>"For me Orson Welles is just a hoax. It’s empty. It’s not interesting. It’s dead. Citizen Kane, which I have a copy of — is all the critics’ darling, always at the top of every poll taken, but I think it’s a total bore. Above all, the performances are worthless. The amount of respect that movie’s got is absolutely unbelievable. I’ve never gotten anything out of Godard's movies too. They have felt constructed, faux intellectual, and completely dead. Cinematographically uninteresting and infinitely boring. Godard is a fucking bore. He’s made his films for the critics. One of the movies, Masculin, Féminin, was shot here in Sweden. It was mind-numbingly boring.”
Was he, dare I say, right?
>>67875292
>Bergman
>calling anyone's work boring
>>67875292
bold words coming from a hack swedcuck
>>67875292
I agree honestly. There must be something I'm missing, because the educated people I know who appreciate it, only do so after studying the context of the era the context of film at the time bla bla bla.
The movie must do a lot of shit right but it flies over me. Same as a lot of other "masterpieces"
DUDE EXISTENTIALISM 101 LMAO
>>67875292
The Seventh Seal is literally the most boring movie I've ever seen.
>>67875463
watch this as a companion piece
it will give you perspective
>>67875292
Welles always did different shit. By the end he was doing pretty weird stuff.
>>67875292
Well he is right about Godard.
He liked Tarkovsky and Bresson, tho
You should check the personal diary of Tarkovsky, if the man was alive this days, he would probably post on /tv/
>>67875292
Right about Citizen Kane, wrong about Godard.
>>67876743
literally the opposite
>>67875292
>Cinematographically uninteresting and infinitely boring.
Bergman seems completely unaware of the several technical achievements of CK in it's prime. The lighting alone was a tour de force then. He's just smug and ego maniac. And he never was a cinema scholar, his opinion was as valuable and valid as any anon in this board tbqh
>>67876784
What do you mean?
>>67875292
So fucking spot on about Goddard, French new wave was a mistake
>>67877054
He is wrong about CK and right about Godard.
>>67875292
>I’ve never gotten anything out of Godard's movies too. They have felt constructed, faux intellectual, and completely dead. Cinematographically uninteresting and infinitely boring. Godard is a fucking bore. He’s made his films for the critics. One of the movies, Masculin, Féminin, was shot here in Sweden. It was mind-numbingly boring.”
he's right about this
>>67875292
DUDE IT'S BORING LMAO
Why do Directors criticize movies like this?
>>67877249
you got that backwards bro
>>67875292
Sounds like it.
mwaauughh
the swedish
>>67876699
>Did he actually die not knowing he was a hack?
Top banter lad
>>67877496
Seriously his whole book was amazing because of things like that. It felt like reading stuff from your average /tv/ guy that hates anything that isn't above or on his level
>>67877455
this
"Boring" is not a legitimate criticism
>>67876094
that's also the only movie you've seen by him
~
Right about Goddard...
Mostly wrong about Welles, although Hitchcock is probably slightly better in terms of overall output, Welles is the height of 'silent movie' making. Welles was more of a Gothic artist than Hitchcock, who was a far more modern man.
>>67878244
True
>>67879024
stop talking like you know shit
>Welles is the height of 'silent movie' making
does it hurt being this retarded?
Welles was 25 years old and a huge star for radio. He was given 5 million dollars to make whatever film he wanted, even with zero experience with visual media.
Because of his lack of experience with visual media, he researched heavily into all the current (at the time) techniques for film. He used them all, and used them perfectly.
Along with an Oscar winning screenplay, there's a reason why anyone knowledgeable about film loves this piece. It's perfect execution combined with a perfect screenplay.
It's too bad plebbitors and /tv/ can't appreciate the film and what it accomplished because it isn't capeshit or full of memes.
>>67875292
He was a catty fellow wasn't he? The only movie of his I really love is Persona. I much prefer Welles and Godard.
>>67880636
>>67880636
>bergman
>not knowledgeable of film
>He used them all, and used them perfectly.
stealing from the nips and making film their techniques way shittier is not using them perfectly
>>67880726
that's also the only movie you've seen by him
>>67880776
I've seen most of his major classics except Fanny and Alexander because I can't decide if I want to start with the TV or theatrical version. I also haven't seen Summers with Monika or Smiles of a Summer Night, but those aren't usually considered the very top tier.
>>67877455
because they use 'boring 'as in dull with no substance, just like critics say 'fun' when a movie is good but not necessarily funny
>>67875292
Bergman made some good films but he didn't know shit about cinema
Director- even great ones- re not necessarily the best critics. And many of the WOW-SICK-BURNS here are taken out of context and appropriate dating. Retards seem to love using these to justify their own proclivities. Something much healthier would be to not treat directors as avatars of my-daddy-is-better-than-your-daddy wars. But this is /tv/
>Ingmar Bergman on Michelangelo Antonioni:
>“Fellini, Kurosawa, and Bunuel move in the same field as Tarkovsky. Antonioni was on his way, but expired, suffocated by his own tediousness."
top banter
>>67880980
you can't make good films if you don't know shit about cinema.
>>67880980
You're so wrong.
Bergman never made a single good ''film''.
>>67881142
this
he onlu made kino
>>67877018
he was referring to Godard about the cinematography my friend, which from what I've seen is true
it feels like Godard was hated by quite a number of directors. really the only one I can think of who had only overwhelmingly positive things to say about him is Tarantino, but that doesn't really count since he loves fucking everybody
>>67881849
except Kubrick
>>67881849
>>67882136
and John Ford.
Bergman disguised his lack of ideas with slow tempo which people mistake for profoundness.
It's apparent from his interviews and taste (Sex and the City,Jurassic park) that he is a simple man. He rants about a lot of respected directors of his era, not because he is at a higher artistic or intellectual level but simply because he can't comprehend them, as evident from his laughable reviews. His films dealing mostly with high school philosophy, further proves the point.
The fact that so many critics still name Bergman "the greatest or most significant or most influential" director ever only tells you how far rock cinema still is from becoming a serious art.
>>67882326
kek
>>67875368
This.
Hypocrite and a hack fraud.
