I don’t think that there is any one greatest film, as no film can really do or say all that can be done or said in the medium. Some films do things that others just can’t. And I also think that it does a film no service what so ever to set an impossible bar of expectations for any first time viewer. There is no way that Citizen Kane could live up to the title of the best film ever, although I have no problem if someone wants to rank it that high, because I do believe that it is among the 20 or so films that could vie for such a crown if it were bestowed.
Kane must be looked at in the lense of how it holds up as a story and a work of film art, and what it achieved compared to any film made the previous or following 30 years or more. Few films attempt to do as much as Kane achieved, one failure that I would point to would be Jules and Jim a film that tried so much but, for my money, and I know I may be in the minority on this, Jules and Jim does not succeed as a film. Did Orson direct better films than Kane? Perhaps. Chimes at Midnight, Othello, Macbeth, Touch of Evil, Don Quixote-one could make arguments for all of them, but Kane was the FIRST. And as such, it holds a special place, and Welle’s audacity to make a picture about the 2 or 3 most powerful media tycoons of his time is also commendable.
Best ever, maybe not, but its in the discussion. Produced, directed, starring, and co-written by a TWENTY-FIVE year old Orson Welles. None of the actors had ever appeared in the movie. More special effects than Star Wars. Deep focus photography. Non-linear storytelling. Great makeup. Great acting. Great movie.
cinema only reflects the movie going public. there are still directors and producers who want to make good pictures, and some that want to make art. There have always been bad movies made just to gross money because the public would lap it up, and in the past there were usually not more than a few great movies a year. The problem is that the people who are supposed to be our great filmmakers of today, are not as good as the great filmmakers of yesterday. Aranovsky is no John Ford, and PT Anderson is no Mizoguchi.
2000:Amores Perros, Crouching Tiger/Hidden Dragon, Oh Brother Where Art Thou?, Gladiator
2001:Gosford Park, Black Hawk Down, Training Day
2002:Road to Perdition, Bourne Identity
2003:Master and Commander, Mystic River, Whale Rider, Pirates of the Carribean, House of Sand and Fog, Seabiscuit, Lost in Translation
2004:Passion of the Christ, The Aviator, Man on Fire, Alexander
2005:The New World, Brokeback Mountain, Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, Kingdom of HEaven, Hustle and Flow, Munich, Good Night and Good luck, Capote
2006:Departed, 300
2007:Eastern Promises, There Will Be Blood, Charlie Wilson’s War, Michael Clayton
Part of the problem is Hollywood’s inability to commit to a project. For instance, a studio may finance a Terrance Malick film for 30 million dollars, but not distribute it to try and recoup their investment. Furthermore, there are many films that are distributed, but Hollywood has no concept of how to promote some films. Or Hollywood will buy a smaller film that has no business being distributed, which only further tarnishes the image of independent films.
I believe that the author is talking about films being made today, or in the last few years; as he refers to another thread about the supposed dire state of the film industry and how it is bankrupt as an artistic medium.
Directors:
1.Kurosawa
2.Welles
3.Ford
4.Fellini
5.Gance
6.Murnau
7.Mizoguchi
8.Bergman
9.Tarkovsky
10.Miyazaki
films:
1.Ran
2.Children of Paradise
3.Passion of Joan of Arc
4.La Dolce Vita
5 Siberiade
6.2001
7.Ivan the Terrible part 1 and 2
8.Citizen Kane
9.Andrei Rublev
10.The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
for me the directors were pretty easy, although I do feel a little torn trying to decide for Tarkovsky over a Eisenstein, but overall a much easier job than selecting 10 films. There are several films that I left out of my top ten, simply because I had no room and I couldn’t compel myself to include 8 1/2 or Red Beard because their directors already had films in my top ten. Its also crazy that I left the Bicycle Thieves and Rocco and His Brothers out of my top ten, which is something I have never done before. I could also not find room for a bergman, or any silent not named Passion of Joan of Arc, or timeless masterpiece like Sansho the Bailiff. A top 25 should be the smallest set that any serious film buff should be expected to select.
