Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Ingmar Bergman - A Man Without Compromise

  1. #1

    Default Ingmar Bergman - A Man Without Compromise

    I had to make a seven minute documentary about this director.

    Let me know what you think, be as critical as possible.

  2. #2


    Sorry this went way over my head, Can you please explain what the presenters where trying to achieve. The sound on the third presenter was not so good, to much room sound as if the mic wasn't close enough to him.

  3. #3


    I liked seeing the clips; and I may have learnt something; but I tended to wonder whether this was a strange spoof.

    At 6:38 the delivery of the line "he spent his final years listening to classical music" has a very unusual delivery. I must assume that English may not be Mr Dorosh's first language.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Blog Entries


    Quote Originally Posted by moldytoaster View Post
    Let me know what you think, be as critical as possible.
    Brace yourself...

    I'm assuming that this was intended as a spoof, but it wasn't quite extreme enough to work and the humour (humor) wasn't witty or clever enough to raise a smile.

    The music in the intro. What was that about? The titles... Kitch again, what's with the flowery wedding-cake decorations? Was it deliberate or just a poor choice?

    Next, what was the levitation shot in the cinema showing? The first presenter looks like he's hovering a few feet above the seats in some magic trick. Think about perspective and position, the way he's sitting makes his knee the most dominant object in the frame. Although he's taking the mickey out of angry young students, he should at least be able to speak the name "ingmar Bergman" without hesitating or mispronouncing it. The "kicker" or backlight is way too bright, losing all detail in the face of the presenter.

    His presentation is a cliche and the sound is sometimes distorted especially when he gets close to shouting. At the start, who stuck his dentures together as a joke? Or else he just needed to open his mouth when he spoke. Later the glue dissolved, as he stopped speaking through his teeth and started to sound normal. I appreciate he was supposed to be ridiculing the passionate movie student but it didn't come across as that.

    The information is boring and very basic. I assume that it was full of "Film Studies Text" telling us absolutely nothing but doing it in a "profound" way in order to ridicule film critics. This didn't really come across.

    The second presenter talking about a "wonderful film" saying "It was kinda really good" doesn't relate to a media student. To sum it up by saying "It's just a really good movie" didn't give the impression of a nerd but rather just made him look a bit simple.

    At this point I'd decided it was, unfortunately, a mediocre spoof, taking the p*ss out of film studies.

    Then the shouting angry young man returns and I was convinced it was a comedy sketch.

    However, it's just too long and full of laboured humour.

    The film clips go on too long. Wonderful images which take away from the spoof aspect.

    It's juvenile, by that I mean that it's aimed at young teenagers, not at adults. The whole point about a spoof is that it cleverly mocks certain aspects of a serious subject. Things like the licking of the lips after "he loves women" is pure Benny Hill (a tacky British comedian from the 70s).

    The fourth presenter sounds terrible. I don't know if it was meant to be like that to mock film studies students lack of technical knowledge or if you just got the sound wrong. This is what I mean about not being extreme enough.

    Finally, way too much over-acting.

    You've put a lot of work into this but, for me, it falls flat on a number of levels.


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Surrey, UK
    Blog Entries


    I needed Gaffer's excellent critique in order to figure out why I didn't "get" it. It has to be said that those of us who have commented so far are al Brits and I wonder whether it goes down differently with a US audience.
    It seems to me to be more of an attempt at UK treatment than than a US one (it's about as far away from Airplane as one can get) - it's like it's trying to be a 1960's spoof of 1960's arts programmes (I imagine David Frost & Co) but fails miserably.

    Furthermore, there are lots of great clips - if you want to take the micky out of people who take their subject over-seriously, reminding people of how good their subject actually is is not the way to go.

    I'm not sure I expressed that well. Let's put it this way: If you want to make a film poking fun at stamp collectors, you do not show lots of beautifully designed and interesting stamps.
    Last edited by TimStannard; 04-27-2010 at 04:20 PM.

  6. #6


    hmm, thanks for the comments.

    no, this wasn't meant to be a spoof.

  7. #7


    So, if it wasn't a spoof, what was going on with the presenters ? Especially Mr angry.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-14-2006, 02:06 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts