/.>>221394703Agreed.
>>221393868>craftsman auteurNo such thing. Cinema is a medium for carnival barkers and circus clowns. Cinema as an artform is a nostalgic philosophy of the past when there was less to experience in the world.
>>221394752>The whole point of bringing up his influence was seemingly to say "you're doing Aristotle even if you're ignorant of him like I say you are".Indeed.>my point was that that was ultimately irrelevant the question of the concepts being the same (or even sufficiently similar).But it's not. At the very least, being aware of an established concept should improve the way you can make your own points, be it to reiterate or to fine-tune and differenciate what you're saying from that concept. And in a way, your responses to me pointing out the connection I saw, while a bit confrontational, seem to have helped you do exactly that and double down on where you thought differences were worthwhile to make (even if you and me still disagree about those differences being worthwhile).
>>221391271Yes. Film is where the most beautiful women live.
>>221387157>QotD
New Friend Extremity
>>221395903>Joan Chen>Lynn ChenApparently not related.
>>221396143Imagine being named Lynching
>>221395418>Hide
>>221396193Well, Joan Chen did work with Lynch on Twin Peaks. I guess this one did the rest.
>>221387157was it Bringing Up Baby when Cary Grant is caught wearing a woman's dressing gown and goes>Because I'm gay!
>>221396083Equal parts comforting and unnerving.
>>221396253Yes. Also, when did gay went from just meaning happy to meaning homosexual?
>>221397159About 1940, according to https://www.etymonline.com/word/gay
Even a gangsta like me needs a forehead kiss sometimes
gonna watch Henry King's two and a half hour Woodrow Wilson joint
>>221397930Based.
>>221393453I do. Can’t say I’m completely engrossed by the whole femkino niche half the posters here seem to be but the classics - daises, Celine and Judy, Valerie etc are all undeniable kino.
After almost 80 years, The Red Shoes still holds the crown for femkino.
>>221398530Heh.
Watching Pierrot le fou inside the traphouse, hoes twerking to Pink Floyd.
>>221398729Not based.
New Hoe Extremity
Floyd mogs your fave prog band.
Except Hawkwind.
>>221399031And Rush, but whatever.
We are in the worst divide ever the haves and have noes, how can you expect a satire of the affluent and your response is "What about the affluent!!!" I considered quitting /film/ when seeing all the horror zoomers are now complaining about actual art films not pandering to their world view.
>>221387374>Are all Japanese directors just mouth pieces for the jewish left?Of course. Why would the jews platform a film with their media apparatus unless it was furthering their interest?
>>221400391>"What about the affluent!!!"No it is more like look at that lgbt zoomer blowhard using chatGPT to write descriptions of this movie. NPCs cano longer think for themselves.
>>221387445Subversive doesn't automatically equal good or important, that is teenager level thinking.
>this nigger still seething at fancy adjectivesscreaming
>>221387374They are pagans, they have never known Christ. So essentially yes, they are antichrist AKA Jewish. Japan stinks, all their cinema is either about sex or death. Worthless
>>221400459The copy on their DVDs is disgraceful.
>>221400494Dutchy?
trips and cr7 gets exposed as the KWABOTY
No one here cares about spickick.
>>221400494They also have stiff faces therefore the only way the Japanese will act is by shouting.
>>221400562oh my GAWD!!! THIS IS JUST LIKE THE NEW FRENCH EXTREMITY LIKE MY FAVORITE MOVIE THE SUBSTANCE BY CAROLINE FOGART! I LOVE THE CANNES FEEEEELM FESTIVAL!
>>221393725Am downloading it now but no one is seeding it. This is not a popular movie.
>>221387157Kristen Stewart introduces Jane Schoenbrun's masterpiece, Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma at the Biarritz Film Festival in France.>"This film is a gloryhole. Its a geyser. I have no fear that its going to soak the world when it hits theatres. Its the best time ive ever had in a movie theatre. Ever."
New Gloryhole Extremity
>>221400771Damn she is getting too old to be relatable anymore.
>>221400691They make up for it by having a more expressive and nuanced language.
>>221400644Your lack of athleticism is not shared by /film/, short bruh.
>>221401159Go post on /sp/ if you want to talk about spickick, otherwise enjoy your ban.
>>221400562ChatGPT, what far left theme or movement can this movie be compared to. Our buyers are too retarded to understand films, we must tell them.
>>221400838You're aging at the same speed
>>221392659>both sides are bad!! Seeing that our society has experienced both, far left woke era was far more toxic and unliveable hell on earth. Right wing era is just rich people being obnoxious. Left wing era is obey or lose everything.
