261-264 Fanny and Alexander

Message

Zumpano · #76 Post by **Zumpano** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 12:50 pm

Alex Cox's opinion on 'F&A": http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/stor ... 21,00.html

Yikes.

Galen Young · #77 Post by **Galen Young** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:16 pm

Zumpano wrote:Alex Cox's opinion on 'F&A"...

"Poor" Alex...pretty hilarious. If he had made one more comment about Bergman -- I would have knocked his other contact lens out! He ought to pick up the Criterion box and subject himself to that "...knock-down from a five-hour TV movie, so far broadcast only in Sweden. What I've read of the longer version makes it sound tedious in the extreme..." Ummmmm. Reminds me of Alexander Payne's nutty comments about Bergman awhile back...

Gregory · #78 Post by **Gregory** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:16 pm

This reminds me -- I've been meaning to sell my CC Sid and Nancy. More than that, I've lost quite a bit of respect for the Guardian over the last year. It goes without saying that he's entitled to his opinion, but the piece has quite a few obfuscating and misleading statements, for example that the full cut of F&A was broadcast only in Sweden. It's been screened theatrically at various places around the world over the years, and it's been out on DVD for over a year. So what's his point? Another duplicitous bit is at the end when he uses the ambiguity of 'film' to suggest that Bergman led everyone on that it was to be his last project, and then went on to make umpteen more. But when Bergman said F&A was to be his last film he meant his last feature film to be distributed theatrically. He indeed switched to television projects (which Cox calls "films") and didn't return to film for another 20 years.
It doesn't help Cox's ability to appreciate the film that he seems to have held the entire cast of characters in contempt from the outset. Willfully resisting connection to the characters' emotional lives, he writes the whole thing off as sentimental, sickly, and so on. For what it's worth, some of the problems he identifies I think have to do with structure and rhythm, as a result of the butchery of the film into the 188-minute cut. Watching the cut Bergman intended is a revelation in many of these respects, but Cox has already decided he hates it without having seen it.
Finally, perhaps the most cynical part of the review is Cox's accusation that Bergman sold out his "radical," "surrealist" artistic origins by making a drama about a wealthy family. Interesting charge from someone who got his start by making films characterized by a quasi-punk aesthetic for distribution by major studios. The real do-it-yourself ethic of punk would have led him to find completely independent distribution but at the cost of his fame and exposure.

postmodern-chuck · #79 Post by **postmodern-chuck** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 6:36 pm

Yet, for such a feel-good film, the production history is surprisingly alienated and unpleasant. Liv Ullmann found the part of Emilie boring and didn't want to play it; Bergman, furious, ostracised her and told her "she'd lost her birthright" (presumably the right to appear in Bergman films). When Nykvist's ex-wife died, Bergman refused to let him leave to attend her funeral. Yet Bergman himself took sick during the filming, and left entire sequences in the hands of his assistants.

Clearly he was legend-making in all of this. He also directed a documentary - The Making of Fanny and Alexander - which was longer than the film itself. He also gave an hour-long interview to promote the film he claimed would be his last: "Ingmar Bergman Says Farewell To Film." Bergman directed 15 films thereafter.

How cute! He can read imdb.com trivia information too! I'm so proud!

scotty · #80 Post by **scotty** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:21 pm

To cite one of our members: What a Disgrace. That's just tired, tired stuff from Alex Cox, who has yet to make a film that would get within hailing distance of Bergman's top ten. Especially galling is his inability to credit Bergman with the modernist touches that are obvious in the film--the very "bad acting" he cites is entirely intentional on Bergman's part. Clearly Bergman is trying to show the flaws in these characters- the fact that the company isn't really that good artistically is part of the film's magic. Cox is criticizing the film based on its setting and art direction, as if those automatically cancel out anything else the film has to offer. How ridiculous to criticize the presence of a chandelier in the Bishop's residence. 1) clearly the Bishop's position is highly remunerative and the property has centuries of prestige behind it; why is this hard to understand? and 2) clearly the residence has not always been so austere--the Bishop has been selling off valuables and furniture such as the trunk to cover his "expenses." How intellectually vapid to imply criticism of the five-hour version without even bothering to view it. Cox's punk posing is far more dishonest than anything in Fanny and Alexander. Since when did sacred cow-bashing in the Guardian pay off in street cred? And where was Alex Cox in, say, 1972 when Cries and Whispers took us back to a roughly similar milieu, complete with chandeliers and Sven? Is that when Bergman sold out to sentiment? It's true: Bergman failed to replicate Persona over and over. I repeat: what a disgrace.

tavernier · #81 Post by **tavernier** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:56 pm

scotty wrote:To cite one of our members: What a Disgrace. That's just tired, tired stuff from Alex Cox, who has yet to make a film that would get within hailing distance of Bergman's top ten. Especially galling is his inability to credit Bergman with the modernist touches that are obvious in the film--the very "bad acting" he cites is entirely intentional on Bergman's part. Clearly Bergman is trying to show the flaws in these characters- the fact that the company isn't really that good artistically is part of the film's magic. Cox is criticizing the film based on its setting and art direction, as if those automatically cancel out anything else the film has to offer. How ridiculous to criticize the presence of a chandelier in the Bishop's residence. 1) clearly the Bishop's position is highly remunerative and the property has centuries of prestige behind it; why is this hard to understand? and 2) clearly the residence has not always been so austere--the Bishop has been selling off valuables and furniture such as the trunk to cover his "expenses." How intellectually vapid to imply criticism of the five-hour version without even bothering to view it. Cox's punk posing is far more dishonest than anything in Fanny and Alexander. Since when did sacred cow-bashing in the Guardian pay off in street cred? And where was Alex Cox in, say, 1972 when Cries and Whispers took us back to a roughly similar milieu, complete with chandeliers and Sven? Is that when Bergman sold out to sentiment? It's true: Bergman failed to replicate Persona over and over. I repeat: what a disgrace.

Hear, hear! =D> =D>

Max von Mayerling · #82 Post by **Max von Mayerling** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 1:12 am

My reaction is that it is much easier to shit on someone else's work than it is to shit out something worthwhile of one's own.

hearthesilence · #83 Post by **hearthesilence** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:39 pm

To be fair, I'm taken aback by the anecdotes regarding Ullman "losing her birthright" and Nykvist's ex-wife passing and Bergman refusing to let him go to her funeral. I only hope these anecdotes were distorted and twisted in an attempt to smear Bergman.

The rest is just sour grapes.

Narshty · #84 Post by **Narshty** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 4:59 pm

As a word of support for the theatrical version, I tried twice to settle down into the full-strength five-hour cut, but found things a little too relaxed. The introductory scenes for most of the characters were so long and detailed, it was like a series of miniature set pieces or vignettes, and trying to keep track of everyone and the interlinking relationships became a bit daunting. I then, on a whim, opted for the much-maligned theatrical version and found it extremely easy to sink into and utterly engrossing. The swifter pace may have eliminated detail but clarified a great deal (at least in the opening section) and the film still made for extraordinarily rich viewing. I'm keeping the television version in reserve as a guaranteed future treat, but I did find the three-hour version on its own merits a thundering achievement.

leo goldsmith · #85 Post by **leo goldsmith** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:42 pm

Certainly in the first part, the film takes its time with exposition, etc. And even in the theatrical cut, the first act is told at quite a leisurely pace. I think it is the latter part of the series that suffers most from expurgation in the film-version.

But generally, I agree. The theatrical cut is far too often dismissed out of hand, whereas there is much to admire in it. If one is comparing the reductions of F&A with those of Scenes from a Marriage, I think it is the latter film that suffers more from editing. In that case, the theatrical cut really feels to me like a greatest hits (so to speak), while television series retains lots of very important information about the characters.

montgomery · #86 Post by **montgomery** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:27 pm

I saw the theatrical version first (when the TV-version was impossible to find), and I thought it was a nearly great film. When I saw the TV version, I thought it was a great film. The theatrical version was the only one available to most of us for over 20 years, and I don't think it was really dismissed out of hand--it was considered a classic. But the television version is naturally more complete, and in my opinion, better paced. If it seems too long, it can easily be watched one episode at a time.
But as Mr. Goldsmith said, Scenes From a Marriage's theatrical cut really is inferior to the point of being totally unnecessary these days--even though, before the TV version was available, it was also a masterpiece.

scalesojustice · #87 Post by **scalesojustice** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:10 am

i finally got a chance to check out the three-hour theatrical version last night.

let me first say that with the first hour i was taken back by both the aesthetics and the sweeping story encompassing an entire family. given bergman's chamber pieces and infinity for focusing on a handful of characters at most it was as if bergman wasn't even the director. it was filled with magical whimsy. while magic is not a strange theme in bergman's films, the light-hearted, fancy free attitude of the characters, early on, was a welcome change of pace.

of course, as the story began to unfold and then dark undertones of religious repression came to the front, i remembered that i was watching a bergman. yet, it still had a bedtime story atmosphere - a children's story gone a rye.

my only complaint is that it felt unresolved for many of the characters. not to say that a film has to wrap up all loose ends, but i think the knowledge of a longer television cut haunted me while i watched the theatrical. i want to see more of fanny and alexander's uncle who can't pay his bills and is constantly in debt. i think the theatrical version doesn't gel as well when you know there is more to the story.

usually i rent the theatrical versions in releases such as this first to see if i like it enough to invest the time and money into the set. needless to say, this will be one of my next purchases.

EDIT: sorry if i am unclear and ramble, it's early monday morning and not the best time to discuss such a work.

Tommaso · #88 Post by **Tommaso** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:55 am

scalesojustice wrote:
of course, as the story began to unfold and then dark undertones of religious repression came to the front, i remembered that i was watching a bergman. yet, it still had a bedtime story atmosphere - a children's story gone a rye.
.

I totally agree, and this does not change with the longer version (the only one I've seen). I am not quite sure what to make of this film: it is a visual feast, of course, and the acting is great as ever, but I think he somehow planned this too much to be his magnum opus, and it shows. There is a certain whimsical attitude to it, too many loose ends even in the long version, and all in all, it's TOO BEAUTIFUL. There is so much refinement, a sort of conscious attempt to produce beautiful images which does not work well at least in the scenes in the bishop's house. I do like the film, don't get me wrong, and some of the images will stick in your mind forever, but all in all it is not on a par with "Persona" or "Cries and Whispers". That Criterion edition, though, is one of their greatest efforts ever.

scalesojustice · #89 Post by **scalesojustice** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:12 am

it might be the case that i enjoy and admire this film outside of bergman's catalogue. i have a couple mgm releases left of seeing his body of work on dvd (and some beyond that), and this one was shockingly different.

the first hour in particular is visually shocking. the quick pans, the framing, the amazing sets and art direction. stellar, but not bergman. for me, that first hour set the tone of a children's tale. an earlier poster mentioned how scary the film was at times. and i agree, i found myself to be nervous at points, much like i was shocked, horrified and amused.

bergman captured me on a visceral level through his visuals and then proceeded to send me on a "you'll laugh, you'll cry" film watching experience. sure, there is a wealth of depth to the film, but it also works well on that surface level of a spectacle - amazing colors, magic, mystery, etc. and i think that is where it captured me. it took me back to my own childhood and the mystery of life.

i don't mind loose ends, i guess i just want to see more, good thing for the t.v. version. i became so enthralled with the film that when it was over, i wanted to demand that bergman "read it again."

i think that you are right that it's not on the same level as "cries and whispers' (which i find to be his most powerful film, "persona" is one of those mgm releases i have yet to watch). it seems that in his older, mature directorial age, he has let go some of his control and allow the characters to breathe and wonder, rather than throw them into emotionally terrifying situations.

TheGodfather · #90 Post by **TheGodfather** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:10 am

Just received the box this morning, bought it from Shawn (foofighters7 here on this forum). What a beautiful box

=D> =D>
Really looking forward to seeing the 5 hour version, just gotta find the time to watch it

jt · #91 Post by jt » Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:41 am

I've had this on my shelf for over a year as I never seem to have a five-hour window. Will this lend itself to watching over a couple of nights or should I really do it in one sitting?
And if I split it up, are there good specific points where I should stop/ restart watching it?

arsonfilms · #92 Post by **arsonfilms** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:51 am

The five hour version is actually split into four episodes - not only does it lend itself to spaced out viewings, it was actually designed with that in mind and aired as a mini-series.
I've actually only seen the five hour version and haven't found time for the three hour theatrical cut since I don't want to split that up. It ranks among my top ten films of all time, and this is a great time of year to check it out.

Gregory · #93 Post by **Gregory** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:25 pm

The long cut, which Bergman feels is the true Fanny and Alexander, was broken up into episodes for television but it has also been shown theatrically in numerous venues, with a single intermission.

Again, Bergman has said that the best way to watch it is all in one day with a meal break in the middle. I don't cite this in the spirit of slavish obedience to the director's wishes on principle; I think he happens to be right. I've tried it both ways and the film is much more engaging and emotionally potent when it isn't broken up over two or more days. With this film I never get antsy or even feel conscious of how long it really, but if one is getting impatient and restless, it probably is better to finish it the next day. My advice, though, is to start watching Part One early enough in the day so that if you get into it and want to finish it it's not too late.

TheGodfather · #94 Post by **TheGodfather** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:08 pm

I was just checking out the discs in the set (always do that to see if they work

) but I noticed something strange with that 5 hour version: I first checked the disc with the episodes 1 and 2 on it, and then the discs with ep. 3 & 4: when I popped in that latter disc and pushed play, it had episode 4 and 5 on it ( the titles showed ep. 4 and 5) instead of ep. 3 and 4?? is that a mistake with the discs or what? can anyone help?

gubbelsj · #95 Post by **gubbelsj** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:08 pm

It is a little confusing. If you'll notice, there are four episodes, but there are also related but separate "acts". Episode 3 actually opens with the fourth "act". Just a difference in terminology - rest assured there's nothing wrong with your discs.

TheGodfather · #96 Post by **TheGodfather** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:42 pm

gubbelsj wrote:It is a little confusing. If you'll notice, there are four episodes, but there are also related but separate "acts". Episode 3 actually opens with the fourth "act". Just a difference in terminology - rest assured there's nothing wrong with your discs.

Allright, cool

thanks

colinr0380 · #97 Post by **colinr0380** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:32 pm

It has just been announced that the next Speakeasy With Dorian programme, available as a podcast from next week, will have an interview with Marie Nyreröd, who was the lady interviewing Bergman for the introductions to his films included in this set. She'll be talking about the documentary Bergman Island.

psufootball07 · #98 Post by **psufootball07** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:34 pm

I have yet to see this film, but I have thorougly enjoyed the Bergman films I have seen:
Wild Strawberries
The Seventh Seal
Persona
Cries and Whispers

However I just received this in the mail today and I was wondering which version you would suggest viewing, the only thing I have heard is that the Television series is broken down into segments, not a 5 hour continuous film. So any advice would definitely be appreciated.

Alphonso · #99 Post by **Alphonso** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:38 pm

The 'theatrical' version is compromised, definitely view the television version first.

miless · #100 Post by **miless** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:55 pm

I have to suggest the opposite.

I found it a fascinating venture to watch the movie and then theorize as to which parts were expanded in the miniseries (and hope/wish that these were expanded)... Each time I thought that a particular scene could have easily been longer, the longer cut delivered (while leaving those that I was content with the same)...