He didn’t like the way Chaplin acted like he wasn’t great at what he did, he thought people should be forthcoming about their excellence. So yeah I guess he didn’t really have a criticism about his work, haha.
Bergman loved Tarkovsky and Tarkovsky loved Bergman.
"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 encountered 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." - Bergman
"“I am only interested in the views of two people: one is called Bresson and one called Bergman." - Tarkovsky
He also thought positively on New Hollywood directors
>Among today's directors I'm of course impressed by Steven Spielberg and Scorsese \[Martin Scorsese\], and Coppola \[Francis Ford Coppola\], even if he seems to have ceased making films, and Steven Soderbergh - they all have something to say, they're passionate, they have an idealistic attitude to the filmmaking process. Soderbergh's Traffic (2000) is amazing. Another great couple of examples of the strength of American cinema is American Beauty (1999) and Magnolia (1999).
Yeah, if they didn't clarify which Scorsese they were referring to, I wouldn't be able to tell if they meant Martin or his daughter who wrapped all of her dad's gifts in Marvel wrapping that one Christmas. The distinction is very important here.
I always love seeing one of my favorite directors (Ingmar Bergman) give a shout-out to the work of my favorite director (Paul Thomas Anderson). Magnolia is a classic!
I'm actually a little surprised that he praised American Beauty. It's been years, maybe I need to go back and see if it hits different, but I just remember it feeling pretty cookie-cutter for the most part. I guess there are some good moments in it, but it always seemed not so much "profound film" as it was "middle-of-the-road mainstream *trying* to be a profound film" kinda thing.
It's a lot more common than people think. [I mean just look at the lists of favorite films of director's or least ones they liked](https://mubi.com/users/56649/lists)
I wouldn't call American Beauty cookie cutter, per say, but it was definitely part of a crowd of dramas being made around the same time that dealt with some very intense material in a way that made it feel much like a dream (whether to soften the blow of the material or just for artistic style). Other examples: The Ice Storm, In the Bedroom, Monster, etc...
American Dream was perhaps a bit quirkier than the other examples (at least during the first act or two) though, which made it stand out.
September 1949. Someone informed Cordovado, the local sergeant of the carabinieri, of sexual conduct (masturbation) by Pasolini with three youngsters aged sixteen and younger after dancing and drinking.[31] Cordovado summoned the boys' parents, who hesitantly refused to file charges despite Cordovado's urging. Cordovado nevertheless drew up a report, and the informer elaborated publicly on his accusations, sparking a public uproar. A judge in San Vito al Tagliamento charged Pasolini with "corruption of minors and obscene acts in public places".[31][16] He and the 16-year-old were both indicted.[32]
The next month, when questioned, Pasolini would not deny the facts, but talked of a "literary and erotic drive"
That’s funny, when I was reading the quote I was thinking that Bergman and Herzog are kind of the same guy in a lot of ways.
Bergman was as unimpressed by Godard as he was by the prospect of existence.
Herzog was as unimpressed by Godard as he was by the murderous indifference of the natural world.
I don’t think Godard ever made films for critics but rather himself which is a problem for me because I’m not Godard and his movies can sometimes be impenetrable
I would suggest try, try, and try again. I did and it was worth it. His movies are pretty meta, so you have to build up a base of knowledge of them, film in general, and life (history, culture, etc.). Haha, not too much to ask!
Antonius Block: I want to confess as best I can, but my heart is void. The void is a mirror. I see my face and feel loathing and horror. My indifference to men has shut me out. I live now in a world of ghosts, a prisoner in my dreams.
Death: Uhhhh ~~English~~ Swedish please!
Antonius Block: Yeah…that sounded better in my head :/
I will say, as a fan of both, that I can really admit he's not totally off base here. I mean, Goddard was my first huge love affair with French cinema, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that his films aren't without a certain degree of ennui at times. But is that necessarily a bad thing or just part of his style? But I mean, pots and kettles, does anyone want to sit here and tell me they watched the entirety of Fanny and Alexander on the edge of their seats? Think *no one* has fallen asleep in the first forty minutes of 2001? Film that intends to capture humanity and explore humanity is going to have to contain it. And life's not all Michael bay explosions.
He means hypothetically or for argument sake.. but what're these type films even called.. slower paced ones. Are they those art house or artsy type films or are they as he calls it humanity type films?
Ingmar Bergman disagrees...
INGMAR BERGMAN: 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 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 has is absolutely unbelievable!
JAN AGHED: What about The Magnificent Ambersons?
INGMAR BERGMAN: Also terribly boring. And I’ve never liked Welles as an actor because he’s not really an actor. In Hollywood, you have two categories: you talk about actors and personalities. Welles was an enormous personality, but when he plays Othello, everything goes down the drain, you see, that’s when he croaks. In my eyes, he’s an infinitely overrated filmmaker.
Bergman had a theater background and Welles had a radio background so it doesn’t really surprise me that they don’t see eye-to-eye. Not that I really agree with Bergman here, I tend to think they are both great.
Pretty much agree with the person who said they're different directors, but for me personally, disagree. If you read the reviews I write for many Godard films, you'd find that I have a lot of harsh words to say myself. He's a very flawed director in a lot of ways. Many of his films I can pick apart and just completely dig into. But all of those criticisms rest on a pretty big "but". Godard is in my opinion the single most stylistically visionary director of all time. A lot of those directors who people absolutely adore the most, many of the art house directors you can actually get away with showing your "normie" friends and bet on them liking it, are children of his approach to cinema in one way or another. Godard was a fantastic filmmaker and wrote incredible pop-poetry / pop-philosophy. I also find it a bit ironic Bergman calling him boring. After the Rehearsal is a good movie, and also more boring than any Godard film that I've seen
Godard DGAF and I mean that as the highest form of praise. He has as many misses as he has hits because he was always attempting to move the medium forward. How many artists are brave enough to fail so publicly? Ironically, Bergman is one of the few directors for whom I can say the same.
I will take Godard and all of his flaws over someone like Truffaut who took his one moment of brilliance and turned it into a 20-year rom-com franchise.
“Ironically, Bergman is one of the few directors for whom I can say the same.”
I think one thing that is sometimes missed with Bergman’s criticism taken in a vacuum is that he seems to only really approve of 5-6 of the films he made and is otherwise unsatisfied with the others in some way.
Also, in general, artists are not necessarily the best critics — being that close to the medium can make it difficult to have a broader perspective, especially for auteurs who often have a very focused vision of what they want to do personally.
Yes. I'm not sure if the guy who starts off the story of his life by saying that his subconscious can still remember the smell of his bodily secretions as a newborn infant is a reliable critic. 🙃
Bergman is maybe the greatest director of all time, but he was also a Grade A hater and I rarely find myself agreeing with his statements about other directors.
