I remember being so bored by Cassavetes' Faces when I first gave it a go. Sometimes you're just not in the mood or mindset for a certain type of movie, especially if it's not your cup of tea to begin with. In between, I'll watch a few one-off films or revisit things that are purely for my own entertainment. Something I found that's helped me: whenever possible, if a filmmaker is established enough, I'll make a conscious effort to watch their filmography in chronological order before moving on to someone else. I'll watch one great film, and then watch another movie that's likely just as great, but I had connected or found things so impressive with the first one that the second one just didn't seem on par. Those are Bergman's three most loved films, and despite being a huge fan that's seen around 40 of his films, I just never truly enjoyed watching any of those three.) (And coincidentally, I never connected with The Seventh Seal. I know why he's so revered, but his work just doesn't appeal to me for whatever reason. ![]() I've tried my hardest to appreciate Ozu, for example, but my god does he bore the shit out of me. We all have different tastes and different things that draw us in. (The working title for the film was Cinematography, but Bergman was talked out of it.)īut like the other person who already commentated stated, it probably just didn't click with you, or maybe these sort of things aren't priorities for you. Something cliche and tiresome now, but pretty significant then. who we really are (hence the film's title). It's a Brechtian device meant to call attention to the artificiality of the film, because, well, it's a film about false identities and how we present ourselves to others vs. The film reel snapping was an important event, not just in the history of film, but within the film itself. One thing to keep in mind is that this film, like Citizen Kane, has been borrowed from so many times, that the innovative parts are now commonplace. I'm thinking the lackluster production design and its framing in those scenes was on purpose. But I don't think I'm wrong to assume that the intent was for that setting to be clinical and devoid of warmth. Though, I will admit, I find the empty space of the early hospital scenes to be ugly. And the intimate "chats" are usually conducted in shadow or shot with more contrast, almost creating the illusion of an actor on stage in a spotlight (likely the intent, considering the subject matter). The more surreal scenes are softer, washed in light. ![]() The exterior scenes are stark, realistically captured. She never loses momentum as she jumps from one embarrassing admission to another.īeyond that, I personally find Nykvist's photography to be the most expressive in this film. Then, of course, there's Andersson's unrelenting aloof performance. From her condescending smirks to the moments when she allows pity to flow through her eyes-encouraging Bibi Andersson's character to continue with her embarrassing monologues-she controls each and every bit of action with only her face. My take: Liv Ullmann essentially dominates a film in which she has no dialogue. I'm just kind of curious why the performances were merely "okay" for you.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |