|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 20, 2020 23:59:13 GMT
For film there are much better sources than the public library, especially online. Why would you be so dismissive/limited when it comes to artist who don't agree with you? I don't agree with Bresson and Dreyer, but they're both among my favorite filmmakers. Hell, The Passion of Joan of Arc is one of the handful of films I'd have no problem declaring the best ever made, and it was clearly made by a passionate believer. He surely cannot judge the entertainment value of these movies without watching them? He probably does it the same way he judges science that doesn't agree with him without knowing anything about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 21, 2020 0:06:34 GMT
You might consider yourself a "dilettante," but to others it's like you have a lunch box with Ingmar Bergman on it. I said I considered myself a dilettante about most things besides my profession and the arts. I've actually studied film. If I have a lunchbox with Ingmar Bergman on it then I'm in good company.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 21, 2020 8:14:12 GMT
You might consider yourself a "dilettante," but to others it's like you have a lunch box with Ingmar Bergman on it. I said I considered myself a dilettante about most things besides my profession and the arts. I've actually studied film. If I have a lunchbox with Ingmar Bergman on it then I'm in good company. Far be it from me to spoil your enjoyment of movies, Ingmar Bergman, or Batman. Have you heard the expression, "There's no accounting for personal tastes."? In my long life's experience (that gets no respect here) I've found that expression to be true. And what did you expect at an obituary, btw? Good riddance?
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 21, 2020 12:47:07 GMT
Ingmar Bergman, undeniably one of the greatest filmmakers ever, came up with three movies that primarily dealt with pointlessness of believing in God, love and relations. In one of the movie, it is hinted that belief in god can be rationally explained as illusion of a sick mind. Most of these films deal with loss of faith. One would say with loss of faith in god but I suspect with loss of faith in all forms of spirituality itself. Have you guys seen these films? I did see all 3 around 2008 or 2009 and I would probably see them again pretty soon. Through a Glass Darkly Winter Light (1963)The Silence (1963) Seems as profitable as watching paint dry. Have you seen Cecil B. DeMille? Since it appears you prefer DeMille over the great Bergman, I can recommend his The Godless Girl of 1928. www.imdb.com/title/tt0019935/ in which two teenagers, one an atheist and the other a Christian, fall in love at a brutal reform school. It's no masterpiece, but is interesting enough to be entertaining hokum of the period.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on May 21, 2020 16:17:51 GMT
Seems as profitable as watching paint dry. Have you seen Cecil B. DeMille? Why do you think it's not profitable to watch Bergman movies? I usually see movies that make me show perspectives on human behaviour. Bergman made his movies in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. President Eisenhower said about Sweden in 1960s that: That alone makes it very intriguing to understand Swedish Society and the best way to do that is to watch Swedish Cinema. It also gives me opportunity to see if what the American president was saying is true or he was not able to understand them. I do not have to believe in things depicted in Bergman's movies to enjoy his movies. Eisenhower was quite vehemently anti-communist and anti-union, so his take on Sweden's economy doesn't surprise me (though they're not really a socialist nation). Though interestingly enough Eisenhower did expand social security and was a strong critic of Joseph McCarthy (one of the the most infamous anti-communist politicians of all time)
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 21, 2020 23:59:49 GMT
Seems as profitable as watching paint dry. Have you seen Cecil B. DeMille? Since it appears you prefer DeMille over the great Bergman, I can recommend his The Godless Girl of 1928. www.imdb.com/title/tt0019935/ in which two teenagers, one an atheist and the other a Christian, fall in love at a brutal reform school. It's no masterpiece, but is interesting enough to be entertaining hokum of the period. I never expect anyone to be totally anything. I don't hold the past against anyone. I'm not sure what you think you are accomplishing here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 22, 2020 0:08:56 GMT
I said I considered myself a dilettante about most things besides my profession and the arts. I've actually studied film. If I have a lunchbox with Ingmar Bergman on it then I'm in good company. Far be it from me to spoil your enjoyment of movies, Ingmar Bergman, or Batman. Have you heard the expression, "There's no accounting for personal tastes."? In my long life's experience (that gets no respect here) I've found that expression to be true. And what did you expect at an obituary, btw? Good riddance? Of course. It dates back to the Latin de gustibus non est disputandum. My issue isn't the fact that you've tried Bergman and found him not to your taste, my issue is that you refuse to try him at all merely because of what (some of) his films are about. Bergman had an extremely long career that spanned 7 decades and he a great many films of great variety. Not all of them deal with God, atheism, faith/doubt, etc. Wild Strawberries is a superb, surreal road movie about an old professor reflecting on his life. Smiles of a Summer Night is a delightful, charming comedy of manners. Persona was one of the key films of the 60s European arthouse style, and is just as daring, original, and stunning today. Fanny & Alexander was semi-autobiographical and is simply one of the best coming-of-age stories in any medium. Scenes from a Marriage is simply about that and features two phenomenal performances by Liv Ullman and Erland Josephson. Shame is an extremely powerful film about the suffering of regular people in war. Hour of the Wolf is a surreal psychological thriller. Cries & Whispers is about the best film ever about what it's like to take care of someone who suffers with a chronic or terminal illness. I mean, I can't imagine anyone with the slightest interest in film as an art form having no interest in seeing any of these films. That article from Roger Ebert wasn't just to show a flattering obituary, it also had quotes from Woody Allen and David Mamet about how great Bergman was. Here's another one from Martin Scorsese: "If you were alive in the 50s and the 60s and of a certain age, a teenager on your way to becoming an adult, and you wanted to make movies, I don't see how you couldn't be influenced by Bergman ....It's impossible to overestimate the effect that those films had on people."
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 22, 2020 0:21:08 GMT
Far be it from me to spoil your enjoyment of movies, Ingmar Bergman, or Batman. Have you heard the expression, "There's no accounting for personal tastes."? In my long life's experience (that gets no respect here) I've found that expression to be true. And what did you expect at an obituary, btw? Good riddance? Of course. It dates back to the Latin de gustibus non est disputandum. My issue isn't the fact that you've tried Bergman and found him not to your taste, my issue is that you refuse to try him at all merely because of what (some of) his films are about. Bergman had an extremely long career that spanned 7 decades and he a great many films of great variety. Not all of them deal with God, atheism, faith/doubt, etc. Wild Strawberries is a superb, surreal road movie about an old professor reflecting on his life. Smiles of a Summer Night is a delightful, charming comedy of manners. Persona was one of the key films of the 60s European arthouse style, and is just as daring, original, and stunning today. Fanny & Alexander was semi-autobiographical and is simply one of the best coming-of-age stories in any medium. Scenes from a Marriage is simply about that and features two phenomenal performances by Liv Ullman and Erland Josephson. Shame is an extremely powerful film about the suffering of regular people in war. Hour of the Wolf is a surreal psychological thriller. Cries & Whispers is about the best film ever about what it's like to take care of someone who suffers with a chronic or terminal illness. I mean, I can't imagine anyone with the slightest interest in film as an art form having no interest in seeing any of these films. That article from Roger Ebert wasn't just to show a flattering obituary, it also had quotes from Woody Allen and David Mamet about how great Bergman was. Here's another one from Martin Scorsese: "If you were alive in the 50s and the 60s and of a certain age, a teenager on your way to becoming an adult, and you wanted to make movies, I don't see how you couldn't be influenced by Bergman ....It's impossible to overestimate the effect that those films had on people." Film is not "an" art form. It is several entirely different disciplines. The "documentary" if well done can take it's place among the textbooks. Otherwise films are not really as enlightening as they are entertaining, if they even are entertaining at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 22, 2020 0:27:26 GMT
Of course. It dates back to the Latin de gustibus non est disputandum. My issue isn't the fact that you've tried Bergman and found him not to your taste, my issue is that you refuse to try him at all merely because of what (some of) his films are about. Bergman had an extremely long career that spanned 7 decades and he a great many films of great variety. Not all of them deal with God, atheism, faith/doubt, etc. Wild Strawberries is a superb, surreal road movie about an old professor reflecting on his life. Smiles of a Summer Night is a delightful, charming comedy of manners. Persona was one of the key films of the 60s European arthouse style, and is just as daring, original, and stunning today. Fanny & Alexander was semi-autobiographical and is simply one of the best coming-of-age stories in any medium. Scenes from a Marriage is simply about that and features two phenomenal performances by Liv Ullman and Erland Josephson. Shame is an extremely powerful film about the suffering of regular people in war. Hour of the Wolf is a surreal psychological thriller. Cries & Whispers is about the best film ever about what it's like to take care of someone who suffers with a chronic or terminal illness. I mean, I can't imagine anyone with the slightest interest in film as an art form having no interest in seeing any of these films. That article from Roger Ebert wasn't just to show a flattering obituary, it also had quotes from Woody Allen and David Mamet about how great Bergman was. Here's another one from Martin Scorsese: "If you were alive in the 50s and the 60s and of a certain age, a teenager on your way to becoming an adult, and you wanted to make movies, I don't see how