Do you agree with Ingmar Bergman?
>Jean-Luc Godard
“I’ve never gotten anything out of his movies. 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.”
>Michelangelo Antonioni
"He never properly learnt his craft. He’s an aesthete. If, for example, he needs a certain kind of road for The Red Desert, then he gets the houses repainted on the damned street. That is the attitude of an aesthete. He took great care over a single shot, but didn’t understand that a film is a rhythmic stream of images, a living, moving process; for him, on the contrary, it was such a shot, then another shot, then yet another. So, sure, there are some brilliant bits in his films… but I can’t understand why Antonioni is held in such high esteem. Fellini, Kurosawa, and Bunuel move in the same field as Tarkovsky. Antonioni was on his way, but expired, suffocated by his own tediousness.”
>Alfred Hitchcock
"A very good technician. And he has something in Psycho, he had some moments. Psycho is one of his most interesting pictures because he had to make the picture very fast, with very primitive means. He had little money, and this picture tells very much about him. Not very good things. He is completely infantile, and I would like to know more — no, I don’t want to know — about his behaviour with, or, rather, against women. But this picture is very interesting.”
>Orson Welles
“For me he’s 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.”
did filmmakers back then have any sort of consensus on anything
I really dislike Godard, Hitchcock (and de Palma) and I'm not particularly fond of Welles but I think Bergman was wrong in his statement about Antonioni.
Even he changed his mind on Antonioni in later interviews. He admitted that he hadn't really understood the man before meeting him and that his movies made a lot more sense. He also called Blow Up and La Notte masterpieces.
On Hitchcock though, I just see all of his movies (all that I've seen) as too blatantly artificial. When you compare something like Les Diaboliques to any of the so called golden age Hitchcock film I think Hitchcock looks comical by comparison. I think "infantile" is a decent description. De Palma is also infantile. I've seen three of his movies, Body Double (which is just about the most ham fisted and absurd Hitchcock clone I've ever seen.), Blow Out (which really just feels cheap and empty in comparison to the Conversation and Blow Up), and Mission Impossible which I haven't seen in years. I also saw scarface a long time ago but I consider it more an Oliver Stone movie than De Palma.
>>68048707
>pay attention to meeeeeeee
he has a point in every case but was deliberately using hyperbole to get people to talk about him. he acknowledges as much in The Magic Lantern.
>>68049179
>did filmmakers back then have any sort of consensus on anything
It was from a time in film making when nothing was codified and concrete yet. So there was plenty of argument regarding the best way to do things.
>>68049267
No rules are set even today. There is no "best way to make a movie".
There's plenty yet to argue about but most filmmakers today have settled for an extremely lazy brand of filmmaking.
>>68049351
i'd say that has less to do with filmmakers and more to do with the state of the world and it's relationship to the cinematic arts, although i do concede that maybe 'artists' do give up too easily while the wrong ones are given too much
>tfw you'll never be maya deren's stress relief and muse
>>68048707
based
>>68048707
>and I would like to know more — no, I don’t want to know — about his behaviour with, or, rather, against women
Never change, Sweden.
>>68049225
When did Antonioni and Bergman meet, is there a source for this, I'd like to read it
>>68049420
There are still people doing stuff that is interesting.
Kiarostami is still making his extremely minimalistic films.
Malick is still around even though I've never thought much of his films.
Shane Carruth until recently has been entirely self funded.
Paul Thomas Anderson is just about the only art minded director with a larger budget that still exists.
>>68049479
If you search Bergman on Antonioni you should be able to find the quote. He doesn't say too much. Just that he has more respect for him after meeting him.
>>68049179
"Consensus" is a sign of mediocrity. Consensus means "We all agree this was okay. Nobody was offended or challenged." Marvel movies frequently get critical consensus. There's nothing to discuss, nothing to disagree with.
>>68049479
Here's all the qoutes I can find.
[On Michelangelo Antonioni] He's done two masterpieces, you don't have to bother with the rest. One is Blow-Up, which I've seen many times, and the other is La Notte, also a wonderful film, although that's mostly because of the young Jeanne Moreau. In my collection I have a copy of Il Grido, and damn what a boring movie it is. So devilishly sad, I mean. You know, Antonioni never really learned the trade. He concentrated on single images, never realizing that film is a rhythmic flow of images, a movement. Sure, there are brilliant moments in his films. But I don't feel anything for L'Avventura, for example. Only indifference. I never understood why Antonioni was so incredibly applauded. And I thought his muse Monica Vitti was a terrible actress.
[On Michelangelo Antonioni] Antonioni has never properly learnt his craft. He’s an aesthete. If, for example, he needs a certain kind of road for The Red Desert, then he gets the houses repainted on the damned street. That is the attitude of an aesthete. He took great care over a single shot, but didn’t understand that a film is a rhythmic stream of images, a living, moving process; for him, on the contrary, it was such a shot, then another shot, then yet another. So, sure, there are some brilliant bits in his films… [but] I can’t understand why Antonioni is held in such high esteem.
[On Michelangelo Antonioni] The strange thing is that I admire him more now that I have met him than when I only saw his pictures; because I have suddenly understood what he is doing. I understand that everything in his mind, in his point of view, in his personal behavior is against his film-making. And still he makes his pictures
>>68048707
No capeshit discussions in this post.
fuck off, faggot.
He changed his mind lately and recognized the true master
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjKxVKXuTVc
Bergman is awful, so I could care less about his bitching
>>68048707
I take no heed of pretension that entry-level criterion collection bait auteurs engage themselves in. Its all a stunt, just like their trickery movies.
If you want true humanity entry level cinema, just look at Bresson, Dreyer, Ozu, and not to the wannabe cinephile's letterdbox favorites. But they will most likely bore the children, as they lack memes.
>>68050032
I realize this is probably bait.
You should really get over yourself and need for contrarians here. Bergman is infinitely more interesting than anything Ozu did. I get it, Ozu is pleasant and all but clearly since you referenced Dreyer you aren't oblivious to struggle depicted in Cinema because Dreyer has a lot more in common with Bergman and Tarkovsky than Ozu.
>>68050032
>Bresson
>good
I can't stop laughing
>>68049239
artists are notorious assholes