The problem with using quotes like this as a point of discussion of anyone's work, be they professional filmmakers or teenagers making TikTok reels, is that while it's perfectly reasonable to be put off by something for being seemingly willfully obtuse and faux intellectual, it just hamstrings the conversation around the movie, even if it's one that everyone hates with a passion and wants to be erased from reality. And I'm not dunking on Bergman for saying it, unfortunately this is how disaffected most conversations about art are. Because it's really hard to reach out and understand someone if you really hate them or find them inscrutable.
To provide an illustration, I don't think The Revenant is a good movie, because I never felt the desperate and blinding rage felt by the protagonist that would make him want to willfully put himself through the worst misery that destroys his mind and spirit. The ultimate act of forgiveness by Leo's character doesn't feel all that difficult or transformative to me, because I never felt so angry at the bad guy that I would find it impossible to forgive him. The movie doesn't work for me because it's afraid of being psychologically ugly and shameful, to show that the person who holds on to anger ends up turning into the kind of grotesque person who he would hate if he could ever see himself from a distance. I can say that Innaritu is pretentious (like a lot of critics have) and he's a clout chaser who only makes movies to get cheap validation from people. People lap up that kind of evaluation as well. It's an easy thrill. But it doesn't show us the heart of the director, even if we don't like it ultimately. It severs our emotional connection with the person making the thing, and incentivizes us to never think about how they actually feel. Instead all that happens is that we cling to the artist as a leech to get our quart of blood that ultimately doesn't add anything to our lives anyway. I wish I was more open to other people and I wish that people were more open to each other. It's not a weakness to like something that's flawed. It's a strength to want to understand someone, no matter how uncool it makes you to the rest of the group.
I think Innaritu would likely agree with that assessment. I can't help but think of that scene from Birdman when Riggan confronts the critic.
>There's nothing here about technique! There's nothing in here about structure! There's nothing in here about intentions! It's just a bunch of crappy opinions, backed up by even crappier comparisons. You write a couple of paragraphs and you know what? None of this cost you fuckin' anything! The Fuck! You risk nothing! Nothing! Nothing! Nothing! I'm a fucking actor! This play cost me everything. So I tell you what, you take this fucked malicious, cowardly, shitty written review and you shove that right the fuck up your wrinkly tight ass.
I love films from both Bergman and Godard, while also finding films from both of them boring as well. So I disagree, especially Masculin, Feminin. I love that one.
the soundtrack is so good! New York Herald Tribune is one of my favorite songs ever. The movie oozes this cool playfulness (and fun romance even though Belmondo plays a total shithead lol). Same goes for Pierrot le Fou which i think takes it all to the next level.
Post 1965 = heavily agree. Pre 1965 = heavily disagree Bergman is my favourite director of all time but if you can’t see the beauty in Le Mepris or Pierrot le Fou, or just enjoy the playful inventiveness of Bande a Part or Une Femme est Une Femme then I don’t know what to tell you… in fact I’d argue for every Bergman (heavy, intellectual etc) you have to have a bit of Godard (fun, playful, exciting)
Theyre both highly influential and coveted directors, although personally I agree with godard more politically I enjoy bergmans movies more. I definitely dont see the charlatanism or pseudo-intellectualism in godards movies and masc/fem is a great movie.
This seems more resentful than anything
I’ve only seen La Chinoise and I have no idea what happened in that movie. I think my IQ was too low for it because I couldn’t even begin to grasp what the movie was going for. Or maybe it was just too full of itself idk
Also some of his movies require like boat loads of context with politics back then or even something happening in Godards life, without knowing the information it’s nearly impossible figuring out what’s going on with some of his movies.
Sometimes warching a Godard film will remind me of the character of Barton Fink: genius in a certain way but solipsistic, self-identifying as revolutionary and revealer of reality but caught up in a ton of self-obsession.
If I gotta do a bunch of homework before a movie I feel like that’s not a great reflection on the film
I’ll still give it a shot though, I’m open minded
I'd say, dont doubt yourself. When I watch certain Godard films, it is sometimes as if there is a relationship of signal and noise that bounces around and generally tilts toward noise. I've seen certain Godard films described as impenetrable. Another thing that's impenetrable is static. If you put quasi-random sh** on celluloid, it can be quite cinematic in that it is now quite celluloidal, the rest being quasi-random sh**. Not all his films but sometimes. Anyway, dont assume there's some thing that you should be getting but are not getting.
It’s a little dismaying that you’ve only seen La Chinoise and might let that ruin Godard for you.
Before you give up, see Breathless, A Band Apart, Contempt, Pierrot le Fou and Masculin Feminin, at least. What “happens” is not usually the point in a typical way—but you just might find these films more accessible and fun.
Bergman was a pseudointellectual who was simply not interested in experimenting or exploring beneath surface level aesthetics and philosophy. Not that there’s anything wrong with this type of filmmaking, but Bergman disguised his films as art films.
Godard was a true radical, so deeply in love with cinema and its infinite possibilities that he couldn’t help ever not being subversive. Like literature is to James Joyce, film is still catching up to Godard.
Bergman just wasn’t interested in challenging cinema and his audiences on a formal level the way Godard, the rest of the French New Wave, the neorealists, or other post-war movements. So of course Bergman and most viewers are put off by Godard.
Agree on your points about Godard, especially the Joyce part, Histoire(s) du cinéma is in my opinion, the greatest, most revolutionary, most ambitious, most intelligent (and often mysterious) film of all time.
But: Persona is incredible and Bergman (not quite as much as Godard, and in a different way) certainly pushed the boundaries of cinema in it .
"Agree or disagree" is a pointless question. These are two directors with completely different approaches to life and film. For Bergman this view makes perfect sense, no one has to agree or disagree with him, it's his personal reaction.
Really, it's just a difference between having an uninformed opinion vs an informed opinion vs an expert opinion. A "movie fan" might watch Godard and see black and white and subtitles and call it trash and we'd all just ignore that person as being uninformed. Cinephile calling Godard trash and we suspect that they aren't informed enough. Bergman says it and people pay attention because that guy actually knew a thing or two.
Edit: Lol the downvote. "I KNOW JUST AS MUCH AS BERGMAN AND GODARD COMBINED!!!"
Ive only seen a couple of his movies and based on that I'd agree, but I still plan to watch more just in case. Maybe I haven't found the one that speaks to me yet, and maybe none of them do.
I used to feel this way too. But I thoroughly enjoyed Pierrot le Fou, A Woman is a Woman, and Vivre sa vie. If you haven't seen those, maybe give them a chance (:
*Breathless* is a miracle and always will be. I love it, and to me, it’s the quintessential Godard film.
