|
|
Post by Aj_June on May 18, 2020 17:15:26 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)
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 19, 2020 0:05:45 GMT
Ingmar Bergman's my second favorite filmmaker behind only Hitchcock and I've seen almost all of his films. I can't quite remember when I saw his Faith Trilogy, probably ~10 years ago like yourself. At the time, I remember thinking they seemed like preludes to the, IMO, better "chamber" films that came after like Persona and Cries & Whispers, but they've stuck in my mind a lot over time. The Silence is an especially powerful film, almost reminiscent of The Shining in the way it makes use of its setting, but its horrors are far more human than supernatural. Winter Light has also stuck with me as perhaps Bergman's film that most vividly recalls the spiritual austerity of Dreyer of Bresson, perhaps most reminiscent of Bresson's Diary of a Country Priest. Through a Glass Darkly is, IMO, the least of these films, perhaps only because it's the most conventional. It's still an extremely moody pyschological drama, but I don't feel like it goes as much for the metaphysical aspects as the latter two. Still, they're all powerful in their own way, and even though I still prefer Persona and C&W, these are still absolutely worth seeing by cinephiles and anyone who's interested in the depiction of faith and religion on film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on May 19, 2020 1:10:00 GMT
Ingmar Bergman's my second favorite filmmaker behind only Hitchcock and I've seen almost all of his films. I can't quite remember when I saw his Faith Trilogy, probably ~10 years ago like yourself. At the time, I remember thinking they seemed like preludes to the, IMO, better "chamber" films that came after like Persona and Cries & Whispers, but they've stuck in my mind a lot over time. The Silence is an especially powerful film, almost reminiscent of The Shining in the way it makes use of its setting, but its horrors are far more human than supernatural. Winter Light has also stuck with me as perhaps Bergman's film that most vividly recalls the spiritual austerity of Dreyer of Bresson, perhaps most reminiscent of Bresson's Diary of a Country Priest. Through a Glass Darkly is, IMO, the least of these films, perhaps only because it's the most conventional. It's still an extremely moody pyschological drama, but I don't feel like it goes as much for the metaphysical aspects as the latter two. Still, they're all powerful in their own way, and even though I still prefer Persona and C&W, these are still absolutely worth seeing by cinephiles and anyone who's interested in the depiction of faith and religion on film. Interestingly, Bergman is also my second favourite director of all-time, only behind Luis Bunuel. I read an article recently that Bergman was often called "Protestant atheist". I am not surprised as I never saw cultural richness depicted in his movies as I would in films of Catholic filmmakers. But I believe none of the filmmakers were as able to depict psychological aspects of disturbed human minds as was Bergman. I was introduced to Bergman by a friend who believes Persona is the greatest movie ever made. I myself came to highly appreciate Persona, which I believe is my second favourite Bergman film after Wild Strawberries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 19, 2020 1:29:16 GMT
Ingmar Bergman's my second favorite filmmaker behind only Hitchcock and I've seen almost all of his films. I can't quite remember when I saw his Faith Trilogy, probably ~10 years ago like yourself. At the time, I remember thinking they seemed like preludes to the, IMO, better "chamber" films that came after like Persona and Cries & Whispers, but they've stuck in my mind a lot over time. The Silence is an especially powerful film, almost reminiscent of The Shining in the way it makes use of its setting, but its horrors are far more human than supernatural. Winter Light has also stuck with me as perhaps Bergman's film that most vividly recalls the spiritual austerity of Dreyer of Bresson, perhaps most reminiscent of Bresson's Diary of a Country Priest. Through a Glass Darkly is, IMO, the least of these films, perhaps only because it's the most conventional. It's still an extremely moody pyschological drama, but I don't feel like it goes as much for the metaphysical aspects as the latter two. Still, they're all powerful in their own way, and even though I still prefer Persona and C&W, these are still absolutely worth seeing by cinephiles and anyone who's interested in the depiction of faith and religion on film. Interestingly, Bergman is also my second favourite director of all-time, only behind Luis Bunuel. I read an article recently that Bergman was often called "Protestant