criterionforum.org

tavernier wrote:elicits his final, brilliant thinking on the masterpieces PERSONA and CRIES AND WHISPERS.

"final"? how do they know its final? Slightly pessimistic comment, i think.

I hope Bergman lives for another 12 years at least, he will make it to the big 100.

I'm guessing this is a re-edit of the three hour-long documentaries Marie Nyreröd made for Swedish Television in 2004.

I saw the Serpent's Egg a few days ago and was shocked at how bad it was. it's like Bergman missed on every possible level. Did he have any idea what Carradine was doing on screen the whole time... did Carradine, for that matter? Just embarrassing all around.

domino harvey wrote:I saw the Serpent's Egg a few days ago and was shocked at how bad it was. it's like Bergman missed on every possible level. Did he have any idea what Carradine was doing on screen the whole time... did Carradine, for that matter? Just embarrassing all around.

I actually rather enjoyed the Serpent's Egg although it certainly isn't one of his greatest. Bergman agrees with you however and he even uses the same word -
"When film is not a document, it is a dream. That is why Tarkovsky is the greatest of them all. He moves with such naturalness in the room of dreams." "All my life I have hammered on the doors of the rooms in which he moves so naturally. Only a few times have I managed to creep inside. Most of my conscious efforts have ended in embarrassing failure - The Serpent's Egg, The Touch, Face to Face and so on."

Personally I like all of those films, particularly Face to Face, but Bergman has always been particularly critical of his own work and very modest about his artistic success.

vogler wrote:Personally I like all of those films, particularly Face to Face, but Bergman has always been particularly critical of his own work and very modest about his artistic success.

I have never seen "Face to Face", but a lot of people praise it very much, and the pure description of its plot sounds like typical Bergman. On the other hand, everybody seems to agree that "The Touch" is a total failure. As you've seen it, can you say a little about it? How does it fare thematically and style-wise compared to the films immediately surrounding it, i.e. "The Passion" (which I find one of his weakest efforts) and "Cries and Whispers" (which I think is among his very best)? Is it as 'commercial' as "The Serpent's Egg"? Just because I read it was a US production, too.

Egg, Touch and Face, 3 of my favorite Bergmans! All of them have their silly aspects, but that just makes them more lovable. Passion is another fave. I just don't fit in here.

Tommaso wrote:I have never seen "Face to Face", but a lot of people praise it very much, and the pure description of its plot sounds like typical Bergman. On the other hand, everybody seems to agree that "The Touch" is a total failure. As you've seen it, can you say a little about it? How does it fare thematically and style-wise compared to the films immediately surrounding it, i.e. "The Passion" (which I find one of his weakest efforts) and "Cries and Whispers" (which I think is among his very best)? Is it as 'commercial' as "The Serpent's Egg"? Just because I read it was a US production, too.

I wouldn't call The Touch commercial by any stretch of the imagination. Its much more in Bergman's usual dynamic that the over-bearing production of The Serpent's Egg That is, its a small-scale chamber drama, much closer to The Passion. Gould does a much finer job than Carradine. The real reason to see The Touch is to watch Bibi Anderson's thinly veiled disdain for the role Bergman cast her in (and always cast her in -- naive, stupid and sexually challenged).

I think Bergman probably dislikes the film because it shows just what an awkward position he was in before the success of Cries.... He felt he was in critical hot water, and so he was putting on quite a few pretenses -- see also: Bergman on Bergman. There are clear nods in The Touch to the New Wave, and the effort at an English language film in itself, as it does with The Serpent's Egg, comes off as a very awkward stab at reaching a wider audience.

Both films are failures, but both I think are pretty enjoyable for very different reasons.

Does anyone know how/why Bergman got Gunnar Fischer to shoot the wonderful opening sequences of Stockholm in The Touch? I thought he had a falling out with Bergman. Looking back on the film, not having seen it in years, that opening sequence is what I remember most.

Tommaso wrote:On the other hand, everybody seems to agree that "The Touch" is a total failure. As you've seen it, can you say a little about it? How does it fare thematically and style-wise compared to the films immediately surrounding it, i.e. "The Passion" (which I find one of his weakest efforts) and "Cries and Whispers" (which I think is among his very best)? Is it as 'commercial' as "The Serpent's Egg"? Just because I read it was a US production, too.

