“Fellini, Kurosawa, and Bunuel move in the same field as Tarkovsky. Antonioni was on his way, but expired, suffocated by his own seriousness. He’s done two masterpieces, you don’t have to bother with the rest. One is Blow-Up (1966), which I’ve seen many times, and the other is La Notte (1961), also a wonderful film, although that’s mostly because of the young Jeanne Moreau. In my collection, have a copy of Il Grido (1957) and damn what a boring movie it is. So devilishly sad, I mean. You know, Antonioni never really learned the trade. He concentrated on single images, never realizing that film is a rhythmic flow of images, a movement. Sure, there are brilliant moments in his films. But I don’t feel anything for L’Avventura (1960), for example. Only indifference. I never understood why Antonioni was so incredibly applauded. And I thought his muse Monica Vitti was a terrible actress.”
He is arrogant. Like all people with timid personalities, his arrogance is unlimited. Anybody who speaks quietly and shrivels up in company is unbelievably arrogant. He acts shy, but he’s not. He’s scared. He hates himself, and he loves himself, a very tense situation. It’s people like me who have to carry on and pretend to be modest. To me, it’s the most embarrassing thing in the world—a man who presents himself at his worst to get laughs, in order to free himself from his hang-ups. Everything he does on the screen is therapeutic.
“…David Lean, the director I hate the most. That he represents everything I want to wipe out, you know? Like this tyranny of good taste. My mother loved his movies, right? Like, if they were forced down my throat…it was almost child abuse of good taste.”
----John Waters
Spike Lee on Quentin Tarentino and his use of a certain word:
I’m not against the word…and I use it, but not excessively. And some people speak that way. But, Quentin is infatuated with that word. What does he want to be made – an honorary black man?
Seth MacFarlane re: Trey Parker and Matt Stone (responding to a South Park episode that skewered Family Guy for lazy writing):
The boys at South Park are absolutely correct. Those cutaways and flashbacks have nothing to do with the story. They’re just there to be funny. And that is a shallow indulgence that South Park is quite above.
It should be noted that Seth McFarlane’s original response was going to be putting Matt and Trey in an Family Guy cutaway where they were having anal sex with each other, because apparently making them gay was funny? But he only stopped when he realized the scene would only air 8 months after the South Park episode and didn’t want to be stuck in a situation where it takes him multiple months to respond in-show while South Park can reply by the next week.
As opposed to SCTV’s Big Jim McBob, who liked all of Antonioni’s films except Blow-Up - because “nothing blowed up!” (“I got my money back on that one.”)
From my perspective, even if they are lightweight in nature, the more popular and common films still must be filled with a purity of emotion. There are few barriers to entry into these films – they will invite anyone in – but the barriers to exit must be high and purifying. Films must also not be produced out of idle nervousness or boredom, or be used to recognise, emphasise, or amplify vulgarity. And in that context, I must say that I hate Disney’s works. The barrier to both the entry and exit of Disney films is too low and too wide. To me, they show nothing but contempt for the audience.
Came across this Bergman quote on Jean-Luc Godard in the wild today:
"I’ve never been able to appreciate any of his films, nor even understand them… I find his films affected, intellectual, self-obsessed and, as cinema, without interest and frankly dull… I’ve always thought that he made films for critics.”
