So, looks like I got filtered

But it does. Soi boys mostly watch Marvel trash, Marvel films are not known for their existential themes. They are story driven films. The stories are completely banal but that's the prime focus.

What is this movie about? Tell me spoilers if you want?

Criminals serving life sentences are chosen to go on one-way space missions. Hijinks inevitability ensue and everyone dies, but not before spending some time in the fucking machine.

>wanting a narrative medium to have a good narrative makes you a disney shill

Attached: 1505320708571.png (300x300, 9K)

>film
>narrative medium
Kek, how retarded are you? Some of the best films of the decade and of all time are very loose on narrative and put focus on characters or other stuff.

"loose" does not mean "non-existent." And character IS story. If you weren't a moron talking out your ass you'd know that.

Not really a horror. Unless you think there's something horrible about Juliette Binoche squatting to catch the semen that's just been shot into her. But then you'd be a fucking faggot

If you define it like that then we can agree but then whoever wrote that High Life has non existent story is wrong.

Accurate

Someone wanted to make Interstellar but with more cum.

Those 2 have almost nothing in common.

Well, they're both shit, they've both got shitty acting, they've both got non-sensical stories but also nice some visuals and some nice musich. Should I go on user?

No. You are wrong. High Life was decent.

>Interstellar
>shitty acting
of all the legitimate flaws you could point out in that movie the acting is not one of them

The film's objectively shit and only defended by pseuds. I was one of Pattinson's biggest advocates but this is the first shit film he's done in like over 5 years

film is a visual medium
characters are as unimportant as story as the two are basically the same. visuals is all that matters.

Marvel films have terrible stories that play backseat to the explosions and quips. They will (and have) gleefully retcon anything that interrupts the action without a second thought or a decent explanation. You're fucking retarded if you think marvel films appeal to people who like good stories

Based and accurate. They also both contain laughable physics and soulless attempts at depth with awkward exposition dumps.

Both Queen of tbe Desert and Life were worse than this.
>You're fucking retarded if you think marvel films appeal to people who like good stories
I didn't say they are good. I said that those films are very story oriented, they have classic narrative structure and way of telling a story is the same. They don't do anything unconventional.

>film is a visual medium
This is what every first year film student parrots. It's objectively, provably untrue in the simple fact that most movies use audio as well as visuals (and even silent films are generally accompanied by a soundtrack).

Wrong
Correct

People who care about story don't want a generic boring story you imbecile. That's what people who don't care about story want. People who care want a well-written original story that enthrals and challenges them. Preferably a story that makes them see something in a new light or reconsider their views on a subject.
You said something stupid, stop trying to pretend otherwise.

If film was a purely visual medium, the best films would literally be travel videos and camera tests. A film like Samsara would be considered the best film ever made. But it's not.
Because films are a combination of story, visuals and sound. All three need to be good.
Also, the cinematography in High Life isn't good enough to justify a comment like that in the first place.

>only defended by pseuds
I've noticed this. I've never seen someone try and defend the terrible writing or inconsistencies. All the criticisms are met with a "oh that's no big deal, have you seen any of the director's other films?"

I'm not a student at all but here's a quote from Andre Bazin on the matter
>The atmosphere and plot of the film are revealed entirely through visual means, using wildly abstract sets and dramatically exaggerated makeup. The film unfolds in an enthralling, completely artificial environment where even the movements of the actors echo the distorted angular shapes of their setting. Bazin is right in stating that such films are an entirely separate art form. The story is conveyed through the intricate interactions between images, lighting, composition, and movement. If The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari was suddenly flooded with sound, its delicate visual poetry would have been destroyed by the harsh invasion of reality. Reality has no place in this hallucinatory world of illusion, its beauty is in its dreamy detachment from the grounded, solid world outside the screen.
Today we see movies like Marvel movies that try to tell you a story like a audiobook. Maybe those things are more to your liking.

