>Writing has Shakespeare
>Music has Beethoven
>Art has Leonardo Davinci
Who is the equivalent for film?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
>Writing has Shakespeare. >Music has Beethoven. >Art has Leonardo Davinci
>Writing has Shakespeare
>Music has Beethoven
>Art has Leonardo Davinci
Who is the equivalent for film?
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Kubrick
This
Lol no.
/thread
Church organs are cool but full orchestras are better.
It literally is, no matter how much people hate the obvious answer.
>few silly horrors
>few silly sci-fis
>OMG MIDWIT BROS FILM IS TOTALLY ART DID YOU SEE THAT CARPET AND FIGHTING MONKEYS
Kubrick is the classic example of artistic instability. He's someone who took on one genre, failed and moved on to another genre. What do we want to call it? Then years and years from one film to another. Years and years of what? Deeply embarrassment by the previous film.
Except he actually made one of the most iconic and defining movies of all time for each genre.
One of the best scifis ever? 2001.
One of the best war movies? Metal jacket and paths of glory.
Best period piece? Barry Lyndon
Best horror? Shining.
And so on
This is so wrong.
>Deeply embarrassed
Where have you heard this? You haven't
A better bait would be that he failed as a photographer and then moved on to making movies, because it's way harder to argue the merit of his photography than his movies. Remember this next time. Or maybe you should repeat this with Howard Hawks: had to switch a genre everytime he produced a turd. Of course it's also hard to argue for anyone who has seen his movies, but because he is less watched here than someone like Kubrick, it would be a better bait.
Murnau.
Alfred Hitchwiener
John Ford or
Funny thing is Vertigo is now creamed over by critics, after being deemed mediocre for years.
His silent movies have now been eclipsed by Asquith's. Cottage on Dartmoor completely blows Blackmail out of the water.
Hitchwiener's American movies are obviously his best, his UK oeuvre is actually very mid.
Am I the only one that still finds vertigo overrated? Rear window is his best imo
chatgpt amirite
Michael Bay
You mean Bach btw
He means Mozart btw
Spielberg.
He's the Steven Spielberg of movies.
I think this is the best answer. Kubrick is... Interesting, like piccasso, but in terms of pure all around beauty of art, Spielberg nailed it back in the day.
Spielberg is like Picasso to me, overrated , hugely popular, prolific but ultimately lacking substance and true grit, emotion and artistic integrity.
Well we'll politely agree to disagree, mate.
but you're fricking wrong and I'm gonna bash your fricking head in with a tire iron. Then you'll see the art I've created all over my fricking walls using your brain matter as my oils.
Would ironically be more artistic than the prole feed Spielberg has produced.
Leni Riefenstahl
>Art has Leonardo Davinci
Frick off da Vinci
Sofia Coppola.
Dolan
Kevin Smith
Film is a lazy modern medium, all it has is a cinematography that tricks the instantly gratified into a true, purely human emotion. It's primarily entertainment, and at very best a lower artform. For whatever it is in those moments of its artistic uniqueness, juxtaposed to the older, far nobler arts which we call the "traditional". And whereby a modern European Christian definition of art is given, the fine art of that definition which the Greeks had sort to thunk all of mans creations, in which there was no specific word for the fine of the arts, but it was known as it were intuitively, that a poet could not exist without divine inspiration. Above all film is extremely overrated by midwits who liked to hail it as the "artwork of the future", and it is only a sign of our modern cultural and artistic decline that it is called the medium of the 20th century. It includes so little worth of itself contrasted to the true arts, but it mercilessly steals what it can to bring to the alter. And on this very stone is sacrificed just as mercilessly any work of art before it that it deems possible to use for its lazy mission, as it corrupts it down to its level. The piece is useful for the specificity of the film, and that is that. From the limited potential of film, to its utterly disastrous manifestation as an art-form, developed under israelites and lukewarm liberals, paedophiles and sodomites.
