Ingmar Bergman

[godardian]

I've seen 7th Seal and Wild Strawberries.

I'm gonna hit IB hard next year. Where should I start? Cries/Whispers, or the new CC trilogy set? Or somewhere else? I've seen clips of Fanny And Alexander, and it doesn't look that interesting to me. Also, I saw his son's movie (Sunday's Children, or something) and thought it was pretty terrible.

Anyway...

If you haven't seen Persona, that's his most major accomplishment. Almost any of his films are well worth watching, and most are very, very good.

I completely disagree with GT that Bergman's films are anything but cinematic. I don't think it should be judged on how populated the frame is, nor by how much the camera moves; Bergman uses the camera to compose shots- with light, with blocking, with color- in a completely singular way that demands at least to be called photographic (which I would definitely say is also cinematic), much more so than any theater piece could ever be.

[SoNowThen]

Okay, so I'll go with Cries And Whispers, and then Persona. If I like 'em, I'll blind buy the new CC box set...

merci guys

[godardian]

Did anyone catch the completely random, completely incongruous mention of "Ingmar Bergman" in a knock-knock joke on this week's South Park (the "Casa Bonita" episode)?

[SHAFTR]

What about the very opening and closing shots of Persona.  When you see filmstrip running and the camera turn around and show the crew...that is cinematic.  Also in Persona, he uses the landscape of the beach much as the same way Antonioni uses the landscape in L'Avventura.  Same goes for The Seventh Seal.

Like I said, I agreed with you on the parts of Persona dealing with the wild imagery, film strip part included. I don't think for a second though he uses landscape the same way Antonioni does. Antonioni dramatized his entire movie by the effect of the environment on the characters. Persona doesn't really seem to hinder on its environment for drama more than just provide the idea - these two women share a house together and they must get along. Again, the environment is as small as it would be in a play. Very few scenes happen outside the house. Other than the actress running away in tears along the beach with the waves crashing, I don't see much reliance on environment the same way Antonioni uses it. All the other outside scenes seem very convential.

The Seventh Seal is another story. I'm not going to argue for it. It does use the camera for allegory, which is cinematic. I also believe The Seventh Seal is Bergman still very much a beginner. Many of the points in his film feel pretensious because it feels like only the camera really is giving us the symbolism for drama. It doesn't make us feel the drama.

Well, I see your point and you see mine.  We just differ with opinions.

[Gold Trumpet]

I completely disagree with GT that Bergman's films are anything but cinematic. I don't think it should be judged on how populated the frame is, nor by how much the camera moves; Bergman uses the camera to compose shots- with light, with blocking, with color- in a completely singular way that demands at least to be called photographic (which I would definitely say is also cinematic), much more so than any theater piece could ever be.

We may have different ideas of "cinematic"

Maybe you also are seeing me on the wrong terms. I'm not saying Bergman is simply trying to replicate theatre on film, but convey the effect of theatre on film. This allows for his films to be very photogenic, which they are.

An example is The Magic Flute where a Mozart Opera takes place in what seems to be Bergman filming just a play. What Bergman did was made an exact replication of the theatre in which the play originally debuted in and his difference is that the effects are of a film studio. Bergman is trying to heighten the effects of the play with new film studio effects while still keeping it as a filming of a play. Aesthetic reasons for this is the pure artificiality of opera and the innocence of the story as Bergman demonstrates when he has a child continually shown through out the film to get her reaction - a child that was Bergman's own.

Now to connect my point, when Bergman makes Cries and Whispers, he is making a film, but he is applying many of the techniques of theatre into his films. The camera movement is mininumalist because his films are for the actors. Theatre is also for the actors. The films stay in very close quarters so to give the location a sense of presence and also make the actors more personal to the audience. Same is with theatre. The exception is, and I will agree you and say I did mispeak a bit, is that theatre does not have the production values shown in his films. The Magic Flute, which was a play, didn't either. But, this also lends truth to what I did say Bergman's purpose was:

His main purpose is conveying the effect of theatre on film.

I also could have said it as conveying the intended effect of theatre on film. Bergman does heighten effects, but maybe to acquire the closer personal feeling that film brings when it utilizes all its power. So, in a way, I do re-allign my original position but also keep firm in Bergman acting through his medium of film by trying to heighten the effect of theatre. That just could be seen as cinematic, as well. I was figuring more Kurosawa when thinking "cinematic".

[SHAFTR]

I completely disagree with GT that Bergman's films are anything but cinematic. I don't think it should be judged on how populated the frame is, nor by how much the camera moves; Bergman uses the camera to compose shots- with light, with blocking, with color- in a completely singular way that demands at least to be called photographic (which I would definitely say is also cinematic), much more so than any theater piece could ever be.

We may have different ideas of "cinematic"

Maybe you also are seeing me on the wrong terms. I'm not saying Bergman is simply trying to replicate theatre on film, but convey the effect of theatre on film. This allows for his films to be very photogenic, which they are.

An example is The Magic Flute where a Mozart Opera takes place in what seems to be Bergman filming just a play. What Bergman did was made an exact replication of the theatre in which the play originally debuted in and his difference is that the effects are of a film studio. Bergman is trying to heighten the effects of the play with new film studio effects while still keeping it as a filming of a play. Aesthetic reasons for this is the pure artificiality of opera and the innocence of the story as Bergman demonstrates when he has a child continually shown through out the film to get her reaction - a child that was Bergman's own.

