Best novelist

what's your favorite bergman

also f for fake, othello and OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND

probably persona or wild strawberries

Magnificent Ambersons weren't liked by orson himself. Studio didn't keep his version of the film.
Also, citizen kane is a good film, but most of the credit for that is due to the strong crew.

really? im more partial to glass darkly. the scene where they do the little impromptu play was absolute magic.

cervantes (OR, homer [the homer who wrote the odyssey aka nausicaa])
orson welles

if anyone says bergman, tarr, or tarkovsky i'm going to do violence

Attached: chimes2.jpg (1120x630, 106K)

wild strawberries is my favorite

Who's best in America?

actually welles did like ambersons, he thought it was a better film than kane. almost all of welles' films were butchered by the studio they still make shattered masterpieces.

>Also, citizen kane is a good film, but most of the credit for that is due to the strong crew.
that idiot kael

>Melville
>Tarkovsky

>Homer is a novelist
kek

>negarestani
>cronenberg

Attached: 2390874092374983.jpg (440x588, 50K)

Sterne
Kaneto Shindo, Dreyer, Nick Ray

Attached: genius.jpg (1404x936, 83K)

John Ford, imo
youtube.com/watch?v=9K8aLxXSyVY

>nescio
>gallo

Attached: MV5BNDM0MjQyNjQ3M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjc5NDgxNjM@._V1_UY317_CR20,0,214,317_AL_.jpg (214x317, 9K)

Based and artspilled

more like
>cronenberg
>korine

i must admit that was bait. classical scholars regard the odyssey as the first novel (for obvious reasons) & call homer the great novelist as well as the great epic poet

i absolutely fucking loathe korine

>Melville
>Bresson

>>gallo
pseud detected

look at this lil pleb nigga

Attached: kids-1-1437502845.jpg (633x339, 33K)

>i must admit that was bait. classical scholars regard the odyssey as the first novel (for obvious reasons) & call homer the great novelist as well as the great epic poet
not a single aspect of this post is true, shut the fuck up retard lmao

>gallo
>pseud
kys

Haven't seen it yet, but I'll remedy to this lacune promptly

Melville
Ford

>Balzac ?
>Werner Herzog for sure

>muh unsimulated oral sex, so brave, so transgressive

Yeah he's best American alright, and that's not a compliment

Since when do so many people think Melville is the best novelist? What the fuck is this?

>Ingmar Bergman
>Ingmar Bergman

or alternately

>Pasolini
>Pasolini

(The Street Kids is actually a very good read)

course it is

Attached: Capture.jpg (479x49, 9K)

i generally dislike all things american, but john ford was a genius, and he had class, so stfu

I liked Fanny and Alexander best

Your opinion is wrong.

Attached: nick.jpg (680x478, 204K)

>he had class
i love john ford, but this is exactly what he didn't have

Attached: hqdefault (1).jpg (480x360, 15K)

Him or Howard Hawks for me

>Faulkner
>Jean Renoir, John ford, Edward Yang, Robert Altman, Ernst Lubitsch

I love u
Ur kinda cool i guess
Finally someone with taste

>Raymond Carver
>Krzysztof Kieślowski

It’s literally an epic poem. It can’t be a novel. A novel is by definition a work of long prose. Anyone calling the Odyssey a novel is trying too hard to have a hot take.

Same user.
Aguirre is my favorite film, but what other movies has he made?

Research about the film mate. Orson knew jackshit about filming when he started to make CK. So the unconventionality came less from his genuis side, and more from his inexperienced side.
What he had is a strong, talented set of crew who perfected the 'creative touch' of his unconventionality.

he was known for putting up a front to intimidate people, but he was an extremely classy and sensitive dude. thats why his films are so melancholy

Pynchon
Jodorowsky

he was an irish drunk. i agree he was sensitive, he was a poet. just class isn't the word i'd choose.

there is serious pent up desire on this board to discuss movies. wish theyd let a few threads roll

I'm wondering how long it took our Europoor here to come up with this magnificent display of wit

Meme tag team

> Stephen King, JK Rowling, Elizabeth Strout, John Green, Ta-Nehsi Coates, Junot Diaz
> Brian DePalma, Brad Bird, Judd Apatow, Greta Gerwig, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Russo Brothers, Joss Whedon

>Also, citizen kane is a good film, but most of the credit for that is due to the strong crew.
lolno

especially since /TV is horrible for actual film fans

>I can't read
>Benning

You like Hsiao-hsien?

