Canby's first criticism in the NYT was damning. Rather than give the sunday crowd the same review, which they might have read already, he made some more allowances, given that it was by Bergman, and was a bit kinder. But the disappointment was still there:
...it's my suspicion that the movie he intended is not the kind of movie he does best. [and concludes] ...evolves gradually into particular melodrama that is less convincing, less meaningful, less fun, and less evocative of its period than the nightmare works of Fritz Lang's Dr. Mabuse series.
...it's my suspicion that the movie he intended is not the kind of movie he does best.
[and concludes]
...evolves gradually into particular melodrama that is less convincing, less meaningful, less fun, and less evocative of its period than the nightmare works of Fritz Lang's Dr. Mabuse series.
So basically he still agrees with the negative views of the majority of critics - and Bergman himself - later.
Of course this doesn't affect the fact that you (and others) may have gained some feeling of what the period was like from it. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
perhaps you might have been a bit more explicit in your diary as to what you hoped would come in the comments, i.e. discussion of parallels between then and now, rather than a purely aesthetic discussion of the films' artistic merits.
i intuited why you chose those films, and it mattered much more to me than the art.
purely aesthetic film blogs would be fine too, we all need a break from politics now and then.
you were just finding your feet, and for first try it was cracking good.
betcha the next one will be ever better. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Aesthetics can have political dimensions, cf. Godard's radical change in style as his politics changed.
The views of the critics referred to didn't just focus on aesthetic/stylistic issues, and their problem was, in some cases, that Bergman had little to say about the wider issues. This is not surprising, as it seems that his early experience in Germany and subsequent guilt about his admiration for Hitler (yes, he was young and just made a mistake, encouraged by a right-wing father), seems to have turned him off politics. Hence the focus on a few individuals and little on the context, apart from the obvious or the melodramatic, or his own concerns, e. a priest who talks about a silent god - cf. Winter Light, when he might have referred to the way the German clergy were in many cases enthusiastic supporters of the Nazis - for the same reason as Bergman's father - anti-communism.
Some younger Swedish critics and directors criticised Bergman for his general focus on individuals and failure to deal with political issues, e.g.:
In 1962 the filmmaker Bo Widerberg published a pamphlet titled Visionen i svensk film (Vision in the Swedish Cinema), which was intended as a clarion- call to the native film industry to shift to what Widerberg called a "horizontal' cinema, that is, a realistic cinema rooted in modern-day Swedish society. But the pamphlet took the form of what was to become a lifelong attack on the "vertical" non-realistic filmmaking of Ingmar Bergman. http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/art_culture/film/bergman_sweden
In 1962 the filmmaker Bo Widerberg published a pamphlet titled Visionen i svensk film (Vision in the Swedish Cinema), which was intended as a clarion- call to the native film industry to shift to what Widerberg called a "horizontal' cinema, that is, a realistic cinema rooted in modern-day Swedish society. But the pamphlet took the form of what was to become a lifelong attack on the "vertical" non-realistic filmmaking of Ingmar Bergman.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/art_culture/film/bergman_sweden
i couldn't agree more...these days it's hard to see any human activity without political dimensions, especially being a regular visitor here!
in a converging world, all roads lead to global responsibility; politics, blunt tool that it is, describes our progress, its separation from anything and everything 'else' seems increasingly improbable.
between the two poles of political and personal there is still a huge territory to explore and chart, films are the most vivid and popular maps we have these days.
i wasn't trying to separate the poles further with my comment, rather the opposite. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
I feel that so much discussion of old reviews took away from the diary and unfortunately I got drawn into it so I'm disappointed in myself for that.
Then why now bother with yet another "old" review - when maybe you could encourage some further discussion of wider issues by checking out some other documents about the political issues. The fact that the reviews are "old" simply reflects the fact that the film is old too.
Obviously I don't think it took away from the diary; I think that the views of informed, experienced critics help lead to better-informed discussions of films. You don't have to agree with them, but it's worth noting the points they make, when making judgments about the film, especially when there is a consensus amongst a very varied group of them (including the director).
I really wanted to get into a political discussion, as did some others, about fascism, both then and now, but I am not experienced or adept enough to have pointed the discussion in the way I wanted.
Well I don't see how reference to the views of critics prevented this - it was open to any of those interested in the politics to start talking about fascism then and now. Not so very difficult - J. P. Stern, an expert on the period, has recently made comparisons with Bush's gang:
Stern
But Bergman's film had little to say about that - beyond the general atmosphere and the melodrama that Canby complains about in his second review. There was nothing, for example about the German communists, who did fight against the Nazis, and the problem of their opposition to the Social democrats, which fatally divided the opposition to the Nazis.
