Ingmar Bergman

[Mr Sausage]

The way it's done in the early films is repetitive to the images.

Except dialogue doesn't need to be theatrical in the slightest to do that. Any movie dialogue can be redundant. All it takes is expressing things through writing that you're also planning to show. Such redundancy can be reduced in two ways, either by removing or lessening the dialogue, or by removing or lessening the images shown.

Anyway, his apprentice films were beside the point (they are as liable to seem as overwrought on stage as onscreen). I was responding to a criticism of his manner in general (or so it seemed).

Starting in the '60s I think he begins to realize this as his dialogue while still remaining of the stage in how they effect the audience works within the cinematic grammar that Bergman's developed.

He scaled back his effects in general. At the same time that his visual style became less baroque in the sixties, his dialogue became less textured and heavy. He also modified his cinematic style to fit certain theatrical conventions, as opposed to modifying his writing to fit a new cinematic style. For instance, long monologues or the ubiquitous 'reading from a long letter' convention he made cinematic by riveting the camera to the actors' faces (as in Winter Light), even the face of the actor doing the listening (as in Persona), something he continues throughout his career.

You seem to be conflating Bergman's abandoment of his baroque mannerisms in general with an abandonment of the theatrical. That is not the case. Let's not forget that in the period we're discussing he turned away from largely cinematic films (Virgin Spring and Seventh Seal) towards chamber dramas. He was being as theatre-bound as ever, just in a more subdued, inward-looking style.

This is probably why The Silence is one of the most important Bergman films up until that point

I don't think so. Winter Light, the previous film, more resembles his post Trilogy work than does The Silence.

Just as a postscript something being heightened isn't bad in itself, but if done so it should be done in a way that works within the medium which is something Bergman had to learn over time.

Heightened dialogue works the same on stage as it does in film. Being filmed does not alter how it sounds. The only point you have so far as I can see is that adapting it in such a way that it becomes redundant does not produce the best effect. Well, yes. What isn't that true of? (I'm ignoring your Beckett and MacBeth references because adapting actual plays for film is something else entirely from writing dialogue in a theatrical manner).

Because of that I count some of Bergman's theatrical dialogue as flaws in his film.

When did it become "some"? Your last post:

He was a skilled writer but his dialogue often feels novelesque than cinematic to me.

often there's a real taste of writerly effort to the words.

I wouldn't have bothered to get into this if you had only been talking about his early career and not making sweeping claims about the whole of his output. I won't exactly be happy to find I'm arguing against something you didn't even mean when you wrote it.

[knives]

The way it's done in the early films is repetitive to the images.

Except dialogue doesn't need to be theatrical in the slightest to do that. Any movie dialogue can be redundant. All it takes is expressing things through writing that you're also planning to show. Such redundancy can be reduced in two ways, either by removing or lessening the dialogue, or by removing or lessening the images shown.

Anyway, his apprentice films were beside the point (they are as liable to seem as overwrought on stage as onscreen). I was responding to a criticism of his manner in general (or so it seemed).

Okay, that last point changes my tune dramatically. I thought you were going with a the heightened dialogue is fine because it is intended as such approach no matter what, but if I figure your statement correctly I think we have more agreements than disagreements.

Starting in the '60s I think he begins to realize this as his dialogue while still remaining of the stage in how they effect the audience works within the cinematic grammar that Bergman's developed.

He scaled back his effects in general. At the same time that his visual style became less baroque in the sixties, his dialogue became less textured and heavy. He also modified his cinematic style to fit certain theatrical conventions, as opposed to modifying his writing to fit a new cinematic style. For instance, long monologues or the ubiquitous 'reading from a long letter' convention he made cinematic by riveting the camera to the actors' faces (as in Winter Light), even the face of the actor doing the listening (as in Persona), something he continues throughout his career.

That makes more sense actually because I don't find the core of his dialogue to be much different even as his films became radical though certain descriptions that pervaded the earlier films' dialogue are trimmed. I'll have to watch with this reversal of my old take in mind the next time I catch a Bergman.