atheist". I am not surprised as I never saw cultural richness depicted in his movies as I would in films of Catholic filmmakers. But I believe none of the filmmakers were as able to depict psychological aspects of disturbed human minds as was Bergman. I was introduced to Bergman by a friend who believes Persona is the greatest movie ever made. I myself came to highly appreciate Persona, which I believe is my second favourite Bergman film after Wild Strawberries. I think we've chatted about Bunuel before too; he's definitely in my top 10 (though it's been so long since I updated my list I can't be sure specifically where I'd rank anyone anymore except for my top ~5 or so). Yeah, Bergman was always almost exclusively interested in individuals and characters rather than sociology, and for people who prefer their art to have a more social component I can see why they'd prefer a filmmaker like Bunuel, who was just as interested in history and class as he was in religion and psychology. Bunuel also tended to be "cooler" than Bergman in terms of tone, meaning he kept a more distant, objective perspective while Bergman's films were always intensely personal. Persona was a weird film for me because I remember seeing it as a young cinephile and I just didn't get it all. By the time I rewatched it in my 20s I knew instantly it was a masterpiece and one of the best films ever made. I wrote a really, really long review/analysis of it back in the day. If you'd like to read it I might could hunt it down (my old reviews are kinda scattered around). The Seventh Seal is my favorite Bergman, probably because I saw it at a time in my life when I was having my own crisis of faith and it resonated with me on a deeply personal level. I also love that film's expressionistic aesthetic. Persona is my #2 Bergman, and Fanny & Alexander probably my #3. Wild Strawberries and Cries & Whispers are close for my #4. The latter is also personally meaningful because I know what it's like to take care of someone who lives with excruciating chronic pain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on May 19, 2020 8:52:33 GMT
Interestingly, Bergman is also my second favourite director of all-time, only behind Luis Bunuel. I read an article recently that Bergman was often called "Protestant atheist". I am not surprised as I never saw cultural richness depicted in his movies as I would in films of Catholic filmmakers. But I believe none of the filmmakers were as able to depict psychological aspects of disturbed human minds as was Bergman. I was introduced to Bergman by a friend who believes Persona is the greatest movie ever made. I myself came to highly appreciate Persona, which I believe is my second favourite Bergman film after Wild Strawberries. I think we've chatted about Bunuel before too; he's definitely in my top 10 (though it's been so long since I updated my list I can't be sure specifically where I'd rank anyone anymore except for my top ~5 or so). Yeah, Bergman was always almost exclusively interested in individuals and characters rather than sociology, and for people who prefer their art to have a more social component I can see why they'd prefer a filmmaker like Bunuel, who was just as interested in history and class as he was in religion and psychology. Bunuel also tended to be "cooler" than Bergman in terms of tone, meaning he kept a more distant, objective perspective while Bergman's films were always intensely personal. Persona was a weird film for me because I remember seeing it as a young cinephile and I just didn't get it all. By the time I rewatched it in my 20s I knew instantly it was a masterpiece and one of the best films ever made. I wrote a really, really long review/analysis of it back in the day. If you'd like to read it I might could hunt it down (my old reviews are kinda scattered around). The Seventh Seal is my favorite Bergman, probably because I saw it at a time in my life when I was having my own crisis of faith and it resonated with me on a deeply personal level. I also love that film's expressionistic aesthetic. Persona is my #2 Bergman, and Fanny & Alexander probably my #3. Wild Strawberries and Cries & Whispers are close for my #4. The latter is also personally meaningful because I know what it's like to take care of someone who lives with excruciating chronic pain. Thanks for your ranking, Eva. Interesting because I have seen all those films of Bergman and can compare with my own preferences. If you get time then do share your reviews. But I am not in hurry because I will definitely update this thread once I rewatch trilogy or in fact any Bergman movie dealing with issue of faith or religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 19, 2020 9:55:59 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?
