Fellini & Bergman films? (1 Viewer)

[Scott Merryfield]

This is a great and timely thread for me. I've been considering which Fellini films start with, since I've already dove into the Bergman and Kurosawa realms. My only previous exposure was Bergman's Wild Strawberries in a college film class 20 years ago. The Criterion version of that film and The Seventh Seal are well worth the expense, IMO.

 

[Luc D]

Jim, I recommend the next filmmaker to check out would be Werner Herzog (one of my favorites). The first film you need to see would be his wonderful remake/homage to Nosferatu (titled Nosferatu: The Vampyre). Then you should be ready to watch his best film, Aguirre: The Wrath of God. If you like that, then by all means check out The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser and Fitzcarraldo. He's also made a bunch of really interesting documentaries: Lessons in Darkness, Fata Morgana and recently My Best Fiend.

 

[george kaplan]

if you did not care for Billy Wilder's Sunset Blvd, Stalag 17 and Lost Weekend, all 3 are closed to "universal acclaim" as some of Wilder's best, is it fair to assume Sabrina, the Apartment, Some Like it Hot, Love in the Afternoon,.. to be "more of the same" ?

Not enough so that I'd remove them from my to-see list, but if I'd seen and absolutely hated 3 films considered the best of a director, I'd be somewhat less enthusiastic about seeing the rest.

While Cries & Whispers may be very critically acclaimed, I've seen enough other Bergman to know for a fact that it is not 'one of his best' (to me). I develop my rental list (it's very long) in a specific way, and I'm not going to let things said in this thread cause me to change it. I probably should have put a smilie in my original post.

 

[BobH]

I'm an unwashed. Because of this thread I went out and rented 8 1/2, Amarcord, Wild Strawberries and Persona.

I used to watch Bergman at every opportunity thirty years ago so I expect to enjoy WS and Persona. One of my favorites was the first I saw, Cry of the Wolf.

But I started with 8 1/2. Are you kidding? I have to say it left me completely bored. A self-referencing film-in-a-film about a self-obsessed, whiny, put-upon director filmed in "creative" use of shadows, light and well, silliness. Must be that, at the time, it was very chic. I find absolutely nothing of value in this movie. (Ok, Claudia Cardinale is one of the most beautiful women ever on the silver screen.)

I'll probably enjoy the Bergman films but Fellini is an poser I can do without.

 

[Luc D]

Fellini is an poser I can do without

Boy oh boy are you asking for it!

 

[Pascal A]

On the subject of Fellini, I've always prefaced my comments by stating that I'm not personally fond of the self-indulgent nature of post-8 1/2 Felliniesque style. But having said, his early, neorealist films, especially the trilogy of loneliness - Il Bidone, Nights of Cabiria, La Strada - are quite humble and sincere, and should have universal appeal to a broad range of taste and experience.
As for Ingmar Bergman, I strongly suggest the chamber trilogy (Through a Glass Darkly, Winter Light, The Silence). Also, if you're a fan of Jean Renoir's Rules of the Game, Bergman's "comedy of manners" film, Smiles of a Summer Night, is also quite a socially astute film.

 

[Jim Rankin]

BobH - please check out Amarcord and post your thoughts. I appreciate your comments - even though they are not the consensus of this thread. The reason I started this thread is to get input, and even if it's negative I appreciate it. I know for sure that our local Best Buy has 8 1/2, and Amarcord for sale, but isn't stocking ANY Bergman at this time - so one of those two will probably be my first purchase.

 

[BobH]

Thanks for not jumping all over me here, guys. I was perfectly sincere and I appreciate your restraint. Strong words about something you feel strongly about is usually cause for rage.

I have now watched 8 1/2 and Amarcord. 8 1/2 was interesting in its cinemetography for sure. Lighting, structure and acting could not be faulted and it was interesting to see it after a long time. But I still come to the conclusion that it is an "art film" in the worst sense. I feel nothing for any character and feel there was nothing being said by the director other than "watch what I can do here."

To give an analogy, well written music is based on some kind of structure so that emotion can be affected. Mozart and Bach wrote beautifully structured pieces that had powerfully moving results. Later composers like Mahler and Wagner used much larger canvases and much more complex forms and initially confused and upset their audiences but were still emotionally moving. Much of the experimental music of the 20th century was only aimed at playing with the notes with completely empty results.

8 1/2 strikes me that way. Lots of images, lots of acting, lots of motion and in the end: nothing. One of my favorite directors, Kubrick, put Barry Lyndon together out of an unsympathetic character in very unusual and beautiful photography. Fascinating technique but no emotion.