You seem to be conflating Bergman's abandoment of his baroque mannerisms in general with an abandonment of the theatrical. That is not the case. Let's not forget that in the period we're discussing he turned away from largely cinematic films (Virgin Spring and Seventh Seal) towards chamber dramas. He was being as theatre-bound as ever, just in a more subdued, inward-looking style.

That's actually what I was trying to say, but you have done it in a better manner. I wasn't attempting to say he abandoned theatrical technique, but rather as you've said losing the mannerisms for ones that better suited how film changes his plays.

This is probably why The Silence is one of the most important Bergman films up until that point

I don't think so. Winter Light, the previous film, more resembles his post Trilogy work than does The Silence.

I'll admit that The Silence is an extreme of his style, but that was my point. With the trilogy on the whole, but especially that last one it seems to me that he's stretching himself so that he can make his films work as strong as his theater did (which I believe he favored). By going to this extreme it allowed him to venture in the middle more easily. It's like having a map to aid in exploring the jungle.

Just as a postscript something being heightened isn't bad in itself, but if done so it should be done in a way that works within the medium which is something Bergman had to learn over time.

Heightened dialogue works the same on stage as it does in film. Being filmed does not alter how it sounds. The only point you have so far as I can see is that adapting it in such a way that it becomes redundant does not produce the best effect. Well, yes. What isn't that true of? (I'm ignoring your Beckett and MacBeth references because adapting actual plays for film is something else entirely from writing dialogue in a theatrical manner).

This leans to my overall point that early on Bergman wasn't making that difference. He wrote scripts for film the same way he would write them for the theater either ignoring or not being aware at this early stage that the two different mediums are as different as they are. Even something as genuinely great as The Seventh Seal is written like an expanded play. Only in a handful of scenes (Death entering the chamber at the end if the only one I can think of right now) does he write in a way that seems specific for film. Most of the scenes as written play out as they would on stage, but his cinematic grammar doesn't take that into consideration. I think you hit the nail on the head by early on the mannerisms comment. He was able to adapt cinematic mannerisms to his theater so that his films (in the dialogue primarily) became better at being cinema and stopped falling in the trap of ignoring the differences between the mediums.

[Mr Sausage]

I thought you were going with a the heightened dialogue is fine because it is intended as such approach no matter what, but if I figure your statement correctly I think we have more agreements than disagreements.

Maybe. What I meant is that heightened dialogue is not, by virtue of its heightening, incompatible with cinema, although that doesn't mean every piece of heightened dialogue has been written well. Bergman's dialogue in the early films would not necessarily play any better on the stage.

but rather as you've said losing the mannerisms for ones that better suited how film changes his plays.

Well, I disagree with the causal link you imply. I don't think the change away from the baroque in Bergman's cinematic and writing styles were in response to each other. They changed simultaneously, but independent of each other, because he ceased to be interested, for whatever reason, in baroque textures and symbolism in general. I don't think his writing and filming style in The Silence or Autumn Sonata are any less well matched than in The Seventh Seal.

Even something as genuinely great as The Seventh Seal is written like an expanded play. Only in a handful of scenes (Death entering the chamber at the end if the only one I can think of right now) does he write in a way that seems specific for film.

Aside from the fact that I think this an irrelevant issue, I'm compelled to point out that the boundary between plays and movies is blurred and permeable. They grade into each other at a certain point because they are both dramatic mediums. At the furthest edges they do not resemble each other, but the more you recede from the furthest edge the closer the two become. While much of the Seventh Seal could be adapted to the stage well enough, this does not mean a whole lot. All it means is that dialogue and character advance a lot of meaning, something not in itself a hindrance or a stylistic incompatibility, and that certain kinds of dramatic stories are mutually applicable. Road movies always have the potential to seem like plays because they just involve groups of characters coming across each other and talking.

