Video

A+

You are very clever women. ☘☘☘💛🕊

😂karinislovelygirl sheisbeautifullikesaint sheismygoddes

Love this channel ❤

The key for the last scene is - Minus feels that finally his father has spoken to him. It is not that much about defining God as love, which can easily become a rhetoric, and which would undermine Bergman's modernist-spiritual struggle to come to terms finally with the absolute 'silence of God'. It is a different position from being an atheist, agnostic or materialist. The crucial question is how to relate to God while there is no scope of miracle, grace, or transcendence. And there comes the utterance of Karin, her vision as if through a dark glass, 'God as a spidet'. Without owning the frame of existential question by Bergman, there is always a chance of midappropriation of this film as a tale of female insanity. In fact Karin's insanity is the cinematic tool through which Bergman proposes his key question about the human condition in the reality of the silence of God.

you guys still alive

Monika a feminist? She lives on movie romance and escapism and when the going gets tough she finds another guy to keep the jukebox playing, the movie fantasies alive

haha love these bloopers 😂

I doubt you’re still look at these comments, but if so, great work and would love to talk to y’all someday about Bergman

Terrible audio - webcam audio. Bergman understands women including their duplicitous nature.

After 12 years of watching over 25 Bergman films, I finally saw this one - and it's my favourite. An incredible achievement

Brilliant film that questions and twists everything, all possible categories of making existential sense: rationality, love, fiction, the supernatural, death and (not least by ending on such a deluded note) itself are led ad absurdum. Yet, there's also light, it's not overly serious and almost straight forward at times in an "entertaining" manner (humour, stylization, exaggeration etc.), potentially implying questions about wethere a carefully crafted art piece and the momentary, real feelings it evokes, can be senseful enough to justify an existence, even if no certainties remain.

When it comes to the supernatural elements of the film, I belive one must consider that Bergman partly writes a film from a strong litherary tradition. Magical realism is an important part of scandinavian literature. I think aspecially the literature of Selma Lagerlöf is important. The fact that these element rarly are explained gives some proof of this, since it is merly just a part of the different characters reality. And last, it could also be an origin of Bergmans childhood fantasy, imaginating how he could escape his real fathers world, here made a reality in his autobiographical film. There is also a strong link to the author/playwriter Strindberg, that clearly explaines these themes in the film. He has Helena Ekdahl read from Strindberg’s famous “Note” to A Dream Play: “Everything can happen, everything is possible and probable. Time and place do not exist; on an insignificant basis of reality the imagination spins and weaves new patterns.”

Hello, just started getting into Bergman films recently, and discovered your channel. After I watch each film, I am making it a point to check out your commentary afterwards. Even though you have not posted anything in a few years, I wanted to let you know that your channel is a real joy, and a huge help, in understanding these films better.

I felt so good but just a while after the middle of the movie it f**ks up . And these to wackjobs are sitting here spitting woke BS . But our hero , nice boy( literally us ) got played by the hoe monika . There is noting liberating about cheating of the person that cares the most about you . If they had both suffered like the boy there was actually accepting his own part being a nice man , but she , the hoe needed that cheap a*** woke shit . Fking hell

amazing artist. beautiful woman!!!

I've been watching bergman movies chronologically.. this was my favorite so far and definitely a big leap forward in terms of frankness of style, and cinematography like you said. But the girls in the reformatory, one of them "sleeping with the gardener" to get them cigarettes etc.. very straightforward. And the relationship of Berit with her mother, instantly, I thought was quite unconventionally represented

The super emotional phone call ending on the reveal she's in a full restaurant with everyone listening in is genius. This movie definitely had a couple of small gems that made it worth watching.

Awesome discussion, happy to come across this. I must add that if speaking about space in the film, the theater must be mentioned. While the other 3 spaces are labyrinth-like, the theater is very easy to follow. There is a stage, there are the audience seats, and there is backstage. This world makes more sense and is easier for Alexander to navigate.

I don't think that your criticisms are entirely fair. For example, on the point of character development where you complain that characters don't learn or grow. I think that's entirely the point - one of the themes of this film is the cyclical nature of human suffering where we continue the same patterns of behaviour. Regarding the ambiguity and lack of closure - same thing. In life often there is no closure.

I think Richard Linklater had it right, that the movie represents adult Alexander's memories of his childhood, which would explain the supernatural incidents: Childhood can seem magical in hindsight, and memory plays tricks on us. Which is basically what it is, in a literal sense, if we are to believe that Bergman based it on his own childhood.

You didn't understand the movie at all. It is a fantastic film (one of Bergman's very best) with its underlying anxiety, its technical perfection, its silence and rhythm, its form. The reversed and broken chronology is part of the man's split personality. They have a codependent relationship, which they have long challenged through open infidelity, fierceness and challenging arguments, etc. Basically, the man was sexually frustrated due to a subconscious homosexuality.

A+

9:50 "childlike" really should be "childish" if you mean "bratty". Childlike-ness is good for adults: Wonder, Creativity, Humility - Trump could use more of it

It doesn't have to be a precise "sequel". Shakespeare used names for characters that weren't exactly alike: eg Justice Shallow MWV vs same name for HIV2. Don't get hung on whether they'll as "convincing" or as "alike" as the other types. They're similar enough and Bergman was probably adjusting his dramatic lens. The characters in the later film could have been more apathetic or shallow, maybe deliberately so.

I had no idea this discussion would be up next straight after watching Summer Interlude (for the second time). Nice bonus to what I am now convinced just about qualifies as a classic. Maj-Britt Nilsson already something of an accomplished actress at this stage of her career gives a remarkable and intriguing performance. It has been pointed out that Marie is depicted in a somewhat too immature context. Well it would be quite deliberate and realistic for a beautiful woman to never have been kissed before Henrik shows up as few young men would have the confidence to approach her. That could of course suppress maturity to a degree. Henrik is indeed a little shy but bravely plucks up the courage. There are some typical dark undertones from Bergman here handled rather subtly. Just how many times Henrik has been close to Marie before finally introducing himself we can only guess but he is at least honest enough to say many times on stage. Regarding the hints of stalking (at the theatre; on the ferry): we can view this as an understanding of the dangers of being bestowed with such natural beauty, charm and innocence. Add to that the curious relationship with Uncle Erland. To be fair this could equally at the same time be attributed both to the over active fantasies of an immature and inexperienced young woman 'and/or' desperation of a man experiencing some form of mid life crisis. I do think the writer/director deliberately set these ambiguities up for us to ponder and maybe not just within the viewing time but beyond (as many of us seem to do). I am sure a Freudian could expand a lot more on the subject matter than that and maybe this was even more specifically set up with suchlike analysts in mind. My thoughts went immediately to The Seventh Seal upon seeing the scene with chess game. So I was very pleased to hear David mention this. Perhaps there is an intentional link by Bergman here. Earlier in the film; Marie encounters a white faced cloaked character not dissimilar to that of death appearing in the later film. Only in 1957 Death actually speaks which even as an experienced horror fan creeped me out no end and similarly approached by Wim Wenders in Wings of Desire (1987) employing Peter Falk as some kind of guardian angel. I didn't connect the first corresponding scene in Summer Interlude immediately, it was the double whammy of the chess scene that triggered my memory/subconscious. Basically, I came to Bergman via the horror genre and a whole new world opened up for me linking again through realism to Truffaut of course.

Nobody expects the Riksskatteverk !

the dialogue was superb in this film. Right to the point and stimulating from the beginning. The characters articulate their dissatisfaction so fast and so succinctly and also act.

Boy, you guys really enjoy him, don't you? Like a pair of vultures

boy, the audio's bad here. long time ago, I guess

Before I get too deep into my review, I want to address the glaring age continuity error from Scenes From a Marriage to Saraband. His age was mentioned in Scenes as 42 and hers was 35. Now he is 86 and she is 63. Go figure. It must be said that this isn't any kind of continuity error or age discrepancy within this film, just from the previous film to now. I want to say this had to be done intentionally. Why exactly? I am unsure. Perhaps, to give Johan more age on Marianne to make him more grandfatherly. I couldn't help but notice how Saraband was shot in a much more cinematic fashion as apposed to Scenes From a Marriage, which was shot with the simplicity of your typical television show. Technically, Saraband is a television film, but its cinematography is rather beautiful. Of course, Scenes From a Marriage was first presented as a television miniseries due to its great length, however it was always a long film moreso than a TV show. This film is extremely well-acted. Considerably better than its predecessor. Ingmar Bergman certainly showed that age is but a number and that he was one of the rare geniuses in his craft that could still make magic at his age, which was 85 when Saraband was released. I love the fact that even though this is a sequel of sorts, the first and only in the brilliant career of Ingmar Bergman, the focus is not on the previous main characters, Johan and Marianne, but rather Henrik and Karin. I found their story to be a lot deeper and more interesting. Mr. Bergman still had his amazing talents as both writer and director all the way until the end. For this, his final motion picture, he chose a less is more approach as apposed to its predecessor which was over 5 hours. I think that approach worked beautifully as it left us wanting a little more. More explanation in some areas, to see more of the story play out and so on. But we got what we got and it was a near perfect film. Cries and Whispers also used that approach, merely touching on certain stories within the film which effectively left the audience wanting more, but that made the film even greater, in my opinion. The same can be said about Saraband. That is one of the reasons I consider it superior to Scenes From a Marriage.

The characters questioned were all different parts of Bergman himself and the interrogator a symbol for the audience of art. I really liked the grip with an interview situation. Much like in Life of the Marionettes. It was a way of having a structured framework around all the eruptive outgoing emotions, I think.

Do you do Face To Face??

Thank you for your analysis of the importance of all the “fat” that was removed from the theatrical cut! 😂

I would PAY to work there. Bergman became religion to me, and this Archive is the closet to a wordly Holy Grail 🙃

The Photograph of Anna, is Bergmans mother (Karin) And Karin in Saraband is the modern version of Karin. The one Parent that Ingmar really loved. Saraband Karin together with her father is Ingmars father, portraid as weak , manipulative , cruel and insecure only for defending his right to declare his atoned religious beliefs. The one parent he really loathed and passes on trauma on little Ingmar.

"Disconnection" aka "dislocation" is a key cause of psychic pain which causes mental illness, which then leads to addiction, is a key theme of the film. All the characters are undergoing a series of artificial divisions from one another that alienates them.

Another interesting point. The whole story seems to occur in a single day, from waking up early to going to sleep the same night. I think that is also the case in The Seventh Seal. Something that needs to be explained.

Perhaps one could instead compare it with Fanny and Alexander rather than the Seventh Seal. A lot of things are in his last theater film. The idyllic scenes of family life and youth, for example. And the supernatural scenes. And the cruel, heartless bishop, like Isak's mother and in some ways himself and his son. But I do not feel the need to compare different Bergman films, they each have their own logic and goal. I feel a bit sorry for the doctor. I do hope that he had at least a little time, perhaps a few months or even years to make amends and try to do something to make up for his mistakes. Like Scrooge in A Christmas Carol. After all, his mother would seem to be close to a hundred and still fairly fit.

very good. I enjoyed this and learned a lot!

what a naive comment of her.. I agree with him! The silence is just art.!

👌✌

One of Bergmans most charming social commentary. The court scene is one of the funniest scenes ever in a Bergman film

I see Brink of life as Bergmans many tributes to woman in general. Except this was his most confrontational one. You got to remember the 1950´s zeitgeist were men expected pretty much to marry someone and turn the spouse into a second mother. I read all the intelligent commentarys here in the thread, and all of them are trying to apply 60 years of progress retroactively on the 1950´s

They were so happy, they had no idea what was in store for them

So where did you find the film so the rest of us can watch it? Makes no sense that you wanted to see every Bergman film then recommend others skip it...

Just discovered your channel and project after completing the TV version of Fanny and Alexander. Thanks for embarking on this project and making your points so clear and engaging. You’re inspiring me to a deep dive on a favorite director!

I think you are misinterpreting the rescue of the children as a magical event, since it was prepared for via the communications along the family grapevine.

Wild Strawberries is my favorite Bergman film. The criticisms I've heard are often true or partially true; the symbolism is heavy-handed, the dialog can be stilted and expository, etc. But I don't care. The character of Isak is very well drawn and I care about him. His predicament is universal. Bergman suggests that the other people in Isak's life had an insatiable need for his time and involvement, but he was too interested in intellectual pursuits to give himself over totally. By contrast, his brother Sigfrid spent virtually all his time on others and stole away Isak's true love. But in the end Sigfrid was a worthless person because he was totally engaged with others and had no substance of his own. The climax comes when Isak's accomplished but cold son decides to give more of himself and be as good a husband and parent as he is capable of being. Of course Evald will always be a distant man no matter how hard he tries to be more loving. He's just like his father.

Hi, I've been watching through the Criterion Bergman box set and enjoying your reviews. Thanks.