Amarcord was a tease. Fellini gets some really interesting characterizations going and an intriguing little environment and then it goes haywire into some kind of political statement that left me cold.

Maybe it's a style: improvise, be beautiful (even in ugliness) and you create art! I don't believe that for a minute. Great art is hard work. Back to my analogy, some people think music just flowed from Mozart's pen by pure inspiration. Same with Shakespeare. Bull. The closer you look to those notes and words the more you see the execution and the more you appreciate the result.

I hope this isn't insulting, but right now it seems to me that Fellini was a self-indulgent cult phenomenon which was a very popular cultural trend during those years. The more bizarre and unemotional the better. He was the right man at the right time. I must be wrong about this because his stature has not decreased with time yet. On the other hand I figured rap would dissapear like leisure suits but it's still here strong. Don't get me wrong; Fellini worked very hard to produce nothing; rap takes no effort.

 

[BobH]

Ok, now about Bergman. Watched Wild Strawberries and Persona. Both were interesting and worth watching but not more than once. WS seemed rather simplistic but I did like the characters. Kind of like a diet version of chocolate mousse. The teenagers were no less involving than the professor and the daughter. Lots of beautiful cinematography. I wonder if that is the common theme here. Twenty to fourty years ago it was novel to make films that were so attractive to the eye.

Persona was a lot of angst. That's my review. The more I tried to get involved in the characters the more I wanted to slap their faces myself! I only hope that there was a very subtle plot twist at the end where the nurse kills Elizabeth and takes her place. Nah.

I remember really liking Cries and Whispers, Cry of the Wolf, Autumn Sonata, and several others back in the '70s (?). I think I must have been young and impressionable then. It's all a bit much now. Form should have a function. Like I have grown out of baby music to great music, I just expect a lot more from cinema now. (which doesn't mean I can't still watch Speilberg and listen to the Dead once in a while!)

 

[george kaplan]

You know what's funny Bob? While neither Fellini or Bergman are my favorite directors by a long shot, I like Fellini far more than Bergman, whereas you feel exactly the opposite.



To paraphrase you:

Cries & Whispers strikes me that way. Lots of images, lots of acting, lots of dialouge and in the end: something. But not something I ever want to be subjected to again.

Which only goes to prove that it's all a matter of opinion.

 

[BobH]

Interesting, George. I suppose my conclusion from this excursion into these two directors is the same. Saw that; she was prettier in my memory. Move on.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Ignore all BS that Bergman''s work is 'difficult' - it isn't, but equally, it is not for casual viewing; you have to work at it to crack the code, but it's not impenetrable or pretentious (i.e. about 80 per cent of French art house cinema and near 100 per cent of Brit art house stuff). Don't worry whether you are spotting every nuance - chances are that unless you are from a scandanavian protestant background, you'll never get some of the references. But that doesn't stop you gaining a rich satisfaction from them in the same way you don't have to be a professor of music to enjoy Beethoven or Mozart.

With respect to other opinions expressed here, don't cherry-pick Bergman movies. With the possible exception of the couple of movies he made in Germany during tax exile, Bergman has never made a complete dud. The best bet is to start with his earliest movies and move through them in chronological order. Ideally, after you've watched each one for the first time, read up on it (Peter Cowie's excellent biography is a good place to start, plus Bergman's various books on his work). Then watch them again, this time picking up on what you missed the first time around.

The great joy of Bergman's movies is that you can watch them almost endlessly, each time finding something new.

Having said this, a lot of your viewing will for the moment have to be on (ulp!) VHS. A lot of his work still is unavaible on DVD, and in the USA you are largely restricted to (IMHO over-priced) Criterion editions. We in R2 are luckier, since a lot of his earlier work is coming out on DVD through the Tartan label in generally excellent prints (plus reproduced excerpts from Bergman's own books on the making of the film in question).

 

[BobH]

Now that would be interesting to have some commentary or exerpts of his books on a DVD. Perhaps Cowie.

Wild Strawberries seemed pretty straightforward to me and somewhat entertaining but I would find it hard to describe it as endlessly entertaining. There were lots of cross-references and I would not call it pretentious. Clever, just not very involving. Appreciating his cleverness does not make it more satisfying. All the commentary tracks on DVDs these days can't help but reveal much of the craft of movie-making. But if the movie doesn't move me at a deep level then I don't care how it was crafted.

I still wonder if the era doesn't matter. When Bergman was making movies I was watching them and liking them. As I look back to them now, they seem rather empty. My experience should be the opposite as it is with the music of my analogy.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Bob, I think 'entertaining' is probably the wrong word, in retrospect!

