Just wondered if I'm the only one around who was blown away by this movie. It was ages since I saw it (and it was my first Bergman in color), but HERE I discovered the beauty of human face. The face - a landscape...
OK, I was lucky to see Liv's face on the cinema screen (cca 15m x 6m just in front of me really isn't the same as DVD/VHS or TV)...
To me a masterpiece without doubt.
vivaLuis
I consider it Bergman's best work. As a character study it's simply unsurpassed.
shareI also take this as one of Bergmans best movies, next to "Persona" or " The Hour of the Wolf" etc. I mean, sure "The Seventh Seal" and "Wild Strawberries" are magnificent, but I just love the way Bergman, exactly as you said, shows us the beauty of the human face, the beauty, the hopelessness, the offside of relationships and humans in general. Bergman is a genius of the human mind.
sharei completely agree that its a master piece but its certainly not bergmans best. certain scenes were not required and cud have done away with. dont get me wrong but certain facts were repeated in the film over and over again which i did not much appreciate, it just made the film lenghthy. one thing on which the film stands is characterisation.its a winner in depicting the mans lonliness n behaviour in isolation. i give it 7/10
but bergman is still the best.
I've just finished a retrospective of Bergman films at my local film center. I think it's important for people to look at many of his films in order to understand his recurring themes and preferred methods, this in order to take full measure of his work.
Having said that, this is one of possibly three of Bergman's films that I think contains those themes and methods but which transcends them to make a real work of non-self-indulgent art. In many of hiss other works the world is interior and claustrophobic, intentionally inducing extreme emotions in both characters and audience. Here the outside world and its complexities are allowed to interact with and influence this world. In other words, there is real world context. The audience is not force-fed human cruelty, but let to observe it. Something other than horror and inability to act are the result: A sympathy and understanding, at the least, is achieved.
In addition, the film stock is different--grainier and rougher. The genius of his sense of mise-en-scene and perfect color control are never compromised. The editing and cinematography are also somewhat different--the pulled back camera allows the viewer to find her own way and make her own interpretations. One can actually live in this world, not be drowning in it.
Lastly, the acting is, as usual, suberb, and the writing incomparable. -- A masterpiece.
It is indeed I think,his most underrated film,at least.One of Sven's(& therefore cinematography's)towering achievements.One wonders how complete the realization of it was,however,after hearing the story (read by Elliot Gould on the extras),though.
shareYes it's a masterpiece, my favorite Bergman film, and way more fasciating than what's out in theaters these bleak days. Only wow, it's hard to understand. Except it doesn't matter, for some reason. What was he trying to say? Today's movies are all too easy to understand, and not, yet, as satisfying.
"I can understand it, but I don't like it none!"--Cheyenne.
I'm usually very patient with Bergman and trust him - I figure that even if I'm not sure what's going on, he is, and there are the compensations of performances and photography, but with this film (and HOUR OF THE WOLF) I find myself losing that patience and wondering just what the hell is going on. And the fact that a TCM glitch meant that I didn't get the last 10 minutes or so of the film doesn't help.
"Remind me to tell you about the time I looked into the heart of an artichoke."
That's a shame because the last 10 minutes are extraordinary. Brings the whole thing brilliantly into focus. The stuff in the car, the car going off the road. The last shot.
What's the last thing you remember seeing? Did you at least get to Andreas losing it and taking an axe to Anna? (He misses.)
"A Passion" is possibly my favorite Bergman fim after "Persona."
The DVD is US $20. If you're curious, check it out.
I bought this at Fry's for $4. Such a good deal.
share[deleted]
I like Bergman and have seen a lot of his films, but haven't gotten around to this one yet. It is of course available and I should make it a point to see it soon. There are just too many films and too little time. You know? !!!
http://www.cinemabecomesher.com/
[deleted]
Bergman certainly had a totally identifiable approach to filmmaking, but imo his films are each different from the others, so much so I am reluctant to atempt to identify one as "the best" or to rank them against each other.
The Passion of Anna is certainly of at least equal value to his other great films, however. That I can and do agree with.
ONe might expect from some of the critiques that it would come across as too much tied to its specific time, thinking for example of the tv clip of the Vietcong suspect being executed by the South Vietnamese army. But I don't think that is the case at all. It speaks to universal themes in a way that is completely understandable today. Not that the film is of a type one finds frequently today - not at all. But that is part of how a film over forty years old can seem refreshing.
Great film. I highly recommend it.
Posting in a thread where my own post was the most recent one, in light of an over ten month intervening period, is no doubt a cause for reflection as to what this film means, and does not mean, to others.
But the intervening period has been one where I have watched this film a few more times, and also have thought more about its place within Bergman's general body of work. I will refer to that in a post on the Bergman site later, but for now, about Anna...
As someone had mentioned some years ago in this thread, Anna contrasts with the rest of Bergman's work at least in one way that is fairly clear. The interiority of his films, the intense focus on the human face, is found in a number of them, and here as well. But in Anna that focus is balanced, and I think quite effectively so, with an emphasis on what can be called the "real", meaning outside of that interior reality, world. This makes it something special.
Arguably Scenes from a Marriage has that balance, as well, but the real subject there is the marriage between Marianne and Johan. Here the focus is certainly in large part on the relationship between Andreas and Anna, but in a way that is more interior to each of them, I think, not to mention the presence of both Eva and Elis and their own inner views. Scenes is arguably about the risk of constriction, even claustrophobia, in the context of the relationship of marriage. While the concerns of Anna are certainly not wholly absent in Scenes, there is more of a focus on that which separates us in general. In fact it hearkens to themes in Persona, I think.
The apparent lack of interest in this film might seem quaint considering that Bergman's other films, his body of work, does not get the attention here I think it should. But I genuinely find this film to be a great one, and feel it is underappreciated. I wonder why.
Certainly the interviews with the actors is an element of unconventional filmmaking, and in turn this is off putting to some, even many, as well as a device that can be criticized on terms of an asserted lack of effectiveness. I would hope that most do not let this kind of perception detract from the overall film, however, and am reluctant to "blame" this device too much for indifference to this work of genius.
I even wonder coming as it does as a color film after all this beloved films that preceded it whether its being in color detracts for some Bergman fans.
Finally as a possible answer is the contemporaneous history of Bergman's own popularity. It is well known that as groundbreaking as his major works were in the fifties, their presence in art film houses and in the attention of other filmmakers, particularly French new wave, his films from Persona through Anna (until the popularity of Cries and Whispers and Scenes) attracted less attention. I think those films, that period, was actually his best, and at leaset some of the factors that detracted from Bergman's popularity in that period, such as left wing complaints about lack of relevance, etc., seem off the point and even quaint after the passsage of over forty years. Can they really still be a factor harming appreciation of, for example, Anna now?
Are they, or some other objection I cannot think of, enough to outweigh all of the following?
Cast. This is arguably Bergman's best cast. As much as I admire Josephson's work, Sydow is I believe his most effective male protagonist. As much as I admire his other female actors, from Harriet Andersson to Gunnel Lindbloom to Ingrid Thulin, I think the best of them all are Liv Ullman and Bibi Andersson. While the interplay between them here is not near what it was in Persona, the construction of this film's narrative makes an extremely effective use of the comparisons and contrasts their performances taken together provide. Each of the four main characters' performances are the equal of any others. The supporting cast is also excellent.
The Story and the Themes. The central element here is the interaction between Andreas, a self described and purposeful loner, and the group of Eva, Elis and of course Anna. Outside of this group is the substory of Johann and his eventual demise, but also in the context of the strange doings of the more general island culture, particularly the inexplicable horror of the attacks on animals. What actually happens is far less important than the way in which this narrative structure and choice of characters is the setting within which the back and forth pull takes place between the solitary search for inner integrity and truth runs up against the pull, and push, of others.
Early on we see when he first encounters Anna how Andreas is more than interested in her, but attracted to her, almost instantly. Why not? She is beautiful, but there is also something mysterious and intriguing about her. This visually charged intrigue is compounded by the overheard phone call, the latter reading of the letter, even the fact that they have no phone and the unfolding awareness of why Anna limped and used a cane.
Andreas's visit to Elis and Eva's house to return Anna's handbag also is fascinating. You can see him thinking - so, Anna is friends with, lives with?, this attractive, articulate and even witty couple who are very welcoming. He can hardly stay away despite his self conception of being a loner.
While the letter's content remains in Andreas's mind throughout, the apparent normality and perhaps even serenity suggested in his first encounter with Elis and Eva carries over to the dinner party, but soon so do we remember as does Andreas that letter and what it means. The shouting in Anna's sleep that night, especially the naming of Andreas, makes one wonder why Andreas did not flee.
Rather than go through the whole film like this, suffice to say Anna is an expert and fascinating examination of that which pulls people together and pulls them apart.
Some mention the film's last words as spoken by the narrator as the main point of the film, but I also am reminded that the last words of dialogue between the characters themselves is Anna saying to Andreas, I wanted to apologize. Hm. That apology was not enough. Why not?
Yes, a great film.