Ingmar Bergman

Preface

preface In August 2006, Robin signed a contract with Wayne State University Press to reprint the monographs The Apu Trilogy, Ingmar Bergman, Claude Chabrol, and Arthur Penn with the idea that he would update each of the books. I don’t remember if it was suggested that he begin the project with the Bergman book; in any case, although he considered doing so, Robin decided against it. Instead, he chose to begin with the Satyajit Ray book and began watching the director’s films he was less familiar with. Robin’s decision to write on Ray was based on his concern that Ray, whom he regarded as a major filmmaker, had been neglected critically through the years and deserved contemporary recognition . The decision was also based on his feeling that the project would genuinely engage him. When considering writing on Bergman, Robin came to the conclusion that he couldn’t face up to the idea of systematically watching the numerous films that followed Shame (1968), the last film he wrote on in Ingmar Bergman . I think he also felt that since the publication of the Bergman monograph,hehadmadeclear,beginningwith“Responsibilities of a Gay Film Critic,” Film Comment 14, no. 1 (January–February 1978 [reprinted in Personal Views, rev. ed., by Wayne State University Press (2006)]), his rethinking of the director’s work. In that article Robin addressed his problems in accepting Bergman’s in- preface xvi ability or refusal to recognize that “the human condition” isn’t a given but is shaped, to a significant extent, by ideology that produces cultural and political dictates that can be changed. As it turned out, Robin never got beyond watching Ray’s films. In 2006, he taught a graduate-level summer course at York University, was still actively involved with CineAction, and occasionally wrote for Artforum and Film Comment; however, his health was becoming a more serious problem. He abandoned the Ray project in favor of concentrating on Michael Haneke’s work with the idea of publishing a book on him. Robin felt that the director, like Patrice Chéreau and Tsai Ming-Liang, was a master filmmaker who intelligently addressed political life in our present-day civilization. Sadly, he never managed to do more than make a few introductory notes on the Haneke book project. By the spring of 2008, Robin was too often ill to write regularly although, at the time, he wasn’t fully aware of the severity of his condition. It wasn’t until late in the year that he was made aware of the critical state of his health. In May 2005, Robin went to Stockholm to deliver a presentation at a Bergman symposium. According to our friend in Sweden , Olaf Hedling (see CineAction, no. 84 2011), the presentation received a mixed reaction. There were several participants who felt that Robin’s manner was somewhat unprofessional, citing his casual approach (such as the reliance on small pieces of notepaper while lecturing) and attire (his usual choice of a T-shirt and sweatpants). In addition, the lecture included the showing of an extract from The Passion of Anna (1969), which he considered the best of Bergman’s post-Shame films, and an extract from Marleen Gorris’s Antonia’s Line (1995). His point essentially was that in contrast to Gorris’s feminist film, which preface xvii celebrates life, Bergman’s doesn’t allow any of his characters to move beyond their respective neuroses, dooming them to isolation and/or self-loathing. Robin’s qualified endorsement of Bergman and his work also may have added to a disapproval of the lecture. While some of his colleagues may have been disappointed with Robin’s presentation, he was delighted by Liv Ullmann’s response. After the lecture, she introduced herself to Robin and told him that she agreed with his comments on Bergman’s absolute insistence on having a “personal” vision. (The DVD of The Passion of Anna includes several extras including “On-Camera Interviews with Liv Ullmann, Bibi Andersson and Erland Josephson ”; Liv Ullmann says that Bergman, after soliciting her improvised comments on how she interprets Anna, the character she plays, didn’t use most of what she said in the final cut of the film. In her concluding remarks about Bergman, Ullmann says, “Ingmar is a great director of his own life. And maybe that’s where he’s done his best direction. His life has...