User reviews

... or at least until one of us has had enough, although that will more than likely be reciprocated. There's a good chance you'll recognise a lot of the characteristics, dialogue and awkwardness on show here although everybody's story is different, but it's the craft of the actors moulding the directors words and wisdom that creates a near perfect marriage made in heaven - as so many of Ingmar Bergman's films do, and as such, you'll struggle to divorce your eyes and ears from the conversation, your mind and memory from reflection.

"Scenes from a Marriage" (1974) directed by Ingmar Bergman is yet another of his numerous masterpieces, having directed more than 40 feature films in his career.

The film follows two characters, Marianne and Johan, and in typical Bergman style, he examines ontological questions of love, loneliness, being and what it means to be 'fulfilled' through the two protagonists. As with all of Bergman's films, 'Scenes From a Marriage' is not simply a plot narrative, in this case about a married couple and their 'ups and downs'. Rather, with his usual finesse and intellect, Bergman successfully probes into what it means and feels like to need the love, security, and validation of another person and the consequences of life-changing decisions that can happen in a marriage.

"Scenes from a Marriage" is a seminal masterpiece from one of the greatest directors in film history, and on par with many of his other films, and in my opinion only bested by two of his films "Winter Light" (1963) and "Persona" (1966).

Originally a miniseries, it was edited down to 169 minutes. It concerns itself with Liv Ullman, a divorce lawyer, and academician Erland Josephson. Over the course of ten years their marriage breaks down. Written by director Ingmar Bergman in a reported three months, it was shot quickly; cinematographer Sven Nykvist later stated that, given its later theatrical release, he would have liked more moving shots. Given the short schedule and tiny budget, that seems impossible in retrospect. As it is, the transfer from videotape to film gives it an inconsistent look, even within individual scenes; that seems to contribute to its intimacy and subjectiveness.

I think the lack of rehearsal, and the central roles being played by two Bergman regulars give the performances a freshness and lack of polish that contribute to the truth of the movie. These are two people who change, hesitantly and unwillingly, in the throes of overwhelming emotions. The lack of polish, the enormous emotional shifts with scenes give it a documentary feel, even as the characters talk almost endlessly.

Unlike Bergman's earlier works, which are often theological musings on why G*d doesn't give us more directions, this shows two people trying to make their way in a world where G*d, if he exists, is irrelevant. It's a search for meaning without any hope of objective guide, of people trying to snatch some happiness desperately, in a existential world. It offers no grand messages, no singular route to happiness for all of humanity, just for two individuals.

I saw Scenes of a marriage recently and have never stopped thinking about it since. The way it deals with the relationship story revolving around divorce is masterful. This unlike marriage story (similar type) isn't sad or emotional, this is depressing and it's beauty lies in the dialogues. The realistic take on love and relationships is never easy but this despite having a foreign language absorbed me in a way I hadn't imagined.

The camera work is really nice and the close-up shots made the film feel less like a movie and more like a scene happening in front of you.

I was really hyped for the latest hbo show which is a remakes of this but now after watching this, I don't think it will be as good as this, maybe an American style will be different but this is otherwordly.

Bergman's true essence lies in a deep study of the human condition which was very clear from Winter Light (my first Bergman) and his films are known to be depressing and leave a deep impact on the viewer and this is exactly what this did.

Both the characters were brilliantly written and how they react to their circumstances was really outstanding. The pacing is handled really well it just doesn't feel like a 3 hour long story about a couple talking.

After watching this, I could see how much of an inspiration it has served to some of my favourite movies of the same type.

Before Midnight took a realistic turn by escaping from the fantasised romance, Marriage story was also inspired from this and I am glad that I finally saw this movie.

The acting also was flawless by both the leads and it surely needs masterclass to portray such complex characters.

One of Ingmar Bergman's most well known films, but also looked to be one of his most challenging (on paper at least). Part of that's because of the length. I watched the theatrical cut, which is already about 168 minutes, and there's an extended miniseries cut (which looks like the original version) that's about two hours longer.

I liked this enough to probably give the miniseries a watch at some point, probably somewhere off in the reasonably far future though. The "short" version still felt like a full experience, and went by pretty quick considering its length.

Part of what also made this film look challenging was its subject matter and minimalist style. Being about the breakdown of a marriage and shot in a very simple way, I was worried it would get dull or boring to watch, but it kept me engaged throughout.

It's the acting and writing that really make this as good as it is, and the low-key, simple visuals really help ensure the focus is on the performances and the dialogue. I even found myself liking how stark and static the feel of the film was, as it worked well with the subject matter (a few of those quick zooms didn't look great though, but maybe the effect looked less jarring at the time).

Occasionally there was a line of dialogue that felt a little forced, but that could be as a result of the subtitles filling in gaps, due to the shorter runtime of the theatrical version. But overall, the writing is pretty strong, and I like how it focused on personal issues, thoughts, and feelings, specific to the characters, as I've found in the past that some of the broader, more overtly philosophical Bergman dialogue about "life" and "society" in general doesn't always do it for me.

