However, it is depressing
Oh yes, so horrible. A movie should never be depressing or down beat.
, the acting stilted
Stilted or simply different? Dreyer is hardly the first director to have his actors downplay overt emotional expression, Bresson and Antinioni coming to mind.
Except Dreyer had his actors convey their feelings through the face rather than voice, and they did so very effectively. You could put the film on mute/remove the subtitles and get the sense of the scene simply through looking into their eyes and the development of their facial expression throughout the scene (among other things-the mis en scene also added to this).
It's not traditional by today's standards (or even then) but it hardly makes it bad.
, the male actors are as ham as a pork chop
A very strange criticism considering their performances are pretty low key.
, the 'heroine' self absorbed and tedious.
How is a character tedious? Very strange remark.
but overall these characters needed a good slap and my life and life view has not been enhanced. It was simply a filmed talking shop, on and on about love. No one behaves like that.
First off, you as an individual have a very narrow scope of the world (as is the case for all individuals, no matter how travelled or experienced), so you cannot say with any definitiveness that no one behaves in a particular way. That's just pure arrogance.
Secondly, did you stop to think that maybe this is a stylistic choice on the director's part and not him attempting to be "realistic"? Why might a director decide to tell their story in this way? Much like Antiononi's films, Dreyer's films have a lasting visual power. One who watches closely and intently may not even realize how much the movie has impacted them until after they've finished watching it. However this does require the audience to actively engage and not just passively watch.
If Dreyer had made this movie in a more traditional mold, it would not have likely left much of an impression.
I can't think of many people who could sit through this and most normal people will find it unbearably boring. I know some will leap onto my use of 'normal' is deliberate.
Yes, of course it's deliberate, as you apparently feel the need to belittle people who enjoy this film, for what reason who knows.
An argument from popularity is not an argument. Most people are not chemistry experts, but is that really an argument against chemistry, or simply an observation that experts are, by definition, a minority?
"Gertrud" will probably not appeal to your typical, casual viewer, but that doesn't make the movie bad or lesser. The ability to appeal to a bigger audience is not indicative of quality one way or another. Unless you really want to argue what is popular is what is good, might makes right.
The experience confirmed my suspicion of films labelled 'masterpieces'.
Yes, it is very easy to confirm your own biases, especially when you are unwilling to bend from them to begin with.
There are molds of storytelling beyond the traditional method of mainstream Hollywood. You can either accept that and begin to judge a film based on it's aims, or accept that art house cinema just isn't to your taste and not to belittle those who clearly do have a love of such cinema.
"It's just you and me now, sport"-
Manhunter
reply
share