But this does raise an issue in the theory of film criticism - to what extent should one focus on the specific nature of the film itself, and to what extent should one use it as an excuse to discuss wider issues such as the politics of the period it's set in and/or made in ? I'm all for using films for the latter purpose - but not only that. Some see just focusing on the topic the film deals with, as like looking at Shakespeare's plays only as a tool to discuss Elizabethan politics - one would be missing some important aspects of Shakespeare's work if one limited it to this - and critics can help one appreciate the varied qualities of his work. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
LEP:
Vincent Canby of the New York Times was also bewildered by the film but was hesitant to atack it outright because it was Bergman. He thought that there was a possibility that he didn't understand it.
This is just my interpretaion of an historical fact; ie., what Canby said.
You then responded.
Ted Welch:
In this review he doesn't say he doesn't understand it, he 's very clear and damning; he was not so much "bewildered" by it, as very disappointed:
I then responded
The review you link to was written on January 27, 1978. The review I have, which i got from the NY Times archives, was written on January 29,1978. They are not the same. Its in Adobe Acrobat so as soon as I learn to cut and paste in Acrobat I will post some parts here
I then emailed you a copy of the review that I had. Here's just a brief quote from it.
Having produced in comparatively quick succession five films that may well be masterpieces...Ingmar Bergman has earned to fall short of our expectations of him, to force us to wonder if, perhaps, we are somehow failing him rather than the other way around."
But this does raise an issue in the theory of film criticism - to what extent should one focus on the specific nature of the film itself, and to what extent should one use it as an excuse to discuss wider issues such as the politics of the period it's set in and/or made in ? I'm all for using films for the latter purpose
We are in total agreement on that except that you should have helped more to reach that discussion, as the several other commenters who saw the films, did. Hey, Grandma Moses started late!
Ted: "I'm all for using films for the latter purpose" We are in total agreement on that except that you should have helped more to reach that discussion, as the several other commenters who saw the films, did.
Ted: "I'm all for using films for the latter purpose"
We are in total agreement on that except that you should have helped more to reach that discussion, as the several other commenters who saw the films, did.
First you omit the next bit of what I said - which goes on to explain why I wouldn't want to limit discussion JUST to the topic the film deals with, rather than the film as such - too.
I think you're a bit unfair in giving the impression that I only discussed critics' views (supposedly just to prove you wrong - actually I was trying to justify why I had been so disappointed by the film - like most critics).
I did introduce the quotations from him showing that he had been an admirer of Hitler - that it was partly due to his right-wing father - and as late as the end of WWII didn't want to believe the evidence about the concentration camps (clearly relevant to the fact that he chose to make this film). This wasn't a question of style or critics' views and there was some related wider discussion.
I added the quotation from him stating his own criticism of the film - surely a relevant consideration in talking about the film.
I also recommended a doc on the period, The Double-headed Eagle, with a quotation about it, and even if people hadn't seen it, this too referred back to the context and could have led to further discussion of the general issue.
When Sven mentioned Bergman playing mind games I added information about Carradine's description of Bergman's directing technique.
I'm sorry you didn't feel this was enough. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
Whilst a movie may appear to be phyically discrete - a hefty package of 9 lumps of celluloid, and also linearly discrete - in that it has a beginning, middle and end as an experience (though not necessarily in that order, as Godard provoked), a movie is not discrete. The peephole is, but not the movie. Any understanding of a movie (especially one made within a different zeitgeist) has to contemplate both the influence of the culture on the movie, and the influence of the movie on the culture. And the same applies to the individual viewer in relation to the movie.
As a moviemaker I also enjoy talking about the tools of film-making and how they are used, but these can be rather esoteric. In the end, it should be never forgotten that big screen movie-making is a business - whoever the great artist is. You can't be me, I'm taken
Ted, we disagree on many things. but I thought your contributions to the movie debate were pertinent, interesting and, as usual, challenging.
Thanks for that Sven. Actually I doubt if we disagree about "many" things :-)
Any understanding of a movie (especially one made within a different zeitgeist) has to contemplate both the influence of the culture on the movie, and the influence of the movie on the culture.
Yes, agreed; in fact a lot of my career was spent trying to broaden media students' awareness of the wider context and not to focus too much on technique and biography of directors. The main course I taught was called "History and theory of the media", and students (and some of my bosses) couldn't understand (at first) why it included general history and culture and not the usual trot through the history of photography, film, TV, etc. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
I got over my earlier excessive respect for university academics when, while still an art teacher in a school
Well don't get too carried away. I didn't say I respected you.:-)
(Am I learnin' Prof?) Hey, Grandma Moses started late!
I don't know how to joust with you yet. I am just a small businessman; you are a university professor. But I wiil learn.
