692. Fanny och Alexander/Fanny and Alexander (1982)

Running Time: 188 minutes
Directed By: Ingmar Bergman
Written By: Ingmar Bergman
Main Cast: Bertil Guve, Pernilla Allwin, Gunn Wallgren, Jarl Kulle, Ewa Froling
Click here to view the trailer

BERGMAN WEEK: CHAPTER X - THE CONCLUSION

Well after months of hype "Bergman Week" began and it took three more months before, what was supposed to be a week long tribute to the Swedish director, culminated. For the duration of "Bergman Week" I've been waiting for that one film to really blow me away and make me realize the greatness that was Ingmar Bergman and in the 11th hour, it finally came.

For starters, I want to say that "Fanny and Alexander" is really a misleading title for this movie. Yes, the film does revolve around the two young siblings - Fanny (Allwin), the little girl, who doesn't say much but always sticks near her brother's side and Alexander (Guve), a boy who enjoys all the perks of being a child, who is strong in his opinions and who has an active imagination. However, the film is really about their entire family. When the film begins it is Christmas time and the family is gathering at Helena Ekdahl's (Wallgren) palatial home, the matriarch of the Ekdahl family. Helena has three sons: Oscar, Gustav Adolf (Kulle) and Carl. Each of the three men have built families of their own. Oscar operates the family owned theater and is the husband of Emilie (Froling) and the father of Fanny and Alexander. The family gets along splendidly and while watching the film it's difficult not to reminisce about your own childhood and your own, personal family memories. However, when Oscar dies, somber days lie ahead. Emilie remarries to Bishop Edvard Vergerus, a man who doesn't take well to the children, to say the least. He is particularly hard on Alexander, whom he realizes hates him. The film commences over the course of it's three hour time limit, using all of it's time wisely and letting the tale of the Ekdahl's unfold.

SPOILER ALERT!

The reason that I took to this film so much, was because, for the most part, it was a very straightforward tale. Sure, there were still a few unanswered questions (What was the deal with Ismael?), but for the most part Bergman gives us a very genuine film. I don't have a whole lot to say, so I'll try to keep it short. "Fanny and Alexander" gives us a barrage of scenes, all of which are handled with care. Each segment feels so true to life that, like I said above, I couldn't help but remember my own memories while watching it. The film starts out at Christmas time and there are so many familiar facets to that segment. An uncle pulling children into a separate room so that he can show them a flatulent magic trick, relatives gathering around a dinner table and later falling asleep in chairs and on sofas, so many people having so many different conversations and the whole thing gives off a real feeling of warmth and togetherness. Later, after the Christmas segment, Alexander's father, Oscar, dies. It's probably the most realistic death scene I've ever seen, as first Oscar falls ill and it's only a matter of moments (in movie time anyway) that Oscar is lying on his deathbed, mourners surrounding him, sweat pouring from his body and a vomit stained bucket nearby. It's a scene that really hit me, because I'd never seen a persons death conveyed so realistically on film. I've never stood around someone's deathbed (knock on wood), but this is how I would picture it.

The second half picks up with Emilie's marriage to the Bishop, Edvard. He treats Alexander like shit and he's played marvelously by Jan Malmsjo. It takes all the togetherness and warmth of the first half and gives it a complete 180, now forcing the audience to plummet into sorrow, as we watch poor Alexander try to survive in the home of the Bishop. I've never been one for films where kids were the main characters, but I've gotta' say this one really gripped me and the entire duration of the film really flew by. Of course, I watched it in two sittings, but to tell the truth I couldn't wait to come back and finish the second half and see just what happened to these two kids. There were no bad cast members, but a special kudos to Jarl Kulle, Mona Malm, Erland Josephson and Jan Malmsjo are due. Also, I would be remiss if I didn't mention Sven Nykvist. Even if I didn't enjoy every Bergman picture, starting with "Through a Glass Darkly", at least they looked breath taking and "Fanny and Alexander" was no exception with it's use of rich colors that captivated me. I think we'll leave it at that.

RATING: 8.5/10 I can't go the full monty (yet), but this is one of those ones where quibbling over numbers is pointless. It's great and that's that. Would NOT be surprised to see this one pop up on my next TOP 20.

A WORD OR TWO ABOUT BERGMAN

With "Bergman Week" finally finished I figured it would be suitable for me to write a few words about the man himself. For years I've been a fan of Woody Allen and when you're a fan of someone you tend to listen when they have something to say. For years I've listened to Woody Allen interviews where he's cited Bergman as the man that really influenced his career and for years I often wondered how I'd take to Bergman's films, since I obviously took to Allen's so greatly. Years later I finally saw "Scenes from a Marriage" and loved it. With "Bergman Week" I've found that, in fact, I didn't take to Ingmar as greatly as others do. Despite liking a few of his films, I'd have to say that overall he's just not the director for me. Often times I wish I could like all the films I'm "supposed" to like. However, I soon realize that there's no fun in that and I can really only like the films that hit me somewhere familiar or leave an impact on me. I think Bergman's main problem (from behind my eye) was that he was to consumed with his own mortality, the existence of God (or lack thereof) and questions that no filmmaker (or human, for that matter) could answer. Bergman tried his best to use his words and his camera to answer some of those questions or at least force his audience to think along with him. I've never been one for philosophical films and at times, Bergman's films took on a more poetic nature, that also didn't agree with me. It's not that they were BAD, it's just that they and I didn't quite connect. I'm glad that I finally got the chance to sit down and watch a good bunch of Ingmar Bergman films and surely, when the opportunity comes, I'll probably even see some more. I'd like to think I have a better grasp of what Ingmar Bergman is all about, however, I think he and I need to see other people.

RANKING BERGMAN

1. Fanny and Alexander
2. Winter Light
3. Through a Glass Darkly
4. Cries and Whispers
5. Persona
6. Hour of the Wolf
7. Shame
8. Smiles of a Summer Night
9. The Seventh Seal
10. Wild Strawberries

But, one last time, remember "Scenes from a Marriage" SHOULD HAVE been included! The end.

MOVIES WATCHED: 416
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 585

COMING SOON:
Sullivan's Travels (1941 - Preston Sturges)
The Lives of Others (2006 - Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck)
Monsieur Verdoux (1947 - Charles Chaplin)
Spirited Away (2001 - Hayao Miyazaki)
El Topo (1970 - Alejandro Jodorowsky)

March 24, 2012 12:43am

551. Viskingar och rop/Cries and Whispers (1972)

Running Time: 91 minutes
Directed By: Ingmar Bergman
Written By: Ingmar Bergman
Main Cast: Harriet Andersson, Kari Sylwan, Ingrid Thulin, Liv Ullmann, Erland Josephson
Click here to view the trailer

BERGMAN WEEK: CHAPTER IX

Nine down, one to go. My tribute to Ingmar Bergman which has spanned across three months at this point is getting ready to wind to a close and I've still yet to be totally blown away by one of his films. Obviously my expectations are too high, but it's hard to lower your expectations for such an acclaimed filmmaker and the director of "Scenes from a Marriage" - a personal favorite of mine. Unfortunately, "Cries and Whispers" didn't go far in restoring my hope for Mr. Bergman.

The film centers around three sisters: Agnes (Andersson), Maria (Ullmann) and Karin (Thulin) and Agnes' maid, Anna (Sylwan). Agnes is dying of cancer (at least the book cites it as cancer, although it's never really mentioned what her illness is exactly) and during her final days her two sisters and her maid cling to her bedside to try and make her as comfortable as possible. Over the course of the few days that the film takes place over, Agnes' two sisters and Anna take time to reflect on their past, each represented in flashback form, using various whispering voices and a closeup of the actresses' faces to signify the beginning of a past event. The film takes place wholly inside the manor of Agnes', where the walls are painted blood red. As far as summation of the plot is concerned, however, that's about as best as I can do, because really this film was quite perplexing to me and honestly, like many other Bergman films, I couldn't quite peg it.

SPOILER ALERT!

Watching "Cries and Whispers" was like trying to get directions from a mute - I just couldn't understand what Bergman was trying to tell me. I realize that there was much more to this picture than meets the eye, but I'll be damned if I really knew what he was trying to say. I understood that Karin and Maria (and probably Agnes too, when she was well) had a hard time showing their true selves to one another. They couldn't even show the most human of characteristics toward their loved ones (their husbands, one another). Hell, it took Agnes getting cancer before the sisters finally came around and even then, in her most desperate times of need, it was Anna who had to step in and be the comforting and consoling one. The sisters (Karin and Maria) were almost like robots and this film seemed to portray a turning point in their lives, where they were forced to be human, at least a little bit. These are women who were of a bourgeoisie lifestyle and never really had to face death and when they were faced with one very real facet of life, they took it upon themselves to flashback into the past and face others.

I got the sense that Agnes was the exact same way, but as the cancer was ripping her apart inside she couldn't help but to reach out for a human connection. That connection really came in the form of Anna, but I'm not sure the extent of their relationship. Was it just me or was it hinted that Anna and Agnes may have had some sort of lesbian relationship going on. I mean, Agnes obviously had no husband and Anna and Agnes just had a really tight bond that seemed to go far beyond employer and employee. At one point, when Karin is reading an excerpt from Agnes' diary, Anna rushes closer to try and hear a little bit of what is said. Perhaps she's showing concern over what Agnes' may have written, about a possible sexual relationship that existed between them. And at the end, Anna reveals that she has taken Agnes' diary, as one of the final frames shows her opening the book, sending us into our final flashback and the end of the film.

I don't know. All this thinking about "Cries and Whispers" is starting to make me really curious - even more curious than I was when I started writing this post. Perhaps this film wasn't AS bad as I initially pegged it for. I'm still really lost, but I do want answers. Well, this will have to be one that I toss around the old noggin' and we'll see where it ends up, but for now I'll leave it at that. As far as the technical elements go, the acting (as per usual with Bergman films) is top notch and the color cinematography from Nykvist is breathtaking.

RATING: 7/10 Initially I had it pegged for a '6', but over the course of my writing and pondering it got bumped. I think that's the first time I've changed a rating mid-review. Next up: "Fanny and Alexander".

MOVIES WATCHED: 414
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 587

March 20, 2012 10:37pm

489. Vargtimmen/Hour of the Wolf (1968)

Running Time: 87 minutes
Directed By: Ingmar Bergman
Written By: Ingmar Bergman
Main Cast: Max von Sydow, Liv Ullmann, Gertrud Fridh, Georg Rydeberg, Erland Josephson
Click here to view the trailer

BERGMAN WEEK: CHAPTER VIII

Well it's coming down to nut cuttin' time for Ingmar Bergman to really blow me away with one of his ten films from THE BOOK. "Hour of the Wolf" was the eighth Bergman work from THE BOOK and while it didn't fail immensely, it ultimately did fail to really "wow" me.

