From the Life of the Marionettes (Ingmar Bergman, 1980)

[Dylan]

Does anybody have an opinion on this film? I just watched it and while I found it interesting, it didn't strike me as one of Bergman's strongest works. With that said, I still don't have a remotely solidified opinion yet, and I'm very interested in what others thought.

From the little I had read about this, I was half-expecting something along the lines of Bergman's (circa 1980) return to the kind of psychological horror of “Personaâ€

[Lino]

I don't love it or hate it. I just think it's a very well made film (it was originally made for german TV) with some excellent dialogue as you have pointed out (as is a trademark chez Bergman) and some very good acting as well. The theme of the picture (murder and its implications) did not strike me as particularly down Bergman's alleyways of the mind but it is a very interesting incursion into the mind of a killer and his motivations.

What I did like and I think this is where Bergman was heading (the murder plot is to me a kind of sub-plot to what he is trying to say) is the study of sexuality and in this case of homosexuality. There is a openly gay character in the film that is attracted to the guy that kills the girl at the beginning. Now, throughout the film we see that the killer has some very conflicting feelings that he seems to be struggling with and I think that what Bergman is suggesting here is that maybe (or maybe not, it depends on how you see it) he killed her because deep inside him he really hates women, hence the murder. Either that or he just reached a point of rupture inside him.

For me the best part of the film is when the openly gay character is interviewed. Those lines are simply astonishing in the way they show to a "T" how gay people feel and think and to me this is almost incredible because we all know about Bergman's love life (one gorgeous woman after another, lucky bastard) and to see just how much he knows and understands the human being and its dark corridors of the mind is a sort of revelation to me.

Marionettes is not essential Bergman but essential viewing for Bergmanophiles. That's my take, anyway.

[Dylan]

And that's a very good take Annie. Now, a few hours after the viewing, my feelings are pretty similar. Personally, I'm like you, sort of in the admiring middle ground. But it's accomplished and interesting, and definitely worth seeing for Bergman fans.

And my quote of 'astonishing' was actually refering to the scenes with Tim, the gay character. I was completely drawn into the scene where he talks with Katarina in the room about the false longings for intimacy, the pains of aging, and the "titillation" that comes from thinking he might be killed, among many beautifully grueling passages. Fantastic scene, it gave me chills.

I also read the excerpts from Bergman's "Images" that are on the DVD of the film (I initially thought it was biographical material that Tartan included on all Bergman DVDs, but when I actually looked it was indeed a few pages of notes from the master himself on his film). Reading that definitely helped me appreciate it more, and yes, your reading of the film is spot on.

I really liked how the "I am tired" line comes up at the end, revealing it's significance to us (the sudden rise of his killer instincts, which, until the confines of a locked door, he was able to contain)...all the more interesting to think about other times he said that throughout the film (when Katarina was demeaning him, or when she was drunk). I'm sure many are absolutely overwhelmed by how well Bergman seems to understand the human condition (I know I am). This understanding is undoubtedly part of what makes him the best.

Now, that damn song though...(I blame disco)

Any other opinions?

[pemmican]

Bergman was having tax troubles around this time, wasn't he? (Hence the relocation). It might have had something to do with the lack of enthusiasm with which this film appears to have been made. Last time I saw it I came away with the distinct feeling that it was far too wordy, that it never quite makes it off the page into the realm of cinema -- feels like characters reading lines, channelling something Bergman had been interested in writing but couldn't really make a film out of. There's an awkwardness and a coldness to it that we don't find in most of Bergman's earlier films... I agree that Tim's scenes are the best!

Truth is, though, that many of Bergman's late 70's films (that I've seen -- there are a few I've missed, including AUTUMN SONATA and FACE TO FACE) fail to excite me that much. I loved THE PASSION OF ANNA but from there on, there are several films that never completely satisfy me. THE TOUCH seems interesting but minor (it's been a long time since I've seen it, tho'). CRIES AND WHISPERS has some great moments but there's this self-conscious quality to it, this concern to produce an artefact of stature, that I hadn't noticed before in his films -- it feels somehow like he's faking something, trying to live up to a status he doesn't feel quite convinced he's earned... Even FANNY AND ALEXANDER has that feeling -- it's like he's trying to win an Oscar, or something; he's no longer just interested in his characters and their emotions but is trying to create a big, impressive movie for people to watch. THE SERPENT'S EGG seems a bit of an embarrassment, a complete failure. SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE is a major work, I can't say anything against it, but it's the only project of his, post-PASSION, that I really admire (I liked SARABAND and also AFTER THE REHEARSAL but... Still...).

What do people say?

Allan (alienatedinvancouver.blogspot.com)

[Lino]

I have to disagree on you about post-The Passion of Anna Bergman. The Touch is the only one I have trouble seeing because althought it starts off as Bergman at its best, it soon trips itself over too many times and it ultimately fails to pick itself up towards the end. It contains however some of Bergman's and Nykvist's most beautifully photographed scenes ever.

Cries and Whispers was reportedly made with the conscious intention of living up to the status he gained with Persona but also born with a very strong and intense desire to push the filmic medium forward. For me, he succeeded on both counts. It is a masterpiece from every which angle you see it.

As we both agree on Scenes from a Marriage, I'll leave it that way.

Face to Face is actually my favorite Bergman work (and I've only ever seen it in its truncated theatrical version) and one you should try to see at any cost. I've already written at large on this forum about that film in particular and of all the unreleased Bergman on DVD, this is the one I'm most anxious to get my hands on.

The Serpent's Egg has its moments, boasting some very effective cinematography, an interesting story but it also ultimately fails to move me like the rest of his best work does. This is one I see once in a while and one I seem to be appreciating more and more with each viewing. One for the long run, I guess.

Autumn Sonata is pure Bergman and I highly recommend that you watch it if you think that his 70's output is too hit and miss. This one in particular is a bull's eye.

Marionettes, I've already written my thoughts above and I stand by them. And it baffles me that you fail to see Fanny and Alexander as anything other than one of the greatest works of cinema ever made! Besides being the sum total of his career, it's also film as a novel, film as a dream, film as an experience, film as a communion of sorts and I could go on and on. Aren't you being a bit harsh on the man or do you simply identify more with the themes that he was exploring in the 60's?

[pemmican]

Oh, I have no intention of being harsh -- Bergman is one of the greatest filmmakers in history, but I base my estimation of him almost entirely on his output between 1961 and 1969 -- from THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY through to A PASSION. Prior to 61 he was trying to find his voice -- I don't much care about his early works, either -- and after 69, he seems to have been struggling with how to keep it... Maybe I'm just too attached to that one period, though. I'll take a look at FANNY AND ALEXANDER again sometime -- it's been awhile. If you have a good source for seeing FACE TO FACE, do tell...!

Allan

[Lino]

If you have a good source for seeing FACE TO FACE, do tell...!

Superhappyfun.com has it. It's a DVD-R bootleg of the theatrical version. It's a VHS sourced copy but decent enough for me to recommend it.

[pemmican]

Yowza! Thanks!

A.

[tavernier]

If you have a good source for seeing FACE TO FACE, do tell...!

Superhappyfun.com has it. It's a DVD-R bootleg of the theatrical version. It's a VHS sourced copy but decent enough for me to recommend it.

A few years ago, the Museum of Television and Radio in NYC showed the TV version of FACE TO FACE, which remains one of my favorite Bergman experiences ever. Criterion should do for F2F what they did for F&A and release a boxed set of the TV and theatrical cuts.

[domino harvey]

Got around to seeing this tonite as I fill in the gaps in the Bergman oeuvre... probably the second-worst Bergman film behind the Serpent's Egg. As has already been said, the parts in play really don't amount to anything much. A few good moments here and there (TIM's monologue, the surprise of the husband suddenly kicking the wife to the floor), but this felt like a filmed first draft. The ending with the teddy bear was the only time in a Bergman film that I ever felt like the audience's intelligence was being actively insulted.

[Tommaso]

Interesting that you find it so bad, simply as normally Bergman is the harshest critic of his own works, and as far as I know, he himself was very pleased with the film. It's certainly not my favourite Bergman, but I like the experimental character of it, the non-linearity of the narrative. In this respect I find it by far the most interesting of his late 70s work. It's also the darkest and most abrasive of his late films, without any concessions to the audience, and thus almost the direct opposite of "The Serpent's egg". For sure not everything works perfectly here, the dream sequence indulges in over-symbolism, for instance. But all in all, not a bad film at all, though it's tough stuff even by Bergman's standards.

[ByMarkClark.com]

>>Prior to 61 he was trying to find his voice<<

Imho, he seemed in fine voice on WILD STRAWBERRIES, THE SEVENTH SEAL, SMILES OF A SUMMER NIGHT and THE VIRGIN SPRING. Among other pre-61 works! Those are some of the best movies from anyone's filmography, and certainly among the most significant works on Bergman's resume.

[tartarlamb]

Interesting that you find it so bad, simply as normally Bergman is the harshest critic of his own works, and as far as I know, he himself was very pleased with the film. It's certainly not my favourite Bergman, but I like the experimental character of it, the non-linearity of the narrative. In this respect I find it by far the most interesting of his late 70s work. It's also the darkest and most abrasive of his late films, without any concessions to the audience, and thus almost the direct opposite of "The Serpent's egg". For sure not everything works perfectly here, the dream sequence indulges in over-symbolism, for instance. But all in all, not a bad film at all, though it's tough stuff even by Bergman's standards.

I agree completely. The film can be jarring on the first viewing. I hated it the first time I saw it. Its very dark, and *very* German. However, having seen it a couple of times since, I think it is, just as you say, one of the most interesting films he made in the 70s. Its almost a little like Bergman putting on his Fassbinder hat.

I'll stick up for the dream sequence -- easily one of my favorite scenes in any Bergman film. The teddy bear is a bit obvious, but it doesn't bother me either -- Peter's fate seems perfectly fitting to me. He's an emotional infant, so he's forced into a life of rigid, mechanical exactitude and childlike routine. If anything, the chess playing seemed a little too obvious for me, but apparently that detail is autobiographical (Bergman played chess daily while he was in a similar situation), so its forgiven.

[dadaistnun]

Never seen the film, but I love this poster:

[Barmy]

Easily one of his best films.

[Lino]

And it contains hands down the best portrayal of an homosexual character by an heterosexual director I've yet to see. It's uncanny the depth he goes into what it is to feel attracted to someone of the same sex and all its consequences.

[Tommaso]

Its almost a little like Bergman putting on his Fassbinder hat.

That's the best description I ever heard about it. Much seconded.
I'm not quite sure about what you mean by saying it's very "German". Even Fassbinder doesn't fit very much into my idea of typically 'German' film-making (despite his German 'themes'), let alone all the other associations one may or may not have. Do you mean that "Marionettes" is overly 'humourless', for instance?

[tartarlamb]

. Its almost a little like Bergman putting on his Fassbinder hat.

That's the best description I ever heard about it. Much seconded.
I'm not quite sure about what you mean by saying it's very "German". Even Fassbinder doesn't fit very much into my idea of typically 'German' film-making (despite his German 'themes'), let alone all the other associations one may or may not have. Do you mean that "Marionettes" is overly 'humourless', for instance?

I suppose I meant that the character of the film seems very German -- it was conceived as a project from Bergman's Brechtian acting troupe, and the style and decor of the film seem very much out of German cinema (the sleazy, technoish dance music is a kick, for instance). The bleakness and humorlessness of the film is something I'd associate with Bergman's 70s output in general, whether it was a German, Norwegian, or Swedish project, although it does seem especially at home in a German film.

[BenCheshire]

Its intensity reminded me of Hour of the Wolf, but nothing else did.

I found the cinematography and sets just garish and unpleasant.

Which might have been effective, but not a pleasant film to watch.

ben