As Michael knows, I am working toward a series on Ibsen and Bergman on my site, so I've put off Bergman SOMEWHAT. I saw Episode 1 one week ago, and I watched episode two this evening in Hanoi.
I hope that this is helpful for people as a little preview of how I might relate Ibsen (the playwright and Bergman - the auteur film director). The difficulty here is that I'm afraid I've set myself an impossible task; this is a kind of brainstorming I've written and pasted here though, halfway now.
Episode(s) 1-2 (My Notes):
The introduction to the Ekdahl family dynamics in this episode really reminded me of Ibsen's exploration of familial obligations like those in "Ghosts". There is a clear tension between maintaining family honor and dealing with personal secrets that feels just as palpable in both Bergman and Ibsen's plays.
- Alexander's wild imaginative escapades - "The Wild Duck": of all Ibsens plays: there's magical realism in both . . . I need to see more scholarship about where this comes from in Scandinavian history/culture, and into the present. Illusion and reality blend, hinting at the deeper questions we might face about how much truth we can handle.
-Bergman, in these early episodes, is most pressing into the conflict between personal desires and societal norms, for me.
The theatrical elements are obvious. (Metatheatrical, I should say). I've now seen Fanny and Alexander 2.5 times and this third round is the first with the full television series. My gosh, the artistry, character and world building . . . It's almost impossible to incapsulate what is ALL that is unfolding here. "Hedda Gabler" is my favourite of Ibsen's plays . . . oddly, I don't see it figuring much in my analysis of the film. But there will be time for that soon.
Are these notes even legible? I hope the names of the plays pop out at least. If you're a Bergman fan, Ibsen is an ESSENTIAL resource!! Same for Michael Haneke . . . I want Haneke to adapt a film version of "Hedda Gabler."
There are a number of things still to address about F&A: Sexual politics and familial obligation, and the question of "magical realism" Brock tackles here. Let me start with that because it's dogged me for years (at least the years I've watched F&A over and over again)... There's only one scene at the beginning of that...when the statue moves. What is it doing? Why does it attract Alexander's interest? It's eerie, but I think it has a message. Alexander is a potential artist, but he isn't aware of it yet. The statue is, I think, "beckoning him toward his future" as an artist. He's ready. He's now "awake." And so our story begins.
It returns to the magical realism when Uncle Isak performs the magic trick that rescues Fanny and Alexander from the bishop. THIS is the history of magic, and Alexander needs to learn from him, as well as from Aron and Ishmael. Alexander can do magic, he just isn't prepared for the force of it (what artist is? I ask) ...there is a rawness to the scene where Ishmael undresses Alexander (is it sexual? well, probably but also it's a form of baptism, into the magical arts) we lose our innocence slowly at first and then quickly. I'm rambling here but that's okay. It's a way of exploring (plus I'm writing extempore, which is not recommended for long-term use)...
Great stuff, Brock. I need to revisit Ibsen. I have Strindberg's A Dream Play on order from the local library, and watched Miss Julie over last weekend, and yeah, that cat definitely distrusts women. I believe Bergman wasn't that way and wanted to try to tell the story from the viewpoint of women in F&A. Did he succeed? The jury's out on that, in my view. Fascinating stuff!
BTW: Sexual politics is coming in later episodes but I'm thinking of the children here, actually. Even in opulence at the start, there IS something quite brutal about their upbringing. Childhood is frightening. Alexander is overwhelmed by the future. I can relate to that. The child actor is extraordinary.
F&A is really a masterpiece because it takes on so much at once. Maybe too much? It can be overwhelming. It's funny but my childhood Christmases were just a opulent and over-the-top and I don't think it bodes well for the future. It's a form of insecurity, I think, but that's another kettle of fish.
Yes "ex tempore" but that's what a chat is all about. You gave me quite a light bulb moment: I love your reminder: just the single image of the state moving . . . The significance of ritualistic acts. This is the stuff of the theatre. I'm afraid fitting in any more plays would make it MORE impossible than it already is, but the Ibsen really helps. I hope my essay encourages even just a handful of people to connect the two. Whatever men they were beyond the performance and the image, they changed their mediums. And there is a direct (probable) causal relation.