The plot, like many of Ingmar's films, is kind of hard to describe. Our main characters this go around are Johan (von Sydow) and Alma (Ullmann), a couple living on an island. Johan is a painter who doesn't say much and is often times a bit fussy. He likes Alma because she too is quiet and the two get along well enough. One evening, Johan confesses to Alma that he's been encountering an odd mix of characters, pulling out his sketch book to reveal the drawings he's made of the oddities. He speaks of several characters: an old woman who threatens to remove her hat...and her face, a "bird man" and a homosexual man who is "practically harmless". Alma is concerned for Johan, but doesn't pay him too much mind at first, probably chalking it up to his peculiar nature. Later, however, Alma is also visited by the old woman in the hat, who tells her to read Johan's diary. Johan becomes increasingly fearful of the demonic characters that plague him, so much so that he refuses to go to sleep before dawn. Later, Johan and Alma are approached by Baron von Merkens (Josephson), who invites them to his castle for a dinner party. Alma joins Johan at the castle, but the experience is unpleasant, as Johan is mocked by the other guests. From there the plot kind of starts to become more segmented, as we get various pieces of information that all lead to the finale.

SPOILER ALERT!

Much like "Persona" I just don't think I fully grasped this film. However, unlike "Persona" it really failed to intrigue me in the long run. The notion that this is a horror movie is kind of baffling to me. I've heard other people who have seen this film cite it as one of the scariest movies they've ever seen and I didn't think it was a bit scary, which leads me to believe that maybe I didn't know what I was watching and thus, didn't know what I was supposed to be afraid of. While Bergman films always lose me in the plot, I can always say that almost everything else is magnificent about them. Here, the actors (most notably Ullmann and von Sydow) are magnificent and the dialogue that they're given to work with is equally stellar. At one point, Johan recalls being a boy and getting punished. He goes into this whole story about being locked in the closet and then later being released, only to be whipped by his father. I love how Bergman doesn't show us everything, but rather allows his wonderful actors to use his marvelous dialogue and let us picture the action, rather than see it. I also love Sven Nykvist's cinematography (in not just this, but all of the films he filmed for Ingmar), as he produces a very crisp black & white, using natural lighting and getting the most of the natural landscapes of Bergman's Faro Island.

I guess the whole plot here was about Johan struggling with demons and trying his best to escape them in any way he knew how. I perceived the "ghouls" that Johan saw as the evil side and Alma as the good side and it was up to Johan to choose which path he'd follow. Ultimately Johan was lead into temptation, choosing the dark side and disappearing. Of course, I could be WAY off in my interpretation and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if I am. In the end, Alma implies that had she not loved Johan so much, she may have been able to be more of a help to him. Had she not been able to see the demons, like he did, she may have been able to pull him back to reality. I've also heard theories that each of the demons that Johan encounters represents something from his past. Of course, Veronica Vogler (Ingrid Thulin) represented a past affair and scandal, but apparently everyone represented something that Johan wasn't proud of, from his past. I'm gonna' stop now, because at this point I'm just grasping at an explanation for this film. In my opinion, the film just didn't have a voice (to me) and lacked structure. I really didn't know how to take it or what to make of it and ultimately it just didn't go over well with me. It may take another viewing or even a bit of research to really get it.

RATING: 6/10 I was somewhat intrigued, but not nearly as much as I was with "Persona". The acting, cinematography and dialogue were all marvelous, so it gets points there. Next up: "Cries and Whispers".

MOVIES WATCHED: 413
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 588

March 19, 2012 6:32pm

487. Skammen/Shame (1968)

Running Time: 103 minutes
Directed By: Ingmar Bergman
Written By: Ingmar Bergman
Main Cast: Liv Ullmann, Max von Sydow, Sigge Furst, Gunnar Bjornstrand, Birgitta Valberg
Click here to view the trailer

BERGMAN WEEK: CHAPTER VII

Moving right along with the conclusion of the "Bergman Week" festivities, we come to "Shame", one that I had to track down via YouTube and one that I was less than impressed with.

Jan (von Sydow) and Eva (Ullman) are a married couple, living on a farm during a civil war. They're former musicians, now forced to sell various crops and raise chickens due to their war town country. Their relationship isn't the most stable, as Jan is extra sensitive, weeping often for what seems like no reason at all. Jan's sensitive nature makes Eva impatient, forcing her to snap at him often. However, just as quick as they get into tiffs, they make-up, promising one another that they'll spring for a bottle of wine once their day of work is through. The couple have no political affiliation and thus they are casualties of war, civilians unable to escape threat. Jan's solace comes in ignoring the world around him, while Eva constantly bickers with him for not repairing the radio so that they can hear what's going on. When paratroopers land in their front yard, Jan and Eva are unable to avoid the war any longer and are eventually taken prisoner, thought to be allies for the opposition. It doesn't take long before they're released by their old friend Col. Jacobi (Bjornstrand), but it's almost too late to repair their relationship, which has been torn apart due to forces beyond their control.

Perhaps Mr. Bergman and I are just polar opposites. In THE BOOK, it states that Bergman thought the script was uneven, resulting in a poor first half and a better second half - I couldn't disagree more. The film started out fantastic, as I was able to really relate to these characters who had no political affiliation and were being forced to self destruct through no fault of their own. Usually when I hear the words "war" and "politics" when hearing a movie description, I dread what is to follow. However, the main characters of the film weren't concerned with the war and or the politics, so I was good to go. Anyway, here we have this couple - a seemingly normal couple who have their spats and make-up sessions and make due by doing manual labor and enjoying a bottle of wine to spoil themselves. I absolutely love Liv Ullmann and after seeing her in "Scenes from a Marriage", I declared her my absolute favorite actress at a time when not many actresses struck my fancy. Max von Sydow, although not appearing in any movies that have totally wowed me, has grown on me and honestly, I think he has marvelous talent.

Well, anyway, the movie went from 90 to 0 in record time, resulting in what I thought to be a poor second half. Once the Rosenberg's were captured and taken into the prison, the movie went downhill and fast. I think what happened is that I had this film pegged - I thought I'd be witnessing a film about a couple working through their relationship and day to day struggles, all the while using the war as a backdrop to add to their problems. When the couple were actually pulled into the middle of the violence and war torn situations, it got really stale, really fast for yours truly. I think I made a big mistake making "Scenes from a Marriage" the first Ingmar Bergman movie I ever saw. Now every time I pop in one of his films, I expect a very dialogue driven, examination of relationships and that's obviously not what I'm getting every time. I also think that I took such a sine to "Scenes...", that it made my expectations for the rest of Bergman's portfolio high and thus I'm finding myself disappointed more frequently than usual.

It's not that "Shame" is a terrible film. It will probably work for most people. I just found that as the film progressed, it got too complicated, in what could have been a very uncomplicated, straightforward story about a couple living in a war torn land. When Jan has his change of character, when Jacobi is introduced and when the war really starts to become the focal point is when I mentally checked out.

RATING: 6.5/10 Again, it may have just been high expectations, but it just didn't hit the spot as well as I would have liked it to. There's only three Bergman films left and I'm really hoping that one of them totally blows me away...TOTALLY!

MOVIES WATCHED: 412
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 589

March 17, 2012 9:00pm
Happy St. Patrick's Day

455. PERSONA (1966)

Running Time: 82 minutes
Directed By: Ingmar Bergman
Written By: Ingmar Bergman
Main Cast: Bibi Andersson, Liv Ullmann

BERGMAN WEEK: CHAPTER VI

I realize that using the word "week" to describe my tribute to Ingmar Bergman is now completely ridiculous, but it's how I always name my tributes and despite being illogical, we'll still go with it. Approximately two months ago I reached the halfway point in my "Bergman Week" festivities and at that point the Swedish director had still yet to "WOW" me, like I had hoped he would. However, "Persona" was a step in the right direction.

The cast is comprised primarily of Bibi Andersson as Sister Alma and Liv Ullmann as Elisabet Volger. Mrs. Volger is an actress, who during a performance went silent for the span of about one minute, not saying a word. The next day Mrs. Volger refused to leave her bed and wouldn't speak a single word - that was three months ago. Still not willing to speak, Mrs. Volger finds herself in the confines of a hospital bed and when the film begins Sister Alma, a nurse, is being assigned to take care of Elisabet. Not making much progress at the hospital, the doctor of the facility prescribes a getaway for Elisabet, in which her and Alma will go to the doctor's summer house on the beach, where they'll be in seclusion and hopefully make some progress. The getaway seems to do Elisabet some good, as she's in good spirits, soaking in the sun, picking berries and writing letters to her husband, but still refusing to open her lips. Alma uses the time to her advantage to, recharging her batteries and using Elisabet as her own personal shrink, bouncing thoughts and secrets her way and appreciating Elisabet's seemingly keen interest. However, things begin to unravel when Alma reads a letter written by Elisabet and not intended for her eyes.

"Persona" is a prime candidate of a movie that I would yammer on and on about, trying my best to decode it, while at the same time trying to write some semblance of a review. In other words, bear with me and I'll try not to drone on and on.

I'll admit that I didn't really, fully understand "Persona". But lets sit that fact to the side for a moment and I will tell you that I was very intrigued by the film, as a whole. I was in love with the two actresses as they perfected their craft before my eyes, playing off one another and being really real while in the confines of an obviously fictitious world. Bergman doesn't hesitate to remind us that we are indeed watching a movie, as the film begins with a projector. We hear a strip of film circulating around a spindle and as Roger Ebert writes in his review, Bergman seems to be eluding that illusion and reality somehow tie in to the film we're about to experience. The dialogue is pretty perfect as well, with perhaps the best bit coming when Alma describes an orgy she had many years prior, on a beach with three strangers. The black and white cinematography is crisp and well defined and at times the sunlight washes over the room, making it look like the actors and sets are blanketed in dew.

No, I didn't fully understand the film, but the plot was enough that I was able to be gripped by it and I left it wanting to know more. It was more than likely the reaction that Bergman wanted me to have, wanted each of his viewers to have - unknowing, almost to the point of frustration, but still curious. Ebert also writes that the film and the viewer seem to share the same relationship that Alma and Elisabet do - "The nurse is maddened by the unspeaking actress in the same sense that the audience is frustrated by the movie: Both stubbornly refuse to be conventional and to respond as we'd expect". I won't go to in depth on my analysis and interpretations, because to tell the truth, my interpretations were few. This is one of the few movies where I've been less concerned with cracking the code and more concerned with just absorbing the film and taking everything in, perhaps so that I would have all the information to turn around in my head.

SPOILER ALERT!

My first reaction was that there was some sort of identity crisis going on. On the surface Elisabet was the sick one, but when you got into the meat & potatoes of the film, Alma was really the one that was more mentally unstable, perhaps not knowing her place in the world or who she should be. In the beginning Alma says that while she has free will and is able to do as she pleases, the rest of her life is pretty much predetermined - she'll marry a man named Karl-Henrik, have kids and grow old. This seems to trouble her and it seems to me that there's much more to her thoughts than I originally thought. It also seems to me that when the film seemingly breaks, at about the halfway point and we see the film burn away, there's probably something VERY significant about THAT particular moment, something that I'd probably need a second viewing to figure out. Let's just suffice it to say that I need to see this movie again someday to fully comprehend it. Hell, I may even need a hand from a few of the essayists who have written about "Persona". However, despite not fully grasping what's going on, I wasn't completely maddened by this film and it held a generous dose of intrigue, holding my interest and keeping me in wonderment.

RATING: 7/10 That's about as far as I can go for the moment, but I'd recommend "Persona" to anyone willing and ready to piece together a puzzle.

MOVIES WATCHED: 411
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 590

March 16, 2012 1:19am

404. Nattvardsgasterna/Winter Light (1963)

Running Time: 81 minutes
Directed By: Ingmar Bergman
Written By: Ingmar Bergman
Main Cast: Gunnar Bjornstrand, Ingrid Thulin, Max von Sydow, Gunnel Lindblom, Allan Edwall
Click here to view the trailer

BERGMAN WEEK: CHAPTER V

The second part of Bergman's "Trilogy of Faith" is presented as the fifth chronological Ingmar Bergman entry in the book and is almost as good as the first part of the trilogy.

The story is told in 80 minutes time and takes place over the course of three hours on a snowy Sunday afternoon. We focus in on a small church and more specifically the pastor of the church, who gives a standard sermon to the six who are in attendance, feeding them the blood and body of Christ and then dismissing them from their weekly worship. The pastor is Tomas (Bjornstrand) and he no longer believes in God. As he enters his chambers, preparing himself for a 3:00pm service at another church and nursing a cold, he accepts several visitors. First up, there's Marta Lundberg (Thulin), Thomas's ex-mistress and someone who loves him very much. Marta has made it her life's mission to take care of Tomas and feels that her true purpose on Earth is to be his companion. Unfortunately for Marta, Tomas doesn't feel the same way. He strings her along well enough, but Tomas is forever bound to his dead wife, whom he pledges eternal love to. In fact, it was his wife's death that lead him to doubt the existence of God. Then, Tomas is visited by a couple, Jonas (von Sydow) and Karin (Lindblom). Jonas is beginning to contemplate suicide, as he developed a deep fear when he learned that the Chinese were experimenting with nuclear weapons. Suffice it to say that it's going to be a trying few hours for the pastor.

At about the halfway mark of "Winter Light" I made the decision that I didn't like it very much. In fact, I was even tinkering with the notion of giving it a score somewhere below a '3'. At that point, I was just so fed up with Bergman harping about the existence of God, or lack thereof. I have no problem with anyone who chooses not to believe in God. I don't force my religion upon other people and likewise, I don't like to have their lack of religion forced upon me. Some Christians claim that when you encounter a non-believer that it is your duty as a believer of Christ to spread His word. However, one of the most wretched things I ever witnessed was when I saw a Christian try to convince an atheist that God existed. Even though I believe in God and Christ, there just seems to be something really slimy about one man trying to force his views on another. I believe that every man has a mind of his own and every man has heard about the Bible and has heard, at least in vague description, the story of Jesus Christ. Therefore, every man can choose whether he/she wants to believe or not, on their own without being forced or convinced otherwise. What I'm trying to say, is that I'm sick of Bergman trying to tell me that we're alone in the universe. If that's what he believes, that's fine and if he feels the need to make a movie about it, that's fine too, but must we keep exploring this same idea?

Then I realized something. This story means more to believers than it should to non-believers. I mean, think about it - You have a pastor who is experiencing a crisis of faith. As a believer in God and Christ, that's a tragic story to me. If I were a non-believer, I might be struck with the notion of "Oh, well thankfully this pastor came to his senses and realized that there's no God". But as a believer I can feel sympathy for a clergyman who can't seem to find strength & comfort in Christ.

"Winter Light" is filled with poignant, meaningful moments. One that I noticed right away was immediately after the scene where Tomas rips into Marta, telling her what he really thinks of her and not holding anything back. One thing you can say for Bergman is that he really knew how to capture heartbreak and he really knew how to write hatred and anger. Anyway, after Tomas basically rips Marta's heart out of her chest, he walks to the door, turns around and invites her to come with him to church. It's a moment that says to me, despite what Tomas wants or believes, he's never going to change things. He'll continue being a pastor, preaching the word of God, even though he doesn't believe what he's preaching. Likewise, he'll string Marta along, accepting her cough syrup and crying on her shoulder, even though he doesn't love her. I mean, in simpler terms, the guy is an ultimate hypocrite and really, even though I say I have sympathy for this clergyman, I really shouldn't, because he's really a terrible person.

Anyway, the ultimate decision was positive for "Winter Light". It's my kind of movie really - small cast, small setting (for the most part the entire film takes place in the chambers of the church), dialogue driven and a movie that takes place wholly over a few hours. It's one that really threw me back and forth emotionally, as I went from resenting the story, to feeling deep sympathy for the main character and then losing all the sympathy, as quick as it came. Sven Nykvist may be my new favorite cinematographer, mostly because I didn't have a former favorite cinematographer. His use of natural light, as opposed to artificial light is intoxicating and really gives these films a more realistic sense. I'll stop rambling now.

RATING: 7/10 I enjoyed "Through a Glass Darkly" more actually, but '6.5' just seemed to low for this one, so I knocked it to a '7'. I really wish they would have included "The Silence" in THE BOOK, because I'm really curious to see the last installment of the trilogy.

MOVIES WATCHED: 409
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 592

NOTE: I realize that I'm smack-dab in the middle of "Bergman Week", but I'm afraid the time has come for a much needed hiatus. It's just that I worked REALLY hard to get to my short-term goal of "401 movies watched", that I really burnt myself out. Had I not been hyping "Bergman Week" for months prior, I would've definitely taken the break as soon as my most recent TOP 20 was made. However, I thought I'd try to, at least, get through "Bergman Week" and then I could take a break. Well, I don't think I'm gonna' make it kids. I want to give my full attention and abilities to every film contained in THE BOOK and I just can't do that right now, because I really just need to step away from the journey for a little bit. I don't want to pass a false judgement of anything, especially movies as important as the upcoming Bergman offerings. So, with all that being said, I am officially announcing my hiatus from the blog. Please be aware that this is only a hiatus and those usually never last more than two or three months. I WILL BE BACK, I PROMISE. I may be back in a month, I may be back in three, but I will definitely be back and when I get back, I'll continue with the "Bergman Week" festivities. In the meantime, I think you have enough reading material to keep you occupied. Don't hesitate to continue leaving comments, as I check the blog dashboard every day and read all comments. Thanks to my followers, you guys rock! I'll see 'ya soon.

January 26, 2012 10:51pm

378. Sasom i en spegel/Through a Glass Darkly (1961)

Running Time: 90 minutes
Directed By: Ingmar Bergman
Written By: Ingmar Bergman
Main Cast: Harriet Andersson, Gunnar Bjornstrand, Max von Sydow, Lars Passgard
Click here to view the trailer

BERGMAN WEEK: CHAPTER IV

FINALLY! Finally "Bergman Week" produces something that I get to praise, instead of complain about, as "Through a Glass Darkly" doesn't quite hit a home run, but does hit a nice fly ball into center field.

The film has a cast of four and four only and the main character is Karin (Andersson), whom we learn has just been released from the hospital and later learn that she is being treated for an incurable, mental illness. Her husband is Martin (von Sydow), a doctor himself and a great husband to boot, caring for Karin and wanting nothing but the best for her. Karin's father is David (Bjornstrand), a novelist and a pessimist, who, despite his love for his family, will put his work before their well being. Lastly, there's Minus (Passgard), Karin's brother. The thing Minus wants most of all is attention from his father. We get the sense early on that Minus may be going through some issues of his own, but his troubles are being ignored due to Karin's troubles. In fact, Karin is really the only one who wants the best for Minus, taking an interest in his studies and conversing with him regularly. The film tells of a day in the life of these four family members, as Karin struggles to keep her grip on reality and the rest of the family go through struggles of their own.

SPOILER ALERT!

"Through a Glass Darkly" is the first part of Bergman's "Trilogy of Faith" and having that knowledge prior to viewing this film, I went into it expecting Bergman to beat me over the head with yet another film, where he artistically expressed his inability to find God. While "Through a Glass Darkly" may have themes of a religious nature, there's much more to it than that and I was able to enjoy it strictly from a character study standpoint. The characters that Ingmar Bergman presents to us here are ripe for the picking, meaning you can really pick them apart and make a lot of assumptions about them based on their actions and words in this ninety minute feature. While we never really get the full details of Karin's illness, it is obviously one of a mental nature, as Harriet Andersson puts on an acting showcase portraying the descent of Karin. Speaking of her illness, I'm no doctor or anything, but are there really mental illness's that are fatal? Also, while I'm proposing questions, what happened in the wrecked ship between Karin and Minus? Did they have sex? I mean, that's what I understood to have happened, but am I way off base? And what about David - was he meant to symbolize Christ in someway? I only say this because there are two poignant moments in the film where this thought could be true. The first is when David goes to get his tobacco and breaks down crying, standing in front of a window with his arms outstretched (ie. Christ on the cross). The second comes with the final words of the film, when David finally has a talk with Minus and Minus, astounded that his father has given him some time, says "Father spoke to me". What did those words mean - "Father spoke to me". Bergman may be an atheist, but it seems like he really wants to believe in something.

I'll keep this short tonight. For the film goer who likes religion with their movies, you can go into this one and probably pick it apart and find a lot of religious pieces. If you're like me and you don't like mixing the two, then there's still PLENTY of reasons to check this one out. Incredible performances, Sven Nykvist's cinematography (you can really tell that this is Nykvist's first feature with Bergman from THE BOOK, as it looks head & shoulders better than the previous Bergman entries), the gripping dialogue, the intense atmosphere and the characters.

RATING: 7/10 Hey, I hope this is the turning point, because I'd really like to leave "Bergman Week" with a positive opinion of Ingmar. Next up: "Winter Light".

MOVIES WATCHED: 408
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 593

January 25, 2012 6:18pm

318. Smultronstallet/Wild Strawberries (1957)

Running Time: 91 minutes
Directed By: Ingmar Bergman
Written By: Ingmar Bergman
Main Cast: Victor Sjostrom, Ingrid Thulin, Bibi Andersson, Gunnar Bjornstrand, Jullan Kindahl
Click here to view the trailer

BERGMAN WEEK: CHAPTER III

This is probably the most disappointed I've been since I've started this journey. In short, I didn't much care for "Wild Strawberries", but the disappointment really kicks in when I realize Ingmar Bergman is now 0-3...and I had such high hopes for him.

The film centers around Isak Borg (Sjostrom), a 76-year-old, retired physician. The film is also narrated by Isak and as the picture begins he is preparing himself to go to Lund, to accept an honorary award. At last minute, Isak's daughter-in-law Marianne (Thulin) asks if she can accompany him and he accepts. Isak and Marianne then pack into an automobile and begin the long drive to Lund University. At first, their car ride doesn't go to well, as Isak brings up some serious issues and Marianne basically tells Isak that she doesn't like him very much and never has. During the entire time, Isak is entranced in deep reflection about his own past life and the mistakes and missteps he made. On a detour of their route, Isak and Marianne stop off at the home where Isak spent his summer's as a boy. There Isak reflects on his youth and remembers his cousin Sara (Andersson), a girl whom he was in love with. When he snaps back to reality, he meets a present day girl named Sara, who is joined by two boys and needs a ride to Italy. Isak agrees to take them as far as Lund. Later, Isak makes a second detour, at his elderly mother's house and again does some reflecting. Eventually, the group pile back into the car and continue their trip to Lund. During most of the ride, Isak sleeps and dreams bizarre things that give him insight into his own character.

It's not that "Wild Strawberries" was terrible, it's just that in the big picture it wasn't nearly as good as I thought it would be. I REALLY wanted to like this picture. I've heard Woody Allen talk about this film many times, citing it as one of his personal favorites and even upon reading a brief synopsis of the plot, it sounded like something that I could really take to. You know, I think there's just far too much pressure on the wannabe film buff to like certain movies, "Wild Strawberries" being a glaring example. Throughout this entire picture I just kept thinking, in the back of my head - almost subconsciously - that I NEEDED to like this film. In the end, I didn't. But why?

My main problem with "Wild Strawberries" is the execution. On the surface, the film is actually quite a good idea. It's a very simple structure of a man going through a day where he's starting to examine his own character, the way he's lived his life and the key moments that shaped him in his current, 76-year-old, state. My connection to this film was really severed when Bergman started incorporating flashbacks. I was really with it, especially when Isak and Marianne started their car ride and the great back and forth dialogue between the two, the quiet, very real responses from Sjostrom. Then they take the detour and we get a flashback to Isak's childhood, as he reflects on a memory that he wasn't even a part of (so how could he reflect on it?), involving his cousin Sara. Had Bergman, in some way, been able to get across the idea that Isak was going through a period of self examination, without the use of flashbacks, I think I would have taken to the film a lot better. Even the dream sequences weren't terrible, but again, I'd have rather heard, through the narration possibly, of Isak's memories.

Also, the film just wasn't that poignant to me. There's never any great realization from Isak, at least that I saw. We hear about Isak's faults through the narration and flashbacks, but we never see the man that Marianne speaks of, the cold, callous man that she tells him he can be. All we ever really see is an elderly, timid gentlemen and therefore in the end, when Isak has his little talk with Evald, it's really of no importance. I don't know - all I DO KNOW is that I just didn't take to the film and I was really looking forward to it. It's just not a film that served it's purpose on me, as well as it obviously has on others.

RATING: 5.5/10 Like I said, not terrible, but nothing I'd bother writing home about. There are still seven Bergman films remaining, but honestly, I'm starting to lose hope that a truly great one is going to come along. Next up: "Through a Glass Darkly".

MOVIES WATCHED: 406
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 595

January 21, 2012 6:47pm

316. Det sjunde inseglet/The Seventh Seal (1957)

Running Time: 96 minutes
Directed By: Ingmar Bergman
Written By: Ingmar Bergman, from the play Tramalning by Ingmar Bergman
Main Cast: Max von Sydow, Bengt Ekerot, Gunnar Bjornstrand, Nils Poppe, Bibi Andersson
Click here to view the trailer

BERGMAN WEEK: CHAPTER II

As I mentioned in the "Smiles of a Summer Night" review, I had seen "The Seventh Seal" once before and I wasn't crazy about it. Well, I'm here to announce that when it comes to "The Seventh Seal", I'm still sane.

The plot of "The Seventh Seal" can be summed up in a sentence: A knight (von Sydow) searches for the meaning of life & death and the existence of God, all the while playing a game of chess with Death himself. There's more to it than that, but really that's the main idea behind this film. The knight is Antonius Block, who has just spent ten years fighting in the Crusades and is returning home, through a plague ridden land, sometime in the 13th Century. He is accompanied by his squire Jons (Bjornstrand), a man who is certain that there is no God and that man is all alone in the universe. Antonius isn't sure about all that - he wants to believe in something, he wants to have faith in God, but simply can't bring himself to believe. Meanwhile, there's also a troupe of traveling actors, which include Jof (Poppe), his wife Mia (Andersson) and their infant son. Jof is a carefree type, happy to be alive and thankful for his family. Jof is also prone to visions - visions that Mia discredits almost as soon as he announces them. The visions are usually of a religious nature, as when Jof sees the virgin Mary. Eventually Antonius and Jons meet up with Jof and his family and together the group travel together through this land, where the future seems uncertain.

My dislike for "The Seventh Seal", I'm sure, can be chalked up to a conflict of personal taste. There's absolutely nothing about it that appeals to me. Take, for starters, the setting and basic layout of the picture. You have a knight and his squire traveling together in the 13th Century. I almost always hate films that are set this far back. Sure, it's just me being close-minded and stubborn, but I can never get into films that deal with knights and the such. So you'll say, "Well that's just the basic blueprint of the story, there's MUCH more to it than that!" - and you'd be right. Beyond that we take a closer look at the meaning of life, death, whether or not God exists and similar themes. Again, these are ideas that I have no interest in. Bergman cites in the introduction to this movie (on the Criterion Collection DVD) that he was always afraid of dying and that fact was one of the driving forces behind this picture. I don't think about death that much, myself. I'm not afraid to die, nor do I really care to know the meaning of life - I'm not that deep of a thinker.

