The Passion of Anna

I came to the realization that the point of view in many of Bergman's movies, is that of a child pressing his ear to the door, listening to his parents fighting.

I haven't seen Bergman so disjointed before. It's too messy, and the deconstructionist devices that make The Passion of Anna so peculiar hurt more than they help. Actors being interviewed about the roles they're playing? Really? And why was that dream sequence necessary? And why are we told Andreas started living with Anna without any on screen development? Maybe I should watch this again when I'm well rested. I liked it but it's frustrating.

Formidable acting, great writing and shots that are beautifully composed and lit to perfection. This would probably he a great place to start if you're new to Bergman's film.

Cinema doesn't really get much better than this; coffee for the soul.

Bergman: THE PASSION OF ANNA [...] was made on Farö Island during the fall of 1968 and carries traces of the winds that were blowing in those days both in the real world and in the world of film. In some respects, therefore, it looks very dated. In other ways it is powerful and shows a break with accepted film practices. I look at it with mixed feelings. [It is] in some ways a variation of SHAME. It depicts what I really wanted to show in SHAME – the violence manifested in an underhanded way.

a bit more dense than some of bergman's more artsy movies, and it works decently well. the last shot displays the qualities i love about bergman, too bad his writing couldnt live up to his cinematography.

Kind of between his earlier, broader work and Scenes From A Marriage. All of the thought provoking realness and excellent dialogue present. I think I'm developing sort a schoolboy crush on Liv Ullman and Bibi Andersson... and Max Von Sydow.

It's hard for me to see this is anything other than a failure - there's no real depth to the characters, and we're given no insight as to their psychological torment (which is apparently great, considering their melodramatic monologues). I'm also not a fan of the meta-experimental style Bergman's trying out here. As far as failures go, it's more interesting than most - I enjoy the photography, and as usual Bergman's troupe of actors is excellent - but I can't see myself revisiting this often.

A masterpiece of Cinema.

Takes a while to get going, and the idea of interviewing the actors is a silly novelty. And the film is unfocused overall. But there is a lot of interesting stuff going on. No one does chamber drama, and those intense dialogues, like Bergman. There are some revealing interactions, some explosive, some wonderfully understated. The use of flashbacks is intriguing. And the exploration of "physical and psychological violence" is incredibly powerful and disturbing. And that final shot is brilliant.

Bergman does colour! and experiments a bit with the fourth wall and has everyone lie to everyone including the viewers. It's not a failed attempt so much as it is a slightly misfiring one; coming off Persona and Hour of the Wolf he tries to dial up the metafiction another notch, and I'm left wishing it all fit together just a little bit more.

A thought-provoking character study that examines human emotions and the effects of isolation. Typically solid film-making from Bergman, with the usual great cinematography from his visual collaborator Sven Nykvist. The only thing that I'm not sure works is the narrative structure where Bergman switches to documentary style talking head scenes with his actors share their feelings on the characters they are inhabiting. It's not badly done per se, it's just different.

A mixture with correspondence to other Bergman films: the two women to the two main characters in THE SILENCE; Andreas and Anna to Johan and Marianne in SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE. So performers' interpretation of their own characters can help us understand both this film and the related ones. Also, we can see how Bergman gradually developed and purified his technique of tension exposure to a level where simply close-ups of faces and dialogues would suffice, and how this purification led to SFAM.

Bergman does a perfect job of showing people as they are. Anna is the one character trying to tell the truth, while no one else is saying what they really mean. Bergman always shows people as we really are. The acting is utterly phenomenal, the cinematography is stunning, but all of these are overshadowed by the screenplay. There are some neat fourth wall breaks too.

89.00

horny and sad swedes fondle around their issues (and each other) in this soft, sweet film that isn't bergman at his greatest but for the bergman heads out there - a bigboy_tony approved - *must watch*

Mês especial do centenário de Ingmar Bergman filme #11. O mais interessante desse filme é como o método descarrilhado de filmagem que o Bergman usou nele reflete a interioridade das personagens e seu desenvolvimento, o fato dele estar se separando da Liv Ullman durante as filmagens reflete a desintegração da sua técnica até então precisa para uma maior visceralidade e experimentalismo. Coleção Versátil Ingmar Bergman Volume 7

(2nd viewing, 1st: 80)

Disjointed but well-made that touches many classic bergman subjects while experimenting. Somewhat superfluous given bergmans back catalogue.

“You have cancer of the soul.” Are these the most depressing lines uttered in all of cinema? I think this film is surely intended by Bergman as a companion to ‘Skammen’. But this time, the despair and desperation is intensified as we witness the decimation of both the corporeal and spiritual lives of von Sydow’s and Ullmann’s characters. Andreas’ and Anna’s motto seems to be, “when life gives you lemons, suck them dry”. Bergman in colour is more impactful than Bergman in black-and-white.

Very, very dark. But good, too.

Good Movie

FYI, Max von Sydow plays chess in this one too

Good heavens, this is really a great film. These are four of the greatest actors from this period really giving vivid life to powerfully written characters. (And in a strange, but compelling move, you briefly see each actor telling you how they see the character they are playing.) It was made as a somewhat impromptu follow-up to "Shame", and although it really doesn't share any of that film's concerns, it has the same really beautifully barren rural atmosphere.

950

A very messy movie in which Bergman tries some new things out but unfortunately they don't work very well.

Uneven for Bergman, with glimpses of brilliance but ultimately messy and confusing. Solid acting but the characters traits seem inconsistent or rapidly changing. Also, hammers in the "may act violently" motif way too hard. Interesting with some very well shot sequences. It feels more like a sketch for what could have been a great movie.

It's a little bit light on story due to the impressionistic nature of the editing, but overall an engaging drama about emotional isolation and social subterfuge.

meaning of life, existence of good, guilt, relationships...topics and questions we face over and over again in our lives AND in bergman's movies. he gets so close to reality, sometime, it's almost scaring. there's just so much sensitivity in the screenplays and in the acting of such great actors as max von sydow and liv ullman etc.

It's perfect.

normal bergman stuff mixed with an animal cruelty subplot, dream sequences, narration and fourth wall interviews. it doesn't really fit together that well from my point of view. it doesn't feel natural and it's too much. would say so far that this is my least favourite post-1950 bergman, though being in my tier 6 that still means it's better than the majority of movies i've seen.

Maybe the trouble is that I watched this after watching most of Bergman's other movies, but it underwhelmed me. Again, everyone's miserable, and that's mostly conveyed through ponderous dialogue and really tortured acting from Sydow and Ullman, and there's a little chip in the fourth wall for effect. And when animal murders become some sort of an allegory, it just seems desperate and I couldn't be bothered to care anymore. It's not terrible, but I would skip this one.

#922

950

It really is uneven, especially in the second half. I have no problems with the interviews per se, but couldn't we build our own pictures of the characters without them? But then again, there's no reason why we should adopt their views even though I found them to be interesting. The violence seems out of place. Skammen and Vargtimmen managed this in a better way.

There's some great Bergman-style conflict in here, though it's weighted down by some useless flashy cinematic tricks. Nonetheless the subtext does have some bite to it, and Bergman remains the master of chamber dramas.

Everything about this film is just so great, yet in the end it just remains .... forgettable.

Not my favourite Bergman. It's really visually interesting, and 2 or 3 really compelling scenes, but I wasn't on the edge of my seat in the way that I oftentimes am with his other films. Also, I wasn't a fan of those meta-interviews with the actors. That being said, I don't want to undersell it. it's still Bergman. There's still enough there to make it an interesting film. It's worth seeing.

88.000

Very very good. Watch undisturbed and high.

Ingmar Bergman #1