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.”
He is a man who very quickly judges things as "boring".
>"This movie follows this model instead of this one"
ok fine
>...therefore it's boring
uh.
>this other movie focus on a specific kind of audience and manages to be liked by a lot of people
ok.
>but it's BORING
eh...
I mean, it's just a collection of his personal thoughts, and I don't think any serious person should copy and paste this clearly personal stuff as their own opinion, since basically the only criticism he has is that he personally didn't have interest in the techniques or images he saw before him.
This does NOT look like the professional opinion of a filmmaker on a technical or objective level, it rather seems like he felt like sharing what he personally felt watching other movies (rightfully) without the pretense of changing anyone's mind with his quick, empty and subjective judgments.
>>68030773
>and I would like to know more — no, I don’t want to know — about his behaviour with, or, rather, against women
Regarding this: Bergman blows everybody else out of the water when it comes to female characters. Persona, The Silence, The Passion of Anna, Cries and Whispers: he's got them down perfectly.
he's right about all of them.
>>68031100
He's wrong about Welles.
please bergman don't hurt 'em
gotta say i agree with him on antonioni t b h
also this >>68031209
>>68030773
Correct about Godard and Hitchcock. Semi-correct about Antonioni (his earlier work is definitely much more interesting than his mid to later stuff, but I'd call him great for the classics). Wrong about Welles,
Bergman a GOAT, though.
>>68030773
I disagree with him on every point, even though I think some of his films are masterpieces
>>68030773
I disagree with him on almost all of his points, but def respect the hell out of the dude's opinion. He makes educated, reasonable points about the directors. Good on him for not jerking their dick more.
>>68030773
Wrong about Godard definitely
I'd take all of those directors over Bergman.
Dreyer wipes the floor with him too.
>>68033365
>taking Godard over anyone
>>68030773
He's right about everything, especially about Godard, although i don't think what he said about Antonioni is necessarily a bad thing, and it certainly doesn't make Antonioni a bad director
Citizen Kane does have really horrendous acting. Welles pulls it off but the rest are stagey beyond belief
>>68033237
>the epitome of style over substance
>never directed a single good film in his life
>made an entire career out of pandering to pretentious college kids
>was an asshole to Truffaut
>single-handedly ruined French cinema
Fuck Godard.
>>68033986
>>the epitome of style over substance
? His movies are filled with substance.
>>never directed a single good film in his life
he's directed a few dozen great films actually, anon
>>made an entire career out of pandering to pretentious college kids
godard doesn't pander to anyone. and he made fun of pretentious college kids in La chinoise
>>was an asshole to Truffaut
not really, but what does that have to do with his films?
>>single-handedly ruined French cinema
you should try actually watching french cinema, anon. most of it has no relation to godard.
>>68034096
>His movies are filled with substance.
Shit you mean
>>68034176
Did you turn on the english subtitles anon? not sure how of all things you accuse him of you accuse him of being devoid of substance when he routinely fills with his films with quotations from great philosophers and directors and incorporates them into a dialogue with the image and with the act of juxtaposition. to accuse godard of lacking substance is to accuse dostoyevsky, brecht, etc. of lacking substance. stay in school.
>>68034253
>when he routinely fills with his films with quotations from great philosophers and directors and incorporates them into a dialogue with the image and with the act of juxtaposition.
Batman v Superman did the same
>>68034253
meant to say authors instead of directors but then again there really is no limit to who he quotes
>>68033605
having only seen sans soleil, i want to know what this webm refers to.
bergman's opinion on godard seems to be a lot of how i felt on my first viewing of breathless. i felt like i was a philistine not liking it, but now i feel a bit more nuanced.
He's right about Antonioni, and he's got the right general idea about Hitchcock. The thought process behind almost all of these is respectable, bust he's totally wrong about Welles and even if he found Citizen Kane overrated he should have been able to appreciate The Trial or Chimes at Midnight.
>>68034289
lol no it didnt.
>>68034329
>i want to know what this webm refers to.
Before he died Chris Marker went senile and made some clips that he posted on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Kosinki
The webm is from Goodbye to Language
>>68034413
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpwcAodTIlM
kek
>>68034413
What do those clips have to do with Windows movie maker?
>>68034519
It looks like a YTP
>>68034413
>>68034519
And how was Marker senile when he had been working with simplistic consumer-level computer software to make his movies since the 80s?
>>68034567
what? YTP is based off looping and editing other sources repetitiously.
>>68034610
He should've learned to use something other than 80s tech then by 2012
>>68034666
Windows Movie Maker isn't from the 80s
>>68034679
It feels like it is
>>68030773
Not every movie is going to be a pompous psychologic drama about human relationships in a dysfunctional isolated nordic family. He does have a point of view, though, which is more than can be said for the average /tv/ cinephile. But is needed to be told that Godard's movies were often meant to desconstruct the cinematic form and elicit feelings, simple emotions in the mind of viewer. They are streams of squares strung together by a thin surface of vision we call "lens". You are already thinking like a filmmaker when you achieve the capacity of analysing and understanding a Godard work. Now, I do understand why Bergman and other filmmakers may dislike Godard but his auvre is without a doubt starter pack for the uninitiated. What I am trying to say is, I'd have his movies among my favorites if I was a 13 year old.