[knives]

I thought you were going with a the heightened dialogue is fine because it is intended as such approach no matter what, but if I figure your statement correctly I think we have more agreements than disagreements.

Maybe. What I meant is that heightened dialogue is not, by virtue of its heightening, incompatible with cinema, although that doesn't mean the dialogue has been written well. Bergman's dialogue in the early films would not necessarily play any better on the stage.

I think in some cases (Smiles of a Summer Night for one) the dialogue would work better on the stage for the reasons I outlined with my Beckett and Shakespeare examples. He's writing for the theater rather than for cinema and has the ticks of such. Some of those ticks don't work in cinema and as a result translates less well than if he had done it on the stage. I agree that heightened dialogue is not in and of itself a bad thing, as you mentioned before musicals, but the sort of heightened dialogue that flows well in the theater is not always the same as as in cinema.

You are right that there is a lot of overlap between the two mediums, but it seems you're taking for granted just how huge the differences can be even in such traditional things as dialogue. There's obvious things like speaking about stage direction that has to be dropped, but even a young Bergman realizes this most of the time. Instead my problem with him is that he'll monologue a theme while performing an edit, usually a close up, that states the same thing and usually better. At the point I'm addressing he is beginning to communicate cinematically, but at the same time is communicating theatrically in a way that creates unneeded repetition. It's not so much that the dialogue is horrible in and of itself, but that the way it is used in a cinematic context is.

My analogies are important to my argument because they are blunt examples of the very complaint I am talking about. There is difference only in the purpose of the thing between a dying character in Macbeth saying that they are dying and characters in Bergman saying, "I want to confess as best I can, but my heart is void. The void is a mirror. I see my face and feel loathing and horror. My indifference to men has shut me out. I live now in a world of ghosts, a prisoner in my dreams. " as we get that same sentiment in images. That dialogue unchanged on the stage or even at the pen is great. I love it and it's probably my favorite line from the movie, but it also doesn't work within the film because the visuals have already explained this in a shorter period of time.

[Mr Sausage]

That dialogue unchanged on the stage or even at the pen is great. I love it and it's probably my favorite line from the movie, but it also doesn't work within the film because the visuals have already explained this in a shorter period of time.

Wait a minute, wait a minute: it doesn't work, it fails to actually do what it is doing, because the visuals have also expressed the same theme? That does not follow. And not only does it not follow, it fails to grasp that expressing something in words--indeed, having a character express his own thoughts in words--has an entirely different effect than expressing something in images, neither of which invalidates the other.

On top of which, your choice to prefer the visual expression is arbitrary. Someone can equally ask Bergman to cut out the visual expression, since the effect is apparently so much the same that nothing will be lost, everything will be expressed, and even you have said the lines are incredible. This, again, says nothing about whether or not the dialogue works in and of itself in film, because your point rests on the movie going out of its way to say the same thing in a visual manner, which skirts the issue. To have an argument, your point can only be about whether the dialogue clashes with what a film cannot avoid doing.

Your point makes even less sense directed at the Seventh Seal, a movie self-consciously expansive, since you've just complained that it isn't minimalist enough. If any movie has no business being minimalist in its expression, dialogue included, it's The Seventh Seal. Its poetic dialogue is essential to its mood and its externalizing manner.

My analogies are important to my argument because they are blunt examples of the very complaint I am talking about.

Your analogies aren't examples of anything we're talking about. Beckett is minimalist; he has no bearing on a discussion about heightened theatrical dialogue. I don't even know the MacBeth moment you're talking about, nor even what you're trying to say with it since: A. Renaissance drama is so stylized and artificial that its manner cannot even work on the current stage if you were to produce a new play in its style, and B. plays without heightened dialogue often do this thing, too, so it's not part of a specific style.

but the sort of heightened dialogue that flows well in the theater is not always the same as as in cinema.

And yet you have so far been unable to give any genuine indication of how this is so, of what specifically about the writing makes it so, and how exactly the change between mediums accomplishes this. The best you've offered is that in certain cases the director has made this or that expression redundant, to which I can only shrug. I also find Smiles of a Summer Night a delightful film with a perfectly calibrated script and a nicely contrived visual design to complement the mechanics of its traditional comedy. I'm not alone in this. The script has all the elements of a good stage comedy without ever feeling stage-bound. Lovely.

I offer the following: your problems with the theatrically-expressive nature of the dialogue have their bases in your expectations of what should be encountered on the stage and what should be encountered on the screen; it is the bias of internalized convention. There is little about a style of dialogue in and of itself that ceases to work only when the actor stands in front of a camera. The elements of the stage that rarely work on film are the visual ones, the blocking, gestures, and so forth, for obvious reasons. The verbal ones don't have this problem since, either way, they are written to be spoken. The reason plays don't often make a good translation to the screen is that they are so limited in setting and action, and those that aren't (Goethe's Faust) are usually unactable on the stage. Writing a film using expressive dialogue of the kind you might hear on stage in an Ibsen play for instance is perfectly fine.

[puxzkkx]

LMAO, why the hostility?

I often find his dialogue theatrical. Not always, but often.

Some of the theatrical dialogue sticks out for me as a major flaw in his works (Thirst, Port of Call etc). In those two films especially this quality of the dialogue runs contrary to what he appears to be trying to achieve as a director (a kind of adapted neorealism).

And I think the fact that I haven't yet seen any of his films post-1966 implies that, yes, I am speaking about his early career?

[Mr Sausage]

Some of the theatrical dialogue sticks out for me as a major flaw in his works (Thirst, Port of Call etc). In those two films especially this quality of the dialogue runs contrary to what he appears to be trying to achieve as a director (a kind of adapted neorealism).

I got the impression you were saying that the theatrical or writerly nature of his dialogue was a flaw in general throughout his career. My mistake.

And I think the fact that I haven't yet seen any of his films post-1966 implies that, yes, I am speaking about his early career?

I actually hadn't noticed that when I glanced through your list.

[Michael]

puxzkkx , I take it that you haven't seen Cries and Whispers because it's not on your list. Bergman himself ranked Persona and Cries and Whispers as his best works. I personally prefer C&W by far, it's A+ all the way.

[knives]

Your point makes even less sense directed at the Seventh Seal, a movie self-consciously expansive, since you've just complained that it isn't minimalist enough. If any movie has no business being minimalist in its expression, dialogue included, it's The Seventh Seal. Its poetic dialogue is essential to its mood and its externalizing manner.

There is a lot to what you just said and I should respond to it all, but honestly I don't know how best to respond to some of it in a manner you are willing to understand. That you think emphasizing the cinematic aspects of cinema is arbitrary already suggests that we disagree on something much more fundamental than Bergman. I feel that the theatrical, literary, and even painterly aspects of cinema should compliment rather than just repeat the cinematic ones and that's where the fundamental disagreement appears to be since you suggest such a thing is arbitrary when for me it clearly isn't. Every aspect should expand the medium and what is being said, but these early films have some of these aspects stumbling over each other when the cinematic ones do just fine. The dialogue is adding nothing, when later on in something like Autumn Sonata the theatrical elements (though a different sort of theater as you've noted) is used in a way that betters the cinematic element. Those little asides while clearly based on theater language don't tell us what we already see through his editing but insights into the characters. I see that particular example as being footnotes on what he's trying to do cinematically which is really helpful and fun. So what I'm trying to say isn't against theatrical convention, but rather how Bergman uses it in those early films.

The reason why I quoted that particular bit though out of everything you said is because that is the one thing I feel you've gotten completely wrong about me. I don't know why you think I'm arguing for minimalism when I recognize, accept, and love the film for it's bellowing and sublimely over the top (now that is a hell of a case of hyperbole) nature. I love the poeticness of the whole film and would never argue for realism on it. Cinematically it's absolutely great with some truly great zingers throughout, but the dramatic dialogue is where I have my problems. This is not because it's overwrought, which is something that does compliment the film cinematically, but rather because it gets in the way of the story which is being told cinematically.