Well, here’s an idea (and maybe another light bulb moment for you)…rather than lean in on Ibsen, just reference what’s pertinent? I don’t know Strindberg, but apparently Bergman was shaped by him and his plays so I have no idea what “worth” A Dream Play will be but Bergman chose to leave F&A in Strindberg’s capable hands and I must follow up and see what it yields.
I think this is the way for all the arts: follow your nose. See where it leads. Don’t “pre-select” what might be useful from what might not. You never know until you sort through all the materials. Good luck!
I think I’ll be able to hone in much more on the film itself once I’ve finished the series. It’s a good reminder: they are separate reviews anyway. And my mind could change. I will read Strindberg. Plays are short, and you can even just sit and watch.
It’s quite an experience soaking it in, yes. Great observations, great tips! I think the essay will benefit a lot from a discussion just based off notes (“off the cuff” as it is, it’s a starting point).
Ah! - but I'm forgetting! The Bishop's domineering influence in the later episodes!
If any Bergmanite here can help me out - I'm really fascinated by this theme of personal desire v. societal constraints. Where do you see it in the first two episodes?
Please feel free to comment on F&A here. When we start with Winter Light in January, I'll have a newsletter just for that, etc. If you can stop by the Chat on the date listed, within the time frame, all the better! Cheers and happy holidays.
I've seen a lot of Bergman and must've missed that! I'll see if I can track it down. The Seventh Seal actually has a lot of comedic elements, given its subject matter.
In fact, I wanted to do a short film parody of it called "The Seventh Seating" about a shopper who arrives at Ikea only to be joined by Death, to hilarious (one hopes) consequences!
As Michael knows, I am working toward a series on Ibsen and Bergman on my site, so I've put off Bergman SOMEWHAT. I saw Episode 1 one week ago, and I watched episode two this evening in Hanoi.
I hope that this is helpful for people as a little preview of how I might relate Ibsen (the playwright and Bergman - the auteur film director). The difficulty here is that I'm afraid I've set myself an impossible task; this is a kind of brainstorming I've written and pasted here though, halfway now.
Episode(s) 1-2 (My Notes):
The introduction to the Ekdahl family dynamics in this episode really reminded me of Ibsen's exploration of familial obligations like those in "Ghosts". There is a clear tension between maintaining family honor and dealing with personal secrets that feels just as palpable in both Bergman and Ibsen's plays.
- Alexander's wild imaginative escapades - "The Wild Duck": of all Ibsens plays: there's magical realism in both . . . I need to see more scholarship about where this comes from in Scandinavian history/culture, and into the present. Illusion and reality blend, hinting at the deeper questions we might face about how much truth we can handle.
-Bergman, in these early episodes, is most pressing into the conflict between personal desires and societal norms, for me.
The theatrical elements are obvious. (Metatheatrical, I should say). I've now seen Fanny and Alexander 2.5 times and this third round is the first with the full television series. My gosh, the artistry, character and world building . . . It's almost impossible to incapsulate what is ALL that is unfolding here. "Hedda Gabler" is my favourite of Ibsen's plays . . . oddly, I don't see it figuring much in my analysis of the film. But there will be time for that soon.
Are these notes even legible? I hope the names of the plays pop out at least. If you're a Bergman fan, Ibsen is an ESSENTIAL resource!! Same for Michael Haneke . . . I want Haneke to adapt a film version of "Hedda Gabler."
There are a number of things still to address about F&A: Sexual politics and familial obligation, and the question of "magical realism" Brock tackles here. Let me start with that because it's dogged me for years (at least the years I've watched F&A over and over again)... There's only one scene at the beginning of that...when the statue moves. What is it doing? Why does it attract Alexander's interest? It's eerie, but I think it has a message. Alexander is a potential artist, but he isn't aware of it yet. The statue is, I think, "beckoning him toward his future" as an artist. He's ready. He's now "awake." And so our story begins.
