Scenes From an Overrated Career
Matthew Kruk
Op-Ed Contributor
Scenes From an Overrated Career
By JONATHAN ROSENBAUM
Chicago
THE first Ingmar Bergman movie I ever saw was "The Magician," at the Fifth
Avenue Cinema in the spring of 1960, when I was 17. The only way I could watch
the film this week after the Swedish director's death was on a remaindered DVD I
bought in Paris. Like many of his films, "The Magician" hasn't been widely
available here for ages.
Nearly all the obituaries I've read take for granted Mr. Bergman's stature as
one of the uncontestable major figures in cinema - for his serious themes (the
loss of religious faith and the waning of relationships), for his expert
direction of actors (many of whom, like Max von Sydow and Liv Ullmann, he
introduced and made famous) and for the hard severity of his images. If you
Google "Ingmar Bergman" and "great," you get almost six million hits.
Sometimes, though, the best indication of an artist's continuing vitality is
simply what of his work remains visible and is still talked about. The hard fact
is, Mr. Bergman isn't being taught in film courses or debated by film buffs with
the same intensity as Alfred Hitchcock, Orson Welles and Jean-Luc Godard. His
works are seen less often in retrospectives and on DVD than those of Carl Dreyer
and Robert Bresson - two master filmmakers widely scorned as boring and
pretentious during Mr. Bergman's heyday.
What Mr. Bergman had that those two masters lacked was the power to entertain -
which often meant a reluctance to challenge conventional film-going habits, as
Dreyer did when constructing his peculiar form of movie space and Bresson did
when constructing his peculiar form of movie acting.
The same qualities that made Mr. Bergman's films go down more easily than
theirs - his fluid storytelling and deftness in handling actresses, comparable
to the skills of a Hollywood professional like George Cukor - also make them
feel less important today, because they have fewer secrets to impart. What we
see is what we get, and what we hear, however well written or dramatic, are
things we're likely to have heard elsewhere.
So where did the outsized reputation of Mr. Bergman come from? At least part of
his initial appeal in the '50s seems tied to the sexiness of his actresses and
the more relaxed attitudes about nudity in Sweden; discovering the handsome look
of a Bergman film also clearly meant encountering the beauty of Maj-Britt
Nilsson and Harriet Andersson. And for younger cinephiles like myself, watching
Mr. Bergman's films at the same time I was first encountering directors like Mr.
Godard and Alain Resnais, it was tempting to regard him as a kindred spirit, the
vanguard of a Swedish New Wave.
It was a seductive error, but an error nevertheless. The stylistic departures I
saw in Mr. Bergman's '50s and '60s features - the silent-movie pastiche in
"Sawdust and Tinsel," the punitive use of magic against a doctor-villain in "The
Magician," the aggressive avant-garde prologue of "Persona" - were actually more
functions of his skill and experience as a theater director than a desire or
capacity to change the language of cinema in order to say something new. If the
French New Wave addressed a new contemporary world, Mr. Bergman's talent was
mainly devoted to preserving and perpetuating an old one.
Curiously, theater is what claimed most of Mr. Bergman's genius, but cinema is
what claimed most of his reputation. He was drawn again and again to the
19th-century theater of Chekhov, Strindberg and Ibsen - these were his real
roots - and based on the testimony of friends who saw some of his stage
productions when they traveled to Brooklyn, there's good reason to believe a
comprehensive account of his prodigious theater work, his métier, is long
overdue.
We remember the late Michelangelo Antonioni for his mysteriously vacant pockets
of time, Andrei Tarkovsky for his elaborately choreographed long takes and Orson
Welles for his canted angles and staccato editing. And we remember all three for
their deep, multifaceted investments in the modern world - the same world Mr.
Bergman seemed perpetually in retreat from.
Mr. Bergman simply used film (and later, video) to translate shadow-plays staged
in his mind - relatively private psychodramas about his own relationships with
his cast members, and metaphysical speculations that at best condensed the
thoughts of a few philosophers rather than expanded them. Riddled with wounds
inflicted by Mr. Bergman's strict Lutheran upbringing and diverse spiritual
doubts, these films are at times too self-absorbed to say much about the larger
world, limiting the relevance that his champions often claim for them.
Above all, his movies aren't so much filmic expressions as expressions on film.
