Template talk:Ingmar Bergman

message: All of the other films in the first half of the template have had theatrical releases, even if they were originally intended for TV. As far as I can make out De två saliga (The Blessed Ones) has not - yet an editor seems to be reluctant to allow this to be moved to the "TV productions" section - clearly the most consistent place for it to be.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I think a pure TV productions section is a bad idea (as opposed to TV theatre which is easily defined) is that a large proportion of Bergman's films were a bit of both TV and cinema productions. Fanny and Alexander for example was made for TV, but premiered in cinemas, and then aired on TV. Scenes from a Marriage and several others premiered on TV and were then shown in theatres. So if we split TV and theatrical movies it would be one big mess of everything. Smetanahue (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The way it is at the moment, everything that has had a theatrical release (including The Magic Flute, Fanny and Alexander, etc, etc.) is in the top section, other TV productions below.  Except The Blessed Ones and the documentaries, which should also be moved.  It is not clear what you mean by "as opposed to TV theatre which is easily defined" - please define it - any source and how this directly relates to Bergman would be useful.  I agree that there is no easy split here, as what was a theatrical release in one country may not be the case in others, but this is English-speaking wikipedia, so maybe we should be looking at the filmography and what was released theatrically in English-speaking countries.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What difference does the theatrical release make? Would you have no problem with The Blessed Ones if someone gave it a screening at a festival today? As far as I know The Rite never got a theatrical release either, and After the Rehearsal was only shown against Bergman's wish. If we made a separate section for TV films it would be very weird to go by whether they have been shown theatrically somewhere at some occasion. Going by releases in English-speaking countries would be even worse, since it probably would rule out many of the early films. The only way to do it would be to go by the medium of the first release, which only would make the chronology confusing, as some major titles would be lifted away from the rest. TV theatre is easily defined because it is theatre, performed on a stage, not cinema filmed at movie sets. Smetanahue (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: By your argument, all TV productions should be included in the list, which is clearly the wrong thing to do.  As this navbox is primarily a Bergman filmography, anything that gets a theatrical release should be given priority, everything else (i.e. TV productions) should be considered secondary.  Therefore we should include all theatrically released films first, then find a home for everything else that is left over.  I've just found this list which appears to show theatrically released films, and this list which seems to show TV productions.  Obviously there is some crossover, but maybe we should consider along these lines.  I think you may be right with The Rite by the way.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah - no - The Rite did receive a limited theatrical release outside of Scandinavia.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Then we're back where we began: the thing with Bergman's filmography is that the distinction between TV and theatrical films is very diffuse from the early 70s and forward. And I see absolutely no reason that TV films by default should be separated from theatrical films, especially when there, like in the case with Bergman, is no significant difference between them in production methods or artistic expression. A TV film by Ingmar Bergman is a film by Ingmar Bergman just as much as a theatrical film is. A separate section would also demand a long and complicated name to give it an accurate definition, because of the intricate release of Fanny and Alexander, which was produced as a made-for-TV film, but when it was finished the producers changed their minds and gave it a theatrical release before the TV premiere, which during the production had been intended to come first. Smetanahue (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We kind of are back where we started, but only because you added The Blessed Ones.  This is the only contentious entry, as it did not receive a theatrical release - everything else in the primary filmography did, other TV productions that did not receive a theatrical release are added elsewhere.  In some respects, yes, they are all films by Ingmar Bergman, but, for the purposes of this navigation box, we need to divide - I don't think you're disputing that.  The question is which side of the fence should The Blessed Ones sit.  It is out of place in the main list as it stands, and as far as verifiable filmographies go, I don't think it is usually included in the list of films.  Therefore the "theatrical release" test is a good one, and this is how the filmography has been divided for some time (and not just here as my sources above attest).  It would be sensible to follow this.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I still can't see why it's special by not having had a theatrical release. Do you honestly mean that it does not belong in his filmography now, but might in the future if it gets a theatrical release? Would After the Rehearsal not belong if the distributors had done as Bergman wished and only shown it on television? I mean, it would still be the same movie. Smetanahue (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't really the point though - the fact is that these films were given theatrical releases.  It's not for me to decide whether something belongs in his filmography or not - what we should be looking at is what is generally accepted as part of his filmography from verifiable sources.  And the best one I can find is the one I mentioned above - we should be working from this...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought what we were discussing was the organisation of the template, not whether a movie on it is a part of his filmography in the first place. But it's accepted in his filmography for example here and here. I'm going to create an article for the movie, trying to remember the plot details right now, though it's been a long time since I saw it. Smetanahue (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, maybe I'm drifting a little, but I think the template should be organised in a way a filmography would.  The filmography examples you give are fairly indiscriminatory, listing everything.  The way I see it, there are really two ways we can go.  1) Include everything he ever directed whether on TV or on film, or 2) Split in the way it has traditionally been split - between theatrical and non-theatrical releases.  It's obvious which I favour, but at the moment, The Blessed Ones is out of place.  Kind of sitting in limbo.  Unless we restructure the template to include everything (which I am against), it belongs with the TV productions.  Good luck with the article by the way.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Just thinking of other directors who make TV films - have a look at Template:David Yates which divides between theatrically released and not, but conversely Template:Stephen Poliakoff includes everything as "films" (even TV series!).  However, unless we merge into one list, we do need to move a non-theatrically released film into the TV productions section.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like the American premiere of The Blessed Ones actually was theatrical, at the Museum of Broadcasting in NYC. But no matter what, if there should be a separate section for TV films, there needs to be a reason for it, ie that the outputs of TV films and theatrical films are different in some significant way. This is not the case here, as I've already said, since some of the most prominent Bergman films, even if they might be better known for their theatrical runs, were made for television. The canons of Bergman's films for cinemas and television are one and the same. Smetanahue (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference for this?  The secondary source I found doesn't include it in the split.  For the time being I still propose we move it to TV films, unless we can find it included in a fimlography of theatrically released films, or we merge into an indiscriminate list...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The ref for the US premiere is in the article I just created, if that's what you meant. An indiscriminate list is the better option of the two you propose, but I still think theatre productions should have a section of their own, since those productions are fundamentally different from the movies. Smetanahue (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But, looking at that link, it specifically divides The Blessed Ones from other TV work that has been given a theatrical release.  This refers to a one-off screening as part of a retrospective/tribute.  Therefore I stand by my point that this should not be included in the overall filmography as it stands, but in a separate section of "Other TV films" or something, if you feel we need to separate "TV theatre" or whatever.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean the New York Times article it divides The Blessed Ones from the rest because it's the US premiere, while the other screenings are things which have been shown in the US before. I don't know what this really is about, if you consider TV a second tier or something from which productions can be be upgraded if someone screens them theatrically, but I think it would be really unhelpful to have a group solely for one film. The fact that it was produced exactly the same way as all Bergman's films from After the Rehearsal and forward makes it even more confusing to remove it from that group, even if the others got relatively wider theatrical releases, sometimes several years after their premieres. The reason that The Blessed Ones usually isn't featured prominently in Bergman's canon, if that is what this is about, is the same as for This Can't Happen Here and All These Women: that it's of pretty low quality. Smetanahue (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No - the reason it isn't usually included in the "canon" is that it didn't get a theatrical release.  The New York times article mentions a sole screening as part of a retrospective, not the "premiere" for a wider release.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So if it got a regular release today in let's say five theatres, you wouldn't have any problem with including it? Despite that it still would be the same film? And if this was 1973, you wouldn't include Scenes from a Marriage because it only had been shown on TV, but from September 1974 and on it would qualify? There's just no consistency in this way of categorising TV as a sub-medium, and especially not in Bergman's filmography. Smetanahue (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

text: The Blessed Ones clearly belongs in the same group as the three other post-Fanny and Alexander films Bergman made for SVT. They all premiered on TV and were made using exactly the same production formulas and facilities. This weighs a lot more than whether all or just some of them have had wide enough theatrical distribution to this date, which to me seems like a completely random criterion. And US, UK or Swedish releases don't matter, Wikipedia's filmographies always go by the first release, otherwise the chronology would be a complete mess, and many early films would be missing entirely. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) says that lists of works should follow the order of production, so potential foreign releases are irrelevant. Smetanahue (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It may "clearly belong" in your opinion, but in mine it clearly doesn't belong as it didn't get a cinema release, which is the reason it doesn't appear in this list.  It's quite clear that we have opposing viewpoints on this that are unlikely to change - let's wait for some further input from other editors to see wider opinions.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The page you link to is a fansite. The Swedish Film Institute and Ingmar Bergman Foundation make no such distrinction. They do have info about when and how each movie premiered, but there is no hierarchy, and they don't regard theatrical distribution as some form of knighthood for made-for-TV movies. And I think we both agree that a TV-film section which goes by what medium each film premiered in would be a bad idea in the case of Ingmar Bergman. So yeah, it seems like we won't get much further without outside help, but I stand by my opinion that production is more relevant than distribution here. Smetanahue (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're proposing splitting out certain TV productions - do you have a source to show which and why?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I want it to stay as it is now. Smetanahue (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean do you have a source that shows why the ones that currently show as TV productions should be treated differently.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to the theatre productions? It's not a matter of distribution form, the TV label is there to distinguish them from the theatre production which weren't filmed, since they're not on the list. It might not really be necessary so you can change it to simply "theatre" if you want to, and the navbox header to "Ingmar Bergman productions" or something, I don't think it matters. And perhaps the titles without an article should be removed, since they provide no navigation. Potentially a bibliography section could also be created, though none of Bergman's books has an article at this moment, so it would be unnecessary right now. Smetanahue (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Most of the info can be found at ingmarbergman.se, though I'm not 100% sure about all of them either to be honest, might be a regular TV movie or two snuck in as a play. Unfortunately few of these works are available today, the only one I've actually seen is The Image Makers. Anyway I don't mind any of you edits. I chose to call it fiction films to disambiguate from the documentaries, but I assume most people will get it now too. Smetanahue (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we're back at square one!  This was my original point.  We're splitting the TV productions that weren't given a cinema release without any defined criteria.  We need consistency here.  What's the difference in this case between, say, Rabies and The Blessed Ones?  Until we can definitively say that the "other TV productions" were filmed theatrical plays or TV movies, I'm moving The Blessed Ones back to the TV productions section.  Otherwise it is out of place in the top part of the table along with all the films that received a cinema release.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted you since that makes no difference whatsoever for The Blessed Ones. If Rabies is indeed not a play, then it's that one that should be moved. Production is what matters, not perceived hierarchy of the release mediums. Smetanahue (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But we need a source to work out which are the TV "plays" if we're going to differentiate in that way.  For now the only way we we have of differentiating is to show the ones that were given a cinema release or not.  Therefore, The Blessed Ones is in the wrong place until we have further information.  You keep saying that the production method is the important thing, yet consensus for this has yet to be established.  We can't discuss this until you find a source showing production methods of the non-cinematic releases, so we need to put The Blessed Ones in the TV productions section as we can't verify anything else other than cinema release.  Therefore I'm reverting again.  Incidentally, if production method is so important, where do you stand on The Magic Flute?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got this book at home. I'll have a look in it tonight to see what it says. Lugnuts (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  I have to confess to being a little envious :)  I'm still not sure that this is the route we should be going down for splitting the filmography, but at least we have a starting point for a discussion.  Maybe there's some additional information in there you could add to the Ingmar Bergman filmography page too...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

text: The Magic Flute is definitely one of the a-bit-of-both cases that make a division based on Bergman's TV and theatrical productions a bad idea. Wouldn't mind if it was moved to plays, although the section would have to be renamed to include opera. Wouldn't mind it staying either, since a separate section for TV plays already indicates that all other directorial works, regardless of their nature, go in the main list. I'd also like to state again that I much prefer skipping two sections altogether and list TV plays with everything else, to the alternative of moving Scenes from a Marriage, Fanny and Alexander and all the other TV productions to a general TV section. I've started to work on converting Ingmar Bergman filmography to table format btw, going to add columns for release medium and some other things, maybe it'll help clarify a few things. Smetanahue (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Reluctantly, maybe a combined template is the only way to go on this.  I'm a little concerned the list will be diluted with the lesser TV work, but maybe we can have a key or legend or something to denote the differences.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV productions 

message: I'd also suggest that Faro Document, etc. be moved to a separate section for "Documentaries" so as not to interrupt the flow of the theatrical films.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't see any problems with this, go ahead if you want to. I think the Faro movies and Karin's Face are the only docs in the navbox. Smetanahue (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Documentaries