Talk:Ingmar Bergman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Ingmar Bergman as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Italian language Wikipedia.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:


Contents

[edit] No subject

Good article.--AMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.121.110.xxx (talk)

Well, thank you.  :-) --Koyaanis Qatsi

Has Bergman actually said he that he's working on a Scenes from a Marriage sequel? Is there a source to go to? The only indication I've seen is in IMDB, but that entry has disappeared, then reappeared with the release date changed, etc.

Bergman's now 84, so if he's going to do the film, it would behoove him to start working on it in earnest. 209.149.235.254 00:22, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

IMDb (which is not always correct) lists Saraband as a movie "following" Scenes from a Marriage. Both films list a character named "Marianne" played by Liv Ullmann and one named "Johan" played by Erland Josephson, so I'd be inclined to say that he did in fact direct the sequel, but it was made for TV.
Um, but has anyone on the 'pedia actually seen the film? I haven't. It's not so highly rated. Koyaanis Qatsi 07:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It got some good reviews at the New York Film Festival. I'm hoping for a DVD release, eventually, although I need to work my way through the Criterion mini-series version of Scenes from a Marriage first... Ellsworth 20:43, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Filmography

A bit of confusion here: The Magic Flute redirects to Die Zauberflöte which is the main article about the opera. Shouldn't Bergman's adaptation have its own article at, say, The Magic Flute (film)? Die Zauberflöte currently links to it as Trollflöjten. Bo Lindbergh 13:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

In the Bergman article, it states that: "...Scenes from a Marriage--a six-episode television feature--cost only $200,000" while the movie page says $150,000. Anyone know which figure is correct? I may be mistaken in imagining this as a contradiction because one describes cost and the other the amount the film was budgeted at. - SeanL.

Rumor has it Bergman is now a practicing Christian -- no longer an agnostic. Any sources on this? If true, should it be included? Qwerty18 06:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

If it's true, it should certainly be included, given how central existential crises are to many of his films. But the fact that nobody has stepped forward in the past year to corroborate it suggests that the rumor may be unfounded.

[edit] Pronunciation

Does anyone object to my removing the English pronunciation of his name? I believe Wikipedia should encourage proper pronunciations, so the common, but incorrect English pronunciation should be removed leaving only the Swedish pronuncation. Carl.bunderson 17:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

By all means let us give the proper pronunciation preferred by each person carrying a name, if it is possible to establish, but I disagree with the removal of the most common pronunciations. Many sounds unfamiliar to a speaker in his own language will always be difficult or sometimes almost impossible to pronounce. When I go abroad I don't expect all people to pronounce my Swedish name in Swedish, although I may be flattered if they try. For people as famous as Bergman from areas with minor languages there will often be established foreign pronunciations of their names, and these should be as familiar to us all as the "proper" pronunciations or we will have difficulty for example when we try to follow conversations between American critics sometimes having interesting points to make about Bergman and his art, although they don't know Swedish pronunciation./Erik Holst, who introduced the American pronunciation in this article, before somebody incorrectly claimed that the British pronunciation was identical. (In Britain the letter R is usually just pronounced before a vowel, for example.) 130.241.17.25 12:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't it also be mentioned somewhere that the pronounciation of his name is always wrong in the anglo-american countries? --M96hardh 15:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
It should be specified that the IPA-notation (probably for English version) is different from Swedish-version in the sound-file. Now, it is confusing: you see one version, but hear another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itman (talk • contribs) 22:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Short article

It seems a little short for someone so reknowned and amazing as Bergman.Akseli 18:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Why isn't there any information in this article pertaining to the false tax charges the Swedish internal revenue service concocted against him, his self-imposed exile in Munich, and the resulting political backlash?
This seems like a very huge aspect of his biography to overlook. Ruthfulbarbarity 22:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film stubs/red links

I've added stub articles for all the red links that were in Bergman's filmography. Please help where you can to pad out the articles! Lugnuts 12:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh, Dear...

Swedish National Television (SVT) Text-TV quoted THIS article when the news about Bergman's death went out... --Camptown 10:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not big enough for the front page?

Normally prominent figures such as this make it to the Wiki headlines, yet there's no mention of him at all. That's pretty sad.

