Ben Parker Disappointing after Shame, which was near-perfect. Clearly an experiment to break the third wall in a Bergman film, just not at all something I wanted from a Bergman film. I like to be completely absorbed in the reality of the situation. An improvised dinner-party scene where the actors bandy about miscellaneous pretentious ideas, mockumentary moments where "Liv Ullman" and "Max von Sydow" are interviewed about the characters just didn't work for me. I had to turn it off. Will try again at a later date maybe, but I've only just started finding Bergman films I love, this was not a good choice...There were scenes I liked, but then I'd get dragged out of the spell by the mockumentary scenes, very strange.4/10

runamokprods This film represents some remarkable changes for Bergman; using color in as careful and striking away as had been using black and white, and a looser, less astringent feel to the story telling (indeed, this was the first film where he experimented with letting his actors improvise). The film feels more human, the edges softer. On the other hands, the themes are classic middle period Bergman – lies vs., truth, hope vs. despair, etc. And on a plot level there are some interesting echoes of 'Persona' in both its confused identities and Godard like interruptions, but in a much subtler more smoothly integrated style. I found the wonderful acting and fascinating film-making choices overrode the problem of distance I feel with some of Bergman's early and middle work. I always admire the films; the bravery, the acting, the style, the deepness of their ideas, the complete lack of compromise. But sometimes I just don't feel as drawn in on a visceral level. The story; four people on an island; an ex–criminal hiding from society, an architect with disdain for humanity and his fragile, insomniac wife, and their friend Anna whose husband and child died in a car wreck which left her with a limp all end up having their lives intertwine, leading to revelations and the stripping away of self-delusions. The title 'The Passion of Anna' was an invention of the US distributor, over Bergman's favored 'A Passion'. This is a case where a wrong title can seriously effect one's perception of a film, since Anna is really a supporting character. Beyond this, 'A Passion' makes clear the fact that all four characters in the film are working their way through emotional destruction, as Christ went through physical destruction in The Passion. Further, the only title on screen is 'L 162', Only one professional critic I've read tried to make sense of the actual title's meaning (his guess: A file number that one of the four characters keeps various photographs, often of violence, under.)

zolaaar I think, En passion is indeed not a perfect film, but who likes perfection? In fact, I think, up to now, it belongs in Bergman's top 10 and is a great addition to the issues argued in Vargtimmen, Skammen and Rite. All these characters here are not really authentic, but one: Verner, the old man suspected by the villagers on that island to be the animal abuser, and therefore excruciated. Everyone else, including Andreas, Anna and the couple they are friends with, are people who call for problems, get entrapped by them and catapult themselves into an almost-catastrophe. It's interesting that Verner, writes to Andreas, who seems to be the worst of all, i.e. most un-authentic, a suicide note, saying: "I can't look into anyone's eyes anymore", is, to my understanding, the key to the film - self-made problems contrasted with problems created externally. Given Verner's suicide, driven by slander and torture, Andreas' and Anna's issues in their relationship fade, normally, but then an axe gets involved, a stable burns down and a horse runs off, ablazed, kindled by the real animal tormentor who still is on the loose. An inferno.What I like most about this film, though, is its situational context: the island. I can't think of another Bergman film where the environment plays a bigger role than here. All figures are moving in a lost, iced vastness, in defoliated, sparse woods, get stuck in morass and dirt. Animals get brutally tortured and killed, wood gets chopped, wagons bog down in mud. The forlornness and menace of the people in nature is wonderfully captured by Nykvist, mostly in long, high-angle or panoramic shots and is an intriguing contrast to the interior (of the cottages, where the talking, cheating and fighting takes place) - inside there lurks the psychic, outside there's the physical death. That is a great imagery. However, I'm not satisfied with these interview snippets which I think is a nice idea (such as Bergman's verbal directions in the off in Vargtimmen), but it's executed quite poorly.

fedor8 A writer lives on a remote island and occasionally shouts in the woods when he gets drunk. Oh, and he likes to talk to the camera, but as himself – Max von Sydow. He is friendly with an architect – with whose wife he, naturally, has sex. And let's not forget Ullmann, the widow. He likes her, too, and they hook up – much to his regret. She turns out to be even more mentally unstable than himself. In-between all the dull, pretentious dialog we have a couple of animals getting tortured and slaughtered.Seriously now, if you like Bergman's static, depressive, and overly self-indulgent movies, watch this one, too, and have a ball. And afterward, you can take that whole bottle of sleeping pills you hide from your spouse/parents/whomever, or you can just lock the door of your bathroom and have a nice lie down in the bath-tub while you slit your wrists. I hear hanging is pretty good, too! I have seen 7 or 8 Bergman films so far, and I have yet to come across one that can even fulfill the criteria needed for being average. They are mediocre, at best. I know, I know… Those of you who love Bergman probably think that I don't possess the necessary intellect to comprehend his films. I mean, they are all, after all, simply BRILLIANT. So DEEP. So very DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND… Believe me, there is nothing difficult in these films, and I am referring in particular to his relationship films of the "Passion of Anne" kind (or "Cries & Whispers" and "Autumn Sonata", for example). They are rather simple, in fact. Sure, they may be tough to understand by your average Steven Segall fan, but the fact that Bergman's films aren't idiotic doesn't mean they're good. They do not entertain. Heavy drama? Fine. But let's have grander themes than just relationships between a couple of depressed, troubled Swedes. All that these bergmannesque Scandinavian characters need is a nice trip to Hawaii - you know, somewhere warm and sunny – and they wouldn't be on the verge of suicide so much. I NEED SOMETHING GRANDER THAN WHO IS DEPPRESSED AND WHY AND WHAT THE REAL ROOTS ARE TO THEIR ANXIETY, SELF-LOATHING, and other wonderful traits. You want deep? Check out "Possible Worlds", "2001", "Picnic At Hanging Rock", "Solaris" (the 1973 film, not the shoddy Soderbergh version), or "Stalker". Don't bore me with "why does so and so not love his missus any more and why her childhood has scarred her and hence still influences the course of their marriage" type of trite stuff. YAWN. Bergman dramas are like daily TV soapers but with better acting and dialog.Sweden's best exports remain ABBA,their tennis players, and "Muppet Show's" Swedish Chef. I don't think that Bergman's contribution amounts to much – unless you'd take seriously what a plethora of pretentious film critics say about him.Did I mention that Swedish is a beautiful, melodious language that is like a mermaid's song to my ears?If you are unhappy with with this movie, which you must be, just google "Vjetropev Bergman Spoofs" and this will lead you to my video clips with the vastly improved version of the film. Have fun.