Q: Why Were Movies Invented? A: | The House Next Door

By Matt Zoller Seitz on January 22, 2006 in Film Jump to Comments (0)

Ingrid Bergman

Ingrid Bergman.

Not the only reason, mind you. But a good one.

Odie writes of Bergman that "...the others around her adapt themselves to that which she represents." I think that's what makes NOTORIOUS so sexy. In that film, to some degree, Bergman represents uncontrolled, uncontrollable emotion -- pure impulse, pure feeling. Grant tries to contain that energy, channel it, basically prostitute it to the government's advantage. But in the end he has to bow to it, honor it and protect it, becuse he reallizes his feelings for her are more important than the supposed integrity of his mission. In NOTORIOUS, Bergman is literally a woman for whom one cannot help but risk everything. Now that's what I call a movie star role!

Along those lines: Here's an interesting review noting the many plot similarities between NOTORIOUS and MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: 2. You can guess which one comes out ahead. But there's an interesting trivia bit along the way: apparently NOTORIOUS had the longest recorded kiss in movie history up till then.
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2006-01-23 00:09:00 Two words, one title: Autumn Sonata.
Posted by dvd on 2006-01-22 21:10:00 MZS, you are absolutely right, which is why I did not argue against your point. Your last post hit it perfectly : she is like Zelig. She becomes whatever the situation calls for, but more importantly, the others around her adapt themselves to that which she represents.

I said she couldn't act. I didn't say she had to act.

Grand Epic: You should check out one of my favorite guilty Ingrid Bergman pleasures, The Bells of St. Mary's. The sequel to Going My Way will inspire very impure thoughts about nuns.

As a side note, you can get my ten worsts and ten bests for 2005 on my site. Forgive the paucity of reviews, but I'm updating as fast as I can.
Posted by odienator on 2006-01-22 18:31:00 Man, a young Ingrid Bergman has always been my fantasy movie star romance. Her scene with Cary Grant in "Notorious" is still among the hottest ever filmed.
Posted by Edward Copeland on 2006-01-22 15:29:00 I've been spendning a lot of time on Ray Carney's site lately (I hadn't heard abut this guy before about a month ago), and as anti-hollywood as he is, even he loves Ingrid Bergman.

Me, I'm embarrassed to admit that I don't think I've seen any more than Notorious and Casablanca. (I really need to brush up on a lot of Hollywood movies from that era).
Posted by Grand Epic on 2006-01-22 14:55:00 agreed. Seitz in that post, and in your review of The New World, i think you hit on a point that while seemingly obvious, often eludes most film fans (art fans in general, actually): there are more ways than one to truth in art. A film needn't have a 3-act structure, it needn't speak the language most are used to, and nor should actors or actresses need to fit particular roles in order to be deemed great.

I read a quotation the other day from Rob Reiner where when asked to act in a film he hadn't read the script for, he jokingly said (paraphrased), "Sure. After all if it's bad, it's not my fault, i'm just acting in it." To me that misses the point entirely. Certainly a director plays a large part in whether or not the film is good, but I think the popular sentiment that the script makes the film is misleading if not often times downright wrong. Actors, in what they bring to the role, often times make or break films. Scripts can be great, and the acting god-awful and the film is just average. Scripts can be very average, yet sparkle in the hands of certain actors (An example I recently came across was the film "New Waterford Girl"). More often than not that isn't because the actors didn't have the technical skills, but because they didn't have the charm, the sparkle, the presence, the instincts, the honest, almost naivete that allows the viewer to fall in love (after all, isn't that what art is aiming for?)
Posted by Brett on 2006-01-22 10:48:00 Cannot act? Say what?

Well, granted, she's no technical wizard. Talent-wise, is she Hepburn? No. Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, Anna Magnani, Meryl Streep, Audrey H., even Elizabeth Taylor or Jennifer Jason Leigh? Absolutely not.

But...

She's at once angelic and powerfully sexual. She is emotionally transparent, yet somehow she also seems closed off and impossible to know. She brings out the protector in everyone who looks at her, male or female, sympathetic or antagonistic She radiates heat and light.

Any woman that's got all that doesn't need to be a great actress. She just needs to be able to say her lines and not fall down.
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2006-01-22 10:11:00 They damn sure weren't invented for her daughter. OK, that was mean. But get ready to really hate me now.

Ingrid Bergman is gorgeous, has presence and chemistry to spare, is compulsively watchable...and cannot act. She's the best proof that you can get by (and make some damn good movies) on star power alone. The camera loves her, and she loves it back.

Don't get me wrong. I don't disagree that she is one reason movies were invented. There's a reason why character actors stay in the background while stars take the spotlight. I just wanted to be a dissenter on her acting ability, because I know so many people think she's one of the greatest actresses who ever played the game (and she's got three Oscars to support that claim).

I gotta stop being the resident grouch around here!
Posted by odienator on 2006-01-22 03:18:00 Hear hear!
Posted by Matt on 2006-01-22 03:01:00

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

The Attic

GIVEAWAYS

CONNECT WITH