>>221400644THIS
>>221401284Well, you can't get us banned, thoughbeit, because no one cares about your salty tears.
>>221401284THIA THIS THIS
>>221401374To my eyes, it's the same shit, only that now you get discriminated for being gay / black / jewish by working class troglodytes instead of feminists and fags cancelling you for making racist jokes.
>>221401486go outside and touch grass
>>221401511I do it sometimes.
>>221401460>usLmao. You'll never be a part of /film/, this is why you do what you do. Lash out and chimp out every single thread, wigger personality switching on and off. No one wants you here.
>>221401543based on your post, you're terminally online
>>221401486>you get discriminated for being gay / black / jewish by working classThis is what the far right does not understand. Look at what they are doing right now to Jews, gays, and women. It's their own version of cancel culture.
>>221401546I think you're just mad that you're unhappy because you can't enjoy shit while other people actually do enjoy shit.>>221401580Exactly, I hate it.
>>221401695Cheap, empty projection.
>>221401743It's just the reality bruh, you're obviously a very unhappy person that's envious of others' enjoyment and tries to sabotage said enjoyment constantly... just a little dictator with a hard on for rules.
>>221401808You're such a loser.
>>221401846Unironically, it would be better for you if you just accepted the truth that you've become a bad and joyless person and saved your life while you're young.
>>221401902Seriously, imagine being this guy. Every day you wake up be thankful that you're not this lowly little cretin.
I am watching Kenji Mizoguchi movies, therefore I am superior to all the capeshit movies the plebs watch.
>>221397930wish this didn't suffer so much from biopic cliff notes syndrome because there are glimpses of something great especially in the contrast between quiet domestic moments and grand political pageantry but the need to cram a steady stream of important events in stifles it.
>>221401951Imagine being happy... you still can achieve that.
>>221388404Is Gasper Noe part of the New French Extremity?
>>221402282Noe and Grandrieux are the kings of the movement.
The film is the original prototype for the New French Extremity movement began by Caroline Fogart.
After getting drunk and staring at greta garbo some more, I've changed my mind and decided I do in fact like Ninotchka.
>>221402953Good anon.
I just found out Kate Beckinsale is 1/4 asian what the fuck
>>221403681That's not enough asian for me to care
Is there a list of /film/s recommended films?
>>221403741All the lists got destroyed during the great Mouchette posting wars
Is From Russia With Love the first time in film that fight choreography didn't look like complete ass?
>>221403893I love the opening scene with decoy Bond, nighttimey espionage.
Finna watch some OG Michael Winner, what will I think of it?
>>221404111Looks boring.
>>221404173But enough about your mother.
>>221404173You are correct so far (18:09), I'm going to smoke a joint and see what happens. Digging this QT who didn't have much of a career.
>>221404173I'm sorry. That was way out of line.
>>221404612My mother's a saint and a very clever woman.
>>221404656It's okay, brother. Michael Winner can take it.
>>221403893From Beijing with Love is better.
>>221404999Trips for the based Chowchad.
New Chow Extremity
>>221405045I try.
>>221403893Lol.Watch an old western, slick.
>>221400771Bro. I am watching Mizoguchi and Imamura films. Stop posting about gen Z "elevated horror" slop. None of their horror TRASH will ever be canon no matter how many times they spam it. You are all absolute children with no consciousness of your own. You won't be able to watch a film and understand a single thing happening in it unless ChatGPT summarized it as "a satire of post-war affluence" or "the beginning of the New French Extremity." Ohhhhh now you get it. You have no consciousness. No mind of your own at all. Your whole reference of reality is the mass taste of people you don't realize are literal 12 years old. You, a likely 28 year old male, are being led by 12 year olds. You talk about what 12 year olds talk about. You see what they watch. You are influenced by what they think, you actual man child.
New Manchild Extremity
>>221405228>I am watching Mizoguchi and Imamura films.Entry level.
>>221405228>I am watching Mizoguchi and Imamura filmsExtremely based, which ones have you seen/have on your watchlist?>>221405306Don't be a dick.
>>221405306Heh.
>>221405228I AM THE FOREMOST ALEJANDRO JODOROWSKY SCHOLAR IN THE NORTHERN CONTINENT! I DEMAND RESPECT!
Captain Hook anon wya?
I blew my cousin's dick.
>>221406425That's normal.
>>221406425Male or female?
When I was 14 at our summerhouse I beat off to my cousin from an outhouse. The little window had a clear line of sight to the trampoline she was bouncing on.
