The Criterion Collection

[Fabs]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

I almost bought House today.

Just couldn't decide whether I would love it or loathe it.

It's odd. House looks so beautiful. It's very dreamy or fantasy-like in its visuals. Really vivid colors and the people all have a glow to them. Then you have the plot and it's like the complete opposite. It's so out there to say the least. The effects are fairly crude as well.

[Page14]

Originally Posted by hoytereden

I think any of the Summer films are a good starting point. Summer With Monika is a fairly simple story about the highs and lows of young love as is Summer Interlude but it's a bit darker than Monika plus it's a bare bones Criterion release. Smiles of a Summer Night is a fun film that proved Bergman could do comedy and not just gloom & doom dramas. I really need to add it to my list this sale along with Wild Strawberries. Which would also be a good intro film.

I look at all of these responses regarding which is a good Bergman to start with, and they're all over the place. Lol. It makes me think that there isn't a definitive answer, which I guess is to be expected with Bergman's vast catalog.

As somebody who hasn't experienced too much Bergman, I look at his films and wonder if they're just a little too deep for me. It's nice to see that he has a few films with simpler stories.

Thanks to all for the comments.

[diskspinner]

Originally Posted by oildude

I hope your wife doesn't find out.

Specially now she knows about a thing or two about Spy(ing)

[JeffTheMovieGuy]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

I almost bought House today.

Just couldn't decide whether I would love it or loathe it.

I absolutely love House and I'm happy I own it. It might not be for everybody but its a fun campy as hell, horror film with a great ad nauseam soundtrack.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by Page14

I look at all of these responses regarding which is a good Bergman to start with, and they're all over the place. Lol. It makes me think that there isn't a definitive answer, which I guess is to be expected with Bergman's vast catalog.

As somebody who hasn't experienced too much Bergman, I look at his films and wonder if they're just a little too deep for me. It's nice to see that he has a few films with simpler stories.

Thanks to all for the comments.

It may seem that way, but it's only a small section of a huge body of work!

I think there are quite a few poor choices though. The Magician wouldn't be an ideal first Bergman film, for example.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

The Magician wouldn't be an ideal first Bergman film, for example.

Okay, fine, I'll tell my embarrassing The Magician story.

I bought it blind (which I love doing) even though at that time I'd never really had any strongly pleasant experiences with Bergman. I love Max von Sydow and it had a cool cover: how bad a blind buy could it be.

So I'm watching it and while I wasn't exactly enjoying it I was engaged. It looked great, MVS was chewing scenery with his eyes alone and I was pretty much keeping up with what was going on including - cue swell of pride - all the religion/science subtext. It wasn't just about debunking a particular magician, that was cover for a discussion of faith and science and how the church manages information and so forth and so on.

I was on quite the little interpretive roll.

Then I dig into the supplements and the first people discussing it start talking about how brilliantly it commented on the relation between artists and critics. I thought 'okay, well, didn't really see too much (or really any) of that but I suppose one could see that if one were inclined in that direction. Then I started an interview with Bergman himself that reinforced in no uncertain terms the exact same things.

I was a little crestfallen, to say the least

It was okay though, I comforted myself with the thought that I not only bought the damn thing, I actually watched *and* tried to think about it *and* even watched a few of the supplements in the hopes of thinking about it even more.

So I had all that going for me.

Which was nice.

[Vinyl]

Originally Posted by octagon

Okay, fine, I'll tell my embarrassing The Magician story.

[Show spoiler]I bought it blind (which I love doing) even though at that time I'd never really had any strongly pleasant experiences with Bergman. I love Max von Sydow and it had a cool cover: how bad a blind buy could it be.

So I'm watching it and while I wasn't exactly enjoying it I was engaged. It looked great, MVS was chewing scenery with his eyes alone and I was pretty much keeping up with what was going on including - cue swell of pride - all the religion/science subtext. It wasn't just about debunking a particular magician, that was cover for a discussion of faith and science and how the church manages information and so forth and so on.

I was on quite the little interpretive roll.

Then I dig into the supplements and the first people discussing it start talking about how brilliantly it commented on the relation between artists and critics. I thought 'okay, well, didn't really see too much (or really any) of that but I suppose one could see that if one were inclined in that direction. Then I started an interview with Bergman himself that reinforced in no uncertain terms the exact same things.

I was a little crestfallen, to say the least

It was okay though, I comforted myself with the thought that I not only bought the damn thing, I actually watched *and* tried to think about it *and* even watched a few of the supplements in the hopes of thinking about it even more.