you couldn't be influenced by Bergman ....It's impossible to overestimate the effect that those films had on people." Film is not "an" art form. It is several entirely different disciplines. The "documentary" if well done can take it's place among the textbooks. Otherwise films are not really as enlightening as they are entertaining, if they even are entertaining at all. Film is most certainly an art-form. It's a hybrid art-form, the way opera is, but the "many disciplines" involved are brought together to create a harmonious whole. Unless you're someone like Godard who loves to play with the disjunction of sound, music, text, and image, but most filmmakers do not. I'd suggest that either you haven't seen many enlightening films, or are just immune to being enlightened about anything. My experience with you on this forum suggest the latter. I'd also add that entertainment and enlightenment are not mutually exclusive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 22, 2020 0:42:46 GMT
Film is not "an" art form. It is several entirely different disciplines. The "documentary" if well done can take it's place among the textbooks. Otherwise films are not really as enlightening as they are entertaining, if they even are entertaining at all. Film is most certainly an art-form. It's a hybrid art-form, the way opera is, but the "many disciplines" involved are brought together to create a harmonious whole. Unless you're someone like Godard who loves to play with the disjunction of sound, music, text, and image, but most filmmakers do not. I'd suggest that either you haven't seen many enlightening films, or are just immune to being enlightened about anything. My experience with you on this forum suggest the latter. I'd also add that entertainment and enlightenment are not mutually exclusive. I suspect Eva Yojimbo and enlightenment are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 22, 2020 0:45:27 GMT
Film is most certainly an art-form. It's a hybrid art-form, the way opera is, but the "many disciplines" involved are brought together to create a harmonious whole. Unless you're someone like Godard who loves to play with the disjunction of sound, music, text, and image, but most filmmakers do not. I'd suggest that either you haven't seen many enlightening films, or are just immune to being enlightened about anything. My experience with you on this forum suggest the latter. I'd also add that entertainment and enlightenment are not mutually exclusive. I suspect Eva Yojimbo and enlightenment are. It's true that my brand of enlightenment is different than yours, considering yours involved picking opinions and facts out of your posterior and assuming them true. I guess we should all be so enlightened to have that enviable ability.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 22, 2020 0:53:35 GMT
It's true that my brand of enlightenment is different than yours, considering yours involved picking opinions and facts out of your posterior and assuming them true. I guess we should all be so enlightened to have that enviable ability. I'm not the one who needs to catch up.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 22, 2020 1:17:55 GMT
Since it appears you prefer DeMille over the great Bergman, I can recommend his The Godless Girl of 1928. www.imdb.com/title/tt0019935/ in which two teenagers, one an atheist and the other a Christian, fall in love at a brutal reform school. It's no masterpiece, but is interesting enough to be entertaining hokum of the period. I never expect anyone to be totally anything. I don't hold the past against anyone. I'm not sure what you think you are accomplishing here. It was just something I thought you might find of interest. My mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 22, 2020 2:43:53 GMT
I never expect anyone to be totally anything. I don't hold the past against anyone. I'm not sure what you think you are accomplishing here. It was just something I thought you might find of interest. My mistake. One way I pick movies to watch is by the talk generated. Even if I don't like a topic, I'll investigate one that generates much talk. That isn't my only means of selecting, but one that counts somewhat. I have found that the people on this board do know movies very well and often consider their comments. I do not know much about movies myself because they are not among my primary interests. So I appreciate your efforts, but no thanks this time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 22, 2020 3:19:07 GMT
It was just something I thought you might find of interest. My mistake. One way I pick movies to watch is by the talk generated. Even if I don't like a topic, I'll investigate one that generates much talk. Most of what generates talk these days is superhero movies. Some might want to consider more who's doing the talking and how long they've been doing it. Not many films can generate 80 years of talk like Citizen Kane, or 60 like Vertigo.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on May 22, 2020 18:41:23 GMT
One way I pick movies to watch is by the talk generated. Even if I don't like a topic, I'll investigate one that generates much talk. Most of what generates talk these days is superhero movies. Some might want to consider more who's doing the talking and how long they've been doing it. Not many films can generate 80 years of talk like Citizen Kane, or 60 like Vertigo. Speaking of Citizen Kane in this thread, I read once that Bergman hated Citizen Kane, considering it a hoax. Truffaut on the other hand loved it. Degustibus non...
