Are there any film theory books that aren't post modern continental semiotics garbage?

Are there any film theory books that aren't post modern continental semiotics garbage?

Attached: o.jpg (1296x1085, 168K)

Eisenstein's books?

Theory which isn't influenced by semiotics? Good luck.

The correct answer is Marxist theory ofc

Are there any film books which if they talk about a film they talk about the directors intention and not try to add their retarded spin which has no actual relation to what the director made the film about? And also if you know anything where they don't even go over any films but just talk about the medium.

just pick up a manual on mindreading and do the work yourself

What

I think what you're looking for is an autobiography. Do you have any understanding of what criticism/theory is/does?

>autobiography.
I don't think so. It's not history. It's someone making observations about other peoples work or using it as examples for an idea about film they have created. What would that fit under?
>Do you have any understanding of what criticism/theory is/does?
No.

You're asking to be told what the Filmmaker meant and what they intended, why do you expect to get that from a critic/theorist rather than the Filmmaker themselves? How the hell should anyone else know what they meant? That's not the aim of criticism

I'm not asking what a filmmaker meant. You get that from the filmmaker.

I'm asking for books like the normal film books I read where the author uses other films to show some idea he has thought of but I want ones where they actually use the directors intention instead of making up random shit. You understand?

>How the hell should anyone else know what they meant?
A lot of directors do interviews.

Pudovkin on Film Editing

A movie is seven reels of film

Attached: 3E62EA4A-B464-40D6-981E-675B491539B9.jpg (500x1740, 321K)

>I'm not asking what a filmmaker meant.
>Are there any film books which if they talk about a film they talk about the directors intention
It seems you are asking what they meant. The filmmaker's own interpretation is a privileged one, sure, but it's not the only valid one, and it's often completely inaccessible or unknowable. You need to ease up and accept the fact that art lends itself to countless and often contradictory interpretations

Go away. You're making cineastes look more retarded than usual.

Try Paul Schrader's Transcendental Style in Film.

I believe what OP is getting at is that they want a mapping between individual intent and the process of becoming.

That is, not "what did the Originator intend" and not "what Originations can be derived from this work" and more "The filmmaker intended 'this', and so they brought 'this' into being by doing 'that'." Of course, this can be done without having full, undeniable knowledge of the Originator's intentions - though OP might crave some solidity to that ascription.

As for the question itself - I don't know much about film, so I cannot really help you all too much. DFW has an interesting bit in his Charlie Rose interview where he talks about David Lynch a bit, there's also some neat parts in Orson Welles interviews that I think fit match what you're going after.
Ultimately, it might be a good avenue to do what other's suggest, and pick up the tools of Critique/Theory to be able to derive method, and then cross-reference that with what you believe the Originator intended, through autobiography, interviews etc - this way you might be able to pick up on the Originator explicating themselves their method and intention.

>It seems you are asking what they meant.
You realize authors in all types of fields use quotes from people to get their point across right? That doesn't mean it's a book about the fucking person they quoted once.

>The filmmaker's own interpretation is a privileged one, sure, but it's not the only valid one,
It is the only valid one. If the filmmaker is a capitalist and made a capitalist movie that he says is a capitalist movie you can't call it a socialist one because you want it to be really badly. You can if you want to circle jerk with your friends but no one is going to take you seriously.

Theory of Film, by Siegfried Krakauer is a great theorization of the medium until CGI started being used extensively and changed the essence of the medium.

No it didn't, retard.

>It is the only valid one.
Putting aside whether this is true or not for mediums where there is one sole author (literature, painting, etc.), I don't see how you can even begin to argue this for film, which is inherently a collective/collaborative effort. To argue this is to exclude the creative contributions of the actors, screenwriter, cinematographer, production designer, etc etc.

this is a drawing is about how you're a faggot

Attached: le verieusse.png (2120x2504, 427K)

Not him but digital film is fundamentally different from analog film, if not solely for the fact that digital film is no longer directly indexical, and isn't created by the direct imprint of light on the physical film

How are the actors and cinematographers gonna change the film written and directed by a capitalist into a socialist one?

mu, retard

Truths cannot be contradictory so the film cannot have contradictory meanings which are also true, it can of course have multiple meanings. it can have contradictory interpretations some of which are false.

>2019
>not being a trivialist
>not even being a dialetheist
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Hitchcock/Truffaut is perfect

what movie is that screenshot from OP?

Marius

Based but surely as a trivialist you believe what I said is true and that I am also trivialist

Sculpting in Time obviously, how has nobody said this

Word processors fundimentally changed the essence of literature.

Are you going to tell me that cornerstones of film theory, Bazin's The Ontology of The Photographic Image for example, still apply in the same way to digital film?

It didn't apply to animation to begin with, right?

>pwease daddy fiwm mawkew spoonfeed me!!
No worthwhile director ever explained their film

No worthwhile director obscured meaning for intellectual points

>film theory
my god

I HOPE YOU GET CANCER

Of course not, but I'm talking about digital cinematography, not animation

what directors do you love and what directors do you hate

I don't hate many directors. Just because they obscure their movie doesn't automatically mean it's shit or I don't like it but it's a good indicator.

this

Those are the only people who could possibly think film is worth writing about, so no.

>but I want ones where they actually use the directors intention instead of making up random shit.

Read early Robin Wood, e.g., on Hawks and Hitchcock.

Gerald Mast's book on Hawks (pic related)

Attached: Mast on Hawks.jpg (1200x6000, 3.93M)

Going to bed. Keep the thread alive my friends.

Me too. goodnight frens