I'm going to "curse in church" (svära i kyrkan) here and take dear Ingmar down a few noches. From where I'm sitting, in a living female body that is, I disagree with Ullman. I don't see him as very good at writing, or directing, female characters at all. It's interesting to hear her describe how he has been watching women all his life, and that's all I get from many of the female characters in his movies too. The actresses do a good job, within the confines they find themselves, but the roles are just that, written by someone who knows them through observation. They often lack depth, authenticity and motivalional accuracy. They are outside descriptions and fantasies. They aren't allowed to step out of the boundaries set up by the writer/director. They never get a chance to become real, living beings. They forever stay orderly projections of a male artist that either wasn't able, or wasn't interested in, getting to know his characters, beyond how tgey appeared in his own mind. I guess you have to let go of some control for that to happen, and that is not something Ingmar was known for. Too bad. Because he was a great filmaker.
@@antoinepetrov I'm not an art historian. I just happened to revisit some of Ingmar Bergman's work right now, and this is what I noticed. I'm opposing the "deification" of him, and other creators, and disagree with Liv Ullman's description (though she might be right, on a personal level, if other writer/directors she worked with were "worse", so to speak). I love The Autumn Sonata. It's a very messy piece in my view (which, when it comes to art, isn't always a bad thing). And perhaps the creative, and structural, conflicts underneath, between Ingmar and Ingrid on set, makes it even better through added complexity and messiness. Though some of the performances are stunning, as a whole the way the three main, female, characters are presented they still come off flat and sometimes forced to me. As if Ingmar is dealing with his demon's and past traumas on screen, but chooses not to let the other actors in his life (real or imagined) tell their story, but instead keep them neatly tucked within the confines of how he sees the world, which is through the eyes of a sensitive, tormented, _and_ most privileged male. As a female, who's life experiences (not only those of being female) has put me at a less functioning level than Ingmar, as well as less financially and societally stable, the characters become somewhat caricature like. I'd venture to say that much of it comes from lack of lived experience, both in Ingmar, and the actresses. They're all on a fairly functional, and privileged, end of the spectrum, and when stepping into the world of much greater dysfunction they trip, and somewhat fail in conveying the depth and reality of what it's like to live with the effects of so much trauma.
@@Observer-p7u Thank you for the great thoughts! I think all of Ingmar's characters are simplified and stylized depictions of himself. One could go further and say that he hid behind his female characters since he could put his own traits and thoughts to them and at the same time avoid people drawing immediate parallels between him and the characters. They are mostly unrealistic since he, after all, came from the theatre tradition, which was always about exaggeration of human behaviour.
@@antoinepetrov Yes. That's an analysis I fully agree with, I've thought something very similar. I don't really disagree with his artistic choices so much, he was very good at what he was doing, and art _is_ very personal at its core, it's how he himself is sometimes depicted that bothers me.
Not fully true that I don't disagree with him artistically. I do have some real issues with some direction and writing too. Especially in Autumn Sonata. But that would be another post...
i find it interesting how the comments are willfully misenterpreting liv's words here, in that when she means male chauvanist, she means that ingmar has no real feminine side, and how that isn't a bad thing
There is no reason to believe she doesn’t mean exactly what she says especially considering that she came from a time where it wasn’t as damning to be called one as it is today
The last bit she says about a film director as a cannibal happens to be a great analysis of Persona
"The Cannibals " was also ( as far as I know) the initial working title for Bergman's 1968 film " The Hour of the Wolf" ( with Von Sydow and Ullmann).
Agreed 100%, and that is why 'Persona' is Bergman at his most autobiographical.
beauty on the inside. loving.
I would bet most great directors would be described like this by women close to them.
I'm going to "curse in church" (svära i kyrkan) here and take dear Ingmar down a few noches.
