Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club - Page 92

Oops. Sorry, I must have missed that discussion. But very true. What someone's perceptions on Mulholland Dr. says more about the viewer than anything else. Btw, here is a terrific dedicated site to Mulholland Dr.:

http://www.mulholland-drive.net/

I agree about Blow-Up. The film disappointed because the story fails to live up to its beginning. So, I guess we are both summing up the obvious ... it's all about the story.

Naturally, if any film needs to be held up to Vertigo, 2001 and Citizen Kane a lot of films are in trouble. But, for example, I thought The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie was an interesting story (not great, but interesting) and still is quite different. Now, dreams (or dreams within dreams) may be one person's idea of weird, but I enjoy those films.

And after all, who is the scared looking woman at the beginning of Vertigo? Is the whole film a dream or someone's fantasy/nightmare? Who's to say? The point is that the story is still terrific and so regardless of the individual viewer's takeaway, it still is a terrific story.

Weird for weird's sake films? Not my cup of tea either. But, I'm guess I'm at the point of rather taking a chance on a rather "out there" film than seeing some 'oh so predictable story' provided at the local Loew's theatre.

George,


I was all hot under the collar after I read your latest bites of wisdom on Bunuel in this thread and was planning a lengthy defensive reply but reason soon came to the fore and, honestly, there's really no need for me to get all worked up over what a mere red herring has to say about anything!


Brook,


It's nice to see that you've found the time to watch several Bunuels in the past few days but, unless I'm looking in all the wrong places, I've only found one write-up of yours on the matter so far: THE PHANTOM OF LIBERTY (1974). I'm especially interested in hearing your impressions on VIRIDIANA (1961) since it seems that you were underwhelmed by it on first viewing.


Evan,


It's great to hear from another Bunuel fan. I've watched 20 of his films so far and he's my favorite film director.

While I do consider TRISTANA (1970) to be one of his greatest films, it's not one of my top favorites; those spots are firmly held by THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISIE (1972), THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962) and THE PHANTOM OF LIBERTY.

As for BELLE DE JOUR (1967), I was slightly underwhelmed by it myself on first viewing but, perhaps, the fact that it was dubbed in Italian and around 02:00 when I watched it had something to do with that as well. Of course, I've watched it numerous times since then both on VHS and DVD and my impressions have definitely improved.

With regards to SIMON OF THE DESERT (1965), the abrupt, unexpected ending stems from the fact that producer Gustavo Alatriste (Silvia Pinal's husband) ran into financial trouble in mid-production and did not manage to come up with the required funds to complete the film as originally scripted. Even so, the film seems as near-perfect as it could possibly be for me and, apart from being one of my favorites as well, it's certainly among Bunuel's funniest.

A reply so unsubstantial as to be very worthy of Bunuel indeed! Congratulations on debating skills as empty as a Bunuel narrative!

I'm behind on a lot of writing, 3 in this thread, 4 or 5 in the 2005 thread, a few in the 2004 thread. Just a combination of being either busy when I could write something or not feeling like writing when I have the time.

Thinking about watching Simon of the Desert tonight.

I know the post wasn't directed at me, but I thought you were a little harsh in trying to provoke Mario so:

George, there's really nothing to debate. I don't even try anymore. Your views are so antithetical to established critical thought, volumes of writing, and my own opinion; what is there to say? I or Mario or whoever could write for an hour (as I have in the past) and never convince you of anything or get you to view the films in a way other than how you do. This is perfectly fine and your prerogative to hold the opinion you do of Bunuel, but I don't feel like banging my head against the wall in a futile effort to "debate" you about it.

I like you (or at least the electronic "HTF" you) and like to read your thoughts and views, but I've been down the road where you say something like you said about Bunuel and I go off on it and it never gets us anywhere. Maybe Mario is just a much faster learner than me.

Careful George they're called "sacred cows" for a reason.

Rage against the machine, George!
.
.
.
.
.
Man, I'm bored.

Brook,


No need to worry about "George Kaplan" being harsh to me.

To paraphrase David Niven:

"Isn't it fascinating to think the only attention that 'George Kaplan' will ever get on this Forum is by writing such asinine reviews and showing his 'cinematic' shortcomings?"