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on May 19, 2020 11:12:34 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? 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on May 19, 2020 20:35:00 GMT
I've seen many of Bergman's movies, but not these three. How would you compare them with some others, like Fanny and Alexander or The Seventh Seal? I'd put Bergman in my top 10 list, and Buñuel easily in my top 5.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 20, 2020 0:03:46 GMT
I think we've chatted about Bunuel before too; he's definitely in my top 10 (though it's been so long since I updated my list I can't be sure specifically where I'd rank anyone anymore except for my top ~5 or so). Yeah, Bergman was always almost exclusively interested in individuals and characters rather than sociology, and for people who prefer their art to have a more social component I can see why they'd prefer a filmmaker like Bunuel, who was just as interested in history and class as he was in religion and psychology. Bunuel also tended to be "cooler" than Bergman in terms of tone, meaning he kept a more distant, objective perspective while Bergman's films were always intensely personal. Persona was a weird film for me because I remember seeing it as a young cinephile and I just didn't get it all. By the time I rewatched it in my 20s I knew instantly it was a masterpiece and one of the best films ever made. I wrote a really, really long review/analysis of it back in the day. If you'd like to read it I might could hunt it down (my old reviews are kinda scattered around). The Seventh Seal is my favorite Bergman, probably because I saw it at a time in my life when I was having my own crisis of faith and it resonated with me on a deeply personal level. I also love that film's expressionistic aesthetic. Persona is my #2 Bergman, and Fanny & Alexander probably my #3. Wild Strawberries and Cries & Whispers are close for my #4. The latter is also personally meaningful because I know what it's like to take care of someone who lives with excruciating chronic pain. Thanks for your ranking, Eva. Interesting because I have seen all those films of Bergman and can compare with my own preferences. If you get time then do share your reviews. But I am not in hurry because I will definitely update this thread once I rewatch trilogy or in fact any Bergman movie dealing with issue of faith or religion. It took some time but I did manage to find my Persona review. It's long and rather pretentious, so apologies:
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 20, 2020 0:03:55 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. I use the public library when I want to keep apprised of the works of people I do not believe agree with me. For example I read Hillary Clinton books on loan from the library. That way I do not have to support them much. The library does buy its copies, but they are used by many people each.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 20, 2020 0:11:02 GMT
I've seen many of Bergman's movies, but not these three. How would you compare them with some others, like Fanny and Alexander or The Seventh Seal? I'd put Bergman in my top 10 list, and Buñuel easily in my top 5. I'd say they're unlike either. Bergman got very expressionistic in the 50s, and The Seventh Seal is the pinnacle of that style. The Virgin Spring ended up being a flop and Bergman thought it was because that style had gone out of fashion (and it rather had; the European art cinema movement spurred by Antonioni and Fellini was on the rise), so for his Faith Trilogy he inaugurated what became known as his "chamber" period. These were films that generally had smaller casts and a much less ostentatious style, that tended to be pretty minimal, but also quite experimental, especially formally. Through a Glass Darkly still has some expressionistic tendencies, but they're dialed down a large degree. Winter Light is probably his first true chamber film, and bears a lot of resemblance to Bresson's Diary of a Country Priest and Dreyer's Ordet (if you've seen either). The Silence is where he starts getting more experimental, and is something a precursor to his masterpiece from that period, Persona. By contrast, Fanny & Alexander is much warmer and more human, for lack of a better word. Throughout his chamber period Bergman is probably at his coldest, but also at the height of his interest in human psychology and our struggle for meaning. They're extremely stark, austere films. Brilliant, but perhaps a bit harder to love than something like Fanny & Alexander, which, despite its occasional heaviness, can be easily appreciated by just about everyone. I think Bergman made monumental masterpieces in all of these periods, so for me it's just a case of "just as great, but very different." You may or may not like them as much depending on your tolerance for that very 60s European style of artiness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 20, 2020 0:13:48 GMT
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. I use the public library when I want to keep apprised of the works of people I do not believe agree with me. 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 20, 2020 0:30:20 GMT
I use the public library when I want to keep apprised of the works of people I do not believe agree with me. 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. I should be more clear. It is more than not agreeing. It is actively disagreeing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 20, 2020 0:50:12 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. I should be more clear. It is more than not agreeing. It is actively disagreeing. I actively disagree with the metaphysical (theological) position Carl Dreyer takes in Ordet but have no problem declaring it a masterpiece. Same thing goes for Handel's Messiah and Bach's Passions/Masses. You have the nerve to lecture non-believers for not understanding/appreciating the art of religion, and yet here I am, a non-believer, appreciating deeply religious works of art, while you can't bring yourself to experience, let alone appreciate, any great works of art by atheists. Hypocrite, much?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 20, 2020 1:06:11 GMT
