What does Yea Forums think of Griffith?

>others
I have never seen a Griffith film but I am pretty certain he can't even begin to touch Zulawski
>outdid
Watching pre-code doesn't make you a patrician, nor does it make the movies better

>I have never seen a Griffith film but I am pretty certain he can't even begin to touch Zulawski
AHAHAHAHA dude get a fucking hold of yourself. you haven't even seen a film by him and you're saying he's inferior to your precious arthouse auteurs who haven't received an inkling of the praise and admiration griffith has. Zulawaski's influence is a pimple on the asscheek of the medium compared to griffith's. I'm waiting on the techniques used by these directors that make them superior to griffith.

I already stated I haven't seen a film by him before nor do I plan to
>praise and admiration
are not hard to get when the medium is just starting, money in film is only now beginnig to flow, and the only relevant people are you and some nutty professor looking guy in the east
Nor did there exist any relevant critics to actually criticize you for anything other than moral claims
>influence
I am not talking influence, i'm talking actual better movies
>techniques
He can invent all the techniques he wants, but if others can also use them AND use means he is literally technologically unable to use, then he's at a disadvantage
This isn't a "who offered more" or "who did X first" contest
I'm stating, plain and simple, that film has evolved in every way since Griffith and unless one is a film historian, or gets pleasure out of watching movies for techniques that he's probably already seen again in more recent movies, then there literally isn't a reason to watch Griffith movies

>hasn't seen a Griffith film, but thinks he knows what they're like
Okay, faggot. Maybe you shouldn't talk about a filmmaker you know nothing about

>knows nothing about
Hardly, i have read on what techniques he used and invented, as well as a summary of his life's work, and reviews on those
Still took less time than actually watching one

Killing yourself would save you a lot more time.

I know its hard to find a rebuttal of any sort, but please do try harder

Yeah, why even watch movies when you can just read about them? Who cares about the experience?

>are not hard to get when the medium is just starting, money in film is only now beginnig to flow, and the only relevant people are you and some nutty professor looking guy in the east
I'd argue that establishing the modern cinematic grammar is more of an accomplishment than some literal faggot german like fassbinder has ever made.
>Nor did there exist any relevant critics to actually criticize you for anything other than moral claims
griffith has received praise as the FATHER OF FILM ever since he made his masterpieces, not just WHEN he made them. He's a pantheon director and is respected by any critic worth a shit more than any of your favourite directors.
>I am not talking influence, i'm talking actual better movies
and I'm saying that most filmmakers since then have gleamed his influences without surpassing him
>He can invent all the techniques he wants, but if others can also use them AND use means he is literally technologically unable to use, then he's at a disadvantage
still no examples. HMMMMM

What would i gain from actually watching BoaN that I can't gain from watching a movie that's just as revered but technically better?
Or do i have infinite amounts of time?

>more of an accomplishment
It is
>father of film
He is
>without surpassing
They just have to tie them
>no examples
Literally anything shot at night time without a fucking 12 foot projector

zoomers dont know who he is. we need a /film/ badly

Attached: smugyamachan.jpg (144x175, 6K)

I agree, why watch any movie when a different movie could do basically the same thing?

/film/ died along with 8ch friend

WHY ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT A GUY WHOSE FILMS YOU HAVEN'T SEEN AND REFUSE TO SEE. watch them and realize you were completely wrong or fuck off. find me ONE person who is respected in the film community who believes griffith is a waste of time.

Mostly for enjoyment, which as I pointed out here
is all fine and cool, but there's really no "reason" to
I for instance really like Zulawski
There are many directors with a Zulawski style, but I enjoy watching him
Does the same argument apply to me? Absolutely

8gag always sucked.

Why should I?
I am certain we can all agree he is a great and influential director without whom the film medium would be dead.
But does that actually matter, unless you're a historian?
Should astronauts care for who first invented fusion?
Should musicians care about who first played music?
Should movie-goers care for who first made feature film art by using a camera?

The father of cinema. Anyone who says anything negative about him deserves the rope.

Surpassed maybe only by late Eisenstein.

I should correct myself, the film medium would be vastly different and probably worse off, but not dead

julay.world/film/

Oh, neat, thanks

>Mostly for enjoyment
Birth of a Nation is very entertaining

Perhaps, but it's also 3 hours long and if I use up an entire afternoon to watch a 3 hour movie I've an entire pile of stuff that I prioritize over it

tv is still garbage. You can probably count the number of shows that make it close to cinema quality kino using all your fingers.

he is not considered great just because he was the "first" to do some things. if that was the only reason anyone cared about him he would be totally buried in today's political climate. he is respected because it is widely agreed that ON TOP of being influential to cinema, he also produced some of the greatest films of all time while he was at it. this really isn't difficult to understand.

As far as I know, he *is* buried in today's political climate, though

>examples?
Orson Wellles?

GRIFFITH?

Attached: 32423.jpg (1026x758, 154K)

>film has evolved as a medium in every way since
It got improved in the technology area, but the underlying principles from back then, specially the editing, are still being followed.

why are you so fucking autistic?