Anyway, I know that lethargic feeling of not wanting to post anything, let alone a review, only too well; still, I hope you enjoy SIMON OF THE DESERT (1965) and I look forward to reading your impressions whenever they get posted.

Brook,

I've read much that I disagree with here. Sometimes I debate about it, sometimes not. I can certainly respect someone who chooses to debate an issue, or not, or has a completely opposite opinion than mine.

However, I do think that rude personal attacks, such as and is something I do find offensive, and inappropriate. Just like you have wisely chosen not to debate me, but have remained polite, I will simply place Mario on my ignore list, since it is the only way I can remain polite after being told that every single thing I could possibly ever say about any subject is worth nothing since I am personally a "mere red herring", who has cinematic shortcomings cause I have the gall to disagree with him.

Please don't bother to respond Mario, the ignore list is the HTF equivalent to call-blocking. I thought about reporting your personal attacks to the moderators, but have decided to simply ignore you instead.

Some of them, yes. But then again, some of yours (such as Young Frankenstein) are just as antithetical to established critical thought, volumes of writing and my own opinion. Hell, the same is true of everyone here at HTF who has formed opinions about films. Just like I wouldn't expect you to change your opinion about Young Frankenstein. or Bill about Jaws, just because of that, neither will I change my opinions about films that happen to fall into that category. Besides, just like you, there are hundreds and hundreds of films in which my opinion is in accord with established critical thought and volumes of writing (if not your opinion).

The Exterminating Angel

[cue Twilight Zone music]

A man is talking writing at a desk. He writes with a pen, then stares at what he's written, shakes his head and writes some more. He begins muttering, "This isn't right. Why can't I write what I'm trying to. It doesn't make any sense. Or rather..."

[cut to Rod Serling]"A man writing a screenplay. The time is 1962. The place, Mexico City. The man is a director, who relishes writing bizarre things that no one can understand. But now, he's found a pen, or rather a pen has found him, and despite his best efforts, a well-written screenplay is spilling forth onto the page. For not only is the pen mightier than the sword, this pen is mightier than Bunuel, only in...The Twilight Zone."

This movie is basically like a good episode of the Twilight Zone. As a matter of fact, I kept expecting to see Rod Serling at the end, wrapping things up. Not that this would have been the best Twilight Zone episode by a long shot, but it would have been a solid entry - and that's a good thing - it elevates this Bunuel film far, far above any of the others I seen. All the way into my dvd collection.

Sure, Bunuel still throws surrealistic bizareness at us, but for the most part, it's a logical part of the story. A dead chicken in a purse. Bizarre. But we find out that she's part of a cult that uses it for voodoo, and it all makes sense. What was Bunuel thinking, making such a film? I don't know, but I'm glad to see that he could do it at least once.

Of course, I'm still very much at odds with the Bunuelites, since this seems to be regarded by them as a comedy. That I do not understand. There is nothing remotely funny in this film. It's a good, dramatic Twilight Zonish film, but certainly not a comedy. After watching this film I was absolutely shocked to read people describing it as a comedy. Talk about the Twilight Zone - a world where The Exterminating Angel is a comedy, along with those laughfests Schindler's List, Judgment at Nuremburg, The Seventh Seal, Bad Day at Black Rock and 12 Angry Men. A good movie yes, a comedy, no way.

I didn't think the "red herring" comment was too bad since I thought it was somehow referring to you being a big Hitchcock fan, but yes, there was no call for the 2nd comment.

Enjoyed the "Twilight Zone" stuff George. Can't agree with your characterization of Bunuel's writing process, but funny stuff.

I don't know if I would call Exterminating Angel a comedy or not. There is humor as in all of Bunuel's films but it is certainly of the absurd, observational variety rather than jokes. You might see a chicken in a purse or a bear or lamb walking around a mansion and think "that's weird", while my reaction is to laugh. Also the film is an attack on class and the wealthy. It places them in a fishbowl for the audience to observe in a black comedy/cynical way. Certainly for the characters stuck in that room in the film their situation is deadly serious, but on the other hand it is absurd as well since there is no visible force holding them in the room.

Basically the same as yours, and the same with Exterminating which is the reference for the start of the quote.


Brook, I totally disagree with this attitude. There is a HUGE difference between defending the film itself and with discussing a viewpoint or a line of reasoning.

