The Ingmar Bergman Collection [DVD]

This is a collection of 30 movies by one of the greatest artists of the last 100 years. The movies therein are filled with wonders and food for contemplation. They are done with intelligence, taste, incredible perception and the great courage of a man who decided the best way to evolve as a human being was to explore and share his views, troubles and questions with us.

And people are getting picky about synopsis and completeness?! I honestly don't get that.

I too could argue the choice of films. The Hour of the Wolf and Fanny and Alexander are two excellent movies that I fail to understand why aren't included. But to aim for completeness is unthinkable since some of the movies aren't even available in DVD format yet. Face to Face(1976) is the only one I can remember now but I think there are more.

Anyway, this is a beautiful set of movies. The box is very tasteful and the booklet provides a lot of information, all the information you need about the movies.

To know Bergman's movies is not for the superficial. I like to think of works of art as people. Bergman's movies aren't the type of people to have superficial relations with. They're like the type of person that you meet once and always have a feeling that you'd have to meet many more times to fully understand, and even then, there would always be something that escaped you. They're definitely not the kind of person that you will meet the second time and ask: "What was your name again?". No, these movies demand your attention and your thought, which will make you remember them for sure (given that you are interested in this type of relationship). So, what's the use of the synopsis? Once you've seen the movie you won't need a second introduction, if you were truly interested.

This is a perfect collection for those who haven't many of Bergman's movies already but wish to have a good collection of his work. Tartan should release the Faro-Dokument and other previously unreleased material by itself though, for those who already have most or all of the movies. I'm sure they'll do that in due time. They're probably just waiting for this limited edition to run out and then release the new stuff on its own.

Overall, I think it's a beautiful gift Tartan has presented to all of Bergman's present fans and those who may want to become fans in the future. Thank you, Tartan. Thank you, Mister Bergman.

Much as I sympathise with the previous reviewer, I can only say a big thank you to Tartan for releasing this excellent box set. Bergman fans, please note that the set also contains a booklet and a certificate because this box set is only limited to 1000 copies - something not mentioned in the description.

The DVDs are beautiful (even if the environmentally friendly cardboard cases are a bit flimsy and home-made looking) but I have deducted a star because 1) they give no film synopsis on the back. (OK, the info is all in the booklet but that's not the point.) 2) It doesn't include the full canon of Bergman's work.

Still 210 quid for 30 movies - what a New Year bargain!

When MGM first brought out the set, two of the films were in the wrong aspect ratio.
However, to their credit, MGM recalled the set, and put out corrected versions. The new
set, while not perfect, are generally very good to excellent quality transfers of some of
Bergman's most interesting, if variable work. There's also
an entire disk of extras which is worthwhile in itself.

My diary notes on the films;

Persona - Originally some the earlier Bergman films harder for me to get into,
because most of the Bergman I saw first were from late in his career
and far more 'naturalistic' - 'Fanny and Alexander', 'Autumn Sonata',
'Scenes From a Marriage' etc. I don't think I understood that for much
of his great career he was as much an experimentalist (at times) as
David Lynch, or Fellini, or Kubrick or Godard. Now that I understand
that, it's easier for me to get excited by the earlier experimental
work.

Also, with 'Persona' the experiment seems more subtle and complex than
in some of Bergman's other early work. The themes are right out in the
open but there's much less literalness in the questions. The whole FILM
is a series of questions, but posed in a poetic way - what is identity?
What is acting? What is film? What are the boundaries between people?
What is reality and what is a dream, both in this film, and in our own
experiences?

This is a haunting deeply disturbing work, and part of it's very
effectiveness is it's 'unexplainability', ala '2001' or a Magritte
painting. Like a Koan, it forces you to try and make sense of something
that has no simple answer.

On first viewing there were a few times when things felt a little on
the nose, or my feeling of 'huh?' was the bad kind, not the good one.

But this is a fascinating film, that combines some of the most truly
dreamlike sequences I've ever seen with what seems a conventional
narrative, only to curve in on itself into obscurity yet again. It is
ultimately the kind of puzzle that art does best - it makes you ponder
things both consciously and subconsciously at the same time.

The two lead performances by Bibi Anderson and Liv Ullmann are
extraordinary, and Sven Nykvist again creates a series of unforgettable
images (now with the wider palate that Bergman started towards in 'The
Silence' - more camera moves, more 'cinematic' angles.).

But the nexus of this film, isn't the acting or the photography (though
the film would fail miserably without both being great), this is a film
about the inside of the filmmaker's mind, and by extension the inside
of all of our minds as we fight to make sense of the lives we lead.

It also has the single most erotic scene where nothing physical happens
I've ever encountered. And it's that kind of paradox that 'Persona' is
all about. I know I will get more from repeated viewings. The film begs
for it.