One of the most striking aspects of the use of digital video in "Saraband," his
last feature, is his seeming contempt for the medium apart from its usefulness
as a simple recording device.
Yet what Mr. Bergman was interested in recording was pretty much the same
tormented and tortured neurotic resentments, the same spite and even the same
cruelty that can be traced back to his work of a half-century ago. Like John
Ford, one of Mr. Bergman's favorite directors - whose taste for silhouettes
moving across horizons he shared - he would endlessly reshuffle his reliable
troupe of players, his favorite sores and obsessions, like shards of glass in a
kaleidoscope.
It's strange to realize that his bitter and pinched emotions, once they were
combined with excellent cinematography and superb acting, could become chic -
and revered as emblems of higher purposes in cinema. But these emotions remain
ugly ones, no matter how stylishly they might be served up.
Even stranger to me was the way he always resonated with New York audiences. The
antiseptic, upscale look of Mr. Bergman's interiors and his mainly blond,
blue-eyed cast members became a brand to be adopted and emulated. (His artfully
presented traumas became so respectable they could help to sell espresso in the
lobby of the Fifth Avenue Cinema.) Mr. Bergman, famously, not only helped fuel
the art-house aspirations of Woody Allen but Mr. Allen's class aspirations as
well - the dual yearnings ultimately becoming so intertwined that they seemed
identical.
Despite all the compulsive superlatives offered up this week, Mr. Bergman's star
has faded, maybe because we've all grown up a little, as filmgoers and as
socially aware adults. It doesn't diminish his masterful use of extended
close-ups or his distinctively theatrical, seemingly homemade cinema to suggest
that movies can offer something more complex and challenging. And while Mr.
Bergman's films may have lost much of their pertinence, they will always remain
landmarks in the history of taste.
Jonathan Rosenbaum, a film critic for The Chicago Reader, is the author, most
recently, of "Discovering Orson Welles."
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
mack
"Matthew Kruk" <Matthe...@Telus.net> wrote in message
news:rYVsi.64385$Io4.54046@edtnps89...
> August 4, 2007
> Op-Ed Contributor
> Scenes From an Overrated Career
> By JONATHAN ROSENBAUM
> Chicago
>
> THE first Ingmar Bergman movie I ever saw was "The Magician," at the Fifth
> Avenue Cinema in the spring of 1960, when I was 17. The only way I could
> watch
> the film this week after the Swedish director's death was on a remaindered
> DVD I
> bought in Paris. Like many of his films, "The Magician" hasn't been widely
> available here for ages.
snipped for brevity
> Jonathan Rosenbaum, a film critic for The Chicago Reader, is the author,
> most
> recently, of "Discovering Orson Welles."
>
> Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
>
If Rosenbaum knows so damn much about motion pictures, why isn't his name as
famous as Bergman's?
Mark
> >
> > THE first Ingmar Bergman movie I ever saw was "The Magician," at the Fifth
> > Avenue Cinema in the spring of 1960, when I was 17. The only way I could
> > watch
> > the film this week after the Swedish director's death was on a remaindered
> > DVD I
> > bought in Paris. Like many of his films, "The Magician" hasn't been widely
> > available here for ages.
Can't agree with much of this but I find it bizarre that Antonioni is
mentioned in the same breath as Bergman (and received a bigger page
one NYT obit than Bergman!). He's the "Emperor's New Clothes" in
spades.
TedM
the everyman sort of guy that Roger Ebert is, but Rosenbaum is
respected.
Bob Feigel
magnanimously proffered:
>
>> Jonathan Rosenbaum, a film critic for The Chicago Reader, is the author,
>> most
>> recently, of "Discovering Orson Welles."
>>
>> Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
>>
>If Rosenbaum knows so damn much about motion pictures, why isn't his name as
>famous as Bergman's?
Rosenbaum who?
--
"It's not that I'm afraid to die. I just don't want to be there when it happens." - Woody Allen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Beaver
"TedM" <nyfilm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186245372....@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> Within the critical community Rosenbaum is very well known. He's not
> the everyman sort of guy that Roger Ebert is, but Rosenbaum is
> respected.
>
I daresay not so much, now.
Jim Beaver
Rich Clancey
>Can't agree with much of this but I find it bizarre that Antonioni is
>mentioned in the same breath as Bergman (and received a bigger page
>one NYT obit than Bergman!). He's the "Emperor's New Clothes" in
>spades.
