After I quoted Bergman on facebook, a friend brought to my attention that he was a Nazi sympathizer. Hence, the question: Was Bergman a Nazi?
In 1999, Bergman revealed in an interview with BBC that he was fascinated by Hitler as a youth and found the Nazi movement to be exciting. He added that he did not know the truth about the concentration camps then and was shocked to learn about it after the war.
Since coming clean about his past, Bergman has been criticized for being a Nazi. But, is a young Nazi sympathizer the same thing as being a Nazi?
I would like to draw an analogy from my past. As a young Russian pioneer, I used to idealize Lenin. Naturally, I hated the Nazis. Yet, I knew nothing about Lenin killing 4 million people (men, women and children) by mass executions, death camps, and state-caused famine. This genocide was not revealed to me until much later in life.
Had I known about the crimes of Lenin as a young girl, I would have never become a young pioneer. Yet, I remember proudly wearing my red silk scarf and showing it off by keeping my coat open in the middle of Russian winter.
I was not a communist at that young age. Like Bergman, I found the idea of belonging to a great young group of people exciting.
Most of the young brainwashed people do not know any better. They just follow the crowd and the ideology they are taught at school or at home. So, in a way, I sympathize with Bergman's naivete.
In my mind, being honest about one's past is an admirable thing that deserves respect. If Bergman had not said anything about his youth, no one would have criticized him about his youth.
I really dislike criticism for being forthcoming. People tell me to keep my mouth shut if I don't want to be criticized. At some point, criticism no longer matters, but honesty does. Honesty is often rewarded with redemption. The concept of redemption was explored by Bergman in his film "The Wild Strawberries".
Let's assume that Bergman was a Nazi sympathizer. Who is to say that a man cannot change? One of the most famous examples of a change in a man is described in Viktor Frankl’s book Man’s Search for Meaning. Frankl cites the case of Dr. J., the only man he ever met, whom he “would dare to call a Mephistophelean being, a satanic figure.” A mass murderer, Dr. J. was involved in the Nazi euthanasia program. Upon returning toVienna after the war, Frankl treated a former Austrian diplomat who had been imprisoned by the Russians in the famous Lubianka prison in Moscow
Bergman has demonstrated remorse for his misguided past with his films. His body of work is flooded with moral issues, ethical questions, and shame. He seems to be always questioning the thoughtlessness and callousness of men. In fact, one of his films is called "Shame" and is about life during a war, reflecting on what war does to people.
In other films, Bergman reflects on his past with regret that can be viewed as a belated plea for forgiveness and an apology for his deluded past.
Judging from the body of work alone, Bergman made an effort to redeem his dark past. His films are poetic, dreamlike, and surreal, yet, they are very honest in telling about a man's struggle with the burden of guilt.
In 1999, Bergman revealed in an interview with BBC that he was fascinated by Hitler as a youth and found the Nazi movement to be exciting. He added that he did not know the truth about the concentration camps then and was shocked to learn about it after the war.
Since coming clean about his past, Bergman has been criticized for being a Nazi. But, is a young Nazi sympathizer the same thing as being a Nazi?
I would like to draw an analogy from my past. As a young Russian pioneer, I used to idealize Lenin. Naturally, I hated the Nazis. Yet, I knew nothing about Lenin killing 4 million people (men, women and children) by mass executions, death camps, and state-caused famine. This genocide was not revealed to me until much later in life.
I was not a communist at that young age. Like Bergman, I found the idea of belonging to a great young group of people exciting.
Most of the young brainwashed people do not know any better. They just follow the crowd and the ideology they are taught at school or at home. So, in a way, I sympathize with Bergman's naivete.
In my mind, being honest about one's past is an admirable thing that deserves respect. If Bergman had not said anything about his youth, no one would have criticized him about his youth.
I really dislike criticism for being forthcoming. People tell me to keep my mouth shut if I don't want to be criticized. At some point, criticism no longer matters, but honesty does. Honesty is often rewarded with redemption. The concept of redemption was explored by Bergman in his film "The Wild Strawberries".
Let's assume that Bergman was a Nazi sympathizer. Who is to say that a man cannot change? One of the most famous examples of a change in a man is described in Viktor Frankl’s book Man’s Search for Meaning. Frankl cites the case of Dr. J., the only man he ever met, whom he “would dare to call a Mephistophelean being, a satanic figure.” A mass murderer, Dr. J. was involved in the Nazi euthanasia program. Upon returning to
So, how can one judge the behavior of a man or predict the mechanisms of the human mind?
Bergman has demonstrated remorse for his misguided past with his films. His body of work is flooded with moral issues, ethical questions, and shame. He seems to be always questioning the thoughtlessness and callousness of men. In fact, one of his films is called "Shame" and is about life during a war, reflecting on what war does to people.
In other films, Bergman reflects on his past with regret that can be viewed as a belated plea for forgiveness and an apology for his deluded past.
Judging from the body of work alone, Bergman made an effort to redeem his dark past. His films are poetic, dreamlike, and surreal, yet, they are very honest in telling about a man's struggle with the burden of guilt.
Unfortunately, it's really quite common for young people to feel an attraction to heavily propagandized popular movements. Such movements end to hide their failings and/or crimes and portray themselves in a romantic, heroic fashion. Generally, even thoughtful people don't have the insight to see thru such deception until the early to mid teens, absent guidance from older friends or family members. Then there are more sophisticated forms of idealism that can last longer but still tend to fade with age.
ReplyDelete"My son is 22 years old. If he had not become a Communist at 22, I would have disowned him. If he is still a Communist at 30, I will do it then."
Georges Clemenceau, on being told his son had joined the Communist Party, as quoted in Try and Stop Me (1944) by Bennet Cerf.
Regards,
Robert