Ingmar Bergman never won best picture at the Oscars
Oscar champ Woody Allen calls Ingmar Bergman "the greatest artist since the invention of the motion picture camera."
Oscar disagrees. When Bergman died today, peacefully in his sleep at age 89, he left this life technically never having won an Academy Award.
Yes, yes, three of his pix won best foreign-language film ("Fanny & Alexander," "The Virgin Spring," "Through a Glass Darkly"), but those statuettes went to the movies' producers, not its director. Personally, he was nominated many times in other categories, but he never won. Ultimately, the academy gave him the Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award in 1970 as an honorary consolation prize, but that award is given for producing and it's a bust of the 1930s studio wunderkind, not an Oscar statuette.
The film world's "greatest artist" should've won best picture and director at least once in his career, don't you agree?
But that was impossible, of course, because the Oscar really isn't the fair, wide-open, international contest it pretends to be. While a few foreign-language films have been nominated for the top best-picture award over the years — including Bergman's "Cries and Whispers" (it lost to "The Sting") — none has won and it's unlikely that one ever will.
Did any of Bergman's movies deserve to triumph? The National Society of Film Critics thought so. Twice it bestowed its best-picture prize to works by the Swedish genius: "Persona" and "Scenes From a Marriage."
Now the death of Ingmar Bergman seems to be the perfect time to address the Oscar inequity. Make that the Oscar absurdity.
In 1973, "Cries and Whispers" became the fourth foreign-language film to be nommed for best picture at the Oscars — after "Grand Illusion" in 1938, "Z" in 1969, and "The Emigrants" in 1972. Earlier that derby season, "Cries and Whispers" had won best picture and director from the New York Film Critics Circle. However, on Oscar night, Bergman, up for three awards — producing, directing, and writing — went home empty handed.
Since 1973, four more foreign-lingo pix have been nommed for the top prize: "Il Postino" in 1995, "Life is Beautiful" in 1998, "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" in 2000, and last year's "Letters From Iwo Jima." Also snubbed, just like them, have been all of the 14 directors nominated for helming films in languages other than English.
Some U.S. film critics' groups haven't exactly been generous to foreign-lingo films either, but they treated them better than that Oscar guy. Since its founding in 1935, the New York Film Critics Circle has named only four foreign-language films as best picture: "Z" in 1969, then three in a row beginning in 1972 with "Cries and Whispers," then "Day for Night," and, in 1974, "Amarcord." And their LA colleagues have only bestowed that honor on two foreign-language pix — 2000's "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and 2006's "Letters From Iwo Jima" — since starting up in 1975.
At the Oscars, Bergman was nominated as best director only three times: for "Cries and Whispers," then for "Face to Face" in 1976, and for his final film, "Fanny & Alexander," in 1984. He received five screenwriting nods.
In 1970, when he was given the Thalberg prize, the Oscar snubbee snubbed Oscar in return. He dispatched Liv Ullmann to claim it on his behalf.
"He is sitting on his little island in the Baltic writing a new script," she said at the podium, "and he believes that he shows his respect and gratefulness . . . by staying home finishing his script."
Side points: Frank Sinatra was on hand to pick up his Hersholt Humanitarian award, as was Lillian Gish to receive her long overdue honorary Oscar. But the other honoree, Orson Welles, was a no-show, as were three of the acting winners –- best actor George C. Scott infamously said "no thanks" while both Glenda Jackson and Helen Hayes were too busy starring in theatre productions to appear on stage Oscar night.
Perhaps the introspective Bergman took solace in the fact that he was not alone in being teased by Oscar. Federico Fellini was also invited to the party time and again — four directing nods and eight screenplay nominations — but had to remain content with directing four foreign language Oscar winners. And it took till 1993 before the Italian director was awarded his honorary statuette.
(Photo: AP)
When someone said Ingmar Bergman, i always recall the street escene in Woody Allen¨s "Manhattan",(the character of Diane Keaton simply denied a nordican well respected director as "overrated") who i believe, is master of silence of God and death, if you could see the masterful images of "The seventh seal", "Cries and wispers" and, i think his great movie departured, "Fanny and Alexander", wish i know with along with Fellini and Kurosawa, was one of the most recognized foreing filmmakers. If you saw The Hour of the Wolf, many of them performer by Liv Ullman and Max Von Sydow, you´ll discover a fascinating auteur dealing with susch themes as death and lonelynes,among other subjets matters not easy to apreciate, Bergmans dies almost the same month of another true master: Michelangelo Antonioni, both almost dificult to see filmmakers by the public who only like to see comercial and easy going pop corn movies.
Posted by: Fernando Garcia Rivas | November 11, 2008 at 09:58 PM
I believe Fanny and Alexander won Bergman a Screenplay Oscar. Correct? (Fanny used to be my favorite film.)
