Fanny and Alexander

The problem with any great artist is that it becomes easy to rest on one's laurels, become self-indulgent, or settle for mediocrity. After all, the fans will always stick by you. Fanny and Alexander, Bergman's farewell to the cinema (in more ways than one since it was made for television) is a problematic film - it is a well crafted work, but undistinguished, not nearly as great as some of his past achievements. Can one blame him? Not really - nobody hits a home run every time at bat. Fanny and Alexander is a long (over 3 hours) Dickensian period piece that lacks much of the trademark Bergman touches. It's well made, but not significantly different from many historical melodramas and made-for-TV mini-series' that were the hallmark of U.S. broadcast television in the 1980s. The story primarily deals with two young siblings and their trials and tribulations following the death of their father. Really it's mostly about the boy, Alexander, as his sister, Fanny is pretty much an ominpresent non-entity in the proceedings. There are also a lot of dead-end subplots featuring the children's aunts, uncles, and other relatives. And, save for a few detours into the metaphysical (mostly in the last 10 minutes), there is little to distinguish it from a run-of-the-mill Victorian soap opera. The cast - all of them - turn in fine performances, and while I can't really recommend this film whole-heartedly, I really can't knock it either. Perhaps a good time-passer if you are bedridden and need a 3 hour diversion.

This is Ingmar Bergman's semi-autobiographical Life and Times of wealthy theater family Ekdahl in 1907 Uppsala, mainly told from the eyes of young Alexander as his mother is widowed, remarries a harsh bishop, and moves into his church estate with both the children. A fairly gripping saga, gorgeously photographed and sumptuously produced, with marvelous performances from Malmsjö and Wållgren... but mostly a more artistic gem to admirably behold rather than be moved by and involved in. Considered a masterpiece by many, not by me. Why? Well, I caught the 188 min' version, and many bits - although enjoyable on their own, such as Kulle's monologues and erotic shenanigans - seem to be from completely different films altogether in tone, patched up to a big quilt with unfitting seams, in contrasting the children's ghastly torment of their stepfather (Alexander's head-to-head battles of will with him IS a highlight), with the unrelated, more easy-going content from the family's head estate. The relatives fates from the first act are unresolved and completely detached from the remaining main story: Emilie, her failed re-marriage and the children's struggle. They all honestly don't evoke terribly much emotional sympathy because we don't really get to know them; for example, Alexander misses his dead father and hates his stepfather... and that's basically all. And we also really have no other sign of the family's togetherness than their spoken confirmations, which contribute to this film's most disjointed, highly inconsistent feel with quite a few leaps in the storyline. Perhaps the TV-series version is more cohesive? Bergman's love for the theater is of course ubiquitous, both in establishing the family's relation to it, as well as much of the overly theatrical acting/line delivery, heavily metaphysical & religious symbolism and solemn theme presentation (with a nod to August Strindberg at the end). That style blend is of course a matter of preference, and I'm not a huge fan of it, presented this way (NOTE: this is my third Bergman altogether). And one major question truly arises: where the hell is Fanny in this movie? A character with her name in the title, has no impact on anything whatsoever in a story spanning 3 hours... how can that be? 6 out of 10 from Ozjeppe

Some of the positive reviews I just read on IMDb make me wonder if I saw the same film they did. "One of the greatest films ever made" and "a masterpiece"???!!! Come on, this is a very good film but I would reserve these raves for other films! The performances and writing for the family is amazing at times--I particularly liked the grandmother's performance. Her use of expression and manners made me believe she was real and I wanted her to be MY grandmother. Her sons, daughter-in-laws and servants were also excellent. On the other hand, Fanny was practically absent from the movie and Alexander, at times, seemed like a zombie. I suspect it must be hard to direct and write for children, as their parts just didn't feel real to me. The evil Bishop and his family were well presented and I had no problems here. The only REAL problem I had was with the bizarre son of the Jewish man who rescued the children. He was kept locked away and was either some sort of psychopath or pedophile or witch--his part was so brief and poorly presented he was just a confusion. I know that Bergman likes occasional surreal touches but to me this just looks more like an omission versus a real attempt to challenge the viewer. I THINK Bergman was trying to imply that this man molested Alexander but whether or not this occurred it just didn't fit the film. One other gripe I had is that the film seemed a little too black and white in its presentation and seems to show a real bias on Bergman's part concerning traditional morality. The Ekdahl family is rather worldly (with son Carl's MANY sexual escapades and his family's tacit approval) and sweet AND the Bishop's family is stern, wicked and visually frightening.

In Fanny & Alexander, those two characters are basically side-characters. Or at least they feel that way because I still have no idea who they are. The same can be said about everyone else. Even though the viewer never really gets an idea who all these people are, we're supposed to care that one man bursts into a depressing rant all of a sudden, another man dies, a woman starts screaming in the middle of the night, the widow finds "true love" about 5 minutes later, a boy is haunted by his dead father... The movie is full of these events that have an extremely high impact on the young minds of these two children. But why should I really care when those two children are presented as empty shells throughout the whole movie? And why should I care when the whole movie is depressing?

Although I have disliked Bergman's earlier films and thought they were by far too overrated, that did not apply to this film. I saw the director's-cut version, over five hours. A little long, yes, and there is not much music, but it's not slow, like Tarkovsky's films can be. The opening is great, and the first act, the first one and a half hour, was the part I liked the very most. The realism is utter, so is the casting; the best acting I have seen in a Swedish film, it's amazing. I can't complain about any actor, they were all extremely good. So is the dialog. Alexander had a typical upper class look, so did his grandmother, who looked extremely fresh and healthy and beautiful, for her age. All together, the language and milieus are very credible. No over-colorful costumes and silly dialogs, that is such a frequent element nowadays in historical plays, especially from America. Bergman succeeds to capture the customs and behavior that were used (and to some extent still is used) within the Swedish upper class, as well as general Swedish customs and behavior. I know this, because I am familiar with it and have partly experienced it myself. The result is sometimes amazing. Bergman succeeds to capture the atmosphere of the old times, through language and decoration. The photo is at time dazzling; some scenes are identical to 19th century Swedish painting, and I get the thought that Bergman turned to these in search for the right setting of the film. Unlike early works by Bergman, which tend to be somewhat theatrical, the keyword here is realism, which I appreciate greatly. The actors manage, like I said, to speak and play in a way that I feel was customary at that period of time. It might be too much to claim this work to be a Swedish Tarkovsky film, but I sensed it had some philosophical material, and it is definitely thoughtful. Otherwise, I think it is worth watching for the acting and dialog alone. One of the best Swedish films ever made, and Bergman's best, in my opinion. (9/10)

"Fanny and Alexander" (1982) was announced at the time of its release as Ingmar Bergman's swan song, his last film for the big screen. It is his most optimistic and enchanting blend of romance, tragedy, comedy, fantasy, and mysticism. Set in Sweden in the beginning of the 20th century, the film follows the lives and adventures of two children, brother and sister Fanny and Alexander Edkahl. I love Bergman in every mood and in every genre - I love him dark, bleak, harrowing ("Shame"), mysterious ("Persona"), merciless and devastating ("Scenes from a Marriage, "Face to Face", "Autumn Sonata). I love his lighter, smiling side ("Wild Strawberries", "Smiles of a Summer Night). Even for a master of Bergman's powerful talent, "Fanny and Alexander" is extraordinary - a profound film which is also one of his most accessible works. Pablo Picasso said once, "When I was 9 years old, I could paint like Rafael; as an adult, all my life I tried to learn how to paint like a child". In his final film, one of the greatest masters of dark and sometimes morose psychological studies looks at the world with a child's eye. The words he chose to finish his film with reflect the hope, the happiness and the magic that can be fully felt only in one's childhood: "...Anything can happen, anything is possible. Time and space do not exist. ..On a flimsy ground of reality, imagination spins out and waves new patterns." --- August Strindberg's introductory notes for A Dream Play.

Fanny and Alexander isn't utterly terrible. I enjoined parts of the film very much and thought I'd gotten the hang of it on several occasions. However, the film has several peculiarities that make me question Bergmans talent for composing a unity. The whole film seems to be merely a series of loosely connected scenes. Is Bergmans ambition to make a realistic portrayal of the times (the beginning), a lascivious farce (the erotic adventures of Gustav Adolf), an artistic endeavour to portray children's odd fantasies and views of the illogical adult world (the end)? For me, Bergman seems to fail completely in composing a cohesive film. The big interest in the film lies on the personalities of the characters, and Bergman does succeed in portraying the bigger part of them credibly (Alexander, Carl, Oscar, the bishop). However, illogical characteristics of other characters make me doubt Bergmans understanding of the human nature. For example: Gustavs wife lets Gustav play around with other women without feeling jealousy. This could work if only the film in the whole would aim on being a farce or allegory of sexual oppression of women. In the context of the rest of the film, however, these details spoil the credibility of the film as a character study. In the case of the bishop Bergman seems to rely on insufficient reasons for making him appear as such a beast of a man. Why does Emelie suddenly start hating her husband so passionately? He is slimy and idealistic but nonetheless the same man with whom she originally fell in love. Bergman doesn't motivate these feelings, and for me, paradoxically, the bishop appears to be the true victim - haunted by an ignorant director. As far as the bishop's injustice is concerned I take it that spanking wasn't uncommon in those days. Nevertheless, Emilies hate becomes known already before the punishing. Also, I couldn't really comprehend the poetic and incredible ending. Later, I read on the internet how to interpret the scene where Isak comes to save the children. Putting this scene in the context of the rather realistic earlier parts of the film, it seems to me far-fetched that Isak should have conjured the children in the chest invisible and at the same time made their bodies show up in their room to convince the bishop he wasn't taking them anywhere. Considering these confusing aspects of the film I wonder how much was cut from the original five-hour film. On the other hand, it is self-evident that skillful cutting and planning plays an important part when rating a film. Fanny and Alexander should be understandable without having to see any edited scenes. Regardless of what is said above, I refuse to believe that the whole film-loving world could have been fooled to like Fanny and Alexander. I must have missed the point somewhere on the way. Maybe the film needs a second chance.

Clocking in at 3 hours this is a long movie and it is rambling as well. Ingmar Bergman with his cinematographer Sven Nyqvist has made a gorgeous looking film, the art and set direction is exemplary. The film is set in a Swedish town in the early years of the 20th Century. The focus is on the Ekdahl household, a theatrical and gregarious family, there is warmth and bawdiness. Fanny and Alexander have a seemingly idyllic family life but things change when their father Oscar dies from a stroke. Now the children become more important in the film, almost soon their mother Emilie marries the Bishop Edvard, who lives an austere lifestyle with his family. The children are not happy under this stern household which is a contrast to the warmth and love that had previously existed. In its kernel, the film is not that far departed from David Copperfield. The priest is really Mr Murdstone, who has charmed the beautiful widow but has a heart of darkness that Alexander immediately senses. As Edvard cannot gain the children's respect he becomes a brute. The film also borrows from magical realism especially in the latter part as a Jewish family comes to the rescue of the children and revenge is taken against Edvard who refuses to let their mother go. The film is leisurely paced, the second half is more interesting plot wise, although you end up shouting at the screen at Emilie. Why does she want to marry so soon and accepts Edvard's conditions. She really did not care for her children's well being at all and puts them all at risk. In some ways this is Bergman's most accessible film, light and darkness but it is also too long, even self indulgent.

This film is cinema as poetry and moves along like a wonderful dream. I am fond of stories centred around families anyway but this takes the family and explores many different corners of how you are affected by your kin. All this of course happens through the eyes of two small children though mainly Alexander. It contains so many moments of sheer emotion, my favourites being the confrontation between the two brothers and the bishop, the appearance of God and the father to the boy and the end scene. A great deal of symbolism peppers the film and Bergman takes hold of the material with such expertise that one cannot turn away at any point. This film is a real treasure and I advise anyone to watch it and love it as the latter comes very easily. I know that Bergman has a reputation for being heavy handed (is this a crime?) but this film is a lyrical song to the family and should be compulsive viewing. The fact that this film is over four hours is irrelevant, as this is often the first thing people comment on when the title is mentioned. Go and see this film today as it is quite remarkable.

Really don't know what all the fuss is about... Written and directed by Ingmar Bergman, the story of two children, Fanny and Alexander (strangely enough), and what happens after their father dies. Underwhelming, a bit of an ordeal and vastly overrated. It's over three hours long, yet the story only really develops and has some degree of intrigue from about the two-hour mark. Until then, it just drifts and all feels like background, rather than plot development. Even once it does pick up the drama, this gets resolved in a rather random fashion and then goes somewhere weird and pretentious. Overall, pointless and mostly boring. Thank goodness for the fast forward button and sub-titles (or "how to watch a 3-hour movie in 1 1/2 hours"...).