>>221406699>outhouseSorry, anon, you got the wrong thread. This one is "arthouse". Outhouse is here: >>221405174
When I was 14 back in the sweltering August of '81 I lit Philippe Marlaud's tent on fire while he was inside asleep.
>>221406787Evil, evil post.
>>221406756Arthouse, outhouse, no difference
>>221403741
>>221406989>no differenceSuch an indian thing to say.
When I was 25 back in '37, my friend and I had a little contest in China...
>>221397159>>221397347Yeah thats why I was surprised by the joke. Well not surprised they were mokcing homosexuals but surprised they used the word gay
>>221407155Going back to the 16th century, "gay" also meant colourful, tacky, unconventional. In the 19th century it gained connotations of being a rebel, a social pariah and later on, a "sexual deviant" or simply promiscuous in general.
>>221406100As in the Spielberg movie? Jokes aside, I also really like this one from Cale's CBGB period. The last 3 minutes are spectacular. https://youtu.be/kUhqEaSJ49g
>>221396253>>221407155they took this from you
no wonder they got divorced desu
lets
h-hot
brokeback
hello lady
>>221408591All style no substance, like most of Martin Scorsese's films. His good stuff is when he shows you what he is, an ultra violent neanderthal with rock n roll music. Even those tend to be for the dumbest among us.
>>221405165Never a bad idea.
>>221405165Okay which one has good fight choreography?
>>221409419The one with Jackie Chan.
>>221387157oh so you'll have a gay edition but not a korea edition, so much for intersectionality, so much for the tolerant left.
>>221409546>intersectionalityCalling Koreans an "insect nationality" is racist, anon.
>>221409546>>221409683Heh.
>swaps Sergei Eisenstein for John Cromwellholy downgrade,ooof Davidluckily the movie went unproduced for 20 years
>>221409991George Stevens > Joe von Sternberg
>>221403696Based.
>>221387157Lav Diaz stuffYay, Nay or Gay?
>>221410863magellan is the best film of the last 5 years
>>221411103The last 5 years are the worst in the history of cinema.
Sir Ridley?
I feel I shouldn't like these films as much as I do. But shit. The pretty faces, the care free bourgeois lifestyle, the earnest conversations about life and love, the nostalgia for that era. It's all too much for me to resist.
>>221411111*stab*>>221411112*smooch*
>>221411222please use the new designated *stab* webm
>>221411112>>221411222The Counselor is a MASTERPIECE
>>221411259If we're gonna use gook shit, can't it at least be the stabbing from Burning?
>>221411259*stab*
>>221411291That's clearly more of a *slash*
>>221411316It gets stabby in the second half but fine here's the official *stab*
>>221411342I don't think you can count throwing a knife as stabbing, anon.
>>221411383AAARGHH!! *takes my frustration out on you*
Ok, I'm new to the artslop and I'm little confused. Where should I begin?
>>221411484Watch Godard until you hate him as much as he himself did. Then come back and partake in the gaslighting campaign that paints him as the greatest ever.
>>221411513Godard is okay through to 1965. You just need to stop there and not be such as masochist.
>>221411513
>>221411484Wake In Fright
>>221411560>All.Greens.2026>starring Natsuki DeguchiDeguchi? Is that her real name?
The bath tub scene from Gummo except the kid is also watching Y Tu Mama Tambien while eating spaghetti
>>221411719seems like a normal japanese name why not
>>221411866>a normal japanese nameYeah, as normal as the English name "Exit", the German name "Ausgang" or the French name "Sortie".
fixin to watch Godard's King Lear tonight coincidentally
>>221409683Bodied that freak.
>>221411484You can begin anywhere, really. I suggest Wild Strawberries (1957)
>>221411484Seven Samurai, Bicycle Thieves, The 400 Blows, Breathless, The Seventh Seal, Citizen Kane, etc... Just a find a filmmaker or era/movement you enjoy and explore that for a while. No point in watching arthouse if you don't actually like arthouse. Or watch Terrence Malick's Knight of Cups. I haven't really seen it, but I've read that there's some wild Hershlag action to be found there.
>>221412455Do you think he cast Molly Ringwald because she bears a certain resemblance to a certain muse of his?
>>221412692Knight of Cups is a good rec. Late Malick is underrated.
>>221411484>>221411513Do this and then dickride either von sternberg or von stroheim even though both their outputs are generally quite mediocre.
>>221412794personally I would've cast her because "Molly Ringwald" is an amusing cartoon character like name
>>221412843Filtered.