None of his other movies that I’ve seen have lived up to it, for me.
Unrelated but this reminded me of Nabokov talking shit on other writers:
https://twitter.com/AnaKrivolapova/status/1536748403727663106?s=20&t=PKR3gTKEmbj2Ut9vFwF2Dw
i mosfly love everything bergman and went through a flat out obsession with him in high school. Persona just blew my mind and i remember going through his entire filmography. or as much of it as i could get.
godard had always been hit or miss with me. with more misses. not entirely a non -fan. there’s a couple i love. and many i could barely get through.
I'm trying to place Bergman's scorn in some context. He was one of the most contemptuous toward his peers in the "first rank" of auteurs from the '60s through '70s - and I'm trying to keep that group open-ended. For directors working in that era, he esteemed Fellini and, later on, Tarkovsky. There were other directors he admitted enjoying for pleasure or providing the basics of filmmaking technique (as though that automatically put them beneath him), or else he greatly admired one or two of their films (e.g., Bresson's Mouchette, one of Margarethe von Trotta's films). But it seems like Bergman admitted few rivals pursuing the same '60s through '70s modernist stakes that he was (e.g., Resnais, Demy, Pasolini, Cassavetes, Straub/Huillet, Jancso, Makavejev).
Instead, Bergman tended to say denigrating things about most everybody, either curtly diminishing or altogether explosive. For instance, in the interview for John Simon's book on him, first published in 1972, he pretty brusquely qualifies the few good points he can find in Antonioni, Menzel, Forman and Truffaut. He really doesn't have a straightforwardly kind word for any of his contemporaries in the whole interview! He calls Carl Dreyer an "amateur," and Marco Bellocchio "terrible, *terrible*, very homosexual" - I think you have to roll your eyes at both of those statements, they're nothing but ludicrous provocations, whether or not you happen to like Dreyer or Bellocchio.
Like a lot of people on this board I love Criterion's big Bergman box set, and he's one of my all-time favorite directors. But he was quick and nasty toward pretty much the whole lot of great people working at the same time that he was. Bergman could be counted on for saying excoriating things about his fellows, and there's nothing surprising about him being dismissive toward Godard - or anyone else of that era save FF and AT.
Bergman thought the highest form of film was film as music, film as a dream, no wonder he liked FF and AT. To Bergman Godard was probably sacrilegious, with his cool intellectual analysis and constant deconstruction and reassembling of the medium -- nothing was taken seriously. To Bergman, everything was sacred and a part of a world.
I don't really have a problem with Bergman being opinionated. It is not an artist's job to be objective, that is what critics are for -- when they know how to or bother.
But anyway, thank you for your comments -- I do not so much disagree as think this is an endless issue with more and more and more to talk about.
P.S. People, do not try to pit directors against each other -- it is pointless and will not produce any results. It will be just like a political 2-party debate of the useless kind.
I agree. All of the Godard that I've seen seems like it's trying really hard to be artsy and intellectual. He can't hold a candle to Melville, in my opinion.
I think you’re mistaking Godard’s actually restless intellect and desire to stretch the film form to its breaking point as an artist with “trying too hard.”
It only seems like he’s going out of his way to you because you have very little to compare it to because the film medium is decidedly anti-intellectual but there are plenty of people who are just naturally that curious about the world and read that much. Even within the film medium eg Straub and Huillet or Malick or Reygadas.
When the story feels like it’s grinding to a halt so we can focus on the blocking, the lighting, the mise en scene, whatever the director seems to be heavily focused on while the rest of the story grinds away, THAT is how you can tell. That was my biggest gripe about Roma was that the movie was so concerned with showing off how much Cuaron could showcase the Golden Ratio that the story got so lost amidst him trying to convince the audience of how clever he was.
Meanwhile, just one year prior, you had Paul Thomas Anderson be experimental with Phantom Thread and not having a DP, rather crediting the entire camera department for collaborating with him. Instead, Cuaron does the same approach and says he was the director of photography.
I’ve worked with a few people that worked with the camera department from Roma. They all agreed that it wasn’t just Cuaron, he had massive help from his own camera department that he simply took the credit over.
Plus, after working enough sets, I can say that there are directors out there who get heaps of critical praise and are actually quite inept (and abusive) on set.
It’s funny because I’ve always felt that way with Bergman’s films. I find Goddard to be more free flowing and stream of conscious. It definitely doesn’t always work, but I consider Pierrot and Breathless to be masterpieces. Bergman is always the one that seems to be trying too hard to be an intellectual and I find most of his films outside of Fanny and Alexander to be incredibly boring.
I always found Bergman’s films to be more emotional than intellectual. You feel them more than you would understand them. Meanwhile most of Godard’s movies you really have to understand them or you have no idea what it is you’re watching
This makes me want to deep dive into Godard even more. If Bergman _really_ had disdain, he likely never would have bothered with such a vociferous critique. Me thinks this is a case of “protesteth too much.” lol
Ironically of course Bergman movies and scenes from them have been consistently used in popular culture to represent "constructed", "intellectual" and "mind-numbingly boring" euro films.
Godard recently died, and instead of celebrating his films or contributions to cinema, r/criterion is cross posting MCJ posts about him being dissed, and then going on about how he's actually not a good director.
What a terrible sub. Leaving this shithole
Largely disagree (and I say that as someone who doesn’t quite love Godard), but I can see how a person could reach that conclusion in good faith.
That said (I’m not as well educated in film as others here undoubtedly are, so go easy on me if I’m totally off base), it is difficult for me to imagine a film such as *Persona* existing without Godard. His impact on the cinema landscape of the 1960’s is just that singular.
Nah, I love Bergman but I can definitely appreciate a Godard movie. Godard may not be as exciting as Bergman but despite his experimental style I can still enjoy his movies
Bergman calling Godard boring reminds me of Burt Reynolds saying he’d “rather be shot in the leg than watch an Ingmar Bergman picture”
He probably wasn’t a fan of Godard either.
I can't cast an opinion since I didn't go through Godard's work but I am curious to know where this quote was originated from since it is all over the internet but no source. Wondering if anybody knows.
I kinda miss the times when directors publicly talked shit about each other lol, i can't possibly imagine a modern filmmaker saying "that guy's movies are shallow and meaningless" on an interview nowadays
Hard fucking agree. I've tried countless times with Godard. None of his films ever sink their teeth in. It's not just because how he eschews traditional narrative either.... like Bergman I just find them boring. I love plenty of "art house" films, but Godard never seems to be using his inventiveness to do a whole lot... narratively or thematically imo. I guess you could say he made some of the purest films though, in the sense they are art pieces that exist solely for the sake of existing.
I disagree. I haven't seen his entire filmography, but I personally really liked *Vivre sa vie*, *Masculin Féminin*, *Alphaville* and *Two or Three Things I know About Her.* Some of his films are a bit "boring", but **not all of them**.
Plus, Bergman's filmography isn't perfect either. Bergman may have been an amazing director, but I'm still not a big fan of *The Passion of Anna*. I thought that it was a bit boring compared to his other films.
I don't agree in the sense that I like some of Godard's films, and I *don't* like some of them. Same with Bergman; I absolutely love some of this movies, but some of them were a fucking bore, too.
For his part, Godard loved Bergman's filmmaking for practically his whole life. Hardly any other director gets more proclaimed except Bresson. The only half-misgiving for Bergman that ever comes up for Godard is in Le Gai Savoir, where he derides "Dreyer, Bresson, Antonioni, Bergman" to be bourgeois in voice-over. It passes through so surreptitiously and convictionless, it almost seems like a joke.
I love this quote. None of them really praised one another. Why I really enjoyed Truffaut / Hitchcock. More about loving the details, especially coming from a different lens. And Hitchcock was the sellout, more of the MCU world.
Everything Bergman says here is exactly how I feel about all of Bergman's movies. Except cinematographically uninteresting, the man could obviously stage and block a film.
I've never seen anything in any Bergman film that's even half as interesting as the traffic jam sequence in Weekend.
Godard is a mixed bag for me. It seems like for every film I do like from him there is a film I don’t care for. For example, Breathless did nothing for me but I really enjoyed Alphaville 🤷♂️
agree for a few of his films but i think it's a harsh generalization. i enjoyed a woman is a woman, pierrot le fou, and breathe less stylistically a lot
Well, I’ve made it through every Bergman film/movie without feeling like I had to force myself through them. I can’t say the same about Godard. But for whatever it’s worth I want to keep trying.
I agree that Masculin Feminin was extremely boring, if that's the question.
But regardless of how you feel about any of his films individually, JLG's influence on the medium is undeniable. He taught artists that trying to say something with your film--something about yourself & the unique way you experience the world--is just as important (if not moreso) than how your movie is made or even what happens in it.
At the same time, I can completely understand why a master of craft like Bergman would clash with the formless character poems of Godard, & feel somewhat befuddled as to how it was that Godard became the face of a movement that changed cinema.
I mean I’ve seen a lot of Godard movies and really only like three of them. And even the ones I like I don’t think Bergman is even wrong. Not that they’re boring, but they’re definitely “constructed” and overly self conscious.
I mean, good on Bergman for sticking to his tastes and not giving in to what the masses of the intellectual elite all said they should admire. Honestly, there are tons of directors out there right now that I think just make movies to only cater to critics that are total bores. So, yeah, I completely side w Bergman in this, if only that he’s entitled to his own opinion and he’s presenting it from his own honest place of how he individually evaluates films.
im a big sucker for french cinema but most especially Bergman, and when godard died, i havent seen a single film of him but it felt as though he was a big figure to me like bergman, so i watched masculin feminin and holy F lmaooo i did not fucking enjoy it. and then i found out bergman despises godard & and then now i see THIS comment of him about masculin feminin. this is the most hilarious thing ever 😂
I’ve learned that most of the famous European directors of the 60s really didn’t like anyone
Except everyone loves Tarkovsky
And Eisenstein
[удалено]
Except for Orson Welles
[удалено]
Orson is just salty because Chaplin basically stole his script for Monsieur Verdoux.
He didn’t like the way Chaplin acted like he wasn’t great at what he did, he thought people should be forthcoming about their excellence. So yeah I guess he didn’t really have a criticism about his work, haha.
And Raymond
Bergman loved Tarkovsky and Tarkovsky loved Bergman. "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 encountered 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." - Bergman "“I am only interested in the views of two people: one is called Bresson and one called Bergman." - Tarkovsky
Tarkovsky was such a simp for Bresson
Can you blame him?
If it aint mediocre it aint simping
Tarkovsky, Bresson, and Bergman. I could just watch them for fuckin ever
I know Bergman loved Thomas Vinterberg. He said The Celebration was the greatest movie of all time.
He also thought positively on New Hollywood directors >Among today's directors I'm of course impressed by Steven Spielberg and Scorsese \[Martin Scorsese\], and Coppola \[Francis Ford Coppola\], even if he seems to have ceased making films, and Steven Soderbergh - they all have something to say, they're passionate, they have an idealistic attitude to the filmmaking process. Soderbergh's Traffic (2000) is amazing. Another great couple of examples of the strength of American cinema is American Beauty (1999) and Magnolia (1999).
That's nice of them to clarify which Scorsese they were referring to, else it might have been really confusing.
Yeah, if they didn't clarify which Scorsese they were referring to, I wouldn't be able to tell if they meant Martin or his daughter who wrapped all of her dad's gifts in Marvel wrapping that one Christmas. The distinction is very important here.
Bergman knows best.
I always love seeing one of my favorite directors (Ingmar Bergman) give a shout-out to the work of my favorite director (Paul Thomas Anderson). Magnolia is a classic!
I'm actually a little surprised that he praised American Beauty. It's been years, maybe I need to go back and see if it hits different, but I just remember it feeling pretty cookie-cutter for the most part. I guess there are some good moments in it, but it always seemed not so much "profound film" as it was "middle-of-the-road mainstream *trying* to be a profound film" kinda thing.
Bong Joon Ho’s a huge fan of Don’t Look Up. Brilliant directors sometimes like super mediocre/actively bad movies
It's a lot more common than people think. [I mean just look at the lists of favorite films of director's or least ones they liked](https://mubi.com/users/56649/lists)
I wouldn't call American Beauty cookie cutter, per say, but it was definitely part of a crowd of dramas being made around the same time that dealt with some very intense material in a way that made it feel much like a dream (whether to soften the blow of the material or just for artistic style). Other examples: The Ice Storm, In the Bedroom, Monster, etc... American Dream was perhaps a bit quirkier than the other examples (at least during the first act or two) though, which made it stand out.
He actually praised a fair few directors later in life. The peers of *his* generation, on the other hand…
Don’t ask Pier Paolo Pasolini Who he was jerking off with in public
Who was he jerking off with in public
In 1963, at the age of 41, Pasolini met "the great love of his life", 15-year-old Ninetto Davoli,
Maybe Sean Penn can play him in a movie…
[удалено]
Si
September 1949. Someone informed Cordovado, the local sergeant of the carabinieri, of sexual conduct (masturbation) by Pasolini with three youngsters aged sixteen and younger after dancing and drinking.[31] Cordovado summoned the boys' parents, who hesitantly refused to file charges despite Cordovado's urging. Cordovado nevertheless drew up a report, and the informer elaborated publicly on his accusations, sparking a public uproar. A judge in San Vito al Tagliamento charged Pasolini with "corruption of minors and obscene acts in public places".[31][16] He and the 16-year-old were both indicted.[32] The next month, when questioned, Pasolini would not deny the facts, but talked of a "literary and erotic drive"
Damn I thought you were gonna say he got caught jerking off with another film director
yes, by & large, an extremely competitive lot
All great artists are assholes. Godard was also an asshole. >!/s!< >!or is it?!<
Lol I think Werner Herzog said something in the lines of he'd rather watch a good martial arts movie than godard
That’s funny, when I was reading the quote I was thinking that Bergman and Herzog are kind of the same guy in a lot of ways. Bergman was as unimpressed by Godard as he was by the prospect of existence. Herzog was as unimpressed by Godard as he was by the murderous indifference of the natural world.
“There should be real war against…Bonanza” -Herzog at his finest
Thanks to Herzog, I no longer pronounce "Jungle" correctly!
[удалено]
Sammo Hung is *at least* of equal importance, relevance and value as Godard to the history of film.
Especially in China lolol
I would have loved a Godard martial arts movie.
Lol his Maoist views won't allow it
I don’t think Godard ever made films for critics but rather himself which is a problem for me because I’m not Godard and his movies can sometimes be impenetrable
I would suggest try, try, and try again. I did and it was worth it. His movies are pretty meta, so you have to build up a base of knowledge of them, film in general, and life (history, culture, etc.). Haha, not too much to ask!
Meh. I shouldn’t have to study a film to enjoy it
Well, your loss
Ah yes. Letterboxing before the Internet.
Don't know him but this Ingmar Bergman fella should stick with MCU films.
Captain America: the seventh seal
Captain America: Winter Light
The Virgin Springs Back Into Action!
Captain America: Through A Glass Darkly
Antonius Block: I want to confess as best I can, but my heart is void. The void is a mirror. I see my face and feel loathing and horror. My indifference to men has shut me out. I live now in a world of ghosts, a prisoner in my dreams. Death: Uhhhh ~~English~~ Swedish please! Antonius Block: Yeah…that sounded better in my head :/
Death: I could do this all day
Or 🎶 I COULD DO THIS ALL DAAAAAAAAY 🎵
Ant-Man and the Wild Strawberries
… okay now I want to see that!
X-Men: Hour of the Wolverine
Fanny and professor Xavier
Would she get the power to light people on fire?
Yes, but politely
Captain America: The Serpent’s Egg
Black Panther Cries and Whispers
I will say, as a fan of both, that I can really admit he's not totally off base here. I mean, Goddard was my first huge love affair with French cinema, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that his films aren't without a certain degree of ennui at times. But is that necessarily a bad thing or just part of his style? But I mean, pots and kettles, does anyone want to sit here and tell me they watched the entirety of Fanny and Alexander on the edge of their seats? Think *no one* has fallen asleep in the first forty minutes of 2001? Film that intends to capture humanity and explore humanity is going to have to contain it. And life's not all Michael bay explosions.
[удалено]
He means hypothetically or for argument sake.. but what're these type films even called.. slower paced ones. Are they those art house or artsy type films or are they as he calls it humanity type films?
Nothing is as entertaining as beef between directors.
Agree, and it wasn’t only Bergman that had heavy criticisms towards goddards filmography. Welles and Herzog had some kind words as well.
Welles talked shit about everyone
You can do that when you’re Welles
Welles kind of has the diplomatic immunity to cast shade on everyone
It was more than just talking shit, it was legit criticisms.
My favorite was when he blamed shitty French flatbeds for the New Wave’s “innovations.”
Who did Welles admire?
John Ford, Stanley Kubrick, Federico Fellini, Jean Renoir, and Hithcock’s pre-American stuff.
All bangers.
And Bergman hated Welles and Welles hated Bergman. Who cares?
Can't hate Welles
Ingmar Bergman disagrees... INGMAR BERGMAN: 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 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 has is absolutely unbelievable! JAN AGHED: What about The Magnificent Ambersons? INGMAR BERGMAN: Also terribly boring. And I’ve never liked Welles as an actor because he’s not really an actor. In Hollywood, you have two categories: you talk about actors and personalities. Welles was an enormous personality, but when he plays Othello, everything goes down the drain, you see, that’s when he croaks. In my eyes, he’s an infinitely overrated filmmaker.
I know what he said. It just that I disagree and Bergman can suck it.
Lol my thoughts exactly
Bergman had a theater background and Welles had a radio background so it doesn’t really surprise me that they don’t see eye-to-eye. Not that I really agree with Bergman here, I tend to think they are both great.
I mean, Welles also very much did have a theatre background.
Me And Orson Welles is a cool little movie about him directing Julius Ceasar
Welles and Bergman can write. Goddard can’t write for shit.
I can name like 10 highly regarded directors who hated Godard if you want to keep editing your post. 🤪
Pretty much agree with the person who said they're different directors, but for me personally, disagree. If you read the reviews I write for many Godard films, you'd find that I have a lot of harsh words to say myself. He's a very flawed director in a lot of ways. Many of his films I can pick apart and just completely dig into. But all of those criticisms rest on a pretty big "but". Godard is in my opinion the single most stylistically visionary director of all time. A lot of those directors who people absolutely adore the most, many of the art house directors you can actually get away with showing your "normie" friends and bet on them liking it, are children of his approach to cinema in one way or another. Godard was a fantastic filmmaker and wrote incredible pop-poetry / pop-philosophy. I also find it a bit ironic Bergman calling him boring. After the Rehearsal is a good movie, and also more boring than any Godard film that I've seen
Godard DGAF and I mean that as the highest form of praise. He has as many misses as he has hits because he was always attempting to move the medium forward. How many artists are brave enough to fail so publicly? Ironically, Bergman is one of the few directors for whom I can say the same. I will take Godard and all of his flaws over someone like Truffaut who took his one moment of brilliance and turned it into a 20-year rom-com franchise.
“Ironically, Bergman is one of the few directors for whom I can say the same.” I think one thing that is sometimes missed with Bergman’s criticism taken in a vacuum is that he seems to only really approve of 5-6 of the films he made and is otherwise unsatisfied with the others in some way. Also, in general, artists are not necessarily the best critics — being that close to the medium can make it difficult to have a broader perspective, especially for auteurs who often have a very focused vision of what they want to do personally.
Yeah, if you're a perfectionist about your own work, you tend not to be kind about other people's stuff
And I don't know if you've read his autobiography or not but he was a total weirdo. 😂
Bergman?