Now to connect my point, when Bergman makes Cries and Whispers, he is making a film, but he is applying many of the techniques of theatre into his films. The camera movement is mininumalist because his films are for the actors. Theatre is also for the actors. The films stay in very close quarters so to give the location a sense of presence and also make the actors more personal to the audience. Same is with theatre. The exception is, and I will agree you and say I did mispeak a bit, is that theatre does not have the production values shown in his films. The Magic Flute, which was a play, didn't either. But, this also lends truth to what I did say Bergman's purpose was:

His main purpose is conveying the effect of theatre on film.

I also could have said it as conveying the intended effect of theatre on film. Bergman does heighten effects, but maybe to acquire the closer personal feeling that film brings when it utilizes all its power. So, in a way, I do re-allign my original position but also keep firm in Bergman acting through his medium of film by trying to heighten the effect of theatre. That just could be seen as cinematic, as well. I was figuring more Kurosawa when thinking "cinematic".

I think the fact that Bergman is a huge, huge user of the Close Up would show that he is a cinematic director, not a theatrical.  The Close Up is really the main thing that seperates cinema from theatre.

[Gold Trumpet]

I think the fact that Bergman is a huge, huge user of the Close Up would show that he is a cinematic director, not a theatrical.  The Close Up is really the main thing that seperates cinema from theatre.

If following what I just said, I don't think so. I think Bergman is trying to convey the intended effect of theatre on film. Whether theatre may have a physical separation of the actor and the audience, it is still attempting to bring the audience as close as it can to the actors. Bergman's fondness for the close up may be the realization of that close up some people may feel while watching a play. They are at a distance from the actors, but the power of performance allows them to really feel it as if it were much closer. Thus, the intended effect of theatre.

[SHAFTR]

I think the fact that Bergman is a huge, huge user of the Close Up would show that he is a cinematic director, not a theatrical.  The Close Up is really the main thing that seperates cinema from theatre.

If following what I just said, I don't think so. I think Bergman is trying to convey the intended effect of theatre on film. Whether theatre may have a physical separation of the actor and the audience, it is still attempting to bring the audience as close as it can to the actors. Bergman's fondness for the close up may be the realization of that close up some people may feel while watching a play. They are at a distance from the actors, but the power of performance allows them to really feel it as if it were much closer. Thus, the intended effect of theatre.

What is the intended effect of cinema?

[Gold Trumpet]

What is the intended effect of cinema?

I don't know. That's so widespread of a question. I am accepting Bergman as cinematic in what he does to heighten theatre drama (it has to require cinematic skills to do so), but is that question sticking to the specific topic or getting general?

[SHAFTR]

What is the intended effect of cinema?

I don't know. That's so widespread of a question. I am accepting Bergman as cinematic in what he does to heighten theatre drama (it has to require cinematic skills to do so), but is that question sticking to the specific topic or getting general?

GT, my question was intended to see how you think theatrical/cinematic differ.

I just saw Bergman's Brink of Life and I do see your theatrical point.  His films have a rather small location and the acting really drives the film.  Although, Bergman uses cinematic techniques to convey subjectivity:  playing with focus, POV shots, extreme close ups.

He obviously has theatrical qualities but I still find him to be quite cinematic.

[godardian]

What is the intended effect of cinema?

I don't know. That's so widespread of a question. I am accepting Bergman as cinematic in what he does to heighten theatre drama (it has to require cinematic skills to do so), but is that question sticking to the specific topic or getting general?

GT, my question was intended to see how you think theatrical/cinematic differ.

I just saw Bergman's Brink of Life and I do see your theatrical point.  His films have a rather small location and the acting really drives the film.  Although, Bergman uses cinematic techniques to convey subjectivity:  playing with focus, POV shots, extreme close ups.

He obviously has theatrical qualities but I still find him to be quite cinematic.

This is an interesting discussion. GT's fuller explanation allows me to see more of where he was coming from without entirely agreeing with him still.

It seems as though you're saying, GT, that the cinema, with its extensive palette of techniques to manipulate the performer/audience relationship, is actually finishing the job that theatre could only, with its limited mediations between the actor and the audience, begin? That's an interesting view, though I'm sure many theatre fans/critics would have fits of disagreement (I can take or leave the theatre, myself, though I have enjoyed most theatre experiences I've had).

[SHAFTR]

I originally thought that GT meant 'canned theatre' when he said theatrical.  After explanation, I understand his point.

[NEON MERCURY]

......Hello?.......


...i need some opinions, insights, kinnd words, etc....on ingmar's Persona....



 SPOILERS

..the 'basic' plot.....yes?.....wierd lynnchiann, surrealistic opening-lady cann't sing-she goes into hospital-nnurse helps her out and takes her to a island-nurse talks and talks while the 'shy' one listens-nurse tells beach story-nurse is about to throw hot water but the sans talk lady says "No!!!!"-more wierd stuff-identity changes???-more wierd stuff-THE END.....


help.......i liked it..... but didn't get it..........the film gives off a cool vibe....

[godardian]

......Hello?.......


...i need some opinions, insights, kinnd words, etc....on ingmar's Persona....



 SPOILERS

..the 'basic' plot.....yes?.....wierd lynnchiann, surrealistic opening-lady cann't sing-she goes into hospital-nnurse helps her out and takes her to a island-nurse talks and talks while the 'shy' one listens-nurse tells beach story-nurse is about to throw hot water but the sans talk lady says "No!!!!"-more wierd stuff-identity changes???-more wierd stuff-THE END.....


help.......i liked it..... but didn't get it..........the film gives off a cool vibe....

\

Buy/check out this book- it has an excellent, lengthy, in-depth essay entitled "Bergman's Persona:

[cine]

http://www.sun-times.com/ebert/greatmovies/persona.html

That might to clear a few things up too, Neon.

Thanks for the book plug, godardian. I'm going to order that.