I found this documentary shown recently on TV Ontario to be a revealing insight into the work of one of the 20th century's major film-makers. Granted, Bergman is not to everyone's liking but this film helps to explain this complex human being. The filming began with a journey to the Faro Island off the northeast coast of Sweden. It is a bleak place, evocative of many of his films with his house hidden away in the woods behind barbed wire and walls with announcements that the visitor is trespassing. One of the visitors remarked that it was like entering George Orwell's 1984 and seemed genuinely concerned that she would be attacked by guard dogs. A number of the leading directors of today are interviewed. I found Woody Allen to be the most perceptive and honest in his assessment. Others were Francis Coppola, Robert deNiro, Martin Scorsese, Ang Lee. All seemed to have various views of the director's individual works and overall legacy but all of them had enormous respect for him. Bergman's first major film A Summer with Monica showed the famous nude scene that captured much attention in the early 1950's but seems very innocent by today's standards. Allen admitted that this scene was the reason he went and Scosese shunned it because it was considered immoral by the standards of his Catholic upbringing. We go on to view a compelling excerpt from The Seventh Seal, pitting the black caped figure of death against his victim in a chess match. The death character affirmed his mission in which he never failed or postponed. Powerful stuff! I was disappointed with the omission of Winter Light, which is one of the strongest statements of nihilism and existentialism in modern cinema. Another was Shame, another excellent movie. The lavish Fanny and Alexander was seen as a Hollywood style extravaganza. To me, it seemed more like a contrast between two ways of life in the director's own childhood. This documentary draws you into Bergman's character and whether you agree or disagree with the views expressed, it is clear that Bergman was a pivotal influence on many directors who came after him with a body of work too lengthy to be discussed in one documentary. Nevertheless, this documentary is well worth seeing.
5 Reviews
Could Have Been Better, IF
MortSahlFan17 July 2020
Warning: Spoilers
It was directed/produced by someone else, and if they removed 95% of the "directors" who were so worthless... There is this fella, Daniel Espinosa, who goes on and on (while looking at Bergman's library of VHS tapes) and saying "Oh we watched Ghostbusters.. It says 'Rental fee paid', so he paid for this. But what are you gonna do about it? "I'm Bergman" (and other awkward crap).
Wes Anderson goes on a soliloquy about how Americans pronounce Max von Sydow, and how the Swedish pronounce it (properly).
Of course to appear "metaphysical", they introduce Martin Scorsese in what is a premature recording. He's getting his seat arranged, is asking inane questions (nothing to do with Bergman), then starts to ask "What is this for?" and asks which company they're working for (as if he just flew to Sweden without knowing this information). Then goes on that he might not know the chronology of his work (so enlightening).
Then I see Ang Lee, who made the movie "Hulk"... Michael Haneke said something I don't even remember, maybe commenting on the carpet. "Funny Games".... I'm guessing Claire Denis is a director, but she goes on saying how she hopes there are no dogs, and stops short of saying that she would have to leave Faro Island if there were.
Robert De Niro (screen time: 2 minutes) says "If you ask me six months from now about his work, I'll be more prepared. I would have an answer for possible questions you ask me". Again, as I said numerous times, a documentary is 90 minutes long. 1/4 of it will be spent on watching people take airplanes, cars, walking, taking their shoes off and putting on slippers because the owners of the place prefer it that way. So there's only a few minutes, and its spent on ridiculous non-Bergman stuff, by those who are not his contemporaries in any way.
