I've been nonplussed by the elegies to Bergman and Antonioni. The writers of them, I suppose, were too young to understand.
At least the
Times guy cited Lionel Trilling's 1961 observation that it's hard to read canonical texts as if they were fresh (and shocking).
The thing is, in the late fifties, art films were sacred texts. Profound moral statements in black & white.
To begin with, they were scarce. You might go to a lot of movies, but a film was different.
College film societies (at the hipper colleges) would show three or four a semester. O what a joy it was to live in New York and attend services at the Thalia and the New Yorker and...and the Museum of Modern Art, where the silent classics were accompanied on the piano, but otherwise.....
Although Bergman was six years younger than Antonioni, he was of an earlier generation, the one still devastated by The War (the plague in
The Seventh Seal). For a few years, death had been everywhere.
Antonioni celebrated the possibility, at long last, of decadence, that is, the notion that the meaning of life might be elusive. What a luxury it was to be bored. To wear chic clothes and wander around a rocky island or a palace...or a spa like Marienbad (yes, I know I'm mixing directors) or Rome (once, not so long ago, like Brussels, Paris, Manila, Florence, and Athens, declared an
"open city").
I was too young to see the first postwar generation—De Sica and Rossellini (and Ozu and Kurosawa)—when they were fresh. But I liked them better. They were raw.
Bicycle Thief was shot on the streets using non-actors;
Rashomon in the woods—it was also about the War: what happened? how did we go so wrong?
At least
The Economist understood that when you left an early Bergman (forget all the later, operatic/historico nonsense)...you were devastated. You couldn't talk for hours. You had been shattered. Transfixed. Nonplussed.
Nobody leaves a movie feeling that way anymore. Now everybody wears a hoodie, not just the Angel of Death.