>>221412843Filtered by Judeo-Catholic excellence.
>>221412895>>221412901Perfect examples. Then, once you get bored of THIS, you enter late stage /film/™ and begin waifufagging.
So what are the biggest closet cases in /film/ history?Ozu? Eisenstein? Ford?
New Catholic Extremity
>>221412982How many films have you watched lil bro?
>Irish actress Maureen O'Hara says in her memoirs "'Tis Herself" she once walked into filmmaker John Ford's office and saw him kissing a man.>O'Hara and the director collaborated on five films, including the St. Patrick's Day classic "The Quiet Man.">Recalling the incident on the set of the 1955 film, "The Long Gray Line," the 83-year-old screen legend writes: "I walked into his office without knocking and could hardly believe my eyes. Ford had his arms around another man and was kissing him. I was shocked and speechless. I quickly dropped the sketches on the floor, then knelt down to pick them up ...>"They were on opposite sides of the room in a flash," she said.>Identifying the man with Ford only as "one of the most famous leading men in the picture business," O'Hara said he later approached her and asked her why she had never mentioned Ford was gay.>"I answered, 'How could I tell you something I knew nothing about?'"I wonder who the leading man was. Do you think Ford and the Duke had something going on between them? Or Ford and Fonda?
>>221387157I loved this movie. I need more vintage movies with (implied) yuri
>>221413111Why do gen z call being a lesbian yuri? Is it because they look at everything through porn tags?
>>221413068Exorcist 1 and 3 are already perfect.
>>221412982wait a secondIs this the based Louise brooks & Anna May Wong threesome poster?
>>221413177No, that's me.
>>221413150No, not at all. "Yuri" is just a shorter word than "lesbian romance/attraction".
>"This film is a gloryhole. Its a geyser. I have no fear that its going to soak the world when it hits theatres. Its the best time ive ever had in a movie theatre. Ever."So /film/ did Kristen Stewart's review of Teenage Sex make you more excited than you already were?
>>221413202Just say lesbian? What could you possibly think people would misunderstand
>>221413214No. One of the promo photographies reeked of le cinematic references, le do you remember this??. Dropped. I'm sorry Fixbro.
>>221388805>the left have massive empathetic blindspots>Elaborate on thatI can do that. So take crime for example. The left always wants endless sympathy for bad actors. They want to cry about why a pedophile, murderer, rapist, or violent psychopath committed a crime. So they demand release of these people, or leftist judges do concurrent sentencing, or deem the criminal unfit to stand trial due to competency. And you pat yourself on the back and say to yourself “I’m so much better than everyone else! Other people wanted that bad person locked up forever.” And then, obviously and inevitably, the criminal hurts, rapes, or kills again. So your empathy for someone, now permanently destroys entire families of people. You don’t care, because you never make the connection in your head, or, you tell yourself that you at least tried to fix the bad person, so the dead kid is worth your good feelings. Illegal immigration is very similar here. You tell yourself you are generous, and see everyone else as the same, so let’s not have borders. Then people flood in, and use the limited resources we have, and our own citizens are neglected, and live in tents and subsist on fentanyl. Not to mention, every rape victim, kidnap victim, or death that happens by illegals was your doing. It wouldn’t have ever taken place if not for your self indulgent empathy. Here’s one I heard I thought was interesting. Are you against the sex offender registry? If you welcome in millions of men into the country, then yes, you are. Because there are sex offenders, and you don’t find out until more children or women are hurt or killed. There is a myriad of short sighted policies on the left that mirror this, because the modern left is about the immediacy of feeling good, and not about rationally thinking things out over the long term.
>>221413277Mr. Boll?
>>221413277Source?
Sir Uwe Boll
Sar Uwe Boll
Stop the boats, bring the browns down.
>>221413078I'm glad you asked! As pertains to this discussion, I've watched 9 von sternberg films, 2 von stroheim, and 51 silent films in general. How about you?>>221413177I post both of them but have no idea what you're talking about. Pretty sure the whole anna mae wong lesbian thing was just a rumor too.
Make it a Gertrud edition.
NEW>>221413386NEW>>221413386NEW>>221413386NEW>>221413386NEW>>221413386
>>221413242You're right, I will next time.
>>221413033Someone needs to make a chart (there'll be overlap with the sodomite chart).
>>221413378>51 silent films in generalGlad to see you're not one of those tryhards who stat-pad with hundreds of 1-minute shorts from the late 19th century.
>>2214133782 von sternbergs, 7 von stroheims, 53 silent features.
>>221413604>>221413632
bump of /film/