From where I'm sitting, in a living female body that is, I disagree with Ullman. I don't see him as very good at writing, or directing, female characters at all. It's interesting to hear her describe how he has been watching women all his life, and that's all I get from many of the female characters in his movies too. The actresses do a good job, within the confines they find themselves, but the roles are just that, written by someone who knows them through observation. They often lack depth, authenticity and motivalional accuracy. They are outside descriptions and fantasies. They aren't allowed to step out of the boundaries set up by the writer/director. They never get a chance to become real, living beings. They forever stay orderly projections of a male artist that either wasn't able, or wasn't interested in, getting to know his characters, beyond how tgey appeared in his own mind. I guess you have to let go of some control for that to happen, and that is not something Ingmar was known for. Too bad. Because he was a great filmaker.
Interesting. I'm curious to know which authors from Ingmar's time created more realistic and deep female characters in your opinion.
@@antoinepetrov I'm not an art historian. I just happened to revisit some of Ingmar Bergman's work right now, and this is what I noticed. I'm opposing the "deification" of him, and other creators, and disagree with Liv Ullman's description (though she might be right, on a personal level, if other writer/directors she worked with were "worse", so to speak).
I love The Autumn Sonata. It's a very messy piece in my view (which, when it comes to art, isn't always a bad thing). And perhaps the creative, and structural, conflicts underneath, between Ingmar and Ingrid on set, makes it even better through added complexity and messiness. Though some of the performances are stunning, as a whole the way the three main, female, characters are presented they still come off flat and sometimes forced to me. As if Ingmar is dealing with his demon's and past traumas on screen, but chooses not to let the other actors in his life (real or imagined) tell their story, but instead keep them neatly tucked within the confines of how he sees the world, which is through the eyes of a sensitive, tormented, _and_ most privileged male.
As a female, who's life experiences (not only those of being female) has put me at a less functioning level than Ingmar, as well as less financially and societally stable, the characters become somewhat caricature like. I'd venture to say that much of it comes from lack of lived experience, both in Ingmar, and the actresses. They're all on a fairly functional, and privileged, end of the spectrum, and when stepping into the world of much greater dysfunction they trip, and somewhat fail in conveying the depth and reality of what it's like to live with the effects of so much trauma.
@@Observer-p7u Thank you for the great thoughts! I think all of Ingmar's characters are simplified and stylized depictions of himself. One could go further and say that he hid behind his female characters since he could put his own traits and thoughts to them and at the same time avoid people drawing immediate parallels between him and the characters. They are mostly unrealistic since he, after all, came from the theatre tradition, which was always about exaggeration of human behaviour.
@@antoinepetrov Yes. That's an analysis I fully agree with, I've thought something very similar. I don't really disagree with his artistic choices so much, he was very good at what he was doing, and art _is_ very personal at its core, it's how he himself is sometimes depicted that bothers me.
Not fully true that I don't disagree with him artistically. I do have some real issues with some direction and writing too. Especially in Autumn Sonata. But that would be another post...
Bergman understands men & women - sorry
An exemplary instance of how not to use metaphor.
no
Where is the metaphor?
i find it interesting how the comments are willfully misenterpreting liv's words here, in that when she means male chauvanist, she means that ingmar has no real feminine side, and how that isn't a bad thing
There is no reason to believe she doesn’t mean exactly what she says especially considering that she came from a time where it wasn’t as damning to be called one as it is today
If so she’s using the word incorrectly.
Not very positive statements towards the guy
Nor entirely negative. She's being frank about him.
I would say, given their history, it's an honest and truthful assessment.
Yes... She knows about him...
Im like my father and I am very proud neither of us has changed a diaper, washed laundry, dusted, vacuumed, or washed a dish.
your mother and your wife must be very happy women lol
@@gabriofonda8181 they truly are very happy.
What is it about that that causes you to feel pride?
@@Observer-p7u Because we married wonderful women who also believed the same.
@@HolgerDanske So you're proud of the achievement of finding someone who thinks the same way you do?
Being a male chauvinist is actually a positive in today’s world. Masculinity isn’t the problem. It’s the lack of it.
Omg andrew tate what are you doing here? I didn't know u could read subtitles let alone understand Bergman's films LOL
@@gabriofonda8181😂
Real masculinity is not raising your child.
Yes, we need more of this.