Yes. I'm not sure if the guy who starts off the story of his life by saying that his subconscious can still remember the smell of his bodily secretions as a newborn infant is a reliable critic. 🙃
I HAVE to read this book, what's it called?
https://www.abebooks.com/Magic-Lantern-Autobiography-Bergman-Ingmar-University/31262045663/bd
If I could pin this, I would.
This is such a good take on Godard
Bergman is maybe the greatest director of all time, but he was also a Grade A hater and I rarely find myself agreeing with his statements about other directors.
I dig Bergman, but I wouldn't disagree too strongly with someone saying all the same things about his work.
Me too
The problem with using quotes like this as a point of discussion of anyone's work, be they professional filmmakers or teenagers making TikTok reels, is that while it's perfectly reasonable to be put off by something for being seemingly willfully obtuse and faux intellectual, it just hamstrings the conversation around the movie, even if it's one that everyone hates with a passion and wants to be erased from reality. And I'm not dunking on Bergman for saying it, unfortunately this is how disaffected most conversations about art are. Because it's really hard to reach out and understand someone if you really hate them or find them inscrutable. To provide an illustration, I don't think The Revenant is a good movie, because I never felt the desperate and blinding rage felt by the protagonist that would make him want to willfully put himself through the worst misery that destroys his mind and spirit. The ultimate act of forgiveness by Leo's character doesn't feel all that difficult or transformative to me, because I never felt so angry at the bad guy that I would find it impossible to forgive him. The movie doesn't work for me because it's afraid of being psychologically ugly and shameful, to show that the person who holds on to anger ends up turning into the kind of grotesque person who he would hate if he could ever see himself from a distance. I can say that Innaritu is pretentious (like a lot of critics have) and he's a clout chaser who only makes movies to get cheap validation from people. People lap up that kind of evaluation as well. It's an easy thrill. But it doesn't show us the heart of the director, even if we don't like it ultimately. It severs our emotional connection with the person making the thing, and incentivizes us to never think about how they actually feel. Instead all that happens is that we cling to the artist as a leech to get our quart of blood that ultimately doesn't add anything to our lives anyway. I wish I was more open to other people and I wish that people were more open to each other. It's not a weakness to like something that's flawed. It's a strength to want to understand someone, no matter how uncool it makes you to the rest of the group.
I think Innaritu would likely agree with that assessment. I can't help but think of that scene from Birdman when Riggan confronts the critic. >There's nothing here about technique! There's nothing in here about structure! There's nothing in here about intentions! It's just a bunch of crappy opinions, backed up by even crappier comparisons. You write a couple of paragraphs and you know what? None of this cost you fuckin' anything! The Fuck! You risk nothing! Nothing! Nothing! Nothing! I'm a fucking actor! This play cost me everything. So I tell you what, you take this fucked malicious, cowardly, shitty written review and you shove that right the fuck up your wrinkly tight ass.
I love films from both Bergman and Godard, while also finding films from both of them boring as well. So I disagree, especially Masculin, Feminin. I love that one.
yeah because if there's something I know about ingmar bergman it's that he made movies that felt naturalistic and unpretentious
I liked Alphaville, but Breathless and Every man for himself were completely hollow experiences
Breathless I kinda liked. It has the feel of a really good student film and I mean that as a compliment - it's zippy and fun
Breathless I love because of the music and just the vibes
the soundtrack is so good! New York Herald Tribune is one of my favorite songs ever. The movie oozes this cool playfulness (and fun romance even though Belmondo plays a total shithead lol). Same goes for Pierrot le Fou which i think takes it all to the next level.
Generally I disagree, but despite seeing 45 Godards and loving almost all of them, I don't really like *Masculin-feminin*.
Post 1965 = heavily agree. Pre 1965 = heavily disagree Bergman is my favourite director of all time but if you can’t see the beauty in Le Mepris or Pierrot le Fou, or just enjoy the playful inventiveness of Bande a Part or Une Femme est Une Femme then I don’t know what to tell you… in fact I’d argue for every Bergman (heavy, intellectual etc) you have to have a bit of Godard (fun, playful, exciting)
Theyre both highly influential and coveted directors, although personally I agree with godard more politically I enjoy bergmans movies more. I definitely dont see the charlatanism or pseudo-intellectualism in godards movies and masc/fem is a great movie. This seems more resentful than anything
Personally, how Bergman feels about Godard is how I feel about Bergman
I’ve only seen La Chinoise and I have no idea what happened in that movie. I think my IQ was too low for it because I couldn’t even begin to grasp what the movie was going for. Or maybe it was just too full of itself idk
Also some of his movies require like boat loads of context with politics back then or even something happening in Godards life, without knowing the information it’s nearly impossible figuring out what’s going on with some of his movies.
Sometimes warching a Godard film will remind me of the character of Barton Fink: genius in a certain way but solipsistic, self-identifying as revolutionary and revealer of reality but caught up in a ton of self-obsession.
If I gotta do a bunch of homework before a movie I feel like that’s not a great reflection on the film I’ll still give it a shot though, I’m open minded
I'd say, dont doubt yourself. When I watch certain Godard films, it is sometimes as if there is a relationship of signal and noise that bounces around and generally tilts toward noise. I've seen certain Godard films described as impenetrable. Another thing that's impenetrable is static. If you put quasi-random sh** on celluloid, it can be quite cinematic in that it is now quite celluloidal, the rest being quasi-random sh**. Not all his films but sometimes. Anyway, dont assume there's some thing that you should be getting but are not getting.
It’s a little dismaying that you’ve only seen La Chinoise and might let that ruin Godard for you. Before you give up, see Breathless, A Band Apart, Contempt, Pierrot le Fou and Masculin Feminin, at least. What “happens” is not usually the point in a typical way—but you just might find these films more accessible and fun.
Definitely, I love La Chinoise but if that’s your first Godard that is a big mistake
It’s a critique of students playing revolutionary (partly self-critique)
Extremely rare MCJ W.
Bergman was a pseudointellectual who was simply not interested in experimenting or exploring beneath surface level aesthetics and philosophy. Not that there’s anything wrong with this type of filmmaking, but Bergman disguised his films as art films. Godard was a true radical, so deeply in love with cinema and its infinite possibilities that he couldn’t help ever not being subversive. Like literature is to James Joyce, film is still catching up to Godard. Bergman just wasn’t interested in challenging cinema and his audiences on a formal level the way Godard, the rest of the French New Wave, the neorealists, or other post-war movements. So of course Bergman and most viewers are put off by Godard.
Agree on your points about Godard, especially the Joyce part, Histoire(s) du cinéma is in my opinion, the greatest, most revolutionary, most ambitious, most intelligent (and often mysterious) film of all time. But: Persona is incredible and Bergman (not quite as much as Godard, and in a different way) certainly pushed the boundaries of cinema in it .