A couple of pretentious pompous bores who managed to convince
people they were doing something terribly serious and important.
--
rich clancey r...@bahleevyoome.world.std.com
"Shun those who deny we have eyes in order to see, and instead say we
see because we happen to have eyes." -- Leibniz
Jim Beaver
"Rich Clancey" <r...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:f93v60$7pn$1...@pcls6.std.com...
> Mark done wrote:
>
>>Can't agree with much of this but I find it bizarre that Antonioni is
>>mentioned in the same breath as Bergman (and received a bigger page
>>one NYT obit than Bergman!). He's the "Emperor's New Clothes" in
>>spades.
>
> A couple of pretentious pompous bores who managed to convince
> people they were doing something terribly serious and important.
Any time someone of rich and layered intelligence or artistry is evaluated,
there's always someone following the parade with a little shovel, looking
for elephant crap. Usually that someone is talking about the pretentious
pompousness of the circus he's following.
Hyfler/Rosner
"Jim Beaver" <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote in message
news:0zoti.12717$eY....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
On the other hand, it's an opinion, an informed one at that,
and he's entitled to it. God knows, I know enough people
who don't like Bergman. I'm not a huge fan, myself. I
appreciate his worth, but I never went out of my way to see
his films more than once.
Jim Beaver
"Hyfler/Rosner" <rel...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:mb-dnYproeQ6vSvb...@rcn.net...
Oh, he's entitled to his opinion. I'm not remotely the Bergman fan I am for
Ford or Hawks or Kurosawa or Boetticher, even, and I'm not sure I've ever
even seen an Antonioni film. I was commenting on how CONSISTENTLY the
discussion of someone like Bergman or Antonioni brings out the "He fooled
everyone but me" crowd.
Jim Beaver
Hyfler/Rosner
"Jim Beaver" <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote in message
-
>>
>> On the other hand, it's an opinion, an informed one at
>> that, and he's entitled to it. God knows, I know enough
>> people who don't like Bergman. I'm not a huge fan,
>> myself. I appreciate his worth, but I never went out of
>> my way to see his films more than once.
>
> Oh, he's entitled to his opinion. I'm not remotely the
> Bergman fan I am for Ford or Hawks or Kurosawa or
> Boetticher, even, and I'm not sure I've ever even seen an
> Antonioni film. I was commenting on how CONSISTENTLY the
> discussion of someone like Bergman or Antonioni brings out
> the "He fooled everyone but me" crowd.
>
> Jim Beaver
Ok, that's fair. Thanks for responding.
Loki
You haven't seen Blow Up? Great film, well worth checking out.
Brigid Nelson
Can I talk about my husband some more? Last winter he went on a Bergman
binge. I sat through Autumn Sonata, and Scenes From a Marriage, but
when he produced the full-length made for sweedish teevee version of
Fanny and Alexander I decided that I'd had enough.
I enjoyed the three hour theatrical release when I saw it 20 some years
ago. I also enjoyed the laughter of the sweedish ladies in the back of
the house, how much do we miss when we rely on subtitiles? But at the
end of the day I just couldn't endure 5 hours of sustained - let's just
say I'd rather be poked in the eye with a sharp stick.
brigid
MGW
<irja...@comcast.net> scrawled:
> I also enjoyed the laughter of the sweedish ladies in the back of
> the house, how much do we miss when we rely on subtitiles?
If you want to see, get a copy of King of
--
MGW
I have yet to see a problem, however complicated, which when you looked at
it in the right way, did not become still more complicated. ~ Poul Anderson
R H Draney
>
>Can I talk about my husband some more? Last winter he went on a Bergman
>binge. I sat through Autumn Sonata, and Scenes From a Marriage, but
>when he produced the full-length made for sweedish teevee version of
>Fanny and Alexander I decided that I'd had enough.
>
>I enjoyed the three hour theatrical release when I saw it 20 some years
>ago. I also enjoyed the laughter of the sweedish ladies in the back of
>the house, how much do we miss when we rely on subtitiles? But at the
>end of the day I just couldn't endure 5 hours of sustained - let's just
>say I'd rather be poked in the eye with a sharp stick.
Ah, then you'll be wanting Luis Buñuel instead....r
--
"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"