Late with the reply, but here it is, anyway. Serpent´s Egg is not bad - it has its problems and certainly ain´t no masterpiece, but if you want to see Bergman straying ´really´ far from his usual chamber dramas, then this is the one to watch. In terms of cinematography, it´s a whole different ballgame, truly opening up the space in terms of camera movement and stuff. Otherwise, it typically grim though and manages to squueze in plenty of long ponderous dialogues, but generally it´s indeed unlike anything else I´ve seen from the Swede. And I agree that Bergman ´can´ get quite tiresome after a while - when you´ve seen a certain number of his pictures where a handful of people very verbosely struggle with their relationships and the disappearence of god, seeing yet more of the same may become somewhat grating... especially when one is not predisposed to dig this kind of thing. And even when it´s good (actually, I don´t think I´ve rated a single Bergman film below 7/10 out of 11 so far... or maybe I did with Virgin Springs... can´t remember. It´s just that I´m not crazy about too many of them, either - bar, perhaps, Hour Of The Wolf). Haven´t seen either Fanny & Alexander or Cries And Whispers yet, though.
I watched Husbands & Wives just a couple of weeks ago and, well, that did kinda piss ME off - 100 goddamn minutes of self absorbed people yakking about their bloody relationship problems nonstop... and when it comes with those whiny voices of Stiffy and Mia Farrow, it´s all the more unbearable. Such a thing ´can´ work, of course, when it´s well written and, preferrably, at least somewhat humorous, but this one, to me, was neither. His most annoying film really, in the proud company of Scoop and Anything Else and otherwise in the league with September & Match Point as an earnest piece of high minded, navel gazing tedium. But maybe I ´should´ see that Sweet & Lowdown thing though as it tends to get praise even from those who don´t like Stiffy´s later period output.
Edit: Just discovered on the Benjamin Button board you´re there, too... and I´m not sure if I´m impressed or kind of bemused that you actually took it upon yourself to pick on it from the plot- and character mechanics perspective. Found it too wretched a creation to even bother with such finer points, myself.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
reply
share
dyahrmarkt
11 years ago
I'll give Serpent's Egg a shot one of these days. I *highly* recommend Fanny & Alexander and Cries and Whispers. The latter is certainly as "chamber" as a chamber piece gets - but I think it's nothing short of a masterpiece. The former isn't a four-hour slog, it's actually surprisingly light and entertaining. There are certainly some dark themes there, but Bergman plays with his nostalgic memories in a way that we can be entertained by it, too.
Can't say I share your dislike for H&W - the "annoying" elements of Woody's characters....yeah, sometimes there is a sense that we can't stand watching or caring about their self-absorbed problems ("September" is a perfect example), but H&W had such realism to it - the characters were largely annoying, their problems annoying, but portrayed so well...I've brought it up before on other threads - call it the Julianne Moore complex, if you will - great portrayals of utter annoyance. It's often difficult to separate genuinely, awful annoyance with that being precisely the point - we may still hate what we see, but could we admire those qualities? I can't always see it myself - for instance, I can't stand Tarantino's "Death Proof" for those same reasons (people have told me "No, it's *supposed* to be bad, get it? Get it?").
re: BB - yeah, that film kind of pissed me off, but it gave me a lot to talk about, I guess. I find that awful creations made by very talented people are more fun to pick apart than just flat-out hideousness. Fincher is a very talented filmmaker, but to see him exercise his talent in such a misguided film was painful, especially when so many flock to defend it. Had to get my thoughts out, and there were a lot of people excited to try and argue it. I guess maybe I *should* ask myself why I bother sometimes...
Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -
reply
share
franzkabuki
11 years ago
Well, most Bergman films to me do amount, above all perhaps, to one long, tortured howl in a world unbearably grim - and they´re mainly played out in long, ponderous dialogues. Which to me is something that tends to "get old" much quicker than some other modes of storytelling. For instance, I think I would have liked The Silence much better had it been one of my first Bergman because I certainly recognize the artistic merit that is outstanding even by his standards... but it just had a bit too much of that "same ol´ same ol´" feel to it. So, yes, pieces like Serpent´s Egg or Hour Of The Wolf (a rather "editing-driven" work - if such a thing can be said to exist - which has a strong Lynchian feel to it even; it´s one bizarre, mind bending creep show even as it starts off alarmingly with Liv Ullman staring into the camera and giving a long, tedious monologue) are a welcome change of pace for Bergman.
The problem with Husbands & Wives is that I just don´t see the wit that is supposedly there for the admirers of the film - either in narrative or dialogue. And, of course, I´m not exactly predisposed to get much out of this type of talky relationship dramas & have relatively little patience for them when they don´t seem to be particularly well written. And, as noted, I REALLY can´t stand Mia Farrow (outside Rosemary´s Baby, Zelig or Broadway Danny Rose, anyway) and she always seems to have a negative effect on Stiffy himself, too, when they´re onscreen together). As for the realism... well did employ the handheld shakycam a lot, but the characters still came across as phony and unnatural (besides, did Judy Davis´s character behave an awful lot like her Audrey in Barton Fink... or is it just me?) As for Death Proof... I´m sure it´s exactly like Tarantino wanted it, but have no idea why would anyone want it that way. In fact, it mostly plays more like sort of a home video and I´m unsure why did it need to be shown publically in the first place; there´s simply nothing to it dramatically and no one even says anything that´s worth listening.
With Benjamin Button, I just thought it´s so mawkish, inane and populist, constantly spouting it banal "wisdoms" that I´m past the point of even bothering with plot- or character details. And I actually disagree with your argument that Button "wouldn´t have gone on that India trip because it´s not in his character" due to him being such a bland cipher that it´s all but impossible to tell what would or wouldn´t be in his character to do. He´s just kind of... there. Quite a drastic nosedive for Fincher after the excellent Zodiac.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
reply
share
dyahrmarkt
11 years ago
"And I actually disagree with your argument that Button "wouldn´t have gone on that India trip because it´s not in his character" due to him being such a bland cipher that it´s all but impossible to tell what would or wouldn´t be in his character to do. He´s just kind of... there. Quite a drastic nosedive for Fincher after the excellent Zodiac."
**Have to agree, yeah, that's actually more insightful than the vast majority of the 'arguments' I saw throughout that thread. I do contradict myself in that thread - first by claiming BB's journey is totally unrealistic, and at the same time complaining about his total ghost-like absence of personality. I guess the burden is on the filmmakers with this one - it was at that point when I realized Fincher was assuming we were right with him. There was an absolute disconnect there that became screamingly obvious - Fincher's assumptions were as passive as BB was as a character.
Zodiac, by contrast, was one of the best films I had seen from the 00s decade. The final scene was absolutely *ballsy* - bet he had to fight the studio a bit for that one!
Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -
reply
share
rahul-gsp11
11 years ago
kinda agree with your original post,also just heard sex,lies videotape commentary with Soderbergh ,he said 2 very imp things:-
1)He wanted to make a "difficult" movie as in that SLV was easy to shoot and he knew the place
2)He was highly inspired by Brazil,he saw it 6 times in 12 days,there is huge influence of Brazil on this movie,
also the THIRD MAN (Soderbergh has also done a commentary for it),the narrative structure of this movie sort of mirrors third man,
also,there are many camera angles and shots as a homage to third man,i enjoyed this movie as an exercise in style also,
Soderbergh is really a genius ,just to think the same filmmaker who made SLV would chose to make Kafka will surprise anyone ,but then he just kept doing the same thing thorough his career.
reply
share