Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
right i mentioned i wasn’t gonna discuss tastes because if you just don’t like the people you don’t like it.
so i’m not addressing what you like or don’t like but your use of the adjective overrated. which is not about your tastes but the rating people give it.
if you read all these books you said then you know all the innovations that jules et jim brought to film and what it meant to for its time and for filmmaking history then you can admit it’s an important film but you don’t like the characters.
i have the same problem with leni riefenstahl btw. super important innovator, bores me to tears, hate her main character.
|
Aye, I'm well aware of what they did for cinema and I think I mentioned that before. Problem is, were they doing anything decent with it? It's all well and good using techniques and pushing the auteur theory but if you aren't doing anything interesting with it then it's just masturbation.
“I’ve never gotten anything out of his movies. They have felt constructed, faux intellectual, and completely dead. Cinematographically uninteresting and infinitely boring. Godard is a fucking bore. He’s made his films for the critics. One of the movies, Masculin, Féminin, was shot here in Sweden. It was mind-numbingly boring.”
Bergman said that. Whilst I'm not holding him as the fountain of knowledge it goes someway to explaining that just cos they were the critics darlings doesn't mean I'm going to like them.