Posted by: Paul | August 02, 2007 at 01:31 PM
I don't care what anyone says. It is a freaking disgrace that people like Ingmar Bergman, Richard Burton, Peter O'Toole and multiple others who, did brilliant work in films, films and performances that have influenced filmmakers and actors for years and when you look at the Academy's history of winners, people like the abovementioned are left out while one shots like Jennifer Hudson are rewarded. It's not only fair but political and downright embarassing for an organization that touts themselves as honoring "the best." John G Avildsen has an Academy Award for Best Director, but Ingmar Bergman doesn't. Am I the only one who thinks something is wrong with that?
Posted by: kahlo | July 31, 2007 at 05:36 PM
Although people are complaining that Bergman did not win an Oscar, the article indicated that he won three for best foreign picture. Then other people complain that by having a "Best Foreign Picture" award, the Oscars are focussed on English speaking films. Well, doesn't that make sense? After all, it is the US film industry award. Do the British awards ever contemplate a US film? Or the Australian, or French, or Italian? No. They focus upon their own film industry, and their own film industry alone. That the Oscars have a place for "Best Foreign Film" is an indication of a greater inclusiveness on the part of the Oscars and the US film industry than is allowed by nearly every other film industry in the world. Therefore, instead of condemning the Oscars for being narrowminded, people should praise them for at least acknowledging the existence of the rest of the world, something that the rest of the world refuses to do to "foreign" films.
Posted by: Jim Sparks | July 31, 2007 at 03:52 PM
Who cares about the Academy Awards anymore?
Posted by: Left Coaster | July 31, 2007 at 03:25 PM
If the Oscars were say...the People's Choice Awards, then you'd have an argument. Votes are culled from their own ranks! Duh!!! WE HAVE NO VOTE PEOPLE!!!! So bemoaning the fact that Mr. Bergman has never received an Oscar is moot.
Posted by: Joy | July 31, 2007 at 02:46 PM
the very fact that there *is* a "foriegn language" category ought to tell you that Oscars are focused narrowly on US english speaking films only. Otherwise, if they truly were interested in reviewing the best in film, why have a "foreign" category at all?
Hollywood is an ocean of money, but an artistic and entertainment desert...
Posted by: biff onielson | July 31, 2007 at 02:06 PM
The reason quality people don't win Oscars can be summed up in two words: Mel Gibson. When all the "queens behind the scenes" (as Bruce Vilanch puts it) in Hollywood voted to give this radical homophobe their highest awards for that fetid cesspool of a film called "Braveheart" in which (like most of his other films) stereotyped gay characters meet messy deaths, that was the end of any kind of integrity the Academy ever had. Y'all deserve what you get.
Posted by: Joe Smith | July 31, 2007 at 01:47 PM
I never pay attention to the Oscars anymore. The movies I like never win, and the ones that are boring as hell usually win. So maybe it's a compliment the Berman didn't get an Oscar...he was far BETTER than the schlock that passes for film that usually gets nominated.
Posted by: Sabrina | July 31, 2007 at 01:17 PM
Though not overtly stated, I think it's pretty clear to most people that the Oscars are about the best "Hollywood films" and I don't think that anyone with intellect would argue that Bergman just wasn't that good because he never won an Oscar.
In the same way, you could watch American Idol and realize that it's not just about singing talent or artistry. Jennifer Hudson didn't even win that one, but she went on to win an Oscar. And I can't tell you how let down I felt when Melinda Doolittle lost out to Jordin Sparks and Blake Lewis (!!). But then I remembered that the majority of votes were probably coming in from nine-year olds, and that the winner would need to go on to sell magazine covers and lip gloss.
It's no secret that the american entertainment industry is about just that, entertainment and industry. It is not primarily about art and directors like Bergman are.
Posted by: Olivia | July 31, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Bergman's incredible artistry and vision will be remembered, and most of those who held the Oscar to measure will not. There is something to be said for the age of those voting for a long time now. Many of them may not even have taken the trouble to be personally acquainted with Bergman's body of work.
I was prepared to disregard Jennifer Hudson's performance, however it was a sensational first film. An Oscar as a reward? Well ... ...not really, considering those she was competing against. Bergman and Hudson....not comparable in any way at all.
The film community is made up of people who put their pants on one leg at a time....old saying. Applicable.
Maybe we need to create International Oscars in a whole other contest, for the same reason we need to separate Indie films to be compared according to their budgets. Fair competition.
Posted by: Jacquie Schmall | July 31, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Kahlo: Directors vote for directors; actors vote for actors. Yours is a strawman argument.
Posted by: investorguy | July 31, 2007 at 12:18 PM
No matter what happens in the future, award inequity will always be there. Many will wonder why one person has an award and another has not. I am disappointed that famous filmmakers like Bergman have, technically, never earned an Oscar in competition.
