Bergman: A Year in a Life

Ingmar Bergman, giant of Swedish cinema and theatre, had an extraodinarily productive professional year, and an equally extraordinary private life, in 1957. This documentary focuses on that year, but not exclusively, rather ranging over his whole biography. We learn quite a lot about his interesting but difficult personality, and about his accomplishments, but rather less about what was great about his art; personally, I like his work, but if I hadn't known it, this film would have told me more about how important it is considered to be than why. Meanwhile, director Jane Magnusson offers her personal opinions but never identifies herself, which feels odd - just who is this voice telling us how is? It's still an interesting story how one man's vision, and force of character, made himself the automatic person one associated (and to a not incosiderable extent, still associates) with Swedish cinema.

Bergman the man, not the artist is under scrutiny here in this package which includes the feature length documentary I saw recently at the cinema and the twice-as-long four part TV version which of course, having not lived in Sweden, I hadn't seen until now. My cinema experience of the shorter version left me thinking. The home experience of watching the four hour version left me feeling doubtful....not about the man Bergman, but about the filmmaker Magnusson for shaping things, objectively no doubt, but only with data and materials which suit the theme. A monotonously discordant theme at that.

Bear with me....I own thirty Bergman movies on bluray/DVD as well as feature length documentaries galore on Ingmar including Bergman Island, Liv and Ingmar, Ingmar Bergman Makes A Movie, hours of rehearsal and on-set footage including the Autumn Sonata fly-on-the-wall footage (which is longer than the movie itself), masses of archived interviews with the man himself as well as his team and loved ones; I also own his two core writings in hardback, 'Images' (which we all know now is a mischievous re-invention of his life) and 'The Magic Lantern'; I also have a now-very-valuable copy of 'The Ingmar Bergman Archives' published by Taschen which is the weight and size of a small table, 600 pages long and as in-depth as you can possibly be. It took me over a year to read every word of that, with each page being a foot and a half wide, crammed with small printed information. So I am not just a casual watcher, nor a newbie....like so many others I'm sure. What a casual watcher or newbie WOULD think of this particular documentary is surely guaranteed ('Bergman was a b*****d').

I was already aware of his astonishing and somewhat indecently serialistic love life, his unsettling admiration for Hitler and the Nazi movement (until 1946, which in hindsight appears shocking but we are rarely reminded by the media that such idolatry was shared by entire nations at one time let alone one Swedish film director), his appalling lack of responsibility or presence as a father.....etc.etc. The documentary ploughs deeper into all these areas and more. Compelling though it is, I have questions for the filmmaker Jane Magnusson here....

What would Bergman's lover and on-screen muse Harriet Andersson have to say? (she has plenty to say in interviews I already have of her but she declined to appear in this, I wonder why).

Where is his trusty, long-serving leading man Max Von Sydow? Interesting that neither of these took part in this bruising dressing-down.

Liv Ullmann...one of the most significant companions of his life, willingly takes part but why is it that she (whose involvement with his films spans over thirty years, loved him so evidently, bore him a daughter and even lived with him on a remote island for four years) only talks to camera for about twenty seconds? Her tearful recollection (typical of her sincerity and warmth) appears almost delusional against the barrage of negativity from the less important interviewees elsewhere.

How come Bergman's closest ally at the camera for thirty years, Sven Nikvist, only speaks for a matter of seconds? Likewise the great actor and lifelong friend Erland Josephson. I have long durations of footage of him talking about, as well as with, Ingmar. They are MORE than fine as friends and Erland has nothing but the deepest respect and understanding for Ingmar. And yet all we get here is a short innocuous comment from Erland and later on a revelation by someone else of how Ingmar treated Erland very unfairly. News to me! Liv, Erland, Sven, Max, Harriet....these are all big big BIG players in Ingmar's LIFE. Their opportunity to speak in this documentary is far too brief or even entirely absent. That's a huge cost to me. Yet a huge gain to someone het up on making a splash with a certain perspective.

My other beef is that the recollections of his temper and ill feeling towards people is punctuated with montages of him shouting abruptly, swearing, banging a table with his fist, telling people to hurry up, etc. These instances are not new to anyone who has seen his behaviour on set before via the lengthy fly-on-the-wall documentaries of the past. However the connotation of what is said then what is shown immediately after to back it up, fuels the viewer with the impression that we are seeing him behave like the egomaniac we are being told he was. If you rewind the footage though, see the expressions on faces, the body language, Ingmar's face itself....many of these instances (considered by the editor to be 'evidence') are him actually 'feigning' being annoyed, he's having fun, or simply exhilarated with the work. Like a playful adult startling a child (which we even see him do at one point, come to think of it!). That was often his way. Yes he was short-tempered at times. Wouldn't you be if time was precious, the workload was heavy, the subject matter even heavier and the stomach ulcers causing grief throughout?

Just thought of other omissions. Where is John Donner? Where is Peter Cowie? Are there no archival interviews of Gunnar Bjornstrand or Ingrid Thulin that could have been used? Did none of these people fit the tone of the piece?

Apart from all that, it's all glossily produced and admirably put together but not without minor flaws (Streisand's comments in English at one point being subtitled in English, footage being repeated inexplicably as if the editor had forgot it had been already used, intrusive music which subconsciously enhances your mood or attitude....something Ingmar used VERY sparingly...would've been better with no music at all!).

I will keep this. But if I ever watch it again I will have the salt beside me ready to take a big pinch. Newcomers to Bergman. Please note.

This is a film for any Bergman fan to watch, but I am certain after seeing this almost perfect documentary that I am not a fan of his. I have often wondered why I have preferred several films of the early 1950's and not really liked much of his films after 1957. This is the year that the documentary chooses to see the ' great ' Ingmar Bergman films emerge such as ' The Seventh Seal ' and ' Wild Strawberries '. And it is this year that Bergman sees his power of director take hold of the cinematic world. He acts the great director afterwards, and his personal life, complicated though it was goes to the wall. Before continuing I want to mention the films I do admire; ' Summer Interlude '. ' Summer with Monika '. ' Journey into Autumn ' (Dreams) , ' Sawdust and Tinsel ' and above all ' Smiles of a Summer Night '. These are for me my preferences, but 1957 is the main year in this documentary and also his career afterwards. Watching I saw a dictator emerge, heavy on the drug of being so and using a lot of psychological torture towards the people around him. The documentary is not shy of his admiration for Hitler and his support for what Hitler did for Germany, and the appalling detail of how he cheered for him and raised his hand like the rest. This admiration he renounced a little too late for me and interestingly he abandoned a further political stance in life. Also the image of the great artist suffering a lot is bad romanticism, and ' sad ' though that may be does not justify making others suffer both in the theatre and for those in rehearsal for a film. As the documentary proceeded I realised that the humanity of the early films had somehow been diluted and unlike many I do not regard ' Persona ' as being great, and neither have I seen much to bow down to in ' Fanny and Alexander '. The films made in Germany are very bad indeed, although not mentioned except for the sickening but compulsively watchable ' From the Life of the Marionettes '. There his physical violence ( on film ) towards women becomes murderous. I give the documentary an 8 because I thought interviews with certain people were banal but will not mention names. I was tired by then of the crocodile tears and the adulations of certain actors towards his ' greatness '. But the film taught me yet again that more often than not the great artists in any field have feet of clay, and that adulation is just food to their masters of the world egos. A salutary warning for many who are adored for their work, and yes how they lead their lives is important. Any so called greatness should be put into perspective and this documentary succeeds, but not entirely and the ending is soft pedalled and I for one could not believe in the man. All the same I will return to those early films, and enjoy them for what they are.