But also, I don’t think Hollywood does a good enough job of going after the older generations. If they were still making movies like Lawrence of Arabia and Casablanca, people would go to see them, if they knew that they were showing.
Blast of Silence is one of the worst films ever. Utter sh!T
I buy most of my dvds without having seen atleast one film by that director. TCM is good, but the masterworks are few and far between and the library only has so much. Blockbuster is worthless, and with a collection as big as mine, and a love for cinema as big as mine, I see no need for netflix.
I’ve seen Umberto and Shoeshine and neither came close to what they were hyped to be, for me.. I’ve also seen the Garden of the Finzi Conteness. I have Two Women, but have yet to watch it.
I think that in the end, it becomes easier to reconcile the films that you love with the films that you appreciate or respect. Because for me, I come to love the films that I respect the most, and for the films that I still absolutely love, I believe that if a film has that kind of power then that is just as remarkable as a film that is a noted landmark in cinema, because few films can move the soul in such a way.
Was the Bicycle Thieves the first neo-realist film? NO, do I like much of De Sica’s other work? NO. But is it one of the 5 or 10 or 15 best films evcer produced? For, me, Yes. The same can be said for a film like Sansho the Bailiff or Children of Paradise. I don’t believe there to be anything technically groundbreaking in these films, nor were they addressing subject matter that had never been broached before, but what they did do, is do it better, and with more attention, and sincerity, and love then any film before or since. That is why they are the films that we don’t forget.
I’m not gonna list any of DW Griffith’s films in my top ten, because I don’t like his movies. The Jazz Singer will have no place on my list because its not a great film. Adventure’s of Robin Hood will not make my cut either. There have been plenty of films that were the first to do something or the first to say something. I personally, am most interested in the films that do or say something the best. Creme rises to the top, the others are footnotes on the pages of history.
Don’t fret about not including Potemkin. I don’t think that Eisenstein invented montage in that one, nor do I personally like his silents more than I like Pudovkin’s. I really think that Eisenstein was at his best with his talkies; and there were plenty of silent masterpieces that I woulld place above Potemkin. Atleast 5, maybe 10 films…
I’ve only seen Breathless and Night Music. His first and last I suppose. I’ve seen about 4 or 5 of Truffaut’s films, Ive seen one or two of Varda’s, and I’ve seen some more recent French cinema, and aside from Amelie(which is really nothing like the French New Wave) I don’t think there are many if any french films after Renoir that I like.
Breathless, did not move me in anyway, nor did the movie-making inspire me or intrigue me. Night Music was just horrid.
I just have not found anything thing in the French New Wave that I would consider on the level of Bergman or Fellini’s work. The 400 Blows comes close, but is too cold.
thanks for the response, and very lovingly put, but almost everything you listed is for me what one should avoid when creating art or a movie. I suppose that is why Godard or the New wave has never grown on me. I suppose it was just never meant to be.
I’ve only seen Ray’s work, I have about 8 or 9 of his films.
I don’t really like musicals, so I avoided Lagan.
Where can one find the rest of these films? I can’t seem to find many Indian movies on dvd, and I have a region free player. I don’t recall seeing them on yesasia, is there something equivelant from India, with dvds with english subtitles?
I think that Tarkovsky was a very spiritual man, and there are few, very few film makers in which everyfilm contains the notion of a higher power. I think that most of Tarkovsky’s work involves question the meaning and purpose of life, and relating that directly or indirectly to the creator. You could say that it was almost his sole reason for making films. There aren’t many film makers who will devote atleast half of their output to films that are so spiritual. There are some but not many.
In my encounters with film buffs, who all seem to be somewhat intelligent and intellectual, there seems to be set personalities that tend to gravitate toward certain types of movies. One example that we can look at is within the body of work of Akira Kurosawa. In my surfing of the web, I’ve run into two different groups of Kurosawa fans:
One group holds Rashomon and Ikiru to be the pennacle of Kurosawa’s work. -gravitating toward Kurosawa’s earlier work mostly, but those two films in particular are championed by group A.
The other group holds Red Beard and Ran to be the pinnacle of Kurosawa’s work, and in general prefers films like High and Low, Kagemusha, Dersu Uzala, and Madadayo to films like I live in fear and Rashomon. I place myself in this second group.
Everyone loves Seven Samurai and Yojimbo. Thats a given, but seeing as how Kurosawa’s career is so distinctly divided into two main groups(although it could be subdivided more) and most Akiraphiles tend to gravitate toward one group or the other, it makes you wonder, what is it that makes people like the films they like? What does it really say about you as a person?
What does it say about a person who prefers french cinema to Italian? or Russian to german? Sure not all russian films are alike, but even in work as divergent and different as Tarkovsky is to Eisenstein there are commonalities.
I find it very intersting. Take me for instance. Why do I not like the French New Wave? Its too cold, its not professional enough, it lacks whimsy, and it can at times take it self too seriously. But Italian cinema? I love it because of the whimsey, but also the scenery-it just feels warmer there. And I like the people, who seem to always be bigger than life, even the simple, and humble ones.
I like Kurosawa because he makes movies for men, about men; and he does it without extreme technical precision. But I also like Mizuguchi whose films seem to carry more spiritual weight.
I like Bergman because of his supremacy as a screenwriter, and the fact that he has never forgotten that no matter how good a writer he is, that film is a visual thing. I like John Ford because his films never seem incomplete. You can never watch a Ford film, and say, I wish there was another scene here, or they should have cut that scene out.
Rambling? Sure.
But just take the Kurosawa example. What makes some people prefer Rashomon and Ikiru, while others prefer Red Beard and Ran? And what does it mean?
I’m a fan of Tarkovsky. But what is it about this film that you guys like? I found it too dense, and almost beyond comprehension. It was like they filmed me as a kid at thanksgiving when me and my cousins would go in the back yard and play make believe. Throw me a bone? What am I missing?
Do you still feel the same way about Pulp Fiction, as you used to? I remember seeing The Seventh Seal for the first time, but I have cooled on it abit; and find The Virgin Spring to be among his very best work. Maybe it is all of the Kurosawa that is in that film, but I like how rugged the film is, and how it is much more pastoral than his other films, even the medieval Seventh Seal. I like Bergman, because he does cover a wide swath of the human experience. “Smiles of a Summer Night” is just as great as “Through a Glass Darkly”, though obviously for different reasons. Smiles is a dark comedy, TaGD is anything but. Fanny and Alexander and “Scenes from a Marriage” are Bergman’s two late epics, and are both great for different reasons; and each one of these peaks, for me do stand above much of the rest of his work that do plow similar ground, while these are a bit more individual.
Marq, I think the definition of a cinephile is one that is incolplete. I know that atleast from my perspective, I have seen a lot of film, and I am only 27; and I’ve seen most of the american, swedish, japanese, russian, british, and itialian films worth seeing. And all of the french and german that I deem to be worth seeing. But there are films that I haven’t seen, and I know that I haven’t seen. And I haven’t even scratched India, yet. Cinema is too vast…that is what is so great about it.
The Lower Depths is a film that I must revisit. And I will revisit soon. This first time I watched it, I couldn’t get around the fact that it all took place in one confined space. And while I appreciate what he achieved in such a space, at the time it didn’t excite me. But it has been probably 5 years since I have seen it.
You see, what I find interesting, is that I am right there with you Marq on Seven Samurai, High and Low, and Yojimbo, and for you’re lukewarm reception of Ikiru and Rashomon. And I am a fan of Bergman and Fellini as well, But when I was looking over some of your ratings and reviews, I find that we couldn’t be any more different in our tastes. And that is what I find interesting. Either we like different things from the same films, or we like the same things in certain films and not in other films…
I think it can be said though, that the mark of a great work of art is that it can be different things to different people, and satisfy different needs for different people.
The reason that I posed the initial question is because I had come across a lot of people who are more or less one way or the other about Kurosawa-and it was about those very specific films. Most people I would ask what their favorite Kurosawa was, 1 and 2 were either Rashomon and Ikiru; or Ran and Red Beard. Most of you seem to buck that trend, and there is nothing wrong with that. I probably am more in-tuned with Kurosawa’s later films, but I like Stray Dog and Drunken Angel more than Kagemusha or Dreams.