I should be more clear. It is more than not agreeing. It is actively disagreeing. I actively disagree with the metaphysical (theological) position Carl Dreyer takes in Ordet but have no problem declaring it a masterpiece. Same thing goes for Handel's Messiah and Bach's Passions/Masses. You have the nerve to lecture non-believers for not understanding/appreciating the art of religion, and yet here I am, a non-believer, appreciating deeply religious works of art, while you can't bring yourself to experience, let alone appreciate, any great works of art by atheists. Hypocrite, much? Maybe you're not so much "open minded" as you are disorganized. I have read countless links offered by several atheists here for many years and that does mean reading them with understanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 20, 2020 1:12:14 GMT
I actively disagree with the metaphysical (theological) position Carl Dreyer takes in Ordet but have no problem declaring it a masterpiece. Same thing goes for Handel's Messiah and Bach's Passions/Masses. You have the nerve to lecture non-believers for not understanding/appreciating the art of religion, and yet here I am, a non-believer, appreciating deeply religious works of art, while you can't bring yourself to experience, let alone appreciate, any great works of art by atheists. Hypocrite, much? Maybe you're not so much "open minded" as you are disorganized. I have read countless links offered by several atheists here for many years and that does mean reading them with understanding. WTF does that even mean? I also can't help but notice you (predictably) dodged the (very accurate) accusation about you being a blatant hypocrite on this subject. Just like with science, your appreciation for art only extends to the point that it agrees with what you believe. I don't have to agree with an artist to think they made a work that's rich, powerful, profound, poignant, etc. The famous "moment/event" in Ordet still gives me chills even though I think that metaphysically it's completely absurd; but part of the power of art is to make us feel the power of absurd ideas merely because their appeal is inherent in the human condition, and art is able to represent that condition. However, people like you just see all opposing points of view as a threat, and therefore can't allow themselves to be moved by those who feel differently. Sad for you, I guess, but it certainly puts a damper on your claim to having any real understanding of art.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 20, 2020 1:23:57 GMT
Maybe you're not so much "open minded" as you are disorganized. I have read countless links offered by several atheists here for many years and that does mean reading them with understanding. WTF does that even mean? I also can't help but notice you (predictably) dodged the (very accurate) accusation about you being a blatant hypocrite on this subject. Just like with science, your appreciation for art only extends to the point that it agrees with what you believe. I don't have to agree with an artist to think they made a work that's rich, powerful, profound, poignant, etc. The famous "moment/event" in Ordet still gives me chills even though I think that metaphysically it's completely absurd; but part of the power of art is to make us feel the power of absurd ideas merely because their appeal is inherent in the human condition, and art is able to represent that condition. However, people like you just see all opposing points of view as a threat, and therefore can't allow themselves to be moved by those who feel differently. Sad for you, I guess, but it certainly puts a damper on your claim to having any real understanding of art. Really? You can't guess? Pardon me if you find the repetition annoying, but "knock me over with a feather."
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 20, 2020 1:30:42 GMT
WTF does that even mean? I also can't help but notice you (predictably) dodged the (very accurate) accusation about you being a blatant hypocrite on this subject. Just like with science, your appreciation for art only extends to the point that it agrees with what you believe. I don't have to agree with an artist to think they made a work that's rich, powerful, profound, poignant, etc. The famous "moment/event" in Ordet still gives me chills even though I think that metaphysically it's completely absurd; but part of the power of art is to make us feel the power of absurd ideas merely because their appeal is inherent in the human condition, and art is able to represent that condition. However, people like you just see all opposing points of view as a threat, and therefore can't allow themselves to be moved by those who feel differently. Sad for you, I guess, but it certainly puts a damper on your claim to having any real understanding of art. Really? You can't guess? Pardon me if you find the repetition annoying, but "knock me over with a feather." No, I can't guess what "disorganized" means when it comes to having a broad appreciation for the arts. Ingmar Bergman is widely recognized as one of the greatest filmmakers of all time and you won't watch him because you actively disagree with him? And you claim to appreciate art? What a putz.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 20, 2020 1:49:32 GMT
You might consider yourself a "dilettante," but to others it's like you have a lunch box with Ingmar Bergman on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on May 20, 2020 11:36:47 GMT
I use the public library when I want to keep apprised of the works of people I do not believe agree with me. 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. I really don't get Arlon's stance. If his conviction is strong then how can watching the film harm him? Although I personally don't believe in having such strong ideas that those ideas stop me from even watching movies that go against my ethics. He surely cannot judge the entertainment value of these movies without watching them?
|
|