The HIV trial in Libya is pretty last week; I see no reason that it could not have been supplanted with news of Bergman's passing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.71.245.81 (talk)

No point complaining here, you can make your point on the news section discussion page. Cop 663 23:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tax Charges Section

I agree that the charge of tax evasion was an important episode in Bergman's film career and the effects of these false charges can and should be mentioned. However the period was important for all aspects of Bergman's life and the specific details and sequence of events is not particularly relevant to his film career. So I would like to move the bulk of this section back into his biogrpahy section and leave behind a shorter section on how his effected his film making. A B Carter (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the events were indeed relevant to Bergman's film production which suffered greatly during (and probably after) these years. Also on a personal level, Bergman never really became the same again. I'd suggest that we re-incorporate the section where it belongs, a kind of introduction to the "Life of Bergman Part 2". --Camptown 21:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
At present there is a Biography section and a Film section. If we keep that basic division then the Bio section would give a basic overview of his life. That would seem to be the natural place to talk about the tax charges in detail. I could agree that Bergman was never quite the same after that, but that means it effected his entire life, not just what he did in film but everything else he did after that. Putting this in the Film section would imply otherwise. The film section would concentrate on his development as a director and filmmaker. Mentioning the impact of the tax charges is relevant and important but here the focus should be on his films and not, for example, what the chief of the Swedish Internal Revenue Service had to say. The latter is what I was referring to when I said some details were not relevent. I could also agree with the idea of using this as an introduction to the "Life of Bergman Part 2", but why wouldn't that imply putting it in the Biography section as opppose to the film section. A B Carter (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Some additional thoughts. The tax charge was an important event in Bergman's work as a director and that should be mentioned in the Film Work section. I made some attempt at this when I shifted the Tax section back to the bio, leaving behind the remarks on Fanny and Alexander and adding a sentence as a preface. I'm not particularly happy with that sentence and it could certainly be reworked and expanded. But if it is expanded the focus should be on the films he did or did not direct, or as you mention in your note to me, how the films after this event were different from the ones before. But details about the legal and financial issues and related matters and how he changed "as a person" seem more relevant to the Biography section. In the end I don't want to simply shift the remarks on the tax chargs from one section to another, but divide between the two sections where they seem appropriate. A B Carter (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Since I think that the Wild Strawberry picture is of such high quality, I nominated it featured picture - please, give you opinion here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ingmar Bergman. --Camptown 13:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] He directed 5,555 films?

This would be over 90 films a year over his 60 active years. I find this number impossible to comprehend and IMDB lists 62 directed movies. Correction needed.

[edit] Correct Salutation for Ingrid von Rosen

This has been going round and round for awhile now. As best as I can make out the facts are the following. Ingrid karlebo married Swedish count Jan-Carl von Rosen in 1953 and therefore became a countess. Ingmar Bergman had an affair with her while she was a countess but she later divorsed the count and married Ingmar Bergman in 1971. Jan-Carl von Rosen died in 1995. I'm no expert on royalty but I got to think that if you are a commoner and you divorce a count you don't get to keep the title. So Ingmar Bergman had an affair with a countess but married Ingrid Karlebo. Happy to be correct here. A B Carter (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That's correct. Ingrid lost the title Countess the same day she divorced Count Jan-Carl von Rosen. It is therefore not correct to say that Ingmar Bergman married Countess Ingrid von Rosen. Whether their love child Maria von Rosen is a countess or not depends on who is her officially registered father. As the registered father is probably (?) Count Jan-Carl von Rosen, she may according to the protocol have be born contess and retains the title for the rest of her life. --Camptown 09:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler

In an op-ed piece in Svenska Dagbladet ("Bergman beundrade Hitler", debattartikel, SvD Brännpunkt, [1]) on August 12, 2007, journalist sv:Maria-Pia Boëthius complains that none of the post-death articles about Bergman have mentioned his admiration of Hitler. According to this piece: In 1945 Bergman interpreted photos from the death camps as propaganda by the allied forces. Only in 1946 did he realize they were not, and changed his mind, chocked, deeply regretting his earlier admiration of Hitler. Boëthius interviewed Bergman in 1999 for the 2nd edition of her book on World War II (Heder och samvete : Sverige och andra världskriget, hardbound, 1991, ISBN 91-1-894142-7; 2nd ed. 1999, hardbound, ISBN 91-7324-681-6; paperback in 2001, ISBN 91-7324-854-1; the book was translated to Norwegian in 1991, but never to other languages). An approved (by Bergman) interview was printed in the book. The full interview is in manuscript in her attic. The current article already has a reference to Laterna Magica. This op-ed piece should perhaps not be a source, but maybe Boëthius' book on WWII should? I have not read it, just this op-ed piece. --LA2 05:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Death Tag

