Jonathan Rosenbaum's tribute to Bergman: "Scenes From an Overrated Career"
stevetv
Scenes From an Overrated Career
By JONATHAN ROSENBAUM
Chicago
THE first Ingmar Bergman movie I ever saw was "The Magician," at the
Fifth Avenue Cinema in the spring of 1960, when I was 17. The only way
I could watch the film this week after the Swedish director's death
was on a remaindered DVD I bought in Paris. Like many of his films,
"The Magician" hasn't been widely available here for ages.
Nearly all the obituaries I've read take for granted Mr. Bergman's
stature as one of the uncontestable major figures in cinema - for his
serious themes (the loss of religious faith and the waning of
relationships), for his expert direction of actors (many of whom, like
Max von Sydow and Liv Ullmann, he introduced and made famous) and for
the hard severity of his images. If you Google "Ingmar Bergman" and
"great," you get almost six million hits.
Sometimes, though, the best indication of an artist's continuing
vitality is simply what of his work remains visible and is still
talked about. The hard fact is, Mr. Bergman isn't being taught in film
courses or debated by film buffs with the same intensity as Alfred
Hitchcock, Orson Welles and Jean-Luc Godard. His works are seen less
often in retrospectives and on DVD than those of Carl Dreyer and
Robert Bresson - two master filmmakers widely scorned as boring and
pretentious during Mr. Bergman's heyday.
What Mr. Bergman had that those two masters lacked was the power to
entertain - which often meant a reluctance to challenge conventional
film-going habits, as Dreyer did when constructing his peculiar form
of movie space and Bresson did when constructing his peculiar form of
movie acting.
The same qualities that made Mr. Bergman's films go down more easily
than theirs - his fluid storytelling and deftness in handling
actresses, comparable to the skills of a Hollywood professional like
George Cukor - also make them feel less important today, because they
have fewer secrets to impart. What we see is what we get, and what we
hear, however well written or dramatic, are things we're likely to
have heard elsewhere.
So where did the outsized reputation of Mr. Bergman come from? At
least part of his initial appeal in the '50s seems tied to the
sexiness of his actresses and the more relaxed attitudes about nudity
in Sweden; discovering the handsome look of a Bergman film also
clearly meant encountering the beauty of Maj-Britt Nilsson and Harriet
Andersson. And for younger cinephiles like myself, watching Mr.
Bergman's films at the same time I was first encountering directors
like Mr. Godard and Alain Resnais, it was tempting to regard him as a
kindred spirit, the vanguard of a Swedish New Wave.
It was a seductive error, but an error nevertheless. The stylistic
departures I saw in Mr. Bergman's '50s and '60s features - the silent-
movie pastiche in "Sawdust and Tinsel," the punitive use of magic
against a doctor-villain in "The Magician," the aggressive avant-garde
prologue of "Persona" - were actually more functions of his skill and
experience as a theater director than a desire or capacity to change
the language of cinema in order to say something new. If the French
New Wave addressed a new contemporary world, Mr. Bergman's talent was
mainly devoted to preserving and perpetuating an old one.
Curiously, theater is what claimed most of Mr. Bergman's genius, but
cinema is what claimed most of his reputation. He was drawn again and
again to the 19th-century theater of Chekhov, Strindberg and Ibsen -
these were his real roots - and based on the testimony of friends who
saw some of his stage productions when they traveled to Brooklyn,
there's good reason to believe a comprehensive account of his
prodigious theater work, his métier, is long overdue.
We remember the late Michelangelo Antonioni for his mysteriously
vacant pockets of time, Andrei Tarkovsky for his elaborately
choreographed long takes and Orson Welles for his canted angles and
staccato editing. And we remember all three for their deep,
multifaceted investments in the modern world - the same world Mr.
Bergman seemed perpetually in retreat from.
Mr. Bergman simply used film (and later, video) to translate shadow-
plays staged in his mind - relatively private psychodramas about his
own relationships with his cast members, and metaphysical speculations
that at best condensed the thoughts of a few philosophers rather than
expanded them. Riddled with wounds inflicted by Mr. Bergman's strict
Lutheran upbringing and diverse spiritual doubts, these films are at
times too self-absorbed to say much about the larger world, limiting
the relevance that his champions often claim for them.