Having handheld camera work does not doom a film. I think that Malick uses it to great effect. Persona might be might least favorite of Bergman’s good films. I’m not sure what a sense of everyday poetry is, and I am not in the least bit romantic about popular culture.
I’ve seen Night and Fog, though I have not seen Hiroshima mon Amour. If I’ve seen Breathless and Night Music, what is the next Godard film I should see? Contempt? Alphaville? Woman is a Woman?
IS CITIZEN KANE THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER MADE OR JUST THE BEST HYPED? over 3 years ago
I don’t think that there is any one greatest film, as no film can really do or say all that can be done or said in the medium. Some films do things that others just can’t. And I also think that it does a film no service what so ever to set an impossible bar of expectations for any first time viewer. There is no way that Citizen Kane could live up to the title of the best film ever, although I have no problem if someone wants to rank it that high, because I do believe that it is among the 20 or so films that could vie for such a crown if it were bestowed.
Kane must be looked at in the lense of how it holds up as a story and a work of film art, and what it achieved compared to any film made the previous or following 30 years or more. Few films attempt to do as much as Kane achieved, one failure that I would point to would be Jules and Jim a film that tried so much but, for my money, and I know I may be in the minority on this, Jules and Jim does not succeed as a film. Did Orson direct better films than Kane? Perhaps. Chimes at Midnight, Othello, Macbeth, Touch of Evil, Don Quixote-one could make arguments for all of them, but Kane was the FIRST. And as such, it holds a special place, and Welle’s audacity to make a picture about the 2 or 3 most powerful media tycoons of his time is also commendable.
Best ever, maybe not, but its in the discussion. Produced, directed, starring, and co-written by a TWENTY-FIVE year old Orson Welles. None of the actors had ever appeared in the movie. More special effects than Star Wars. Deep focus photography. Non-linear storytelling. Great makeup. Great acting. Great movie.
Go to Comment
The Auteurs "Sight & Sound" Poll over 3 years ago
Count me as number 88. top ten movies and top ten directors?
I’ll pm you
Go to Comment
What is the problem with toda's mainstream cinema? over 3 years ago
cinema only reflects the movie going public. there are still directors and producers who want to make good pictures, and some that want to make art. There have always been bad movies made just to gross money because the public would lap it up, and in the past there were usually not more than a few great movies a year. The problem is that the people who are supposed to be our great filmmakers of today, are not as good as the great filmmakers of yesterday. Aranovsky is no John Ford, and PT Anderson is no Mizoguchi.
Go to Comment
What modern films are great? over 3 years ago
great films are still being made.
2000:Amores Perros, Crouching Tiger/Hidden Dragon, Oh Brother Where Art Thou?, Gladiator
2001:Gosford Park, Black Hawk Down, Training Day
2002:Road to Perdition, Bourne Identity
2003:Master and Commander, Mystic River, Whale Rider, Pirates of the Carribean, House of Sand and Fog, Seabiscuit, Lost in Translation
2004:Passion of the Christ, The Aviator, Man on Fire, Alexander
2005:The New World, Brokeback Mountain, Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, Kingdom of HEaven, Hustle and Flow, Munich, Good Night and Good luck, Capote
2006:Departed, 300
2007:Eastern Promises, There Will Be Blood, Charlie Wilson’s War, Michael Clayton
Go to Comment
What is the problem with toda's mainstream cinema? over 3 years ago
Part of the problem is Hollywood’s inability to commit to a project. For instance, a studio may finance a Terrance Malick film for 30 million dollars, but not distribute it to try and recoup their investment. Furthermore, there are many films that are distributed, but Hollywood has no concept of how to promote some films. Or Hollywood will buy a smaller film that has no business being distributed, which only further tarnishes the image of independent films.
Go to Comment
What modern films are great? over 3 years ago
I believe that the author is talking about films being made today, or in the last few years; as he refers to another thread about the supposed dire state of the film industry and how it is bankrupt as an artistic medium.