all that text and the most scathing insult you can end on is 'lukewarm'
You can't talk about the "art vs. entertainment" dichotomy while calling others midtwits jesus christ. You must be 16
Creative genius Ken Kwapis at the height of his career in 1996.
i have to go with Tarkovsky, Kubrick is a good choice in terms of direction but in terms of content i don't think he achieves that level of beauty, with all those dick and fart jokes and on your face crudeness, Tarkovsky made some of the most deep, transcendental, poetic and sensible works of art about humanity that have ever existed
either Roberto Rossellini or
stalker fricking sucks
that's because you have to actually think while watching it anon
not really. its just boring entry level philosophy that pseuds pretend is somehow profound
>Tarkovsky made some of the most deep, transcendental, poetic and sensible works of art about humanity that have ever existed
basic b***h superficial philosophy
It’s a three way between Tarkovsky, Kubrick and Kurosawa INHO
Trakovsky is the biggest piece of shit in history of cinema
>Overdub with mismatched sound and what's happening on screen intensifies
Snyder.
That homosexual couldn't even keep his daughter alive let alone make art
Funny because you'll never have one in the first place.
Neither did Snyder, he had to adopt one and she still killed herself.
adopting is based. Anyways wtf was her problem? I mean her father is fricking rich....
She was with people who weren't original parents and was some college libtard dyke. Adopting is definitely not based. That transcending feeling of a child's longing for his parents will always remain.
I don't understand why they obsess over that. Parents are the ones who take care of you and help you become an adult, the guys who had sex, gave you life and abandoned you are not.
Simple as
Gaspar Noe
david lean
Terrence Malick
Buster Keaton?
Tyler Perry
You can't really make the comparison with film since it's a group effort, which the directors get too much credit for.
Vincent Price
This is going to sound like a strange choice, but the first name that came to my mind was Orson Welles.
How is it strange? Citizen Kane is still one of the greatest films ever made.
SHRIEKING wienerATOO
ART
uh oh looks like someone got filtered
Yeah and it’s not like every single line Shakespeare wrote was pure gold either. Two Gentlemen of Verona? Utterly forgettable, in fact I almost forgot the title. If that supposedly was Shakespeare’s first full length play then it’s safe to say Welles not only exceeded but obliterated Shakespeare’s first play with his first movie
J J Abrams
Neil Breen
The Unknown.
Chopin > Mozart > Beethoven
Vivaldi > everybody to have ever existed
homie never heard of verdi
Verdi doesn't compare, at all.
>Tell me you only have a gr6 in piano without telling me you only have gr6 in piano
Maybe if you'd have said Liszt, you'd have been on to something.
Verdi is great, but for the Italians I think Puccini is better
>Chopin, Vivaldi and Verdi
Great job naming the three favourite composers of plebs all around the world.
That would literally be Chopin, Beethoven and mozart
Sure Mozart and Beethoven are more famous, but do you really think plebs understand or enjoy them more than Verdi and Vivaldi? Superficial Italian melodicism is the shit that classical music playlists are full of.
Not sure what we're arguing. I pretty much agree with your last post. Personally I'm impartial to Rossini and Sain-Saens
I thought you just disagreed with me over who plebs like the most...
>I'm impartial to Rossini and Sain-Saens
Very strange mix. When you say Sain-Saens do you have in mind his late romantic sweetness?
>impartial
You silly billy.
Billy Wilder and everyone else can frick off
Griffith
Vincent Gallo
Billy wilder
Its Fellini
So... you are looking for a filmmaker whose work is old, boring, and depressing? Bergman
>just one opera
Why?
>Vidya has Kojima
>Film will also have Kojima soon
>Vidya has Kojima
ehh...I love MGS, but way too much of everything he ever made, including MGS, was basically collage/pastiche from film, to the point of being basically unattributed plagiarism in many cases
there's simply not enough originality or unique craftsmanship there to merit the comparison
No, that's the creator of Final Fantasy.
Comics: Millar or Moore
Videogames: Miyamoto, Kojima or Meier.
George Lucas
The question should be, "When people think about cinema, who do they think about?" In the West the answer is probably Spielberg or Hitchwiener. Of individual movies it's probably The Godfather.
>Who is the equivalent for film?
There isn't one
There has yet to be someone who has accomplished in the medium of film work of an equivalent calibre to Shakespeare, Beethoven or da Vinci in their respective art forms.
Andrei Tarkovsky.
Movies are not art.
>undisputed master whose works are appreciated by both high and low brow audiences
Yes, I think Kubrick qualifies
no because film is a totally different art form. all those other guys had personal patrons and could work alone in a candle lit room as a servant brought them tea. and the races had not totally degenerated, they still had an unquestionable spirit. today we are lower forms of men, de-evolving. film requires many corporate backers and teams of people. the best film makers have their vision break through all of that, but it's in many ways incomparable to the kind of focus that auteurs of the past could master.
How is an orchestra bringing to life a composition written by Beethoven different to a film production company bringing to life a screenplay written and directed by a film artist?
classical composers were supported by the aristocracy. their only motivation is the art itself and how it makes them seem cultured.
film production companies only care about profit, so demographics and budget are taken into account and changes are made.
>classical composers were supported by the aristocracy
The aristocracy would usually exert creative control over their compositions, Bach especially had to make music only usually for church and they told him what he can and can't do. No different from film studios and producers.
me.
von Trier
Film is not a medium of high art.
You stupid frick. Bach is so obviously the Shakespeare of music.
However, Wagner was the Shakespeare + Beethoven of music.
Bach is the Milton of music.
Jordan Peele
Kurasawa
Hideaki Anno
Anno's a hack. Miike produces true jap kino.
Greg Lansky
Orson Welles probably
>Music has Beethoven
Music has Wagner would be more apt
Writing has Wagner
Music has Wagner
Art has Wagner
Film has Wagner
The Gesamtkunstwerk perfected art.
Based. I only wish he'd been able to get his hands on a film camera.
He didn't need one. He creates a continuity between scenes that is nothing other than cinematic. The panning transition from under the river to the sky through water vapours, the transition through the caves to Nibelheim, the Parsifal travelling scenes, etc. Not to mention the dark room, screen-like image, leitmotifs and unparalleled use of special effects.
>Parsifal contains a number of special effects, such as the suspension of the Spear in the second act and the scenes of transformation between the forest and the temple in the outer acts. For the latter in the first production of Parsifal, the composer decided that a backdrop on rollers, the Wandeldekoration, should move across the stage, producing the illusion that the figures on stage were moving. The Wandeldekoration covered an area of more than 2500 square metres, weighed some 700 kilograms and cost 17,694 marks.
>He creates a continuity between scenes that is nothing other than cinematic.
This is like saying a lake is a poem because it might be poetic. Controlling what you see and hear through editing is what cinema is.
Steven Seagaul
>ctrl+f leone
>0/0 results
Disappointed in you Cinemaphile
>shitty Kurosawa
No thanks.
Tarantino
George Lucas. Unironically
Fir me, right now, I've been watching a lot of Wim Wenders, so recency bias says him. Though as another anon has said, later stages Orson Welles is probablu the right answer. I think F for Fake is the perfect film and the best film of all time.
Film is too plebeian so the answers are going to be too varied because everybody has their own opinion and you can't come to a conclusion.
Additionally film visual and auditory quality is objectively better today than it has ever been. It would be like comparing caveman banging sticks together to mozart. The skills of the caveman is irrelevant given the fact that the tools today are miles beyond anything anyone in the past could do.
>implying Film is an artform on the same level as music, literature, and literal renaissance art
ISHYGDDT
Fellini
>>Art has Leonardo Davinci
Davinci over MIchelangelo. NGMI