>Steinbeck
>Lynch

>Tolstoy
>Tarkovsky

Any other answer is objectively wrong.

>kurt vonnegut, thomas pynchon, franz kafka, alduous huxley
>the coen brothers, quentin tarantino, terry gilliam, yorgos lanthimos

>benning
patrician

reddit: the post

>Tarantino
Get off this board pleb. Yorgos is fucking terrible and tedious too

What's Tarkovsky's best work? Andrei Rublev?

In order
Andrei Rublev, Ivan's Childhood, Mirror, Solaris, Stalker, Nostalgia, Sacrifice

Tarantino is undoubtedly one of the best.
You still haven't got out of the 'it is mainstream so it is average by default' phase huh?

what you're saying is from an interview with orson. sheer ignorance was what gave orson (note that, not toland or mankiewicz) all those bold ideas. and this was his only film with that crew, yet they all share that je ne sais quoi

Based on both counts

>Ctrl+F
>no scorcesse

WHAT THE FUCK LIT?

>dude clouds lmao
jk i love benning

scorcese is a huge filter. if you like him theres no hope

>average
Tarantino’s flicks were so bad they devalued film as a medium.

Turbopleb detected

it's re it's novelistic structure, of the heighest degree of multiple narrators and shifts in time and perspective. it's much closer to a traditional novel than an epic poem in many ways

Andrei Rublev seems to be 3.5 hours, what the hell man
welp, hope this is as good as gone with the wind at holding attention for 4 hrs

Age of Innocence is his best movie, absolutely. Probably his only great film. Anyone who puts Taxi Driver or any of his gangster pictures above that masterpiece is a child.

If you don't like WWS, GF there's no hope for you either

>ctrl+f
>no malick
Yea Forums confirmed for not being pretentious turbohipsters

thank god

Attached: 1b9.jpg (640x539, 44K)

>if the public goes out of its way to lose its childhood faculties, if it pretends to be an incredulous grown-up unable to slip into that sphere where the unreal becomes matter-of-fact, if it insists on hardening itself against the euphoria it is being offered, i am no longer surprised when people complain that producers are inclined to make only films of the most lethal vulgarity
-cocteau

Inglorious and Django are up there with best films of recent times

kek, stop baiting them like this

just for you
>Steinbeck
>Terrence Malick
would also be a strong option, and all American

malick

I would say Solaris by far. I highly recommend it.

"At a low stage of intellectual development," then. I'll use only troglodyte, Cro-Magnon, mongoloid, American, etc. from now on.

>Malick
turbohipster detected

you got me

No! Watch Solaris first. Andrei Rublev is a drag.

AR is a lot more interesting than Solaris tbqh

i would recommend this film wholeheartedly to anyone wants to be 3 hours closer to christmas (at any cost)

should I read the novel first?

No it's completely different

>i would emphasise that this film is the contrary of an intellectual, or 'art' film. i should like to be able to say: 'i don't think, therefore i am.' all thought paralyzes action. and a film is a succession of acts. thought weights it down and embellishes it in an unbearable and pretentious manner. poetry is the opposite of 'poetic'. as soon as someone aspires to being a poet, that person ceases to be one and the poetry makes its escape. this is when people recognize its review view, and congratulate themselves for being subtle enough to understand it.

Not at all, Solaris moved me deeply and even turned me to an existentialist. Nostalghia is his most entertaining film, Andrei Rublev is his biggest drag, Solaris is his most profound, imo.

>Inglorious

A film that shows a kind of an innocent and naive fictional war, without any parallels with what was actually happening in Europe. The kind of thing a 12-year-old would create after seeing one or two shallow documentaries about World War II.