[Mr Sausage]

That you think emphasizing the cinematic aspects of cinema is arbitrary already suggests that we disagree on something much more fundamental than Bergman.

Well, far from that, what I actually meant is that making a specific choice between two things you admit are done well and which share a similar effectiveness has to be arbitrary. This is not an argument about cinema in general, this solely pertains to what you said about The Seventh Seal. Indeed, I do not believe that dialogue (or even things like music), when in a movie, are not "cinematic aspects of cinema," so I am not asking anyone to choose between one art and another. I'm not much of a cinema "purist" and I'm a bit wary of the trend the cahier du cinema group started of asserting the importance of film by downplaying the elements it shares with other arts. It may have been necessary then, when Film was not taken as seriously as other arts, but it's no longer necessary. Great dialogue can be as cinematic as anything else in a movie, and I would hold up Bergman's films as an example of that. But I've often heard others claim his literate scripts and attention to actors and dialogue make his films uncinematic and therefore of lesser quality.

Every aspect should expand the medium and what is being said, but these early films have some of these aspects stumbling over each other when the cinematic ones do just fine. The dialogue is adding nothing,

This would be a case of some apprentice works being imperfect--not a point we have to disagree on. But you can't argue that an entire style of dialogue is not suited for film just because a couple of movies didn't manage it very well. Not unless they prove it could never be managed well, and I don't think they do. I believe we agree on this. So it's really not about whether a dialogue style fits "cinema" in general, just whether it has been unified with visuals of a complimentary style. Meshing incongruous styles would be the problem, if I understand your complaint.

This is not because it's overwrought, which is something that does compliment the film cinematically, but rather because it gets in the way of the story which is being told cinematically.

Ah, well, my apologies for getting you wrong. What threw me was when you said the visuals accomplished it "in a shorter period of time," which made it seem like you wanted the film to do less. The above is an interesting point. Could you elaborate?

[knives]

I'm just glad I was being clear for once. That is my biggest problem as a communicator, but conversations like this are making me improve myself.

That you think emphasizing the cinematic aspects of cinema is arbitrary already suggests that we disagree on something much more fundamental than Bergman.

Well, far from that, what I actually meant is that making a specific choice between two things you admit are done well and which share a similar effectiveness has to be arbitrary. This is not an argument about cinema in general, this solely pertains to what you said about The Seventh Seal. Indeed, I do not believe that dialogue (or even things like music) are not "cinematic aspects of cinema," so I am not asking anyone to choose between one art and another. I'm not much of a cinema "purist" and I'm a bit wary of the trend the cahier du cinema group started of asserting the importance of film by downplaying the elements it shares with other arts. It may have been necessary then, when Film was not taken as seriously as other arts, but it's no longer necessary. Great dialogue can be as cinematic as anything else in a movie, and I would hold up Bergman's films as an example of that. But I've often heard others claim his literate scripts and attention to actors and dialogue make his films uncinematic and therefore of lesser quality.

That's a great point and one that I've only slightly considered (treating these things as if they are foreign, but could provide improvement on material is where I've generally sat on this). How we even use stuff that is exclusive to cinema like editing is one of my biggest concerns for the medium, but I see how I may be relying too much on Cahier logic which is not always a good thing. I tend to look at the differences more than the similarities and that's where I've been arguing from this entire time. Movies share qualities with everything, but where those qualities are different are where I typically concern myself. For example I think that dialogue in cinema and in theater serve different purposes where the movement of the camera and editing is closer to theater dialogue. I'm still trying to get a handle on how I view cinematic dialogue, but I think that's a quality that it tends to share closer to music. I don't want to say that definitively because cinematic dialogue is a very complex and multi-purpose thing. The one case where I think a spade is a spade with the relationship of theater and cinema is with the score, that is assuming we're talking about most films (I think it takes on a slightly different purpose in something like Alexander Nevsky for instance). The way any two mediums overlap is very interesting to me and a deep concern so even your suggestions here will give me plenty of food for thought.