I think it is rather tiring and useless hitting the same dead horse when comparing which people have won Oscars and which ones have not. We can try to change history and right a perceived wrong but life is not fair. (Thank goodness Scoresese won this past year. At least the "he was robbed!" statement can simmer down just a little bit until the next time he receives an Oscar nomination.)
To me, writing about Bergman (or, as of this post, the late Michelangelo Antonioni) not winning an Oscar and mentioning the people who have won Oscars is wasted space.
Posted by: bearrochny | July 31, 2007 at 11:49 AM
I get sick of reading about people who say things like "Ingmar Bergman has never won an Oscar but Jennifer Hudson has."
If Ingmar Bergman had been nominated as Best Supporting Actor four times and lost repeatedly to less-deserving people, I'd accept the logic. If Jennifer Hudson had beaten Martin Scorcese last year for Best Director, the statement would be logical.
It's the same illogical step people made when Three 6 Mafia won their Oscar.
Bergman and Hudson were in separate categories. Their achievements are not similar and can't be compared.
If you want to talk about the "injustice" of never giving Bergman a real Oscar, talk about all the actor-directors (besides Eastwood) who have won it.
It's also a shame that when his films won best foreign film, the award went to the producer. Now, the award goes to the director, which is why he should have released "Saraband" in theaters first. The award would have been his.
Posted by: Jeff | July 31, 2007 at 09:14 AM
The Academy will never, never, never give its Best Picture Oscar to a non-English film, no matter how good the film is. Best Picture is reserved only for English language films.
Posted by: Armando (Caracas, Venezuela) | July 31, 2007 at 08:49 AM
"Since its founding in 1935, the New York Film Critics Circle has named only four foreign-language films as best picture."
Uh, for most of its existence, the NY Film Critics Circle has given a separate Best Foreign Film award. From 1969 to 1977, the NYFCC eliminated its Foreign Film award, choosing its Best Film award from qualifying pictures from all countries -- that's when Z, CRIES AND WHISPERS, DAY FOR NIGHT and AMARCORD won.
Posted by: Griff | July 31, 2007 at 07:23 AM
The reason why Bergman never won an academy award Oscar is because of the stupid way the Oscars are set up. They should be called the "Only American Films Awards". They are not like an international film festivals where all films from all over the world have a shot at winning the best picture or palme d'or, silver lion etc..... The oscars have a category intitled the best foreign film. What a dispicable market oriented ethnocentric film awards.
The dispicable best picture of 2001? Eastwood's "million dollars baby". What a shame? I have seen second class foreign films that are much better quality in any categories than the best picture of the Oscars. Let's face it, the Oscars raison d'etre are only there for the American film producers to propect their financial interests, and the dumbing down of the so-called American movies goers.
Posted by: Samish | July 31, 2007 at 07:07 AM
I don't think we should talk about Ingmar Bergman having an Oscar. He doesn't have an Oscar and that's the fact, but unlike most directors who have one or two, he'll be remembered as a great master. Because I cannot forget about the huge overwhelming feeling I had while watching Persona or how much I was touched and entertained and actually made think by Wild Strawberries, or how pleasently visually stunning Fanny and Alexander and Det synde inseglet. He's a master and his films are going to touch people in hundred years as they do today and as they did when they were produced. I'm a huge fan of Woody Allen and I understand why he loves Bergman. Because he wanted to make such films his whole life. And Allen is the funny Bergman, I'd say. But the OSCARS aren't important in terms of time passing and time relevant truths. Because the time actually shows how absurd the Oscars can be... Bergman is above the Oscars and I'm proud that he continued to make his own films and didn't change his style and his ambitions and was true to himself instead of thinking about winning an Oscar....
Posted by: Ross | July 31, 2007 at 04:54 AM
Bergman is a prophet.
Posted by: hasan | July 30, 2007 at 11:35 PM
Ugh...just a shame.
The Oscars have lost a lot of credibility. Who cares what a select group of over 5,000 thinks, especially since most are influenced by commercial schlock passed off as "artistic greatness". Bergman deserves a large tribute at the Oscars next year. I hate how Amero/Eurocentric the Oscars still are despite the recent diversity. But I agree with kahlo. Jennifer Hudson won an Oscar but Bergman never won one?
ABOMINABLE!
Posted by: Nick | July 30, 2007 at 09:13 PM
Persona deserves to win every Best Picture award every year, forever.
Posted by: Slayton | July 30, 2007 at 06:11 PM
Now I'm sure that Liv Ullman will present the In Memoriam segment next year.
Posted by: AcademyAwards Guru | July 30, 2007 at 05:43 PM
Let me get this straight. Ingmar Bergman never won on Oscar but Jennifer Hudson has? Any other reasons why we should never, ever take the Oscars seriously again?
Posted by: kahlo | July 30, 2007 at 04:27 PM