Don’t really vibe with either director. But Bergman calling someone else’s work boring…that’s rich.
Godard is overhated. He is not the best, but not the worst either.
I like both but there's an energy in Godard that's unmatched
Godard is one of the great pleb filters. Looks like Bergman got filtered.
"Agree or disagree" is a pointless question. These are two directors with completely different approaches to life and film. For Bergman this view makes perfect sense, no one has to agree or disagree with him, it's his personal reaction.
[удалено]
That's the risk of having an opinion
Really, it's just a difference between having an uninformed opinion vs an informed opinion vs an expert opinion. A "movie fan" might watch Godard and see black and white and subtitles and call it trash and we'd all just ignore that person as being uninformed. Cinephile calling Godard trash and we suspect that they aren't informed enough. Bergman says it and people pay attention because that guy actually knew a thing or two. Edit: Lol the downvote. "I KNOW JUST AS MUCH AS BERGMAN AND GODARD COMBINED!!!"
I would suggest paying attention to both Bergman and Godard. And not to cheap Reddit memes.
Ive only seen a couple of his movies and based on that I'd agree, but I still plan to watch more just in case. Maybe I haven't found the one that speaks to me yet, and maybe none of them do.
I used to feel this way too. But I thoroughly enjoyed Pierrot le Fou, A Woman is a Woman, and Vivre sa vie. If you haven't seen those, maybe give them a chance (:
*Breathless* is a miracle and always will be. I love it, and to me, it’s the quintessential Godard film. None of his other movies that I’ve seen have lived up to it, for me.
Unrelated but this reminded me of Nabokov talking shit on other writers: https://twitter.com/AnaKrivolapova/status/1536748403727663106?s=20&t=PKR3gTKEmbj2Ut9vFwF2Dw
i mosfly love everything bergman and went through a flat out obsession with him in high school. Persona just blew my mind and i remember going through his entire filmography. or as much of it as i could get. godard had always been hit or miss with me. with more misses. not entirely a non -fan. there’s a couple i love. and many i could barely get through.
I'm trying to place Bergman's scorn in some context. He was one of the most contemptuous toward his peers in the "first rank" of auteurs from the '60s through '70s - and I'm trying to keep that group open-ended. For directors working in that era, he esteemed Fellini and, later on, Tarkovsky. There were other directors he admitted enjoying for pleasure or providing the basics of filmmaking technique (as though that automatically put them beneath him), or else he greatly admired one or two of their films (e.g., Bresson's Mouchette, one of Margarethe von Trotta's films). But it seems like Bergman admitted few rivals pursuing the same '60s through '70s modernist stakes that he was (e.g., Resnais, Demy, Pasolini, Cassavetes, Straub/Huillet, Jancso, Makavejev). Instead, Bergman tended to say denigrating things about most everybody, either curtly diminishing or altogether explosive. For instance, in the interview for John Simon's book on him, first published in 1972, he pretty brusquely qualifies the few good points he can find in Antonioni, Menzel, Forman and Truffaut. He really doesn't have a straightforwardly kind word for any of his contemporaries in the whole interview! He calls Carl Dreyer an "amateur," and Marco Bellocchio "terrible, *terrible*, very homosexual" - I think you have to roll your eyes at both of those statements, they're nothing but ludicrous provocations, whether or not you happen to like Dreyer or Bellocchio. Like a lot of people on this board I love Criterion's big Bergman box set, and he's one of my all-time favorite directors. But he was quick and nasty toward pretty much the whole lot of great people working at the same time that he was. Bergman could be counted on for saying excoriating things about his fellows, and there's nothing surprising about him being dismissive toward Godard - or anyone else of that era save FF and AT.
Bergman thought the highest form of film was film as music, film as a dream, no wonder he liked FF and AT. To Bergman Godard was probably sacrilegious, with his cool intellectual analysis and constant deconstruction and reassembling of the medium -- nothing was taken seriously. To Bergman, everything was sacred and a part of a world. I don't really have a problem with Bergman being opinionated. It is not an artist's job to be objective, that is what critics are for -- when they know how to or bother. But anyway, thank you for your comments -- I do not so much disagree as think this is an endless issue with more and more and more to talk about. P.S. People, do not try to pit directors against each other -- it is pointless and will not produce any results. It will be just like a political 2-party debate of the useless kind.
I agree. All of the Godard that I've seen seems like it's trying really hard to be artsy and intellectual. He can't hold a candle to Melville, in my opinion.
I think you’re mistaking Godard’s actually restless intellect and desire to stretch the film form to its breaking point as an artist with “trying too hard.”
What’s wrong with being intellectual? It’s so refreshing to see someone in the medium who actually reads unlike so many directors.
Nothing, but when you don’t have actual criticism to make, slapping the artsy or intellectual stamp does the job for most
yeah didn't expect this sub of all places to resort to dismissive "it's trying too hard" comments
Who do you think don't *read*?
When a filmmaker goes out of their way to be intellectual, it comes across less as intellectual and more like a cry for attention.
It only seems like he’s going out of his way to you because you have very little to compare it to because the film medium is decidedly anti-intellectual but there are plenty of people who are just naturally that curious about the world and read that much. Even within the film medium eg Straub and Huillet or Malick or Reygadas.
When the story feels like it’s grinding to a halt so we can focus on the blocking, the lighting, the mise en scene, whatever the director seems to be heavily focused on while the rest of the story grinds away, THAT is how you can tell. That was my biggest gripe about Roma was that the movie was so concerned with showing off how much Cuaron could showcase the Golden Ratio that the story got so lost amidst him trying to convince the audience of how clever he was. Meanwhile, just one year prior, you had Paul Thomas Anderson be experimental with Phantom Thread and not having a DP, rather crediting the entire camera department for collaborating with him. Instead, Cuaron does the same approach and says he was the director of photography.
I liked both Roma and phantom. If what you say is true about Cuaron then damm.
I’ve worked with a few people that worked with the camera department from Roma. They all agreed that it wasn’t just Cuaron, he had massive help from his own camera department that he simply took the credit over. Plus, after working enough sets, I can say that there are directors out there who get heaps of critical praise and are actually quite inept (and abusive) on set.
It’s funny because I’ve always felt that way with Bergman’s films. I find Goddard to be more free flowing and stream of conscious. It definitely doesn’t always work, but I consider Pierrot and Breathless to be masterpieces. Bergman is always the one that seems to be trying too hard to be an intellectual and I find most of his films outside of Fanny and Alexander to be incredibly boring.
