Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Thank you all for appreciating my old interview. Here’s another excerpt I’d like to share. After working on three films in Bollywood and completing 112 films overall, my belief remains unchanged: cinema should reflect life and offer a perspective that feels real. Stories should resonate with the common person,...

23,104 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Thodōros Angelopoulos explains the difference between his films & those of Ingmar Bergman: "I don't find any similarities between my work and Bergman's. My cinema is not psychological, it is epic; the individual in it is not psychoanalyzed but placed within a historical context. My characters assume all the elements of epic cinema or, if I may say so, those of epic poetry, typically featuring clear-cut persona. In Homer, Odysseus is a shrewd conniver, Achilles is brave, loyal to his friends-and these characteristics never change. The same with Brecht whose characters are larger than life; they serve as carriers of history or ideas. My characters are not being analyzed, they are not tormented, like Bergman's. They are more humane. They search for lost things, all that was lost in the rupture between desire and reality. Until not very long ago the history of the world was based on desire; the desire to change the world one way or another. Now at the end of the century we realize that whatever was desired never really happened, and it did not happen for reasons that I am unable to explain. Perhaps it was impossible to change things using the specific methods that were employed at the time, but in any case, we are left with the experience of our failure, with the ashes of the disappointment of dreams that never materialized. My last three films reflect this taste of ashes, leaving the desire to be pursued in some future time, in the next discourse. My writing and Bergman's do not relate. In his films there is a strong metaphysical element which identifies the search for the father figure with the search for God or the denial of God. I think that in my own work, the father figure does not represent a goal in itself; the purpose of my films is to find a reason to exist. My films are not as metaphysical. They are, in a strange way, more existential than Bergman's. This is certainly the case for the trilogy- "Voyage to Cythera" (1984), "The Beekeeper" (1986), and "Landscape in the Mist" (1988)". (Theo Angelopoulos' interview with Gerald O'Grady, 1990)

DepressedBergman

52,940 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Éric Rohmer explains why he didn't like his movies being screened at crowded theaters: "If it depended only on me, instead of attracting people to my films, I would try to drive them away. I would tell them the films are more difficult than they really are, because I don’t like to deceive people, I like to show my films to people who can appreciate them. I’m not interested in the number of spectators. Having said that, it’s true that a film is a commercial undertaking and ought to recover its costs. But as my films don’t cost much, I don’t think I need a very large audience, and I’ve always thought that they should be shown in theaters that aren’t too big. The intimate character of my films doesn’t suit a theater or an audience too large for them. And I don’t think they are suited to a mass reaction or a collective reaction. It’s better if the spectator feels he is experiencing a completely personal reaction to it. Each reaction should be unique, individual, and different. I think the film is enjoyed better if the spectators aren’t sitting too near one another, if the theater isn’t too full, and they don’t know each other. Then each has a different reaction. That’s better than a theater where there’s a uniform reaction. I don’t like watching one of my films in public and it distresses me if everyone laughs in the same place, as my film wasn’t made with that in mind. I didn’t write something just to make everyone laugh at the same time. It’s all right if someone smiles, but it shouldn’t happen at exactly the same place in the film. Perhaps this is because my films are more like reading than like watching a spectacle; they are made more to be read like a book than seen like something on the stage. So it distresses me to see a collective reaction." (Éric Rohmer's interview with Éric Rohmer, 1971) Clip from: La collectionneuse (1967) Director: Éric Rohmer

DepressedBergman

57,936 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

"These new sci-fi, action films, are good but they are not cinema." --- Akira Kurosawa Full Excerpt: "Interviewer: In your older films there was always some concern about human situations. What is the root of this? Kurosawa: When there is talk of humanity in Japan, everyone thinks of complex subjects and stories. However, whatever an ordinary human feels, we try to project on the screen in an honest way. That’s all. Interviewer: You were keen on American cinema… Kurosawa: Regarding American cinema, I could say that much better films were made in the past. Today’s American cinema provides the wrong service to the audience. Violence and car crashes are often seen. What pleasure is there in watching such scenes? Old American films expressed human problems quite well, but these days the American cinema has problems. There is no doubt that a film like 'Jurassic Park' (1993) is interesting, but there used to be more impressive films in the past. In contrast, films, like those of Kiarostami, touch the heart and are very beautiful. These new sci-fi, action films, are good but they are not cinema. Interviewer: In comparison to cinema as entertainment, how do you think Third World artistic cinema can attract a Western audience? Kurosawa: Civilization has poisoned humanity. The backbone of a good film is the filmmaker’s humane character. If we are not honest to ourselves, we will never be able to make decent films. Actually, it doesn’t mean that if a country is well off, it is necessarily capable of making good films. A person, who is able to make good films, knows how to find his or her way into the viewer’s heart; such as John Ford, Jean Renoir, John Huston, Federico Fellini, Angelopoulos, Sidney Lumet… I’ve met every one of them and have spoken to them. Just as they have exceptional works, they were also very distinguished in character. It was very easy to establish a cordial relationship with them, which is quite important. The people that are depicted on screen in their films are not predetermined (molded) characters. They express human problems in a natural way. That’s why their films are fascinating. Sidney Lumet is a close friend of mine, and whenever we sit down to talk we never discuss cinema. We generally discuss trivial matters, social problems or our hobbies, and we quite enjoy it. Reporters always ask me what the content of my film is and I tell them that there is no such a thing. I say ordinary things. A film is not supposed to be a lecture." (Akira Kurosawa's interview with Maani Petgar, 1998) Clip from: Jurassic Park (1993) Director: Steven Spielberg

DepressedBergman

84,572 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce