Talk:Ingrid Bergman/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Good edit

I'm glad to see the unsourced claim that she committed suicide removed from the article. If anyone puts it back, it had better be with a rock solid source. 23skidoo 22:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Image deletion

I reverted the deletion of the Notorious image on the grounds that it does fall into fair use because it illustrates Bergman's work and the article itself serves as a description of one of the film's "contents" - namely the actress. If the issue is that there's no discussion of Notorious, then someone can easily add it. There is overwhelming precident for the use of such images on Wikipedia -- including, I may add, the Casablanca image at the top of this article. 23skidoo 15:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Images

I like the addition of the Casablanca image but I wonder if we really need the shot of her at 14 anymore. 23skidoo 01:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't like that image either; it's not very representative of how most people think of her. The Singing Badger 02:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a nice picture; leave it in. On a more serious note, I think those responsible for this article should read her autobiography. There are a lot of errors and slurs here. Sune Slips
Actually, I have. At least 3 times. Could you be specific as to the "errors and slurs"? I did note an uncited comment about her last husband which I deleted, and there was unnecessary bolding in the paragraph about her becoming a pariah in the US re:Rossellini. If there are errors, please be bold and correct them. 23skidoo 02:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems to be a suitable early life picture. It would be nice if we could include a photo from around the time of Cactus Flower as well to show the longevity of her career. PhantomS 08:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Fugitive in Vienna

I saw this movie listed in the film lists included with her Miami Herald and Washington Post obituaries. Furthermore, the Washington Post also included Simulantia as a separate entry. However, Fugitive in Vienna is nowhere to be found in IMDB. Does anyone have any information on this? --PhantomS 10:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Recordings

Missing from this article, I think, are references to at least 3 recordings Bergman made. One was an audio version of The Human Voice, another was a "talking book" of Inn of the Sixth Happiness, and her radio performance of Casablanca (opposite Humphrey Bogart and Paul Henreid again) was released to albums in 1970s and later CD. I lack date and other release information for these, otherwise I'd add them myself. 23skidoo 19:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The radio performances are now public domain and can be picked up at several websites. In fact, I think I linked to the Casablanca versions by both the original cast and by Hedy Lamarr. As for the audio book version of Inn of the Sixth Happiness and spoken word version of The Human Voice, I have found internet sources for these and have subsequently introduced a table to the credits section. --PhantomS 22:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, photos of the LP can be seen here, while a Time magazine article on it from 1963 can be found here. Image of The Small Woman case can be seen here. --PhantomS 23:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ingrid Bergman and Ingmar Bergman (and his wife Ingrid)

Could someone please clarify (as if no one knows; there's world out there) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.109.67 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We do say in the Trivia section that, although they worked together, Ingrid Bergman and Ingmar Bergman were not related. It's just a coincidence that Ingmar Bergman's 5th wife's name also happened to be Ingrid. -- JackofOz 03:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Corrected book Title

Corrected comment about Alan Burgess. Article originally claimed he wrote The Inn of the Sixth Happiness, when in fact the book he wrote was called The Small Woman, on which the Movie The Inn of the Sixth Happiness was based. The correct title of his book is confirmed by The DVD audio commentary of the movie, the text on the back of the DVD case, and the 'Critical reaction' section of the Wikipedia article on The Inn of the Sixth Happiness. Alexander 05:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Little To No Makeup

The article currently states, "her appearance was entirely natural with little to no makeup". I have a hard time believing this. Anyone who appears in on tv or in a film needs to be caked with makeup, or the lighting will wash out their features. I'm not saying she wasn't naturally pretty, but to say she didn't need makeup is to not understand the industry. Also, the article says she got her first Academy Award nomination the same year as Casablanca, but that doesn't make any sense. 68.253.25.151 (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "not understanding the industry." This is in the article because it is highly unusual and makes Bergman stand out as a remarkably pretty woman. It's also stated directly in more than one major biographies of her. In addition, she received no nominations for "Casablanca," but she did for "For Whom the Bell Tolls," which came out the same year, in terms of awards. So yes, it does make sense. Icarus of old (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would say she is not a gay icon Franz-kafka 18:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm gay, but do not consider Ingrid Bergman to be more of a gay icon than hundreds of other female movie stars. Bergman is an icon to all.

Definitely, she is not a gay icon. She is an icon but not gay icon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.56.6 (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Education

She attended the University of Malmo at some point--my grandmother went to school with her. Does anyone have information on this?

She went straight from the Royal Dramatic Theater to working in films. I've read her entire autobiography, and there is no mention of the University of Malmo. --PhantomS 04:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a Malmö University in Sweden, but founded in 1998. Malmö is an industrial city and this is a recent addition. Lund University is one of the old Swedish universities in a neighboring town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.116.120 (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

If you see Ingmar Bergman's page, another swedish actor with the same last name, it gives an audio file showing how to pronounce his last name properly. If someone can add it here too, it will be nice.--Power2People (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no choice but to revert recent deletions of material cited by Chandler's biography. Chandler is used throughout the article and is a primary source of facts in this article. If someone wishes to claim that the Chandler book does not meet criteria for WP:Verifiability, then add and explain those disputes here instead of removing selections as "undocumented." Otherwise, all of Chandler's citations should be removed, in which case the article will become a brief stub. The alternative is to find additional sources that may dispute facts and expand the article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Early life details