You know, I removed the Recent Death tag a week after this gentleman died, and I was threatened by an admin with being blocked for doing so. I stated then, and repeat now, that the likelihood of anything changing in the information we have regarding a person's death "or circumstances" thereof (which is, after all, what the tag warns us of) is quite low even a few days after someone famous dies. There are exceptions, of course, but given the fact that there were absolutely no changes in the information about his death between my removal of this tag on 5 August and today, nearly three weeks after he died (which my observations show is pretty much standard for most deaths that use this tag), shows me that we need to consider our usage of this tag. Just because everyone is doing it doesn't make it a good idea. Unschool 01:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The concern is not that there will be rapid changes to the article regarding the person's death, but that there will be rapid changes to the entire article. The death of a person is often a spur to major changes, with some making additions that are poorly sourced or inaccurate. This is exactly what has happened to this article on Bergman, in fact two of the last changes have been corrections to additions I have made. A death is also, unfortunately, a spur to vandalism such as saying Bergman made 5,555 films or was influenced by Adam Sandler. The tag is a caution to the unsuspecting reader and appears entirely justified here. A B Carter (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The tag was created for, and the wording specifically states, "Some information, such as the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events, may change rapidly as more facts become known." The original intent stated that we might not know how the person died, or what funeral arrangements would be made, etc. And this kind of warning, if it is justified at all, is not needed in 99% of the cases I've seen, for more than 24 hours. (One recent exception would be the Chris Benoit case, in which case the RDT might have been needed for several days.)
I have heard the justification you cite many times, and indeed, with someone of Bergman's stature, it is worth considering. But I have seen this tag also placed on relatively unfamous person's articles for whom absolutely no editing was done—other than the placement of the RDT itself—for weeks afterwards, and yet we allow the article to get moldy and out of date with this unnecessary banner.
If the tag really serves the purposes you cite, then you should support some type of rewording. As it is written now, it is silliness. Unschool 11:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Work

As Bergman's works are so extremely interralated to his personal life, I restored parts of the work section that had been put in a separate list. --Camptown 17:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

But you just moved everything back. It's a huge list and should be on it's own page. Lugnuts 17:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Having a separate page for listing an artist's work appears to be a fairly standard practice, especially if the work is extensive. My one qualm is that the page has been titled "Bergman's filmography", but an actual majority of the page lists his work in theater. It might make more sense to change the title to "Bergman's Work" and redirect filmography to it. A B Carter (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was a bit unsure what to call it, but the main point is that it should have it's own page from the main article. Feel free to move it to a better titled page. Lugnuts 19:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest a compromise: Restore the film titles (not a very long list) to the Bergman article, but leave the "main article" with all titles, including the theatrical works. --Camptown 12:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a particular problem with that. I did a quick survey and it is not universal that a filmography gets a separate page and keeping the list of theater productions off would significantly reduce the length. But we may want to revisit this later. A B Carter (talk) 10:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] His lover was a secret agent

An article ("essay") by journalist Anders Thunberg and history professor no:Tore Pryser (at Lillehammer University College, Norway) in Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter on November 15, 2007, reveals that Ingmar Bergman's lover (in the early 1940s), actress Karin Lannby (called "Maria" in Laterna Magica) was a secret agent, reporting extensively to the Swedish military secret service. She's apparently the role model for "Ruth Köhler" in the play "Kvinna utan ansikte". In the declassified archives of the Swedish military secret service (MUST, Militära underrättelsetjänsten), her reports are signed "Annette" but nothing reveals the true identity behind this signature. The two authors of this article have connected information they found in the archives of OSS (predecessor of CIA) and information found in the archives of the Swedish secret police (SÄPO, Säkerhetspolisen), to connect the codename Annette to acress Karin Lannby. Judging from the article, I would expect a forthcoming biography of sv:Karin Lannby. --LA2 12:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Relation to Ingrid Bergman?

Was there any family link between them? --Vladko (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)