According to directors and directors of photography choosing the appropriate shot scale for a scene is primarily an issue of narrative function. However, especially in the practice of art cinema preference of specific shot scales may be an important indicator of a particular style. In some cases statistical analysis of overall shot scale distribution in films reveals consistent and recurrent patterns of shot scale distribution in an author's work. Such a consistency is surprising, because it cannot be the result of conscious decision. No filmmaker plans the proportion of each shot scale in a film. This article investigates a systematic variation of shot scale distribution (SSD) patterns disclosed in the films of Michelangelo Antonioni, and Ingmar Bergman, which raises a number of questions regarding the possible aesthetic and cognitive sources of such a regularity.
András Bálint Kovács
expressiveness is distinctive to an emotion category—for instance, a facial expression of fear—or indistinctive to it—for instance, a pause that comes to signify fear in a specific context. As we will see in a scene from Ingmar Bergman’s Smiles of a Summer Night
Vivian Sobchack, Paisley Livingston, and Bennett Roth
Laura Mulvey, DEATH 24 X A SECOND: STILLNESS AND THE MOVING IMAGE. London: Reaktion Books, 2006. xii + 196 pp., $24.95 (paperback).
Steene, Birgitta, INGMAR BERGMAN: A REFERENCE GUIDE. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2005, 1,150 pp., $75 (hardback).
Andrew M. Gordon, EMPIRE OF DREAMS: THE SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY FILMS OF STEVEN SPIELBERG. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008, x + 291 pp., $26.95 (paperback).
Faithless, which centers on themes of fidelity and infidelity, was scripted by Ingmar Bergman and directed by Liv Ullmann, his muse and former lover. The film crosscuts between the ongoing dialogues of an aging director, named Bergman, and his created character, based on a woman with whom he has had a previous relationship, and flashbacks from the story they piece together. Just as the female figure emerges from the shadows of the director's workroom to spark his creativity and counter his loneliness by describing the major characters in his new screen play, so does Ullmann, through her direction, bring the real Bergman “face-to-face“ with a dissociated, unformulated aspect of his own experience. The filmic characters, a mix of the autobiographical and the imagined, are used by Bergman to illuminate and articulate the transformations in internal objects and one's relation to them that occur in the processes of loss and reparation, as well as the reparative function of the creative process itself. Having characters emerge to take form as the narrative unfolds illuminates the power of the erotic imagination to represent, sustain, and restore the inner world. The intertextuality between Faithless and a number of previous Bergman films highlights the way that the film is a homage to Bergman and a reflection on the creative process itself.
Norman N. Holland
Metafictions tell stories in which the physical medium of the story becomes part of the story as, classically, in Tristram Shandy or Don Quixote. In our times, both metafiction and metafilm have proliferated. Examples of metafilm include Buster Keaton's Sherlock Jr., Woody Allen's Purple Rose of Cairo, Alejandro Amenábar's Abre los Ojos, Ingmar Bergman's Persona, the Marx Brothers' Horse Feathers and, in particular, Spike Jonze's Adaptation. In my experience and that of others, metafilmic movies have a peculiarly disconcerting effect, sometimes arousing fear, sometimes seeming comic. Why? Metafilms play tricks on the levels and kinds of our belief (or our suspension of disbelief). To explain the effect, we need to understand how our brains are functioning when we are, as we say, "absorbed" in a film. The answer lies in the fact that reality testing depends on activity in the motor regions of the frontal cortex. But in experiencing the arts, we are not moving or even planning to move. As a result, as Richard Gerrig's experiments show, we momentarily believe (or suspend disbelief in) the film we are perceiving. Metafilm, however, introduces another, more real reality, the physical medium of the film. Metafilm thus sends conflicting messages to the brain about moving. The result is what Freud called "a signal of anxiety." If the metafilmic effect is brief, we laugh. If it persists over time, it can arouse anxiety.
Edited by Stephen Prince
emphasizes the importance of a synergistic exchange between performer and narrative and the role played by syntactic elements such as editing, and he grounds his theoretical points with a close analysis of Ingmar Bergman’s Smiles of a Summer Night (1955
contaminated by the culture of hate. Cracolândia expands as if it were a lens through which we can read São Paulo today. As in the 1977 film by Ingmar Bergman, it becomes the serpent’s egg. Bergman’s final argument is that “anybody who makes the slightest
Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream in Egypt and Sweden, 2003
time of escalating conflict. Boundary Crossings – 1989 Eva Bergman, daughter of Ingmar Bergman and an important stage director in her own right, directed Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream in 1989 at Backa Theatre in Gothenburg, Sweden. This
three [Roberto] Rosellinis; there have been three [Ingmar] Bergmans. And obviously there's been four [Pablo] Picassos. So, most artists have one lifetime. Occasionally someone will have two, occasionally someone will have three, and magically someone
On What We Can Learn
Laura T. Di Summa
courses have been drawn to a movie as complex as Ingmar Bergman's Persona (1966) less because of its philosophical content and complexity, than thanks to Susan Sontag's essay on the topic, which while lucid and perfectly clear in its aims, is also an