Recent deletions by User:72.81.124.230 may be undermining neutral point of view and conflict of interest guidelines. Using terms such as "insinuating" and "provocative" to bio details that come from valid and authoritative sources are OK and should not be deleted. Additional material can be cited. It's also unclear why such information would be "provocative" in any case. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC) If you want any quotations from the books cited, please ask.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why the IP would want to remove this content. It is quite clearly adequately sourced. Are we trying to remove or deny ties with Judaism? There is no question in my mind that this is completely relevant and properly weighted content. Removing this would tend to be censorship at best. There is nothing anywhere that would prohibit such content, which is in no way insinuating or provocative. If someone is claiming family ties to Bergman, but is actively trying to remove this content, I'd have to question the motivation for doing so. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the hyphenated adjective Swedish-German is valid for a person whose German mother died when she was three years of age, and who never had anything to do with the country of her birth, as far as I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.247.182 (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

"Cleaned-up" Biography

I've read a lot of Wikipedia biographies for writers, actors, directors and producers and mentions of coworkers who they had significant affairs with are commonly included (all sourced, of course). Bergman's name comes up in several of them but aside from her affair and later marriage to Rossellini, this information is not included and, I'm guessing, it consciously deleted when it is edited in.

Affairs between actors or actors and directors were common in Hollywood of the 1920s-1950s and it seems sanitized to omit their mention here, especially when mention of Bergman occurs on the other person's Wikipedia page. This isn't gossip, it helps readers understand Hollywood culture of the time and also can impact how one views films that arise out of off-screen romances.

I'm not sure whether some editor wants to preserve a virtuous image of Bergman but she is deceased and considering how prevalent they were, I don't think knowledge of her affairs would tarnish this image. I'm not going to get into an editing war but I just wanted to cast a vote for including this dimension of her personal life in her biography. This information already exists on other Wiki pages and it makes sense that it would appear on this bio as well. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Death section

What does "She was honored posthumously by Ingmar Bergman" mean? What did he do to honor her? JackofOz 05:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No response, so I've removed the sentence. -- JackofOz 03:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Death and Legacy section says she was a "tall, natural looking, and intelligent Swedish actress, fluent in English." Why is this in the Death and Legacy section? Her height isn't really relevant, the picture shows how natural or unnatural she looks, her fluency in five languages is mentioned elsewhere, and I'm not sure how her intelligence is relevant. I'm removing this sentence. --BittenFig♻talk 02:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Date of death

The death certificate seems fairly conclusive about 30 August. I wonder why all the sources we quote say she died on 29 August. Even the "official Ingrid Bergman" website seems to have it wrong. Maybe this was the date in the US when her death was reported, and the date was misreported at the time and the misinformation has stuck ever since. Any other theories? JackofOz 11:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've always heard 29 August, myself. It's possible the 30 August date was a clerical error (that has happened before). Alternately it's possible the date on the certificate is the date on which the certificate was filed. Perhaps Ingrid died on the 29th but this wasn't discovered until the 30th? Didn't she die in her sleep? 23skidoo 14:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
One web site says that she died in her sleep at the end of her 67th birthday, 29th of August 1982. Probably the death certificate was filed on the 30th.
--Gabi S. 10:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
She died at the end of August 29th during the night. The day before, on the 28th, the cancer had advanced to her spine and collapsed her twelth verterbra, causing her to be on diamorphine and to be bedridden. On the 29th, it was discovered by the doctor that her right lung had collapsed and that only an upper third of the left was still working; therefore, it was known that she wouldn't be lasting much longer. In addition, at this point, she was going in and out of consciousness and her breathing was labored. At 3:30 a.m. on the 30th, her cousin Britt, who was sleeping in the next room, woke up and decided to check on Ingrid after not hearing her breathing. At that time, she was discovered to be dead.
--PhantomS 00:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
A similar confusion over the exact date of death occurred with a friend of mine, Johnny Grande, who likewise passed away overnight, leading to two different dates of death being reported in the media. 23skidoo 04:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
That kind of confusion is quite common. My own father died on September 30 but the death certificate says October 1. Sometimes it depends on when the doctor calls it.Chandler75 (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting this issue. OK, so she certainly died no later than 3:30am on 30th, but possibly before midnight on 29th. We can hypothesise forever about typos on the DC, but that's all hot air as far as the historical record is concerned. The death certificate is that record, and it says death occurred on 30th. Who has the right to challenge that? Is there any evidence that death occurred prior to midnight? If so, where is it? At the very least, we need to report what the DC says, then perhaps explain why the world regards her as having died on the 29th. This is Wikipedia after all, not some fan site. JackofOz 04:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just been leafing through a biography of Bergman in a bookshop. It said she died at 3pm, on the afternoon of her birthday, Sunday 29 August. There was at least one witness, who saw her take her last breath. Whether that information is from primary sources is something we can only guess at. So what we have are the following differing dates and times:
  • 29 August, 3 pm
  • 29 August, late (during the night)
  • 30 August, 3.30 am
  • 30 August (death certificate - no time mentioned) [1].
To remain credible, I think we simply cannot just ignore the death certificate in the article. It was at one time available via a link, but has since been removed. That, to me, is a very dishonest approach to the use of primary sources. We have to either accept the certificate as accurate and use 30 August as Ingrid's death date, or explain why it is not accurate and use 29 August. The best I can come up with at the moment is that the doctor (or whoever) made an error when filling it out - but that is just my supposition, based on the fact that most sources say she died on 29 August. I want to return the birth certificate link to the article, but am having some trouble coming up with the words to explain why we do not accept it as being accurate. Can anyone assist? -- JackofOz 05:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ingrid Bergman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

Anybody knows why this part was deleted:

"At 17, in 1932, Bergman was allowed only one chance to become an actress by entering an acting competition with the Royal Dramatic Theatre in Stockholm.[7]:30–31 Bergman recalls her feelings during that competition: 

   As I walked off the stage, I was in mourning, I was at a funeral. My own. It was the death of my creative self. My heart had truly broken... they didn't think I was even worth listening to, or watching.