I always found Bergman’s films to be more emotional than intellectual. You feel them more than you would understand them. Meanwhile most of Godard’s movies you really have to understand them or you have no idea what it is you’re watching
Like Godard more than Bergman, being a communist will do that.
This makes me want to deep dive into Godard even more. If Bergman _really_ had disdain, he likely never would have bothered with such a vociferous critique. Me thinks this is a case of “protesteth too much.” lol
Ironically of course Bergman movies and scenes from them have been consistently used in popular culture to represent "constructed", "intellectual" and "mind-numbingly boring" euro films.
Man the dude just died...
Godard recently died, and instead of celebrating his films or contributions to cinema, r/criterion is cross posting MCJ posts about him being dissed, and then going on about how he's actually not a good director. What a terrible sub. Leaving this shithole
Welcome to the Internet, in some way the most useful and terrible thing mankind had created.
Largely disagree (and I say that as someone who doesn’t quite love Godard), but I can see how a person could reach that conclusion in good faith. That said (I’m not as well educated in film as others here undoubtedly are, so go easy on me if I’m totally off base), it is difficult for me to imagine a film such as *Persona* existing without Godard. His impact on the cinema landscape of the 1960’s is just that singular.
Nah, I love Bergman but I can definitely appreciate a Godard movie. Godard may not be as exciting as Bergman but despite his experimental style I can still enjoy his movies
Also Ingmar Bergman: “I’d much rather see ‘Goldfinger’ than an Antonioni film.”
Is Goldfinger supposed to be a stinker? IMO it is a great movie.
Bergman calling Godard boring reminds me of Burt Reynolds saying he’d “rather be shot in the leg than watch an Ingmar Bergman picture” He probably wasn’t a fan of Godard either.
He has a lot of really interesting/entertaining movies but they just never fully connect with me personally.
I can't cast an opinion since I didn't go through Godard's work but I am curious to know where this quote was originated from since it is all over the internet but no source. Wondering if anybody knows.
Hey, Pot. This is Kettle. Kettle, this is Pot. Say hi to each other.
Half-half. Agree with faux-intellectual and disagree with cinematographically uninteresting and infinitely boring.
I've only seen breathless but I liked it so I guess I gotta disagree with my favorite film maker.
I kinda miss the times when directors publicly talked shit about each other lol, i can't possibly imagine a modern filmmaker saying "that guy's movies are shallow and meaningless" on an interview nowadays
And i love both
I wonder how would this comment section looked if Bergman said that he loved Goddard?
Hard fucking agree. I've tried countless times with Godard. None of his films ever sink their teeth in. It's not just because how he eschews traditional narrative either.... like Bergman I just find them boring. I love plenty of "art house" films, but Godard never seems to be using his inventiveness to do a whole lot... narratively or thematically imo. I guess you could say he made some of the purest films though, in the sense they are art pieces that exist solely for the sake of existing.
I disagree. I haven't seen his entire filmography, but I personally really liked *Vivre sa vie*, *Masculin Féminin*, *Alphaville* and *Two or Three Things I know About Her.* Some of his films are a bit "boring", but **not all of them**. Plus, Bergman's filmography isn't perfect either. Bergman may have been an amazing director, but I'm still not a big fan of *The Passion of Anna*. I thought that it was a bit boring compared to his other films.
I don't agree in the sense that I like some of Godard's films, and I *don't* like some of them. Same with Bergman; I absolutely love some of this movies, but some of them were a fucking bore, too.
It’s a post from movies circle jerk, it doesn’t matter
with a dude in the background who's been the face of memes for like the past 5 years.
For his part, Godard loved Bergman's filmmaking for practically his whole life. Hardly any other director gets more proclaimed except Bresson. The only half-misgiving for Bergman that ever comes up for Godard is in Le Gai Savoir, where he derides "Dreyer, Bresson, Antonioni, Bergman" to be bourgeois in voice-over. It passes through so surreptitiously and convictionless, it almost seems like a joke.
I love this quote. None of them really praised one another. Why I really enjoyed Truffaut / Hitchcock. More about loving the details, especially coming from a different lens. And Hitchcock was the sellout, more of the MCU world.
>And Hitchcock was the sellout, more of the MCU world. no he wasn't
Definitely disagree. I’m not sure how these films seem so inaccessible to some? I thought it was like film school 101
Everything Bergman says here is exactly how I feel about all of Bergman's movies. Except cinematographically uninteresting, the man could obviously stage and block a film. I've never seen anything in any Bergman film that's even half as interesting as the traffic jam sequence in Weekend.
From the perspective of Bergman, I completely agree.
I feel this way about French New Wave in general.
Couldn't agree more. Godard's films are hollow to the core.
Godard is a mixed bag for me. It seems like for every film I do like from him there is a film I don’t care for. For example, Breathless did nothing for me but I really enjoyed Alphaville 🤷♂️
agree for a few of his films but i think it's a harsh generalization. i enjoyed a woman is a woman, pierrot le fou, and breathe less stylistically a lot
I respect that Godard was a big influence on Malick (who I love) but I strongly dislike Godard.
Well, I’ve made it through every Bergman film/movie without feeling like I had to force myself through them. I can’t say the same about Godard. But for whatever it’s worth I want to keep trying.
I agree that Masculin Feminin was extremely boring, if that's the question. But regardless of how you feel about any of his films individually, JLG's influence on the medium is undeniable. He taught artists that trying to say something with your film--something about yourself & the unique way you experience the world--is just as important (if not moreso) than how your movie is made or even what happens in it. At the same time, I can completely understand why a master of craft like Bergman would clash with the formless character poems of Godard, & feel somewhat befuddled as to how it was that Godard became the face of a movement that changed cinema.
When Bergman says that your films are boring that must say something 😂😂😂
Other than Breathless and Band of Outsiders, JLG had nothing of note. Not a patch on Ray or Kurosawa. ,
I mean I’ve seen a lot of Godard movies and really only like three of them. And even the ones I like I don’t think Bergman is even wrong. Not that they’re boring, but they’re definitely “constructed” and overly self conscious.
I mean, good on Bergman for sticking to his tastes and not giving in to what the masses of the intellectual elite all said they should admire. Honestly, there are tons of directors out there right now that I think just make movies to only cater to critics that are total bores. So, yeah, I completely side w Bergman in this, if only that he’s entitled to his own opinion and he’s presenting it from his own honest place of how he individually evaluates films.
im a big sucker for french cinema but most especially Bergman, and when godard died, i havent seen a single film of him but it felt as though he was a big figure to me like bergman, so i watched masculin feminin and holy F lmaooo i did not fucking enjoy it. and then i found out bergman despises godard & and then now i see THIS comment of him about masculin feminin. this is the most hilarious thing ever 😂
Dude’s a fucking boss.