criterionforum.org

Sawdust and Tinsel



Ingmar Bergman presents the battle of the sexes as a ramshackle, grotesque carnival in Sawdust and Tinsel, one of the late master's most vivid early works. The story of the fraught relationship between a turn-of-the-century traveling circus owner (Ake Grönberg) and his performer girlfriend (Harriet Andersson), the film features dreamlike detours and twisted psychosexual power plays that presage the director's Smiles of a Summer Night and The Seventh Seal, works that would soon change the landscape of art cinema forever.

Special Features

- New, restored high-definition digital transfer of the film, featuring five minutes of material not included in previous U.S. editions
- Audio commentary by Bergman scholar Peter Cowie
- Video introduction by Ingmar Bergman from 2003
- New and improved English subtitle translation
- PLUS: A new essay by critic John Simon and an appreciation by filmmaker Catherine Breillat

Criterionforum.org user rating averages

Feature currently disabled

tavernier wrote:At a recent reception in Manhattan for Birgitta Steene, whose "Ingmar Bergman: A Reference Guide" is essential for all Bergmaniacs, there was discussion about everybody's favorite critic, John Simon, since he is writing the notes for Criterion's upcoming Sawdust and Tinsel, as he did for Smiles of a Summer Night. So it's coming.

Say what you will about Simon, but at least he knows his Bergman. Frankly, I'm glad they have him writing the notes. Nonetheless, this is terrific news. I've waited a long time for this movie.

Fantastic news. This movie would probably be in my top five wishlist for release.

oh cool I was about to buy the Tartan that's coming out, but I'll hold off for the forthcoming Criterion!

I remember that Kieslowski was a fan of Sawdust...maybe there is some material from his writings that Criterion could get their hands on for extras...

Bergman dies and Cowie comes back to life!...

I knew they were going to put one of their upcoming Bergmans on the fast-track for the end of the year. Actually, of the three we knew were in the pipeline (Summer w/ Monika and The Magician, saved ya a reply), this was the third-most likely in my mind to get the bump. On the other hand, the fact that Ingmar's intro was recorded in 2003 makes me think they set aside a couple of discs for when dude kicked the bucket.

mikeohhh wrote:On the other hand, the fact that Ingmar's intro was recorded in 2003 makes me think they set aside a couple of discs for when dude kicked the bucket.

I'm not certain, but I think those intros were all recorded for Swedish TV, irrespective of Criterion.

if they really had a sense of humor, they would have released the Magician first, just to leave Rosenbaum wringing his hands and cursing the sky

domino harvey wrote:if they really had a sense of humor, they would have released the Magician first, just to leave Rosenbaum wringing his hands and cursing the sky

Ha ha, I get it!

Greathinker wrote:

mikeohhh wrote:On the other hand, the fact that Ingmar's intro was recorded in 2003 makes me think they set aside a couple of discs for when dude kicked the bucket.

I'm not certain, but I think those intros were all recorded for Swedish TV, irrespective of Criterion.

Yes, most likely the same introduction from the collection that appeared on the fifth disc of the Fanny and Alexander boxset. It will be good to have it on the same disc as the film it is discussing though!

All those recordings of Bergman introductions from 2003 were made for Marie Nyreröd's TV-documentary in three parts:

is to buy here (with English subs)

Andreas wrote:All those recordings of Bergman introductions from 2003 were made for Marie Nyreröd's TV-documentary in three parts:

is to buy here (with English subs)

Not if you live outside Sweden.Their new shipping policy is within Sweden only.

NABOB OF NOWHERE wrote:

Andreas wrote:All those recordings of Bergman introductions from 2003 were made for Marie Nyreröd's TV-documentary in three parts:

is to buy here (with English subs)

Not if you live outside Sweden.Their new shipping policy is within Sweden only.

Ingmar Bergman - 3 Documentaries (Sweden, 2004)

I am surprised that no-one has commented on Sawdust and Tinsel since the DVD was released. I last saw the film some 20 years ago, in a poor VHS version. Seeing it again in this wonderful version I was amazed by the power of this film and the quality of the Criterion version. Visually dazzling, with a brutal modernistic score that feels appropriate for the tone of the film. Undoubtedly one of the great Bergmans. Highly recommended.

I wonder if anyone has compared this to Sternberg's Blue Angel.

What is up with this ghosting at around the 1:12:00? The effect of trying to play the dvd on my pc? Mistake by Criterion? Flaw inherent in the film itself?

Looks like lens-filter inter-reflection.

I noticed it a couple of times on the Tartan edition. Here at 0:39:07, for instance:

Is this frame not ripe for a good old fashioned caption competition ???

I've been having problems with this disc. Feint horizontal lines pulse on and off during many of the scenes. Has anyone else been experiencing this?

(I've been viewing it on my PC using PowerDVD. Never had this problem with any other DVD.)

kekid wrote:I am surprised that no-one has commented on Sawdust and Tinsel since the DVD was released. I last saw the film some 20 years ago, in a poor VHS version. Seeing it again in this wonderful version I was amazed by the power of this film and the quality of the Criterion version. Visually dazzling, with a brutal modernistic score that feels appropriate for the tone of the film. Undoubtedly one of the great Bergmans. Highly recommended.

Yes, it surprises me as well, probably it takes some time to get the disc over to the Bergman fans in Europe. I received it only yesterday, for instance. And I must say it's really a masterpiece, perhaps the first of his films which completely holds up to his later standards. It's nice to see how Bergman here for the first time fully explores the relation of art and life, and for me the film seems to indicate not that one is better than the other, as the essay in the CC disc would say, but that both are completely inseparable. The characters go through their love battles with a heightened air of theatricality, and the final fight of Albert and Frans makes the impossibility of separating stage and life almost too obvious. This might of course pose problems, but to me it seems that Bergman wants to make the point that the unity of art and life cannot be overcome. It's also a very nice portrayal of the rivalry between artists, of course.

I agree fully about Blomdahl's score, too. Very sparse, but incredibly effective. Add to this the gorgeous transfer, and you have a must-own disc, even if it's rather lean on extras. I haven't listened to the commentary yet, but would assume that it gives us all the necessary information, so no complaints.

I'm also surprised so few people have commented on this. Is Bergman's reputation still being downgraded so thoroughly? I am not the greatest fan of this particular film, although it definitely has flashes of brilliance and points towards later, better Bergman films in a big way. I think the opening scene of the clown's humiliation would've made a fantastic stand-alone short film, and in some ways it's so good, so concise and effective in making its points, that it renders the more realistically-told rest of the film redundant. I wrote about the film recently, using it as a springboard for defending Bergman on the basis of what I see as one of his lesser films.

I've read your blog entry, sevenarts, and while I find it an interesting view on the film, I can't fully agree with it. For instance, I don't see a lot of neo-realism in the film. Even if one concedes that the neo-realists, apart from choosing non-professional actors and often shooting on location, 'manipulated' and organized what we see far more than the theory would allow, I still can't see a lot of similarities with what Bergman is doing in this film. To put it in a very simplified way: the neo-realists tried to create the appearance of 'natural reality' by their art, Bergman tries to convert reality into theatre. This for me is not a shortcoming of the film but is its major and, I believe, very much intentional quality. The film is as much a 'theatrical performance' as is Renoir's "Carosse d'Or" or even some of "Regle du Jeu". You needn't like it, of course, but blaming Bergman for this theatricality (especially in a film about theatre and life) sounds somewhat strange to me. Thus, the expressionist moments for me are not a contrast to the more 'realist' bits, but are more of a heightening of these theatrical tendencies (which would include the 'over-acting'), a particular way of underlining them in certain key moments. In this respect, I find the film formally fully convincing, and much more 'typical' Bergman than any of the pre- "Smiles of a Summer Night"-films I have seen. That's why I didn't hesitate to call it a masterpiece, perhaps not quite as good as the best of his later works, but clearly not minor or a transition piece.

I fully agree with your words about the sensuality of Harriet Andersson, though. She's really...ahm...very very charming. A lot of the pleasure this film gave me indeed came from her performance. It's clearly a loving eye that Bergman cast on her with the camera, as in real life at the time.

Tommaso wrote:For instance, I don't see a lot of neo-realism in the film. Even if one concedes that the neo-realists, apart from choosing non-professional actors and often shooting on location, 'manipulated' and organized what we see far more than the theory would allow, I still can't see a lot of similarities with what Bergman is doing in this film. To put it in a very simplified way: the neo-realists tried to create the appearance of 'natural reality' by their art, Bergman tries to convert reality into theatre.

I would agree with much of what you say here if it were about any number of other Bergman films, but not necessarily this one. This film may be about characters who are involved in theatrical pursuits, but much of the film strikes me as realist in its basic techniques. There are scenes within the film that engage with the theatrical in interesting ways, and as I wrote in my original review, I think these work very well -- not only the scene of Harriet Andersson on the theater's stage in the dark, but the fight in the circus ring towards the end of the film, which turns private emotions into public spectacle. Bergman was always interested in the theater, and this film is no exception, but in this case a lot of the film looks at the realm of the theater from a realist perspective. The great bulk of the film is very much down to earth, grounded in the everyday realities of these characters, who happened to be involved in the circus and the theater. For me, there was definitely a tension here between the more expressionist sequences and the more prosaic conversations. It's like there are these brief flashes of brilliant purely visual storytelling that make the lengthy speeches and monologues unnecessary -- this doesn't happen for me in later Bergman films, where he learned to trust his images to get across their meaning, and let his dialogue roam into different areas so that the two aspects complement rather than duplicate each other.

I definitely wouldn't argue too strenuously with anyone who likes the film, though. It's not bad by any means, and there's a lot that I did like in it, although the whole was somewhat less than the sum of its parts for me.