Alright guys, can we just admit that arthouse film/ film as an art medium is boring, pretentious garbage 99% of the time?

Alright guys, can we just admit that arthouse film/ film as an art medium is boring, pretentious garbage 99% of the time? At their fundamental level, movies are meant to be ENTERTAINING, I'm not there to learn anything. Long takes and boring stuff where nothing happens like pic related isn't even really a movie in my honest opinion, because the foundation of the medium of film is ACTION

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Ok go watch spiderman jump around then. Should be right up your alley if you can't even take an ingmar bergman film

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      these are my top 100 movies of all time for context

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        is this imdb top 100 or other meme lol

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        [...]
        for the record, I think a perfect film is one that balances entertainment and artfulness without just devolving into self-masturbatory long takes of nothing. I'm a strong believer in Chekov's Gun, only what's necessary should be included. I also think dialogue is the most important aspect of a movie, it's why silent movies are pretty much irrelevant nowadays after all. I think a good example of arthouse done right is Wes Anderson

        have a nice day you moronic philistine. Drooling fricking morons like you shouldn’t be allowed within 100 kilometers of a cinema

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          look dude, I really gave Bergman a try. I give directors 3 movies before I give up on them completely, but I thought Seventh Seal was just alright and I hated Persona, I was so bored, so i actually gave up after 2 movies for him. my friend told me to watch Wild Strawberries but I said nah lol

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You should've watched Fanny & Alexander, by far Bergman's best work

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        you have the taste of a simpleton

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      these are my top 100 movies of all time for context

      for the record, I think a perfect film is one that balances entertainment and artfulness without just devolving into self-masturbatory long takes of nothing. I'm a strong believer in Chekov's Gun, only what's necessary should be included. I also think dialogue is the most important aspect of a movie, it's why silent movies are pretty much irrelevant nowadays after all. I think a good example of arthouse done right is Wes Anderson

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >I also think dialogue is the most important aspect of a movie, it's why silent movies are pretty much irrelevant nowadays after all
        I'll assume you're not baiting and give you an honest suggestion, watch picrel and realize how wrong you are

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        ok bra i see what you're doing. good one. you actually had me there

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >I think a good example of arthouse done right is Wes Anderson
        frick off Black person

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I mean dude, I go into every movie hoping it's a 5/5, but it can't just be self-masturbatory long takes of nothing without any dialogue for mintues at a time

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            has your feeble little mind ever considered that what you perceive as "nothing" is actually in fact something, and your inability to detect it is a symptom of your own deficiency rather than a deficiency of the piece?

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I like Persona because the shota orgy story made my pp hard
    10/10, thank you Mr.Bergmann

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Yep
    I feel this best with Tarkovsky
    You have Stalker and Solaris which were pure arthouse films and I found them to be incredibly boring
    Then you have Andrei Rublev (my favourite film of all time which I've seen 6 times) which is extremely captivating and has you clinging onto every word and image whilst watching the films
    Persona just isn't all that interesting, I think the people who say they like it are pretending

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      yeah Tarkovsky is the worst, I got like 30 minutes into Stalker before shutting it off because me and my girlfriend couldn't even tell what was going on, and it was pretty boring anyway. I can't stand it when directors think long shots of nothing counts as good filmmaking

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >movies are meant to be ENTERTAINING
    That depends on the genre and the director's intent.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      it's pretty obvious this homosexual thinks good film is whatever conforms to his childish whims instead of even attempting to judge its merits objectively

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    the entire history of modern society is the history of how art was taken away from poets and handed over to industrialists. poets don't care about entertaining you, industrialists do

    people on this thread shitting on Tarkovsky when he quite literally gave his life for cinema. the thing is poets know that the seriousness of human existence and of historical communities is at stake in their works.
    an entertaining work (what zoomers call "piece of media","content", etc.) is no different from a can of coca-cola. It begins and ends at the mereley technical (from greek "téchne", the rule of knowing the best way to achieve an end that is outside of the action). the end of an entertaining "thing" (because they're no more than "things" for consumption) is that you sit down and pay for a particular experience with no attempt, whatsoever, to engage with beauty.

    that's not to say, by the way, that a genuine work of art can't be entertaining. People that have developed the correct relationship with art are definitely entertained by Tarkovsky and Bergman.

    that's me spergin out

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >an entertaining work (what zoomers call "piece of media","content", etc.) is no different from a can of coca-cola. It begins and ends at the mereley technical (from greek "téchne", the rule of knowing the best way to achieve an end that is outside of the action). the end of an entertaining "thing" (because they're no more than "things" for consumption) is that you sit down and pay for a particular experience with no attempt, whatsoever, to engage with beauty.
      Chekhov's Gun, bro, long shots of nothing happening is unnecessary and is just really boring and unnecessary. a good movie like Scent of a Woman makes pitch perfect use of every second, and is a perfect symposium of dialogue and music

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        AHHHHHHHHH I HATE YOU I HATE YOU I HATE YOU FRICK OFF AND DIE homosexual

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          this is the rhetorical ability of the average Bergman fan lmao

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            why does a ghoulish creature like you even pretend to be able to appreciate art? it's like a chimpanzee gazing at Chartres, it has no conception of the totality of what it's looking at. your kind are the antithesis of cinema, the antithesis of art

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        If something is in the movie it is necessary because the director put it here for a reason. The reason can be whatever you choose to think it is, but there's always a reason. The perception of an artpiece is always irrational.
        One might find engaging what someone else finds boring. Another person might find something boring to watch at first but then warm up to it when thinking about it. You have an arbitrary definition of what you consider entertaining, then you watch movies you know do not fall under your personal definition and then surprise surprise you don't like it. Then you make thread about "waaaaah this art movie BORED ME" number one thousand and eight. It is worthless.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        first off, typical mechanism of avoiding the overall point and doubling down on details

        you keep mentioning that bullshit (chekhovs gun) like it's the be-all end-all of storytelling. Tarkovsky was a film student in the land where film schools most notorioulsy originated. I don't think you're in any position to argue that he was ignorant on the basics of filmmaking.
        you're allowed to overtly bypass principles (at least in any discipline that isn't formal logic or a well established positive science). i mean, you yourself have "Breathless" on that shitty chart you posted earlier
        not all works of art have to have the same shape while still sticking to the same principles. who's to say long shots aren't essential elements for a particular film? this is especially true with Tarkovsky by the way, and if you don't know what i'm talking about maybe read up on him
        but in the end, if there's something that distinguishes modern art from classic (greek) art is that at some point it was discovered that poets are able to create rules, they're able to create from the feeling of beauty (sensibility) where concepts (understanding) don't hold any weight. Preestablished storytelling rules, models, schemes, etc. are suposed to be overcome by the poet, even though there's some element of order and method involved. That's the tradeoff.
        Again, this fact was beginning to be concealed 150 years ago and it has culminated in the revolting simulacra that passes for art in the XXI century

        you're allowed to dislike Bergman or Tarkovsky but this isn't the way to do it

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >poets don't care about entertaining you, industrialists do
      shakespeare's works were made for entertainment of masses
      this division on Real Art™ and entertaining movies is a meme, tarkowski and bergman are famous exactly because their movies were entertaining and enjoyable for many people
      it's maybe slightly different kind of enjoyment and the target group is smaller than this for capeshit, but in general it's similar
      >people on this thread shitting on Tarkovsky when he quite literally gave his life for cinema
      why would i care? many people died for cinema, what matters is their art
      and i think that stalker is one of the most engaging movies ever made

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >this division on Real Art™ and entertaining movies is a meme
        i didn't make such a distinction and if it seems so, i apologize. the distinction i made pertains to the question of who's in charge of art, which is the question of the direction a particular people is heading towards; in the end it's a political matter (political in the deeper philosophical sense).
        when artists are in charge, art becomes what it really is: not just a thing, not just entertainment. There's a spanish poet that said that poets are the "wind of the people"
        when industrialists are in charge, it's nature is concealed: it becomes "mere" entertainment, a "mere" thing, a consumptibilis/fungibilis/mirabilia. Accepting art in this manner is extremely reactionary, and it just the expression/justification of the abortion of a society that is this contemporary globalized simulacra

        >why would i care? many people died for cinema, what matters is their art
        An artist's life and his work are not suposed to be distinguished. you have to understand what drove Tarkovsky into devoting his entire life to filmmaking. The films ARE his life, not in the autobiographical sense btw. All of his films are uninteligible if you don't try to understand what he thought about Christianity. Yes, you can enjoy them, that doesn't mean you grasp the seriousness that is involved in them.Tarkovsky is just the extreme case that sheds light ontoevery other case, it makes clear the situation artists base their entire existence on. Look at Van Gogh

        [...]
        [...]
        [...]
        You anons are absolutely right, and it's time to come clean and admit this thread is complete horseshit. I don't believe a single word of any of the garbage I've been spewing for the last 2 hours. however, basically all of it are direct quotes from a former friend of mine, and that fricking horrendous chart I posted earlier belonged to him as well. I just really hate that homosexual and wanted to get a vicarious thrill from seeing people rip him apart for the moronic philistine he is

        that ain't it bruh but i called it

        ok bra i see what you're doing. good one. you actually had me there

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >An artist's life and his work are not suposed to be distinguished. you have to understand what drove Tarkovsky into devoting his entire life to filmmaking. The films ARE his life, not in the autobiographical sense btw. All of his films are uninteligible if you don't try to understand what he thought about Christianity.
          definitely agree with you anon. the problem was that my dumbass friend was extremely narcissistic and solipsistic, and also not too bright, so he had trouble understanding things from other people's perspective

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      People always seethe about muh elitists shitting on the common man, but how can anyone not shit on normalgays when they spew bullshit like this all the time. I'm sick of seeing morons on here complaining about muh Tarkovsky boring, muh Bergman impenetrable. If you know that there are types of movies you do not like and do not get and can't connect with emotionally then don't watch them. It's that simple. I didn't see new Cameron slop because it didn't look like an interesting movie to me. And I never talked about it therefore, never made threads about it.

      If something is in the movie it is necessary because the director put it here for a reason. The reason can be whatever you choose to think it is, but there's always a reason. The perception of an artpiece is always irrational.
      One might find engaging what someone else finds boring. Another person might find something boring to watch at first but then warm up to it when thinking about it. You have an arbitrary definition of what you consider entertaining, then you watch movies you know do not fall under your personal definition and then surprise surprise you don't like it. Then you make thread about "waaaaah this art movie BORED ME" number one thousand and eight. It is worthless.

      first off, typical mechanism of avoiding the overall point and doubling down on details

      you keep mentioning that bullshit (chekhovs gun) like it's the be-all end-all of storytelling. Tarkovsky was a film student in the land where film schools most notorioulsy originated. I don't think you're in any position to argue that he was ignorant on the basics of filmmaking.
      you're allowed to overtly bypass principles (at least in any discipline that isn't formal logic or a well established positive science). i mean, you yourself have "Breathless" on that shitty chart you posted earlier
      not all works of art have to have the same shape while still sticking to the same principles. who's to say long shots aren't essential elements for a particular film? this is especially true with Tarkovsky by the way, and if you don't know what i'm talking about maybe read up on him
      but in the end, if there's something that distinguishes modern art from classic (greek) art is that at some point it was discovered that poets are able to create rules, they're able to create from the feeling of beauty (sensibility) where concepts (understanding) don't hold any weight. Preestablished storytelling rules, models, schemes, etc. are suposed to be overcome by the poet, even though there's some element of order and method involved. That's the tradeoff.
      Again, this fact was beginning to be concealed 150 years ago and it has culminated in the revolting simulacra that passes for art in the XXI century

      you're allowed to dislike Bergman or Tarkovsky but this isn't the way to do it

      You anons are absolutely right, and it's time to come clean and admit this thread is complete horseshit. I don't believe a single word of any of the garbage I've been spewing for the last 2 hours. however, basically all of it are direct quotes from a former friend of mine, and that fricking horrendous chart I posted earlier belonged to him as well. I just really hate that homosexual and wanted to get a vicarious thrill from seeing people rip him apart for the moronic philistine he is

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        either you're the guy from the "I was only PRETENDING to be moronic" meme, or you're a guy making people on the internet shit on your friend, i don't know what's worse
        at least your friend is genuine in his opinions

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >or you're a guy making people on the internet shit on your friend
          he's not my friend anymore. He's talked shit behind my back multiple times to get approval from women and he's just a really smug, stupid homosexual in general. pic rel is actually a post I made talking about him in a /film/ thread

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            what is a good choice for first fellini?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              He's just a far inferior Epstein, skip.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              La Strada

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Nights of Cabiria or La Strada

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              La Dolce Vita

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >poets don't care about entertaining you
      HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      Whole ancient art world is laughing at you

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        typical mechanism of focusing on one detail. if you read what i said it's very clear the point i'm trying to get at. i guess more than 6 words is too much to ask for some people to read

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >shitting on Tarkovsky when he quite literally gave his life for cinema
      There are people who give their life to being homeless and doing interpretive dance in parks, it doesn't mean I have to watch it or praise it. Just because someone devotes their life to making excruciatingly long and boring movies does not make it good or worthwhile form anyone else's perspective.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Someone losing their life for making a film is not like being homeless, it's not a neutral matter, especially if your interested in the artform. if you're trying to develop a meaningful relationship with cinema as a whole the case of Andrei Tarkovski constitute an extreme instance of positive value. if you care about cinema at all you should at least make the effort of engaging with his films in their own terms. After that you'll probably be in a position to put out an informed opinion were you can explain why you think the movies are bad, and i guarantee the opinion won't be based on "derrrrrrr it's long and boring derrrr"

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >trying to develop a meaningful relationship with cinema as a whole
          What is meaningful to you is not the same as what is meaningful to other people. No, you do not need to study and enjoy Tarkovski to like cinema.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            no. "meaningful" here means the attempt to grasp cinema as a historical fact in its objective socio-political.economic senses. there are insitutions dedicated to this task. I'm not talking about personal feelings. what you're talking about is the general discrepancy of taste, with which there's absolutely nothing wrong, but is a mere starting point for any aesthetic discipline

            From the perspective of cinema as a historical fact, some points become more relevant than others in order to understand cinema as a whole. Tarkovsky is regarded as a pretty important guy when talking about russian cinema; he shouldn't be ignored if you're interested in cinema as a whole just like a philosophy undergraduate should not ignore Hegel or a literature undergraduate shouldn't ignore James Joyce

            again, i'm not saying anyone should tell you what you're suposed to enjoy. but private taste is just that: private

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    People always seethe about muh elitists shitting on the common man, but how can anyone not shit on normalgays when they spew bullshit like this all the time. I'm sick of seeing morons on here complaining about muh Tarkovsky boring, muh Bergman impenetrable. If you know that there are types of movies you do not like and do not get and can't connect with emotionally then don't watch them. It's that simple. I didn't see new Cameron slop because it didn't look like an interesting movie to me. And I never talked about it therefore, never made threads about it.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    "boring" is a legitimate criticism. no matter the genre or scope. there's plenty of boring action films out there. in reality we're just splitting hairs here, because 90% of movies suck anyway, regardless of genre

