criterionforum.org

Robert de la Cheyniest wrote:If there's one thing we can all agree on, it's that watching your fecal matter slowly dissapear in a maelstrom of water is certainly one of life's greatest pleasures.

...as Lars Von Trier and Morton Arnfred highlighted in The Kingdom II, when Dr Stig Helmer (Ernst-Hugo Jaregard) pays repeated visits to a similar facility for - as far as I can see, since it's shot from the bowl's POV - very similar reasons.

Barmy wrote:His 70s work may appear a bit dated, but films like Anna, The Touch and parts of Face to Face, for example, offer a lot to enjoy.

You must be a Bergman hater if you like The Touch. I haven't yet met any Bergman fan who can stomach it.

And only "parts" of Face to Face? The original Swedish TV version is one of his greatest works.

Some of "Face to Face" is a bit awkward (the dream sequences); still a great piece. And, yes, I love "The Touch". Passionately.

It's a long time since I saw The Touch, but I remember thinking that Bergman was trying to say something about the Jews. The Elliott Gould character is a fish out of water among the dry and aseptic Nordics, a bit like the Coen brothers in Minnesota and among the inhabitants of Fargo.

It was Bibi, not Harriet, Andersson in "The Touch" -- I know, it must've been the ganja.

davidhare wrote:And the Jewish American guy was Woody Allen!!!

It was on the top of my tongue!

The Touch would have been SO much better had it starred Woody Allen and Diane Keaton.

David Ehrenstein wrote:The Touch would have been SO much better had it starred Woody Allen and Diane Keaton.

I find you could apply that statement to almost any movie.

Examples: Jurassic Park, Commando, Children of Men.

The possibilities!

With Commando, presumably we're talking Keaton in the Arnie role and Woody as Rae Dawn Chong?

I've not yet seen Cries And Whispers but the cutting scene you describe sounds similar to the scene in The Piano Teacher. Is there anything in that? If it is filmed in a similar way to the Haneke film it seems that the mutilation would played more for the emotional power rather than just the repulsion of knowing exactly which part of herself the lady is cutting (even though the suggestion of that would probably add another level of discomfort for the viewer).

I was taken a little aback at the criticism of Bergman with his passing - I suppose it goes to show that being a recognised name doesn't exactly equate to having the work be well liked! Rather than feeling that Bergman didn't add anything to cinema except miserablism, I've found many of his pictures deeply felt and with a questioning of the worlds and actions of the characters he creates that often leaves me with an impression of discovering the worlds with his characters and even with Bergman himself. Even some of the later films that don't have that sense of discovery of plot and character and which leave me with the impression that I'm watching a film whose outcome has been somewhat predetermined and set in stone such as The Serpent's Egg or Fanny And Alexander have their own pleasures and perhaps were more accessible to audiences because of the feeling of being in the hands of someone telling them a (superficially) recognisable plot and setting.

I liked the sense of seeing someone wrestle with big questions, even if in wrestling with huge, indefinable vagaries of religion or love Bergman laid the films themselves open to ridicule or for parody.

I loved the way that the style of Bergman's films ranged from pastoral beauty and richly detailed period interiors to stark, bare landscapes, and isolated islands. All giving a feeling of self contained worlds for their introspective characters to talk with each other, tear each other apart, fantasise and dream. Beautiful, theatrical productions in that sense, yet they were also perfect cinema, environments informed by the characters actions and vice versa.

Probably my favourite Bergman film is Through A Glass Darkly, along with Winter Light (I wrote more on my reactions to those films on the threads for the Film Trilogy), and Wild Strawberries, with Shame and Passion Of Anna not far behind. Any filmmaker should be proud to have made even one film of such quality, and these aren't even the most celebrated of Bergman's career.

I'll never forget the long take of Marta reading her letter to Tomas in Winter Light broken after four minutes by the abrupt cut to Tomas's trembling hands rifling through the pages in anguish, crumpling some, dropping some to the floor. How emotion could be conveyed just through the movement of the hands has stayed with me.

Or the horn sounding over the landscape in Through A Glass Darkly.

Or Andreas pacing like a caged animal in a steadily tightening frame, zooming in so far it becomes static in The Passion of Anna, or the long evening conversation in the same film.

davidhare wrote:Yet Isabelle's act of self mutilation in the Haneke seems to genuinely arise from the character's own psychology. In the Bergman, Ingrid's gesture just seems to me like something laid on by Bergman for overemphasis, or simply punishment.