It is a long time since I saw it and I can't actually remember it all that clearly but out of the films you mentioned I would say it is closer to The Passion, however it doesn't feature any of the 'post modern' techniques that were typical of Bergman's work from that period. It has a more straightforward narrative although I never really thought of it as being commercial exactly. I thought it was far closer to Bergman's usual thematic concerns than many other people have stated. I thought Bibi Andersson gave an excellent performance and it was interesting to see her in an English speaking role. Max von Sydow also gives a great performance and Elliott Gould does the job pretty well (and often he annoys the hell out of me in other films). It's not an artistic masterpiece such as Cries and Whispers or Persona (which may well be my favourite film of all time) but it is a well acted, well directed, fairly simple drama about marital infidelity and all the emotional trauma that it can cause. I can understand why people feel that it is not of the same artistic calibre as Bergman's great masterpieces, it certainly is not, but I can't understand why people consider it a complete failure. Bergman's greatest films were a life changing experience for me and this film was not, but I did however find it to be an enjoyable film viewing experience and that has to count for something (or perhaps a lot). If I watch the film again soon (and I may do so) then I'll post some more in depth thoughts but at the moment my memory is too hazy to go into more detail.

Face to Face on the other hand is a magnificent film. It would probably be easy to pick holes in it but there are many emotions that Bergman tapped into in this film that had a deep effect on me. I think Bergman was far more successful than he realised. He obviously didn't achieve the goals he set out to with this film and therefore he considers it a failure but as a viewer I find that I am able to judge the film for what it is rather than what it was intended to be and so I recognise it's incredible emotional intensity and it's ability to capture the dark emotions and despair of mental illness. Whilst it is a flawed film it is also an incredibly powerful one. Liv Ullman's performance is superb (as always) and Bergman acknowledged this in the following passage.

"Face to Face was intended to be a film about dreams and reality. The dreams were to become tangible reality. Reality would dissolve and become dream. I have occasionally managed to move unhindered between dream and reality, in Persona, Sawdust and Tinsel and Cries and Whispers. This time it was more difficult. My intentions required an inspiration which failed me. The dream sequences became synthetic, the reality blurred. There are a few solid scenes here and there, and Liv Ullman struggled like a lion, but not even she could save the culmination, the primal scream which amounted to enthusiastic but ill-digested fruit of my reading. Artistic licence sneered through the thin fabric."

I am quoting from Bergman's autobiography 'The Magic Lantern' which I recommend very highly to anyone who hasn't read it. It is one of the finest autobiographies I have ever read and Bergman's writing skills prove to be as great as his film-making skills. Some of the descriptions of his childhood are so vivid I can recall them in my mind almost as if I had been there. It is brilliantly structured and completely avoids the usual chronological format of such books. Bergman is incredibly honest and the book can be joyous, depressing, repulsive, shocking or just plain entertaining. I would say that in many ways this book is a work of art in it's own right.

Tommaso wrote:"The Passion" (which I find one of his weakest efforts)

Interesting that you don't like The Passion. Is this more because of the stylistic elements of the film, the script, the performances? It is actually one of my favourite Bergman films. This is probably because I have my moments of being quite a miserable bugger and at times I rather chillingly recognised elements of myself in Max von Sydow's character. This was a very personal reaction that I had to the film so bears no relation to what others might think of it. There are passages in the script of this film which again tap into those emotions of alienation, depression, despair which although hard to watch can actually contain truly redemptive qualities. I think the confrontation of these dark emotions and thoughts is what makes Bergman's work so great. I have never found another director who is able to represent these feelings with such honesty and incredible power. To me, in emotional terms, Bergman achieves with film something similar to what Leonard Cohen achieves with song and as I have always said about Cohen (and others who explore such dark territory), listening to dark music doesn't have to have a negative impact on the listener and in fact the effect is often the very opposite - catharsis. This is something that I also feel applies to the work of Ingmar Bergman although not everyone will be able to relate to this.

vogler wrote:

Tommaso wrote:"The Passion" (which I find one of his weakest efforts)

Interesting that you don't like The Passion. Is this more because of the stylistic elements of the film, the script, the performances? It is actually one of my favourite Bergman films. This is probably because I have my moments of being quite a miserable bugger and at times I rather chillingly recognised elements of myself in Max von Sydow's character. This was a very personal reaction that I had to the film so bears no relation to what others might think of it. There are passages in the script of this film which again tap into those emotions of alienation, depression, despair which although hard to watch can actually contain truly redemptive qualities. I think the confrontation of these dark emotions and thoughts is what makes Bergman's work so great.

I also like The Passion quite a lot. (For some reason, it's also one of my father's favorite foreign-language films.) I agree with Vogler that part of its power derives from its exploration of the darkness of the everyday (depression, self-imposed isolation, etc.). But I also like the sense of place that the movie conveys. For some reason, rightly or wrongly, I get the feeling that place often doesn't matter very much to a Berman film. The action could take place anywhere. But in this one, FÃ¥rö seems to be intricately tied in with the story and the characters' outlook on life. (I don't know if I'm being clear. I really need to sit down and rewatch it. It's been well over a year since I last saw it.)

tryavna wrote:I also like The Passion quite a lot. (For some reason, it's also one of my father's favorite foreign-language films.) I agree with Vogler that part of its power derives from its exploration of the darkness of the everyday (depression, self-imposed isolation, etc.). But I also like the sense of place that the movie conveys. For some reason, rightly or wrongly, I get the feeling that place often doesn't matter very much to a Berman film. The action could take place anywhere. But in this one, FÃ¥rö seems to be intricately tied in with the story and the characters' outlook on life.

I think the sense of place is definitely important to Passion, and it's one of the reasons I like it, but that's also true of many Bergman films -- and especially all the ones which are set on FÃ¥rö. Through a Glass Darkly intimately intertwines psychology with the island's landscape, and the iconic shot of the wrecked ship by the shore is one of the most enduring images from that film. Likewise for Persona, where's the island's isolation really facilitates the two women's slow coming together. I think Bergman often uses landscape and setting in a very different way from most other directors -- he's not showing these admittedly beautiful places in order to emphasize their beauty or impress the viewer with lovely images of nature, as so many films do. Rather, he's using scenery as a kind of negative space, emphasizing the isolating and empty qualities of these expansive, untouched areas. It serves to focus attention on the characters, and especially on their psychological states, as in Hour of the Wolf where the rocky, windswept island seems to produce only ghosts from its fallow soil.

I definitely wouldn't say that these films could take place anywhere, and the island itself is almost like a silent extra character in all these films. Bergman often uses the landscape in order to project his characters' psychological storms into the visible world, and not just the obvious externalization of Hour of the Wolf. The weather also plays a key role -- the storms in both Hour and Persona which constrict the characters inside, providing the boundaries for their most focused outbursts of anguish. I can't imagine any of those films taking place anywhere but FÃ¥rö. It may be true that Bergman's more "inside" films -- his chamber dramas -- could take place anywhere, but these FÃ¥rö films are all intimately connected with the landscape in which they take place.

First of all, thanks for all the comments on "The Touch" and "Face to Face" here. They made me even more depressed for the lack of a suitable dvd of them...

About "The Passion": you all made convincing points defending it, and I would agree for example that the Faro setting is quite impressive here and that the film is a good revelation of the darkness behind the every-day. My problems with the film are the following: the Brechtian alienation technique that Stan mentions seems incredibly contrived as the rest of the film pretty much holds up to the usual narrative conventions (unlike "Persona" or even "Hour of the wolf"). The intended modernist self-reflection of the film-maker is nowhere as pointed here as it is in "Persona" or - to use a totally different example - in Shinoda's "Double Suicide". Then there's this scene at the dinner table which apparently was totally improvised, where the actors/characters talk about themselves and their view on religion and 'truth' (and where Bergman cut a lot of Liv's speech because he probably rightly thought that she intentionally mis-represented her character for purely personal reasons having to do with the break-up of their relationship). As it wasn't scripted, it comes out pretty preposterous in my view. Otherwise I have the feeling that there's simply a lack of really good dialogue in the film in general. There's nothing of the verbal sparkle of "Scenes from a marriage" here. I'm also not sure whether the use of colour was a good idea, it takes away from the intended harshness that is so convincingly displayed in "Shame". Talking of which, I found the re-inclusion of scenes from "Shame" as a sort of dream representation just lazy, the easiest way out imaginable.
Of course "Passion", like any other Bergman film, has its moments and good ideas (the animal murders, for example), but as a whole I find it pretty dull. Even the final revelation of Liv's character having lied about her life and that 'accident' is completely foreseeable.

I think The Passion is a fascinating film because for someone who claims to despise Godard, Bergman sure did his best imitation in that film.

I always felt that the Swedish scenes in THE TOUCH would have been better had they been in Swedish rather than English. I know why the latter was used - the American deal required that it be so - but in the name of realism the film would have been more credible with the Swedes speaking as one would expect. Since most of the film has scenes with (the English-speaking) Gould then this is a minor criticism. What divides Bergmanites over this film is the subject-matter: an extra-marital affair [circa 1970]. Some see it as a flawed soap opera others as a psuedo-marxist attack on middle-class values [Gould as the destructive agent no less]. I find THE TOUCH to be less stimulating c.f. PASSION & SHAME - these two films are his (equal) masterpieces in my humble opinion.

solent wrote:What divides Bergmanites over this film is the subject-matter: an extra-marital affair [circa 1970]. Some see it as a flawed soap opera others as a psuedo-marxist attack on middle-class values [Gould as the destructive agent no less]. I find THE TOUCH to be less stimulating c.f. PASSION & SHAME - these two films are his (equal) masterpieces in my humble opinion.

The latter charge really sticks for me. Bergman has never worked very well with political messages; its been his big weakness with critics, and the cause, I would guess, of some of his declining critical fortunes over the past decades. He was really trying too hard in the late sixties and early 70s to win with the critics -- the clumsy politics and Godardesque quality of some of the films really work to their disadvantage.

The one film where I think Bergman worked truly well with social-political commentary was Scenes From a Marriage; but I guess the difference is that that film was an immensley successful soap opera.

tartarlamb wrote:The one film where I think Bergman worked truly well with social-political commentary was Scenes From a Marriage; but I guess the difference is that that film was an immensley successful soap opera.

That is true, but still rather surprising to me, as the film is so very much removed from all the middle-class niceties one would associate with the term 'soap'. I think the success of it is basically due to the hitherto unprecedented thematic concern of the marriage break-up in a TV series, and because it is displayed so realistically and forcefully many people could actually identify with it. But it's rather a commentary on individual people, on the emotional life rather than a direct assessment of socio-political questions. And of course the analysis of people's emotions and the hidden darkness has always been Bergman's forte, so it's no wonder that the film is so good, not only compared to his late 60s work. And I agree that even "Shame" feels rather contrived, and certainly Bergman isn't as good in imitating Godard as he was in imitating Kurosawa in "The Virgin Spring" (a film that is certainly not among my favorites, but I feel it's slightly underrated nevertheless).

Talking of Face to Face, a Polish DVD of this is due to be released in June. Perhaps releases in other countries will follow.

It's already out. It's June of 2006.

That Polish DVD is either the best or the worst DVD cover ever. I'm not sure which.

It's from the original polish poster.

Barmy wrote:That Polish DVD is either the best or the worst DVD cover ever.

I'm not sure which.

Far from the worst, but not particularly good.

Problem is, as I think someone else had already pointed it out earlier on this forum, that there are only Polish subs. I remember there was also an English dub on the dvd, but would you really like to watch Bergman in English? Also, it's the shorter theatrical version only, and if you have seen the full length "F&A" and "Scenes from a marriage" in comparison to the theatrical cuts, you know how much the shorter versions are inferior. Well, I guess we have to wait for Criterion for that one

Having just discovered this thread I can't resist adding my two cents.

I find it highly revelatory that, explaining his disdain for Godard, Bergman mentions Masculin/Féminin. Very typically for Godard, when he got production money from Sweden for this film, he used it to poke fun of Bergman. Jean-Pierre Léaud goes to the cinema and sees a hilarous parody of "The Silence". You see people making love sighing and grunting heavily like it 's the most onerous and boring thing on earth.

I wonder what a Bergmanian parody of Godard would look like. But, maybe that is what "A Passion" was all about.

Godard liked Bergman quite a bit though

When he was a critic, yes. He loved "The Summer with Monika". When he became a film-maker himself, things changed.

which is untrue. read his positive thoughts on Persona in an interview collected in the 60s Cahiers omnibus