My favourite part is when Death saws a tree underneath the man who was only an actor playing at being dead for a jest, and the actor begs him but Death says no. To me the movie isn't a realistic interpretation of the medieval ages itself, but a work directly inspired by a medieval work of art then reworked aesthetically in the imagination of the limitations of the very short budget (having to use stock theatre medievalesque objects, the way that Operas use helmets with horns on them that aren't actually authentic helmets the vikings once wore at all), after all they have to use props, so in the budget they had they can only go for style. But Bergman, in the tableaux above of the peasant actor being sawn off a tree by Death below, is a comedic look at death, that Bergman said was inspired by a painting he saw of Death playing on a chessboard, I vaguely remember reading. It might be that in the original painting ''Döden spelar schack'', by Swedish artist Albertus Pictor in the 15th century, being in close proximity with death, the temporality of life, it, like some medieval art, displays a quirky comedy to contemplating the side by side nature of life and death. There are other famous painting by Albertus, for instance, ''Dancing peasants'', that looks like similar scenes in Bergman's film, of the actor being made to dance in the tavern by force to amuse the jealous husband's sadistic humiliation game. Meanwhile, the knight's squire, tries to humiliate Albertus himself, who is painting a mural of the end of the world on a fresco while the squire mocks the artist, but you can kind of tell, that this mockery is self-aimed at Bergman's own attempt to make the movie, as you can tell by the introduction Begman wrote to his screenplay he published of it, that he actually deeply sympathizes with and even sees himself as filling in the role of the painting of frescoes that Albertus did for a medieval audience by making a film for a modern audience. ''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 ownsterile 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. Theability to create was a gift. In such a world flourished invul- nerable 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 8 gather in one large pen, where we stand and bleat about our loneliness without listening to each other and without realising 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 satis- faction 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.'' - Ingmar Bergman's introduction to his script
Thank you.
Good one! I love this movie!
My favourite part is when Death saws a tree underneath the man who was only an actor playing at being dead for a jest, and the actor begs him but Death says no.
To me the movie isn't a realistic interpretation of the medieval ages itself, but a work directly inspired by a medieval work of art then reworked aesthetically in the imagination of the limitations of the very short budget (having to use stock theatre medievalesque objects, the way that Operas use helmets with horns on them that aren't actually authentic helmets the vikings once wore at all), after all they have to use props, so in the budget they had they can only go for style.
But Bergman, in the tableaux above of the peasant actor being sawn off a tree by Death below, is a comedic look at death, that Bergman said was inspired by a painting he saw of Death playing on a chessboard, I vaguely remember reading. It might be that in the original painting ''Döden spelar schack'', by Swedish artist Albertus Pictor in the 15th century, being in close proximity with death, the temporality of life, it, like some medieval art, displays a quirky comedy to contemplating the side by side nature of life and death.
There are other famous painting by Albertus, for instance, ''Dancing peasants'', that looks like similar scenes in Bergman's film, of the actor being made to dance in the tavern by force to amuse the jealous husband's sadistic humiliation game.
Meanwhile, the knight's squire, tries to humiliate Albertus himself, who is painting a mural of the end of the world on a fresco while the squire mocks the artist, but you can kind of tell, that this mockery is self-aimed at Bergman's own attempt to make the movie, as you can tell by the introduction Begman wrote to his screenplay he published of it, that he actually deeply sympathizes with and even sees himself as filling in the role of the painting of frescoes that Albertus did for a medieval audience by making a film for a modern audience.
''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 ownsterile 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. Theability to create was a gift. In such a world flourished invul- nerable 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
8
gather in one large pen, where we stand and bleat about our
loneliness without listening to each other and without realising
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 satis- faction 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.'' - Ingmar Bergman's introduction to his script
Virgin spring is good too. The original last house on the left.
Please, what is the five hours long movie mentioned at 07:02?
Von Sydow famous for playing nazis? I thought he was famous exactly because he was in Bergman's troupe.
Maybe get a real historian next time