criterionforum.org

Thanks for reopening the thread. You know it makes sense.

Is the poster who goes by "tavernier" really Bertrand?
If so, I suppose it likely that i shall see you in Telluride in a few days.

vogler wrote:

HerrSchreck wrote:

tryavna wrote:I don't know whether I'm pleased and impressed that Jonathan has been "tuning in" to our forum, as he puts, or disappointed and embarrassed that his first post here is dedicated to responding to a series of posts that are really beneath him.

My sentiments exactly.

My sentiments Oppositely.

tryavna wrote:to responding to a series of posts that are really beneath him.

Crock of shit.

Well, to be fair, my original comments were more about those silly separated-at-birth photos and the subsequent comments that are no longer part of this thread. They were when I posted my comment.

But I'd also suggest that my comment was meant to cut both ways: I'm surprised that, after weeks (months? years?) of reading this forum, the only thing that gets Rosenbaum energized enough to post here is something about himself. As a public intellectual of many years' standing, I'd have hoped that that sort of nonsense would simply have rolled off his back -- especially if he's already defended himself elsewhere. (What's next? Armond White joining to defend himself?)

Again-- my sentiments exactly tryavna. I would have much rather see Rosenbaum come onboard w a Welles thread, a Lang thread, a thread which would benefit from his rich knowledge...

I think I knew he was hanging around here (I seem to recall someone telling me, or reading a ref in the press he'd written)-- so debuting in such a to & fro was a bit anticlimactic.. although some of the comments on the Times piece were innaresting.

I dunno there are any sacred cows vog, but I think it's beneath his dignity to bat the infighting spauldine around with internumbnuts. The same way we instructed Gary during the Yunda splat that he would have been better off not getting dragged down into the nitzing with the dude and simply remained silent.

Anyhow-- welcome to the forum Jon!

Rented L'Eclisse from the library today, and to my surprise an essay by Mr. Rosenbaum. I know Mr. Rosenbaum worked on some aspects of the Welles Criterion releases, and that he holds Orson Welles in very high esteem. Maybe the editor forced this "Overrated" Bergman article, or maybe thats something that he truly believes. I only hope that if he didnt enjoy, or at least respect films like Wild Strawberries or Cries and Whispers on first viewing that he has given Bergman films multiple chances before calling him overrated in the realm of great directors. I could say the same exact thing about Mr. Welles, while Citizen Kane failed initially, he hit that high point so early in his career. Bergman had longevity, and continued to create great films throughout his career, culminating with Fanny and Alexander.

psufootball07 wrote:I only hope that if he didnt enjoy, or at least respect films like Wild Strawberries or Cries and Whispers on first viewing that he has given Bergman films multiple chances before calling him overrated in the realm of great directors. I could say the same exact thing about Mr. Welles, while Citizen Kane failed initially, he hit that high point so early in his career. Bergman had longevity, and continued to create great films throughout his career, culminating with Fanny and Alexander.

I get the impression that you do not know who Jonathan Rosenbaum is. You may disagree with his opinion of Bergman (as do many in this forum), but with all due respect to present your opinion of Welles as a relevant counter-argument (especially in the form of "my dad can beat up your dad") is beyond ridiculous.

psufootball07 wrote:he hit that high point so early in his career.

Complete myth, Welles continued to do great work (many superior to Kane) up until finances were continually pulled from under him to the point he couldn't get a film done in the 70s and 80s.

Rosenbaum doesn't like a few Bergman films... big deal. He doesn't dismiss him off-hand, and its obvious he likes quite a few of his works. It isn't like he's Armond White, going into films determined to hate them. I personally don't think Bergman made a bad film from Summer Interlude on (and yes, that includes All These Women and Serpent's Egg), but I don't go to critics to have my opinions reinforced.

The timing of the article was bad and could have gone more in depth, but some of that falls at the feet of the editors, especially since they provided the most distasteful part of the article, the title.

Thanks for the info Cold Bishop. Anyways I keep finding more and more Rosenbaum work in the Criterion Collection, I rented both L'Eclisse and Playtime yesterday, yet didnt realize until I opened Playtime this morning that he wrote essays for both the releases. Either way I hope to read some more good stuff from him. I will have to look into the Welles films released by Criterion because I know he worked on those as well.

psufootball07 wrote:Anyways I keep finding more and more Rosenbaum work in the Criterion Collection, I rented both L'Eclisse and Playtime yesterday, yet didnt realize until I opened Playtime this morning that he wrote essays for both the releases.

Believe it or not, his work exists outside of The Criterion Collection too. I'd recommend this and this as good places to start, and there's already an extensive archive of essays on his blog.

It strikes me as utterly bizarre that Rosenbaum has actually logged on here to rebuff criticism from someone who doesn't appear to have even the faintest idea about his stature or achievement.

Should Criterion dive into Rivette (and not just the Janus holdings) then I also look forward to JR's essays with those discs as well -- if they are more than just re-workings of previous essays. But Playtime piece didn't do much for me.

I think the Rosenbaum article simply shows a preference for technique and innovation rather than performance and narrative. Probably why the theater is constantly brought up as a pejorative.

I'd say that's why the piece looks up to Godard, who jumpstarted his career on craft and criticism, not soul. Bergman himself noted this. And the piece also praises Bresson, whose performance style siphoned the humanity from his films.

Acting is the heart of cinema. Bergman knew this. It's why the close-up of the face, hardly a novel shot, became his staple. To deny the collaborative characterizations that Bergman created with his cast is to reduce his films to mere chamber philosophizing. What made him a genius are the turmoil and ambivalent spirituality with the psychology, externalized for the audience, and then internalized by the audience.