I'll give Bergman a little credit for this picture, in the form of two notes: 1) He kept it short. Before I even saw this movie, years ago, and I had simply heard about it's premise, I would have bet money that it would have been an epic three plus hour event. That's not the case. The film is just slightly over ninety minutes and that's a credit to Bergman. Honestly, I think he knew that any longer and he'd be really getting into a more boring territory, so kudos to him for wrapping it up quickly. 2) Despite the basic ideas of the film and the setting that I griped about above, Bergman actually does give us a fairly mediocre story (I mean that as a compliment). It's not a movie where I played the part of the clock watcher, but one where I could watch the story unfold and then form my sour opinion at the conclusion. Actually, the film uses it's time nicely, never really dragging or boring the audience, but rather, presents us with characters that are interesting enough and a story that isn't terrible.

However, when it's all said and done, this just isn't my movie. I just DO NOT (and probably never will) understand the appeal of it. I see the artistic element, the photography is sublime and the ideas are well thought out. Unfortunately, they're not ideas that I share or ones that I am as interested in pondering, as Bergman apparently was. The film doesn't bore me, it's simply one that I do not GET and if I don't GET IT, I can't condone it.

RATING: 4/10 Well, I tried to be as fair as I could, but that's about as good as it gets for "The Seventh Seal". Bergman has eight pictures left, but as of now I'd say he's 0-2. Next up: "Wild Strawberries".

MOVIES WATCHED: 404
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 597

January 20, 2012 8:01pm

298. Sommarnattens leende/Smiles of a Summer Night (1955)

Running Time: 108 minutes
Directed By: Ingmar Bergman
Written By: Ingmar Bergman
Main Cast: Gunnar Bjornstrand, Eva Dahlbeck, Ulla Jacobsson, Jarl Kulle, Margit Carlqvist

BERGMAN WEEK: CHAPTER I

Once again, before I begin this review, I just want to thank everyone who took a minute to read my TOP 20. I've reached a milestone that I'm very proud of and I'm excited to begin "The Road to 500". I look forward to twenty more movies worthy of the next list and this is where it all begins. However, I don't think "Smiles of a Summer Night" will be one of them.

The film presents us with a love hexagon, of sorts, as a group of different characters look to figure out their current relationship status. First up there's Fredrik Egerman (Bjornstrand), an aging attorney, who is married to 19-year-old Anne (Jacobsson). Fredrik is very aware of the age gap between he and his young bride and is the jealous type. In fact, he's even wary of his own son, Henrik (from a previous marriage), who lives with him and is around Anne's age. In the past, Fredrik had a mistress, actress Desiree Armfeldt (Dahlbeck) and when the Egerman's go to see her new play, Anne insists that they leave midway through, uncomfortable about something. Fredrik doesn't think Anne knew about his affair with Desiree, but when he meets up with Desiree later, he realizes that she might know something. Then there's Count Carl Magnus Malcolm (Kulle), Desiree's current lover and he's also married. Oh and let's not forget about Fredrik's maid, Petra, who gets her kicks teasing Henrik (who is a priest), flashing her cleavage at him and being generally frisky. After her meeting with Fredrik, Desiree realizes that she wants him back and devises a scheme to get everyone into their own, content relationships, so that she and Fredrik can be together. It all is to take place at the country home of the elder Mrs. Armfeldt, where all the couples are invited for a weekend, including Henrik and Petra.

WHEW! If that didn't confuse you, I don't know what will. Actually the plot isn't as confusing as it sounds and the writing is good enough to keep everything sorted out, without the plot tripping over itself and becoming jumbled. In fact, each relationship/situation is given time to be told and by the time we actually get to the country house, Bergman has spent an hour establishing everyone's circumstances. Actually, I think the film could have benefited greatly if Berman could have told the story of the six primary characters in half the time and got us to the country house with time to spare. That way, the film really could have flourished as all these couples interacted during a weekend getaway and I think it would have been a much more enjoyable film. However, as it was, I just didn't take to it as much as I had hoped to. The dialogue was really great, which surprised me for some reason, probably because I knew it was a comedy and I don't think of great dialogue when I hear the word "comedy".

In fact, I'm not entirely sure why I didn't take to this film more than I did. I think ultimately I just didn't care enough about the characters or their situations. The acting was fine, the story was, for the most part, intricate and well organized and, as I mentioned, the dialogue was a breath of fresh air. In the end, however, it just didn't do a lot for me and I really wanted to get "Bergman Week" kicked off with more of a bang than this.

Also, before I wrap this review I just want to make a quick note about my familiarity with Ingmar Bergman. I have seen exactly four Bergman films, prior to my viewing of "Smiles of a Summer Night". The very first Bergman film I ever saw was "Scenes from a Marriage", which I immediately fell in love with and have subsequently purchased and rewatched. I think it's ONE OF the greatest films I've ever seen, with two of the BEST performances I've ever seen and I've often cited that Liv Ullmann's performance in "Scenes" was one of the best performances I've ever witnessed from an actress. So, just to set the record straight, I'm not immune to Ingmar Bergman and he has at least one film that I'd put high on my personal list of favorites.

RATING: 6/10 Not terrible, by any means, but still not what I was looking for. Oh well, Bergman gets nine more chances to impress, so I won't worry just yet. Next up: "The Seventh Seal" (FYI - I've seen "The Seventh Seal" before and I wasn't impressed).

MOVIES WATCHED: 402
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 599

January 18, 2012 5:28pm