>>68034714
Why should he use anything else to make videos for his own amusement?
>>68034782
>for his own amusement
Why did he put them up for the public to see then? So that people could realize his work had become indistinguishable from a 12 year old making his first YouTube clips?
>>68030982
They're all vapid bipolar whores?
>>68034824
>Why did he put them up for the public to see then?
So other people could watch them if they wanted to.
>So that people could realize his work had become indistinguishable from a 12 year old making his first YouTube clips?
No, he spent the later years of his life making installation art. Just because you don't leave your house doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
whatever happened to good shit-talking? the only director who still does it a lot in public is Kevin Smith and he's a dullard who doesn't deserve to talk about the people he insults. why can't Yorgos Lanthimos call Gaspar Noe a hack just for the bants?
>>68034997
He should have stuck to making art that no one cared to see instead of embarrassing himself on the Internet.
>>68035399
Do you have an anxiety problem? I do, so sometimes I feel embarrassed about things I shouldn't feel embarrassed about. but even i am not sure why you are so upset about a man posting videos to youtube that you are in no way forced to watch.
>>68030773
>Godard
I personally think he has an underrated sense of humor + his influence in cinema is undeniable. Love the editing, lighting and cinematography in most of his films too; however, I agree that they are NOT intellectual. His politics are beyond retarded, and it's generally accepted by even the hardest dickriders that he should have stuck with the new wave.
>Antonioni
Agree for the most part. I like some of his stuff, but I could live without it. Blow Out is better than anything he's done btw
>Hitchcock
Again, agree. Even though I love Vertigo, the argument in favor of its "intellectual brilliance" has always bothered me. The Freudian/Oedipal symbolism in his films is neat, but second rate.
>Welles
Completely disagree. He was speaking out of his ass here. Every single one of Bergman's films uses deep focus, which is something he owed to Kane. I'll bite that, while not all of Welles' films are as intellectual as say, Persona, movies like F for Fake (which is more experimental than anything Bergman ever made), Mr. Arkadin, Othello and The Trial are far from empty.
>>68035671
Sounds like you have mental issues.
And people should be upset when a once great filmmaker starts posting childish dribble to YouTube.
>>68035837
No, instead of feeling upset, try taking deep breaths and realizing that you do not have to watch his movies. you can just *not* click on them.
>>68030773
He is right about Antonioni
>>68035879
>just ignore it
It's more fun watching you get triggered when you saw today that your beloved Marker could make such garbage
And that's real, deserved embarassment you're feeling right now
>>68035830
>this picture tells very much about him
I don't see too much written about any "intellectual" side of Hitchcock, his movies mostly inspire discussion for the above. He's the quintessential auteur because of how all his movies show so much about who he is as a person, the way other artists' work speak about them
>>68035978
>when you saw today that your beloved Marker could make such garbage
no unlike you i didn't discover marker yesterday :/
What did Bergman mean by this?
>>68036047
Bergman was based af holy shit
>>68036044
So you've been holding him in high regard for all the years after he posted his Alzheimer's laced student films?
>>68036125
I don't think you know what Alzheimer's is.
>>68036167
I think doctors can learn a lot about it from Kosinski's channel
>My discovery of Tarkovsky's first film was like a miracle.
>Suddenly, I found myself standing at the door of a room the keys of which had, until then, never been given to me. It was a room I had always wanted to enter and where he was moving freely and fully at ease.
>I felt encouraged and stimulated: someone was expressing what I had always wanted to say without knowing how.
>Tarkovsky is for me the greatest, the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream.
What did he mean by this?
>>68036220
And that's why you should stay in school.
>>68036230
Only if you stay in Marker's comments sections
>>68036226
>>68036226
>My discovery of the masked man was like a miracle.
>Suddenly, I found myself standing at the door of a plane the flight plan of which had, until then, never been given to me. It was a plane I had always wanted to fly in and where he was moving freely and fully at ease.
>I felt encouraged and stimulated: someone was expressing what I had always wanted to say without knowing how.
>The masked man is for me the greatest, the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of the agency, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream.
What did CIA mean by this?
>>68036226
The Tarkovsky-Bergman relationship was based entirely on "Come on dude, I'll jerk you off!"
>>68036326
Reposted to /r/4chan
Edit: Thanks for the karma!
>>68036125
Why are you so concerned with what he did in his dying years anyway? If we judged every artist by what they did in old age we'd have very few great artists
>>68036429
Exactly, why are you upset that an old man got dementia?
>>68036366
>>68036366
Keep it my friend, for it's all yours! :-)
>>68036452
That's not what dementia means
>>68035986
>I don't see too much written about any "intellectual" side of Hitchcock
Wish I could say the same. College professors love to shoehorn SJW shit into his films.
Then again, this was one of my teachers..
>>68036522
Your posts are a better example, I must admit.
>>68036580
This is my first post.
>>68036590
Like I said, a very good example.
>>68036613
You aren't making sense.
>>68036624
Oh no, I saw too many of Marker's videos!