In addition: the Nazis are portrayed as comic book villains, with nothing of depth or humanity (I am not defending men, but the fact that humans, not monsters, were the architects of the holocaust is much more interesting and telling than the childish vision of Tarantino).

Nah, it has as much relation to Tarkovsky as King did to Kubrick’s Shining.

even the plot?
Its based on the book, how would the plot be different?

>Victor Hugo
>Sergio Leone

Fight me.

>all these Melvilles
Moby Dick might be a masterpiece, but he didn’t utterly master the novel as a format outside that one instance.

nazies didnt have any humanity to begin with

Melville
Melville
xD

(I'd actually pick Tarkovsky and Ilyenko, and maybe Tolstoy for the novelist too)

That's wrong as fuck. Calling Odyssey a novel is a bit of literary-theoretical flourish and wank, very few of its elements are comparable to proper novels of the 18th and 19th century.

>Umberto Eco
>Paolo sorrentino

What is great about them? They're simple revenge films filled with vulgarity and violence. Maybe if you're 13 and have no friends they're cool

But this anti-theoretical theory is still a theory. You can't have a theory-free work of art. And the thought/action dichotomy is bogus. Thinking is an act, action is a conceptual category.

>>all these Melvilles
>Moby Dick might be a masterpiece, but he didn’t utterly master the novel as a format outside that one instance.
That’s what i’m saying, very confusing seeing all these Melville GOAT posts, he’s not even top 10. It’s like I’m in the twilight zone

... that's what it's supposed to be. did you think tarantino was trying to make a film that resembled reality?

>the fact that humans, not monsters, were the architects of the holocaust is much more interesting
typical. bet you like psychological horrors

Read up on it. The author got pissed at Tarkovsky for completly changing the themes and ideas expressed

Well since this is a literartue board and we're talking about film, has anyone else seen the Leopard. It's preddy gud

Attached: gattopardo.png (1277x573, 895K)

Yeah that doesn't mean it's good. It's frivolous, juvenile, and uninspiring. It's a typical film saying nazis are bad. Boo-hoo, we've seen that a million times. Plus the dialogue is shallow and pretentious and it's entirely too long

I'm dying to see that, but I have to study for a test. How good is it?

10/10

It's pretty nice, but read the book first. Also study for your fuckin test

kobo abe
jean-luc godard

I am, I'm taking a break lol

>Marquez
>Ken Loach

Attached: The complete bionic chronicles.png (500x775, 765K)

Favorite Godard? Mine's Contempt

>Calling Odyssey a novel is a bit of literary-theoretical flourish and wank, very few of its elements are comparable to proper novels of the 18th and 19th century.
have you read the odyssey? you'll never find a classical scholar, or any moderately intelligent person whose read it, argue that it isn't crucial to the novel and even the early history of the novel. and it stands at the beginning of the great 20th century novel

Attached: JoyceUlysses2.jpg (444x562, 125K)

Kes is his only good film. He's such a pussy too

there has been countless wwii films that preserves authenticity, maybe he thought he would create something different.

Since we're on the topic, if you watched the opening of Inglorious, you shouldn't have any problem seeing the talent tarantino possess both as a filmmaker and a writer This combination is a rare one. Most directors/writers only have one of them.

>Fitzgerald
>Cassavetes

theorizing by it's etymology is idle

>ctrl-f eriksson
>0 results
give me one example of your "best" director celebrating autism WITHOUT prettifying it
youtube.com/watch?v=uKUChOwam_M

It literally is a terrible movie. You've probably never seen anything before 1990, so it's okay.

>Since Ulysses is a novel so is the Odyssey
Yikes

not very psychedelic of you user

my favourites used to be two or three things i know about her and and pierrot le fou, but now my faves are weekend and number two
have you watched the image book yet? it's one of his best too

oh I thought you would engage into a more constructive discussion criticising the scene I've talked about. I guess I overestimated you.

Faulkner
Kurosawa

i think you must've got a little mixed up there

I suggest you read “The Nazy Doctors”, by Robert Jay Lifton. Things are not that simple. Any society and group of people in the world is hold in a civilized place by a small varnish of order that keeps the chaos with a leash. Sometimes the varnish melts.

>fellini
godlike

holy shit even more than leo

Attached: 42.png (363x87, 3K)

>James Joyce
>Shuji Terayama

There's nothing constructive about that movie. The opening shot is probably a blatant ripoff of a Louis Malle movie. It's aesthetics are forced and uninspiring. The dialogue and Hans Landa are whatever. The girl is supposed to be like Harmonica is Once Upon a Time in the West. It's just SJW propaganda. The whole point of the movie is nazis are bad. It's stylistically trite, it's score is decent, the characters are hardly developed. It's overall just irritating in every regard.

nor does it mean it's bad, you can't reproach a fairy tale for being unrealistic.
>entirely too long
the most overused criticism in cinema history. 'a pair of scissors in his hand, each one of them discovers his vocation as a filmmaker. i find it despicable.' -truffaut
no question that there are soft spots in tarantino's film, but however little one may love cinema, there's more pleasure and profit to be had in that extra "half-hour" than in a whole film by von trier or burton

>have you read the odyssey
Yeah, believe it or not.
>you'll never find a classical scholar, or any moderately intelligent person whose read it, argue that it isn't crucial to the novel and even the early history of the novel.
That doesn't make it a novel, you genius. Would writing a drama based off and influenced by a novel make the novel a drama? Also, do you have any proof of this crucial influence on Apuleius, Greek romances or Samuel Richardson, or whatever else you might consider to be the early history of the novel?

if you look at the earliest dramas. their similarities to what we consider dramas are much fewer than the odyssey's to what we consider novels. this is what t.e. lawrence, edith hall, robert graves, etc etc are getting at
>Also, do you have any proof of this crucial influence on Apuleius, Greek romances or Samuel Richardson, or whatever else you might consider to be the early history of the novel?
you don't really need me to point out the parallels between the golden ass and the odyssey

William Faulkner
Nicholas Ray

I'm a true American.

Not if it impedes on the film. Mother and the Whore: 4 hours long and was the perfect length, absolutely loved it. Inglorious was the same thing for 2 hours 45 minutes. DESU I generally prefer longer movies, but Inglorious dragged its feet. Of course, it's not nearly as bad as I am purporting it to be, but I still dislike the movie immensely especially compared to Tarantino's first 2.

You and whatever small circle of tryhard intellects are calling the Odyssey a novel can have at it, as long as you understand it’s an extremely obscure and silly take that is not shared at large and would be laughed at basically everywhere. I’m sure that makes you feel esoteric but I assure you it doesn’t make you look like it.

It's literally just a word. Who gives a fuck? The Odyssey, Iliad, Aeneid, Metamorphoses, DeCameron, Divine Comedy, and the Bible are still terrific works of literature in whatever form.

>if you look at the earliest dramas. their similarities to what we consider dramas are much fewer than the odyssey's to what we consider novels
Wouldn't say so. Both have formal differences and, obviously, massive differences in the worldview presented. Odyssey might have adventures and travels as novels do, but its voice is monologic, for example, style elevated and homogenous, its theme perhaps not as typically epic as the Iliad, but certainly far from unusual in its focus on the public matter, the monarch, and affirmation of the social and moral order.

>this is what t.e. lawrence, edith hall, robert graves, etc etc are getting at
Can't say I care much about some anglos, two of which aren't primarily literary scholars, explaining Homer.

>you don't really need me to point out the parallels between the golden ass and the odyssey
Guy has fantastic adventures, ok, that's a novel. Do you have any other examples beside this one that I don't even think had any substantial influence on the further development of the genre?

But DePalma is good.

where are you getting small circle from?

Lmao what a worthless comment, words have meaning retard, shut the fuck up. And nobody is disputing that great is literature is great. Words shape our reality, yeah let’s just apply the word “novel” to literally every work of literature since it’s just a word bro lmao, fucking idiot

probably from the fact that it’s ubiquitously called an epic poem. if it weren’t a small circle it would be ubiquitously called a novel. very complex, I know.

>What is good about Anna Karenina? It's just a simple book about a woman who gets her heart broken lol

>What is good about Lolita? It's just a simple book about a guy who abused a kid lol

Etymology isn't meaning. Idling is an act as well. The only human state that can't be considered an act is dying, and only specific kinds of dying.

true patrician

>George Welles
Like most others in the thread I agree with
>Orson Orwell

very good as well! What's your favorite Ray film? I have really liked alld that I have seen so far (Bigger than life, Rebel without a cause, Johnny Guitar, In a lonely place). What should I watch next?

They Live By Night most definitely

this post rattled me

Yeah, but he's a bit overrated because he doesn't fully formulate ideas in his movies. Scarface bites into all these deep ideas, but doesn't go all the way. Untouchables drags on. Carrie is probably his best film, but still ends wanting more. Carlito's way is terrible. I haven't seen Phantom of whatever, or the other one with Tavolta though

Read Wittgenstein you fucking moron. You're a dog, and an unwanted one at that. You're arguing a superficial and pedantic matter. "What's a game?" Go fuck yourself faggot

How could you compare literature to cinema. Clearly Anna Karina and Lolita transcend beyond that, while Inglorious falls well short. Not a single critic would say Inglorious is a great film and there's a reason for that. It's a SJW movie too, so dont give me that excuse.

i wasn't saying it isn't an epic poem.
and of course the general non-classical public know very little about the actual texts. it's not ubiquitous among classicists, it's not even an argument. i think this whole discourse must've been based on some kind of misunderstanding, i don't see why anyone who knows the odyssey would disagree

Attached: n.jpg (799x35, 8K)

are you pretending to be retarded or what?
>classical scholars regard the odyssey as the first novel (for obvious reasons) & call homer the great novelist

what? novelist & epic poet aren't mutually exclusive

>Tolstoy, or if he counts- Cervantes
>Pic related is the only choice

Attached: God.jpg (789x994, 340K)

His writing is gimmicky and without substance. His tedious elevation of schlock has dragged down the medium and created a a cinematic ecosystem where schlock of all sorts is regarded as a serious contribution to the medium.

Uwe Boll has more redeemable qualities as a filmmaker.

>Homer
>A writer
Ah, plebs make the board whole.

Attached: handsome-young-man-in-shirt-working-on-laptop-and-smiling-while-sitting.jpg (1300x867, 84K)

>but its voice is monologic
we don't come to odysseus until 4 books in (the first 4 being telemachus' story). and it starts at the present, goes back into the past, returns to the present so the past is reconstructed very cleverly, spliced into the story sometimes straightforwardly sometimes deceitfully (demodocus), and at a certain point the narrator becomes first person. aristotle in his poetics actually says most epics tell the story of one person or one war from start to finish
>style elevated
not in the odyssey. its very neat, close-knit, artful and various. never huge and terrible like the iliad is.
epic belonged to the early man. this homer lived too long after the heroic age to feel assured and large. there is more verbal felicity and less 'poetry'.
obviously the tale was the thing; and that explains the thin and accidental characterisation.
>Can't say I care much about some anglos, two of which aren't primarily literary scholars, explaining Homer.
not sure what to say to that.

or alternately
>Cocteau
>Cocteau

Body Double is his best work.

mahaaa the french!

>novelist
>noun | nov·el·ist | \ˈnäv-list, ˈnä-və-\
>: a person who writes novels

Your rape of logic and any sensible categorization is bordering on bait at this point.

>it starts at the present, goes back into the past, returns to the present so the past is reconstructed very cleverly, spliced into the story sometimes straightforwardly sometimes deceitfully (demodocus), and at a certain point the narrator becomes first person. we don't come to homer until 4 books in (the first 4 being telemachus' story)
Now this is fucking embarrassing.
amazon.com/s?k=bakhtin&ref=is_s

>aristotle in his poetics actually says most epics tell the story of one person or one war from start to finish
Perfectly irrelevant to the matter. And showing or not showing an entire war is certainly not what defines the epic or the novel.

>not in the odyssey. its very neat, close-knit, artful and various. never huge and terrible like the iliad is.
Elevated is not the same as huge and terrible... Stylistically it is not essentially different from Iliad (so - elevated, epic), though it is thematically (which is, for some, grounds for criticism, finding a contradiction in the text here). I'm basing this on what I've read from classical scholars, I have never heard it described as "neat, close-knit", nor would I describe it as such from my own reading. It is very much unlike the Golden Ass, for example.

>epic belonged to the early man. this homer lived too long after the heroic age to feel assured and large. there is more verbal felicity and less 'poetry'.
obviously the tale was the thing; and that explains the thin and accidental characterisation
Now you're just rambling. You have a horrible mess in your head. The epic being defined as a product of the "heroic age" is certainly a spectacular hot take.

Attached: 1547336645458.jpg (680x695, 34K)

>Dostoevsky
>Kubrick

this opinion is fine if you're fresh out of high school, otherwise it's time to grow up and develop your taste

>It's a typical film saying nazis are bad
Did you even watch it? The Nazi's are not portrayed as evil, mass murderers. The one that gets beaten to death with a baseball bat is displayed as courageous. The Americans are displayed as barbaric; they mercilessly kill and scalp their enemies. It is meant to criticize the 'nazi always bad' trope and show that we tolerate this violence against different ideologies.

I'm a sucker for grand displays. I have others I like and need to be in the right mood for these, but they have made an impact on my life I cannot ignore.

well you know defining 'novels' is considered a bit fuzzy, it's not a mathematical category which is going to be perfect. we can rule out the iliad as it's sort of a poetic history but the mythic tales of odysseus journey home...

>amazon.com/s?k=bakhtin&ref=is_s
how exactly do you mean?

>Perfectly irrelevant to the matter
not perfectly irrelevant i shouldn't think.

>Stylistically it is not essentially different from Iliad
it's very different in fact. the iliad has a proper semi-barbaric flavor, in the odyssey every big situation is burked and the writing is soft. graves said it's like comparing le morte d'arthur to bronte's the spell.

>which is, for some, grounds for criticism, finding a contradiction in the text here
what do you mean here?

>I have never heard it described as "neat, close-knit"
funnily, rieu (as well as lawrence) used the same term. i'll give him the last word: 'while the odyssey, with it's well-knit plot, its psychological interest and its interplay of character, is the true ancestor of the long line of novels that have followed it'

Who's the lit equivalent of kieslowski?

>Orson Welles
>One good movie
Is this the average Yea Forumstard talking about movies? Fucking embarrasing

That's obviously a false interpretation of that movie.

Flaubert
Malle

That's because we need a /film/ board.

well, at least no one said christopher nolan

>well you know defining 'novels' is considered a bit fuzzy, it's not a mathematical category which is going to be perfect
For most matters the "long narrative text in verse" definition is perfectly enough. But it was you who started muddling the waters, turning an epic into a novel with some very questionable reasoning.

>>amazon.com/s?k=bakhtin&ref=is_s
>how exactly do you mean?
I mean that you completely missed the point and seem unaware of Bakhtin's understanding of monologism, polyphony, the epic and the novel.

>not perfectly irrelevant i shouldn't think
The lost epics that Aristotle has read can be of little relevance to us today, who have only Homer from that era and more than two additional later millenia of narrative poetry that we ought to classify, hopefully into some relatively clear categories.

>what do you mean here?
Just underlining the point that the Odyssey is stylistically not a particularly various or un-epic text.

>i'll give him the last word: 'while the odyssey, with it's well-knit plot, its psychological interest and its interplay of character, is the true ancestor of the long line of novels that have followed it'
He describes the plot and characters, not the style here. And, again, calling the Odyssey the ancestor of the novel is, as far as I see, still theoretical flourish. "In some aspects it sort of deviates from the norm so it started an another genre" - even though, for now, you have only shown some tenuous connections of it with an ancient novel, and none with the proper modern novel of the 18th century and later.

>iliad has a proper semi-barbaric flavor, in the odyssey every big situation is burked and the writing is soft
I'd honestly be happy to see a comparative stylistic analysis that proves this. Because I see nearly none of it from what I have read.
You're basing all this upon people like Lawrence, Graves, Rieu, people who were recognizable characters, adventurers and poets, who would rather express a peculiar and pompous idea rather than a precise and less entertaining one. This only causes confusion, in the long run.

>Proust probably
>Either Bergman or Ozu

I like your taste

To me his three best movies are the Mirror (personal favourite), Andrei Rublev and Stalker.

Herzog has astounding range in directing. His films are as great as his documentaries. I liked Encounters at the End of the World and Burden of Dreams (although that wasn't Herzog. it was a documentary about his film, if that means anything).

>Burden of Dreams (although that wasn't Herzog. it was a documentary about his film, if that means anything).
Yeah, by Les Blank who a great documentary film maker. You should see his other Herzog docu (Werner Herzog Eats His Shoe) or his docu on garlic

I didn't compare. Just shown that anything can be narrowed down to simplistic terms to look meritless whether it actually has artistic merit or not.

McCarthy
Miyazaki

Top kek

Attached: images (52).jpg (220x200, 10K)

Dosto
Vertov

Good night plebs.

Attached: kant-silhouette.jpg (329x590, 36K)

Cringe

Attached: 47E5F98D-326B-4A14-9819-AE11C6CDFCBB.jpg (378x79, 8K)

Cuaron
youtu.be/9UgLnWJFGHQ

Vertov only made 3 good films.

Has Cuaron ever made anything even remotely worth watching?

not a celebration
eriksson's reign continues

>Mika Waltari
>D.W Griffith / Tarkovsky / Bresson or Lucile Hadzihalilovic

The only true patrician

ne never worte a novel you moron

very based my friend

>long narrative text in verse
you mean prose?
we have verse novels, you know.

>But it was you who started muddling the waters
certainly wasn't
google.com/search?q="odyssey" "the first novel"&oq="odyssey" "the first novel"&aqs=chrome..69i57.3783j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

>I mean that you completely missed the point and seem unaware of Bakhtin's understanding of monologism, polyphony, the epic and the novel.
in bakhtinian terms the odyssey is more of a dialogical novel than a monological epic. j. peradotto notes 'i would venture to say that close readers of homer are far more likely to recognize the odyssey in bakhtin's characterization of the novel than in his account of epic.'

whitmarsh said 'the odyssey, with its combination of travel adventures and marital reunion validated as a correct narrative destination, is the principal foundation-text of romance. to greater or lesser degree, and with varying degrees of specificity, all the novels are descants on the second homeric epic.' & surely the first 'proper modern novel' is don quixote, which is a close brother to the odyssey. & the creative reprocessing of the odyssey in ulysses. f. w. farrar declared that the odyssey was the best novel ever written. the odyssey is universally acknowledged as the ultimate model for the typical novelistic plot. the shape, like the scope, of the odyssean epic enforces its restless, exploratory character: ends are opened, questions raised, alternative voices let loose. the odyssey offered the paradigmatic founding text for tales of separation and travel and, with greater or less explicitness and with varying degrees of sophistication, all extant novels align themselves with this homeric tradition.

in the most fundamental sense, too, the contours of the action in the odyssey are distinctive. where the iliad takes place over a few weeks in one setting, the odyssey travels backwards and forwards in place and in time. if the iliad is ABC the odyssey is BAC, and a complicated sort of BAC too, where the A is the flashback in books ix–xii, and the B is the two separate sequences involving telemachus (i - iv) and odysseus (v - viii)

>peculiar and pompous idea rather than a precise and less entertaining one
odd choice of hill to die on. anyway that isn't the case, it's mentioned in the cambridge companion to homer as as 'the odyssey, the earliest and perhaps greatest of novels in the western legacy', j russo at yale says 'with subtle psychology of this kind the epic comes close to the novel, of which
it is one of the ancestors.'