Above all, his movies aren't so much filmic expressions as expressions
on film. One of the most striking aspects of the use of digital video
in "Saraband," his last feature, is his seeming contempt for the
medium apart from its usefulness as a simple recording device.
Yet what Mr. Bergman was interested in recording was pretty much the
same tormented and tortured neurotic resentments, the same spite and
even the same cruelty that can be traced back to his work of a half-
century ago. Like John Ford, one of Mr. Bergman's favorite directors -
whose taste for silhouettes moving across horizons he shared - he
would endlessly reshuffle his reliable troupe of players, his favorite
sores and obsessions, like shards of glass in a kaleidoscope.
It's strange to realize that his bitter and pinched emotions, once
they were combined with excellent cinematography and superb acting,
could become chic - and revered as emblems of higher purposes in
cinema. But these emotions remain ugly ones, no matter how stylishly
they might be served up.
Even stranger to me was the way he always resonated with New York
audiences. The antiseptic, upscale look of Mr. Bergman's interiors and
his mainly blond, blue-eyed cast members became a brand to be adopted
and emulated. (His artfully presented traumas became so respectable
they could help to sell espresso in the lobby of the Fifth Avenue
Cinema.) Mr. Bergman, famously, not only helped fuel the art-house
aspirations of Woody Allen but Mr. Allen's class aspirations as well -
the dual yearnings ultimately becoming so intertwined that they seemed
identical.
Despite all the compulsive superlatives offered up this week, Mr.
Bergman's star has faded, maybe because we've all grown up a little,
as filmgoers and as socially aware adults. It doesn't diminish his
masterful use of extended close-ups or his distinctively theatrical,
seemingly homemade cinema to suggest that movies can offer something
more complex and challenging. And while Mr. Bergman's films may have
lost much of their pertinence, they will always remain landmarks in
the history of taste.
to see or not to see
> Scenes From an Overrated Career
> By JONATHAN ROSENBAUM
> Chicago
>
>
> vitality is simply what of his work remains visible and is still
> talked about. The hard fact is, Mr. Bergman isn't being taught in film
> courses or debated by film buffs with the same intensity as Alfred
> Hitchcock, Orson Welles and Jean-Luc Godard. His works are seen less
> often in retrospectives and on DVD than those of Carl Dreyer and
> Robert Bresson - two master filmmakers widely scorned as boring and
> pretentious during Mr. Bergman's heyday.
this could be because leftwing jews have completely taken over cine-
academia. indeed, what does rosenbaum mean by 'talked about'? we
should ask, who does the talking? as long as the academia and
cultural institutions are run by leftwing jews, of course bergman will
not be talked about. but, not all movie lovers or likers are leftwing
jews. and in the past films ng, we still talk about bergman--indeed a
hell alot of more than we talk about akerman and guy maddin.
there is more to cinema community that the leftwing jews and their
dimwit goy puppets who hog all the important positions. as long as
people continue to seek out and watch bergman films, they will
continue to be important. indeed, i would say what makes a movie great
isn't so much how much it's talked about but how much it is watched.
few talk about 'it's a wonderful life' but it's watchd yr after yr.
as such, it is a great mooie. let the leftwing jews do all the
talking. we'll just do the gawking.
of course, people who control the talk also partly control the gawk.
newer generations of kids are growing up reading the likes of
rosenbaum and absorbing all the ugly qualities of leftwing jew
politics and attitudes. they are told by people like rosenbaum that
bergman is bad, evil, sucky, and such. meanwhile, people like
akerman, greenaway, campion, and such are Important. ha!! what a
joke.