Every aspect should expand the medium and what is being said, but these early films have some of these aspects stumbling over each other when the cinematic ones do just fine. The dialogue is adding nothing,

This would be a case of some apprentice works being imperfect--not a point we have to disagree on. But you can't argue that an entire style of dialogue is not suited for film just because a couple of movies didn't manage it very well. Not unless they prove it could never be managed well, and I don't think they do. I believe we agree on this. So it's really not about whether a dialogue style fits "cinema" in general, just whether it has been unified with visuals of a complimentary style. Meshing incongruous styles would be the problem, if I understand your complaint.

If it appeared like I was saying an entire style of dialogue is unsuited to the medium I apologize. Anything can be adapted to the medium, but adaptation is where I'm placing my emphasis. So on that account you are right in your guess of what I'm trying to say. All of these elements are in a dance and they either can be stepping on eachother's toes and ruining the experience or working together to perform a great waltz. So in short yes, unification is the key thing.

This is not because it's overwrought, which is something that does compliment the film cinematically, but rather because it gets in the way of the story which is being told cinematically.

Ah, well, my apologies for getting you wrong. What threw me was when you said the visuals accomplished it "in a shorter period of time," which made it seem like you wanted the film to do less. The above is an interesting point. Could you elaborate?

I would be a real hypocrite if I was arguing for minimalism in all cases considering I just claimed on this board that Borzage is the best American director I've ever witnessed. As to elaboration, I assume you already get why the big elements of the dialogue compliments since you've explained why already so I'm guessing you mean my gets in the way of the story comment. I think it's fair to say every element of a film no matter how minute communicates something. The Seventh Seal is a comedy despite reputation, though that almost all falls on the dialogue. I think it's reception would be better if the comedic elements were more accepted, but the visuals take away from that. I enjoy that aspect a lot, but it is a good example of the film tripping over itself. That's the most obvious case which is why I used it as an example, but I don't think it's a bad one (at the worst it's such an amazing failing to mesh styles that I have to respect it though I think he succeeds on this particular mesh). Where my complaint actually stems from is that he says stuff out of rhythm which leads to a feeling of over explaining things. I'm actually reminded of Domino's comment's about Some Like it Hot where we're given the joke of the alcohol coming out of the casket, but than Wilder over explains the joke by having the caskets tip over so that we see the bottles. Though it's for dramatic elements this time Bergman really up until the '70s from what I've seen (though he started to temper this as early as Wild Strawberries) does the same thing. He hits the point home either with a visual or a piece of dialogue and than repeats himself with more dialogue until I'm saying "I understand you, may we please move on". I'm assuming this is a theatrical element, but it may very well just be a Bergman problem. Either way though he undercuts himself by dwelling in a static fashion. This is especially unfortunate with Bergman since he seems to be juggling many ideas at once, but can't get them all out because he has to ensure we have noticed the previous point.

[Mr Sausage]

. The Seventh Seal is a comedy despite reputation, though that almost all falls on the dialogue. I think it's reception would be better if the comedic elements were more accepted, but the visuals take away from that.

I wrote about this in The Seventh Seal thread on this board, but I think the movie is a panorama of mediaevalism that covers the period's most incongruous elements, its bawdy, playful, earthy side, it's human comedy as it were, and its ascetic, rigorous, harsh, religious side. This is a period where monks would torture their own bodies so as to remind them of the hollowness of the physical, and sequester themselves away to write long spiritual treatises, but where men like Boccaccio and Chaucer would write grand, bawdy, popular works full of tales of drinking, fornicating, and earthy behaviour that gave a quite different picture of mediaeval life. It was an incongruous time, not least because there was a big attempt in the period to mesh all types of knowledge. So there is much that is comic in Bergman's film, but much that isn't. I agree that people overemphasize the latter at the expense of the former, but part of that may be with the subtitle translations. I know I didn't realize many of the comedic elements until I bought the recent Criterion.

