The Criterion Collection

[Hendershot737]

My $0.02:

Being that I'm still relatively new to the Criterion game, take my words for what their worth. Bergman's The Seventh Seal was my first entry into the Bergman canon as well as my first intentional Criterion viewing due to a friend's recommendation. While I still juggle with some of the imagery and scenes of the film, I like to think I got the gist of what Bergman intended (though I plan on watching more of the supplements because I am eager to find more of which I most undoubtedly missed). But I cannot deny that this film, as well as Wild Strawberries (the other film that I watched by Bergman...The Magician is still waiting in my backlog) struck a chord in me. While different movies entirely, I feel that some of the themes can be interchanged (and it sounds that this can just about go for all of Bergman's catalog). And those themes contemplate the existence of life, of death and religion. Basically: our purpose (or lack of purpose) by existing. It simply asks: why? And because I too find such questions fascinating, Bergman's movies hit me in the right place. Not to mention, Bergman's way of providing these questions cinematically is nothing short of genius, in my humble opinion. The idea of playing chess with Death could not more perfectly symbolize life as we know it, because really: are we not all trying to evade Death by making all of the right moves?
Anyways: The Seventh Seal and just about all other Criterion releases can not force a connection between the film and the viewer. It appears that there needs to be some similarities between the two, or perhaps even a film (such as Bergman films) can unearth a similarity not apparent until the credits roll...only then can a film truly be loved. And I must add that there is a big difference between the love of a film and the respect of a film...typically respecting a film only means that the said film did not make such a connection (whatever that connection may be...depending on the viewer). For example: I loved The Seventh Seal but I can only respect Antichrist
I'm done rambling now

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

One of my pet peeves with film criticism is perceived symbolism.

I had an argument with someone on IMDB over Hitchcock's Under Capricorn. I maintained that it was a weak Hitchcock offering. He loved the film and said it was because of the rich symbolism in the film (ie. it's paintings far, far in the background of some scenes. I thought the film was still dull.

It's like when a critic asked Welles why the girl in a shop in Touch of Evil was blind--- what's the symbolism? Welles remarked there was none and he did it because he felt like it.

That is a good example Shell. People like to believe that they 'need' to read into a film to understand or get meaning. Just enjoy it for what it is. And like I mentioned, if you have never seen or heard anything about a film or director, just do a little research. The internet gives us so much information at our fingertips, just a few key strokes should help anyone 'understand' what is going on in a film so they don't have to think and can enjoy.

[italy12]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Great art works on many levels and can be interpreted many ways. Sometimes even in ways that baffle the creators. And sometimes, the creators will deny their actual motivations. (Although sometimes there truly aren't any.) I used to be a recording engineer and in the mid-1970s recorded an interview between the New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael and Alfred Hitchcock a few years before he died. She kept on pushing him to reveal meaning behind a certain scene and he kept denying there was any meaning whatsoever, just like Welles did in your example. Hitchcock actually got very frustrated with Kael - it was actually pretty funny.

Which movie/scene? Do you remember?

Thanks!

[PowellPressburger]

I got Le Cercle Rouge from amazon today. And it seems like every Criterion amazon Blu lately always shows up with the center area of the spine a bit pressed inward crunching the paper. Anyone else notice this lately?

[rkish]

Originally Posted by jcs913

That is a good example Shell. People like to believe that they 'need' to read into a film to understand or get meaning. Just enjoy it for what it is. And like I mentioned, if you have never seen or heard anything about a film or director, just do a little research. The internet gives us so much information at our fingertips, just a few key strokes should help anyone 'understand' what is going on in a film so they don't have to think and can enjoy.

Thanks John and others for your feedback. Glad I opened Pandora's box on this one. This thread is typically a rehash of "which films have I ordered", "which titles are coming out", etc. and/or it is talk about a specific film. It's a nice change to get into your heads to see how you approach a film and how/what you get out of it.

As I mentioned to CC...I had "thought" that most zealous film viewers were more hooked on the meaning than the feeling. I'm glad that I seem to take the same approach as most of you. I have to be able to relate or "feel" about a film. If I don't, then it was an education seeing it, but it might not warrant a second or multiple viewings.

That is why I'm a big supporter of rentals/streaming and not "blind buying" these films and/or just collecting them for the sake of collecting them.

This was refreshing...thanks!

[ccfixx]

Originally Posted by PowellPressburger

I got Le Cercle Rouge from amazon today. And it seems like every Criterion amazon Blu lately always shows up with the center area of the spine a bit pressed inward crunching the paper. Anyone else notice this lately?

I've noticed this on a few of the plastic cases, but not all of them. I chalk it up to warehouse personnel opening the boxes with a utility knife but not actually slicing through the plastic.