>People who care want a well-written original story that enthrals and challenges them. Preferably a story that makes them see something in a new light or reconsider their views on a subject.
Name 5 films that do this

This is what pueds like yourself fail to understand. Film is a dramatic medium. Every detail in the film; the sets, the costumes, the composition, the lighting, every single bit of it echos out from the action characters take to overcome obstacles. That is drama, that is narrative, that is film. The format of film allows for this to be conveyed more heavily on visuals than dialogue as compared to, say, stage theater, but it is foolish and short-sighted to call film a "visual medium."

Vox Lux
On Body & Soul
Arrival
The House That Jack Built
Silence

That's just from the past couple of years.
>inb4 they all suck hurr

Film is a visual medium though.

>Vox Lux
>Arrival
Cringe
>The House That Jack Built
>Silence
Based
Haven't seen On Body and Soul yet.

>Andre 3000

Word?

>The House That Jack Built
Nice to see a feminist movie get mentioned, really loved how Von Trier tackled toxic masculinity in that movie.

This is what pueds like yourself fail to understand. Film is a dramatic medium. Every detail in the film; the sets, the costumes, the composition, the lighting, every single bit of it echos out from the action characters take to overcome obstacles. That is drama, that is narrative, that is film. The format of film allows for this to be conveyed more heavily on visuals than dialogue as compared to, say, stage theater, but it is foolish and short-sighted to call film a "visual medium."

Film is a visual medium tho

What are you talking about? It was a giant middle finger to his critics. After saying that he is a Nazi he comes back to Cannes with a film where the main character goes on a violent rampage against mostly women.

This is what pueds like yourself fail to understand. Film is a dramatic medium. Every detail in the film; the sets, the costumes, the composition, the lighting, every single bit of it echos out from the action characters take to overcome obstacles. That is drama, that is narrative, that is film. The format of film allows for this to be conveyed more heavily on visuals than dialogue as compared to, say, stage theater, but it is foolish and short-sighted to call film a "visual medium."

It was a feminist movie, especially poignant around the scene when he cuts of a womans breast.
Its wise to remember it started out as a anti-trump movie but it is, like anti-christ a feminist movie.
>In a recent interview with The Guardian, the filmmaker said, “‘The House That Jack Built’ celebrates the idea that life is evil and soulless, which is sadly proven by the recent rise of the Homo trumpus – the rat king.”

>actually believing what Von Trier says about his films
He said Antichrist is a feminist film but i think it's very hard to to fully justify that interpretation. Most people see it as women are bad the film.
As far as Jack goes. Do you really believe it started as anti Trump film? I mean, i don't. He is a troll. The scene that you mentioned can be interpreted in many ways, the whole film is really up to interpretation and i wouldn't call it a feminist film. You can read certain parts as that and then there are another parts which directly contradict that.

>Most people see it as women are bad the film.
because most people don't understand how Von Trier uses feminism. The Woman in anti-christ breaks down the patriarchy completely
slate.com/human-interest/2009/10/why-antichrist-is-a-feminist-horror-film.html

As far as The House that Jack built being antit-trump, did you not see the Maga Caps?
Remember that hunting caps are always orange, never that color of red.

Attached: file.png (600x338, 382K)

The house that Jack built is Von Triers attack on white males and their toxic masculinity

Attached: file.png (946x394, 621K)

Von Trier’s message is clear: a nihilistic statement on the mess of our world and specifically America, and the ascent of men who believe declaring yourself the best means you are, with no burden of proof. Jack has Trump-ish vocal and physical tics when delivering his lies; the hunted family wear MAGA-y red caps. The metaphor doesn’t need further explanation, but von Trier jams in a clumsy soliloquy in which Jack moans that the white man is always the bad guy, as he stabs a bound woman.

Pretty sure it was just him dealing with his own demons and insecurities and expressing that through film.
That you project your own issues with the way white males are portrayed in the media says a lot about you.

Some will get hot and bothered over the blatant anti-Americanism that is nothing new for von Trier. For the ill-fated picnic outing with the mother (Sofie Grabol) and her sons, the entire group sports red baseball caps that scream Trump's America even without the MAGA slogan. Other images seem designed to pick at national wounds like the 1998 killing of James Byrd Jr., his body dragged behind a pickup truck; or the barbaric mutilation of Sharon Tate by the Manson family. More than once, Jack points to a culture of indifference that allows murder to go unseen and screams for help to go unheard. The trouble is, it's all a bit obvious to take seriously.

Dillon throws himself unflinchingly into the role, getting progressively more reckless and agitated as Jack's trail of carnage grows. There's droll humor in his aspirations to turn his murders into iconic works of art. He arranges the bodies in trophy photographs that he sends anonymously to local newspapers, signed Mr. Sophistication, with David Bowie's "Fame" used to hammer his hunger for notoriety.

From the outset, Jack tells Verge that he is able to live the life he has by way of a “substantial inheritance,” nodding to his awareness of an inherent white male privilege. In some ways, Jack is the poster boy for the far- and alt-right. He ruminates on Adolf Hitler’s accomplishments in one darkly comedic sequence (itself a nod to Von Trier’s Nazi comments that had him temporarily banned from Cannes in 2011), while Verge – ever the critic and voice of reason – urges Jack to consider a resilient oak tree that stood at Buchenwald and weathered the horrors enacted there.

Jack is also a bit of an incel (the internet term for self-styled “involuntarily celibate” men), who obviously hates and resents women. His repeated comedic failures in his various acts of misogynistic killing could be read as symbolic of male sexual impotence.

In The Heart of Man, first published in 1964, Erich Fromm looks at the problem of good and evil from several interesting perspectives. One is that of the ‘love of life’ versus the ‘love of death’, or biophilia versus necrophilia. We all have within us these opposing tendencies, so there are questions of balance and direction in life.

What is the difference? “Life is characterised by growth in a structured, functional manner, the necrophilous person is driven by all that is mechanical.” Really be in the natural world to know what life is. The opposite is to live in fear, desire control and predictability, demand ‘law and order’.

mary daly envisioned a “biophilic” future where men would exist on the periphery. this is because men, in any and all observable ways, fetishize, revel in and endlessly manufacture death, disease and misery. not life, or anything compatible with life, and especially not anything compatible with life for girls and women. men simply could not be included in a biophilic future, because their very presence (and certainly their centrality) would turn it into something else. whether this is hardwired or not is irrelevant: anyone with sense(s) can see, hear, taste, touch, smell and intuit that men constantly and deliberately manufacture death. some of them literally stick their dicks into corpses, but frighteningly this isnt even the most necrophilic thing they do, is it? or is it? i dont know.

Necrophilia or the love of the dead shows itself in sexual perversion or the ‘morbid desire to be in the presence of a dead body’ (Fromm, 1964, p. 39). However, it is more than that. A person with necrophilous tendencies is drawn to everything that is dead or not alive, including corpses, decay, feces, dirt. They prefer to talk about sickness, funerals, death, destruction, the past; they are ‘cold, distant, devotees of law and order’ (p. 40) and like the use of force. Necrophiles like everything that does not grow but which is mechanical. ‘The necrophilous person is driven by the desire to transform the organic into the inorganic, to approach life mechanially, as if all living persons were things. All living processes, feelings, and thoughts are transformed into things’ (p.41). He continues to provide example in a similar vein but I think the picture he draws is emerging.

The opposite to necrophilia is biophilia, the love of life, the attraction to everything that lives and grows. Preserving life and preventing death is one form of biophilia. Biophilous tendencies can be much more varied and tend to integrate and unite, to fuse with different and opposite entities (this starts on a molecular level but also includes sexual union). This productive orientation expresses itself in curiosity, preference of the new over the old and a functional rather than mechanical approach to life. For biophilia to emerge or be sustained, certain societal conditions need to be in place. Chief among them are the absence of injustice and the presence of freedom to create and innovate.

Dude, wtf?

You see how The House that Jack builds is a feminist movie? Jack cares only for the dead. Tries to make art of the dead and feels like a victim. Can only speak of the world that has been, like Hitler. And he kills women, the biophiliacs.

Shhhhh, don't look at him, user.