But as Rosenbaum says, "these emotions remain ugly ones." Well, then is that not challenging? Is that something to be reduced to "entertainment"?

Bergman had a respect for actors and performance and character. Because films, stories, narratives have characters. People. Rosenbaum can rage against the machine all he wants, but it's been this way since before Bergman and before the Greek theater and before humans had language.

Rosenbaum, by making a film critic's judgment on the form, has shown disdain for acting and character. What melds philosophy and humanism, ideas and people, intellectualism and emotions (even the ugly ones). Bergman was not like this; he was not like Bresson. He had respect for actors.

Was Bergman an innovator? Yes. He did it on his own terms. And he did it without rote disregard for people. Passion of Anna, Cries and Whispers, Persona, and even the shrinking to white in Saraband all had cinematic technique. Some techniques worked, some not as well. But Bergman did innovate. He just won't be remembered for it, because his mark on cinema is that much more important.

So while Rosenbaum says Bergman's films are "self-absorbed," I say we had the opportunity to witness a true auteur, a pure film where an artist worked in collaboration with those he trusted and guided to create a personal, yet cooperative, statement. While Rosenbaum says this limits their relevance, I'd say Bergman's focus on character, as opposed to Rosenbaum's technique-driven favorites, made his films more relevant.

It's why Bergman will be remembered for themes and acting and gravity and faces. And Godard will be remembered for the jump cut. The shame is that this poorly-timed and poorly-written article does not live up to the usual high quality of Mr. Rosenbaum.

Grand Illusion wrote:It's why Bergman will be remembered for themes and acting and gravity and faces. And Godard will be remembered for the jump cut.

And Grand Illusion will be remembered for absurd hyperbole. I'm not sure why the defense of one artist can only be made at the expense of another, but you undermined any chance of your criticisms of Rosenbaum being considered, all for a cheap shot. Hope it was worth it!

domino harvey wrote:And Grand Illusion will be remembered for absurd hyperbole. I'm not sure why the defense of one artist can only be made at the expense of another,

Well, you could refer back to the Rosenbaum article, since I certainly wasn't the first to make the comparison between their films or legacies. Rosenbaum actually focused his argument on relevance, technique, and impact, though, so I don't feel out of line.

But if you want to ignore everything else based on a relatively harmless one-liner, that's fine too.

Michael wrote:

Orphic Lycidas wrote:"Cries and Whispers" is an ugly and pretentious bore.

I can't understand how it's seen as ugly by some of you here. To me, it's among the most beautiful films ever made. I can't even explain it but there's something so cathartic about it. Is there any film out there that is like Cries and Whispers in any way? I can't think of one. It may not be my favorite Bergman film (it's Smiles of a Summer Night) but I think Cries and Whispers is his best film. Lovers of this film, please do step forward.

Yeah, I really love that one, and I don't understand the general lack of high regard for it amongst Bergman lovers.

(I also don't understand the Rosenbaum article, it's appalling timing, or the subsequent track-covering tactics used by him in this thread.....but I digress.)

I don't see what's so hard to understand about Rosenbaum's article -- it's typical to consider an artists's legacy immediately after his or her death (go back and read all the polite, lukewarm tributes to Sydney Pollack which postulated that, as a director, he was a great actor). Rosenbaum simply argued that Bergman was a (mildly) overrated and overcanonized director, and the backlash against this lone bit of dissention is absurd.

I just read that Ingmar Bergman referred to John Ford as the greatest director. Does anybody know where I can read that, and what else Bergman had to say about Ford?

Mark Metcalf wrote:I just read that Ingmar Bergman referred to John Ford as the greatest director. Does anybody know where I can read that, and what else Bergman had to say about Ford?

Google book search: "Ingmar Bergman" "John Ford" "the greatest director in the world"

exte wrote:

Mark Metcalf wrote:I just read that Ingmar Bergman referred to John Ford as the greatest director. Does anybody know where I can read that, and what else Bergman had to say about Ford?

Google book search: "Ingmar Bergman" "John Ford" "the greatest director in the world"

I think I did it wrong:

No, that's the right one. page 12.

John Ford: Peter Bogdanovich. New Rev. and Enl. Ed - Page 18

Anonymous wrote:

Michael wrote:

Orphic Lycidas wrote:"Cries and Whispers" is an ugly and pretentious bore.

I can't understand how it's seen as ugly by some of you here. To me, it's among the most beautiful films ever made. I can't even explain it but there's something so cathartic about it. Is there any film out there that is like Cries and Whispers in any way? I can't think of one. It may not be my favorite Bergman film (it's Smiles of a Summer Night) but I think Cries and Whispers is his best film. Lovers of this film, please do step forward.

Yeah, I really love that one, and I don't understand the general lack of high regard for it amongst Bergman lovers.

(I also don't understand the Rosenbaum article, it's appalling timing, or the subsequent track-covering tactics used by him in this thread.....but I digress.)

Cries and Whispers and Shame are my two personal favorites.

Ingmar Bergman meets Dick Cavett.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Ingmar Bergman meets Dick Cavett.

Isn't that on one of the Criterion discs? I know I've seen it somewhere before. Maybe in Marie Nyerod's documentary.

TCM aired the entire episode a day or two after Bergman died. I taped it, but I have no idea what happened to the damn thing :(

Antoine Doinel wrote:Ingmar Bergman meets Dick Cavett.

I would LOVE to see this whole show. Has it been released on DVD? How long does it last, 30 minutes, an hour? I have most of the Criterion DVDs of Bergman, and its not on any of them. Any help much appreciated.

P.S. Shame and Cries And Whispers are two of Bergman's greatest Masterpieces!