Woody Allen is in this, and he's always had a love for Bergman.. Fine. Show more of him. One Swedish director is curious about one porno movie (Emannuelle) in a library of hundreds of videos. Even towards the end when he has a second chance to say something meaningful, he observes and becomes fascinated with "Ingmar Bergman's fuse box".. Then in another room he finds a cane.. "Ingmar used this during his dancing days, when he would dance the Charleston.... before becoming a Nazi". He thinks he's funny, too, but comes off as ridiculous. Lars von Trier is obsessive and repetitive about masturbation. He kept saying "I'm sure Ingmar sat here and masturbated like crazy.. I'm sure he had a small vesicle, but I'm sure he masturbated so much in this room" (I guess Ingmar is the only one who masturbated).. Lars then goes on and on.. "Ingmar vomits, just like we vomit. He $hits like we $hit.".. Speaking of shaise, Wes goes on to say "This is a strange place to have a toilet". Even the Swedish director goes all around the library and says, "Why would anyone want to have this many movies". John Landis says how "The Seventh Seal becomes hard to watch because it has been parodied so much, you know with Death as a character".. Of course he'd say something stupid like this, because he doesn't have the imagination or creativity to come up with an idea like that. If only Bergman could have directed a masterpiece like "Three Amigos". At one point, he even says (thinking of "The Virgin Spring").. "Wait a minute, this seems like a medieval movie about revenge. Wait a minute, it IS a medieval movie about revenge" -- what a "genius". Ridley Scott names one of Bergman's movies and asks out loud "I wonder if this was naive" - but offers no explanation of what the hell he is talking about.
Some director with the surname of Payne says how "The Seventh Seal" doesn't hold up. Not only wasn't this guy alive when the movie came out, but he should realize the movie is full of universal themes that anyone can understand, even if it centered around the plague in Europe around 800 years ago. Right after, it cuts to a new scene (I wonder if this was intentional) where Woody Allen says "It helps to know history, philosophy".. Again with limited time, they should have used more of his interview, and cut the others out. If this was made today, they wouldn't have included Woody at all, because Twitter doesn't like him.
This was a random viewing experience. I had revisited a lot of Bergman movies, mostly ones I had already seen, and the documentary proves my point. I could be even more descriptive, but my old computer keeps freezing up, and this is taking way too long to type out.
Then I see Ang Lee, who made the movie "Hulk"... Michael Haneke said something I don't even remember, maybe commenting on the carpet. "Funny Games".... I'm guessing Claire Denis is a director, but she goes on saying how she hopes there are no dogs, and stops short of saying that she would have to leave Faro Island if there were.
Robert De Niro (screen time: 2 minutes) says "If you ask me six months from now about his work, I'll be more prepared. I would have an answer for possible questions you ask me". Again, as I said numerous times, a documentary is 90 minutes long. 1/4 of it will be spent on watching people take airplanes, cars, walking, taking their shoes off and putting on slippers because the owners of the place prefer it that way. So there's only a few minutes, and its spent on ridiculous non-Bergman stuff, by those who are not his contemporaries in any way.
Woody Allen is in this, and he's always had a love for Bergman.. Fine. Show more of him. One Swedish director is curious about one porno movie (Emannuelle) in a library of hundreds of videos. Even towards the end when he has a second chance to say something meaningful, he observes and becomes fascinated with "Ingmar Bergman's fuse box".. Then in another room he finds a cane.. "Ingmar used this during his dancing days, when he would dance the Charleston.... before becoming a Nazi". He thinks he's funny, too, but comes off as ridiculous. Lars von Trier is obsessive and repetitive about masturbation. He kept saying "I'm sure Ingmar sat here and masturbated like crazy.. I'm sure he had a small vesicle, but I'm sure he masturbated so much in this room" (I guess Ingmar is the only one who masturbated).. Lars then goes on and on.. "Ingmar vomits, just like we vomit. He $hits like we $hit.".. Speaking of shaise, Wes goes on to say "This is a strange place to have a toilet". Even the Swedish director goes all around the library and says, "Why would anyone want to have this many movies". John Landis says how "The Seventh Seal becomes hard to watch because it has been parodied so much, you know with Death as a character".. Of course he'd say something stupid like this, because he doesn't have the imagination or creativity to come up with an idea like that. If only Bergman could have directed a masterpiece like "Three Amigos". At one point, he even says (thinking of "The Virgin Spring").. "Wait a minute, this seems like a medieval movie about revenge. Wait a minute, it IS a medieval movie about revenge" -- what a "genius". Ridley Scott names one of Bergman's movies and asks out loud "I wonder if this was naive" - but offers no explanation of what the hell he is talking about.
Some director with the surname of Payne says how "The Seventh Seal" doesn't hold up. Not only wasn't this guy alive when the movie came out, but he should realize the movie is full of universal themes that anyone can understand, even if it centered around the plague in Europe around 800 years ago. Right after, it cuts to a new scene (I wonder if this was intentional) where Woody Allen says "It helps to know history, philosophy".. Again with limited time, they should have used more of his interview, and cut the others out. If this was made today, they wouldn't have included Woody at all, because Twitter doesn't like him.