>
> What Mr. Bergman had that those two masters lacked was the power to
> entertain - which often meant a reluctance to challenge conventional
> film-going habits, as Dreyer did when constructing his peculiar form
> of movie space and Bresson did when constructing his peculiar form of
> movie acting.
this is a leftwing jew fetish for 'radicalism'. now, i'm all for new
ideas and approaches, but we shouldn't make a fetish out of it.
bergman understood cinema and was a master with full control. that
should be enough to be great. also, there are many people who would
disagree with rosenbaum and say bergman's films were challenging and
original.
anyway, originality and innovation are important in the arts, but when
it becomes a fetish we end up prizing worthless morons simply because
they are 'different'. take hou hsiao hsien, the dullest idiot next to
akerman. he's supposed to be hailed simply because he upsets
conventions. for chrissakes, the chinaman is BORING!!!!
same goes for derek jarman. and dumont. and so on. enough already.
>
> The same qualities that made Mr. Bergman's films go down more easily
> than theirs - his fluid storytelling and deftness in handling
> actresses, comparable to the skills of a Hollywood professional like
> George Cukor - also make them feel less important today, because they
> have fewer secrets to impart. What we see is what we get, and what we
> hear, however well written or dramatic, are things we're likely to
> have heard elsewhere.
there is some truth to this. indeed, there may be two film camps. one
camp wants movies that 'go down easily' and don't care for
'radicalism' or innovation. for such folks, hollywood--classic or
current--is wonderful. they love to see gone with the wind or wizard
of oz or stagecoach or ninotchka over and over. or the latest
blockbuster mooie.
the other camp is committed to intellectualism, innovationism, and
such. the idea of accessibility or conventionality is offensive to
them. they love godard, akerman, hou, and dumont, etc.
the problem with bergman was he was somewhere in between. too artsy
and intellectual for the movie movie camp and too accessible/
conventional for the boho-film camp.
this balance between seriousness and entertainment which had been an
advantage in the 50s and 60s for bergman is now a handicap. in the 50s
and 60s, there was an film culture that bridged the art world with the
mainstream. today, art film exists in a cocoon and mainstream film is
pure hollywood. in this climate, bergman is neither/nor.
in a world of ghettoized film culture and amusement park movie
culture, bergman is between a rock and a hard place.
in the 50s and 60s, respectable middle class folks wanted to see some
art films, and intellectuals were eager to have serious art films.
bergman benefitted greatly from this reality. today, middle class
folks just wanna watch tv and dumb mooies. and the film community has
been taken over by hideous leftwing jews who are radical fetishists.
too bad for bergy.
>
> So where did the outsized reputation of Mr. Bergman come from? At
> least part of his initial appeal in the '50s seems tied to the
> sexiness of his actresses and the more relaxed attitudes about nudity
> in Sweden; discovering the handsome look of a Bergman film also
> clearly meant encountering the beauty of Maj-Britt Nilsson and Harriet
> Andersson. And for younger cinephiles like myself, watching Mr.
> Bergman's films at the same time I was first encountering directors
> like Mr. Godard and Alain Resnais, it was tempting to regard him as a
> kindred spirit, the vanguard of a Swedish New Wave.
>
> It was a seductive error, but an error nevertheless. The stylistic
> departures I saw in Mr. Bergman's '50s and '60s features - the silent-
> movie pastiche in "Sawdust and Tinsel," the punitive use of magic
> against a doctor-villain in "The Magician," the aggressive avant-garde
> prologue of "Persona" - were actually more functions of his skill and
> experience as a theater director than a desire or capacity to change
> the language of cinema in order to say something new. If the French
> New Wave addressed a new contemporary world, Mr. Bergman's talent was
> mainly devoted to preserving and perpetuating an old one.
>
there is some truth to this, but rosenbaum is confusing
'innovationism' with better art. again, innovation is welcome in art,
but it is not, in and of itself, the formula for better art.
'seven samurai' gives us conventional storytelling but it is one of
the greatest films ever. hou may be 'radical', but he sucks. and
some resnais films are.. rather underwhelming despite all the fancy
new techniques. 400 blows is 'conventional' but unforgettable.
'woman is a woman' is innovative but sucky wucky. a movie can be
great whether it's 'conventional' or 'innovative'. genius can use
either for the purpose of creating great art. this leftwing jewishy
fetish for the new is really sick and ugly in rosenbaum. and it's
pompous in a wicked way.
personally, i like bergman's 'conventional' early films the most and
care least for this more 'radical' films like Passion of Anna and Mace
to Face.
