User Reviews (23)

Add a Review

  • Interesting film, but this is clearly not the very best of the great Bergman. Several relationships are examined under the microscope (so far, so Bergman). The film jumps around between the relationships in a slightly distracting way, but eventually you get to the bottom of who used to be with whom etc.

    Gosh it's bleak out there, Bergman seems to share Strindberg's views on marriage and relationships at this time - the references to Strindberg stress that point. There's adultery, bitter rows between partners, lesbianism (inexplicit) and suicide. It ought to have me at the edge of my seat, but somehow doesn't quite do the business for me in the way that most Bergman films do. Perhaps this one hasn't aged well.

    Worth seeing for the dedicated Bergman fan - it's pretty short and has its moments. If you are looking for an initial view of Bergman, look elsewhere.
  • Xstal4 February 2023
    Raul's a dislikeable chap, gets the feeling that he's being trapped, in the blink of an eye, it's adios, goodbye, marches off vowing not to come back.

    Ruth is quite high maintenance, takes everything that you can dispense, she'd turn you to a husk, grinding you down to dust, at her mercy without strong defence.

    Bertil's nightmare hasn't come true, the bottle he threw he withdrew, a small recompense, brings him back to sense, but next time he might not wake to two.

    Valborg plays life solitaire, her secret her shame not to share, though with Eva she tries, it all ends in surprise, back to solitude with no one to care.

    Eva is lost all alone, a vulnerable hand she's been sown, now she's starting to fade, as she tries to evade, cascades to the depths as if blown.

    Several intertwined strands reflect the frailties, the ignorance and the disappointments we've all encountered at some time or another - although hopefully with a little less melodrama.
  • The early Bergman films are interesting in how they portray an artist evolving with increased experience. They're not always successful artistic endeavors overall, but they show how a studio system can foster and hone talent through experience.

    Thirst tells the story of a young married couple on their way back from a vacation in Italy. We see them in France as they are about to board a train through 1946 Germany back towards Sweden. The woman is haunted by a previous affair and a subsequent abortion all while she nurses a bad knee in the hopes that one day she will dance ballet again. The husband is a penny pinching academic obsessed with coins and who had had an affair with another woman out of, what he calls, pity for her status as a widow. None of this is a secret, all of the sins are out in the open.

    The two have the kind of talks typical in Bergman films (in particular his later, post-existential films like Scenes from a Marriage) and come to the conclusion that they should reconcile their differences and try to work through their problems to a happy marriage in the film's final moments.

    The problem with the movie is its structure. This could be a case study in a poorly structured story pretty much killing a film. The first twenty minutes are dedicated to flashbacks to the wife's affair with a lieutenant in the Swedish military before we ever meet the husband. The husband's lover is first mentioned about thirty minutes into the movie, and she is introduced a few minutes later in a scene with her cruel psychologist. She then disappears for a half hour. There's also the wife's old dancing friend who appears in another flashback and then shows up with the husband's former lover, trying to seduce her which ends up leading to the lover's suicide.

    The problem isn't the events themselves, but the fact that they are bunched together without any real effort to weave it in and out of the other threads. As typical, I read the essay in the Criterion Collection's large book and was unsurprised to discover that the script (which Bergman didn't write) was based on a series of short stories. Considering my issues with the film's structure, it made perfect sense. It felt very staccato with one story going through its beginning, middle, and end before another one took over. It's not quite that, but, especially considering the initial twenty minutes with the wife's lover, it feels very apropos.

    I do think that if the movie had been re-arranged it would have worked better. I don't think it's something that purely an editing job would have done. At least some of it would have needed to originate at the script. The husband's lover needed at least one more scene to flesh her out for instance (her first scene with the psychologist is highly emotionally delivered and feels out of place because we had never met her before).

    Stylistically, the movie feels very Bergman. The topics he loved are there (the marriage, even the dancer is a performer that he frequently featured). His visual style sometimes feel a little more active than normal, but we clearly see his visual tics such as two people in frame talking to each other, letting actors demonstrate who they are through long exposures to their smaller actions, and strong performances throughout. I just wish the story had been arranged in a way that made sense.
  • Women on the verge of a nervous breakdown, men looking for dominance, acted out on a small scale: Here, Bergman serves up some technical and contentual elements which can be found throughout his later career. Several short stories written by Birgit Tengroth, who is playing Viola here, are melded, with the main plot involving Rut (Eva Henning) and Bertil (Birger Malmsten). But as soon as the couple arrives the train which will take them on a journey through Europe, Bergman somehow loses all side threads. One can sense how the director exerts to stage his idea of a marital- and love drama, though, it soon appears as a pretty faint attempt and at the end all plot lines remain fragmentarily. The characters and the images, however, linger. They tell the underlying story of Törst and convey this certain feeling of freedom, self-determination, and desire for love presented in a "steely, self-assured, stripped-down directorial style" which is Bergman's very own. That is why with this film one can expect something in the subsequent films of this yet young talent: a great subtlety in cinematic character psychology and lasting, poignant images.
  • Bergman is beginning to develop some of his personal traits to be found in the later, more mature film. He hasn't yet learned to unveil the characters quite yet but the interactions are quite interesting. There are several stories going on here and a couple of groups of characters and sometimes the switching back and forth can be confusing. I would certainly agree with one reviewer that "thirst" was used not only metaphorically throughout but quite literally from the first image of an eddy of water during the credits to the very end. The characters are always drinking something or other - water (it's midsummer after all), wine(one of the characters is an alcoholic), even milk. The characters are actually quite self-centered, as in so many of Bergman's earliest films, and not particularly likable. The scene with the "therapist" was especially disturbing and the characters seem more prone to bounce off each other than anything. It's when they start to communicate that the trouble really begins to brew as we've learned from the later films.

    Curtis Stotlar
  • Ingmar Bergman very quickly became one of my favourite directors. Have only been familiar with him since 2012 which was around the period when my film and television taste started to broaden, but it was easy to be intrigued by his distinctive directing style so it was easy to get into his work. Not all his films are great and he was not immune from misfires, but many of them are very, very good and even masterpieces, it is not hard to see why he became such a big influence in cinema.

    None of Bergman's late-40s films, when he was still learning his craft and finding his style, are among his best work. It was around the early-mid-50s when he began to come into his own. His early films are still interesting though and there are not really any duds. The most commercially successful of Bergman's early films, 'Three Strange Loves' as called in my country is certainly very intriguing and it is well done in a lot of areas. The story is very flawed and something of a big caveat but 'Three Strange Loves' is fine from a directing standpoint and has a lot to recommend.

    'Three Strange Loves' story could have been executed better. The structure is very jumpy, with some constant backing and forthing that was sometimes hard to follow. The flashbacks intrigue mostly but occasionally drag and some could have been placed better and not as randomly introduced or as fragmented.

    Do agree as well that the supporting characters' subplots are not as involving as that of the central couple. Some are also not as necessary or as cohesive as others and feel like padding.

    On the other hand, 'Three Strange Loves' is well made visually, with the photography being both stylish and atmospheric. Bergman's directing was becoming more refined all the time and there are enough glimmers of brilliance, one can see his distinctive style coming through in some of the more symbolic imagery. The music complements the tone very well and fits appropriately. The script is thought-provoking and sometimes poetic.

    Although the story's execution could have been much better, it fascinates thematically with heavy themes not trivialised and actually pretty daringly uncompromising. The tone, revolving around an ahead-of-its-time and not as frequently portrayed back then subject, is bleak and purposefully not a pleasant watch, but the central couple plot is often harrowing and has genuine moments of poignancy. Complete with a strongly written female lead character and the two lead performances are quite powerful.

    In a nutshell, well done early on but Bergman went on to much better things. 7/10
  • Bergman's first foray into marriage - a long visited topic for him. Moving on from a previously familiar summer holiday romance scenario that ends in pregnancy termination, the story shows how the now sterile ex ballet dancer faces frustrations with her new husband. The married soldier that was the subject of her affair (I presume he was killed in action), leaves a widow who comes to haunt her, in spirit and in body.

    For Bergman, we see his first slightly bleached-out ultra close up and face to face shot. The psychiatrist too makes a first appearance as emotional damage is pursued as a topic. There's also quite a bit of flash-backing and a train journey that runs through most of it which is supposed to symbolise both a passage in time but also the empty, barren vessel she now feels herself to be.

    The distinctively intelligent dialogue that so appeals to me is sharp and acerbic, probably for the first time. "I only stay alive so I can keep you as miserable as you've always kept me" is typical of Ingmar's angst. Subtleties of depressive subjects such as suicide are shown by someone leaping to their death into water but all we hear is a plover or some-such seabird changing its call.

    A little lumpy in its narrative but for those who love Bergman, the gems are starting to shine and we are reassured by the burgeoning qualities of who we now know to be one of the World's greatest ever directors.
  • True, the movie has got a few flaws, mostly in the construction; the structure lacks necessity and the flashbacks appear a bit randomly, it seems. However, the essential Bergman is already present (it's 1949): a few absolutely superb close-ups on the main characters' faces, the way people suddenly appear on camera, from unexpected angles, etc. And Bergman is already displaying some of the themes he will use constantly : the train travel, war and ruins as a background for difficult relationships, plus of course the impossibility and at the same time the inevitability of the relationship between man and woman : it's doomed, but there's no other way... In fact, the French title is "La fontaine d'Aréthuse", which points to this very idea. Precisely, I'd like to discuss another point : the original title is "Thirst". And in fact, people in the movie drink a lot : wine, beer, milk, or fail to drink : in a dramatic moment, one character refuses to drink coffee, tea is prepared, but doesn't taste good. I believe people never drink water, but water (the sea) is the backdrop for the happiest moment of the movie and the most desperate (with the suggestion of a suicide). For Bergman, I believe, Man is essentially thirsty, is desperately thirsty for something to calm and comfort him. But the world is hostile, relationships can offer only brief moments of satisfaction on a backdrop of tension and pain. Other comments on this title ? Very interesting movie overall.
  • My least favourite of the twelve Ingmar Bergman films that I have watched so far, this is nevertheless an okay film in itself. I could not bring myself to care for any of the characters, and the plot is rather awkward, to say the least. Interestingly, this Bergman film has the unusual quality of not been written by the Swedish great himself, so Bergman cannot receive much blame for the storyline, which consists of different events with different characters in different time periods, all put together in an unclear fashion. The story is hard to decipher, but what I could work out, I did not find very exciting at that. Even so, this is satisfactory viewing, as the camera follows around the characters very well and Bergman shows some skill for setting up shots, even if not as greatly as in some of his later efforts. And, if not much else, the music choices are fitting. I am not sure whether I would recommend this to other Bergman fans, but I would definitely advise non-fans to proceed with caution.
  • I thought I had seen every Bergman film ever made, so I was thrilled to stumble onto this one the week after he died. I had no trouble following the intertwining stories because I kept track of the characters' names and their relationships. So what confused many viewers seemed totally justified, especially compared to films in our post-Altmam era where more and more we see "stories" where seemingly unconnected people's lives crisscross and are junxtaposed ("Magnolia," and "Babel" to name a few).

    The filming is fantastic for the time and prefigures the use of close ups in "Through a Glass Darkly." Very different from "Port of Call" just before and "To Joy" just afterwards. I found the film less bleak than "Prison," its lyrical moments prefiguring "Summer Interlude," one of my favorite early Bergmans.

    The lesbianism was blatant enough for me, much more obvious than in "Young Man With A Horn," made around the same time in the US. Curiously, this section of the film helped illuminate Bergman's use of the theme in "The Silence," and this makes me want to view that film again. The fact that this is a film Bergman didn't write is intriguing, because he harmonizes his visual language to the rhythms of the screenwriter's oral one. The dialog was rather light for the seriousness of the situations. Perhaps Bergman himself would have been heavier-handed.

    Lastly, there are the actresses, and here Bergman's direction of actors seems to solidify, as I find his previous films much more uneven on this score. Here the women, especially the young dancer, show real depth.

    Keep in mind that this is not his first film, but still an early work, a seed that will grow into later masterpieces. Then you won't be disappointed, even after the mediocre last minutes of a work that definitely showed promise.
  • film_riot2 January 2008
    Warning: Spoilers
    I think Stefan Höltgen managed to aptly sum up the essence of „Törst" in his review first published in the magazine "Schnitt", "In the end the story lines stay fragmentary. However, the characters and the images are continuing to have an effect." Bergman already dealt with topics that he came back to frequently in his later pictures, but it seems as if Bergman wasn't able in this film (which was his third feature) to find the right form for providing the different stories, written by Birgit Tengroth (screenplay by Herbert Grevenius), with a coherent narrative structure. A lot of sequences left a strong impression with me, for example when Bertil thinks he killed Rut, or when the train crosses a railway station in Germany where they give bread to the people struck by war. And I also found the episode about Viola to be very interesting, although it was a bit confusing at first. The problem with "Törst" is that all those episodes don't form an impressing whole, but rather a puzzle with lost pieces.
  • While Ode to Joy is undoubtedly the gem of Eclipse's Early Bergman box set, Thirst is a close second, at least in my mind. It's kind of a precursor to Scenes of a Marriage, where the story follows a married couple (played by Eva Henning and Birger Malmsten) on a train trip through war-torn Europe. The tumult of the film comes not from the mostly ignored outside world, but from the rocky marriage itself. We also get glimpses of the couple's former lovers. The film is at its best when sticking to the couple. When it strays to the stories of side characters, it's weaker. Since the film is so short (just over 80 minutes), you have to wonder if some of the tangential stories were added as padding. But even the scenes that don't add much are well written, acted and directed. Henning gives a masterful performance, and Bergman was really coming into his own by this point.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I have seen a ton of Ingmar Bergman's films. A few of them were brilliant, a few were terrible but one thing I can say about just about all of them is that they were unpleasant. This is NOT a criticism--just a fact that Bergman chose to make films about unpleasant things--marital infidelity, alienation, mental illness and death--such was the repertoire of Bergman. Many people adore the man's work. As for me, I appreciate his films (especially "Wild Strawberries", "Autumn Sonata" and "The Seventh Seal") but would like to see more films like "The Devil's Eye"--a much more lighthearted and occasionally fun sort of film.

    "Thirst" is oppressively dark and unpleasant. And, typical of many of his films, you really don't like anyone. Instead, it's like you are a fly on the wall staring at people who are miserable--with no resolution--just alienation and unhappiness.

    The film is about a married couple who really don't like each other--but in an odd way they love each other. Both have had affairs and both seem resigned to living out their lives together--like it or not. I could say more, but frankly don't feel like it--suffice to say they are miserable and ill-matched and desperately in need to therapy.

    This is an odd movie because later in the film there is another plot involving alienation and depression. But, oddly, this plot appears out of the blue and never really is fleshed out at all. It really looks like the film originally had two parallel stories and they edited out much of the second one. It should have either been removed completely or developed properly. Either way, it just didn't work and I wanted to a lot more about the weird therapist the lady saw as well as the lesbian angle--but both appear and disappear just as quickly.

    This is a film for lovers of Bergman. For others, if you want an unpleasant film, see one of Bergman's better films. Life is too short to watch a stead diet of films like this.
  • It's interesting to see that the late Ingmar Bergman only directed Thirst and didn't write it. Even with its flaws, like the Virgin Spring it seems authentic to the filmmaker's intentions with the characters and the dialog especially. Bergman, through the writer Birgit Tengroth, makes it his own even as he's still trying to get together completely the rhythm of the storytelling. It's strange to see him effortlessly direct within the realm of getting the camera moving around and still going at a realistic tempo (most of the time anyway). It's a story of lovers and lovers gone to pot, with the life of one, the woman in the relationship (Eva Henning as Rut), revealed in flashbacks to a past rotten relationship and other friendship, while the husband (Birger Malmsten as Bertil) has only his ex shown in dire straits after the fall-out.

    The latter part was the only scene that didn't quite work for me; despite Bertil's 'dream' later on in the film- which is rather great within the experimentation of his mood expressed violently- we never see much behind his past life with the person. Viola, played by Tenegroth herself, is better than expected in the part as a fragile soul who breaks away from being committed and runs into also old school friend (and the ballet friend of Rut's, at least I think it was) Valborg, though her better, more dramatic work comes later on in the film.

    Still, it's a very good drama, with Bergman leading it along in a sort of quagmire for the audience (likely also to be found in Strindberg, one of Bergman's biggest influences) about how people who meet for the reason of comfort end up feeling torn away by that same reason. Rut's relationship with Raoul winds up cruel and a mark on her psyche, though she's also got her own quirks and obnoxious side, yet she'll stay with him, or try to, at the very end. It's quite bleak despite the happy ending however (i.e. the fate of Viola), and the ideal of happiness in this world is always out of reach; discoveries when stuck together, as on a train, only bring about more pondering. In 83 minutes time it can't be nearly as probing about how men distance women, or vice versa, sometimes unintentionally or through vicious deeds or thoughts, as other Bergman films.

    But for a short while there are some tense moments, and even a couple of surprising light ones: the scene showing Rut and the dancers having fun on stage with some folk music is one of Bergman's most joyous scenes of any movie he's done.
  • Thirst is an early and forgettable Ingmar Bergman wrought with overheated melodrama, abrasive performances and a subplot that fits like a square peg in a round hole.

    Ballet dancer Rut and husband Bertil are on holiday making their way across war torn Europe and back to Sweden. Rut like nearly all Bergman protagonists is experiencing a dark night of the soul and doubt about her artistic abilities. Some explanation is given in flash back; an affair with an arrogant military officer, a confrontation with his wife, a sadistic and predatory lesbian dance instructor and a possible abortion. Very loosely tied in is a subplot of old ballet school chum Viola whose fragile psyche is being exploited by a psychiatrist and another classmate.

    Bergman covers a lot of ground in under ninety minutes, very little of it coherently. There's visual commentary about the war in which Sweden was a spectator. Rut feels for the starving refugees at train stops and gives them food while others simply pull down the shades. She has a series of outbursts that become cloying after the first and her husband like the other male characters seems unable to cope or connect due to either their aggressive or passive chauvinism. Evening the playing field lesbians also get worked over with a little Bermanesque gay bashing. There are brief flashes of the visual brilliance that Bergman masterfully employed in his later, greater works especially on the train and with close-ups and reflections. But it is only a brief glimpse of what was to be, making Thirst little more than a glum, hysterical soap opera in a state of confusion.
  • This is a subject rarely brought up, and I am doing so after seeing 'Thirst' for the first time. It is pivotal in understanding themes which recur among his later films. One of these themes in his early films, less so in the later, except for 'Persona' and 'The Hour of the Wolf' is that of homosexual motifs and imagery. It is also there in 'From the Life of the Marionettes' where it is, as I see it, the core reason for the killer's psychology. In these latter films there is no homo-eroticism as such, just undercurrents and thematic reasons. But why are the themes there at all? My intuition on seeing his films, especially 'Thirst' is a horror of same-sex attraction. The lesbian in the film is portrayed as a damned character, to such an extent that she is portrayed as being demonic. Look at the final images of her and you will see a character out of a horror film. I was disgusted at Bergman for this and it prevented me from giving a full 10 to this film, which is otherwise extraordinary. But to return to the eroticism. Has anyone bothered to see how he shows off the bodies of some of his better looking young male actors? The male lead in 'Summer with Monika' is as equally erotically presented as the female lead. Images of the young male lead in 'Thirst', almost writhing half-naked, is comparable to any current gay film. This is here to be read visually and also extends to 'Port of Call'. It is interesting to note that women are not as erotically portrayed, in the standard sense of any film dealing with sexuality, and stay within the mainstream. The young men go beyond the normal presentation of the time. And what of the great 'The Silence' where the male is seen as the erotic force that separates the two women possibly in an emotionally lesbian relationship? Homosexuality is the dark side of sex in Bergman's films. Was it the dark side of him? We will never know, but the question even unanswered can be posed.
  • Eva Henning is sexy and temperamental and uninhibited and the bright spot of this otherwise excessively talky early Ingmar Bergman drama. It's a little all over the map: most of the running time goes by with endless talking sessions between the two main characters (Henning and her husband) in enclosed spaces (a hotel room, later a train compartment), but there are occasional forays into the lives of one or two peripheral characters - who are, however, SO peripheral that when the film focuses on them it's like we've switched channels altogether; Mimi Nelson does play what must be one of cinema's earliest predatory lesbians. ** out of 4.
  • oOoBarracuda20 September 2017
    Thirst: A penetrating look at a marriage on the brink of failure, a woman evaluates her life and each step along the way that led her to her current position. Another brilliantly humanist look at the lives of others, Ingmar Bergman proves his directorial prowess from the beginning of his career.
  • This is one of the most boring films that I've ever seen, the story is all over the place and it's not engaging at all... It was not written by Bergman so I guess that's the biggest problem of this movies, the movie looks fine but everything else is a no from me.
  • The depiction of unhappiness in marriage in this film, with pettiness and the incredibly bitter things a young couple say to one another, seems very realistic and well ahead of its time, though it isn't always a joy to watch. There are also several other things that you didn't see a whole lot of in films in 1949, including adultery, abortion, suicide, and lesbian flirtation. The plot to the film isn't stellar but it's interesting, and Bergman's use of flashbacks and nonlinear storytelling is effective. He also gets a few very, very nice shots in during the second half, probably the best among his early work, and the film is well worth seeing for those alone.

    The Swedish author/painter August Strindberg is referenced directly in this film, and indirectly in its themes of marriage and adultery. In the introduction to the 1960 book which published four of the screenplays from a fantastic string of movies he made over 1955-58, Bergman said "In my own life, my great literary experience was Strindberg. There are works of his which can still make my hair stand on end - The People of Hemsö, for example." Strindberg depicts people in realistic ways, showing both their virtue and vice, and how they tend to look out for themselves first, and I think that is what Bergman was going for here as well.

    This is reflected first and foremost in the film's annoying male characters. Early on we see the cruelty of the officer (Bengt Eklund) when he tortures a snake by putting in on a swarming anthill. Later he's casually informing his lover Ruth (Eva Henning) that he's actually married with children, and still later, in front of both her and his wife, calmly stating that it's perfectly natural for him to have both of them (to which his wife just laughs and exits, which is a nice little moment). The cruelty of his reaction when he finds out Ruth is pregnant drives home how base a man he is, even though he tries to come across as a proper gentleman. Of course, Ruth doesn't end up with him, she marries Bertil (Birger Malmsten), a man who is stingy with his money, tenderness, and affection. The scenes they have in the cheap hotel room, alternating between bickering and bantering, are excellent.

    In a parallel, loosely connected story, a woman named Viola (Birgit Tengroth) is preyed on by her sleazy psychiatrist (Hasse Ekman), who tries to use the power of his office to get control of her. Later she runs into her old friend Valborg (Mimi Nelson), and as the two are drinking in her apartment, Valborg begins plying her with alcohol and making unmistakable overtures.

    The common theme is people moving from one lover to another, or attempting to anyway, and seeking others out in very selfish ways. None of these characters are pure and virtuous or even likeable. Even when the psychiatrist says that he always wants to be there to protect Viola, the words ring hollow since we see how this is likely just an episode in a string of episodes for him. These themes would recur for Bergman in various forms over his career.

    Bergman was really coming in to filmmaking form at this point in his career, and one truly fantastic scene takes place on the train where Bertil sees his reflection through smoke, light and shadow as the car jostles along in the night, and Ruth approaches down the corridor with curtains billowing inward. It's brilliant. In another great moment on the train, a cabin full of people drinking pull their shade down on the night, which Bertil had suggested doing earlier to avoid looking at Germans begging for food in the station, and we see the ruins of buildings from the war in the reflection. The flashback to Ruth's younger days as a dancer also provides a welcome bit of lightness and joy, but it's another dark one, a suicide, that is memorable. He films it as just a ripple in the water, a subtle, masterful sequence that shows isolation as well as pointing out that all of our lives are simply small ripples of the water, then gone.
  • The women-type Rut does exist, and it is so excellently portrayed in this movie that I dare saying: In his later movies, Bergman was hardly ever so honest. However, this is not the basic tenor of this movie, the question is: What is this glue that holds a relationship together? At the end, Bertil says to himself: Yes, I'm in hell with her, but being alone would be much worse. - Hell is only one stadium before self-abolishment, but not itself.

    Rut is a drinker, and therefore, Bergman's title "Törst" is at least not exclusively metaphoric. As a very young girl, she had a relationship with a married and much older man. Her pregnancy would possibly be classified as due to rape in certain environments. During abort, she lost her fertility. By her lack of intelligence, she cannot cope with her second husband, a university professor. Thus, she is quite unclear about her function: She cannot be mother and neither partner (partner in what?). During her drinking she floods away her bad memories, but only with the result that they come back with even greater intensity. She is addicted to little signs of love. If he caresses her on the mistaken side of the face, the catastrophe is programmed. She is able to condemn him with an avalanche of the worst vocabulary, and to apologize begging and whining for what she just said two minutes later. Her husband also realizes that she flirts with death: f.ex. he follows her in the corridor of the train and listens when she is in the bathroom.

    This early movie is already a typical "Bergman": existentialist down to its "pores", asking a lot of question and letting the answers to the watcher.
  • EasonVonn13 November 2023
    Warning: Spoilers
    Look over the only masterpiece that doesn't lose Persona!

    Psycho imaginary plot too get me, this movie is also the first time Bergman tried so many long shots, can see his genius director scheduling ability, in such a long shot composition is still excellent.

    A lot of memories in the movie also make this movie for the birth of wild strawberries laid the cornerstone, Thirst in this kind of psychosis plot more let this point to the peak.

    Seal the deal.

    Look over the only masterpiece that doesn't lose Persona!

    Psycho imaginary plot too get me, this movie is also the first time Bergman tried so many long shots, can see his genius director scheduling ability, in such a long shot composition is still excellent.

    A lot of memories in the movie also make this movie for the birth of wild strawberries laid the cornerstone, Thirst in this kind of psychosis plot more let this point to the peak.

    Seal the deal.
  • This is another example of Bergman's submerging of himself into the despair of life and the cockeyed relationships between men and women. The two principle characters are in a relationship made in hell. They even speak of it that way. And yet to not have this relationship is so much worse. She prattles on and on, drinks and smokes, beats on him, won't let him sleep, ignores and steals from him; he is dull, self indulgent, selfish, and full of longing for the past. Each has left a trail of pain. She had her career and her optimism destroyed by a cad who flaunted her in front of his wife. He lived a time with a sick woman who he has not forgotten but has played in a foul way. This is like a train wreck to watch. When he imagines he kills her, I, as the viewer was almost relieved. She was like those harpies in Greek mythology that never leave well enough alone. But love is not easily understood and this is no exception, because being alone is perhaps a greater burden. We can see so much of the later Bergman. Watch at your own risk.