Her impression was wrong, as she later met one of the judges who described how the others viewed her performance: 

   We loved your security and your impertinence. We loved you and told each other that there was no reason to waste time as there were dozens of other entrants still to come. We didn't need to waste any time with you. We knew you were a natural and great. Your future as an actress was settled.[7]:31–33"

I think it was very good, and if its backed up by good source (and it seems it is), i think this should reamain in article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.113.62.31 (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ingrid Bergman/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article has a lot of good information on Ingrid Bergman. However, the early and later years need to be fleshed out. In addition, her personal life needs to be separated from her film career and fleshed out. Also, reference material use needs to be clarified. --PhantomS 05:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 18:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Her mother

Her mother was Friedel Adler. Adler is a Jewish surname. I'm self Jewish, and my mom's name is Adler, and she has no German ancestry, but actually she's a Jew from Germany. Ingrid's mother was a Jewish woman from Germany, with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry from Russia, Poland, Hungary and Germany. I heard that in an interview with her daughter, Isabella Rossellini in a Swedish magazine, Icakuriren. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.210.85.30 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC).

If you read her autobiography, you'll find that her mother's family was Lutheran and that she had pro-Nazi relatives on that side. By the way, you might want to look at Jewish name. --PhantomS 07:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
This is correct! Ingrid Bergmans Mother is jewish. Adler is a jewish Surname. Steven Spielbergs Mother Surname is also Leah Adler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D1:23BF:912:5475:9A1:448C:9271 (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


To quote Wikipedia:

"Adler is a surname of German origin meaning eagle, and has a frequency in the United Kingdom of less than 0.004%, and of 0.008% in the United States.[1] In Christian iconography, the eagle is the symbol of John the Evangelist, and as such a stylized eagle was commonly used as a house sign/totem in German speaking areas. From the tenement the term easily moved to its inhabitants, particularly to those having only one name. This phenomenon can be easily seen in German and Austrian censuses from the 16th and 17th centuries.[2] The term might have been assigned also as a name descriptive of character or outward characteristics.

Die Adler (the eagles) also is a nickname for the Germany national football team."


The research of Bergman's ancestry found no clues that she had any Jewish ancestors.

And Jewish names are Cohen, Meir, Gurion or Gadot, but not Adler, Weinstein, Goldstein or Roth...these are German names which derive from the German language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.15.16.33 (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

There are surnames that are both gentile and Jewish, and surnames that are mostly- or exclusively-Jewish surnames which originated in gentile languages. Per Ancestry.com, Adler, e.g.: "German: from Adler ‘eagle’, denoting someone living in a house identified by the sign of an eagle. The German noun is from Middle High German adelar, itself a compound of adel ‘noble’ + ar ‘eagle’. This name is widespread throughout central and eastern Europe, being found for example in Czech, Polish, Slovenian, and Hungarian (Ádler). Jewish (Ashkenazic): ornamental name meaning ‘eagle’."

Besides, many Jews have passed for gentiles, and Ingrid Bergman may've been one of them during her lifetime. Also, one's religion does not define his or her ethnicity. 100.16.221.251 (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ingrid Bergman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Italian citizen?

it isn't a big issue but in her biography there is written she became italian citizen after her wedding with Rossellini, there are are other sources? --2.226.12.134 (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Still verbose

Something like:

She was given a standing ovation after being introduced by Cary Grant as she walked onto the stage to present the award.

is what I expect in a book-length biography -- particularly the kind one finds in a B&B in a rural area subject to day-long rainfall. It bulks up the book and passes the time of the reader. But is this kind of thing helpful in an encyclopedia article? (I say no it isn't.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

You and your rainy day B&B...Too true! As this was after the scandal, perhaps the standing ovation is important. What if we trim the previous sentence and add to it: “ Bergman made her first post-scandal public appearance in Hollywood at the 30th Academy Awards in 1959, as presenter of the Award for Best Picture,[28] and received a standing ovation when introduced.” No need to name-drop Cary Grant, or say “when she was the presenter”, or Academy, 2 times. Does that help? Trim away, my friend. E for essence and encyclopedia, as I am learning....Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 07:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The trimming continues. . . . Hoary (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Repeat of citations