So I had all that going for me.

Which was nice.

So, did you end up enjoying The Magician and were you happy with your purchase?

[ccfixx]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

I think there are quite a few poor choices though. The Magician wouldn't be an ideal first Bergman film, for example.

I completely disagree here. The Magician is a light-hearted whimsical affair from Bergman and certainly one of the easier films for someone to watch, I think. It's not so heavy-handed as some of his other films have a reputation for being.

Originally Posted by octagon

Okay, fine, I'll tell my embarrassing The Magician story.

... I was pretty much keeping up with what was going on including - cue swell of pride - all the religion/science subtext. It wasn't just about debunking a particular magician, that was cover for a discussion of faith and science and how the church manages information and so forth and so on.

I was on quite the little interpretive roll.

Then I dig into the supplements and the first people discussing it start talking about how brilliantly it commented on the relation between artists and critics. I thought 'okay, well, didn't really see too much (or really any) of that but I suppose one could see that if one were inclined in that direction. Then I started an interview with Bergman himself that reinforced in no uncertain terms the exact same things.

I was a little crestfallen, to say the least

... I actually watched *and* tried to think about it *and* even watched a few of the supplements in the hopes of thinking about it even more.

Here, I think, is the perfect example of how I see so many people approaching the films of Bergman... and falling short. Bergman has this clout of "heaviness," "deepness" or "dread" put over so many of his films for whatever reason... be it the subject matter or imagery. What no one seems to see (and I've mentioned it before in this thread), though, is the humor that's in his films. When I watch a Bergman film, I'm not sitting there trying to "understand" or interpret what subtext or subtle nuances he's trying to convey through whatever real life experiences he's had with religion or his relationships with family, lovers, and critics. If I want all of that, I'll just go to the Ingmar Bergman website and read about it from the source. Instead, I'm enjoying the performances, the story, and the humor that Bergman has injected into these characters and their situations of misery or hardship. I think Bergman had a great sense of humor (a sick sense of humor) that comes through in all of his films, and I think once you can tap into that aspect of his films you'll be able to enjoy them in a whole new way.

[ijustblumyself]

^ On one hand I agree with you; Bergman has such a reputation as being this artist who deals exclusively in 'deep' themes and 'existential suffering', that people seem to miss some of the simple joys his work can bring. That being said, it's not necessarily wrong to look and watch for the subtext that Bergman inserts; I honestly think that much of his work isn't as symbolic and hard to decipher as people claim, he's just as interested in character as he is idea, and the genius of Bergman is in the way he can merge the two (although there are a few films he can't quite manage this, see Seventh Seal)

[ccfixx]

Originally Posted by ijustblumyself

That being said, it's not necessarily wrong to look and watch for the subtext that Bergman inserts

Oh, definitely not, but I think a lot of people (especially first time viewers) go into his films with that expectation of having to "think" about what they're about to watch... and that it's possibly going to be a chore to sit through the film to fully understand it. People get this impression of his films from other viewers who I think didn't actually "get" the film or understand it because they, themselves, tried to over-complicate it, ya know? I think Ingmar's films deserve a reevaluation of sorts.

Originally Posted by ijustblumyself

I honestly think that much of his work isn't as symbolic and hard to decipher as people claim, he's just as interested in character as he is idea, and the genius of Bergman is in the way he can merge the two (although there are a few films he can't quite manage this, see Seventh Seal)

I agree completely. For me, Bergman didn't get heavy-handed until The Seventh Seal in 1957. At this point, he already had about 15 films directed, which are much lighter in context than The Seventh Seal or some of his later period films like Cries And Whispers. A lot of people seem to consider Bergman's earlier films as "lower-tier," but I enjoy them just as much as what most consider to be his "classics." Summer Interlude, Waiting Women, Summer With Monika, Sawdust And Tinsel, A Lesson In Love, and Smiles Of A Summer Night are all filled with plenty of humor, as far as I'm concerned and are well worth watching to anyone wanting the "lighter" side of Bergman. Also, The Devil's Eye (1960) is quite humorous, I think; it's available on DVD from the UK and it's also on Hulu, I believe.

[kuro_sawa]

Originally Posted by KrugerIndustrial

Anyone?

Might have something to do with it being repressed as blu Ray only. I've seen the new copies that aren't dual format out in the stores, and it doesn't look like Amazon is stocking the release themselves at the moment. I'd have a chat with them and see if you can change the order to one of their third party sellers like newbury comics, which is showing in stock with them.

[Banned User]

After watching Criterions release of Gate of Hell all I can say is why are there no supplements on the disc for this Film. Its a one of a kind masterpiece. Even the MoC release I have only has a insert booklet.

Also where is the Directors silent film Page of Madness. This gem was lost for some 70 odd years and while it doesn't survive in the best quality it screams for a release. Its like Japan's Dr Caligari. Would of made a great supplement.

http://www.openculture.com/2014/07/a...f-madness.html

[jmclick]

Originally Posted by kuro_sawa

Might have something to do with it being repressed as blu Ray only. I've seen the new copies that aren't dual format out in the stores, and it doesn't look like Amazon is stocking the release themselves at the moment. I'd have a chat with them and see if you can change the order to one of their third party sellers like newbury comics, which is showing in stock with them.

According to the release calendar at The Criterion Forum website, Throne of Blood is being released as a blu-ray only on August 25, 2015:

http://www.criterionforum.org/calendar.php?year=2015

[kuro_sawa]

Originally Posted by jmclick

According to the release calendar at The Criterion Forum website, Throne of Blood is being released as a blu-ray only on August 25, 2015:

http://www.criterionforum.org/calendar.php?year=2015

Thanks for the link, I was digging around for some proof myself or an updated Amazon listing but I couldn't find one. I've seen the blu-Ray only copies at my Costco, so I guess they got them early. Either way, it's probably the reason for the Amazon mess up.

[Fabs]

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

Well, he is probably the best director ever....def top five of all time (my opinion only of course . All his films should be on Blu. Today I purchased films from the three greats of Japanese cinema: Mizoguchi, Ozu and KuroSawa .

Just need to add another Naruse film to the collection, on Wednesday.

[SkyAntoine]

Originally Posted by oildude

I hope your wife doesn't find out.

She was watching, too.

I was a little let down by 3 Women last night. I went into it as an inspired film of Persona looking for similarities between the two. Persona is a masterpiece and I thought 3 Women was just ok. Maybe I need to watch it again to appreciate it more.

[buffetfroid]

Originally Posted by KillDaWabbit

I decided to pass on buying Shoah, which allowed me to pick up these titles, all of which are blind-buys:

Red River
The Bridge
The Confession
Hidden Fortress

How did I do? There is a strong chance I will pick up Brazil before this is said and done. That would make 9 titles for my first BN Criterion sale.

Red River is a great western that doesn't seem to get talked about a lot here. Lots of replay value.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by ijustblumyself

That being said, it's not necessarily wrong to look and watch for the subtext that Bergman inserts; I honestly think that much of his work isn't as symbolic and hard to decipher as people claim, he's just as interested in character as he is idea, and the genius of Bergman is in the way he can merge the two (although there are a few films he can't quite manage this, see Seventh Seal)

Bergman did not make that many symbolic works. It's basically Seventh Seal, Persona, Hour Of The Wolf, The Silence and maybe one or two others. Most of his films are pretty straight forward character pieces, and the reputation he has for being 'difficult' is largely the result of his status in the 'art film' canon, along with the fact that films like Persona and The Seventh Seal tend to be the films that people first encounter because they have the best reputations.

Watching The Seventh Seal and Persona first did not help me appreciate other Bergman films.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by Martin_31

I just saw my first Luis Buñuel film, Tristana. I loved it! I've never seen a movie like that before. I can't explain it. The editing and cinematography were amazing. The way the camera moved was smooth and unpredictable. I just don't know why I liked it so much. Any recommendations for another Luis Buñuel film?

Tristana is a great film. I'd rank the Bunuel films I've seen as follows:


That Obscure Object of Desire
Tristana
Belle de Jour
Phantom of Liberty (this might actually be a tie w/ BdJ
The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie

..and I've seen Un Chien Andalou, of course... which is great, but for me it exists more as important piece of film history rather than something that I enjoy or even admire. don't know if that makes sense.

[Namuhana]

Originally Posted by SkyAntoine

I was a little let down by 3 Women last night. I went into it as an inspired film of Persona looking for similarities between the two. Persona is a masterpiece and I thought 3 Women was just ok. Maybe I need to watch it again to appreciate it more.

I had a similar reaction to 3 Women, though I believe I watched it before I saw Persona. I simply thought that 3 Women was okay and nothing to write home about. I can't even really remember much of the film. It's not like it left a bad taste in my mouth, but it didn't necessarily do anything for me.