We could have the same discussion with a non-existent film because this is actually just film theory - the nature of what makes a film good, what a certain type of film should be, the best approach to convey a message, etc.

You proved that in your very response because you were able to address my discussion on the issue, even to the point of discussing my concerns on how it does apply to the film I haven't seen.

I agree that I can't directly say if an unseen film actually matches that reasoning, but I was open about that and didn't attempt to say that it did or didn't actually apply. I'm only saying IF this, then that. If I see the film and the IF part isn't true that does not make the if/then reasoning wrong, it only makes the reasoning non-applicable since the if clause isn't met.

Discussions like this make me a more imformed viewer and I will be able to also consider such aspects as I watch the film.



George - I'm not certain that you understood that I was not making fun of you, but rather of Bunuel to a light degree. I pointed out it was just a mistake and that it gave us another example of Bunuel's apparent approach to direction, though you were missing a random farm animal.


I'm cool and warm to Bunuel. He certainly is far down my list from a guy like Kurosawa or Hitch while his S&S representation suggests others feel differently.
That's true Rich. But I guess we are always trying to balance between challenging and "lazy weird" or "weird for weird's sake", especially when it is meant to pass for art.

With narrative the goals are generally much clearer which makes it easier to analyze for weakness. While basic patterns are a crutch for filmmakers working familiar ground, "high art" directors have the safety of confusion to hide their own shortcomings.

This is my reasoning for criticism of work like this which is exactly why the Python reference is so appropriate here.

Shoah - Part 1 -

A bit of clarification is needed.

Shoah is presented on 5 VHS tapes and an overall run time of 9.5 hours is attributed to it. I've been watching tape by tape and referring to those as part 1, part 2 etc. However the third tape states at the beginning that it contains the end of the first part of Shoah and the beginning of part 2. I was unaware it was split into 2 5 hour sections rather than 5 2 hour sections.

So I finished watching the last hour of part one, which was remarkable. Looking at the full five hours as a synthetic whole, my objections mostly vanish. There is not really another acceptable aesthetic way to present these interviews. Perhaps it would be better to get direct translations of the speakers, but its also instructive to get an approximation of what the director was being told at the time. The first two hours by themselves seemed disjointed, poor filmmmaking craft, the second two hours by themselves were remarkably captivating, the last hour ties the two together and ends with a chilling recitation of an extensive German memo about making the gas trucks more efficient while we travel through an unending industrial setting of smokestacks and factories.

The film is stunning and becomes more and more compelling as you watch it.

But like everything else "weird" is in the eye of the beholder and certainly concepts like "weird but funny" "weird for weird sake" "weird as an artists imagination" or whatever are even more nebulous.

And something like "the safety of confusion"? I think the director generally knows exactly what they are saying. Some audience members "get it" and like it "get it" and don't like it, "don't get it" but like something else about it, or whatever. I'm sure George could turn this into an equation with standards of deviation and really break it down but my point is you are really using subjective opinions and then couching them as fact by using generalities.

RE Shoah, again in a nebulous "theory" world, I would agree with you. But Adam was discussing a method used in a specific film in a specific way. In the meantime, I see Adam has posted again and made what I'm saying irrelevant so I'll stop here.

RE Simon of the Desert ending, I also thought that it was abrupt and odd at first, but then as I thought about it more, I think what Bunuel is saying in the ending is similar to what John Lennon was saying with his famous "We're more popular than Jesus" comment. That popular culture has replaced faith/Christianity as important in the eyes of youth. What does the faith of an ascetic who would spend his life on a pillar matter in their lives? He's just some kook in the desert to them. As the devil says, "Your spot has been filled and you'll just have to ride this out". Fasting on a pillar or groovy beats, not much of a choice is it? Has the devil won or has the church/faith, etc. simply made itself irrelevant? If you remember, the one youth who did embrace Simon's world was rejected from it for being too young.

Like Brook, I found The Exterminating Angel funny in an black comedy-fantasy sort of way, just as I'm amused by parts of Sunset Blvd. that wouldn't be funny if they were "really happening."

Nothing to make me double over like The Naked Gun or One A.M. or The Music Box, but I just enjoyed the absurdity of the situation and a good ol' skewering of the idle rich.

It would definitely be the first Bunuel I'd buy, though I would also give some consideration to Carole Bouquet Naked...er, That Obscure Object of Desire (perhaps a tangent best left to the nudity thread in software ).

