Ingmar Bergman knew how to work within a restrained economy (writing his own scripts, often shooting in real locations, and relying on a family of actors and technicians). This way he could keep control of the whole creative process and protect his work from the pressure of the studios. Such a coherent and personal body of work is very unique in an art depending on an industry such as the cinema. You can find an equivalence to Bergman's work in more self-reliant--and costless--art forms (painting, litterature...) but i can't think of another film director (at least as productive as Bergman) who was able to use his independence and freedom of expression for so long.

I see Bergman's filmography as a unique on-screen psychotherapy, as the struggle of an artist trying to get a grip on the world, on the women, on his selfishness and his art. It was a long fight with a great deal of anger and rage, but at the end of the day, there's also a sense of acceptance, relief, almost a salvation.

Ingmar Bergman left this world with his work done, finally in peace with himself. Boy, what a battle! And what a legacy.

“Fortunately, the cinema was born, at the beginning, on two legs: a leg absolutely popular, basic, trivial, imaginative, and a cultivated leg, complicated, philosophical, elitist, and called for criticism… And that to choose cinema was, without realizing it, from an intellectual and theoretical point of view, to choose a house with two doors: a door that everyone takes —and that you have to take, otherwise one will not understand anything about cinema— and a concealed door in which people, right from the beginning, requested from the cinema absolutely extravagant things.”

Serge Daney

If you look in around, let's say in France, you'll realize that the movie industry is strongly backed up by the gouverment (the CNC) which helps the production of "different" movies (labelled as "art & essai" or "recherche") and also helps the distributors and theaters who agree to release and show these "different" movies. Now if this french cinema industry was left to live by the rules of the free market, it wouldn't last long (think about the great collapse of the italian film industry). I don't see how you can expect an art to revitalize itself within the rules of the US market today. I bet cable TV has better chance to surprise me.

The sum of The Wire is even better than its parts.

Can you say that of any other series (including The Sopranos)?

I don't think so.

Unless they screw up the last season, there's not much of a competition.

To Details, Details:

- If you think Robert Evans is living in the reality-based universe you've been fooled.

- Great movies are made by great directors. They can even make great movies from bad scripts.

- The "auteur theory" is a fact and it's doing well around the globe.

I guess you don't know much about what you're talking about.

Let's talk about directors then, it's easier. You have the likes of Ozu or Rohmer who could make wonderful movies with bare bones scripts (close to soap operas), or the likes of Fellini or Godard who would use a vague script as a starting point and improvise a great deal during the shooting (and still make wonderful movies).

As for american movies, Casablanca is well known for its terrible script. Also, Kubrick's 2001 was a terrible idea on paper. But I'm sure we could fill a book with better examples.

You go Francis! And fu*k the studios!