Quite simply, one of the finest, most perceptive and beautifully-written essays i’ve read in a very long time.
I’m unfamiliar with Rob Doyle’s work, but will seek it out on the basis that the insight and honesty he brings forth is worth pursuing further (which is a rarity for me).
So much could be said in response, but what stands out the most is the sheer humanity which his study of Bergman manifests. There’s the clarity of a tolling bell, both solemn yet also joyous, resonating throughout with the lived – and dreamed – experience we all share.
Whilst i don’t personally suffer from jealousy of the sexual experiences of those i’ve loved (rather seeing them as a benefit to be brought to the present moment, or perhaps more fittingly, a smorgasbord) in reading Doyle’s description of Bergman’s self-inflicted torment it stands as a metaphor for all the other torments we humans somehow manage to entangle ourselves within. The theme of the loss of God also rings clear; not as i suspect some might say, that should herald a return to God, but in order to explore how we continue in the absence of something we’ve inflicted upon ourselves through the illusion of imagining the presence of a God in the universe in the first place.
Essays such as this can only give us nourishment for our journey; manna, not from heaven, but from our own humanity.
Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Quite simply, one of the finest, most perceptive and beautifully-written essays i’ve read in a very long time.
I’m unfamiliar with Rob Doyle’s work, but will seek it out on the basis that the insight and honesty he brings forth is worth pursuing further (which is a rarity for me).
So much could be said in response, but what stands out the most is the sheer humanity which his study of Bergman manifests. There’s the clarity of a tolling bell, both solemn yet also joyous, resonating throughout with the lived – and dreamed – experience we all share.
Whilst i don’t personally suffer from jealousy of the sexual experiences of those i’ve loved (rather seeing them as a benefit to be brought to the present moment, or perhaps more fittingly, a smorgasbord) in reading Doyle’s description of Bergman’s self-inflicted torment it stands as a metaphor for all the other torments we humans somehow manage to entangle ourselves within. The theme of the loss of God also rings clear; not as i suspect some might say, that should herald a return to God, but in order to explore how we continue in the absence of something we’ve inflicted upon ourselves through the illusion of imagining the presence of a God in the universe in the first place.
Essays such as this can only give us nourishment for our journey; manna, not from heaven, but from our own humanity.
Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Murray
J Bryant
1 year ago
I’m probably the wrong audience for this essay. I’m not arty and am only vaguely aware of Bergman. But I must say this is a fine essay. Very perceptive and insightful and has even motivated me to borrow a Bergman movie from our library.
J Bryant
1 year ago
I’m probably the wrong audience for this essay. I’m not arty and am only vaguely aware of Bergman. But I must say this is a fine essay. Very perceptive and insightful and has even motivated me to borrow a Bergman movie from our library.
Friedrich Tellberg
1 year ago
Beautiful and interesting. Many things in Bergman’s work are still very much worth looking and thinking about. Thank you.
Friedrich Tellberg
1 year ago
Beautiful and interesting. Many things in Bergman’s work are still very much worth looking and thinking about. Thank you.
Simon Bonini
1 year ago
I read this having just watched Scenes from a Marriage (the remake) which is still very much Bergman in its construction and staging. Rob’s piece is excellent in that he packs so much in and adds his personal perspective around the facts. I was amazed that only 3 of 8 children attended Bergman’s funeral. A level of self absorption and introspection that lead to the neglect of all those around him? So many questions, observations and ideas raised by this excellent piece that informs and provokes.
You will find a similiar story with many artists that they ended up not on talking terms with children.Bob Dylan once said that most artists if they become parents have to make a choice between putting their work first or putting their children first.Obviously it might help if they picked the right spouse to help.
You will find a similiar story with many artists that they ended up not on talking terms with children.Bob Dylan once said that most artists if they become parents have to make a choice between putting their work first or putting their children first.Obviously it might help if they picked the right spouse to help.
Simon Bonini
1 year ago
I read this having just watched Scenes from a Marriage (the remake) which is still very much Bergman in its construction and staging. Rob’s piece is excellent in that he packs so much in and adds his personal perspective around the facts. I was amazed that only 3 of 8 children attended Bergman’s funeral. A level of self absorption and introspection that lead to the neglect of all those around him? So many questions, observations and ideas raised by this excellent piece that informs and provokes.
Emmanuel MARTIN
1 year ago
So a sexual predator who coerced actresses into sex and tyrannized his whole cast. This behavior is fully and compeltely unacceptable.
We can discuss the harasser’s films on their own merit, but having such outrageous behavior, especially from a old white male still loved by many on the cultural left (the one that complains about evil patriarchy) disqualifies the realisator as an ineresting or acceptable topic for discussion.
Oh dear, oh dear. You do realise how philosophically barren and morally dubious such an attitude is, don’t you? Do you really believe that only art made by Nice People is “an interesting or acceptable topic for discussion”? At best this sounds like a caricatured restatement of the cliched old notion of middle-class ‘respectability’; at worst it reads like a precept of every totalitarian ideology in human history.
#metoo was about getting rid of people like Harvey Wenstein and Ingmar Bergman. It enjoyed popular support, and no real opposition from the Phil Simmons of the time.
Tehrefore that ship has sailed.
The #metoo campaign was actually about listening to women who had been abused by powerful men. As a result, serial abusers like Weinstein were held to account and judicially punished. However, so far as I am aware all the films produced by Weinstein are still out there. Are you suggesting a purge of the same? And how about burning all books and paintings by writers and artists who have behaved badly? As I said, such a conclusion would be philosophically barren and morally – well, I originally said ‘dubious’, but I think ‘grossly simplistic and highly dangerous’ is probably more like it. Why should we stop at art? Why not destroy and write out of history anything associated with anybody whose conduct has been less than socially acceptable? And in that case, who makes the decision to do so? There’s a reason democracies have legal systems, and a reason that those legal systems concentrate on individuals and their specific conduct in specific areas. Justice does not mandate guilt by association or the making of ‘un-persons.’
If that question is aimed at me, then no ‘exception’ is being made, either aesthetically or judicially. I have no idea whether or not Ingmar Bergman engaged in unlawful activity, but even if he did that would not detract one iota from the existence or validity of his work. Equally, I’ve never heard of any judicial action against him (nor, until you started banging on about it) any allegation of impropriety that might attract such action. If there had been, then the matter would have been up to a court, of law, but even a guilty verdict wouldn’t have altered any of his films, which are either good work on their own merits or they are not. Bergman is now dead, of course.. If your allegations are correct, he joins the ranks of the artistic departed who weren’t Nice People but whose work deservedly survives on the basis of its aesthetic merit, and not because the Commissars of Righteousness have approved its author’s biography.
If that question is aimed at me, then no ‘exception’ is being made, either aesthetically or judicially. I have no idea whether or not Ingmar Bergman engaged in unlawful activity, but even if he did that would not detract one iota from the existence or validity of his work. Equally, I’ve never heard of any judicial action against him (nor, until you started banging on about it) any allegation of impropriety that might attract such action. If there had been, then the matter would have been up to a court, of law, but even a guilty verdict wouldn’t have altered any of his films, which are either good work on their own merits or they are not. Bergman is now dead, of course.. If your allegations are correct, he joins the ranks of the artistic departed who weren’t Nice People but whose work deservedly survives on the basis of its aesthetic merit, and not because the Commissars of Righteousness have approved its author’s biography.
The #metoo campaign was actually about listening to women who had been abused by powerful men. As a result, serial abusers like Weinstein were held to account and judicially punished. However, so far as I am aware all the films produced by Weinstein are still out there. Are you suggesting a purge of the same? And how about burning all books and paintings by writers and artists who have behaved badly? As I said, such a conclusion would be philosophically barren and morally – well, I originally said ‘dubious’, but I think ‘grossly simplistic and highly dangerous’ is probably more like it. Why should we stop at art? Why not destroy and write out of history anything associated with anybody whose conduct has been less than socially acceptable? And in that case, who makes the decision to do so? There’s a reason democracies have legal systems, and a reason that those legal systems concentrate on individuals and their specific conduct in specific areas. Justice does not mandate guilt by association or the making of ‘un-persons.’
#metoo was about getting rid of people like Harvey Wenstein and Ingmar Bergman. It enjoyed popular support, and no real opposition from the Phil Simmons of the time.
Tehrefore that ship has sailed.
Oh dear, oh dear. You do realise how philosophically barren and morally dubious such an attitude is, don’t you? Do you really believe that only art made by Nice People is “an interesting or acceptable topic for discussion”? At best this sounds like a caricatured restatement of the cliched old notion of middle-class ‘respectability’; at worst it reads like a precept of every totalitarian ideology in human history.
Emmanuel MARTIN
1 year ago
So a sexual predator who coerced actresses into sex and tyrannized his whole cast. This behavior is fully and compeltely unacceptable.
We can discuss the harasser’s films on their own merit, but having such outrageous behavior, especially from a old white male still loved by many on the cultural left (the one that complains about evil patriarchy) disqualifies the realisator as an ineresting or acceptable topic for discussion.