>
> We remember the late Michelangelo Antonioni for his mysteriously
> vacant pockets of time, Andrei Tarkovsky for his elaborately
> choreographed long takes and Orson Welles for his canted angles and
> staccato editing. And we remember all three for their deep,
> multifaceted investments in the modern world - the same world Mr.
> Bergman seemed perpetually in retreat from.
"we"? since when does rosenbaum speak for all of us? i remember
welles, tarkovsky, antonioni, but also a lot of bergman.
but, i do agree that bergman was less innovative visually than other
masters. bergman was inventive but it's not same as innovative. but,
what a great cinematographer nykvist was.
>
>
> Above all, his movies aren't so much filmic expressions as expressions
> on film.
clever statement with some truth but not true enough. i would argue
that bergman's expression was filmic but not purely filmic; bergman
surely owed alot to other arts.
but, couldn't this be said for orson welles as well? there is much in
kane that is very theatre-originated(also architectural). and
tarkovsky took a lot from paintings. so did antonioni.
and godard borrowed from comic strips. it may be that bergman's film
seem less filmic because there are alot of similarities between film
and theatre. so, when a theatrical idea is used filmically, it
retains much of its theatre-ness. in contrast, because there is
sufficient difference between painting and cinema, when elements of
paintings are transcribed into film, it looks more naturally and
purely filmic.
it's like if you were to imitate a chimp, we'd notice much that is
human in your chimp movements. but, if you were imitate a cockroach,
we'd see a more radical transformation.
>
> Yet what Mr. Bergman was interested in recording was pretty much the
> same tormented and tortured neurotic resentments, the same spite and
> even the same cruelty that can be traced back to his work of a half-
> century ago.
spite and resentments? ha, rosenbaum should talk. hideous hateful
leftwing jew!!
>
> It's strange to realize that his bitter and pinched emotions, once
> they were combined with excellent cinematography and superb acting,
> could become chic - and revered as emblems of higher purposes in
> cinema. But these emotions remain ugly ones, no matter how stylishly
> they might be served up.
so what is they are ugly? art is about intelligently dealing with all
manner of human emotions. much of humanity and human emotions are
ugly. and if you want ugly hatefulness, just see godard's
'weekend'.
art is, in and of itself, an higher purpose. it is higher creativity.
but, the stuff of art is often ugly cuz we wanna honestly face our
true nature. much of the bible is ugly. much of modern literature is
ugly. and rosenbaum loves alot of ugly stuff. so, why does he hate
the 'ugliness' of bergman? cuz it's not politically leftist and
'nordic white male'.
>
> Even stranger to me was the way he always resonated with New York
> audiences. The antiseptic, upscale look of Mr. Bergman's interiors and
> his mainly blond, blue-eyed cast members became a brand to be adopted
> and emulated.
ha, so rosenbaum's diatribe against bergman is an attack on
'aryanism'. rosenbaum has finally exposed his true ugly self. he
hates bergman for the same reason that simon hates streisand. if
streisands represents hideous leftwing jew ugliness to simon,
bergman's movies represent art as nordic ideal to rosenbaum. bergman
is an 'aryan artist'.
>(His artfully presented traumas became so respectable
> they could help to sell espresso in the lobby of the Fifth Avenue
> Cinema.) Mr. Bergman, famously, not only helped fuel the art-house
> aspirations of Woody Allen but Mr. Allen's class aspirations as well -
> the dual yearnings ultimately becoming so intertwined that they seemed
> identical.
what allen proves is an artist should stick to what he's good at.
bergman was great at being bergman. when he tried to be godardish with
'passion of anna', he faltered. and allen was great at being allen.
when he tried to do bergman, he made a fool of hisself. allen's
bergmanesque films are worse than bad.
we should appreciate bergy as bergy, godard as godard, ozu as ozu, and
kuro for kuro. pissing on bergman for not being resnais or dreyer is
dumb. vive the differencia.
it's rosenbaum who can't accept true diversity in cinema. many of us
like the films of bergy and godard. good ones anyway.