Go to Comment
Discussion of The Auteurs "Sight & Sound" over 3 years ago
Directors:
1.Kurosawa
2.Welles
3.Ford
4.Fellini
5.Gance
6.Murnau
7.Mizoguchi
8.Bergman
9.Tarkovsky
10.Miyazaki
films:
1.Ran
2.Children of Paradise
3.Passion of Joan of Arc
4.La Dolce Vita
5 Siberiade
6.2001
7.Ivan the Terrible part 1 and 2
8.Citizen Kane
9.Andrei Rublev
10.The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
for me the directors were pretty easy, although I do feel a little torn trying to decide for Tarkovsky over a Eisenstein, but overall a much easier job than selecting 10 films. There are several films that I left out of my top ten, simply because I had no room and I couldn’t compel myself to include 8 1/2 or Red Beard because their directors already had films in my top ten. Its also crazy that I left the Bicycle Thieves and Rocco and His Brothers out of my top ten, which is something I have never done before. I could also not find room for a bergman, or any silent not named Passion of Joan of Arc, or timeless masterpiece like Sansho the Bailiff. A top 25 should be the smallest set that any serious film buff should be expected to select.
Go to Comment
Who do you think the most overrated director is? over 3 years ago
don’t know if these guys have been mentioned, but I’ll throw a couple out there:
Roberto Rossillini
De Sica aside from The Bicycle Thieves
Truffaut
Godard
Seijin Suzuki
Naruse
Fassbinder
Go to Comment
What is the problem with toda's mainstream cinema? over 3 years ago
But also, I don’t think Hollywood does a good enough job of going after the older generations. If they were still making movies like Lawrence of Arabia and Casablanca, people would go to see them, if they knew that they were showing.
Go to Comment
What modern films are great? over 3 years ago
yeah, I don’t care about modern, post-modern, or post-post modern, or neo modern classical.
I only care about good and bad.
Go to Comment
Atheist movies? over 3 years ago
I would say that about 80% of today’s movies are atheistic. Most films have no mention of God either way
Go to Comment
Blind buys over 3 years ago
Blast of Silence is one of the worst films ever. Utter sh!T
I buy most of my dvds without having seen atleast one film by that director. TCM is good, but the masterworks are few and far between and the library only has so much. Blockbuster is worthless, and with a collection as big as mine, and a love for cinema as big as mine, I see no need for netflix.
Go to Comment
What modern films are great? over 3 years ago
what about the new world? Amores Perros?
Go to Comment
Who do you think the most overrated director is? over 3 years ago
I’ve seen Umberto and Shoeshine and neither came close to what they were hyped to be, for me.. I’ve also seen the Garden of the Finzi Conteness. I have Two Women, but have yet to watch it.
Go to Comment
Discussion of The Auteurs "Sight & Sound" over 3 years ago
I think that in the end, it becomes easier to reconcile the films that you love with the films that you appreciate or respect. Because for me, I come to love the films that I respect the most, and for the films that I still absolutely love, I believe that if a film has that kind of power then that is just as remarkable as a film that is a noted landmark in cinema, because few films can move the soul in such a way.
Was the Bicycle Thieves the first neo-realist film? NO, do I like much of De Sica’s other work? NO. But is it one of the 5 or 10 or 15 best films evcer produced? For, me, Yes. The same can be said for a film like Sansho the Bailiff or Children of Paradise. I don’t believe there to be anything technically groundbreaking in these films, nor were they addressing subject matter that had never been broached before, but what they did do, is do it better, and with more attention, and sincerity, and love then any film before or since. That is why they are the films that we don’t forget.
I’m not gonna list any of DW Griffith’s films in my top ten, because I don’t like his movies. The Jazz Singer will have no place on my list because its not a great film. Adventure’s of Robin Hood will not make my cut either. There have been plenty of films that were the first to do something or the first to say something. I personally, am most interested in the films that do or say something the best. Creme rises to the top, the others are footnotes on the pages of history.
Go to Comment
Discussion of The Auteurs "Sight & Sound" over 3 years ago
Don’t fret about not including Potemkin. I don’t think that Eisenstein invented montage in that one, nor do I personally like his silents more than I like Pudovkin’s. I really think that Eisenstein was at his best with his talkies; and there were plenty of silent masterpieces that I woulld place above Potemkin. Atleast 5, maybe 10 films…
Go to Comment
Who wants "Stalker" to appear on Criterion? over 3 years ago
I’d rather see the Mirror, with a commentary. I’ll take the rest later.