Nice thoughts on the film though, "Mr. Thornhill." Glad his stuff isn't a total loss for ya. Now we just have to work on your Keaton skills! If you haven't already, I'd suggest seeking out some of his shorts. In some ways, I find them superior to all but his best 3-4 features. Look for Cops or One Week in particular--20 non-stop minutes of sight gags and stunts, and even if you hate them, they'll be over quickly.

I'd also suggest Seven Chances. The 20 minute chase finale is perhaps his finest moment. If that does nothing for you, there's no reason to seek out any more--you've seen his best.

Evan

A key point I think. That's exactly what I thought when I saw those (well actually what I thought was "what the f...?"). I guess my mind likes a certain type of logical completion. I actually felt good when the voodoo scene took place. It's like a certain part of my brain that had been uncomfortable suddenly felt better that it could make a logical connection and put things into place.

Well I agree it's an attack on class and wealth. But so is Citizen Kane. An attack on wealth can be a comic one, or a serious one. I will admit I sort of chuckled at the end when I saw that the same thing was happening in the church, but that was more an appreciation of the twist, than outright humor. I've seen a lot of Keaton, including many shorts. I certainly don't hate any of them, nor minded watching them at all, but he just doesn't elicit a rewatch desire the way Chaplin does. I probably liked The Boat the best, because of the Damfino joke, but I certainly admire a lot of his work.

Was the chicken in the purse in Exterminating Angels?

I notice that Buñuel used chickens to humorous effect in Discreet Charm (having a clueless waiter drop two prop chickens as they are being served). To my mind, that was an inside joke (for lack of a better name) referencing Blake Edward's The Party.

Yes, there is a chicken, (or at least chicken feet, I can't remember if it's a whole bird), in a woman's purse in The Exterminating Angel. No chickens in Simon of the Desert, but there was a funny gag with a lamb and a man a little too fond of his goat.

George, I might have said WTF? 1st too, but then I laughed. Here's where we differ again, while I might expect some explanation from another director, coming from Bunuel I expect this sort of thing, so I was actually disappointed in the voodoo explanation. It was funnier as just a matter-of-fact observation, like it was a perfectly normal thing that she'd be carrying a chicken around in her purse because in the world of Bunuel, pretty any image can pop up at any time. The explanation was like Bunuel's "Midichlorian" moment.

Uh-oh -- and just when I was thinking of taking a chance with a Bunuel film or two!

"Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

“Uh-oh -- and just when I was thinking of taking a chance with a Bunuel film or two!”

Come, come, Joe…it’s not like you haven’t tasted the full extent of my wrath before! And, actually, it’s 3 Bunuels you’ve got coming your way!

But, even if you end up being disappointed by them eventually, I’m sure that your impressions, once posted over here at HTF or the IMDB, will be nowhere near as contemptuous (and, indeed, contemptible) as those doodles He-who-has-decided-to-ignore-me-thank-you-very-much has seen fit to post above!

Anyway, you of all people shouldn’t be surprised about my over-reaction to someone not taking kindly to a film I love! But that’s just the point, Joe: I don’t know if you’ve read all the way through what “George Kaplan” had to say about the Bunuel films he’s watched, but he didn’t simply state the reasons why he didn’t like them; he went on to wrongfully conclude that Bunuel had “no talent for narrative or verisimilitude” (as the late, highly respected film-critic Leslie Halliwell once described THE EXORCIST [1973]!) and that the ‘bizarre’ touches in his films were inserted for no reason whatsoever!! I’m sorry but that’s just sheer nonsense – the mere fact that he is baffled by how anyone would consider THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962) a comedy speaks volumes! Likewise with BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935). Need I say more?

Also, please note that by referring to him as a “red herring”, I wasn’t really belittling him: that was merely a reference to his nom-de-plume which he lifted from Alfred Hitchcock’s NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959); knowing you haven’t watched the film, the ‘joke’ might not be clear to you.

As for the David Niven quote: despite numerous valid points in order to ‘explain’ (or, if you like, justify) Bunuel’s style contributed by many a HTF poster, by sticking to his ‘ignorant’ viewpoint and putting down film after film, I couldn’t help thinking of the futile gesture performed in that pathetic incident during the 1973 Academy Awards ceremony, which prompted Niven to quip those famous lines…!