@Hoary:, Here, I added the Academy Award info, in ref to MotOE. [2] (I had to make A few changes to this original edit, as spell-correct had changed Cortese to Cortège, etc.) Nonetheless, the two paragraphs had the same source. Recently, you added a cn tag for the first paragraph. Are we required to state a source for each separate paragraph? I don’t mind doing so, but I wish to know. Thanks for your good work here, it is a pleasure...Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 03:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Where it's not otherwise clear that successive paragraphs are from the same source, I think it's good practice to repeat the reference. -- Hoary (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, this reasoning is very helpful. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 08:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

afi rank

I think it is important to state her rank in the list. Failing to do so is like an ignorance to her merit as an actor. All other pages on other legends ie bogart, hepburn, davis stated their rank. I hope you can revert this one small piece of sentence. Annenaim81 (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd remove the lot. This "screen legends" thing may have been an effective gimmick to sell "a three-hour CBS television special" and "a major video program in video stores across America" (if I may cite an AFI page that AFI hasn't bothered to preserve), and I suppose it merits inclusion in the supplementary List of awards and nominations received by Ingrid Bergman. But in a conspicuous place within the main article on Bergman? No. -- Hoary (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I am thinking about this. The source says “ AFI defines an "American screen legend" as an actor or a team of actors with a significant screen presence in American feature-length films whose screen debut occurred in or before 1950...” Reading the source causes me to question this numerical value system. AFI doesn’t really give a good explanation for their judgements. “[S]ignificant screen presence” makes it seem like it is connected to the number of performances, versus artistic value. Annenaim81, I would much rather see her noted as “an actress of Classic Hollywood Cinema“, rather assign a numerical value, of #4. A fine actress/actor is not a sports team! Her merit is more than a “number”. Perhaps we should remove this ranking system from the articles of the other artists you mentioned, as well. Earlier today, I watched MotOE once again. Bergman definitely chose the best supporting role...A wonderful performance! Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 09:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, as I am throwing my personal opinions around, I think some of the over-the-top words like “legend” do a disservice to the artist, and to our encyclopedia. The opinionated...Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 09:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Good explanation, thank you. Hopefully can do as well for other pages too. Because the ranking system kinda confusing me a bit. Annenaim81 (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Annenaim81 Yes, it is confusing to me also. AFI is not providing a good definition of what constitutes “a legend”, which is why I have decided that I don’t “trust” this numerical value system, and prefer not to use it. I think I have become accustomed to WP’s rules, which state that we should be able to provide proof. For example, why is Bette Davis, at #2, considered (by AFI) to be “more legendary” than Bergman? Why is Bergman more legendary than Marilyn Monroe at #6? AFI doesn’t provide an explanation. I think we should just leave out, or at least, minimize this sort of unknown information.
At this point, I would like for us to follow user:Hoary’s question/suggestion, stated below, and add more information about what the critics and reviewers said, regarding the quality of her performances. (I will help to work on this.) This is an encyclopedia article, so we need to collect statements from good sources, which is a better service to our readers. (And, in my imagination, I suspect that Bergman would agree. She seems to have been a rather matter-of-fact, modest sort of person.) Thanks for letting me state my thoughts here. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 05:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Where this could be beneficially augmented

There's little discussion in this article of how IB acted in most of these movies. What did/do the reviewers say? And sometimes there are descriptions, but these are laconic. As an example: "The film [Gaslight], according to [David] Thomson, "was the peak of her Hollywood glory.'" I might make half a dozen wildly different guesses as to what Thomson means here by "Hollywood glory"; doesn't the original context make this clear? -- Hoary (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Hollywood glory and legend are words that are now causing me to visualize Elvis in a gold jumpsuit. Uhg. Will look for reviews.Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 09:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
There could well be perceptive and pity comments on a number of these films in 5001 Nights at the Movies. -- Hoary (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this source, I looked up Casablanca, for a start,... and talk about pithy: ”Ingrid Bergman became a popular favorite when Humphrey Bogart, as Rick, the most famous saloonkeeper in screen history, treated her like a whore.” Whoa, Kael isn’t pulling her punches.
I recently watched an interview with Bergman, when she was in her sixties. She spoke of her resistance, when coming to Hollywood, to having her teeth capped, eyebrows plucked, etc., so that she would look like the sophisticated and perfect actresses of the period. In CB, she looks like the beautiful fresh faced girl next door, and this obviously resonated with viewers of the time. Women could identify with her difficult choices and her loyalty. Men would hope that “their girl” would be so loyal, and that they, themselves could aspire to make good choices and to “sacrifice” for the cause, if needed.
I will continue to search Kael’s work, and others, for actual comments regarding IB’s acting. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 00:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to user:Lightcaller, I am reading Lawrence Quirk’s The Films of Ingrid Bergman. It begins with a biographical section. Then follow sections on each film, etc., with a collection of reviews for each performance. I think this source may provide good reviews regarding her acting. The book is available online, for a one hour borrowing period. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 00:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Added/restored years to sections