[blkhrt]

Originally Posted by jcs913

That is a good example Shell. People like to believe that they 'need' to read into a film to understand or get meaning. Just enjoy it for what it is. And like I mentioned, if you have never seen or heard anything about a film or director, just do a little research. The internet gives us so much information at our fingertips, just a few key strokes should help anyone 'understand' what is going on in a film so they don't have to think and can enjoy.

I think it comes down to the fact that there are multiple ways to watch a film and multiple reasons to watch a film. If I am going to be writing about a film, I watch it in a very different way than if I am just watching it for my own pleasure or gratification.

I will also say, and perhaps some will disagree with me, that there are many examples throughout the history of film (and literary) criticism that suggest that the author/director is not the go-to source for interpretation. If that were the case, discussing films would be boring: we could just ask the director and be done with it.

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by blkhrt

I think it comes down to the fact that there are multiple ways to watch a film and multiple reasons to watch a film. If I am going to be writing about a film, I watch it in a very different way than if I am just watching it for my own pleasure or gratification.

I will also say, and perhaps some will disagree with me, that there are many examples throughout the history of film (and literary) criticism that suggest that the author/director is not the go-to source for interpretation. If that were the case, discussing films would be boring: we could just ask the director and be done with it.

I assume you are referring to film class when you talk about 'writing about'? Many have also said that the artist is the 'ultimate' source for interpretation too. Some critics would also have you believe that the 'artist' is never the source for interpretation, which i what keeps them in business....

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by jcs913

I assume you are referring to film class when you talk about 'writing about'? Many have also said that the artist is the 'ultimate' source for interpretation too. Some critics would also have you believe that the 'artist' is never the source for interpretation, which i what keeps them in business....

Film classes were fun to speculate about the meanings I saw in movies, even if I was probably wrong half the time

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by rkish

Thanks John and others for your feedback. Glad I opened Pandora's box on this one. This thread is typically a rehash of "which films have I ordered", "which titles are coming out", etc. and/or it is talk about a specific film. It's a nice change to get into your heads to see how you approach a film and how/what you get out of it.

As I mentioned to CC...I had "thought" that most zealous film viewers were more hooked on the meaning than the feeling. I'm glad that I seem to take the same approach as most of you. I have to be able to relate or "feel" about a film. If I don't, then it was an education seeing it, but it might not warrant a second or multiple viewings.

That is why I'm a big supporter of rentals/streaming and not "blind buying" these films and/or just collecting them for the sake of collecting them.

This was refreshing...thanks!

Rich, there is nothing more pointless than when I read posts that a film is boring or 'I didn't get meaning' Generally art should have some sort of interpretation from everyone. Whether you agree about it or not is your opinion. But you should never have to find 'meaning' in art, as most of the time, it was made for enjoyment. I always believe that discussion needs to have a backbone from the person that initiates it. When you post about a film, you are starting that discussion and you should be able to 'back up' your post with some sort of intelligent reasoning. That, for the most part, is my wishful thinking, I guess....

[SpiderBaby]

Bergman disliked Orson Welles, Godard, Michelangelo Antonioni and Monica Vitti but loved Hopper's The Last Movie. I guess he thinks about other people the way I think of his films. Like some, but don't really care.

[majorkonig41]

Originally Posted by jcs913

Rich, there is nothing more pointless than when I read posts that a film is boring or 'I didn't get meaning' Generally art should have some sort of interpretation from everyone. Whether you agree about it or not is your opinion. But you should never have to find 'meaning' in art, as most of the time, it was made for enjoyment. I always believe that discussion needs to have a backbone from the person that initiates it. When you post about a film, you are starting that discussion and you should be able to 'back up' your post with some sort of intelligent reasoning. That, for the most part, is my wishful thinking, I guess....

I apologize for starting this by only saying The Seventh Seal was an insufferable bore. I found the film so boring because the most interesting part of the film was the chess match and it was hardly in the film. The rest of the time the characters moved around, sort of like chess pieces which I though was clever, but never reached any sort of purpose. The inclusion of what almost seemed like comedy bits, did not ring true to the tone of the film either. The entire thing came off as a guy trying to get back to his wife while contemplating the meaning of death or life while bringing along a bunch of people for no apparent reason. For me it was had an interesting setting and a extremely interesting aspect with the chess game, but in the end felt like something trying to be more deep and profound then it really was. Then again, maybe this wasn't for me or perhaps it went over my head. I will revisit down the line to see if my mind changes.

[rkish]

Originally Posted by majorkonig41

I apologize for starting this by only saying The Seventh Seal was an insufferable bore. I found the film so boring because the most interesting part of the film was the chess match and it was hardly in the film. The rest of the time the characters moved around, sort of like chess pieces which I though was clever, but never reached any sort of purpose. The inclusion of what almost seemed like comedy bits, did not ring true to the tone of the film either. The entire thing came off as a guy trying to get back to his wife while contemplating the meaning of death or life while bringing along a bunch of people for no apparent reason. For me it was had an interesting setting and a extremely interesting aspect with the chess game, but in the end felt like something trying to be more deep and profound then it really was. Then again, maybe this wasn't for me or perhaps it went over my head. I will revisit down the line to see if my mind changes.