[knives]

Yes, your absolutely right. I do think that a good translation does a lot of heavy lifting and the new Criterion hopefully has done wonders on that perception. I know (and love the fact) that I laugh as often as I recoil throughout the film. In fact I think those Chaucer elements (good call) make the flaying scene and other similar moments even more extreme since it rounds out the world. It's the same thing as with Ozu and even absolute comedians like the Marx Brothers where people as a way to prove the worthiness of a work almost feel obligated to ignore the comedy rather than use it for their arguments. That you can smile while viewing something profound shouldn't be considered something that takes away from a work.

[nolanoe]

I LOVE RYM for these sort of instances...
My ranking for the films I have seen: http://rateyourmusic.com/list/Coma_man/ ... ur_bergman" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Probably my favorite director (certainly him or Kubrick).

[knives]

Anyone have opinions on All these Women? Watching it for the first time and it's easily the most hilarious Bergman I've ever seen (quite a feat in itself), but it's also the strangest looking. I've never really considered him a director of artifice despite the theatrical leanings, but wholly god is this one of the most fake films I've ever seen. I'll need to see it a few more times, but I think The Silence has competition for best Bergman film I've seen.

[domino harvey]

It has one of the worst reputations (maybe the worst), but I have a certain admiration for it. It's not funny at all, but it's not without its charms either. Not unlike Ford's 7 Women, it's undergone a massively disproportionate "rescue" critical reappraisal lately (though, as with the Ford, Cahiers were ahead of the game in liking it on original release). I believe it's also his first color film, which might account for the glorious staged "fakery" you note.

And the Silence is one of Bergman's worst to my eyes, not as bad as the Serpent's Egg or From the Life of the Marionettes, but what is?

[knives]

I feared that. Oh well, put it with the Cannon films for comedies that make me and no one else laugh.

[domino harvey]

I actually thought that while also uneven, the Devil's Eye is probably the funniest Bergman film

[knives]

I need to see that (and about twenty other Bergman's). Some day perhaps. Though while I get why it would flop at least on the aesthetic level I would think people would give All These Women some kudos. It's just as visually inventive as Persona (naturally in a none comparative way though) with some truly breath taking production design. It at least deserves an A for effort.

[Drucker]

I want to talk about Bergman in a more general sense here. I'm having a hard time "getting into" him, and was wondering if you folks who love (or don't love) him had a similar experience eventually getting into it.

I just tried watching Fanny and Alexander the Theatrical Version. I found that just like when watching Cries and Whispers, rather than actually being drawn into the film, losing track of time and enjoying what's going on, I was constantly analyzing it. Trying to figure out what's going on and what Bergman was trying to say, etc. etc.
I've also seen Smiles of a Summer Night, Seventh Seal, Persona, and Wild Strawberries. I've liked them all, though I have to say Wild Strawberries is the only one I really loved. I understand that an essential part of these films is (very broadly speaking), religion and issues dealing with it (certainly his clergy-father upbringing seems to be part of the pent-up Christian-ness I see).

This is a thought I've had: I personally find it similar to Kubrick, who I am aware was a big fan of Bergman. Whereas the characters though in Bergman films are cold because of their environment/religious and social culture around them, Kubrick's films I understand are cold at least partially so the viewer can have a more objective viewing of what's going on. Understanding the events for what they are and not being emotionally attached to one or the other. I feel that in Kubrick, the cold-ness of his characters ...for lack of a better phrase "makes more sense." When faced with the horror of the Vietnam War, a homicidal husband, the entirety of Lyndon (who throughout much of the first half of the film is living as he flies by the seat of his pants, kind of) or outer-space mission failure, it makes sense to me that these characters must first face the situation before they can get emotionally involved. They don't have the time to be emotional, in a way.
Bergman, however, has films filled with family and religious issues. Yet it seems every time someone is about to have an emotional moment, they repress it and hold it in (which seems to be to be a Christian/religious thing). While I don't find it exactly frustrating, per se, I have such a hard time getting IN to the films and being able to enjoy them. Aesthetically they are beautiful and I love the acting and more than anything when I read WHAT his films are about, I love the idea. But seeing it executed I'm distracted by the slow-pacing and reserved emotion (which I think also keeps me a bit distracted with Dreyer's Gertrud and Ordet).