Because Bergman's career spanned @47 years, I think it is both useful and important to divide her life and her career in a chronological grouping. I do not think it necessary to provide a major section heading for "Career", as it is quite obvious that the "groups" contain not only the career info, but also personal life info. So, I think the year groups are more appropriate for the information contained. If a reader is searching for whatever happened in such and such year, or in relation to a certain film/stage production, etc., the division is both important and provides organization. My thanks and respect to fellow editors. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 01:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. "Career" is too broad a section for such a long career like IB. Likewise, my respect and mucho thanks to all contributors. Annenaim81 (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

death and legacy and cultural recognition

Hi guys, should we separate the 'Death and legacy' into two sections and then merge the legacy with cultural recognition which we already have? It is for streamlining. Open for discussion. Annenaim81 (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Just saw this...but must go to bed soon. Yes, I agree that some changes would be beneficial! Will look and state my thoughts a bit later. Thanks, as always, for your good suggestions and observations! Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 07:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. I added some contents in the section. Please take a look and edit if necessary for brevity and neatness. English is not my first language so I prone to make grammar mistakes. :) Thank you guys. Annenaim81 (talk) 07:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I have only glanced at your recent helpful additions, and will copyedit as needed. But I agree with your previous suggestion of a separate section. At this point, I think we should have the Death section, and another section entitled Recognition. She was mourned by many, and tributes of recognition were made at the time of her death. So, I think those facts should go in a separate section. I will work on this, and we all can discuss, and revise as needed.Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 01:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I have made changes, hope they meet with approval.Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 02:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I noted the changes. Now it flows nicely. Annenaim81 (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I've removed some pics that I think not pertaining to the content. And I added some that I think would be more of a help visually to readers. You know, articles and just words might be boring to viewers. Annenaim81 (talk) 03:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Confusing info Regarding separation from Rosselini

Info regarding their separation isn't super clear.

Uncited from the Career section: After separating from Rossellini, Bergman starred in Jean Renoir's Elena and Her Men (Elena et les Hommes, 1956)...

Cited (but didn't personally verify them) from the Personal section: In 1957, Rossellini had an affair with Sonali Das Gupta and soon after, Bergman and Rossellini separated. Rossellini married Sonali Das Gupta in 1957. Cited.

Uncited from the Elena and Her Men page: This was Bergman's first film after leaving her husband, director Roberto Rossellini.

If they separated in 1957 it would make Anastasia her first project after her relationship with Rossellini.

Let me know.Filmman3000 (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps or hinders, but I recall in one of her biographies, that Rossellini did not wish her to work with other filmmakers in general, but he made an exception for Renoir. Will look for the info, and provide the source, and perhaps the quote, if I am remembering correctly. Then it can be decided, where the info belongs in the article. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 00:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding tags...

It is not my intention to be a dreadful, picky and strict editor, by adding [failed verification] or [citation needed] or [better source needed] tags. But as we know, there is a great deal of good information on IB....out there, somewhere. I am "tagging" so that if one of us is reading a good quality source, and comes across the info, we will have a "reminder", that the ref/source/citation can be added to a particular place in the article. While I was doing some technical edits, just to format sources, I have been able to add (I hope) some good bits and pieces of information.

So, please know that I am only tagging to assist with memory (mine in particular, which is rather bad) and NOT because I am challenging the veracity of the statements. If an editor finds something, they can just add a bare-bones citation, and I will be very pleased and happy (probably thrilled) to have the enjoyment of formatting. Your WP:WikiGnome friend, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 04:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm

I noticed that the phrase “Nordic freshness and vitality“ in the lede comes from what is apparently a floor advertisement. This is problematic, not to mention the unfortunate connotations of “Nordic”, but I cannot find a convenient replacement. Thoughts? Lightcaller (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Lightcaller: I strongly suspect that the floor people copied WP. This phrase was in the lede as far back as April 2010, I didn't search any further back than that, but I can, if desired....WP had it first, IMO. Please explain "the unfortunate connotations of “Nordic”"...I am missing something here. According to my massive tome of a print dictionary: Nordic " #1-Scandinavian #2-...people of Northern Europe...tall stature, blonde hair, blue eyes. #3-refers to skiing events." The term originated 1895-1900, from the French, nordique, which would translate as "of the North". (Nord =North)
This is a good physical description of Bergman, and the term would have been familiar to writers of the time, when she first began to appear in American cinema. Does this help with your objections? Thanks, as always...Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 22:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Tribe of Tiger: Aha! Found the source. Thank you, Internet Archive. My worry was that some editor might have thought to add a rhetorical flourish of their own; now, with proper sourcing, it can remain. It is an admirable description, yes. Thanks for the response.
As regards the word "Nordic", the most succinct response would probably be to link to the article on Nordicism, and so I will do that. Lightcaller (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh nuts, they already cited the source earlier in the lede. I am very unobservant. Lightcaller (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@Lightcaller: My computer is refusing to give me access to the source you provided in the first sentence, just now, but I can read the https part of the link and trust your judgment. Not long after I posted my question regarding Nordic I had this "oh no" thought, and your article link has confirmed that my worries were correct. I am a senior citizen, and have noticed that the meanings of originally innocence phrases/symbols, change over time.
At one point, (thirty some years ago) in an art group discussion, I mentioned that the Buddhist swastika-type symbol had been co-opted by the Nazis as a symbol of evil and oppression. My (college-educated) friend turned to me in distress and said: "Didn't the Buddhists know that the Nazis had already used that symbol?" I had to explain that the Buddhists came first. So this was my turn to feel uninformed! Still, it is the same thing, in a way...an entire population of physically similar people, equated with a negative, evil and destructive "political movement." Now, I find myself pleasurably running through a long list of all the Nordic-appearing Jewish people that I have personally loved, known or met in my lifetime....Best wishes, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 04:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Gemok16 and Annenaim81