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Boring is ironically a boring criticism. It says nothing. There are probably people who get bored by Terminator 2.
      And you mention action films. "Boring" does most credibility as a criticism when talking about action movies. Because by definition action films should be entertaining. But as I mentioned boring cannot be measured really.
      For example I recently watched two films, Total Recall and They Live. Total Recall was a fricking blast, one if the most stylish, original and entertaining action films ever. They Live on the other hand while having plenty of interesting ideas and good individual scenes as overall felt very clunky and dragged on. But most people consider it a classic in the same rank as Total Recall, they find entertainment in it the same way I found entertainment in Total Recall. I guess it's less of an action film and more of a thriller, but while there are creepy ideas, the execution is clearly leaned towards something somewhat cheesy rather than tense. And again, a thriller should have great tension, build up, but parts if They Live were just boring. No entertainment no tension.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    pauline kael was writing about this 70 years ago, you should all read more and stop thinking you’re having original thoughts

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      where do i start with pauline kael?

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    watch better movies

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, most of the time it's due to being made by failed writers with zero cinematic talent.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    homies just like to pretend to understand art movies so that no one would call them normies or midwit. Its easy to spot them because their reviews, perspective, and approach towards these kind of films are based on someone else review, article, or perspective on the same subject. In doing so, these pleb homosexuals are diminishing the entire kinoma experience that they just had because they are not interpreting the kino itself, but rather, someone else essay.
    tldr, you dont expect a letterboxd troony or women to actually understand tarkovsky or bergman films, their reviews are based on other people essay, not their own thoughts and feeling

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >letterboxd

      well there you go. there's the problem

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        my statement can also be applied on other film review site and real life, that if you ever talked to one of those pleb on any film community.
        The key in here is to stop lying to yourself and being more honest about whether you liked this kino or not, too bad a lot of normies are failed to do so because of whatever social validation that they seek

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          why are you fricking soijaking me? I mean, you're probably baiting, but what you're saying is actually an authentically and widely held belief. The whole social validation issue is just projection and you know it. Don't generalize the fear of being called a midwit, that's your business

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Social validation is not a projection, its been there in every places since long time ago, it was just in our time that these stuff is getting more bigger and noticeable. The reason why I said this is because I've been in film community who screened a classic film weekly, and in those community, there's always (atleast) 5 plebs hanging in the back and saying things about the film that were currently screened. The problem is, they are not being honest, they lied to people, they pretend to 'understand' those films in order to gain social validation from the communities, and a little tips, you could spot these people based on how they talked about that film.
            The worst one is the one you found online, on review site like troonyboxd or rotten tomatoes, or whatever it is. Their social validation stuff is based around internet points, you probably know about this stuff more than I do. I'm tired of typing all these shit doe.
            also, I'm not soijakking you, I used soijak picture because I think I look like that

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >I'm not soijakking you, I used soijak picture because I think I look like that
              based
              good posts, i agree
              the worst part is that this urge for social validation is deep inside most of people
              even when you're aware of its mechanics, sometimes you subconsciously lie to yourself

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Except the social validation used to come from actually accomplishing something of value. You built something with your hands, you worked your craft and plied your trade (which actually required putting in backbreaking labor, or risking your life).
              Now, social validation is some vapid scorecard with people giving thumbs up and down on whether or not you gave a dopamine hitting post, pic, or video. And people chase that the way addicts chase the high.
              Which is exactly the kind of people the "arthouse" film appeals to, and is as deep as piece of paper.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Holy fricking based. Couldn't agree more: brought to mind all the vapid celebrities at film festivals and awards shows clapping for each other because their work is "so brave!"

