/film/ - FILM

>>2029
>The Departed
>good let alone patrician

I see why everyone left this board

Have any evidence that people are going or just saying it to be a edglord.

>>2029
So does patrician just mean "stuff I like" now?

>>2033
Thank you for contributing to this film board.

Just take a look at your pointless input to see why everybody has lost interest in this board which has almost zero new content per day now.

>>2037
>So does patrician just mean "stuff I like" now?

Nah, nigga. Patrician means what most people like. Didn't you hear? We all equal nao, and truth and beauty are determined by the majority. If a film is made only to produce money, (e.g. The Departed, 2006), then it's 100% patrician.

>gibes me dat green
>gibes me dem papers

>>2033
not that anon but people like you are the reason I don't post here anymore

this place is no different than /tv/, only a little bit more pretentious. don't explain your reasoning for why a film is bad, just shitpost and laugh at other people's taste, it's sure to engender honest discussion

>>2041
>If a film is made only to produce money

>he thinks he can discern intent

how's 11th grade treating you?

>>2048

<uses the ad hominem fallacy instead logic
11th grade?! We don't have a school system in Romania.

>popular films make $$$
>The Departed made a lot of $$$
>popular films attract a lot of people because they're simple
>most people are simple-minded, so they go to simplistic films
>therefore, The Departed may be a movie for plebs

Also:
>patrician
<flick

Pick one. And don't mistake well-made movies (e.g. The Departed) for patrician movies. The later ones are esoteric, while the former is exoteric. The esoteric/exoteric dimension is constant, whereas the well-/poorly-made film dimension is variable: a patrician movie can be bad, and a pleb one can be good – but still exoteric. An additional dimension is the motive: pleb film: $$$; patrician film: passion.

>>2051
share with the rest of us your rigorous method for discerning filmmaker intent, and also define and list examples of esoteric vs. exoteric films

>>2052

>list examples of esoteric vs. exoteric films

Examples from the Patrician Master Race:
Golem (1980)
An Unfinished Piece for Mechanical Piano (1977)
Satyricon (1969)
Hitler: A Film from Germany (1977)
Schalcken the Painter (1979)
Himiko (1974)
Faust (2011)
Hard to Be a God (2013)

Examples from the Plebfag Community:
Inception (2010)
The Avengers (2011)
Memento (2000)
The Matrix (1999)
Scream (1996)
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
Seven (1995)
No Country for Old Men (2007)
LOTR trilogy
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
The Deaprted (2006)


>discerning filmmaker intent

The amount of $$$ invested in the production is a good indicator of whether they did it for $$$ vs. art. The fact that they put some artistic content in a big budget project is of secondary importance, because the primary motive is a monetary one. Yes, a small budget doesn't eliminate the monetary motive, but here we can look for other type of indicators, like the quality of the story and the number of cliches. Also, there's the case when a film becomes "a hit" without the director's intent (maybe American Graffiti, 1973); it might contain elements that attract a big number of people.

>>2053
>Hard to Be a God (2013)

Without this, because I didn't understant it properly.

>>2055

Maybe one of these.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064063/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095657/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058439/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048382/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0799991/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0819895/

>>2053
Have you considered that "intent" (and perhaps context altogether) is secondary; even unimportant when making a judgement on a film?

If you're going to apply empirical assumptions on every film you may as well throw out big-budget titles that have since been reevaluated after their release for 'artistic content' (Apocalypse Now, 2001, Heaven's Gate) as they were initially developed from an expensive, Hollywood framework.

Why anybody would judge art based on factors that aren't in the art itself (people would argue art is a medium for communication and nothing more) is beyond me.

Study the film itself and not its Wikipedia page/production notes.

>>2053
Nowhere in that long, meandering, rambling shitpost of a response did you enlighten the rest of us on your rigorous method for discerning intent, motive, or "passion".

Furthermore, you seem to have a very naive view of what constitutes "pleb" vs. "patrician", "esoteric" vs. "exoteric", "good" vs. "bad" etc. You seem to think there is a methodological approach to objectively discerning qualities in a field that is entirely subjective.

"Good" is a linguistic construct that you can employ to describe something. Good is not an inherent property of that which you describe, nor is it a form or essence in the platonic or Aristotelian sense, it is just a linguistic construct that you can superimpose.

Subjectively, you can describe anything as good or not-good, and in the Wittgensteinian sense this is the same as saying "yay" or "boo" when different things are presented to you.

You also have the option of inter-subjectivity, where a collection of other constructs are attached to a created definition of good: "A good film, in out model, will have metaphor play, multiple themes, and a non-linear plot," for example, and you can label things as 'good' in relation to that.

On a societal level, people generally employ both.

>What makes something [attain the linguistic construct] good?

Possessing attributes that appeal to your subjective model, one of many inter-subjective models, or a combination of both.

>>2071
This post just gave me cancer.

>>2071
what if a movie is objectively good?

>>2077
This post just gave me AIDS.

>>2077
Why are you following that Romanian faggot around, calling him "based" and sucking his dick? You're both idiots, neither of you can manage to string a sentence together, and neither of you understand what any of the words you use mean.

>>2082
Let me tell you one thing you Wikipedia PhD faggot, I cringe at every single word you’ve written in that post and if I were to deconstruct it from start to finish you would be completely BTFO’d. The thing is this is such a ridiculously huge topic to go into the specifics of subjectivism in art would be impossible not to touch on a myriad of other subjects like post-modernism, politics, authorial intent, the ‘value’ of art in a cultural context, language and exegesis, what is ‘truth’ and how to attain it, sociological contexts and cultural trends and so much fucking more.
You will not get a short answer from me because there is no short answer and I’m not going to namedrop Wittgenstein like the language problem is even in any way more relevant to the discussion than any other of the things I mentioned above, your post shows nothing but the abysmally superficial grasp you have of such complex topics that I don’t even want to have a conversation with you and I’m replying because not doing so would be a disservice to whoever is reading and believing your shit.
This without even disagreeing with what you’re saying, the difference being that you sound like someone who’s just read the Wikipedia page on subjectivism and linguistics and was really looking forward to be able to use expressions such as ‘muh Platonic/Aristotelian antinomy’ (like there is any other way the term has to be intended in the context of philosophy) as opposed to someone who’s done his own load of thinking on the subject.
It also shows such a glaring misunderstanding of post-modernism it’s baffling and concerning to me that so many subjectivityfags have literally 0 reading comprehension.

The conclusion that most post-modernists came to is not 'lol, subjectivism, everything so random!' but that - albeit you can't ultimately come to some orthodox conclusion on a subject - (art in this case), that you can't pin-point exactly what the 'thing' is 'about' (ie the 'meaning' and consequently the 'intent' and the 'value') that doesn't mean this true meaning is going to be completely and utterly elusive to us.
You cannot call a film 'good' but you can, for instance, determine whether a script is poorly written or not, you can say whether it's stilted, unrealistic, awkward. You can see if an actor is doing a bad job or not, and you can conclude whether there's any artistry in the cinematography or the film was evidently shot by somebody who's clueless about things like composition or color theory.

And I can't fucking stand this absolute disregard for the importance of authorial intent and all this fucking death of the author bullshit that was already discussed to death and disagreed with by literally everybody who has talked about it, apart from fucking teenage faggots on /lit/ and now /film/ apparently. Because the discussion you’re referring to in your little wikipedia paragraph never came to the conclusion that it’s completely impossible for a sensible mind to sort of render a focus, in a sense restrict valuable exegetic options in regard to what a work of art, and reflectively the artist, is getting at. The deconstruction starts first and foremost from the question of 'what are those things that are implicitly in the work and what did the author effectively put in the margins, what is the intent?'.

The discussion is never-ending and always open not because everybody's opinion is equally valid, or because meaning or intent can't be discussed in a way that is more sensible than another, but simply because the nature of all things surrounding the conversation itself are constantly changing.
What I'm getting at is that only a slim few can detain some authority on interpretation on a subject and not that 'literally whatever anybody says is true, everybody's opinion is equally valid!' bullshit idiots like you who misinterpret everything they read revel in because it makes them feel like their opinion is just as valid on any subject as an expert’s one.

Subjectivism doesn't mean that I can't let you know your taste is shit if I think so, and I have more authority on interpretation than you, I hope this is clear now.

>>2083
You can project your woeful lack of education of the subject matter onto me all you like. It doesn't change the fact that you don't understand the subject matter, nor have you provided a cogent defense of any of the silly claims you made ITT.

You accuse others of skimming wikipedia articles but everything you've written makes it clear that you are the one here who has not done the proper reading.

so much rekt in this thread like omg like smh

>>2084
Oh, no, the projection argument! Would you like to take this occam's razor sir and kindly shave your neckbeard with it?

I would like to know what this 'silly claims' are because unless not only you have really poor reading comprehension but are also completely retarded it should be clear that me and the Romanian guy are not the same person. I'd gladly defend his exoteric/esoteric position since I think it could lead to some interesting points, just not with somebody who still hasn't disproved any points I already made.

Unless you're talking about my post, in which case I redirect you to Derrida's work which you either haven't read or have blatantly misunderstood and the burden of proof lays on you to show me where he says something different than what I have basically paraphrased from him.
You don't have to take my word for it, that's exactly my point, you can go straight to the source and see for yourself, then you can deconstruct his arguments, not mine, from one of the guys who've written the most about and have one of the biggest authorities on the subject.

>all this autism
this is why this board went to shit

>>2091
right, we should go make more Watchmen and YMS threads instead

>>2092
I will take Watchmen and YMS any time over flinging shit at each other.

Board died when Connoisseur stopped posting.

>>2090
You don't understand Derrida. Judging by your content-free posts, you probably haven't even read Derrida. Even if you had read Derrida, a froggy charlatan isn't the last word on anything, nor do I care how some pseudo-intellectual with a chip on his shoulder interprets a froggy charlatan. I'm still waiting for you and your pleb Romanian friend to meaningfully define any of the terms you have used. And once again, nowhere in your long, meandering, rambling shitpost of a response did you enlighten the rest of us on your rigorous method for discerning intent, motive, or "passion".

I won't hold my breath.

You know what, I'm tired of this shit, I wanted to talk about the points I made and about serious things but when things get to the point of namecalling and 'no-you' sort of arguments there is truly no fucking point anymore. I should have know better and I apologize to the people ITT that were trying to discuss movies.

>>2102
>each of his posts is just name calling
>complains about name calling
never post again please

What's that, did somebody say something? I'm sorry, I can't read plebspeak, I only see these weird symbols