>
> Despite all the compulsive superlatives offered up this week, Mr.
> Bergman's star has faded, maybe because we've all grown up a little,
> as filmgoers and as socially aware adults.
this is funny. rosenbaum is still a childish film geek who watches too
many films. he needs to grow up.
steve
On 4-Aug-2007, smacked up and reeling, stevetv <libk...@gmail.com> blindly
formulated
the following incoherence:
> Above all, his movies aren't so much filmic expressions as expressions
> on film.
Isnt this what's wrong with much artistic criticism? The value of art is
not in it's newness or originality, but in it's honesty and effectiveness.
Innovation should be a product of artistic expression, not a goal in and of
itself. Praising Pekinpah for a new way to look at violence or "Johnny
Guitar" for an original female role sidestaps any question of effectiveness
and artistic value.
Effectiveness and value are, of course, personal judgements, while
innovation is more of an objective (or at least arguably quantifiable)
characteristic. I suspect that is the very reason artistic criticism places
value on innovation for it's own sake. Art (legitimate art, I would argue)
is not there for the purpose of criticism and analysis, but for consumption.
Quantifiable aspects give the critic a foothold, but do not define the
value of the art. Peckinpah may have been innovative and influential, but
I find his innovations offensive and count them as negatives. That he was
influential is yet another negative. This is why the late 60's and 70's is
not my favorite period in film. Too many people interested in being the
coolest guy in the room, and too few artists attempting to express
themselves honestly.
I think there is far more value in an artist who knows his mind and uses his
tools (even well known tools, though not necessarily well known end product)
to create something that speaks to me. That being said, I thought Bergman
was quite original, but apparently not in a way that impresses J. Rosenbaum.
"...aren't so much filmic expressions as expressions on film."
I find this statement contemptable. It presumes that film only has value in
expressing that which is unique to the medium. The medium is not the
message.
steve
--
"The accused will now make a bogus statement."
James Joyce
sirb...@hotmail.com
> On 4-Aug-2007, smacked up and reeling, stevetv <libkl...@gmail.com> blindly
> formulated
it's called film specificity, something you fascit capitalists are so
lame at you fucking moron, and hell you correcting rosenbaum what a
fucking a laugh, that'll be the day. goodbye, fucktard.
Harkness
where to begin?
> Scenes From an Overrated Career
> By JONATHAN ROSENBAUM
> Chicago
>
> THE first Ingmar Bergman movie I ever saw was "The Magician," at the
> Fifth Avenue Cinema in the spring of 1960, when I was 17. The only way
> I could watch the film this week after the Swedish director's death
> was on a remaindered DVD I bought in Paris. Like many of his films,
> "The Magician" hasn't been widely available here for ages.
Hehe.
Let's pick one of Bergman's relatively obscure failures and use its
lack of availability as a symptom of Bergman's irrelevance. I don't
think The Touch is available, either.
And you really don't want to use this argument to dismiss someone,
when availability on a number of key Antonioni films is spotty at
best.
SNIP
> Sometimes, though, the best indication of an artist's continuing
> vitality is simply what of his work remains visible and is still
> talked about. The hard fact is, Mr. Bergman isn't being taught in film
> courses or debated by film buffs with the same intensity as Alfred
> Hitchcock, Orson Welles and Jean-Luc Godard. His works are seen less
> often in retrospectives and on DVD than those of Carl Dreyer and
> Robert Bresson - two master filmmakers widely scorned as boring and
> pretentious during Mr. Bergman's heyday.
Let's unpack this one.
1) Bergman isn't being taught or debated as much as Hitchcock, Welles
or Godard.
Does Rosenbaum have some statistics on this?
And if it's true, then his argument is "Bergman is now unfashionable"
2) His works are seen less often...
By whom? unsupported statement.
3) Bresson and Dreyer were seen as boring and pretentious during
Bergman's heyday...
Well, okay -- and I still can't sit through that Bresson film where
the donkey is Jesus. But I'll give odds that the people who wrote
seriously about film back in the late 50s and 60s (Bergman's heyday)
tended to cut Bresson and Dreyer a lot of slack on the boring front.
>
> What Mr. Bergman had that those two masters lacked was the power to
> entertain - which often meant a reluctance to challenge conventional
> film-going habits, as Dreyer did when constructing his peculiar form
> of movie space and Bresson did when constructing his peculiar form of
> movie acting.
>
> The same qualities that made Mr. Bergman's films go down more easily
> than theirs - his fluid storytelling and deftness in handling
> actresses, comparable to the skills of a Hollywood professional like
> George Cukor - also make them feel less important today, because they
> have fewer secrets to impart.
Okay. Here we are.
The problem with Bergman is that he's entertaining. God forbid.
You wouldn't actually want to go to a movie that was entertaining.
John Harkness
to see or not to see
> On 4-Aug-2007, smacked up and reeling, stevetv <libkl...@gmail.com> blindly
innovation in and of itself may not amount to much. indeed, there has
been alot of visual innovation in tv commercials and mtv music videos
but they don't constitute art. also, there is alot of technical
innovations in matrix films and hong kong action films. they are not
art either. still, innovation certainly can be fun. some action scenes
in matrix 3 really had me going WOAH!!!!! and that's cool.
as for innovation in art, it can be startlingly effective. indeed,
everything at one time had been an innovation, so we should welcome
innovation. the question is, is there anything beyond the
innovation? often a movie will seem important for its newness but
when the wow-factor subsides, it aint much--rather like fireworks.
but, some films not only establish a new language and expression but
such becomes meaningful or, as you say, 'effective'. so, it's not a
zero sum game between innovation and effectiveness. a work of art
that is both innovative and effective is usually a greater art than
one that is merely effective.
but, we should be careful with words like 'innovative'. some works of
art are original, unique, or eccentric without being innovative.
'innovative' implies a new method or style that can function as the
basis for other works of art. something that is unique, eccentric, or
original may be inimitable. innovation serves a purpose whereas being
different serves itself. suppose a scientist finds the dna to create
two penises on a man. that would be innovative and serve as the model
for all future man. but suppose a scientist comes up with the dna that
makes eyeballs pink. that would be unique but serve no purpose except
to be special.
anyway, even if eccentric or unique stuff may be inimitable, it may be
inspirational. some works of art influence and some inspire. anyone
who tries to imitate david lynch would be a fool, but i can see how
people would be inspired by him.
>
> Effectiveness and value are, of course, personal judgements, while
> innovation is more of an objective (or at least arguably quantifiable)
> characteristic. I suspect that is the very reason artistic criticism places
> value on innovation for it's own sake. Art (legitimate art, I would argue)
> is not there for the purpose of criticism and analysis, but for consumption.
> Quantifiable aspects give the critic a foothold, but do not define the
> value of the art.
it's because arts have been taken over by leftwing jews. they are
into talmudic hairsplitting and such other stuff.
they are so immersed in mooies that they want to find the riddle of
the universe in it, and of course 'innovative' stuff serves their
highfalutin purposes better.
> Peckinpah may have been innovative and influential, but
> I find his innovations offensive and count them as negatives. That he was
> influential is yet another negative. This is why the late 60's and 70's is
> not my favorite period in film. Too many people interested in being the
> coolest guy in the room, and too few artists attempting to express
> themselves honestly.
i think peckinpah was a great filmmaker, but i don't necessarily
disagree with the statement that his influence has been mostly
negative. what was purposeful in peckinpah's films has turned into
just alot of meaningless spectacle-ism in stuff by john woo and
countless imitators. there is no beauty or meaning in violence
anymore as there was in 'wild bunch' or 'straw dogs'. violence has
become a mindless bloodsport in mooies. good stuff often has bad
influences. rock music is good but its influence was bad in social
terms. drug use, loose sex, wild negroes, etc.
>
> I think there is far more value in an artist who knows his mind and uses his
> tools (even well known tools, though not necessarily well known end product)
> to create something that speaks to me. That being said, I thought Bergman
> was quite original, but apparently not in a way that impresses J. Rosenbaum.
>
rosenbaum is an hideous leftwing jew.
to see or not to see
> Yikes.
>
> where to begin?
>
> > Scenes From an Overrated Career
> > By JONATHAN ROSENBAUM
> > Chicago
>
> > THE first Ingmar Bergman movie I ever saw was "The Magician," at the
> > Fifth Avenue Cinema in the spring of 1960, when I was 17. The only way
> > I could watch the film this week after the Swedish director's death
> > was on a remaindered DVD I bought in Paris. Like many of his films,
> > "The Magician" hasn't been widely available here for ages.
>
> Hehe.
>
> Let's pick one of Bergman's relatively obscure failures and use its
> lack of availability as a symptom of Bergman's irrelevance. I don't
> think The Touch is available, either.
>
> And you really don't want to use this argument to dismiss someone,
> when availability on a number of key Antonioni films is spotty at
> best.
>
> SNIP
YEAH!!! GO HARKNESS GO, KICK THAT LEFTWING JEW'S ASS!!!!!!
YOU WERE ONCE A BOUNCER, SO BOUNCE THAT ROSENBAUM MOFO UPSIDE HIS
HEAD.
>
> > Sometimes, though, the best indication of an artist's continuing
> > vitality is simply what of his work remains visible and is still
> > talked about. The hard fact is, Mr. Bergman isn't being taught in film
> > courses or debated by film buffs with the same intensity as Alfred
> > Hitchcock, Orson Welles and Jean-Luc Godard. His works are seen less
> > often in retrospectives and on DVD than those of Carl Dreyer and
> > Robert Bresson - two master filmmakers widely scorned as boring and
> > pretentious during Mr. Bergman's heyday.
>
> Let's unpack this one.
>
> 1) Bergman isn't being taught or debated as much as Hitchcock, Welles
> or Godard.
>
> Does Rosenbaum have some statistics on this?
ROSENBAUM IS CORRECT WHEN IT COMES TO COLLEGE COURSES BUT WHO HAVE
TAKEN OVER THE ACADEMIA??? LEFTWING JEWS!!!!!!! SO, IT'S THE LIKES
OF ROSENBAUM, TAUBIN, AND OTHER HIDEOUS FILTH WHO ARE REFUSING TO
TEACH BERGMAN WHILE THEY TEACH STUFF LIKE AKERMAN, CAMPION, AND OTHER
CRAP. YES, THE REASON WHY BERGMAN HAS BECOME UNFASHIONABLE IS
BECAUSE ROSENBAUM AND HIS ILK HAVE COME TO MONOPOLIZE ALL ACADEMIC
DISCUSSION OF MOOIES. HE AND HIS ILKISH KIND HAVE KILLED BERGMAN YET
THEY ARE ACTING AS THOUGH WE KILLED BERGMAN. WHAT A LOW LEFTWING
JEW!!!
ALSO, ROSENBAUM DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THAT FILM COURSES EXIST IN TWO
CATEGORIES. ONE IS FILM GEEK CATEGORY, HOGGED BY ROSENBAUM AND HIS
ILKISH KIND. AND, THE OTHER CATEGORY IS TRAINING-TO-BE-FILMMAKER
STUDIES WHICH EMPHASIZE HOLLYWOOD STUFF LIKE GODFATHER AND JOHN FORD
MOOIES. AND SINCE MOST STUDENTS ASPIRE TO BE HOLLYWOODISH OR
BOHEMIANISH-ALA-SUNDANCE, THE SERIOUS CLASSICO-MODERN APPROACH OF
BERGMAN ISN'T SO PALATABLE. WHEN FILM CLASSES ARE FILLED WITH EITHER
INTELLECTUAL GEEKS OR TARANTINO-ISH JERKS, OF COURSE BERGMAN IS
UNFASHIONABLE.
>
> And if it's true, then his argument is "Bergman is now unfashionable"
>
> 2) His works are seen less often...
>
> By whom? unsupported statement.
>
> 3) Bresson and Dreyer were seen as boring and pretentious during
> Bergman's heyday...
