Letters to the Editor
-
About "these incomprehensible films promoted by the Art Snobs"...
“Fortunately, the cinema was born, at the beginning, on two legs: a leg absolutely popular, basic, trivial, imaginative, and a cultivated leg, complicated, philosophical, elitist, and called for criticism… And that to choose cinema was, without realizing it, from an intellectual and theoretical point of view, to choose a house with two doors: a door that everyone takes —and that you have to take, otherwise one will not understand anything about cinema— and a concealed door in which people, right from the beginning, requested from the cinema absolutely extravagant things.”
Serge Daney
-
Response to tomreedtoon
You wrote: What angers me the most is that, while only a rich and educated elite can understand and appreciate this stuff, everyone - the entire public - is expected to support it because it "ennobles" a community. It only "ennobles" the rich bastards who patronize it, who don't want to pay for it themselves.
It's clear to me that you detest the rich and the elite, and that your reasons are rooted in compassion for the poor. But I respectfully disagree with you that "only the rich and educate elite can understand and appreciate this stuff." On the contrary, I'm of the opinion that it is exactly the rich and elite who do not understand it. They just have the most access to it, because they don't have to worry about things like jobs and raising families without maids and nannys. That doesn't mean they own it. Is it fair? no. But it's reality.
Look, I hate sports. Yet many people continue to tell me how much value comes from sports, such as Competition, teamwork, setting goals, challenging yourself, and so on. Personally, I just see the whole thing as a form of passing the time and consumption. To me sports is huge form of elitism, because many of these "hero" athletes making insane money are no better than me, they just can run faster or catch a ball or whatever the hell the game is. I hate it. It's BORING to ME. But let's face it, it's part of America's culture, just like movies.
While most Americans just want to see Shreck (not that there's anything wrong with that) Some of us get a great deal of happiness and meaning from a film that is honest, daring, courageous and challenging. I understand you don't like Bergman, but it's not because you are anti-elite. You just don't like him, and I'm cool with that. Just don't call me an elitist because I do like him.
Anyways...
-
Agreed, E,PLURIBUS,UNUM
There are plenty of people who have had every financial & educational advantage available, but who remain the most crass & superficial human beings in the world. (GWB, I'm looking at you ...)
At the same time, I've seen people who had none of those advantages respond deeply to what many would regard & dismiss as elitist, "art snob" work.
Art IS for everyone, despite those who try to hoard it within their cramped little circle -- people to whom possession means far more than appreciation. And despite those who all too willingly consign it to that cramped little circle, rather than claim it for themselves as well.
Not all art speaks to every human being. But each & every piece of art speaks to someone, somewhere. And when it does, it enriches life, and expands possibilities. All you have to do is give it a chance ...
-
Why I am an art snob
A few posts denouncing Bergman's value to their lives or even denying his outstanding contribution to the arts and philosophy in the same time describe my position exactly - I am an art snob.
The art snobbery thrives in concluding that human experiences and so its expressions are not created equal but that some are of more importance, of more profundity, of more intelligence than others - that's exactly my standing.
So I am not shy in dismissing, not respecting or even despising other peoples’ life and art choices - depending on the harshness of one’s defensiveness.
Now, I am not your average smug in one significant aspect. I think all art just like all conscious life is subjective. That is it does not contain an objective value and so cannot be promoted as a moral or aesthetic “community standard” unless the very last member of a community volunteers. But then it is not an imposition it’s a choice.
On those grounds attempts to dismiss the type of Bergman’s art because there are plenty of supposedly “more significant” issues in the world, as what Tomreedtoon is apparently saying in his post, I can only judge as stupid.
It firstly factually is a lie that Bergman is promoted at the expense of solving other human problems.
Secondly, why Tomreedtoon chose to mention in his “screenplay” the characters of a poor black family and a troubled urban teen is to suggest that, unlike Berman’s “stories for the rich”, HIS stories are of objective value and as such can and should be promoted as community standard of care, compassion and emotional maturity. He will never be able to prove it. Because it’s a lie about life from the start.
There is plenty of non-cancerous meat, there are plenty of opportunities for the poor to get education, there is plenty of legal protection against discrimination and there are plenty of meanings in life to choose from (which one can reject them all and choose death, but whose problem is that, unless you’re personally connected to a guy?) Knowing all that what’s there to be compassionate about in his sketchy characters objectively? Nothing. Go back, mister, and do your homework. The proposal for a film or as a standard for my community is rejected.
-
about Bergman
Thank you for this article. I have had only one experience at the movies that truly "changed my life," and it was Fanny and Alexander. It was my first Bergman film and I had never before (or since) felt such a connection with a film director -- never felt that I so completely understood, and never felt that I was so completely understood myself.
"A film that captures the joys, terrors and enchantments of childhood better than any I've ever seen," you said. Yes, very true. In the second half of the film Bergman just took my brain and ran with it. "Are you still with me?" he seemed to say. Yes, I was. And then he would do it again.
After the movie I was shaking. I left the theatre and just started wandering the streets, thinking.
I was 26 years old then. Now I'm 50. I've never again had a movie experience like that, but that's okay. I had one.