Main Edition
US
FR
Quite simply, one of the finest, most perceptive and beautifully-written essays i’ve read in a very long time.
I’m unfamiliar with Rob Doyle’s work, but will seek it out on the basis that the insight and honesty he brings forth is worth pursuing further (which is a rarity for me).
So much could be said in response, but what stands out the most is the sheer humanity which his study of Bergman manifests. There’s the clarity of a tolling bell, both solemn yet also joyous, resonating throughout with the lived – and dreamed – experience we all share.
Whilst i don’t personally suffer from jealousy of the sexual experiences of those i’ve loved (rather seeing them as a benefit to be brought to the present moment, or perhaps more fittingly, a smorgasbord) in reading Doyle’s description of Bergman’s self-inflicted torment it stands as a metaphor for all the other torments we humans somehow manage to entangle ourselves within. The theme of the loss of God also rings clear; not as i suspect some might say, that should herald a return to God, but in order to explore how we continue in the absence of something we’ve inflicted upon ourselves through the illusion of imagining the presence of a God in the universe in the first place.
Essays such as this can only give us nourishment for our journey; manna, not from heaven, but from our own humanity.
Quite simply, one of the finest, most perceptive and beautifully-written essays i’ve read in a very long time.
I’m unfamiliar with Rob Doyle’s work, but will seek it out on the basis that the insight and honesty he brings forth is worth pursuing further (which is a rarity for me).
So much could be said in response, but what stands out the most is the sheer humanity which his study of Bergman manifests. There’s the clarity of a tolling bell, both solemn yet also joyous, resonating throughout with the lived – and dreamed – experience we all share.
Whilst i don’t personally suffer from jealousy of the sexual experiences of those i’ve loved (rather seeing them as a benefit to be brought to the present moment, or perhaps more fittingly, a smorgasbord) in reading Doyle’s description of Bergman’s self-inflicted torment it stands as a metaphor for all the other torments we humans somehow manage to entangle ourselves within. The theme of the loss of God also rings clear; not as i suspect some might say, that should herald a return to God, but in order to explore how we continue in the absence of something we’ve inflicted upon ourselves through the illusion of imagining the presence of a God in the universe in the first place.
Essays such as this can only give us nourishment for our journey; manna, not from heaven, but from our own humanity.
I’m probably the wrong audience for this essay. I’m not arty and am only vaguely aware of Bergman. But I must say this is a fine essay. Very perceptive and insightful and has even motivated me to borrow a Bergman movie from our library.
I’m probably the wrong audience for this essay. I’m not arty and am only vaguely aware of Bergman. But I must say this is a fine essay. Very perceptive and insightful and has even motivated me to borrow a Bergman movie from our library.
Beautiful and interesting. Many things in Bergman’s work are still very much worth looking and thinking about. Thank you.
Beautiful and interesting. Many things in Bergman’s work are still very much worth looking and thinking about. Thank you.
I read this having just watched Scenes from a Marriage (the remake) which is still very much Bergman in its construction and staging. Rob’s piece is excellent in that he packs so much in and adds his personal perspective around the facts. I was amazed that only 3 of 8 children attended Bergman’s funeral. A level of self absorption and introspection that lead to the neglect of all those around him? So many questions, observations and ideas raised by this excellent piece that informs and provokes.
You will find a similiar story with many artists that they ended up not on talking terms with children.Bob Dylan once said that most artists if they become parents have to make a choice between putting their work first or putting their children first.Obviously it might help if they picked the right spouse to help.
You will find a similiar story with many artists that they ended up not on talking terms with children.Bob Dylan once said that most artists if they become parents have to make a choice between putting their work first or putting their children first.Obviously it might help if they picked the right spouse to help.
I read this having just watched Scenes from a Marriage (the remake) which is still very much Bergman in its construction and staging. Rob’s piece is excellent in that he packs so much in and adds his personal perspective around the facts. I was amazed that only 3 of 8 children attended Bergman’s funeral. A level of self absorption and introspection that lead to the neglect of all those around him? So many questions, observations and ideas raised by this excellent piece that informs and provokes.
So a sexual predator who coerced actresses into sex and tyrannized his whole cast. This behavior is fully and compeltely unacceptable.
We can discuss the harasser’s films on their own merit, but having such outrageous behavior, especially from a old white male still loved by many on the cultural left (the one that complains about evil patriarchy) disqualifies the realisator as an ineresting or acceptable topic for discussion.
