I believe that cinema has only produced three geniuses. They are: Stanley Kubrick (2001, The Shining, Barry Lyndon)...

I believe that cinema has only produced three geniuses. They are: Stanley Kubrick (2001, The Shining, Barry Lyndon), Alfred Hitchcock (Vertigo, Rear Window, Psycho), and Akira Kurosawa (Hidden Fortress, Seven Samurai, Ran)

You may end up trying to pull some some obscure director from a country we've never heard of, whose name has no vowels. But the way I am defining this is in simplicity, accessibility, and mastery. This is also the reason Tarkovsky does not make my list (too obscure), Spielberg does not make my list (too pleb), and Chaplin does not make my list (he is a comedian not artist)

I see, once again Ava Duvernay gets passed over for any consideration. Did you see Selma? The artistry on display with jarring cuts and whole new levels of guilt tripping.

shitposting in a thread that will devolve into a shitposting contest

...

These things have nothing to do with the quality of a film in any degree. The only people who treat them like they are objectively good attributes are executives and marketers who want the normalfag audience.

Also, even if those things were objectively good, how does Tarkovsky not make the list but Kubrick does? Compare Solaris and 2001. Which of those films would you say is more simple and accessible, or even which shows a greater mastery of cinema?

Assuming this isn't bait, Tarkovsky isn't really that obscure. Anyone who knows what Ikiru is probably knows what Andrei Rublev is as well, and tons of people know about Stalker because of the video game. If you think Tarkovsky is Obscure, you're a bigger pleb than Spielberg.

You missed out the fourth one.

For you

accessibility is important because it makes the art universal

tarkovsky could not be shown to the average person, they wouldn't get it

Cinema at best, he never got into the KNHO territory. 2001 wasn't kino, even though Kubrick understood a part of the concept of kino, that kino is a poetic sequence of imagery without the purpose of teaching man anything or making a complex plot and symbolism, but instead to reach the deepest soul of man. Visual effects, shallow lifeless actors, noisy symphonic orchestra score, and pretentious grandeur imagery are where 2001 failed at. Kino is destined to be the most truthful form of art, but 2001 is full of fake imagery and pompous, overbearing philosophy. Poets will never be able take 2001 seriously, it is not a film for artists. It is a film for God denying fedora faggots who for no rational reason think that eating prison food in space and having an ayylien skydaddy is awesome.

He's a great experienced crime flick director, but absolutely not KNHO.

Well, okay. He's probably the only japanese director that worth a shit tbh. A kind of Robert Bresson of the East.

You kidding me OP? Everyone knows Ivan's Childhood, Andrei Rublev, Solaris, and Stalker. He's the greatest director (more like directeur) ever lived, no competition. Sculpting in Time and The Interview convinced me that he understood literally every single thing that makes motion picture the most truthful form of art. He's the first person on earth who called out the crime of montage. No one else in the world knows how to make the intuition of kino tantamount to religious faith. Every shot he made is an audiovisual poetry. Tark single-handedly BTFO'd Kubrick and Eisenstein.

Ingmar Bergman. (Seventh Seal, Winter Light, The Virgin Spring)

Seventh Seal, especially, is genius tier.

The only people who wouldn't get Tarkovsky are those who are too autistic to immerse themselves in his films.

The average Russian working class loves Tarkovsky. In Sculpting in Time, Tark deeply respected the opinion of a female engineer who had no clue about filmmaking, yet loved his film. Tark hated intellectual opinions that try to deconstruct his films by using pretentious cinema theories and asking things like "Rain inside the building, what did he mean by this?" For him, cinema is like a meditation, a personal experience of finding truth within ourselves. Tarkovsky had a message that he tried to send to the audience, but only by experiencing his kino we can get ourselves to truly understand the message.


This, too.

Why can't an obscure director be a genius?

HACKS, ALL OF THEM

Yet you add Kubrick to your list? 2001 was infamous for not being understood by audiences upon release.


Yeah, I don't think I've ever seen a film that felt as alive as Andrei Rublev, if that makes any sense.

Stalker is more masterfully made than Andrei Rublev. I mean, Andrei Rublev required a lot of historical research, authentic medieval props, expensive orchestra soundtrack, and hundreds of actors and horses to make. Stalker was nothing but 3 men and a dog walking around a trashed town, without any special effects and barely any score. And a few background actors, of course. It doesn't feel any less alive than Andrei Rublev for me.