It returns to the magical realism when Uncle Isak performs the magic trick that rescues Fanny and Alexander from the bishop. THIS is the history of magic, and Alexander needs to learn from him, as well as from Aron and Ishmael. Alexander can do magic, he just isn't prepared for the force of it (what artist is? I ask) ...there is a rawness to the scene where Ishmael undresses Alexander (is it sexual? well, probably but also it's a form of baptism, into the magical arts) we lose our innocence slowly at first and then quickly. I'm rambling here but that's okay. It's a way of exploring (plus I'm writing extempore, which is not recommended for long-term use)...
Great stuff, Brock. I need to revisit Ibsen. I have Strindberg's A Dream Play on order from the local library, and watched Miss Julie over last weekend, and yeah, that cat definitely distrusts women. I believe Bergman wasn't that way and wanted to try to tell the story from the viewpoint of women in F&A. Did he succeed? The jury's out on that, in my view. Fascinating stuff!
BTW: Sexual politics is coming in later episodes but I'm thinking of the children here, actually. Even in opulence at the start, there IS something quite brutal about their upbringing. Childhood is frightening. Alexander is overwhelmed by the future. I can relate to that. The child actor is extraordinary.
F&A is really a masterpiece because it takes on so much at once. Maybe too much? It can be overwhelming. It's funny but my childhood Christmases were just a opulent and over-the-top and I don't think it bodes well for the future. It's a form of insecurity, I think, but that's another kettle of fish.
Yes "ex tempore" but that's what a chat is all about. You gave me quite a light bulb moment: I love your reminder: just the single image of the state moving . . . The significance of ritualistic acts. This is the stuff of the theatre. I'm afraid fitting in any more plays would make it MORE impossible than it already is, but the Ibsen really helps. I hope my essay encourages even just a handful of people to connect the two. Whatever men they were beyond the performance and the image, they changed their mediums. And there is a direct (probable) causal relation.
Well, here’s an idea (and maybe another light bulb moment for you)…rather than lean in on Ibsen, just reference what’s pertinent? I don’t know Strindberg, but apparently Bergman was shaped by him and his plays so I have no idea what “worth” A Dream Play will be but Bergman chose to leave F&A in Strindberg’s capable hands and I must follow up and see what it yields.
I think this is the way for all the arts: follow your nose. See where it leads. Don’t “pre-select” what might be useful from what might not. You never know until you sort through all the materials. Good luck!
Thanks Michael!
I think I’ll be able to hone in much more on the film itself once I’ve finished the series. It’s a good reminder: they are separate reviews anyway. And my mind could change. I will read Strindberg. Plays are short, and you can even just sit and watch.
It’s quite an experience soaking it in, yes. Great observations, great tips! I think the essay will benefit a lot from a discussion just based off notes (“off the cuff” as it is, it’s a starting point).
Regards - and talk soon!
Brock
cheers mate
Ah! - but I'm forgetting! The Bishop's domineering influence in the later episodes!
If any Bergmanite here can help me out - I'm really fascinated by this theme of personal desire v. societal constraints. Where do you see it in the first two episodes?
Bergman wrestled with religion his entire film career. I love him for it. Courageous.
Which version are you watching? 3 hour light-dusting or 5 hour heavy snow?
Will the videos be posted to the site after? I live in Asia so the timezone difference may make it difficult
Just leave your comments on the StoryShed newsletter post page. We will do Chat on Sat and comments ongoing, for that reason of time difference!
Wonderful!
Please feel free to comment on F&A here. When we start with Winter Light in January, I'll have a newsletter just for that, etc. If you can stop by the Chat on the date listed, within the time frame, all the better! Cheers and happy holidays.
Excellent. I'll comment episode by episode then. I'm splitting it over the month. It will help me formulate my (Christmas Eve) review!
I've seen a lot of Bergman and must've missed that! I'll see if I can track it down. The Seventh Seal actually has a lot of comedic elements, given its subject matter.
In fact, I wanted to do a short film parody of it called "The Seventh Seating" about a shopper who arrives at Ikea only to be joined by Death, to hilarious (one hopes) consequences!