![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On Reflection
The Guardian gave Bergman a rather grudging obituary. We used to think he was a great director, the guy said. Now we know the true greats are Ozu, Dreyer, Bresson, Rosselini and Renoir.
Hmmmm....
Seems like Bergman just isn't obscure enough.
I love Ozu, but he makes the same film over and over again. I haven't seen anything of Dreyer's for ages. Bresson- with his amateur actors, ruthless minimalism and refusal to crack a smile- always seems to me to be teetering on the edge of absurdity. Rosselini I understand to be historically important (Rome, Open City and all that) but he's never grabbed me. Renoir's fine.
But it's absurd to argue over matters of taste.
Bergman's death has hit me so hard because he was the last of the great film makers who dominated the middle decades of the 20th century. That was when film meant something, when it was still taken seriously. The others in the gang were Bunuel, Antonioni, Fellini, Pasolini, Kurosawa, Ray, the French New Wavers. Tarkovsky came along a little later. They made films that challenged and defined the culture, that created the weather. OK, most of the French New Wavers are still alive but they no longer make films that matter. Bergman never ceased to matter.
Maybe this is just an old man's moan, but it seems to me as if cinema itself is dead.
Hmmmm....
Seems like Bergman just isn't obscure enough.
I love Ozu, but he makes the same film over and over again. I haven't seen anything of Dreyer's for ages. Bresson- with his amateur actors, ruthless minimalism and refusal to crack a smile- always seems to me to be teetering on the edge of absurdity. Rosselini I understand to be historically important (Rome, Open City and all that) but he's never grabbed me. Renoir's fine.
But it's absurd to argue over matters of taste.
Bergman's death has hit me so hard because he was the last of the great film makers who dominated the middle decades of the 20th century. That was when film meant something, when it was still taken seriously. The others in the gang were Bunuel, Antonioni, Fellini, Pasolini, Kurosawa, Ray, the French New Wavers. Tarkovsky came along a little later. They made films that challenged and defined the culture, that created the weather. OK, most of the French New Wavers are still alive but they no longer make films that matter. Bergman never ceased to matter.
Maybe this is just an old man's moan, but it seems to me as if cinema itself is dead.
no subject
I don't know if cinema itself is dead. But I think it matters that Bergman is gone.
no subject
Which isn't to that there may not be another golden age in the future.
no subject
That's what I'm hoping for: this year has been brutal on artists who created work I care about.
no subject
no subject
*blink*
I think I'm old-fashioned . . .
no subject
no subject
I am just listening to a review of his work that calls him "the Voltaire of film".
no subject
no subject
no subject
I don't know if cinema is dead; it certainly seems all the aspects of older film are not at all present in contemporary film. Poignant/profound/witty dialogue; creativity.
Certainly, there is no longer a Bergman. Perhaps we are not only mourning his death, but the death of his kind.
no subject
David Lynch, maybe.
no subject
Bergman had not made a film in some time so I don't really think you could mourn him so much, had he been still active that's another matter.
Just as long as Herzog and Watkins make another film apiece...
no subject
Watkins and Herzog both seem to have difficulty getting funding for their work. When did Watkins last receive a commission from the BBC? What people insist on calling "art house cinema" ( a term I detest) has been marginalised.
no subject