It's also impossible to note how many films since have borrowed its
techniques and images. Indeed, after the rare moments I felt
dismissively 'we've seen this idea before', I'd realize 'no we HADN'T
seen it before Bergman made this film.

Shame - Dubbed a masterpiece by almost every critic I respect. I certainly thought this was a brilliantly
well made film, but one that didn't quite give me the kind of devastating emotional effect
experienced by so many.

In fact, going in knowing little about the film (I try to avoid reviews before I see a film),
part of what I liked about it must seem like sacrilege to most, who see the film as
completely, unbearably bleak. I may be insane, but I actually found a good portion of it
powerfully, blackly funny, in a sort of 'Dr. Strangelove', Roy Andersson, dryly Scandanavian
sort of way.

The surreal insanity of the behavior of the soldiers and officials around our normal
working-class couple seemed so exaggerated, almost Keystone Cops with guns, that
it DID seem effectively anti-war, but not in the way seen by those who cite it's unrelieved
depression and misery as being where the film gets its power.

That said, it certainly seemed to grow ever more 'real', and by the end felt truly dramatic
and haunting.

I wonder how I could so misread Bergman's intentions. Certainly, if we're supposed to take
the early to middle completely seriously and literally the film would work much less well for
me than it did, since the horrors these people are exposed to on a literal level seem like
nothing compared to the victims of 'real world' wars, where they probably would have been
dead very quickly.

Take this for what it probably is - an odd outlier opinion, and one that may be replaced when
I see the film again, which I look forward to. But then, hopefully the occasional outlier can
supply a useful alternate point of view.

Hour of the Wolf - This left me confused about whether it's a great film or merely an extremely entertaining one. As surreal and
enigmatic as 'Persona', but with a lighter touch, more of a ghost story of a kind. However, it has the same
self-reflective acknowledgment that you're watching a film, scenes that leave you wondering what's real
and what's a dream, etc.

The themes don't seem as deep as "Persona", but that doesn't stop this from being deeply absorbing. It's still
brilliant filmmaking, full of breathtaking images. And I have the feeling it will grow on repeated viewings,

A wife recounts the very odd series of events leading to her unstable artist-husband's disappearance when
they stayed on an almost abandoned island.

Some of the smaller roles are intentionally - but I found annoyingly -played over the top.

No question that this film was a serious influence on David Lynch.

The Passion of Anna - his film represents some remarkable changes for Bergman; using color
in as careful and striking away as had been using black and white, and
a looser, less astringent feel to the story telling (indeed, this was
the first film where he experimented with letting his actors
improvise). The film feels more human, the edges softer. On the other
hands, the themes are classic middle period Bergman - lies vs., truth,
hope vs. despair, etc. And on a plot level there are some interesting
echoes of 'Persona' in both its confused identities and Godard like
interruptions, but in a much subtler more smoothly integrated style.

I found the wonderful acting and fascinating film-making choices
overrode the problem of distance I feel with some of Bergman's early
and middle work. I always admire the films; the bravery, the acting,
the style, the deepness of their ideas, the complete lack of
compromise. But sometimes I just don't feel as drawn in on a visceral
level.

The story; four people on an island; an ex-criminal hiding from
society, an architect with disdain for humanity and his fragile,
insomniac wife, and their friend Anna whose husband and child died in a
car wreck which left her with a limp all end up having their lives
intertwine, leading to revelations and the stripping away of
self-delusions.

The title 'The Passion of Anna' was an invention of the US distributor,
over Bergman's favored 'A Passion'. This is a case where a wrong title
can seriously effect one's perception of a film, since Anna is really a
supporting character. Beyond this, 'A Passion' makes clear the fact
that all four characters in the film are working their way through
emotional destruction, as Christ went through physical destruction in
The Passion. Further, the only title on screen is 'L 162', Only one
professional critic I've read tried to make sense of the actual title's
meaning (his guess: A file number that one of the four characters keeps
various photographs, often of violence, under.)

The Serpent's Egg - While not a masterpiece, this is also far from the mess
most critics took it for. An intelligent failure (or modest success) Bergman looks
at Germany in the 20s as laying the groundwork for Hitler and the Nazis.

Liv Ullman is terrific, as always. And if David Carradine is only good, not great,
he certainly didn't deserve the critical attacks he received. The nature of his character
is a man so locked in passivity as to be enigmatic. You might not like that kind of
character, but it's certainly not the actor's fault for carrying it out well.

Yes, some of it is slow, and some a bit obvious, but those charges could also be
leveled against some Bergman films labeled masterpieces.

As a cautionary tale of where we were once before, and could end up again, I've certainly
seen far worse. It has some truly chilling moments. And I think seeing it again may reveal even more...