416 Miss Julie

[souvenir]

Miss Julie

[img]http://criterion_production.s3.amazonaws.com/release_images/1247/416_box_348x490_w100.jpg[/img]

Swedish filmmaker Alf Sjöberg's visually innovative, Cannes Grand Prix winning adaptation of August Strindberg's renowned 1888 play brings to scalding life the excoriating words of the stage's preeminent surveyor of all things rotten in the state of male-female relations. Miss Julie vividly depicts the battle of the sexes and classes that ensues when a wealthy businessman's daughter (Anita Bjork, in a fiercely emotional performance) falls for her father's bitter servant. Celebrated for its unique cinematic style (and censored upon its first release in the United States for its adult content), Sjöberg's film was an important turning point in Scandinavian cinema.

Special Features

• New, restored high-definition digital transfer
• New video essay by film historian Peter Cowie
• Archival television interview with director Alf Sjoberg
• 2006 television documentary about the play Miss Julie and dramatist August Strindberg
• Theatrical trailer
• New and improved English subtitle translation
• PLUS: A booklet featuring new essays by film scholars Peter Matthews and Birgitta Steene

Criterionforum.org user rating averages

Feature currently disabled

[Cronenfly]

That $40 price tag on the Criterion site better be wrong: unless video essays count as commentaries now, then this one has no reason to be upper tier.

[zedz]

That $40 price tag on the Criterion site better be wrong: unless video essays count as commentaries now, then this one has no reason to be upper tier.

Depending on the length of the documentary, this could be a 2 disc. Admittedly, it still looks thin as a package, but this is a fantastic film. Frankly, I'd rather have a Video Essay than 90% of commentaries (and this is Cowie, remember)

[Cronenfly]

That $40 price tag on the Criterion site better be wrong: unless video essays count as commentaries now, then this one has no reason to be upper tier.

Depending on the length of the documentary, this could be a 2 disc. Admittedly, it still looks thin as a package, but this is a fantastic film. Frankly, I'd rather have a Video Essay than 90% of commentaries (and this is Cowie, remember)

Fair enough, though even if it moves up to double disc it'll be pushing it (a la Divorce Italian Style, etc).

I'm in definite agreement about the video essays: the Quandt Teshigahara ones have me converted. It's so much more concise a format, and I've found the info has stuck with me much longer than most commentaries. I look forward to more.

I guess I just disagree with Criterion's pricing commentary-containing (and now perhaps visual essay-) but otherwise pretty barebones releases higher than others (January's The Naked Prey being another example, though I guess that's in keeping with all the Paramount licenses being upper tier). Not to start the whole pricing debate again, but I know that I tend to go for the more deluxe $40 packages than the barer bones ones (with exceptions for the titles I really want, of course). I know that CC can't hit the ball out of the park with every release, but I'd be more willing to take a chance on a title like this that I know little about (though comes highly recommended) and has few distingushing features if it were just a bit cheaper.

[portnoy]

This movie is so great - moments of stunning beauty that quickly descend into an extreme emotional/formal violence (something tells me Patrice Chereau saw this film at an influential moment in his life).

I'm definitely buying this one when it comes out.

[colinr0380]

DVD Beaver

[Adam]

That $40 price tag on the Criterion site better be wrong: unless video essays count as commentaries now, then this one has no reason to be upper tier.

Actually, video essays should cost more than commentaries. They cost more to produce, online correctly; camera crews cost more than one person with a microphone and a AT recorder, etc. And if you are just using clips from the film, it would be a tossup in editing, perhaps, but still another online session (albeit a short one since you would just use the master & color correction from the film.)

I also prefer video essays to commentaries. Commentary over a full film rarely seems worth the full time expenditure. i'd rather have the choice comments with the illustrative clips.

[arsonfilms]

Looking over the Beaver review, this seems to have more content than some of the lighter 2-disc releases. Nearly an hour and 40 minutes of extras for a 90 minute film is nothing to sneeze at, plus we've got the 22 page booklet. I tend to be pretty conservative about my single-disk purchases so I hadn't thought much about getting this, but now it seems it may be worth it during one of the summer sales.

[domino harvey]

Anyone else planning to Netflix the Figgis adaptation for a Miss Julie double feature?

[Cronenfly]

In the face of my comments above, this seems to be a far better package than first glance would suggest, and, relative to other upper tier releases, worthy of the extra $10. Just goes to show you can't necessarily judge a disc by the length of its supplement list. And you're absolutely right about the video essays, Adam; although I still don't think that a commentary/video essay should instantly warrant a bump to $40 (though one could say the same or worse of thin two disc sets like Divorce Italian Style), of the two, I'd rather have it happen because of a video essay, which should have been the norm instead of feature-length commentaries from the first. Not to say that all feature commentaries are bad, and taking into account that video essays are more work/more cost-intensive to produce, but video essays are too good a concept to only really be starting in any kind of earnest now on CC releases.

[tavernier]

Anyone else planning to Netflix the Figgis adaptation for a Miss Julie double feature?

If you want to watch the good/bad Julies, sure, why not?

[domino harvey]

Well having just done a double Miss Julie bill, I disagree. I thought both films were quite good and very different in their approach and would recommend a similar experience for anyone willing. Sjoberg's beautiful film is less-stagey, sure, but Figgis finds the claustrophobia and joyless tone of the play better.

[tavernier]

Good for you. I found Figgis' version to be far inferior to Sjoberg's--and, of course, the still-vivid memory of seeing Lena Olin in a powerhouse performance onstage in Brooklyn under Bergman's direction in 1991 doesn't help poor Mike's cause, either.

(EDIT--What the hell has Figgis been up to lately, anyway?)

[domino harvey]

I think he's still trying to shake off the fact that he turned Saffron Burrows gay

I'm really glad that DVDBeaver chose this as their February DVD of the month-- I get the feeling very few of our forum members blind bought this but suspect as the months roll by, every couple of weeks they'll be a new "Holy shit this movie was so great, why isn't there more discussion about it" post

[John Cope]

I think he's still trying to shake off the fact that he turned Saffron Burrows gay

He should still be trying to shake off the abomination that was Cold Creek Manor. And that hurts me to say, as a former Figgis fanatic.

I, too, would highly recommend the '99 adaptation.

[colinr0380]

DVD Savant review

[Narshty]

A very good film indeed. Not a masterpiece (it's too consciously a artistic construction, sometimes to the detriment of dramatic impact), but some genuinely striking moments (Jean's flashbacks as a boy are especially fine) and never boring. If, by the end, the flashbacks seem a slight padding device to drag the play to the 90-minute mark they're always an interesting take on the original one set/three character source material. Sjöberg's whole style seems to have had a colossal impact on Ingmar Bergman as well, Strindberg fanatic that he was. In any case, it's certainly worth a look, despite not being quite among the A-list hidden gems of the collection.

[HerrSchreck]

Finally got around to seeing this a couple of days ago, and was not let down at all. I was reminded of the formal qualities of the best of the silent era as well as sound-era Eisenstein. The relentless visual innovation is fabulous, and mixes delightfully with the look of the lenses used and the less sensitive film stock lending that delightful, ground-glass painterly quality on display during the early sound era (think Bernard, poetic realist masterpieces like Pepe le Moko or Quai de Brumes, or the visuals of A Day In The Country).. that b&w etched look that disappeared for the most part when more-responsive/clearer film stocks & lenses became available as the 40's & 50's wore on. Sjoberg was burning with visual intelligence and invention during the making of this.. seemingly under the spell of Dreyer, Alexander Nyevsky/Ivan 1 & II (or perhaps none at all, as the film, like so many searingly original pieces of work resemble the works of other greats while at the same time remaining utterly unique).

There were moments of piqued self-consciousness in the script where the visual conceits klunked into some of the formalism of the mise en scene creating a feeling of contrivance... but overall a monstrously impressive film. I was absolutely enraptured.

[Tootletron]

I watched this and really liked it, especially the camerawork and noticed Sjoberg had a film in the Early Bergman box. Is it worth checking out?

[domino harvey]

I watched this and really liked it, especially the camerawork and noticed Sjoberg had a film in the Early Bergman box. Is it worth checking out?

It's in fact the only good film in the Early Bergman box

[tavernier]

It's in fact the only good Sjoberg film in the Early Bergman box

Fixed!

[swo17]

I'd been putting off watching this for awhile. Having nothing to go on but the cover and the English title, I assumed this was some boring melodrama starring Alec Guinness and Bjork. (OK, not possible, I know, but you get the idea.) Man was I wrong. What a great film! If this had been directed by Bergman, it would have easily been considered an early career highlight. I'd just like to reassure anyone who might have written off this release that it's definitely worth your time.

[domino harvey]

I called it. This and Pierrot le fou are the best Criterions of the year, a year that peaked very very early

[Tommaso]

Well, I finally watched this film, and would like to add some more praise here, though I do have minor reservations. Schreck has already noted some films that might be seen as influences on "Miss Julie", and while watching this, I also found myself thinking constantly of where particular moments in the Sjöberg film might have their cinematic origin. Renoir and Cocteau particularly came to my mind, the Ophuls of "Liebelei", too. What I find surprising is that the film nevertheless manages to melt its many reference points together into an organic whole for the most part, despite those few moments I find overdone.

As has been noted here, the film is visually very striking and also inventive, but surprisingly it is this area which causes a little bit of a problem for me. I simply think Sjöberg overdoes it occasionally. For instance, that moment when Julie and Jean each describe their dreams of rising and falling: either have only their faces in close-up or illustrate their words. Sjöberg does both in the same frame, and it feels incredibly forced and unconvincing to me, not least because of the very visible back projection. There is a certain tendency towards grandiose melodrama in some moments that not necessarily work well, too. The scene with the burning mansion looks as if it came straight out of "Gösta Berling", and while I adore Stiller, I don't necessarily mean that as a compliment here.

Where the film really succeeds is in making the character of Julie not only believable, but even likeable. Anita Björk does a marvellous job, showing the vulnerability and even tragedy behind her outward appearance; Sjöberg's showing of the events that are only talked about in Strindberg's play was a good idea to counter-act the supposed misogyny of the play (and there's even humour there: the scene where Julie has her fiancé do the dog-jump really made me laugh, although at the same time it clearly serves to show her mental disturbance). I'm less convinced of Ulf Palme as Jean, whom I find a little wooden in places, but it's nothing disturbing.

So, all in all, I wouldn't rate it as high as the best of Renoir or Ophuls, but it's a very nice film that clearly deserves to be seen by anyone loving those old classics that CC once excelled in and now only rarely gives the full treatment.

[jbeall]

I was shocked at how much I enjoyed Miss Julie (like swo17, I went in with low expectations). But Sjoberg's inventive style is just marvelous. Although there are a couple of moments are self-consciously formalist, overall it's so well edited, esp. the switches between the flashbacks and the present, that it's so easy to get caught up and ignore them and just enjoy the ride.

I know Sjoberg did a lot of theater directing, but what I liked best about Miss Julie is the way it's such a cinematic adaptation (as opposed to Danton, for example, which looked really stage-y even to me). This is really one of those films that makes me glad the Criterion Collection exists, b/c I never would have known it existed otherwise.