Talk:Ingmar Bergman filmography

Tables
Firstly, well done for making the effort, but we're back to the same argument we're having on the template page regarding the splitting of the table. You've grouped what you would refer to as "TV films" in with the theatrical films, and split your unsourced "TV plays" in a separate table. Without a reference for this, I think the only way we're going to get anywhere here is to include the so called "TV plays" into the whole filmography.

Not sure where I stand with the "Director"/"Writer" columns. Somehow it seems to take away some of the importance of the writers and directors who aren't Bergman. Is there an intention to make the table sortable? Maybe we could put the name of the directors/writers in these columns, highlighting when it is Bergman? Not too sure whether the films he only wrote belong here though, but if we do the highlighting thing, think it should be okay.

I've added the year to the dates, as it looked wrong without. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Another thought regarding the dates - could this not be one column? I'm thinking something like this:


 * or something. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess my idea was that it's easier to scroll through the list looking specifically at the premiere media if they're in the same column. It also allows films with short enough titles and not too much extra info to only occupy one row, which I think looks better. Smetanahue (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge if you want to, if we get a really clear source (I mainly based the assumptions for the ones I personally haven't seen on the production companies listed at SFI), it'll be easy to use the article history to split them again. I think all the fiction films should be listed chronologically since much of Bergman's development is reflected also in the ones he didn't direct, especially early and late in his career; in the template it's better to separate the written-only titles since the additional info should be kept at minimum, but in the filmography there is room to provide the level of detail needed to make everything clear. FL-class filmographies such as Clint Eastwood filmography, Spike Lee filmography and Woody Allen filmography all use this concept. And I don't think the years in the premiere field are necessary since they're already in the year field, it's just a repetition. An alternative would be to put the full date in the far-left column (like in Charlie Chaplin filmography), but that would ruin both the slick rowspan design, and my ingenious premiere field. Smetanahue (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe we don't need the full release date at all - as it differs from country to country (and given the problems we're already having!) I think we can lose it.  We could perhaps rename the "Premiere" column to "Release" (Theatrical / TV film) and then elaborate regarding the release in the notes column if prudent?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I think it needs to be called premiere since its relevance lies in the tricky distinction of theatrical/TV films. It is there to show which medium the film premiered in, regardless of where and how it has been released later. And since, as you say, the release differs from country to country, the only sustainable thing to do is to consistently go by the earliest release. The date clarifies exactly which release we are referring to, I think that's helpful since it's all so intricate. Smetanahue (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If we do include the full date, then unless the intention is to make the table sortable, I think we should reduce it to one column as I suggested above, including both theatrical and television premieres where appropriate. Something like this shows the whole story:

--Rob Sinden (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That would make the list extremely long when each entry takes so much space. Including the US release is also to go further than the infoboxes in the individual film articles, they only include the first release + possibly a premiere at a festival. Whether a film which premiered on TV got theatrical distribution is really just trivia at this level, just like we don't include the TV premieres of theatrical films. It can be mentioned in the articles' release sections, but in the filmography I definitely think mentions should be limited to cases where the theatrical release was a completely different edit, and also then it should be kept brief. Smetanahue (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The use of "US" was only as an example for indication of country of first theatrical release. If a TV film gets an international release theatrically, this isn't "just trivia" and is not akin to a theatrical film showing on television. Some of these "TV films" were nominated for awards!  It is important to mark clearly which films had cinema releases, as, for the most part, these are the ones that are known internationally, and are seen as the basis of Bergman's "filmography" outside of Sweden.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the ones which won Oscars premiered on TV, that would have disqualified them. Do you consider TV films as real films at all? I'm getting the vibe that the issue we have is that you see some sort of sacred hierarchy where I don't, and Bergman certainly didn't when he built his filmography. Smetanahue (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Saraband was nominated for a Cesar. As far as the vibe goes, the point I keep trying to make (and I don't know where you are from), is that, here in the UK anyway, with a slight possibility of exceptions, anything that was not given a cinematic release is not widely known here.  Coming from an international perspective, (especially as this is English-language wikipedia) it is important to clearly indicate the films that received an international theatrical release.  As far as the "sacred hierarchy" goes, you are separating some TV films and not others.  I'm trying to compromise here, and it looks like a single table is the best option for all of us - all I am suggesting now is that we indicate the theatrical releases clearly.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you. The Bergman films which are widely known are so because they're good. And the TV movies which got theatrical distribution got that because they already had caught attention, which still would have been the case even if their theatrical releases hadn't happened - which they in fact didn't in most places. Keep in mind that even the most famous Bergman titles tended to get very limited distribution basically everywhere where they were released at all. And, on the other side of the spectrum, an awful lot of the theatrical movies are pretty much completletely unknown - not due to their distribution form but because they are bad. So if popularity is what we specifically need to highlight, then it isn't distribution form that we should go by, but quality. Which would be way too subjective, so we better don't. Smetanahue (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There already is a split which you have made on unsourced criteria, but we'll get round that by merging the "TV plays" in the main filmography. I've conceded the point that we're not going to separate films which didn't get a theatrical release, but I don't really understand the issue against adding the cinema release dates to films that were originally shown on TV in Sweden - internationally this is how most people would have seen the films in question - it is pertinent information and is useful to see here. Think we're going to need input from other editors here...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mind a merge until we have a proper source, just go ahead. But there is no way you can make me believe that most people have seen the films theatrically. I've seen two Bergman films theatrically, a bunch on TV and a bunch on DVD. The vast majority however I've seen downloaded on my computer. If the most prominent exposure window needs a special mention, then TV screenings for movies which premiered theatrically, home video releases and uploads on filesharing sites are way more relevant, than the extremely limited theatrical distribution some of the TV movies were given. Smetanahue (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no, no! You're completely missing the point. I'm not talking about how people view the films now - of course that's irrelevant.  I mentioned "how people would have seen the films in question" at the time.  It is interesting in pertinent information to show which films received an international release at the time - for most people outside of Sweden this would have been at the cinema, so the films which were known internationally at the time should be marked as such - outside of Sweden, the films shown only on Swedish television would not have received an audience.  Rather than your "this is how it is" attitude, would appreciate your constructive suggestions as to how best to incorporate this into the table rather than concerning yourself with your "slick rowspan design", and your "ingenius premiere field".  This isn't helpful.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The table looks really good - I was going to start something like that in the near future. Nice work!  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Theatrical
Is there a need to state this in its own column, as the vast majority had a theatrical release? Maybe by exception to be added to the notes column? Hopefully some of the films can be expanded too (anyone got a good ref to use in the Persona article for the Mulholland Drive ref?)  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is a necessity to make it clear which were theatrical releases, which were not, and which were made for television but were given a theatrical release outside of Sweden (see my rants above!). Even more so if we incorporate the "TV plays" section (any luck with sourcing that from your book by the way?). I don't necessarily see why it needs it own column though - It could be incorporated into a release date column as I mentioned earlier - i.e.


 * or something similar. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason for the release columns is the fighting we had at the template, I thought it would help sort things out, as well as highlight how completely irrelevant the issue of theatrical versus TV releases is in Bergman's filmography. I chose columns rather than cramming the notes fields even more to save space, if all entries will have several releases below each others the list will be very long and the overview suffer. Personally I don't think the release media matter at all, and full details of the premieres and secondary releases are more suitable in the individual articles. But this is better than to split movies which have not (yet) been released theatrically to their own section. Anyway I can't think of anything more than this to add, I don't mind the way the list looks now and I don't mind merging it with the plays, until we find proper sources for them (I found a few explicit references via Google Books to some of the titles as theatre productions, but not enough to motivate a whole section). Smetanahue (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

.
I'm writing this on 10/21/13. Who is the idiot who divided the works into "writer"and "director"? Do whatever you want, but right now, the lists are simply incorrect. As an admirer of Bergman the great film director, you have omitted many of his best works and put them only under "writer", even though many were directed by him as well. The previous format worked fine --- you could easily tell Bergman's level of responsibility for a film simply by scanning across and seeing if he wrote, directed or did both for a film. Because so much information is now omitted, I am forced to go to IMDB to see a comprehensive list of what works Bergman directed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B127:C36B:0:E:A580:C801 (talk • contribs)

Possible move or split
This article contains information on more than just films, so the title Ingmar Bergman filmography is misleading. Perhaps it should be moved to Ingmar Bergman oeuvre (or something else less pretentious)? Or maybe split? I'd be inclined toward the former... ENeville (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to think of a title that would accurately describe the article. Works of Ingmar Bergman might work, but doesn't really represent the theatrical direction.  Maybe, if anything, we should split, leaving Ingmar Bergman filmography where it is, and splitting out to List of Ingmar Bergman theatrical productions or something?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Spliting it would then give a stand-alone article of essentially non-notable entries. Are any of the theatrical productions likely to get their own articles?  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "List of works by", "oeuvre" or anything similar would work. If so we should also add his bibliography to this article. Swedish Wikipedia actually has separate articles for his films, plays and books, but I would prefer one article for them all, many list articles are a lot longer than this without causing problems. Though I don't see any problem in that his theatrical productions are unlikely to get their own articles - this isn't a navbox, the information is still relevant. Smetanahue (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah - I wondered if the theatrical productions article would then become non-notable. I don't think we should use "oeuvre" - I'm okay with "List of works by Ingmar Bergman" or similar though.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ingmar Bergman filmography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706204109/http://www.ingmarbergman.se/work.asp?guid=96804AD6-4ACD-418D-9D2C-03ABABE34267 to http://www.ingmarbergman.se/work.asp?guid=96804AD6-4ACD-418D-9D2C-03ABABE34267

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Titles not currently in the list
There are some titles that is not currently in the filmography list. I will list them here in order to bring discussion about if and how to possibly integrate them in the list. Personally, I would like to see most, if not all of these, in the list.

Feature films

 * The Minister of Uddarbo (Prästen i Uddarbo) (1957) (directed by Kenne Fant, written by Rune Lindström). Ingmar Bergman served as script consultant. Based on the novel of the same title by Axel Hambræus.
 * Night Light (Swedish: Nattens ljus) (1957) (directed by Lars-Eric Kjellgren) was co-directed together with Lars-Eric Kjellgren.
 * Rätt ut i luften (lit. 'Straight out in the air' (my translation)) (1978 television film). Produced by Ingmar Bergman.

Documentary

 * De fördömda kvinnornas dans (lit. 'The Cursed Women's Dance' (my translation)) (1976), documentary short directed, written (not sure how a documentary can be written) by Ingmar Bergman, and co-produced with Måns Reuterswärd.
 * My Beloved (Min älskade)(1979), a documentary produced by Ingmar Bergman.
 * Gotska sandön (1987 documentary) produced by Ingmar Bergman and Lisbet Gabrielsson.
 * On Set Home Movies (2008 video documentary short). Ingmar Bergman is listed as director of this video on IMDB (not too sure about this one, Bergman died in 2007). I think this video is included with The Bergman Archives book, and that that is the only release of the video.

Television

 * The Stimulantia (1967) episode "Daniel" is listed in Template:Ingmar Bergman, but not in this filmography list article.
 * The Lie (1971). Bergman's screenplay for The Sanctuary (Reservatet'') (1970) was used for this BBC production. I suppose this counts as an adaption though, and as such may not be relevant for the filmography, but Ingmar Bergman is nevertheless listed as the writer for this production.
 * The Lie (1973). Bergman's screenplay for The Sanctuary (Reservatet'') (1970) was used for this CBS production. I suppose this counts as an adaption though, and as such may not be relevant for the filmography, but Ingmar Bergman is nevertheless listed as the writer for this production.
 * Scenes from a Marriage (Scener ur ett äktenskap) (1973 mini series). Scenes from a Marriage is listed under feature films in the filmography list, but the mini series version is not a feature film, so I think it perhaps should have a separate entry.
 * Fanny and Alexander (Fanny och Alexander) (1982 mini series). The same as with Scenes from a Marriage.
 * The Best Intentions (Den goda viljan) (1991 mini series). The same as with Scenes from a Marriage.
 * Harald & Harald (1996 short televion play).

Commercials
Commercials for a soap of the brand Bris. Just to make a case for the possible encyclopedic value of these commercials, I will quote Ingmar Bergman Foundation. "The films were made under highly serious and professional conditions. Bergman was given access to the same technical equipment that he would have used for a feature film, and he chose Gunnar Fischer as his cameraman. He also had total control over the films from screenplay through to final cut.

Despite being made on commission, the films are both intelligent and interesting in their manner of execution."
 * Gustavianskt (1951)
 * Tennisflickan (1951)
 * Tvålen Bris (1951)
 * Operation (1952)
 * Trolleriet (1952)
 * Uppfinnaren (1952)
 * Prinsessan och svinaherden (1953)
 * Rebusen (1953)
 * Tredimensionellt (1953)

Recorded theatre
This makes me feel that these titles should be added as television theatre or something (perhaps not under "Television theatre" though, since they seem to more of "recorded theatre", rather than "television theatre", as they probably weren't adapted for television).
 * Don Juan (Dramaten at Chinateatern; 1965) was aired on Swedish television in five episodes by Sveriges Television
 * The Misanthrope (Swedish: Misantropen) (Det Kongelige Teater/TV; 1973) was aired on Danish television in 1975