Father was Lutheran minister. Ingmar's brother received a "magic lantern" for Christmas, and Ingmar tricked him into trading. He was a rebellious brat, and figured a life in the arts would piss his parents off well enough. He began in the theater, working his way into the prestigious Royal Dramatic Theater. He wrote as well, and one of his scripts got turned into a movie. It was a matter of time before this theatrical genius was given a shot at making a film of his own. While he was popular enough in Sweden, it wasn't until Smiles of a Summer Night that the international audience took notice, and his next film, Seventh Seal, made him an arthouse star. For the next few decades, he'd spend the summer filming, the winter directing a play. "Theater is my wife, film is my mistress."

In the mid-70s, the Swedish authorities accused Bergman of tax evasion. He fled to Germany. It all got sorted out. He lived the rest of his life on the tiny island of Faro, where he filmed a number of bleak things.

He's been married five times and has had countless long-term relationships otherwise, Liv Ulmann maybe most famously. His last one, to a chick named "Ingrid" (no, not that one) was the longest. She seemed cool.

He retired from film with Fanny and Alexander in 1982, but continued to write. Shortly before dying, he added one more film to his oeuvre--Saraband, a sequel of sorts to Scenes from a Marriage. (The DVD of Saraband has a meaty "making-of" thing that would contrast well with the much earlier documentary.)

I think he's the greatest director in cinema history. But if that's too much, you have to agree he's at least one of them.

The fact Bergman and Antonioni died on the same day still freaks me out a bit. Godard would've been shitting bricks that day.

I'll agree aesthetically he's one of the greatest, but I'll say this about this one negative thing about him-he had generally one style.

Put it this way, Kubrick was able to do the almost painfully slow films like 2001 (and no that isn't a slight on him as that's one of my fav. films), but yet he clearly had the talent to pull off a comedy like Dr. Strangelove or a horror like The Shining. Honestly I couldn't ever imagine Bergman being able to pull off a comedy film. Don't get me wrong he was incredibly brilliant at what what he did and his style, but for me a level of greatness has to be attributed to their ability to do more than one style of filming.

Sure you can do the long shot of a slow scene, but could you do a scene that tried to kick things up a level.

OPEN THE FLOODGATES OF WRATH!

tired to watch Poltergiest.....then Far Out Man.....then Betty Blowtorch.....and now Waking Life

it's a shitty night and i need another goddaamn dirnk and maybe change up movies
i bet the Wacky Wild Kool Aid Style video would look fucked on a giant Aquos tv
was thinking of hooking up the beta machine to it to see what it looks like

tired to watch Poltergiest.....then Far Out Man.....then Betty Blowtorch.....and now Waking Life

it's a shitty night and i need another goddaamn dirnk and maybe change up movies
i bet the Wacky Wild Kool Aid Style video would look fucked on a giant Aquos tv
was thinking of hooking up the beta machine to it to see what it looks like

had to put on MIDNIGHT RUN
it's been a brutal night and it's time to lay down and die
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_tWmEfrJcs

I agree that Bergman can be slammed for being dour.

(On the other hand, there are a handful of early comedies which are good.)

But what a weird comparison, Kubrick and Bergman.

Bergman never had a social satire like Dr. Strangelove.

But Kubrick never made a love-letter to the family like Fanny and Alexander.

Bergman never made a sci-fi film.

But Kubrick never made a quiet chamber piece with only two or three characters.

Bergman wrote his own stuff, mostly.

Kubrick developed scripts from novels, mostly.

Ultimately, Bergman was interested in interior life, Kubrick with social life. I don't get the comparison.


So true, because Kubrick cares more for ideas. On the other hand, not much politics in Bergman.


(I wonder how old Kubrick was when he declared WILD STRAWBERRIES his fav. Was he responding as an older man or as a young film enthusiast?)

i want to get inon this but im hungry and sleepy and i have futbol to watch

damn

briefly: bergman is at heart a playwright. he started wuth and went back to theatre. his films are plays. his obsessions the same and always personal. what made him a great filmmaker was nyqvist.

kubrick was first a photographer. the camera came first. what he put in it was second. which is why he could go from one place to another depending on script. also (we've said this before) not an "actor's director."

in a way these two are opposite and complementary.

btw joo guys watched the nyqvist documentary? light is my... something, i g=forget (need coffee/breakfast)

err hm oh, funny story (funny peculiar not haha)-- i have the tv version of fanny and alexander coming my way. yessssssssssss.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to !@#$%! again.

You guys have missed my point. I'm not knocking Bergman in any way. I've enjoyed (is that the right word?) pretty much all of his films. My point was Bergman's pattern of films are in many ways similar to each other. The small films with 2 or 3 people pondering aloud about various philosophical questions was something he, along with Dreyer, were brilliant at but come on give me something else. Stretch yourself.

As for my choice of Kubrick he was the first director to pop into my head. My point was to show directors who showed a desire to stretch out. Why was Bergman happy to stay in a certain style of film?

To reiterate-I enjoy Bergman films a hell of a lot.


Remind me aside from the first half hour, how many characters where in 2001?


Paths of Glory? Spartacus?

Gotcha.

I happen to think there's some variety in Bergman, but I'm probably overthinking it. There is certainly something called "Bergmanesque."

But then, Kubrick's cold, detached uber-intellectual approach never changed much either, even if he did play with different genres.

And the more I think of it, Kubrick really did suck with characters, Kirk Douglas' stuff being a good exception. For example, I can't think of any memorable female characters at all. The women serve to push or frustrate the men's desires, and that's about it.

And 2001? The only interesting character in that is a fucking computer.

By the way, has anyone watched 2001 on acid? Was it a good trip or a total bummer?

Bergman + Comedy = Woody Allen
Kubrick + Characters = P T Anderson

Spartacus is shit. Kubrick disowned it, and with good reason, and afterwards left Hollywood for England.

This was a production of egomaniac ham Kirk Douglas. That movie is an atrocity. Well Douglas knew what he was doing I suppose because they broke box office records. But as a Kubrick film, it's complete shit. When I watched it I couldn't believe it. 5/5 vomits.


I didn't. I thought I explained why it is that way...

Spartacus the TV series on the other hand is my guilty pleasure. Ultra violence, ultra sex, lines like "by Jupiter's cock", show rules.

I'll give you 5/5 vomits in a minute.

I'll give you 5/5 vomits in a minute.

Eyes Wide Shut?

skyfall

waaaaay better than i expected it to be.

one thing i noted through the movie (look at the poster) was that he carries a tiny gun. 9mm short! okay for a gun of last resort/at close quarters i suppose, but had he carried something that packs more wallop he would have avoided many of the unnecessary headaches he encountered in the movie, like people running away from him. ha!



but anyway, sam mendes, not bad... not bad at all...