Don't apologize. You are speaking your mind, which is supposedly what these forums are all about. Not everyone is either going to agree or disagree, but you have the right to speak your mind nonetheless.

Also...look at the door that you opened here...a few of us opened up and spoke our minds as well. Sometimes all it takes is one post to open Pandora's box and that is usually a good thing...especially here!

[ccfixx]

Originally Posted by majorkonig41

For me it was had an interesting setting and a extremely interesting aspect with the chess game, but in the end felt like something trying to be more deep and profound then it really was.

See, now this is where your interpretation, or misinterpretation, of the film has caused it to fail for you. It could be because you've read, and heard, so much BS over the years about the film that there's no way this particular film could live up to your mind's imagined hype of what this film is supposed to be. I know you found "The Seventh Seal" to be a bore, but I think it partly has to do with your trying to find some kind of "meaning" in the film.

Have you ever checked out this page... Ingmar Bergman's Universe? It's the official Bergman site that covers just about everything you could possible want to know about the man and his films.

CC

[rkish]

Originally Posted by SpiderBaby

Bergman disliked Orson Welles, Godard, Michelangelo Antonioni and Monica Vitti but loved Hopper's The Last Movie. I guess he thinks about other people the way I think of his films. Like some, but don't really care.

I didn't know that...thanks SB!

I guess that anyone who loves Hopper can't be all bad!

Bring on The American Friend!

[ccfixx]

Originally Posted by SpiderBaby

Bergman disliked Orson Welles, Godard, Michelangelo Antonioni and Monica Vitti but loved Hopper's The Last Movie. I guess he thinks about other people the way I think of his films. Like some, but don't really care.

Just for you...

"I've never gotten anything out of his movies. They have felt constructed, faux intellectual and completely dead. Cinematographically uninteresting and infinitely boring. Godard is a ****ing bore. He's made his films for the critics. One of the movies, Masculin/Féminin, was shot here in Sweden. It was mindnumbingly boring." - Ingmar Bergman

I know Godard was a fan of early Bergman, but has he ever commented on Bergman after he made such the bold statement?

"'Citizen Kane', which I have a copy of - is all the critics' darling, always at the top of every poll taken, but I think it's a total bore." - Ingmar Bergman

Of course, anyone can say the very same things about Bergman's films, and it's okay. It's all personal taste.

CC

[Cocophone]

I'm listening to a Filmspotting podcast that has a review of The Double Life of Veronique.

I'm thinking of putting on to buy list. Should I get it on a blind buy?

My bluray list is below

https://www.blu-ray.com/community/co...e&categoryid=7

[Hendershot737]

Originally Posted by ccfixx

Have you ever checked out this page... Ingmar Bergman's Universe? It's the official Bergman site that covers just about everything you could possible want to know about the man and his films.

CC

Thank you for this!

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by majorkonig41

I apologize for starting this by only saying The Seventh Seal was an insufferable bore. I found the film so boring because the most interesting part of the film was the chess match and it was hardly in the film. The rest of the time the characters moved around, sort of like chess pieces which I though was clever, but never reached any sort of purpose. The inclusion of what almost seemed like comedy bits, did not ring true to the tone of the film either. The entire thing came off as a guy trying to get back to his wife while contemplating the meaning of death or life while bringing along a bunch of people for no apparent reason. For me it was had an interesting setting and a extremely interesting aspect with the chess game, but in the end felt like something trying to be more deep and profound then it really was. Then again, maybe this wasn't for me or perhaps it went over my head. I will revisit down the line to see if my mind changes.

Never a reason to apologize, as you should have offended no one. You spoke your mind and backed up your reasoning as best as you can. What I am referring to is when others have no concrete idea why it was boring or they did not find meaning. Usually those posts are because people think plot has everything to do with the film being interesting. That is when the post becomes pointless to me.

As I have stated before: before you blind bought the film, did you look into it? If so, and you still found it boring, maybe look into it further. You may like what you find, then again, you may be totally turned away, which is fine too. I can use the old analogy about any purchase; before buying a car or blu-ray player, etc.. did you research it? Then honestly, why not do that for a $40 (msrp) purchase? That is all I was getting at. That always seems to make sense to me...

[Hendershot737]

Originally Posted by Cocophone

I'm listening to a Filmspotting podcast that has a review of The Double Life of Veronique.

I'm thinking of putting on to buy list. Should I get it on a blind buy?

My bluray list is below

https://www.blu-ray.com/community/co...e&categoryid=7

I blind bought this and thoroughly enjoyed it. It's definitely not for everyone, as its pacing can drive many a viewer to a bored nub, but I dig this sort of thing and its overall theme kept me rather titillated (I too find the main actress rather attractive )...

P.S. I enjoyed her small part in Au Revoir Enfants