Well they say these things come in threes, so who's next after the day on day news of the deaths of Ingmar Bergman and Michelangelo Antonioni? I have occasionally mentioned the second of these directors in this journal, as I have been slower filling in my knowledge of his films than Bergman's. A glance through the archives would probably underline the fact that I have never been much of a fan, although I've admired his artistry. It's just that too many of his films struck me as long, heavy-going, and often, dare I say, pretentious. Still it's a sad day when a great artist leaves us.
Against this there was a horribly annoying Thunderer column in the Times today claiming that Bergman was not only overrated but that the writer would be hard-pressed to find anyone who had actually seen a Bergman film. How very stupid from a purportedly intelligent columnist. The fact that I have seen nearly all of them doesn't make me a better person -- and no I don't love them all equally -- but I find it hard to credit that any even semi-serious cinephile would not have a passing acquaintance with Bergman's work which includes some real gems. The writer then went on to tar Lars von Trier with the same "boring" brush and ended by claiming that Bergman's biggest failing was having an influence on Woody Allen which stopped his being "funny". I despair, especially since I really don't think this column was meant to be humourous; maybe it was just meant to be contentious.
No comments:
Post a Comment