Luckily he's got nothing to show for himself except over 50 films, nominated for awards, won some awards, 168 works for the stage, television, and radio.... tax evasion, jail time, nervous breakdown, marriages to Ingrid von Rosen, Else Fisher, Ellen Lundström, Gun Grut, and Käbi Laretei, a daughter Linn who became a novelist, relationships with all his leading actresses: Harriet Andersson 1952-55, Bibi Andersson 1955-59 and Liv Ullmann 1965-70, an inspiration to many and most obviously to Woody Allen.
That brand of extreme laziness will not leave much of an impact.
Except maybe the cover of the The New York Times.
---
Now I will state that I have a profound appreciation for Mr.Bergman's work.
I know that some find him bleak and melodramatic, but I must pronounce that there is a Bergman film for everyone! If you've only seen a few of his films and you've decided he's always this or that, you must know that he does provide us with such a breadth. He made over 50 films, trust me, there is one for you.
I have seen a whole lot but somehow still only like 30%. I'm normally not much of a list person but I've decided to make a list.
Here the Bergman films I've seen
Clumped in descending order of likeness:
- Persona (1966)
- Scenes from a Marriage (1973)
- Wild Strawberries (1957)
- Hour of the Wolf (1967)
- The Passion of Anna (1969)
- Cries and Whispers (1973)
- Fanny and Alexander (1982)
- Smiles of a Summer Night (1955)
- The Magician/The Face (1958)
- The Silence (1963)
- The Seventh Seal (1957)
- Through a Glass Darkly (1961)
- Winter Light (1962)
- Summer with Monika (1953)
- Autumn Sonata (1978)
- Sawdust and Tinsel (1953)
- Port of Call (1948)
- The Serpent's Egg (1977)
- Prison (1948)
---
Thank you, Mr.Bergman, for your immense contribution to this world.
Posts
6 comments:
From Aaron's comment on Sarah's blog which he refers to:
---
intimate..sure.
but if real marriage is anything like [scenes from a marriage] that then yo ho ho it's the single life for me.
i've always had mixed feelings about mr. bergman.
on one hand i agree that he was a cinematic pioneer with great influence on the
trajectory of film narrative.
but i disagree when people say "he proved that cinema can be as profound as literature".
because in my opinion the fault of bergman is that he doesn't actually bother to make
cinema! he doesn't use the language of cinema. instead he simply takes all the inner
dialog of literature and makes it into external dialog between characters that just
come off as tedious and contrived. i'm constantly thinking to myself, people don't actually
act and talk that way! and it's frustrating. because yes he's a profoundly expressive and
complex human being. but my problem is with his chosen medium. i've never understood
what he supposedly accomplishes with film that he couldn't accomplish on stage or more
appropriately in a novel.
there really couldn't be too more contrasting filmmakers than bergman and antonioni, the
other film legend who's died this week as you know. in my mind, it's antonioni who
proved cinema could be as profound as literature. because he's the one who actually
bothered to construct a cinematic language to do so. while bergman gives us 2 people
in a dull room staring at themselves reflected in each others eys and talking obsessively
about every little contradictory feeling and thought, antonioni conveys that complexity
through imagery and body language and action as well as dialog where appropriate.
and THAT to me is cinema.
furthermore, often when bergman does try to give us symbolic imagery etc... it falls
flat due to poor execution. i don't know how many times i've sighed in one of his films
because he's got a) people who are perfectly lit even though their outside at night....okay
fine it's a full moon so i'll just go with it...but then also .... b) the moon is in the right of
the frame and yet all the characters are casting shadows from left to right.
this kind of criticism may sound trivial. but is it too much to expect a supposed MASTER of
cinema to understand basic concepts of light and photography? of course not. but he's more
concerned with what's coming out of the actors' mouths than what's ending up on the screen.
and that's why i think he should've just written novels.
to say bergman proved cinema could be as profound as literature is the equivalent of saying
someone who narrates a long list of thoughts over a repetitive piano riff has somehow
proven music could be as profound as literature. no. reading literature over a piano riff
is not revolutionizing music. it's just an interesting way to deliver what i would still consider
literature.
i say all this with plenty of respect for ingmar bergman. the world (even film) is certainly a
richer place having had his contributions. i'm simply not in agreement with the hyper-congratulatory
critics of his who hold him up as a cinematic god when there is clearly much room for improvement.
bergman was a wonderful thinker and feeler. a great and honest writer.
antonioni was a great filmmaker.
may they both rest in peace.
Sarah's response:
oh aaron. i really appreciate you.
i do wholeheartedly agree with you than Antonioni was a superior film-maker than bergman. his visual skills run deep and move deeply.
they are so different these two.
i like watching bergman's work, and seeing the psyche revealed in a film setting through dialogue. but it does have a more stage/theater feel to it always. which i think he dabbled in, which makes sense. he worked in so many different mediums through his career.
antonioni seems more the devout cinephile and cinematic creator. more in tune with that one specific art than bergman, who had his hands in so many different jars.
i appreciate them both, and call them both masters in their own way.
and i will say this, still: Scenes from a Marriage is and will always be the most impassioned and intimate portrayal of a FAILING marriage on screen.
happy?
Hunter's response:
while i mostly agree with aaron's characterization of bergman's visual technique (never noticed the lighting discontinuities, though i'm not sure if that would have made me inclined to like his style more or less) especially vis-a-vis antonioni--i happen to love both directors at any rate--i will say that this has generally been the consensus of highbrow cinephiles (the only people really who still watch austere swedish films about god and death and really depressing relationships) on bergman for some time now. while reshuffling the canon is good in my opinion, i think it may have come to the point that he was now actually underrated in this (hermetically-sealed) community. so the one bright spot of his passing is that he might benefit from some revisionism in his favor. or maybe i just read too many pretentious film critics.
i have to date seen at least 8 of his films (at the time that you and i watched Persona it was 5), which i think is sufficient to form an opinion.
that having been said, my recent thoughts on bergman are aleady on display and open for criticism on sarah's blog. i won't be repeating or refining them here.
i don't think i trashed him. but i do take issue with his choice of medium.
that is, until someone convinces me otherwise.
it's difficult to evaluate what is the contrarian opinion regarding bergman these days. his stock definitely declined at some point (probably around the time of his self-imposed retirement) and seemed to correspond with the rise in esteem of more minimalist directors like bresson and tarkovsky. though i think it's a generational thing and he's probably more appreciated at the moment (prior to his death) than he has been in the past few decades. i rather like most of the bergman that i've seen (admittedly i haven't sought out many of his lesser works), but ultimately i agree with the new consensus that directors like bresson did the austerity + rigor thing more impressively.
p.s. smiles of a summer night is conceivably my favorite of his, perhaps because it is closer to renoir than bergman.
hey now...who's posting on my behalf over here?
Post a Comment