Was this the best moment in cìnëma in the last decade?

did refugees steal the phone?

Winter Sleep, which also won a Palme d'Or this decade, is also sort of about that, or more about how full of shit many liberal art intellectuals are.

Being able to make fun of yourself is a positive quality.

Wild Pear Tree too

The Square. Don't bother. It's shit.

well it's clearly not abject shit. It won the palme d'or
it clearly has positive qualities.
If you want to give a valid criticism, actually explain what is bad about it, and say what you liked.

Otherwise your 'it's shit' in contrast to other people saying that it's genius, is absolutely meaningless.

>this is your brain on /pol/

Name a more important scene

Attached: 1444472033112.jpg (389x474, 28K)

This is what happens when a white person listens to too much rap music

>How much inhumanity does it take before we access your humanity

it was going good until the crowd started attacking the monkeyman. Then it was shit.

Palme D'Or means jack shit.

The last few years winners like Dheepan and I, Daniel Blake were also shit. A movie isn't better because you cry into the camera and do lots of tableaus. You better have good writing too and all of these fail big time. You can tell it's written by a blogosphere type hipster loser.

>it's bad because it sucks!
way to argue a point, champ

You seem to be unaware of the fact you're talking to a tripfag.

Have you actually seen Dheepan & I, Daniel Blake? There's very little crying into the camera in either film as the characters are largely highly resilient and their situations are positive in some ways.

Those films succeed not because of their ideas. They clearly have strong 'agendas' and issues they're discussing, with Dheepan it's the cultural assimilation, war and conflict in sri lanka, what it's like to be a refugee, what slums are like in france, the lives of young people and drug gangs. I, Daniel Blake! is about the benefits system, social welfare, poverty and working class realities.

But I think those ideas and issues are all totally secondary. If the films focused on them, then they wouldn't have been successful. Those two films are good because the struggles of the characters and their performances, plus the story are good. Humanist things. If there's any idea central to both films, it's the question of what a family is. As both films are about makeshift families supporting each other, and overstepping their boundaries.

I think you could totally ignore whatever political or social agenda the films have and you'd still get 99% of what they have to offer just if you're a thinking feeling person. Because films don't exist to promote ideas, culture isn't propaganda unless you view it that way. Films exist as entertainment or to make us think and feel about what it means to be human and alive.

I like to say it was and watch art majors sperg out

This still remains Ostlund's finest film
youtube.com/watch?v=hYTWqLmnjt0

>mfw they're remaking Force Majeure with Will Ferrell and Julia Louis Dreyfus

Attached: banzai.jpg (3648x2736, 3.18M)

t. intellectual inferiority

Back to /pol/, shitbird.

I feel like the main reason I couldn't give a shit about that movie was because it wasn't starring whiny jews.

Attached: throwing money out the window.webm (1280x720, 2.86M)

the movie looked like it paid for itself just by advertising that ski resort.

lol i highly doubt it
>come here if you want to break up your marriage
>oh and it's scary and dangerous

>it's scary and dangerous
so... exactly like skiing?

yeah but that's not the marketing departments pitch

For skiiing, it most certainly is.

The entire point of the movie is the dad freaks out and goes full "FUCK MY WIFE AND KIDS SAVE MYSELF" mode over literally nothing.

yeah not the bus ride or eating in their restaurant though lol
skiing is 'extreme' but the resort with your family is supposed to be comfy and safe

i don't think anyone watched force majeure and felt like taking a skiing holiday with their family

>well it's clearly not abject shit. It won the palme d'or
Pulp Fiction won the Palme d'Or. Some years the standard of entrants is low.

>the resort with your family is supposed to be comfy and safe
and it was. the dad was just a huge pussy. the resort is literally shown surviving an avalanche.

>Humanist things.
Yeah, so "ideas and issues", nonsense. One of the films is about faeces, the other is flat-cap caricatures from a socialist who knows and cares nothing about what the English working class are actually like.

>I think you could totally ignore whatever political or social agenda the films have and you'd still get 99% of what they have to offer just if you're a thinking feeling person.
You're a dipshit.

I, Daniel Blake wasn't about the english working class.

>i don't think anyone watched force majeure and felt like taking a skiing holiday with their family
People know the difference between fiction and reality, you utter spastic. The resort exists, and people will want to go there. People wanted to go to the hotel where they shot the long shot exteriors of The Shining after the movie came out.

It was about Ken Loach's 1945 fantasy of what they're like, yes. Why are you defending something that's for murder candidates?

I saw the trailer for this movie when I went to watch Guardians Of The Galaxy 2. Then after that trailer came the trailer for an egyptian movie about their revolution. Then I knew I walked into the wrong room. Turned out my ticket had the wrong time in it. GOTG2 was in the other room and 1 hour later. I was very curious about this film then and now you reminded me of it. Thanks. Gotta watch it.

Attached: Mintz.jpg (1185x832, 61K)

No you don't, it's crap, objectively inferior to the Christchurch mosque Facebook Live video as art and as entertainment.

Found the movie I was talking about.

youtube.com/watch?v=FWHAsFpfDnM

No, not humanist ideas, not what you can extrapolate from it.
Simply- people. Human experience. Empathy, not in service of anything.

Stating that a movie that is entirely about a person not working is not about the english working class isn't defending the movie. Its more or less calling you a moron.

Then don't say "humanist", humanism is an ideology.

Neither of these films has anything to do with human empathy, both are exclusively populated by sentimental Communist propaganda fingerpuppets.

It's expressing the idiocy of the person who says it. How the fuck can you think that working class people are no longer working class when they're unemployed? Don't waste my time with this troll shit.

>how is an unemployed person no longer employed??

...

ken loach wrote that movie when he was 9? holy shit.

you've just totally ignored my post explaining what I meant, and picked one word to misinterpret and get triggered over.

Have you even seen either film?

Now i understand why you only care what a film is 'about' and not the human content.
You haven't actually seen it, you've just read the tagline.

No, words have meanings you fuck. Yes, I've seen both.

There's no human content to propaganda, user.

>No, words have meanings you fuck
Have another read of my post:
and consider the use of the word 'humanist' in context, and whether what i describe falls under 'humanist things' if you consider;
>Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings
or whether your reply even makes sense if you consider my actual post and not just taking a word out of context to misinterpret and serve your strawman conception of my opinion.

>Yes, I've seen both.
Why? Based on the subject matter, and your idea that a films meaning is paramount, you were inevitably going to hate them. Their astounding quality has been totally lost on you. Enjoying them would have been impossible. I don't even believe you've seen them, but if you have, why?