Go to Comment
Herzog, Welles, and Bergman on Godard over 3 years ago
I’ve only seen Breathless and Night Music. His first and last I suppose. I’ve seen about 4 or 5 of Truffaut’s films, Ive seen one or two of Varda’s, and I’ve seen some more recent French cinema, and aside from Amelie(which is really nothing like the French New Wave) I don’t think there are many if any french films after Renoir that I like.
Breathless, did not move me in anyway, nor did the movie-making inspire me or intrigue me. Night Music was just horrid.
I just have not found anything thing in the French New Wave that I would consider on the level of Bergman or Fellini’s work. The 400 Blows comes close, but is too cold.
What am I missing?
Go to Comment
Best film of the 40's? over 3 years ago
Children of Paradise
Citizen Kane
The Bicycle Thieves
Casablanca
Lady from Shanghai
Third Man
Grapes of Wrath
Ivan the Terrible parts I and II
Go to Comment
Herzog, Welles, and Bergman on Godard over 3 years ago
thanks for the response, and very lovingly put, but almost everything you listed is for me what one should avoid when creating art or a movie. I suppose that is why Godard or the New wave has never grown on me. I suppose it was just never meant to be.
Go to Comment
Anybody seen films from India? over 3 years ago
I’ve only seen Ray’s work, I have about 8 or 9 of his films.
I don’t really like musicals, so I avoided Lagan.
Where can one find the rest of these films? I can’t seem to find many Indian movies on dvd, and I have a region free player. I don’t recall seeing them on yesasia, is there something equivelant from India, with dvds with english subtitles?
Go to Comment
What Makes Tarkovsky and Bresson "religious"? over 3 years ago
I think that Tarkovsky was a very spiritual man, and there are few, very few film makers in which everyfilm contains the notion of a higher power. I think that most of Tarkovsky’s work involves question the meaning and purpose of life, and relating that directly or indirectly to the creator. You could say that it was almost his sole reason for making films. There aren’t many film makers who will devote atleast half of their output to films that are so spiritual. There are some but not many.
I could be wrong.
Go to Comment
Which Kurosawa are you? Which cinephile are you? over 3 years ago
In my encounters with film buffs, who all seem to be somewhat intelligent and intellectual, there seems to be set personalities that tend to gravitate toward certain types of movies. One example that we can look at is within the body of work of Akira Kurosawa. In my surfing of the web, I’ve run into two different groups of Kurosawa fans:
One group holds Rashomon and Ikiru to be the pennacle of Kurosawa’s work. -gravitating toward Kurosawa’s earlier work mostly, but those two films in particular are championed by group A.
The other group holds Red Beard and Ran to be the pinnacle of Kurosawa’s work, and in general prefers films like High and Low, Kagemusha, Dersu Uzala, and Madadayo to films like I live in fear and Rashomon. I place myself in this second group.
Everyone loves Seven Samurai and Yojimbo. Thats a given, but seeing as how Kurosawa’s career is so distinctly divided into two main groups(although it could be subdivided more) and most Akiraphiles tend to gravitate toward one group or the other, it makes you wonder, what is it that makes people like the films they like? What does it really say about you as a person?
What does it say about a person who prefers french cinema to Italian? or Russian to german? Sure not all russian films are alike, but even in work as divergent and different as Tarkovsky is to Eisenstein there are commonalities.
I find it very intersting. Take me for instance. Why do I not like the French New Wave? Its too cold, its not professional enough, it lacks whimsy, and it can at times take it self too seriously. But Italian cinema? I love it because of the whimsey, but also the scenery-it just feels warmer there. And I like the people, who seem to always be bigger than life, even the simple, and humble ones.
I like Kurosawa because he makes movies for men, about men; and he does it without extreme technical precision. But I also like Mizuguchi whose films seem to carry more spiritual weight.