This was a random viewing experience. I had revisited a lot of Bergman movies, mostly ones I had already seen, and the documentary proves my point. I could be even more descriptive, but my old computer keeps freezing up, and this is taking way too long to type out.
Wishing for more shots of the place
typrat6 August 2021
Superior doco.
Mozjoukine30 August 2014
The idea of name film makers on a pilgrimage to Ingmar Bergman's Faro Island home is enough to strike a chill into the heart of any seasoned viewer. Surprisingly, this proves to have room for a large slice of irreverent material without decrying Bergman's status as the heavyweight champion of sixties Euro Art cinema.
The over-all impression is that of a swarm of talented individuals who like to talk about the influences that shaped their own work and for whom Bergman represented one of the high achievers of their craft. The interviews are remarkably skillful - Woody Allen playing it straight, Lars Von Trier getting laughs, Robert De Niro, who is notoriously awkward in interviews, at ease and making valid comment. Technical aspects are good large screen standard and the clips are well chosen and reasonably reproduced - WINTER LIGHT conspicuously absent.
The photos of The Great Man with Ang Lee are a strong finale but I must admit Beat Takashi's encounter with VIRGIN SPRING is the part I tell friends about.
The over-all impression is that of a swarm of talented individuals who like to talk about the influences that shaped their own work and for whom Bergman represented one of the high achievers of their craft. The interviews are remarkably skillful - Woody Allen playing it straight, Lars Von Trier getting laughs, Robert De Niro, who is notoriously awkward in interviews, at ease and making valid comment. Technical aspects are good large screen standard and the clips are well chosen and reasonably reproduced - WINTER LIGHT conspicuously absent.
The photos of The Great Man with Ang Lee are a strong finale but I must admit Beat Takashi's encounter with VIRGIN SPRING is the part I tell friends about.
You'll probably love it or be ambivalent
iantrader22 April 2018
Interesting documentary.
Let's get the bad bits out the way first. The subtitles are white and often appear on a white background. Bit of a fail there, guys.
Also, the music varies from well Over The Top, particularly during the initial scenes, to just plain discordant at the end. It's not rockets science guys (the music is credited to more than one person) and it's a documentary, not a Bergman film for goodness sake!
So, to the movie...
Ingmar Bergman is a legend in the film world.
The bottom line here, though, is that he was a writer and director of his day. It would take a churlish director - and there is one in the movie - to belittle his achievements but however influential his movies may have been, they were of their day and you couldn't possibly make a Bergmanesque movie now. That's not to detract from his abilities or legacy at all, just to put it into perspective.
I love movies about artists and I quite liked this one. It's a little more of an insight into Bergman, his movies and little bit of his life, but it's mostly about directors saying how good he was.
You may come away with a few tit bits of info about the man and his movies - and some directors' thoughts on them - but there's no great revelation.
Looking inside his house is wonderful and being there must have been inspiring but there's little here that anyone with a passing knowledge of Bergman probably didn't know before.
But still watch it!
Let's get the bad bits out the way first. The subtitles are white and often appear on a white background. Bit of a fail there, guys.
Also, the music varies from well Over The Top, particularly during the initial scenes, to just plain discordant at the end. It's not rockets science guys (the music is credited to more than one person) and it's a documentary, not a Bergman film for goodness sake!
So, to the movie...
Ingmar Bergman is a legend in the film world.
The bottom line here, though, is that he was a writer and director of his day. It would take a churlish director - and there is one in the movie - to belittle his achievements but however influential his movies may have been, they were of their day and you couldn't possibly make a Bergmanesque movie now. That's not to detract from his abilities or legacy at all, just to put it into perspective.
I love movies about artists and I quite liked this one. It's a little more of an insight into Bergman, his movies and little bit of his life, but it's mostly about directors saying how good he was.
You may come away with a few tit bits of info about the man and his movies - and some directors' thoughts on them - but there's no great revelation.
Looking inside his house is wonderful and being there must have been inspiring but there's little here that anyone with a passing knowledge of Bergman probably didn't know before.
But still watch it!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