Gemok16 is a sockpuppet of Annenaim81, just thought I'd share -- 91.64.153.18(talk) 14:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPI Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 03:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I hope it's okay having 2 accounts for home use and office. Annenaim81 (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I hope I didn't commit any wrongdoings here just because I have 2 accounts. I didn't vandalised or spammed people. I just felt like I wanted to have 2 accounts for home use and office use, but ya know, in the end I messed up using both at the same time. Haha. I hope I don't offend anyone here. Cheers. Annenaim81 (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Annenaim81@Annenaim81: Yes, this is wrong. It is not usually okay to have two accounts....But, thanks so much for explaining this. At first, I thought that the IP editor was just trying to cause trouble, but as I considered the situation, I became very worried, upset and troubled. It made me feel as though Annenaim81 whom I respect and value, might be trying to fool me. And then, here is Gemok16, a new editor, and a good editor...I didn't know what to think !!! Using two accounts is wrong, because it looks like two people are editing versus the same person secretly editing under two names. This appears deceptive. Please read WP:SOCK, because this is a complicated issue, which I don't have time/energy to explain fully. The best thing for you to do now, is to link your two accounts, see WP:ALTACCN for info. So, you must place a note on the user page of your first (main account, Annenaim81) stating that Gemok16 is a alternate acct., and a similar note on the Gemok16 page, stating that Annenaim81 is your main account. You really must do this, right away, because you are violating a very serious WP policy. This can lead to blocking or banning...
Now, consider the situation here at IB. What if Annenaim81 is making a "type of edit A" and Gemok16 is also making a "type of edit A", and I, as a third editor disagree, then I will feel outnumbered, by two to one. This puts your fellow editors in an unfair position. We trust that one person is one person, and that is fair. So, please, do as I have said above. And then, choose only one name to edit, not only here at IB, but elsewhere. If you have questions, ask Hoary, who is a good Admin, and will know the answers. I hope you are a good honest person who made a mistake and I am so grateful that you explained. I am sorry to admit that I do feel a bit offended, because I was mislead. I trusted that I was looking at the edits of different two people, versus one person. Please, rectify this situation...you are an asset to the article, and I really want to continue working with you, in mutual trust and friendly collaboration!!! Best wishes of friendship, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 04:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm very sorry for misleading you which I didn't intend to. I have stopped contributing using Gemok16. I will rectify this situation and follow the link you've provided me. I really appreciate your kind words even though you felt upset. I hope I'm not overstay my welcome here. And sorry again putting you in grief. Annenaim81 (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Annenaim81, Thanks so very much for this kind reply. I do, most truly, welcome you to stay, hopefully for many, many years. You have so much to offer and I respect your work and intelligence. Your truthful acknowledgement and apology has healed my distress....thank you again. Best wishes for your health and happiness...Sincerely, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 03:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Annenaim81, Thanks very much for linking your accounts. You have done so, in the proper way. I must admit to being curious and concerned, as to why someone chose to report you. Best, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 03:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

My thought exactly. I've been warned by the admin about the copyright content on the other WP page. I don't remember I've done such thing. I use my own words, and since English is not my first language, you may find many errors. If I've just right down copy them, they'd would be perfect. You know what I mean. Sometimes I don't know what I did wrong. But I want to be like an obedient child. Just shut up when you got reprimanded by your parent. But I got tensed sometimes perhaps getting banned in the near future. I just don't know.:( Annenaim81 (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

When I did my first edit back in June, yes, I did copy them right away because I was such a naive, stupid, and ignorant. I was banned from editing for a month (at least, I think). But now I've learned my lesson. But then again, I might be doing something wrong that I didn't even aware of.😐😒 Annenaim81 (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is poor.

Randomly selected example:

On screen Bergman looked so gay and playful who uses her charm to enchant and then dismiss her suitors.
  1. How gay and playful?
  2. According to whom?
  3. If they're already her suitors, why does she need to enchant them? (Aren't they already enchanted?)

And this is just one sentence among dozens.

I suggest a radical reversion to an earlier and more encyclopedic state. Any objections? -- Hoary (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Nope. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Not from me. (This diligent and plagiaristic user appears to be responsible for most of it. Warnings have been given many times, to no avail.) Lightcaller (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I must disagree, it is not poor, it is dreadful. If you can revert, please, please do so. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 07:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Over the last month, User:Annenaim81 has tripled the length of the article via more than 100 edits. Unraveling this will take persistence. David notMD (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I suggest (1) returning the article to its state on 14 June, at first ignoring all subsequent edits. And then (2) going through those edits (perhaps one month's-worth at a time, from June to October), looking for actual improvements and reinstating these. Any comments from Annenaim81, Heiko Gerber, GoingBatty, Lightcaller, anyone else? -- Hoary (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary: If you choose to return the article to a previous state, feel free to ping me when that's done and I'll see if I can make any minor technical or copyediting changes. GoingBatty (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Ping! -- Hoary (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. I could also probably help with typos and such. Lightcaller (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think this is a good course of action. Take it back to 14 June. I will help with reinstating any improvements, etc. Thanks Hoary! Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 21:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am not English speaker so there must be many errors. I welcome your suggestions. Please correct me. Just dont call me plagiarist. I got my facts from books perhaps my sentences not eloquently good. I tried my best to make the page the ultimate source for the subject.I hope we all can work edit this together.