I like Bergman because of his supremacy as a screenwriter, and the fact that he has never forgotten that no matter how good a writer he is, that film is a visual thing. I like John Ford because his films never seem incomplete. You can never watch a Ford film, and say, I wish there was another scene here, or they should have cut that scene out.
Rambling? Sure.
But just take the Kurosawa example. What makes some people prefer Rashomon and Ikiru, while others prefer Red Beard and Ran? And what does it mean?
Go to Comment
Who wants "Stalker" to appear on Criterion? over 3 years ago
I’m a fan of Tarkovsky. But what is it about this film that you guys like? I found it too dense, and almost beyond comprehension. It was like they filmed me as a kid at thanksgiving when me and my cousins would go in the back yard and play make believe. Throw me a bone? What am I missing?
Go to Comment
Which Kurosawa are you? Which cinephile are you? over 3 years ago
Do you still feel the same way about Pulp Fiction, as you used to? I remember seeing The Seventh Seal for the first time, but I have cooled on it abit; and find The Virgin Spring to be among his very best work. Maybe it is all of the Kurosawa that is in that film, but I like how rugged the film is, and how it is much more pastoral than his other films, even the medieval Seventh Seal. I like Bergman, because he does cover a wide swath of the human experience. “Smiles of a Summer Night” is just as great as “Through a Glass Darkly”, though obviously for different reasons. Smiles is a dark comedy, TaGD is anything but. Fanny and Alexander and “Scenes from a Marriage” are Bergman’s two late epics, and are both great for different reasons; and each one of these peaks, for me do stand above much of the rest of his work that do plow similar ground, while these are a bit more individual.
Marq, I think the definition of a cinephile is one that is incolplete. I know that atleast from my perspective, I have seen a lot of film, and I am only 27; and I’ve seen most of the american, swedish, japanese, russian, british, and itialian films worth seeing. And all of the french and german that I deem to be worth seeing. But there are films that I haven’t seen, and I know that I haven’t seen. And I haven’t even scratched India, yet. Cinema is too vast…that is what is so great about it.
Go to Comment
Which Kurosawa are you? Which cinephile are you? over 3 years ago
The Lower Depths is a film that I must revisit. And I will revisit soon. This first time I watched it, I couldn’t get around the fact that it all took place in one confined space. And while I appreciate what he achieved in such a space, at the time it didn’t excite me. But it has been probably 5 years since I have seen it.
Go to Comment
Which Kurosawa are you? Which cinephile are you? over 3 years ago
You see, what I find interesting, is that I am right there with you Marq on Seven Samurai, High and Low, and Yojimbo, and for you’re lukewarm reception of Ikiru and Rashomon. And I am a fan of Bergman and Fellini as well, But when I was looking over some of your ratings and reviews, I find that we couldn’t be any more different in our tastes. And that is what I find interesting. Either we like different things from the same films, or we like the same things in certain films and not in other films…
I think it can be said though, that the mark of a great work of art is that it can be different things to different people, and satisfy different needs for different people.
Go to Comment
Which Kurosawa are you? Which cinephile are you? over 3 years ago
The reason that I posed the initial question is because I had come across a lot of people who are more or less one way or the other about Kurosawa-and it was about those very specific films. Most people I would ask what their favorite Kurosawa was, 1 and 2 were either Rashomon and Ikiru; or Ran and Red Beard. Most of you seem to buck that trend, and there is nothing wrong with that. I probably am more in-tuned with Kurosawa’s later films, but I like Stray Dog and Drunken Angel more than Kagemusha or Dreams.
Go to Comment
Herzog, Welles, and Bergman on Godard over 3 years ago
Having handheld camera work does not doom a film. I think that Malick uses it to great effect. Persona might be might least favorite of Bergman’s good films. I’m not sure what a sense of everyday poetry is, and I am not in the least bit romantic about popular culture.
I’ve seen Night and Fog, though I have not seen Hiroshima mon Amour. If I’ve seen Breathless and Night Music, what is the next Godard film I should see? Contempt? Alphaville? Woman is a Woman?
Go to Comment
Herzog, Welles, and Bergman on Godard over 3 years ago
Stephen, this is how I’ve always felt; and I guess I’m just waiting for someone to convince me otherwise.
Go to Comment