paranoidnebula

Admittedly, the only reason I watched this film -- since it's been about a decade since it was released -- was because of Ian Holm; I was intrigued to see his portrayal of my second-favorite character in this play. At any rate, this film is as gritty as anything the Old Zeff has produced since "Jesus of Nazareth." But some of the best parts of the play have been left out. I understand the directing/editing choices, but I don't think that it really does justice to the play. Perhaps I'm too much a purist. I would have to direct people (who have read this far) toward Branagh's version, if it weren't that I despise his tendency toward over-dramatization. All the same, he plays a better Hamlet than Gibson. But then, weren't we all waiting for Gibson to prove himself as an actor? Now, all he's done is to prove that he wants to make films in extinct languages.

...Perhaps the only Shakespearean-worthy acting here is Scofield as The Ghost.

I can't quite understand these alleged Bergman "fans" who say that this film is somehow lacking. Whereas "The Serpent's Egg" is not on par with say, "Fanny and Alexander" or even "Scenes from a Marriage," and even though it is, admittedly, not "Bergmanian" in the sense that the director's strength lies in acute insight into the emotional complexities of his characters, it is NOT, in any way whatever, an inferior film. Here we find Bergman writing and directing a film that steps briefly away from his norm. The fact that this film is better than, for comparison, anything from Polanski (who's "element" is the long-winded suspense film) makes it worth much regard. In fact, I am moved to say that "The Serpent's Egg" is a display of writing/directorial versatility that remains unsurpassed to this day.

This being said, no film should really be rated in terms of previous works of its own writer/director. It should be rated in comparison only to other films. Bergman is a superior director and one of the most talented writers at that. Whereas Bergman himself always strove to be better than Bergman, we should be fair for a second and admit that he is almost always better than anyone else.

A film-within-a-film that lacks the common pretension that appears in the genre. In most of these sorts, there is a certain air that "film" is a higher form of art than any existent today. What "Day for Night" straight-facedly states is that the actor's day is nothing more than the daily "grind" of the common worker, and that the director is nothing more than the "general manager," who is bombarded with questions at every turn. This film more than others clearly gives light to the famous quote of Orsen Wells -- that to make a film is comparable to playing with the world's "largest train set." What impressed me most with this film was its approach to the art form without tending toward unnecessary flourishing. In other words, it is a film about films, and nothing more. It's almost as if Truffaut desired to say, "This is what it's all about, and no joke." The film does not attempt to preach, condescend, or embellish, as most of today's "film-within-a-film" types ordinarily do. It is, in short, a delight for the eye, an excitation for those who love the art, and a pleasantry for those who enjoy sitting in one place for nearly two hours.

This is the Art of Film, by one of film's greatest admirers and pupils.