if you need to remove unnecessary paragraphs etc like above mentioned, please do. Annenaim81 (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Annenaim81. You do seem sincere in your desire to improve the page, and for that I applaud you. But you have to understand three things.
Firstly, that certain stories and anecdotes have to be cut out for the sake of brevity and neatness. If a reader wants to know of, say, Bergman’s popularity and critical reception during the 1950s, she should not have to wade through a thousand minor anecdotes about remarks Peter Lorre made about her one time.
Secondly, that in its present state the page is almost unreadable. The grammar is frankly abominable. You are a non-native speaker, and of course that is no mark against you, but I would be compelled to suggest that you learn more of English grammar before making so grand an edit.
Thirdly, that two or three biographies are not enough. The writing of a biography is a long, torturous, dim endeavour, which usually understandably concludes in the author focusing on certain elements of the subject’s life and excluding others. To get anything like the full stature of the woman you have to read and condense many, many works- biographies per se, studies of a single moment in time, biographies and studies of other figures and movements that mention her in passing, and so on- so as to dim all the authors’ biases.
There are probably other flaws which I have not grasped. If you would like an example of Wikipedia's best work I would direct you to the article on Katharine Hepburn. Lightcaller (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments. Yes, I need to learn much more and being more objective. Perhaps some topics were too long and unnecessary. I hope we all can trim/edit those together one or two at a time. And to keep it neat and simple. Sorry for all the errors and troubles. Annenaim81 (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The article is now as it was in mid June (and thus is well under half the length it was just a few minutes ago). -- Hoary (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for working your Admin magic. Much better. Three editors who were either mentioned, or commented above, are already at work! Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 23:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

So what was the point of reverting it, we now have some other guy re-adding almost everything back again. ffs 188.192.201.91 (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Oddities

This article is coming along well. Thank you, all! However:

  • "Bergman could speak Swedish (her native language)..." A longish discussion of her language abilities in the section titled "Murder on the Orient Express (1974)".
  • "Although known chiefly as a film star, ..." A non-negligible discussion of activities in the (live) theatre, again in the section titled "Murder on the Orient Express (1974)".
  • "It was through this autobiography that her affair with Robert Capa became known." Is this affair worth describing? If it is, describe it; if it isn't, skip any mention of it.

-- Hoary (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I made an attempt to fix the MotOE stuff. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, SergeWoodzing. Invitation to anyone: I believe that Robert Capa was quite the ladies' man, but this article suggests that a fling between the pair of them was more than routine. Would somebody like to write it up? As it is, the mere mention of Capa in this article looks odd. -- Hoary (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I will see what I can do to write more info! Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 09:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
SergeWoodzing and Hoary I have added a rough draft of info regarding Robert Capa, based on the Vanity Fair source provided by Hoary. Seems worth mentioning, my thanks to both of you. Also, through the good offices of Lightcaller, we have many sources available. I will try to interpolate some other sources, etc. Forgot to sign, duhhh, hope repaired pings work. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 03:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Extra pings to SergeWoodzing and Hoary and Lightcaller, in case my attempt at a repair did not work. So sorry if I am pinging you to death, like being pecked by ducks, versus an inept editor. Signing this time...Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 04:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Useful sources

Available through the Internet Archive and Google Books

Her autobiography, My Story
John Russell Taylor’s Ingrid Bergman
David Thomson’s Ingrid Bergman
Joseph Henry Steele’s Ingrid Bergman: An Intimate Portrait, which is apparently a primary source with pleasant interviews and so forth; the New York Times and the Film Quarterly have old reviews but they’re paywalled; the only information I could find was that the author was her press secretary for some length of time from Kirkus Reviews. Make of that what you will.
The Chandler, Leamer, and Spoto biographies, the first two of which are already in the bibliography
Lawrence Quirk’s The Films of Ingrid Bergman
Constantine Santas & James M. Wilson’s The Essential Films of Ingrid Bergman
Old interview
Alex Kershaw’s Blood and Champagne, a biography of Robert Capa, I flipped to the part on Bergman
David Smit’s Ingrid Bergman: The Life, Career, and Public Image — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightcaller (talk • contribs) 14:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Lightcaller (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Lightcaller:, Thanks for providing this treasure-trove of sources! Absolutely marvelous! Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 23:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hollywood Reporter, another good source [3]Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 00:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

A bit of a “fan statement“

Casablanca was a familiar and beloved film, from youth and teenage years. Then came the popular Murder on the Orient Express. When Autumn Sonata came out, I was already a fan of Ingmar Bergman and Liv Ullman. A film that featured the work of these three talented people was not to be missed. Editing here on WP, I find that Ingrid Bergman is, once again, the source of pleasure and enjoyment...and has provided a connection with some good people. Thanks to all...Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 23:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you guys for your contributions and hard work. I reckon some of my contents in the reverted version. Feel free to edit them because sure therre must be errors, grammars etc. Annenaim81 (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Headings need to be fixed. I understand the character is complex because her private life affects her career. Also hardly anything is written about her Swedish career. I presume she had a supporting role which got her noticed and led her to a leading role.
I always tell users to copy a format from the featured article list. I usually used the one of Jessica Chastain but that is just me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media_biographies

ThanksFilmman3000 (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Should we add 'television works'?

Or we merge television works and stage works into one? Annenaim81 (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Annenaim81 Good idea! I think a separate section that lists the television works would be best. Thus far, I know of Hedda Gabler and A Woman Called Golda. We have the separate section for “Golda”, which is fine, but a complete list of her TV works would be appropriate. So, if you have the information, please add the section, thanks so much!Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 21:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I disagree I think if you have the release date of the plays, tv, and films it's easy. Example: On the fifth of January 1992, she acted in an episode of Police Unit named "Where is George". On the first of February, she acted as Juliet in the stage play Romeo and Juliet, which ran for eighteen weeks. On the first of December premiered Victor Fleming's Lockdown connection in which she played the lead.
Obviously, everything in my example is made up.Filmman3000 (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Filmman3000 Oh dear...just found this...and I have been destroying/revising the date first system. I need to check this talkpage more regularly. Looking at the example you mentioned somewhere above, Jessica Chastain, I see the point of having the paragraphs flow together in a narrative format. My limited mindset seems to want paragraphs about each film to start with the film name (example): Wonderful Film by Respected Director, premiered 23 February 1943. Versus: 23 February 1943, Respected Director's Wonderful Film. This looks very strange to my old eyes. But....now that (I think) I understand what you are working towards, I will try reworking some paragraphs into (what I am calling) a narrative. We inexperienced and less expert editors are fortunate to have more qualified people like you to guide us towards better-quality articles. Or, in my case, herd me like a grumpy old intransigent cat...Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 08:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, I do agree with you that the separate sections was not such a good idea. Works much better to have her career flow in a total chronological order. I didn't realize how extensive her body of work was! Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 09:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry it took me time to reply.
First, the respected part-out would be cut out. If all I have for context beyond the premiere I talk about it if not. If the director is notable I insert his name and do not add context to it. If readers want more they should click on the page. However, sometimes a director's level of fame is important to the impact it has on an actor. Like Selznick or Rosellini who are well established in the article.
Second, currently in the article I rewrote: 'Alfred Hitchcock's Spellbound, premiered on 28 December 1945.' Instead of Spellbound by famed director Alfred Hitchcock, premiered on 28 December 1945.' By this time in the article, it is well established that she works only with major directors.
If notable I like keeping the name of the director before a film.
ThanksFilmman3000 (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Filmman3000 Sorry, I did not explain my example very well...the term "Respected Director" was just a name example, like XYZ, not a suggestion to (necessarily) state notability along with the name! Thanks for this explanation, which makes good sense. Per your second paragraph, I agree with/support the rewording. Please continue to revise as you see fit, I will not interfere, and I apologize for causing problems. I acknowledge that you have a better perspective on this article, and thank you for being patient with me. With respect, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 01:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Acting style, public image and screen persona Section

Please, a paragraph begins: "According to 'Stardom and the Aesthetics of Neorealism: Ingrid Bergman in Rossellini's Italy', Alfred Hitchcock is responsible"...but the link to the source doesn't support this important information. We need a page number, or a better link to the page. Please help!! @Annenaim81:, can you help? Thanks, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 03:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, sure, I can help find it. I think it's somewhere in the the page, or else we 'll have to rephrase it. Annenaim81 (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I would like to say you have done such an incredible job here with the page. You helped me and the others a lot correcting this and that. I look forward for your work everytime when taking my breakfast. Never cease to put a smile on my face. Thank you very much for your work. 😀 Annenaim81 (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Section makes no sense. Nice to see praise, but to whom is it directed? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
SergeWoodzing Ummm...if you are speaking of the cmts just above your question, I think the words of praise, however undeserved, were directed to me...the "this and that" editor, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 02:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Good to know. Was very confusing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@Annenaim81: Thanks for adding the source for the Selznick quote, which I requested in a edit summary. Yes, I do think the "Bergman Persona" publicity backfired. Reading the Jeremy Butler source, Star Texts: Image and Performance in Film and Television, it is though the public was encouraged to perceive her numerous sexualized roles as "acting" and the "saintly roles" as the real Ingrid. The truth was something between, a human woman with natural desires. I also wonder how much of a double standard was in play, simply because she was a woman. If a man played the same type of roles, and later had an affair, I suspect this would have met with a different reception. (A personal reflection, not something to be added here, of course.) Nonetheless, thanks for adding this good source. I scanned it, but plan to read more closely, very good information. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 02:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@Annenaim81: If you can provide a link to the "Hitchcock essay" that you mentioned in an edit summary, I am happy to read, etc. I searched the Google book, Stardom and the Aesthetics of Neorealism: Ingrid Bergman in Rossellini's Italy, but was unable to find the Hitchcock info which was added to this section of the article...but of course, Google doesn't allow me to read all the pages. Are we sure this is the correct source? If the information is in this book, we just need some page numbers. Thanks so much! Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 02:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tribe_of_Tiger I didn't find it either. Then I realized that they only allow certain pages to be viewed at certain times. The Hitchcock section is not viewable at this current time, but if we type his name in the search box, they would only appear in parts. We might consider to omit or find better source elsewhere (I doubt it though because they are seas of infos regarding Hitch and Bergman out there, it takes time and perseverance). What do you think? Annenaim81 (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Annenaim81 I didn't know that the page availability varied from time to time! Good to know! Well, we have the book, and can look for the page later, it might pop up in the future...I think we should leave it in the article, of course, and just keep it in mind, if/when we find "a page". Thanks! Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 07:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

love affair with Robert Capa

No mention of her romantic period with photographer Robert Capa in 1945/46? I believe she would have stuck with him if he hadn't been bored silly with Hollywood and gone back to being a war correspondent.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ingrid_Bergman/Archive_1&oldid=1099329977"