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on May 22, 2020 23:04:12 GMT
what a world
if it takes every last one of you
to realize
my point of view
then so be it
for i
still see it
as a world
with hearts on fire
tooled by
an all too human desire
no god can even aspire to
waltzing through
the walls men clamber to
in a perpetual stew
never knowing the who in you
is the very same in
all of them too
as i meander through
the ups and downs we all do
i see banners of hope
like soap on a rope
dangling from the very thoughts
of resurrecting you in plots
of my own design
for fine wines are indeed for drinking
so i'm thinking
we are all bottles clinking
waiting for the bubbles to rise.
sjw 05/22/2020 inspired at this very moment in time by oh must i.
from the 'beauty series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 23, 2020 0:14:32 GMT
Most of what generates talk these days is superhero movies. Some might want to consider more who's doing the talking and how long they've been doing it. Not many films can generate 80 years of talk like Citizen Kane, or 60 like Vertigo. Speaking of Citizen Kane in this thread, I read once that Bergman hated Citizen Kane, considering it a hoax. Truffaut on the other hand loved it. Degustibus non... It's the way it goes. I always thought Pauline Kael's take on Kane being a "shallow masterpiece" was essentially correct. Welles was a theatrical showman, and he brought all of that showmanship to bear on film technique, essentially synthesizing all that had been done before into one film and adding a few original touches of his own. It reminds me a bit of Joyce's Finnegans Wake; there's no way to be a lover of film/literature and not admire what both do on a technical level, but as works of art I think there's room for dispute. I just think a film like Vertigo, eg, has more to say and says it just as interestingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on May 23, 2020 0:30:58 GMT
Speaking of Citizen Kane in this thread, I read once that Bergman hated Citizen Kane, considering it a hoax. Truffaut on the other hand loved it. Degustibus non... It's the way it goes. I always thought Pauline Kael's take on Kane being a "shallow masterpiece" was essentially correct. Welles was a theatrical showman, and he brought all of that showmanship to bear on film technique, essentially synthesizing all that had been done before into one film and adding a few original touches of his own. It reminds me a bit of Joyce's Finnegans Wake; there's no way to be a lover of film/literature and not admire what both do on a technical level, but as works of art I think there's room for dispute. I just think a film like Vertigo, eg, has more to say and says it just as interestingly. I certainly wouldn't go against the argument that Kane is overrated, and would also agree that Kael was on the right track with this review (though I think she's sometimes a shallow showman herself). In any case, I'm with you with comparing Vertigo and Kane, and at this point I'm much more interested in rewatching the former again. Vertigo is an extraordinary film, a work of a true master genius.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 23, 2020 0:48:36 GMT
It's the way it goes. I always thought Pauline Kael's take on Kane being a "shallow masterpiece" was essentially correct. Welles was a theatrical showman, and he brought all of that showmanship to bear on film technique, essentially synthesizing all that had been done before into one film and adding a few original touches of his own. It reminds me a bit of Joyce's Finnegans Wake; there's no way to be a lover of film/literature and not admire what both do on a technical level, but as works of art I think there's room for dispute. I just think a film like Vertigo, eg, has more to say and says it just as interestingly. I certainly wouldn't go against the argument that Kane is overrated, and would also agree that Kael was on the right track with this review (though I think she's sometimes a shallow showman herself). In any case, I'm with you with comparing Vertigo and Kane, and at this point I'm much more interested in rewatching the former again. Vertigo is an extraordinary film, a work of a true master genius. I'd say that even for Welles I've come to prefer Touch of Evil and The Trial. The former is one of the best films about the corruption of justice I've seen, and it's every bit as cinematically riveting as Kane; while The Trial stands among the best of Bunuel and Lynch as the best surrealist film ever made. I would've thought that Kafka's paranoid fever dream would be impossible to capture on screen, but Welles did it. Hitchcock in general just gets better the more you watch, read about, and discuss him. I think he's as close as film has had to a Shakespeare.
|
|