Does anyone else have/had similar feelings? I think I'm going to put these films "away" for a year and just leave what I have on the shelf unwatched. I can think of dozens of albums where it took me YEARS to get into the record. Recently I've gone back to bands I listened to when I was younger and have been surprised just how much I've found to appreciate in their music that's new to my ears after having not listened to them for half a decade (Bruce Springsteen, especially!). I feel that it might require a few years (or even longer!) to understand Bergman. Just wondering if anyone else here has similar thoughts? These are just my observations, and as much as I love parts of his films, I just can't seem to fully wrap my head around them/love them.

[triodelover]

I want to talk about Bergman in a more general sense here. I'm having a hard time "getting into" him, and was wondering if you folks who love (or don't love) him had a similar experience eventually getting into it.

A couple of quick thoughts:

(1) Fanny och Alexander: Try the TV version. Not only is the interface between Bergman's intent and the action close to seamless, the TV version can be divided up like a miniseries and be digested in increments. Very few who have seen both versions would take the theatrical version over the TV version.

(2) Cries and Whispers: If you are new to Bergman, this is like starting out in the deep end equipped with only water wings. Start earlier in his ouvre. Not necessarily with the earliest films (Eclipse 1) although there's plenty of merit contained therein, but with something like Summer with Monika (featuring the transcendent 20-year-old Harriet Andersson) or Smiles of a Summer Night. I think there are benefits in coming to Bergman chronologically, at least that was true for me. It gives you a clear path of development of his voice as well as showing him to be endowed with wit, humor and charm before we get to the darkness of the religious trilogy and works like Persona and Cries and Whispers.

[puxzkkx]

Drucker, I feel like watching Bergman chronologically helped me 'get into him' in a way I may not have otherwise - although the one film I saw out of order, Persona, happens to be my favourite film. Still, charting from the beginning (or even just going through his most famous works from earliest to latest) exposes the 'coldness' as a truly earnest search for warmth. I don't think this earnestness always works in his favour but starting with some of his 50s films where he begins to explore themes of the interpersonal and the religious (such as To Joy, Summer Interlude, A Lesson in Love and Dreams) might help break down the barriers that I know a lot of people who start with, say, the Faith trilogy or his late 70s work complain about.

But you might not want to trust me on this - he isn't my favourite filmmaker, and a lot of his films I dislike, but seeing them from the very beginning makes me feel like I "know" him and his artistic progression in a way that probably gives me some defensive bias.

[Mr Sausage]

I think his films offer enough surface pleasures (visually interesting, well-crafted dialogue, dramatically intense) that it's not necessary to find the perfect way in, if there is one. Just pick a film that looks interesting and try it out.

The first Bergman I saw was Seventh Seal, which did nothing for me. I saw Cries and Whispers a year or so later and it just shattered me, becoming one of my very favourites immediately. After that I started watching his films in no particular order and liked one after another. So, there's that.

[matrixschmatrix]

I think the first Bergman I saw was Persona, which was so striking that I felt like I had a grasp for Bergman as an artist immediately- it may be a deep end kind of movie, but it's also a movie that doesn't leave you with any questions about what distinguishes Bergman from other directors, or why he is well liked. On that front, I think something out of his Eclipse set (for instance) would be the worst possible entrance point- there's far less personality there, far less a sense of the artist.

[inneyp]

About a year ago I tried Fanny and Alexander and Wild Strawberries, neither of which did much for me. Then just last night I watched Winter Light. Not only did it become one of favorites right away, but it sent me back on a Bergman kick and now I'm starting to love everything he's done.