2001 is right on the line. it is most peoples first and only taste of kino and only for those last 20 minutes. no pleb or normie would ever watch tarkovsky let alone understand it

Are you fucking retarded? See

...

wat, slavs are mega plebs

Not really. I used to live in Poland and pretty much everyone in this thread was as known over there as Spielberg was in the states, including Tarkovsky.

Also David Lynch was really fucking popular, for some weird reason. Everybody and their mom watched Twin Peaks and Blue Velvet.

How did one of the most handsome filmmakers in the world morph into this?

once he had money, he didnt need to look good to get the nigger pussy. that and hes 72 years old.

He reflects the state of the franchise: bloated and unrecognizable
it's like pottery

POETRY

There are other directors in the ballpark of greatness, but if you look at them closely they are not even close.

have you read the analysis of him by the french? he is kino disguised as flicks

SURE IS PLEB AROUND HERE

MWAAHAA THE HAACSSSSSK

Since when is literally making a live action version of an anime and calling it your own creation considered good?


I have to admit Godard is pretty shit though

You sir, are the pleb.

Nolan is easily arguable as a genius. Memento was 100% original storytelling, a bonafide indie masterpiece + he redefined and took capeshit to a new level.

Was he autistic, or just a cuck?

At least Irranitu has a bit of self respect and ripped off an actual kino director.

Not just a autist but a cuck and pleb as well.

It seems you have spent to much time around /a/nons. Let me give you a hint: /a/ has shit taste. Not all anime is SoL Moeblob Waifushit user.

>>>/film/1208

What did Irranitu plagiarize in particular? This is my 1st time hearing of this.

I don't care about such jointmaking concoction theories. Film making, just like poetry writing, is so much more than just theories, in fact a visionary poet wouldn't be bound by theories in conveying his visions. I want to see the vision and personality of the director and how he connects every, character, scene, and imagery with poetic links, not how much of an unoriginal hack he is that he ripped off other cinematographers. Eisenstein made this theory because pinko jews were a bunch of cold unimaginative atheist dickholes who only knew how to do math and scam people.

Trashed.

And burned.

Just vaporize this autistic shit.

Forgive me, but I think this anime looks silly, annoying, and ridiculously ugly. The "quirky" shots are just there for literally no purpose other than to make the film look fun. The dream sequences don't look and sound like a real dream at all. This rapid pinko montage shit only works for action flicks, and if I wanted to watch action flicks, I'd watch Die Hard or The Rock. Or even Mad Max Fury Road, which had a better montage implementation.

I literally have zero intention to watch this, and every anime in the world, ever.

Say no mo fam.

Every single one of those films was mediocre and you know it. You aren't in film school anymore kid, you don't have to suck up to meme directors anymore.

...

Tony never said a thing about theory, only observations of a particular Director's odd style of editing his work.

Tony added dialogue of Inception to make a comparison to Kon's work.

Kon did that because of his belief that "We each experience space, time, reality, and fantasy at the same time as individuals and also collectively as a society". There is no "quirky shots are just there for literally no purpose other than to make the film look fun" he simply depicted this concept in the medium of film, juxtaposed to the themes he was interested in like all great directors and artists.

user…90% of all artistic works are shit. 9% are good and 1% are great. This goes for all genres and sub-genres of all art forms, and for the collective art of all nations. It's true that most anime is shit, but to say that all anime s shit is a truly ignorant even plebeian opinion. You sound like the Normalfags who think all Japan has to offer is Tentacle-rape Hentai.

i think you forgot someone fam.

>>>/normalfag/

* dialogue discussing Inception

holy shit, no no no no.
not the artist's fault if his audience is dull or slow.

Same shit. Eisenstein formalized the montage theory, and it has been used by 99% of films out there like a spreading tumor. Everyone with more than 80 IQ can notice it.

I don't know how that justifies his shots. Maybe living in the extremely crowded and busy Tokyo gives him the mindset that humans need to be collective and fast paced just like ants? Either way, it's not a healthy belief and lifestyle, he needs to experience solitude in order to envision art.

Hey, Kurosawa is decent. I just don't like animes and mangas, and I don't like them not because they're depraved, but because they're just underwhelming.