>
> Well, okay -- and I still can't sit through that Bresson film where
> the donkey is Jesus. But I'll give odds that the people who wrote
> seriously about film back in the late 50s and 60s (Bergman's heyday)
> tended to cut Bresson and Dreyer a lot of slack on the boring front.
>
NOT SIMON. BUT, THE HELL WITH YOU HARKNESS FOR PISSING ON DONKEY
CHRIST. WHAT KIND OF MOPE ARE YOU THAT YOU CAN'T SEE THE PROFUNDITY,
BEAUTY, SPIRITUALITY, AND TRAGEDY OF THE POOR DONKEY? YOU HEARTLESS
BAS****.
ANYWAY, THERE ARE TWO PROBLEMS WITH ROSENBAUM'S ARGUMENT. ONE IS HE
ASSUMES THAT HIS LITTLE WORLD OF FILM GEEKERY IS FILM CULTURE. SINCE
HE AND HIS FRIENDS AREN'T INTO BERGMAN, BERGMAN IS NO GOOD. NEVER
MIND THAT IN SIGHT AND SIGHT POLL OF 1992 AND 2002, DIRECTORS STILL
CHOSE BERGMAN AS ONE OF THE TOP TEN. I GUESS DIRECTORS' OPINIONS
DON'T COUNT.
SECOND, BRESSON AND DREYER WEREN'T ALONE IN BEING ATTACKED BY
CRITICS. BERGMAN IN THE 60S--HIS HEYDAY--CAME UNDER ALOT OF FIRE.
SIMON LIKED HIM BUT KAEL MOSTLY HATED HIS 60S STUFF. DWIGHT
MACDONALD DIDN'T CARE FOR BERGMAN'S 60S FILMS EITHER. AND SARRIS
CALLED MOST OF IT 'UNDIGESTED CLINCICAL MATERIAL'. AND FRENCH CRITICS
WERE RATHER COOL TOWARD BERGMAN.
THE MAIN SUPPORTERS OF BERGMAN WERE SIMON AND MIDDLE BROW CRITICS LIKE
JUDITH CHRIST AND FATBOY EBERT.
>
>
> > What Mr. Bergman had that those two masters lacked was the power to
> > entertain - which often meant a reluctance to challenge conventional
> > film-going habits, as Dreyer did when constructing his peculiar form
> > of movie space and Bresson did when constructing his peculiar form of
> > movie acting.
>
> > The same qualities that made Mr. Bergman's films go down more easily
> > than theirs - his fluid storytelling and deftness in handling
> > actresses, comparable to the skills of a Hollywood professional like
> > George Cukor - also make them feel less important today, because they
> > have fewer secrets to impart.
>
> Okay. Here we are.
>
> The problem with Bergman is that he's entertaining. God forbid.
>
> You wouldn't actually want to go to a movie that was entertaining.
>
ROSENBAUM IS A LEFTWING JEW AND HE DESPISES CONVENTIONAL TASTES OF YOU
AND I. HIS IDEA OF ENTERTAINMENT IS MUCH HIGHER THAN OURS. HE LIKES
TO SIT THRU 3 1/2 HRS OF JEANNE DIELMANN AND PONTIFICATE ABOUT ITS
PROFUNDITY.
HAD BERGMAN STRETCHED PERSONA INTO 3 1/2 HRS WITH LIV ULLMAN SHINING
SHOES AND FINALLY STABBING A BOURGEOIS PATRIARCH--AND HAD BERGMAN
ESPOUSED RADICAL CAUSES--, ROSENBAUM WOULD LOVE THE GUY. TRUST ME.
steve
blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> > The same qualities that made Mr. Bergman's films go down more easily
> > than theirs - his fluid storytelling and deftness in handling
> > actresses, comparable to the skills of a Hollywood professional like
> > George Cukor - also make them feel less important today, because they
> > have fewer secrets to impart.
>
> Okay. Here we are.
>
> The problem with Bergman is that he's entertaining. God forbid.
This is funny in and of itself. How many people fault Bergman because his
films are such light entertainment? Donkey Christ isnt more of a serious
effort than "Shame", for instance, it's just silly and dull. "...Country
Priest" is as easy to watch as any Bergman.