That is interesting. It sounds a little like the mother in The Virgin Spring pouring the candle wax over her wrist in an act of mortification. It was used in that film however, along with the mother's head dress, to make the distinct contrast between how the mother treated herself compared to her cosseted daughter. Were there similar kinds of contrasts being made between the characters in Cries and Whispers?

(I think the answer is that I need to see the film and find out for myself!)

I wonder if Bergman gave Ingrid any explanaton for her act? Probably not.

I just read the Corliss interview with Liv Ullmann about Saraband on time.com where the question of the relationship between father and daughter comes up and Liv says: "You know, when actors do a movie with Ingmar we don't ask, "What do you mean?" or "Is there really incest?" It's up to each of us to make a choice."

In the Assayas/Bjorkman book, Bergman hints at some very serious problem with Ingrid in After the Rehearsal which resulted in that film being 35 minutes shorter than it was meant to be.

Anyway, as regards instructions to actors, nothing beats what Fellini had to say to Terence Stamp.

(I'm new here, sorry if this is an old joke to you).

I liked the sense of seeing someone wrestle with big questions, even if in wrestling with huge, indefinable vagaries of religion or love Bergman laid the films themselves open to ridicule or for parody.

Any person or artist who speaks honestly and openly is subject to ridicule. It's much easier to hide behind irony. Bergman had balls of steel and what's more the raw talent to pull it off.

David Ehrenstein wrote:Jonathan Rosenbaum rips Ingmar a new one in the NYT

Roger Ebert replies.

Alyosha wrote:

David Ehrenstein wrote:Jonathan Rosenbaum rips Ingmar a new one in the NYT

Roger Ebert replies.

Yeah, the Ebert response is really puzzling - most obvious is his calling Rosenbaum "Rosenberg" a few times in the piece. But ultimately more problematic than that is he spends a couple paragraphs tearing down the exact opposite of a point Rosenbaum was making, I suppose because he misread it. Here's what Ebert says:

Who else but Rosenberg could actually believe that Bergman “lacked Dreyer and Bresson's power to entertain, which often meant a reluctance to challenge conventional film-going habitsâ€

[quote="Oedipax"]Here's what Ebert says:

[quote]Who else but Rosenberg could actually believe that Bergman “lacked Dreyer and Bresson's power to entertain, which often meant a reluctance to challenge conventional film-going habitsâ€

Roger Ebert replies.

See, here's where I should have saved my "Did you mean to post that on the .com forum" line

NY Times letters to the editor about Rosenbaum's article.

The best swing at Rosenbaum is saved for last (the editor of the letters page is obviously a Bergman fan, unlike the editor of the Op-Ed page):

[quote]It's worth noting that my 15-year-old son is a self-motivated devotee of classic foreign films and of Bergman in particular; and when I showed him Jonathan Rosenbaum's article, he was aghast. “Oh, man,â€

Rosenbaum is a tool. However, it must be said that Bergman's "style" is middlebrow, bourgeois and, even, suburban. E.g. that dreadful "Smiles of a Summer Night". That is why he is an arthouse icon and won all those Oscars® and why housewives know who he is.

That said, I agree that his films are entertaining--most of them from the 50s on are, in some way.

Edited after I read the JR piece.

Barmy wrote:E.g. that dreadful "Smiles of a Summer Night".

WTF? I can't even fathom how the word "dreadful" can be attached to that film. I understand that you're above it all and can't be brought down to such a low level as to enjoy a film like this, but your dismissals of so many great films and directors is getting old. I can't tell if you are saying things just to piss people off or if you really believe all of these negatives things you have to say about so many people. Either way, it's a drag to read every day.

While "Smiles Of A Summer Night" wouldn't top my list of favorite Bergman films, it's still wonderful. The dialogue alone qualifies it as a great movie.

that dreadful "Smiles of a Summer Night".

Whew, another reason for me to be joyous that you're still not on my cruise.

On the other hand, I can't think of any more apposite adjectives than "suburban" to describe Persona and Hour of the Wolf.

I think SSN is smirky and gormless. Adultery is HI-LARIOUS!!!