I came in this way late (I know) but you had the 3 Color Trilogy and Godfather, and Apu trilogy, listed multiple times.

Anyway, I’ve seen:

1900
2001: A Space Odyssey
8 1/2
À bout de souffle (Breathless)
A Clockwork Orange
A Star Is Born
All About Eve
Amarcord
Annie Hall
Apocalypse Now
Baby Doll
Badlands
Barry Lyndon
Battleship Potemkin
Bicycle Thieves
Blade Runner
Blue Velvet
Bob le flambeur
Bonnie and Clyde
Brazil
Breaking the Waves
Bride of Frankenstein
Brief Encounter
Bringing Up Baby
Casablanca
Chimes at Midnight
Chinatown
Chungking Express
Citizen Kane
City Lights
Cries and Whispers
Crimes and Misdemeanors
Days of Heaven
Death in Venice
Dekalog
Do the Right Thing
Don't Look Back
Don't Look Now
Double Indemnity
Dr. Strangelove
Duck Soup
E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial
Europa
F for Fake
Fanny and Alexander
Fargo
Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!
Gone with the Wind
GoodFellas
Grand Illusion
Greed
High and Low
His Girl Friday
Ikiru
In the Mood for Love
Intolerance
It's a Wonderful Life
Ivan the Terrible
Jaws
Jules and Jim
Kind Hearts and Coronets
King Kong
La dolce vita
La Règle du jeu (Rules of the Game)
La Strada
Last Year at Marienbad
L'avventura
Lawrence of Arabia
Le Mépris (Contempt)
Les Enfants du paradis (Children of Paradise)
Limelight
M
M. Hulot's Holiday
Marnie
McCabe & Mrs. Miller
Mean Streets
Meet Me in St. Louis
Metropolis
Modern Times
Monsieur Verdoux
My Darling Clementine
Nanook of the North
Nashville
Network
Nights of Cabiria
North by Northwest
Nosferatu
Notorious
On the Waterfront
Once Upon a Time in America
Once Upon a Time in the West
One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest
Out of the Past
Paths of Glory
Persona
Pickpocket
Pierrot le fou
Playtime
Psycho
Pulp Fiction
Raging Bull
Ran
Rashomon
Rear Window
Red River
Rio Bravo
Rosemary's Baby
Satyricon
Schindler's List
Seven Samurai
Shane
She Wore a Yellow Ribbon
Sherlock Jr.
Short Cuts
Singin' in the Rain
Some Like It Hot
Spartacus
Stagecoach
Star Wars
Steamboat Bill, Jr.
Strangers on a Train
Stray Dog
Sullivan's Travels
Sunset Blvd.
Sweet Smell of Success
Taxi Driver
The 400 Blows
The African Queen
The Apartment
The Battle of Algiers
The Best Years of Our Lives
The Birth of a Nation
The Bridge on the River Kwai
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
The Conformist
The Conversation
The Double Life of Véronique
The Exorcist
The General
The Godfather Trilogy
The Gold Rush
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
The Grapes of Wrath
The Great Dictator
The Hidden Fortress
The Lady Eve
The Lady Vanishes
The Last Picture Show
The Leopard
The Magnificent Ambersons
The Maltese Falcon
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
The Navigator
The Night of the Hunter
The Passion of Joan of Arc
The Searchers
The Seventh Seal
The Shining
The Thing from Another World
The Third Man
The Tingler
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
The Wages of Fear
The Wild Bunch
Three Colours Trilogy (Blue/White/Red)
Throne of Blood
Tirez sur le pianiste (Shoot the Piano Player)
To Be or Not to Be
To Have and Have Not
To Kill a Mockingbird
Tokyo Story
Touch of Evil
Un Chien andalou
Unforgiven
Vertigo
Vivre sa vie (My Life To Live)
White Heat
Wild Strawberries
World of Apu (including Pather Panchali)

There are a few films from the remaining list I want to see, eventually, but I could replace any of them with films I hold in higher regard, including The Ghost and Mr. Chicken.

Sadly, there are indeed many overrated films that bloat this list, that are far inferior to the Ghost & Mr. Chicken.

How can you know that the films that you have not seen are bad?

At least when George does not like a flim, he has actually seen it.

