Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    This is the sum total of all of Ingmar Bergman's film knowledge he had accumulated over decades, starting in the 1940s. It's his longest and most sophisticated work both visually and narratively. It gets the adjective Dickensian used to describe it quite a bit, and it fits very well. To me, Fanny and Alexander feels like a combination of Oliver Twist, The Magnificent Ambersons, and ___.

    According to Netflix, I've seen and rated the theatrical version of this, but I watched the television version this time. It's five hours and twenty glorious minutes long.

    The story overall is about the dissolution and reconstitution of the Ekdahl family. They are a moderately wealthy family in early 20th century Sweden. A family tied to the theater, they are headed by the matriarch Helena, a former actress and widow. Her three sons have different levels of success. Oscar is the actor and manager of the family theater (who's also described by his mother as a terrible actor and undersexed) who's married to the beautiful Emilie. Gustav Adolf runs the theater's restaurant and has such a voracious sexual appetite that his wife (Alma) tolerates him taking and keeping a mistress (Maj). The third son is Carl, an abject failure professionally who is married to a German woman (Ewa), that he seems to despise. The next generation down has a few children, but the only ones that matter narratively are the children of Oscar and Emilie, the titular Fanny and Alexander.

    The television version is broken up into five acts with a prologue and an epilogue spread across four episodes. The first episode is also the first act, and it deals with the family's Christmas celebration. It reminds me, structurally, of The Godfather's opening. A large family gathering to get most of the characters into a single place and let their personalities reveal themselves while setting up future conflicts. It's a wonderful and luxurious experience that very clearly delineates every family member in clear detail. All three brothers, for instance, not only look different enough but also behave in different ways (Oscar is taciturn, Gustav Adolf is big and lively, and Carl is subdued and angry) while demonstrating their concerns for their own lives. Helena's relationships to her family and the family friend, the old Jew Isak, are strong. It's a long opening, but the groundwork that the film does here is well used later.

    Oscar dies in the beginning of act two, and Emilie, the actress who has spent her life wearing different masks to the point that she has little idea who she actually is anymore, feels adrift. The Ekdahl family does some to help, but (as Gustav Adolf says in the fifth act) they don't do enough. It gets to the point that Emilie runs to the local bishop who embraces her and they marry. The bishop, though, is a vicious man who treats his adopted children (particularly Alexander) harshly. The third and fourth acts are the dissolution of the Ekdahl family overall through this marriage but also the dynamic within the small wing of the Emilie and Oscar family. Father has obviously passed, but mother and children grow more and more estranged as the bishop inserts himself in between. His form of parenting is harsh, including canings for lying (though the lie Alexander tells is particularly pernicious and aimed directly at the bishop's character).

    No one is happy though, and the kindly Isak organizes an escape for the two children, hiding them in his shop/residence as Emilie remains at the bishop's palace. Gustav Adolf and Carl show up and demand Emilie's release and a divorce to help preserve her happiness and bring her back to the Ekdahl family, but the bishop refuses, relying on Emilie's thin appeals towards her brothers-in-law to stay behind. She fears for her safety and that of her children, so she professes the bishop's goodness. However, he ends up drinking a brother she had made for herself to ease her aching joints and help her sleep due to her pregnancy. He falls into a deep sleep and she takes the opportunity to flee. At the same time, the bishop's invalid aunt is in the final moments of her life and accidentally sets her room on fire before also killing the bishop, giving Emilie the ability to leave completely free. The epilogue shows the reconstituted Ekdahl family at a new celebration, that of a double birth, Emilie's child and Maj's.

    Running through the whole story is the idea, motif, and presence of ghosts. Bergman insisted that he saw ghosts as a child, and that is one element of his life (among many others) that he inserted into the film. Oscar becomes a ghost, consoling his mother Helena at one point, and being cast away by Alexander near the end of the film. Alexander is haunted by the ghosts of the bishop's first two daughters who died on the river, and, in a very creepy scene that actually gave me chills, chastise Alexander for the lie he told of the bishop. At the end of the film, even the bishop's ghost come to haunt Alexander in the moments of happiness.

    Thematically, the movie really is the culmination of Bergman's career. He touches on and explores every major theme that had concerned him over the decades. We have the complex natures of relationships between men and women as evidenced by every pair. There is the questioning of God's silence as Alexander prays endlessly for God to smite the bishop. Even the bishop's eventual death has the implication of a swirl of ideas that combine God's silence, the supernatural and ghosts, and fate causing the series of events.

    On top of all that, the acting is universally superb. I do kind of wish Max Von Sydow's agent hadn't screwed up and prevented him from appearing as the bishop, but Jan Malmsjö is great in the role nonetheless. He's self-righteous, seething, and also, in a twisted way, loving all at once. Everyone in the film is fantastic, even the children. Bergman didn't work with children often (The Silence being the most prominent example before this), and children are notoriously difficult to direct well. However, he managed to get, in particular, a great performance from Bertil Guve as Alexander.

    It's also beautiful to look at. The sets are vibrant and lavish (save the bishop's palace, which is appropriately bare and bleak). The costumes are colorful. The cinematography by Sven Nykvist is sumptuous and evocative. I think that my favorite element of the visual design is a specific choice around the Ekdahl living space. It's several rooms deep and we get several great shots that show different layers of action across multiple rooms. It's a visual feast.

    Fanny and Alexander is really one of Bergman's best films. Emotional, complex, and insightful, it's the appropriate way to end a retrospective of the man's work. He may have made the coda of Saraband afterwards, but this is the apogee of his career.
  • WOW watched this whole thing last night, what a complete masterpiece. I am very curious to see the Theatrical Version to see what was cut, but I can't imagine missing anything from the TV version. Every moment has a purpose and the length gives the story even more profound power. It's absolutely brilliant and hit me harder than anything I've watched in a long time. I would definitely encourage people to seek out this full version if they can.
  • The story begins at Christmas: it is the very early part of the 20th century and the Ekdahls are coming together to celebrate under the roof of the family's matriarch: Helena. As they do so, we see the surfacing of the complexities, buried resentments and background tensions which exist within all large families. Amidst this set up, we are presented three brothers: Gustav, a burly, emotional man who is having an affair with his brother's nanny; Carl, an intellectual, petty individual who is experiencing a crisis of confidence as well as a crisis in his finances; and Oscar, the eponymous Fanny and Alexander's father, he is the owner of a local theatre who has dedicated his life to the world of make-believe. He has also inculcated in his children a reverance for imagination and story-telling. The family celebrations are immoderately festive: there's copious amounts of eating, there's dancing, illicit sexual encounters, an oedipal-esque menage a trois, which includes Alexander, and, for him and the rest of the children, there's ample space for imagination and play. As the film progresses, these events become something of a nostalgic ideal. Very soon after, the children are forced to contend with the illness and death of a loved one. They are whisked away from their world of family and theatre into a life of privation and austerity. Many twists and turns will have to occur before they can return to the place they once were. Of course, the truth is that they will never be able to fully return and, yet, neither will they fully be able to leave. The joys of their childhood will forever remain buried within their memories. It will be the treasure trove they can dig for in the midst of the vicissitudes of their future existence.

    This epic film operates as a humanistic reflection on life and human nature. Bergman, along with Jean-Luc Godard, is the foremost name in existentialist cinema and he often deals with powerful themes such as the silence of God, the limits of love, and the pervasiveness of despair. This film operates as a weaving together of his observations and experiences of life as an artist but, first and foremost, as a human being. His writing is immaculate, he takes the time to make his characters genuinely rich and well-rounded. He tells a story in which there are no heroes or villains, just clumsy human beings, striving for but never quite reaching ultimate balance and wisdom. In the character of Alexander, he tells a coming-of-age story, a story of defiance, vulnerability and resiliance. The film, as a work of art, is a celebration of art itself. The tools needed to create are the tools many of the characters, especially the children, use to survive and make sense of their world. He uses long takes with naturalistic dialogue and centres the viewer within the confines of multiple sets, hardly any of the action takes place in outside locations as if to make it abundantly clear to the viewer that, despite the naturalism of the piece, this tale also is a tale of the imagination, taking place within a world created by its director. In telling this tale, he is both using and allowing his audience to experience a form of escpaism in order to evaluate the meaning and value of existence. This is cinema which unites its creator with its audience in order to produce a dense shared experience. It's a gift from one human being to another which says: this is how I have lived and sometimes prospered, may you also live, may you also sometimes prosper.
  • My Rating : 10/10 ♠ Tour de Force ♠

    What an end to a career, one of the greatest to ever do it goes out with absolute integrity, clarity and confidence.

    With so many masterpieces, my favourites being 'Winter Light', 'Wild Strawberries' and 'Cries and Whispers', Ingmar Bergman - a master of cinema - gives it his all in this semi-autobiographical work. The cinematography by Sven Nykvist is exquisite as usual.

    Harrowing and profound, cold and clear; Bergman took hold of his demons and went for it.

    While he hides from his demons in his grandmother's lap, she reads: "Anything can happen, anything is possible and likely.

    Time and space do not exist.

    On a flimsy ground of reality Imagination spins out and weaves new patterns."

    'Not for pleasure alone'.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Episode 1:

    I'm watching the miniseries of Fanny and Alexander for the first time, so going to give my thoughts on each part as I go.

    It's been a while since I watched the theatrical version, but I remember it being my favourite of all the Bergman films I've seen so far. It's been long enough, though, that I'm watching this longer version now and can't know for sure what was included in the theatrical cut, and what's different here.

    The opening hour-and-a-half episode is all about setting the mood and establishing the characters. It does both very well, and it's stunning to look at.

    There's not much of a hook, but as set-ups go, it's very effective. From memory, the story does get a good deal more dramatic after this prologue/opening act.

    Episode 2:

    This is a fairly straightforward and brief episode within the overall miniseries version of Fanny and Alexander. After a sprawling cast found in the opening episode, it really zeroes in on the titular children, and how they react to their father suddenly passing away. The scene in the hospital is very powerful - the way Alexander reacts and that being the last thing his father sees is truly impactful and hard to watch.

    As an individual episode, it feels like it's lacking something because of its brevity. But it's still good, I think it's the first time Fanny actually has any dialogue, and the last scene is haunting.

    Episode 3:

    Act 3 is a similar length to act 2, but I feel like it ends up feeling more complete, and is therefore even better. It's the first proper introduction to the bishop, Edvard, and instantly, there's something off about the guy. He doesn't do anything heinous at first, and maybe you can see how he would be charismatic to some, but there's something unsettling about him, and I think that's a testament to the writing and acting.

    It takes the story forward, introduces more conflict, and also puts Alexander in a position that's clearly of distress to him, and seeing that play out here is sad and powerful. It's a strong middle chapter that sets the stage for the second half of this story very well.

    Episode 4:

    The bishop's true colours are well and truly revealed in part 4. He's shown here to have moved on from mere psychological torment, and now wields his ability to manipulate others alongside genuine physical violence. He's one of the most despicable villains I've seen recently, and he's all the more effective because he seems real, and not like a cartoon character; his villainy never quite goes over the top to the point where he becomes a "love-to-hate" character. His dynamic as a terrible stepfather reminds me of the villainous captain in 2006's Pan's Labyrinth.

    Also good is that the mother now realises her new husband is terrible. Maybe it seems a little strange that her realisation happens off-screen, but maybe the sooner the better - it was always a little odd that she fell for him so hard in the first place, but I guess loneliness can be a terrible feeling.

    I think him, the likability of the kids, and the genuinely tense conflict is the reason Fanny and Alexander is a captivating watch, and far more emotionally engaging than Bergman's other films (at least for me). Sometimes, his other ones can be well-made but feel a little distant, but this one hits hard, and does so over the course of many hours, too.

    Episode 5:

    Things come full circle here in a satisfying way. All the time spent on the family members in the first episode gets paid off here, as the family clashes with Edvard at last, and seeing him get yelled at by one of Oscar's brothers proved enjoyable to watch (even if the slimy devil came out on top by the scene's end).

    The fantastical elements also make a return in full force during this dramatic final act. I don't remember how much they were part of the theatrical version, but it adds an interesting extra element here either way.

    Overall, I think this is even better than the theatrical version. It moves well considering it's about five hours long, and the vast majority of scenes here felt important and not worth cutting (though I do remember the shorter cut also feeling fairly complete at the time, and still a very good watch).

    At least as far as this extended cut goes, I feel pretty confident in saying this is Ingmar Bergman's best film, and well worth dedicating an afternoon to.
  • The Ekdahl family gathers their loved ones to celebrate Christmas together. Helena Ekdahl is the matriarch of the Ekdahl family. She has many relatives. Among them you can find her three sons, three daughters-in-law and a bunch of grandchildren.

    Fanny and Alexander are two of Helena´s grandchildren. Their parents are Emilie and Oscar Ekdahl. One day something terrible happens. Oscar falls ill and dies. Everybody is devastated.

    Bishop Edvard Vergérus was the one who held Oscar´s funeral. He marries Emilie Ekdahl, but their marriage begins to crumble quite soon. Why? Because bishop Vergérus is strict and conservative.

    I really like this TV series. I watched it on SVT play. It was edited into a feature film. Yes, it is very long and yes, I took breaks. But I didn´t feel like I was wasting my time. I think that the cast and crew knew what they were doing. Ingmar Bergman took inspiration from his own life in "Fanny and Alexander". And the result is, in my opinion, a strong family drama with a personal touch. I would have liked to get a little more clarity, at least in a few scenes.

    I´m looking forward to watching the shorter movie version, but I want to know much more about Ingmar Bergman first. I suggest that you watch "Fanny and Alexander".
  • Suffice to say Fanny and Alexander, the last film that Bergman *intended* to direct for theaters (he had two others that were released on TV that also made it to US theaters, besides the point), is the stuff that most artists, writers and filmmakers wish they can accomplish in one fell swoop. Here is a work that encapsulates the obsessions, desires, fears, passions, anger, anguish, hatred, warmth, cold, humor, and probing questions in Bergman's life work- some 50 movies including scripts made by other directors- while also working as very possibly his best film, his richest, the one that says everything there needs to be said about being a kid, having a warm family, and being (rightfully) on your guard about men of the cloth.

    It's also, as I sort of realized watching a wonderful new (digital?) print of the UNCUT 5 hour version at the IFC center, something that might have some comparisons with Pan's Labyrinth: this is a story of a child who has an imagination all his own, but also the story of what happens to him and his sister after the death of their father.

    After losing the strongest father-figure force that she knew, Emilie Ekdahl remaries to a figure who seems to have an equally strong presence, Bishop Vergerus, who subsequently imposes that she and the children take no posessions and live with him and his family in a cold, medieval home out of the 15th century. Like Captain Vidal, Bishop Vergerus believes in freedom, and subsequently free will, but also believes in swift punishment, "strong, harsh love" for his wife and new step-kids, and the only retaliation Alexander has are his 'fantasies', which are all his own but with their own force to them.

    Least that's the comparison I can make now, late at night and with so many thoughts and feelings about seeing the film once again. But it's got more than just the story of a boy's world of ghosts (not least of which, in a given Hamlet reference, his late father) and magic via Jewish rabbi Isak, but it's also the perfect telling of two kinds of family life.

    The first part of the picture, up until the section with the father's death, is full of lush, vibrant colors, brought out by Nykvist's cinematography, and the vibe is brought out in the Ekdahl family, which is full of warmth and love, lusts, some quarrelling, some emoting from the matriarch Ekdahl. Then when things turn to the Vergerus clan, it's all stark and gray and without any texture, with bars on the windows of the room where the children sleep (which also holds a dark secret). In Vergerus, I might add, the actor Jan Malmsjo creates one of the most terrifying of all cinema characters, the kind of evil that ranks up there with Nurse Ratched, where it's all in the face of 'it's for the good of *you*'.

    So, there's religion, there's spirituality, there's the supernatural, there's family, there's amazing, mind-blowing monologues, it's... a sumptuous film to take on a deserted island. It's the only one that goes past five hours I would think could work over and over and over again and still have bits and pieces to stimulate the mind, consciousness. And it's a fine piece of filmmaking to boot, on all fronts.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The acting brought to life interesting characters as the acting was great all around. It's interesting to see Fanny and Alexander going through a tough time with the Bishop being an absolutely despicable character despite Emilie trying her best to limit his damage.

    Watching this knowing that there's a version that's two hours shorter is intriguing. Trying to figure out what was the hours cut is difficult since every minute contribute to the series. Although the two first episodes didn't captivate me, it had great development and when it comes to the three last, I really don't know what was cut.

    The visuals are awesome with a rich color palette and incredible production design that puts every other film to shame. The camera movement is also great, it moves slowly and it lets you appreciate the beautiful imagery.