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >all the vapid celebrities at film festivals and awards shows clapping for each other because their work is "so brave!"

                this is, in your world, the same as someone saying they enjoy Ingmar Bergman?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It's like you weren't paying attention to the whole discussion of social validation losing value. One could make an arthouse film, using it as an allegory for fiat currency, or vice versa.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The worst thing about old films is how theatrical and overacted the acting is. especially when the film playspeed is fricked because of projecting from 16 frames to 24.
    A lot of things have gotten worse but acting is one of the few things that are objectively, categorically and undeniably better

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >A lot of things have gotten worse but acting is one of the few things that are objectively, categorically and undeniably better

      No. Sensibility can be cultivated in countless ways. Our sensibility has evolved along with cinema and our current sense of pleasure demands a diffrent kind of acting, that's it. 100 years ago it demaned theatricality and overtness. there's no concrete reason this happens, it's just the way it is. It's not better or worse

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        No.
        The changed playspeed from the difference between capture frame rate and projection frame rate is just bad. it's a defect, there is no argument to be made in its favor.
        Theater is a different medium than film, film adds so many new details that theater didn't have, one of these is that there is more focus on the actors who are usually in focus at the center of the scene. The over the top acting found in theater doesn't work in film for this reason

        This is one of the most incorrect things I’ve ever read on this site.

        which part is incorrect?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This is one of the most incorrect things I’ve ever read on this site.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      No.
      The changed playspeed from the difference between capture frame rate and projection frame rate is just bad. it's a defect, there is no argument to be made in its favor.
      Theater is a different medium than film, film adds so many new details that theater didn't have, one of these is that there is more focus on the actors who are usually in focus at the center of the scene. The over the top acting found in theater doesn't work in film for this reason
      [...]
      which part is incorrect?

      What you are doing is the equivalent of comparing a Renaissance painting to a modern hyperrealistic painting and then complaining how the Renaissance painting doesn't look real enough, as if that was the intention at all.
      Embarrassing.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        those paintings are the same medium, theater and film are different mediums meaning that the acting in theater is going to be fundamentally different. If you still insist on the painting comparison then it would be more like comparing the flat ancient-medieval paintings to renaissance ones that mastered perspective. early film acting was immature and primitive, later film acting is a well crafted discipline with a lot of intricacies.
        btw I don't consider eraserhead or persona to be over the top theatrical at all.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >it's art house because it's in black and white

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    What are even arthouse films? This term is so vague it doesn't mean anything.
    I enjoyed most of the classics I've seen.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Boring European flicks made after ~1955, usually features plenty of landscape shots and/or sex perverts, there is a bit of a north-west/south-east divide here.

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Its funny you chose this as the OP pic because its literally the one overtly “arty” movie I can think of thats thoroughly engaging from beginning to end and doesnt drag or feel boring at any point

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Persona is a damn good film.

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This is known, and only pretentious plebbit gays and "critics" think shit like it is based.

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I revel in the tears of these laptop watching parasites where their puny little minds get so agitated by the simple fact that they can't figure out how to process a certain film and why everyone else enjoys it so they fire up their mental midget cope defense systems by saying that the film is somehow the worst film ever made and everyone else is just merely pretending to like it, most of the time with zero actual arguments and just empty overly general statements with whatever is the current most popular buzzword.

    Cry on my dear brainlet friends, wait for that one (You) that has a sort of a similar opinion like you so you get your precious confirmation bias tick in your brain so you can sleep better.

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I don't like tarkovsky for the emotionality and overwhelmingly personal nature of his films. Take a film like Persona. You could argue that it is personal or emotional but it also makes you think about identity crisis and psychology while a film like stalker is made to feel like it only deals with tarkovsky's struggles of faith. There's no room to think about anything. You either feel something or you don't and that for me is unacceptable. On the other hand, I appreciate the sacrifice and even understand the dilemma that the protagonist struggles with at the end. I love the long takes and natural landscape. It's easy to see why he is obsessed with them especially after the war and rapid industrialization of europe.

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Bergman created one of the most erotic scenes in cinema history with almost nothing but just one character talking

    sucks to be a homosexual like OP

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Persona was a shit film but it's a necessary evil to learn to appreciate the rest of Bergman's work, and arthouse in general. Should be the first artfilm you watch, so you can hate it and put all your hate on it, and then enjoy the rest of arthouse and Bergman films progressivily

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    for such a shitty OP post, this thread turned out to be pretty good

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *