I watched Fanny & Alexander a month ago (right before Christmas), and I haven't stopped thinking about it. Thanks for doing an amazing analysis for this beautiful film!
I'm thinking the importance of Fanny, why she is in the title, is her role as Alexander's witness. She's the only one who knows, or believes everything he goes through.
Awesome discussion, happy to come across this. I must add that if speaking about space in the film, the theater must be mentioned. While the other 3 spaces are labyrinth-like, the theater is very easy to follow. There is a stage, there are the audience seats, and there is backstage. This world makes more sense and is easier for Alexander to navigate.
I believe that magic is used in the escape for two reasons: 1) to indicate the improbability of a child escaping that situation. As we know, Bergman did not escape his father's wrath as a child. The only way he could have escaped it was magic or divine intervention. 2) magic points the creative and it was through Bergman's creativity and art that he processed or "escaped" this childhood. Though as we know, you can never entirely escape the past. The ghost of the bishop is still around at the end, but the harm he can now do to Alexander has been limited.
I would read the escape of the children - and several other points in the film - as "magical realism" in the Latin American novel sense (Asturias, Garcia Marquez and so on). Things that are beyond ordinary reality merge into the world of a mostly realist novel or movie. The film deliberately breaks the frame of "BBC costume drama" at many points, and this is no accident or sign of sloppiness by Bergman, it's to do with the way the film sets up a connection between art and magic. Both rational and irrational ("black") magic. Alexander is an artist in the making and the supernatural or implausible elements in the film connect with his budding awakening as a serious artist - and how his art will make him see the wonderful warm family world where he grew up...from the outside. At the end of the film, he and his sister are once again safe in the bosom of the warm Ekdahl clan. but Alexander will never again feel as ensconced and safe inside it as he did in the first part of the film. "You won't escape me" the Bishop's wraith tells him, and this is true: he may have escaped more abuse, but not the angst and sense of anxiety he now carries with him on his road towards adult life.
Bravo! I'd been waiting so long for you guys to get to this one! My favorite Bergman and one of my favorite films of all time! Can't wait to see the video where you compare the two versions.
When it comes to the supernatural elements of the film, I belive one must consider that Bergman partly writes a film from a strong litherary tradition. Magical realism is an important part of scandinavian literature. I think aspecially the literature of Selma Lagerlöf is important. The fact that these element rarly are explained gives some proof of this, since it is merly just a part of the different characters reality. And last, it could also be an origin of Bergmans childhood fantasy, imaginating how he could escape his real fathers world, here made a reality in his autobiographical film. There is also a strong link to the author/playwriter Strindberg, that clearly explaines these themes in the film. He has Helena Ekdahl read from Strindberg’s famous “Note” to A Dream Play: “Everything can happen, everything is possible and probable. Time and place do not exist; on an insignificant basis of reality the imagination spins and weaves new patterns.”
I'm completely with Sonia on her take on the children's escape. It's Alexander's memory and his incomprehensibility of how he and his sister got out of there and putting his rich imagination to use. Bergman could have written the scene any way he wanted; he chose to make it look impossible. Disagree with David's take that other Bergman films were merely a rough draft for F&A. I'm going to sound pompous here but while F&A may be the people's choice, it's not the critical favorite. It's a valedictory address, a summing up with much more money than usual at his disposal. All of Bergman's films have been autobiographical to a large extent, this one just more overtly so. What I will say is it ushers in the final offshoot of Bergman's career, the strictly autobiographical films he wrote but didn't direct: "Best Intentions," Sunday's Children," "Private Confessions" and "Faithless." Also, Bergman had wanted Max von Sydow to play the bishop, Liv Ullmann to play Emilie but for various reasons it didn't happen. Now that would have been a different experience I would have loved to have seen.
I think you are misinterpreting the rescue of the children as a magical event, since it was prepared for via the communications along the family grapevine.
Good Lord DON'T watch the long version of F & A that was made for Swedish TV. It takes every mysterious moment and turns it into a bore. The original Bergman-edited theatrical release is sublime.
I watched Fanny & Alexander a month ago (right before Christmas), and I haven't stopped thinking about it. Thanks for doing an amazing analysis for this beautiful film!
I'm thinking the importance of Fanny, why she is in the title, is her role as Alexander's witness. She's the only one who knows, or believes everything he goes through.
very good. I enjoyed this and learned a lot!
Awesome discussion, happy to come across this. I must add that if speaking about space in the film, the theater must be mentioned. While the other 3 spaces are labyrinth-like, the theater is very easy to follow. There is a stage, there are the audience seats, and there is backstage. This world makes more sense and is easier for Alexander to navigate.
I believe that magic is used in the escape for two reasons:
1) to indicate the improbability of a child escaping that situation. As we know, Bergman did not escape his father's wrath as a child. The only way he could have escaped it was magic or divine intervention.
2) magic points the creative and it was through Bergman's creativity and art that he processed or "escaped" this childhood. Though as we know, you can never entirely escape the past. The ghost of the bishop is still around at the end, but the harm he can now do to Alexander has been limited.
I would read the escape of the children - and several other points in the film - as "magical realism" in the Latin American novel sense (Asturias, Garcia Marquez and so on). Things that are beyond ordinary reality merge into the world of a mostly realist novel or movie. The film deliberately breaks the frame of "BBC costume drama" at many points, and this is no accident or sign of sloppiness by Bergman, it's to do with the way the film sets up a connection between art and magic. Both rational and irrational ("black") magic.
Alexander is an artist in the making and the supernatural or implausible elements in the film connect with his budding awakening as a serious artist - and how his art will make him see the wonderful warm family world where he grew up...from the outside. At the end of the film, he and his sister are once again safe in the bosom of the warm Ekdahl clan. but Alexander will never again feel as ensconced and safe inside it as he did in the first part of the film. "You won't escape me" the Bishop's wraith tells him, and this is true: he may have escaped more abuse, but not the angst and sense of anxiety he now carries with him on his road towards adult life.
How did Jacobi get the key to the children's room in the first place??
amazing speech, helped me to make a presentation about the film.
Finally a new one! Good to see you again!
Bravo! I'd been waiting so long for you guys to get to this one! My favorite Bergman and one of my favorite films of all time! Can't wait to see the video where you compare the two versions.
Thanks for this video!
Great analysis!
When it comes to the supernatural elements of the film, I belive one must consider that Bergman partly writes a film from a strong litherary tradition. Magical realism is an important part of scandinavian literature. I think aspecially the literature of Selma Lagerlöf is important. The fact that these element rarly are explained gives some proof of this, since it is merly just a part of the different characters reality.
And last, it could also be an origin of Bergmans childhood fantasy, imaginating how he could escape his real fathers world, here made a reality in his autobiographical film.
There is also a strong link to the author/playwriter Strindberg, that clearly explaines these themes in the film. He has Helena Ekdahl read from Strindberg’s famous “Note” to A Dream Play: “Everything can happen, everything is possible and probable. Time and place do not exist; on an insignificant basis of reality the imagination spins and weaves new patterns.”
I'm completely with Sonia on her take on the children's escape. It's Alexander's memory and his incomprehensibility of how he and his sister got out of there and putting his rich imagination to use. Bergman could have written the scene any way he wanted; he chose to make it look impossible.
Disagree with David's take that other Bergman films were merely a rough draft for F&A. I'm going to sound pompous here but while F&A may be the people's choice, it's not the critical favorite. It's a valedictory address, a summing up with much more money than usual at his disposal. All of Bergman's films have been autobiographical to a large extent, this one just more overtly so. What I will say is it ushers in the final offshoot of Bergman's career, the strictly autobiographical films he wrote but didn't direct: "Best Intentions," Sunday's Children," "Private Confessions" and "Faithless."
Also, Bergman had wanted Max von Sydow to play the bishop, Liv Ullmann to play Emilie but for various reasons it didn't happen. Now that would have been a different experience I would have loved to have seen.
Great! thanks for your invaluable explanations 💖💖💖
Yay!
I think you are misinterpreting
the rescue of the children as a
magical event, since it was
prepared for via the communications
along the family grapevine.
Definitivt en av Bergmans mer eklektiska filmer, inget snack om det. 5/5
Don't break down Bergman. Hasn't he suffered enough?
Good Lord DON'T watch the long version of F & A that was made for Swedish TV. It takes every mysterious moment and turns it into a bore. The original Bergman-edited theatrical release is sublime.