So does Charles Manson. So do lots of crazy people. Flawed logic is still logic if the person doesn't recognize the flaw.

Who cares if you know what I mean as long as I do? Not a great motto for a quality artist who wishes to present art publically. After all if you don't care if people get it then why bother showing it to them at all?

This is the standard BS defensive posture taken by pseudo-avant garde types and "individuals" taking a stance. Spike your hair and dye it pink, then challenge anyone who looks at you funny, tell them not to judge a book by its cover even as you are intentionally trying to create a cover that sells the image you believe in (counter culture in that case). Just as simple to wear a suit and tie and secretly be the crazy nut, and more fitting to the idea of not judging a book by its cover.


Bunuel DOES care what we think. By presenting his work he is asking for it to be viewed, analyzed and judged. What is the point of asking others to understand you only to intentionally confuse them?

I have defended surrealists from the view that such confusion itself can make a point about the norm, about the expected. But lets not just dismiss the effort to be understood as the sell-out path.

It is MUCH harder to be understood than not to be.


A main goal of surrealism is to point out this desire by keeping it you from satisfying it.

You make some good points there Seth.

I just added a comment to my last post in response to something you said. More of what I had already said basically.


It's funny because I would say I'm more tolerant of "arty" stuff than you, but then also in line with your respect of "entertainment" than others are. So I do see both sides, but I don't think either side gets carte blanche just for being what it is.

There still must be standards for great efforts and weaker ones.


Oh, and we disagree on Keaton/Chaplin since I prefer Keaton. Not in the "arty/different" he's less popular so I'll champion him way. I just think he's a funnier facial comedian with some of his deadpan looks, and I like his stunt gags more. Both are very talented and funny stars/filmmakers. Two of the best.

Wild Strawberries

Probably the second best Bergman film I've seen, but a huge dropoff from The Seventh Seal, and not a film that I'll be adding to my collection.

Basically, it's a well-done character study. Unfortunately, with very few exceptions (e.g., Citizen Kane), films that are basically just character studies and don't really have any other plot, don't make for good cinema IMO. I certainly love it when great character studies are incorporated into a film which also has a plot (e.g., Vertigo, Rebecca, The Godfather, Unforgiven, etc.), but expecting a character study by itself, no matter how well done, to engage me as a film, and elicit any desire to rewatch, is asking a hell of a lot.

213 down, 140 left

Seth,

I fully admit it's a part of who I am. I'm reminded of the scene in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, when Roger can't stand it that shave and a haircut, is missing the last notes. I actually do have some tolerance for atonal music, but I still greatly prefer a great melody. When it comes to paintings, I can enjoy the hell out of a surrealistic one, since it's just a pretty picture, and it doesn't have to make sense. But for books, or movies, I want a story, and I want it to be logical. There are a lot of pretty paintings that I can look at and enjoy, but I'd get bored looking at a single one long before 2 hours were up, and no matter how pretty a film is, without an engaging and logical (read: well-written) story, 2 hours is way too long to look at something just for the visuals.

All a film need do is tell an interesting story, not be understood. Heck, I've talked with people that loved a certain film and they had not a clue as to what was going on.

I guess if you want to send a message, use Western Union. Otherwise, films are way too hard to make to try to get some statement across to people. If the audience relates to it fine - but to actually get it ... that's a tougher one.

Case in point would be 2001: A Space Odyssey. Do I get what's going on? Don't know. Can I still enjoy the story? Absolutely.

As we all know, sometimes a film tells an interesting story to one person and not another. Take for example The Seventh Seal. It took me three days to get through the film. I kept looking at the time hoping that another thirty minutes might have gone by and it was only five. If I do go to Hell, I'll know it because The Seventh Seal will be playing in the theatre and I'll be wired in watching it a la Clockwork Orange. Sing with me 'oh war, and religion and pestilence and death ...' My takeaway? Life is hard and then you die. What a unique concept. Brilliance! Personally, I suspect The Seventh Seal is a contributing factor to why Sweden has such a high suicide rate.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Fortunately, the human experience is that we don't all process information the same way. We don't like the same music, see the same colors or even smell the same odors. Each to his own. The true ignorance is to not acknowledge significant differences in opinions in films, as, to be expected.

Andrei Tarkovsky popped into my head when you said this.