@BigMeme4u is a fag

>autistic
How is working a job and having friends, a wife, and family, autistic? Not everyone is a NEET

BASED

The reasons to watch his movies is that they are good and hold up to this day.
Regardless of how film as a medium has advanced technologically, films are more than that.
Is star wars going to be a better movie than metropolis because it has access to cgi?
It is honestly baffling to see such level of close mindedness, so I will just assume you are baiting.
If you are serious, know that you are doing yourself a disservice.

deep focus and nonlinear narrative both done in intolerance

whatever, fag. everything said is correct

There aren't that many movies that are as revered though

on the silver globe is almost 3hrs long too though

Except that there are users that employ those technological merits without creating mainstream popcorn films
CGI in particular you might be right, I don't really take a liking to computers being used instead of actual film (although I did enjoy Waltz with Bashir), but you could never have a Stalker or a Silver Globe without technology

Yeah, but as I said I feel Zulawski is just a better Griffith, so I prioritized his movies and I wasn't let down in the least honestly

>Yeah, but as I said I feel Zulawski is just a better Griffith
but you have't seen Griffith's films.

perhaps, but seems stupid to disregard the entire body of work of another director just because he's old
what would you think of a zoomer who says he is never going to watch a fassbinder film because he is perfectly fine with kiarostami films?

That's indeed true
I far from disregard it, I just don't have time to bother when other directors can and (at least from what literally everyone claims) do use his techniques and/or style along with things that just weren't available then
If I ever get laid off, I'll get around to it, probably
As I did say here
the same applies to me and I'd make the same arguments to convince said zoomer, but I honestly just don't find the Griffith arguments appealing

It just baffles me that for someone who must have a passing interest in film, since fassbinder and zulawski are fairly niche, to have so little curiosity and open mindness to write off a director entirely based on a 'feeling' as you say
I don't mind zoomers being ignorant and close minded, I learned to expect that from those, but come on user you are better than this
watch broken blossom and don't be a prick

Broken blossom I can probably fit in somewhere but only because you're not a fag user

Birth of a Nation is his best film

hell no he is black and white, fuck that

Eisenstein > Griffith

Montage is the essence of filmmaking.

watching Birth of a Nation makes you feel like we're living the same struggle with the same types of people. The most striking part is when that mutt politician gets all these niggers into the state legislature and they predictably act like total niggers, and white cucks support it. It's a 104 year old movie about events from ~150 years ago, but it feels oddly relevant, like a reminder that we're dealing with an ancient problem.

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 18K)

>I don't need to watch any footage of any movie by a given director in order to judge his worth
you can stop posting at any time

where's the klan though? shouldn't they be saving america already?

not really

at least watch this scene if you haven't seen any of it youtube.com/watch?v=8uuCMA-yE64

Attached: 2019-08-28 01.07.49.png (1058x795, 308K)

Griffith did every aspect of montage though

Not really, not on the autistic level of Eisenstein

>Montage is the essence of filmmaking.
Griffith was using collision montage in A Corner in Wheat 15 years before Eisenstein even made a film kek

soviet film schools during that time studied griffith's work religiously

D.W. Griffith achieved what no other known man has ever achieved. To watch his work is like being witness to the beginning of melody, or the first conscious use of the lever or the wheel; the emergence, coordination, and first eloquence of language; the birth of an art: and to realize that this is all the work of one man.

One crude but unquestionable indication of his greatness was his power to create permanent images. All through his work there are images which are as impossible to forget, once you have seen them, as some of the grandest and simplest passages in music or poetry.

The most beautiful single shot I have seen in any movie is the battle charge in The Birth of a Nation. I have heard it praised for its realism, and that is deserved; but it is also far beyond realism. It seems to me to be a perfect realization of a collective dream of what the Civil War was like, as veterans might remember it fifty years later, or as children, fifty years later, might imagine it.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 181K)

This was the one time in movie history that a man of great ability worked freely, in an unspoiled medium, for an unspoiled audience, on a majestic theme which involved all that he was; and brought to it, besides his abilities as an inventor and artist, absolute passion, pity, courage, and honesty. “The Birth of a Nation” is equal with Brady’s photographs, Lincoln’s speeches, Whitman’s war poems; for all its imperfections and absurdities it is equal, in fact, to the best work that has been done in this country. And among moving pictures it is alone, not necessarily as “the greatest” — whatever that means — but as the one great epic, tragic film.

Every single post ITT is pea brain mental midget tier when compared to any 2000 character post from griffithfag.

Shame his schizophrenia got so extreme he left the board completely.

cringe

There is not a man working in movies, or a man who cares for them, who does not owe Griffith more than he owes anybody else.

Griffithfag left because probably he grew up enough to cringe at his low effort shitposts

The death of pioneer filmmaker D.W. Griffith in 1948 prompted this appreciation from The Nation's film critic James Agee.

>low effort
You can critize his post content, but in no way was it low effort.
He'd reply to just one person with multiple 2000 character posts spamming dozens of Griffith film screencaps for hours upon hours. And then you go to another board like Yea Forums and notice that he has been doing the same thing on that board the entire day aswell.
No one could match his (You) game

I know, he wrote a thesis on letterboxd on me as a critic after I made fun of Griffith as inferior to Michael Snow for the lulz

>t. cinephile

Cringe is a word used by cringe people. Kys

kek I remember that
Still nowhere as good as bone tomahawk meltdown though

What about cabiria though?

>what about this poorly made wop flick with no crosscutting

I only saw Intolerance and got kinda tired of getting 'intolerance' hammered on my head every 5-10 minutes. The set and everything else is amazing though.

>he thought Intolerance was actually about intolerance

Attached: 1503805702826.jpg (1149x855, 88K)

I was saying every 5-10 minutes or so, the intertitles keep saying the same things.
"The old hags and their intolerance"
"The Persians and their intolerance"
"The Jews"
"The intolerance of french Catholics"
"..but love between X and Y will triumph!"
"See how the old hags ban X because of their intolerance"

Cringe