Oh dear, oh dear. You do realise how philosophically barren and morally dubious such an attitude is, don’t you? Do you really believe that only art made by Nice People is “an interesting or acceptable topic for discussion”? At best this sounds like a caricatured restatement of the cliched old notion of middle-class ‘respectability’; at worst it reads like a precept of every totalitarian ideology in human history.
Well said, spot on!
#metoo was about getting rid of people like Harvey Wenstein and Ingmar Bergman. It enjoyed popular support, and no real opposition from the Phil Simmons of the time.
Tehrefore that ship has sailed.
The #metoo campaign was actually about listening to women who had been abused by powerful men. As a result, serial abusers like Weinstein were held to account and judicially punished. However, so far as I am aware all the films produced by Weinstein are still out there. Are you suggesting a purge of the same? And how about burning all books and paintings by writers and artists who have behaved badly? As I said, such a conclusion would be philosophically barren and morally – well, I originally said ‘dubious’, but I think ‘grossly simplistic and highly dangerous’ is probably more like it. Why should we stop at art? Why not destroy and write out of history anything associated with anybody whose conduct has been less than socially acceptable? And in that case, who makes the decision to do so? There’s a reason democracies have legal systems, and a reason that those legal systems concentrate on individuals and their specific conduct in specific areas. Justice does not mandate guilt by association or the making of ‘un-persons.’
Bravo, sir.
While I agree with that view, modern society does not. So why make an exception for Bergman ?
If that question is aimed at me, then no ‘exception’ is being made, either aesthetically or judicially. I have no idea whether or not Ingmar Bergman engaged in unlawful activity, but even if he did that would not detract one iota from the existence or validity of his work. Equally, I’ve never heard of any judicial action against him (nor, until you started banging on about it) any allegation of impropriety that might attract such action. If there had been, then the matter would have been up to a court, of law, but even a guilty verdict wouldn’t have altered any of his films, which are either good work on their own merits or they are not. Bergman is now dead, of course.. If your allegations are correct, he joins the ranks of the artistic departed who weren’t Nice People but whose work deservedly survives on the basis of its aesthetic merit, and not because the Commissars of Righteousness have approved its author’s biography.
If that question is aimed at me, then no ‘exception’ is being made, either aesthetically or judicially. I have no idea whether or not Ingmar Bergman engaged in unlawful activity, but even if he did that would not detract one iota from the existence or validity of his work. Equally, I’ve never heard of any judicial action against him (nor, until you started banging on about it) any allegation of impropriety that might attract such action. If there had been, then the matter would have been up to a court, of law, but even a guilty verdict wouldn’t have altered any of his films, which are either good work on their own merits or they are not. Bergman is now dead, of course.. If your allegations are correct, he joins the ranks of the artistic departed who weren’t Nice People but whose work deservedly survives on the basis of its aesthetic merit, and not because the Commissars of Righteousness have approved its author’s biography.
Bravo, sir.
While I agree with that view, modern society does not. So why make an exception for Bergman ?
The #metoo campaign was actually about listening to women who had been abused by powerful men. As a result, serial abusers like Weinstein were held to account and judicially punished. However, so far as I am aware all the films produced by Weinstein are still out there. Are you suggesting a purge of the same? And how about burning all books and paintings by writers and artists who have behaved badly? As I said, such a conclusion would be philosophically barren and morally – well, I originally said ‘dubious’, but I think ‘grossly simplistic and highly dangerous’ is probably more like it. Why should we stop at art? Why not destroy and write out of history anything associated with anybody whose conduct has been less than socially acceptable? And in that case, who makes the decision to do so? There’s a reason democracies have legal systems, and a reason that those legal systems concentrate on individuals and their specific conduct in specific areas. Justice does not mandate guilt by association or the making of ‘un-persons.’
Well said, spot on!
#metoo was about getting rid of people like Harvey Wenstein and Ingmar Bergman. It enjoyed popular support, and no real opposition from the Phil Simmons of the time.
Tehrefore that ship has sailed.
Oh dear, oh dear. You do realise how philosophically barren and morally dubious such an attitude is, don’t you? Do you really believe that only art made by Nice People is “an interesting or acceptable topic for discussion”? At best this sounds like a caricatured restatement of the cliched old notion of middle-class ‘respectability’; at worst it reads like a precept of every totalitarian ideology in human history.
So a sexual predator who coerced actresses into sex and tyrannized his whole cast. This behavior is fully and compeltely unacceptable.
We can discuss the harasser’s films on their own merit, but having such outrageous behavior, especially from a old white male still loved by many on the cultural left (the one that complains about evil patriarchy) disqualifies the realisator as an ineresting or acceptable topic for discussion.