never ceases to amaze me the double standards between literature and film; those who whine about this walser adaptation wouldn't dare complain if it were in a book. and those who walk out of the cinema, does it mean they never read? the statement has to be made; it's about the sublime, anything from kant to brakhage, contrasted with that perpetual lame mimesis, democracy and identification, most cinema is rubbish.
there are staggeringly beautiful interventions of image, the sky and roman murals, and sound (i can't remember exactly). we are left to imagine in the wilderness. the theater becomes as do we.
film ceases to be constrained to the human figure and to the pro-filmic space and in the glorious nature of modern cinema leaves the frame and allows the viewer a freedom that has not been equaled in other art forms or, in fact, in life itself.
that is why modern, next to avant-garde in this art form definitely (and mostly in other artforms) has been rejected by the majority; it's too much for them.
the three movies i've reviewed in IMDb, i've claimed they were the best movies of all time. that is hardly possible when this one beats them all.
there are staggeringly beautiful interventions of image, the sky and roman murals, and sound (i can't remember exactly). we are left to imagine in the wilderness. the theater becomes as do we.
film ceases to be constrained to the human figure and to the pro-filmic space and in the glorious nature of modern cinema leaves the frame and allows the viewer a freedom that has not been equaled in other art forms or, in fact, in life itself.
that is why modern, next to avant-garde in this art form definitely (and mostly in other artforms) has been rejected by the majority; it's too much for them.
the three movies i've reviewed in IMDb, i've claimed they were the best movies of all time. that is hardly possible when this one beats them all.