And you didn't have to diss hentai. Most of them are unbearable pornographic trash, but have you read yuri hentai mangas? Especially the ones drawn by female artists.

The drawings, including character design, aren't very skilfully made, but they have a certain aesthetic in them. The story is simple, simple conflicts and simple resolutions, but the way it's articulated makes it feel honest and thoughtful. The characters, their sensitivity, and their affection with each other feel weirdly authentic, although sometimes exaggerated, like the closest females in your life that you've ever known personally and most of the time fallen in love with. There is a poetic flow in yuri hentai that gives it an artistic merit in spite of it's simplicity. It's like reading a heart touching poem written by your 8 year old son.


No joke. The Rock and Armageddon have a criterion release. He's no more than a schlocky flickmaker, but a great one at that.

Same guy as

I find his analysis… interesting.

It's so dense. Every single frame has so many things going on.

>>>/4chan/

thats clearly homage and not direct plagiarism. I for one am greatful i got to see some of tarkovskys shots reimagined on the big screen. Is it really all on irranitu? surely the cinematographer is responsible for some composition aswell?

no mention of robert altman?

i know you're just joking, but kill yourself anyway

If your name doesn't end on -ov or -ski you're a pleb director.

tarkovsky isn't hard to get, he just hangs onto shots for too long and no good reason, and plebs don't like that

like i love stalker but that shit puts me to sleep every time i watch it because of how much the shots drag on

props to t-dog though for really making you feel that dread through the length of the shot

As much shitposting there is about this guy, I find he added a lot of depth and interesting shit to the average summer blockbuster.

Y'all niggers need schoolin'.

I don't know about depth, his movies are pretty straightforward, but I'd say his movies work on emotions and have good cinematography, compared to the average studio shit.
Aside from his blockbuster shit, as someone has already said, Memento is a superb original film.

i hope you're not calling his visuals depth

because nothing he's done from 2005 and onward has any real depth to it, except for maybe batman begins, only for being the character focus that it is on bruce/batman, and even then it's barebones since it's just a rich dingus in body armor and nothing else really, complete disgrace to the character.

Is David Fincher a genius, or just shitloads better than all other directors bar a few?

not even close

>>>/autism/

fincher is a good director but that's it, nothing else in his movie is really a result of him, except maybe fight club.

More like "homage." A homage to Tarkovsky would be a revisit to his theme, the spirit of his films, not just blatant shot stealing. Maybe it's TECHNICALLY a homage, but a lame and lazy attempt of homage, the spirit of plagiarism.

If it wasn't Irranitu's fault, then he should be even more ashamed because it means that he never watched a single Tarkovsky film and didn't call out his cinematographer for their plagiarism.


They're film and cinema directors, but not kino directors.

no he didn't
piss off back to reddit, fedorafag

Why is comedy looked down upon by drama fags?
Making people laugh is an art, and it's certainly harder than making them cry

Also no Hayao Miyazaki?
I'm fine if you wanna make the list about live action movies but yopu should specify that in the OP, the dude is a god in my eyes

[checked]
Than what would be a good interpretation of the character?

...

tarko's shots are visually perfect, if you're an edgy faggot who can't keep focus for more than one minute it's not the movie's fault, it's yours

Oh I can focus alright, keyword on "longer than necessary" user.Tark always properly conveyed the point of the shot 20 seconds before he cut it.

Tokyo Godfathers>Millenium Actress>Memories>Perfect Blue>Paranoia Agent>Paprika>>>>>>>JoJo OVA

Miyazaki is an excellent animator and director (sameface notwithstanding), but he's an incredibly average writer. Almost all of his movies are a rehash of the same environmentalist/antiwar themes. Kon, Oshii, Yuasa, Ishiguro, and Nakamura have all directed stuff that I've enjoyed more than anything I've seen by Miyazaki. Hell, I could probably make an argument for Shinbo and Anno (only up through KareKano).

Maybe only for Solaris, since the space station setting looks (appropriately) dull and the characters don't talk very much. But for his other films, no. I think they're long, but extremely colorful shots. His legendary "transparent river" shots and natural landscape of Russia are very beautiful to behold. The lack of jump cuts or montage in the conversation between characters lets you focus on the facial and bodily expressions the actors show. The dialogue in Tark's films are never boring, they're the real action of the films.

If you don't like long meditative shots, try to watch Zerkalo you autist.