Stellan Skarsgard Talks About ‘Nazi’ Ingmar Bergman: ‘He Was the Only Person I Know Who Cried When Hitler Died’

Yikes.

I guess Bergman was persona non grata at the Skarsgard house.

Scary.

Oh please! I have known Ingmar Bergman was a Nazi sympathizer as a young man for a long time now. Where have they been? I would know because I was on an Ingmar Bergman phase (watched nearly all of his films) years ago. I even did a presentation on Bergman in one of my college courses. I would love to revisit his films some point when I have the chance.

As far as I know, Ingmar’s views on the Nazi party shifted (or so I hope) after the war once the footage of the concentration camps were released.

I grew up in the era of Ingmar-as-genius and I never got it. Sitting through a film class discussing his lifeless movie Persona I wondered why this guy was such a fucking idol.

[quote] As far as I know, Ingmar’s views on the Nazi party shifted (or so I hope) after the war once the footage of the concentration camps were released.

That's what all the crypto-fascists claim about their former 'views'.

Well, his movies do have a lot of blondes.

I don't care. I *still* love The Bells of St. Mary.

R5, if it helps, what I did was I started watching his films from the beginning of his career (from the 1940s to the 1950s) before progressing into his later, more prominent work (from the 1960s to the 1970s). Watching his earlier films, which are more straightforward and easier to grasp, helped me in getting the feel and flow of his directorial style before getting into his more complex, convoluted films later in his work.

The way I see it, the man is dead now. He’s been dead for 18 years. Whatever views Ingmar had (even as a young man 80+ years ago) are long in the past. We can’t avoid or erase the past. In addition, one of his only English-speaking films he made was “The Serpent’s Egg” (1977), a film about the early warning signs of fascism and Nazism during Weimar-era Berlin that (sigh) feels relevant now in 2025 America. Hopefully, he had come to his senses by the time he made “The Serpent’s Egg.” I like to believe he did.

Weimar was 2016-20, we're in full-on Hitler years now.

R8 Thanks for you reply. I like thinking my disinterest in his films comes from a sense he was a conventional man with right-wing leanings but in fact it's just simply his films didn't move me at all.

Geniuses are often assholes. Usually, even.

[quote]r8 One of the only English-speaking films he made was “The Serpent’s Egg” (1977), a film about the early warning signs of fascism and Nazism during Weimar-era Berlin that (sigh) feels relevant now

Didn't The Serpent's Egg lay a big egg?

Bergman's rarely-seen 1950 film [italic]Sånt händer inte här[/italic] ("This Can't Happen Here") is clearly anti-Nazi. It's also a good film in my estimation, more like Hitchcock than Bergman.

The Swedes were war profiteers. Same as the Swiss.

R13, I’ll admit that I wasn’t super fond of “This Can’t Happen Here.” However, now that you mention it, it probably deserves a rewatch at some point.

While not technically considered his best work, I find Bergman’s earlier films (his 1940s and 1950s ones) still interesting and watchable nonetheless. They’re basically like the films made in Hollywood during that time, but European and dealing with subjects and subplots that couldn’t be done in the States because of the ongoing Production Code. Subjects and subplots in Bergman’s earlier films included abortion, adultery, alcoholism, death, disability, dysfunctional families, fornication, lesbianism, mental health, teacher-student relationships, and teenage and unwanted pregnancy.

I wonder sometimes if it hadn’t been for the Production Code, would American films have looked eerily similar to those made by Bergman and other European directors during that time period?

[quote]As far as I know, Ingmar’s views on the Nazi party shifted (or so I hope) after the war once the footage of the concentration camps were released.

Yes, that's what Bergman said, and some articles about Skarsgard's comments (like this one from the Guardian) delve deeper into that. But Skarsgard's Hitler remark is mostly dark humor; he explained his dislike of him 13 years ago in a Guardian interview and it was because of Bergman's domineering personality and iron grip on Swedish TV, films and stage. He was mercurial and ruined the careers of other artists without a second thought if he disliked them.

When I was in college in the 1970s, it was the height of pretension to worship Bergman. I fell into that, mostly because there was a nearby repertory theater that played his films, and I saw them all. It wasn't enough to just enjoy them on a superficial level, you were expected to analyze them in detail and attribute all sorts of grand themes to them, so watching them wasn't just a fun experience.

Woody Allen was constantly quoted in his worship of Bergman. But when Bergman died and the ownership of his films was in dispute, Allen didn't do anything to help alleviate the problem. It showed me how cold Allen is.

Here's the older interview with Skarsgard's comments about Bergman. At the halfway mark he's asked a shrewd question about Bergman and Lars von Trier and prefers talking about von Trier. He only elaborates about Bergman after the interviewer brings it up again. Skarsgard gives him his artistic due and says working with him was exciting at the time. But Bergman's darkness and the control he enjoyed over other people's lives (and livelihoods) made him dangerous and Skarsgard didn't want any part of it.

How does he know what Ingmar Bergman did or didn't do in 1945? He wasn't born until 1951.

He's dead? Fuck. I was going to ask him to film my biography.

[quote] He's dead? Fuck. I was going to ask him to film my biography. —Steven Miller

I suspect he wouldn’t have done a biopic of a Jew, Steven.

[quote] As far as I know, Ingmar’s views on the Nazi party shifted (or so I hope) after the war once the footage of the concentration camps were released.

And what did he imagine was happening to the Jews?

“I was an enthusiastic Nazi until I saw the bodies” is not a good look.

[quote]How does he know what Ingmar Bergman did or didn't do in 1945? He wasn't born until 1951.

Bergman was candid about his reverence for Hitler, speaking openly about how he'd slept with a photo of Hitler next to his bed after attending a Nazi rally at the age of 16.

R23, the German family he stayed with placed the Hitler photo.

Skarsgard is a self-aggrandizing click-bait creator for going off about this. Born in 1951, he claims that Bergman was the only person "I know" (sic) who cried when Hitler died, when the available documentation shows that Bergman's upset was about his stupidity and culpability in not seeing or letting himself see the truth. Sweden was neutral in WWII, German troops had concessions to enter and cross the country

Skarsgard also intimates sneakily and nastily that Bergman was anti-Semitic, that he thought some people were "unworthy." Bergman's view of Jews as a part of Swedish society is best seen in "Fanny and Alexander," where rather than unworthiness we see love, devotion, and access to the sublime among the Jewish family prominent in the film.

I'm not a Bergman apologist. But I'm also not the kind of drooling fools posturing here. I love much of his work, and recognize the unpleasant complexities most people carry, and it can seem more pronounced among great artists. He had serious issues. But his work does not appear to reflect anything but commitment to human possibility where we alone, ultimately, carry the light and darkness of life amid our pains and losses.

Skarsgard's repeated immoderate claims about Bergman seems more like Bergman's father criticized Skarsgard's grandfather's lutefisk and the family never got over it. He's a crank about it, and it appears to be done for positive attention for himself. There certainly is not "light" in it.

[quote][R23], the German family he stayed with placed the Hitler photo.

And he kept it there and continued to admire Hitler for years afterward, because he'd been electrified by the rally. His experience was typical of countless young men during that time and he shared it freely, which is how we're all aware of it. From the same article (linked to upthread) that rehashed his fond memories of the rally:

[quote]The book also details how Bergman’s brother and friends vandalized the house of a Jewish neighbor with swastikas – and that he was “too cowardly” to raise objections to the attack.

[quote]The director also acknowledged his past Nazi sympathies in his 1987 memoir The Magic Lantern: “For many years, I was on Hitler’s side, delighted by his success and saddened by his defeats.” He told Boëthius that he maintained support for the Nazis until the end of the war, when the exposure of Nazi atrocities in the Holocaust changed his views. “When the doors to the concentration camps were thrown open,” he said, “I was suddenly ripped of my innocence.” Bergman went on to explore anguish over the horrors of war in such films as Winter Light, The Silence and Shame.

I'm also a huge Bergman fan, and one who is capable of, as you say "recognizing the unpleasant complexities most people carry." But I'm not really sure what you're arguing against. Skarsgard himself, and fans like myself, agree with all the points in your second-to-last paragraph. That was the whole point of Skarsgard's 2012 comments about Bergman and von Trier.