What's fascinating about Bergman—to me, obvs—is how devoted he was to his art, placing it above everything else. Women were at the center of that art. He wouldn't resolve fallouts with his ex-wives so he would remain emotionally, artistically and contradictorily fed. Even after fame, money and reputation, art was still his main thing. We don't see that anymore. Especially if you consider it from a two-sided perspective: he loved cinema more than anything _and_ cinema loved him back. (Perhaps the closest we would get today is Kendrick and his love for the game?)
I also think Bergman was never afraid to portray the truth as he saw it—whether in friendships, love, family or dreams. The first scenes of Shame comes to mind, when Eva says to Max "You can't be so sensitive, I can't stand it."
You have to be immensely committed to art to continue like this after becoming known worldwide. Because it's not subtle, it's not sugarcoated—it feels so real and you know Max it's just him.
And the aesthetics: austere yet deeply memorable on so many levels. I think you touched on some of that in 'what he wrote.' It's very Bergmanesque, isn't it?
“People ask what are my intentions with my films — my aims. It is a difficult and dangerous question, and I usually give an evasive answer: I try to tell the truth about the human condition, the truth as I see it. This answer seems to satisfy everyone, but it is not quite correct. I prefer to describe what I would like my aim to be. There is an old story of how the cathedral of Chartres was struck by lightning and burned to the ground. Then thousands of people came from all points of the compass, like a giant procession of ants, and together they began to rebuild the cathedral on its old site. They worked until the building was completed — master builders, artists, labourers, clowns, noblemen, priests, burghers. But they all remained anonymous, and no one knows to this day who built the cathedral of Chartres.
Regardless of my own beliefs and my own doubts, which are unimportant in this connection, it is my opinion that art lost its basic creative drive the moment it was separated from worship. It severed an umbilical cord and now lives its own sterile life, generating and degenerating itself. In former days the artist remained unknown and his work was to the glory of God. He lived and died without being more or less important than other artisans; “eternal values,” “immortality” and “masterpiece” were terms not applicable in his case. The ability to create was a gift. In such a world flourished invulnerable assurance and natural humility. Today the individual has become the highest form and the greatest bane of artistic creation.
The smallest wound or pain of the ego is examined under a microscope as if it were of eternal importance. The artist considers his isolation, his subjectivity, his individualism almost holy. Thus we finally gather in one large pen, where we stand and bleat about our loneliness without listening to each other and without realizing that we are smothering each other to death. The individualists stare into each other’s eyes and yet deny the existence of each other.
We walk in circles, so limited by our own anxieties that we can no longer distinguish between true and false, between the gangster’s whim and the purest ideal. Thus if I am asked what I would like the general purpose of my films to be, I would reply that I want to be one of the artists in the cathedral on the great plain. I want to make a dragon’s head, an angel, a devil — or perhaps a saint — out of stone. It does not matter which; it is the sense of satisfaction that counts.
Regardless of whether I believe or not, whether I am a Christian or not, I would play my part in the collective building of the cathedral.“
I will be revisiting this again to let it melt into my mind even deeper - there is something here that is surprising to me, I've known and felt the sexual nature of creativity but the chemistry between two people in the process of creation, being harnessed..that's interesting. Please delve into this topic again!
I have been writing songs with my best friend for nearly 20 years, we do it as a therapy nowadays. In the early days we did it because we wanted to be admired by our peers and hopefully to create some income (neither of these things have happened) I come up with the melodies and he writes the words, most of the time that initial engagement of creativity is where the meaning and direction of the song eventually ends up, there has never been anything other than genuine connection. I do think of Beverly and John Martyn, and Richard and Linda Thompson and how that kind of relationship could be the most expressive due to the initmacy involved and those genuine feelings of love but maybe that level of expression is why those relationships eventually came to an end?
Thank you Laura... thought provoking and brilliantly written, I have read this post multiple times. I love collaborating with fellow creatives. For the last 2 years, I have been photographing the stories of Tucson Musicians. The sessions have been emotionally connective and deeply inspiring. The trust factor for both storyteller and myself has been the bond that has made these intimate (emotionally) sessions so amazing and possible.
Bergman showed it on film, you're writing about it, expericing it in making music. The tarot card is The Lovers. Now I'm not a creator of art, and I'm not clever enough to try to put your experience into an non-art-creating world. Can someone help?
Thank you Laura. I thought your essay was excellent. In particular I’d highlight this passage.
“Bergman the most because of our shared instinct for and fascination with the vulnerabilities of women; he portrayed them all so astutely, so beautifully, capturing at once their delicacy and potential for evil - I think he loved women. “
In particular that phrase “potential for evil” which to me is one of those ineffable ideas that is only experienced through a love affair.
I am impatient to hear your development of that theme.
Again thank you for entering this difficult arena and expressing it so astutely. I look forward to your future articles. I’d subscribe but I am forced by circumstances to be very careful with my modest resources.
So important, but also lacking in certain artforms more recently, and some audiences reading things as being autobiographical rather than artistic. But still important.
Another fascinating piece. It reminded me of Magritte's painting "The Lovers," which is perhaps a literal depiction of harnessing and resisting the libidinal impulse. I don't think I can add an image to this comment, but it is here: https://www.renemagritte.org/assets/img/paintings/the-lovers-2.jpg
Perhaps the greatest chat up line I ever heard in my glory days was “let’s collaborate”.
What's fascinating about Bergman—to me, obvs—is how devoted he was to his art, placing it above everything else. Women were at the center of that art. He wouldn't resolve fallouts with his ex-wives so he would remain emotionally, artistically and contradictorily fed. Even after fame, money and reputation, art was still his main thing. We don't see that anymore. Especially if you consider it from a two-sided perspective: he loved cinema more than anything _and_ cinema loved him back. (Perhaps the closest we would get today is Kendrick and his love for the game?)
I also think Bergman was never afraid to portray the truth as he saw it—whether in friendships, love, family or dreams. The first scenes of Shame comes to mind, when Eva says to Max "You can't be so sensitive, I can't stand it."
You have to be immensely committed to art to continue like this after becoming known worldwide. Because it's not subtle, it's not sugarcoated—it feels so real and you know Max it's just him.
And the aesthetics: austere yet deeply memorable on so many levels. I think you touched on some of that in 'what he wrote.' It's very Bergmanesque, isn't it?
I could keep going, but I'm sure you're busy.
I'd love to read your full take on him though.
Also, thanks for this blog
“People ask what are my intentions with my films — my aims. It is a difficult and dangerous question, and I usually give an evasive answer: I try to tell the truth about the human condition, the truth as I see it. This answer seems to satisfy everyone, but it is not quite correct. I prefer to describe what I would like my aim to be. There is an old story of how the cathedral of Chartres was struck by lightning and burned to the ground. Then thousands of people came from all points of the compass, like a giant procession of ants, and together they began to rebuild the cathedral on its old site. They worked until the building was completed — master builders, artists, labourers, clowns, noblemen, priests, burghers. But they all remained anonymous, and no one knows to this day who built the cathedral of Chartres.
Regardless of my own beliefs and my own doubts, which are unimportant in this connection, it is my opinion that art lost its basic creative drive the moment it was separated from worship. It severed an umbilical cord and now lives its own sterile life, generating and degenerating itself. In former days the artist remained unknown and his work was to the glory of God. He lived and died without being more or less important than other artisans; “eternal values,” “immortality” and “masterpiece” were terms not applicable in his case. The ability to create was a gift. In such a world flourished invulnerable assurance and natural humility. Today the individual has become the highest form and the greatest bane of artistic creation.
The smallest wound or pain of the ego is examined under a microscope as if it were of eternal importance. The artist considers his isolation, his subjectivity, his individualism almost holy. Thus we finally gather in one large pen, where we stand and bleat about our loneliness without listening to each other and without realizing that we are smothering each other to death. The individualists stare into each other’s eyes and yet deny the existence of each other.
We walk in circles, so limited by our own anxieties that we can no longer distinguish between true and false, between the gangster’s whim and the purest ideal. Thus if I am asked what I would like the general purpose of my films to be, I would reply that I want to be one of the artists in the cathedral on the great plain. I want to make a dragon’s head, an angel, a devil — or perhaps a saint — out of stone. It does not matter which; it is the sense of satisfaction that counts.
Regardless of whether I believe or not, whether I am a Christian or not, I would play my part in the collective building of the cathedral.“
I will be revisiting this again to let it melt into my mind even deeper - there is something here that is surprising to me, I've known and felt the sexual nature of creativity but the chemistry between two people in the process of creation, being harnessed..that's interesting. Please delve into this topic again!
I didn’t want to be the 70th like, 69 likes was too perfect. But I couldn’t resist. Very thought provoking post, thanks for this ♥️
I have been writing songs with my best friend for nearly 20 years, we do it as a therapy nowadays. In the early days we did it because we wanted to be admired by our peers and hopefully to create some income (neither of these things have happened) I come up with the melodies and he writes the words, most of the time that initial engagement of creativity is where the meaning and direction of the song eventually ends up, there has never been anything other than genuine connection. I do think of Beverly and John Martyn, and Richard and Linda Thompson and how that kind of relationship could be the most expressive due to the initmacy involved and those genuine feelings of love but maybe that level of expression is why those relationships eventually came to an end?
nice to have these subtle but oh so powerful energies so well articulated - thank you!
Thank you Laura... thought provoking and brilliantly written, I have read this post multiple times. I love collaborating with fellow creatives. For the last 2 years, I have been photographing the stories of Tucson Musicians. The sessions have been emotionally connective and deeply inspiring. The trust factor for both storyteller and myself has been the bond that has made these intimate (emotionally) sessions so amazing and possible.
Bergman showed it on film, you're writing about it, expericing it in making music. The tarot card is The Lovers. Now I'm not a creator of art, and I'm not clever enough to try to put your experience into an non-art-creating world. Can someone help?
Of course! The libido, creative attraction is the Muse. Brilliant.
Thank you Laura. I thought your essay was excellent. In particular I’d highlight this passage.
“Bergman the most because of our shared instinct for and fascination with the vulnerabilities of women; he portrayed them all so astutely, so beautifully, capturing at once their delicacy and potential for evil - I think he loved women. “
In particular that phrase “potential for evil” which to me is one of those ineffable ideas that is only experienced through a love affair.
I am impatient to hear your development of that theme.
Again thank you for entering this difficult arena and expressing it so astutely. I look forward to your future articles. I’d subscribe but I am forced by circumstances to be very careful with my modest resources.
So important, but also lacking in certain artforms more recently, and some audiences reading things as being autobiographical rather than artistic. But still important.
Another fascinating piece. It reminded me of Magritte's painting "The Lovers," which is perhaps a literal depiction of harnessing and resisting the libidinal impulse. I don't think I can add an image to this comment, but it is here: https://www.renemagritte.org/assets/img/paintings/the-lovers-2.jpg
So good. Thanks for this.
So beautifully articulated