papeetepatrick, on Aug 7 2007, 01:46 AM, said:
Yes, it's pretty bad, especially decrying his 'power to entertain', which is something that never popped into my mind, and that is not associated with the great European filmmakers; but neither can I see it as anything but more abundance. I wouldn't think of the adjective 'entertaining' for Bergman quite as quickly as I would for, say, Luchino Visconti (I find 'the Damned' overwhelmingly entertaining), but that's actually the one thing I got from the article, although I'll be able to use it for better purpose IMO.
I don’t have any objection to calling Bergman entertaining, because to me he is; there is an element of entertainment (in the non-frivolous sense) in any successful film, and if it doesn’t entertain you then something is not working. I didn’t like Rosenbaum’s condescending tone and critics who toss around ‘entertaining’ as if it were an insult set my teeth on edge. (The reference to George Cukor got to me particularly – it’s not only meant to be condescending but it’s inaccurate – Cukor had many skills as a director but storytelling per se was not his long suit.)
And even though in the autobio 'the Magic Lantern', there is demonstrated something of the pinched cruelty in his meeting with Garbo--in which he literally revels, as if having discovered America or something, in letting us know that 'her mouth was ugly'--I still find many of the Bergman films moving and even beautiful.
Personally Bergman seems to have been - well, kind of a creep in many ways.
I have never seen a single film of Woody Allen that I liked; something of the personality that I cannot keep from finding odious and insincere always comes through.
I like him better than you do but I also know what you mean. “Interiors” is awful. I saw it again on cable recently with the intention of returning to it with a completely open mind, and it was just as bad as ever. (Opposing views welcome.