I think the danger with Bergman is that once you can read the code and recognise his recurring themes, some of his stuff can seem a bit facile. I confess that I went through a stage very much like that but then I found myself re-admiring his work all over again.

Interestingly, I've never met anyone who really likes Bergman *and* arthouse Italian cinema (or vice versa). I think it's one or the other - perhaps down to what appeals to individual tempraments? [A friend of mine says it's down to whether you basically have sympathy with a protestant or a catholic type of viewpoint, but I'm not sure about that!]. E.g. I respect Fellini and certainly could present a strong case for why he is a great film maker, but he's not a *personal* favourite of mine. Horses for courses, I guess.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

So I take it that it's a bad idea to buy 8 1/2 sight unseen? Oh well, there goes one classic I'm never going to see.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Dome - nope, I'd buy it if you can get it cheaply enough.

 

[BobH]

I guess I have noticed the same polarity. Bergman makes thoughtful movies, even though I now find them a little flat. Fellini makes visual movies and I now find them empty. Kubrick made visual movies but used the visual medium to make his points somewhat like Bergman. He also used sound very well.

I guess I will stick with Kubrick, given the choice. His earlier films are interesting but his later films are the ones I watch over and over.

Current film makers seem to be in a different category still. Speilberg couldn't help showing his trademarks in AI despite his effort to make a Kubrick-like movie. I suppose one should be aware of the older artists to be able to see their influences on the current crop. So I appreciate this thread. Dome, rent 8 1/2 and see for yourself.

 

[Viktor S]

Oh, I almost never have time to write as long posts on these forum as I'd like, but Bergman is one of my absolute favorite film makers. Well, let’s get straight to the point.

Which movie of his is the best one to start with? That it such a tricky question when it comes to a brilliant film maker like Bergman. First of all it’s sort of true what is said a couple of posts back that Bergman isn’t that difficult as is often said. To get full pleasure out of his films though, you have to be in the right mood and have your mind focused.

Well, anyway, the films that to me resembles Bergman’s specific touch best are “Cries and Whispers”, “The Seventh Seal” and “Persona”. The later though is, as mentioned, a little tough to use for first time Bergman experience, but it shows very good his skill to use symbolism, religious undertones and working with the actors in that precise way of his. The first two mentioned are easy to appreciate even if you aren’t ready for a heavy-headed experience, though they still have a lot beneath the surface.

And if you want to see how easy it actually is to like Bergman begin with the fabulous and hilarious “Smiles of a Summer Night” and just have a good laugh.

As somebody mentioned above that "Cries and Whispers" is one of Bergman's greatest works, I really could not agree. It sure is a great film and shows a lot of Bergman’s brilliance and complexity, but I don’t think it has an honest chance compared to “Persona”, “Fanny and Alexander”, “Wild Strawberries”, “The Virgin Spring”, “Smiles of a Summer Night”, “The Seventh Seal” and “The Face”.

By the way, you really never should see "Wild Strawberries" just once. It's impossible to not find new things in Bergman's films no matter how many times you've seen them. So get that splendid Criterion version sooner than possible and listen to the magnificent audio commentary on it if you feel you’ve missed to much of the movie’s greatness.

I’d really like to write so much more, but my time is limited.

 

[Jim Rankin]

I had just bought 8 1/2 just on it's merit as a film and what people had suggested. I would definitely recommend this film to anyone looking to give Fellini a try. Fair warning though, this film will require repeat viewings to catch all the nuances that Fellini has intended. I watched it twice, once by itself and then the second time with the commentary on - and I must say I found the commentary not only to be entertaining, but very informative as well. I like the idea of editing two people in the commentary - one providing background and insights on Fellini as a director, and the the other giving screen specific commentary on crucial scenes in the film.
This film not only catches the time and place in the film, but also still makes valid points that are still relevant today. It definitely made me wonder about my relationships with the people I love, and question myself as to how honest I am in dealing with them. Fellini delivers a beautifully shot film, with IMHO a very well crafted and clever storyline. The characters in this film are at first overwhelming, but as I suggested earlier a repeat viewing definitely sorts things out a lot better and lets you appreciate the parts even more.
I will give it an 8 out of 10, but more screenings in the future could push this up more. My next film to tackle will be Wild Strawberries - probably will view it next weekend - as far as Fellini goes I am definitely going to get Amarcord and Nights of Cabiria into my colllection as well. Regards, Jim

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I checked all the available resources at my disposal. Nope, no rental or library possibilities. Looks like I'm buying 8 1/2: Criterion Collection sight unseen. Oh well, I hope it's 27 dollars well spent.