But in the end, this is one of the best Bergman films I've watched so far, and between this and Smiles of a Summer Night last week, I've been really enjoying diving back into his films. I've only ever seen the theatrical version of Fanny and Alexander, but it remains my favourite film of his, so I may watch the extended miniseries version of that next, to continue this successful run of Bergman films.

Ten stars for the theatrical cut. One of my difficulties with the set-up is that I can't wrap my head around the notion that any man would walk out on Liv Ullman. But, of course, Johan really couldn't bring himself to do that, as it turns out. This is clearly a low-budget project, but one that Bergman also lavished attention on. The script, shot choice and direction are all both stunning and emotionally devestating. Bergman spent his whole career thinking about relationships. That theme dominated his early work, and even runs through the background of his dark magic realism films of the 1950s. By the 1970s he was able to approach the subject with a world-weary maturity that is missing from early films like Summer Interlude. And this may be the most mature and haunting study of the subject he or anyone else has ever managed. This is a cut-down from the five hour miniseries, so there are a lot of little nuggets that hit the cutting room floor. I noticed that the most in The Illiterates, but, even there, nothing essential got snipped. If you don't mind a film about the interaction between a couple, with no special effects or flash, if you appreciate honest studies of the range and depth of normal human emotional interaction, if you want to see brilliant actors working for a brilliant director all at the top of their game, and if you think you might not have the patience for the 5-hour version, watch this. It's worth it. 26 July 2021.

(This review is for the original six part television series and not the edited version, shown in theatres.)

I felt the first three episodes were deep and intense. Unfortunately, the last three seemed to deacceletate, and weaken the overall impact it could of have. Almost, like it over did it with the psychological insights. Never the less even in the last episodes their were moments that seemed brilliant and tender. I am definitely glad I watched it, and personally benefited from its discussions on guilt and the issues that arise from it. I will omly add that the film serms to go beyond the question of marital happiness and seems actually about the nature of life and love itself. Just my opiniom.

Out of all of Ingmar Bergman's movies I've watched, this one's probably my least favorite, although I do think that it is a very good movie.

It has all the qualities of a great Bergman film, but I just felt that the story was too mundane to be succesfully carried by Bergman's slow, dialogue heavy style for such a long runtime.

It's still really good though, and Liv Ullmann's performance alone makes it more than worth watching.

Very talky, almost all in close ups. Like being on stage. The couple is clearly depicted early on - he's full of himself and she's subservient.

The film will try to show how their lives unraveled over the years, but strictly from dialogue in rooms, as we never meet the mistress, children, parents, or anyone else. Basically, an essay not a film, on male/female values. Bergman has made much better films.

First, let me state the relativity of aesthetics. For example, Citizen Kane, once considered the greatest film ever made, was called "boring" by none other hand Ingmar Bergman.

As the saying goes, you can't argue taste. I may be one of the few people not impressed by Bergman's films. There seems to be almost a formula that one can predict in many of this films, especially the "soul-searching" scenes.

A characteristic example is the scene in Wild Strawberries when the old man picks up a married couple and they predictably claw at each other until the wife breaks the husband's glasses when she slaps him.

I could almost predict the violent vicissitudes in Scenes from a Marriage. The trick is, a scene begins in a very calm manner and gradually the emotions are reversed and the couple becomes violent.

The second scene in the film, with the great Bibi Anderssen, is an example of this. The scene where the husband of Liv Ullmann turns violent and beats her is another example.

Back and forth, calm and violence. These scenes are supposed to be "searing" exposes of the mind but they seem so contrived to this viewer and almost mechanically plotted.

It reminds me of a comment that then music critic, George Bernard Shaw made about Brahms' Requiem. If I recall this words, a pedal point is supposed to make us think that something musically profound is being expressed. Shaw meant that in a dismissive way.

I've always felt the same way about many of B's films and one sees the same style in many of Woody Allen's movies. Since the couple go at each other we assume this a profound revelation of the human condition, but (to me at least) it seems predictably plotted.

At times it becomes comical to time it, as if by a stopwatch, for when the emotional explosion will come, and when we least expect it.

Perhaps I am in the minority but I find more psychological depth in a Hollywood noir of the 1940s than in a Bergman movie.

The scene in a film noir movie, where the protagonist impulsively shoots a man in the back from a profit/romance motive seems more emotionally powerful and impactful than the scenes in this Bergman film. (I don't mention the film's name or actor since that may be a "spoiler" for those who plan to see the film.)

But clearly I must be in the minority. But the minority lovers of Rio Bravo when the film first came out are no win the majority. Movies that Americans considered "prestige movies" based on famous or classic novels, are later dismissed as routine journeyman film by the French and American auteur critics, while films relegated to mere entertainment status, such as Vertigo are then canonized as masterpieces of the cinema. If critics are not willing to stick their necks out, aesthetics would be doomed to stand still.

I should also question the general principle whether marriage can ever be the subject of great art, since it's such a pedestrian institution. I mean the love itself, not issues related to a marriage, such as in the great plays of Ibsen.

Having said, this, the film does offer great tour de force performances, especially by Liv Ullmann and my Bergman favorite, Bibi Andersson.

"Scenes from a marriage (1974, Ingmar Bergman) is an adaptation of the TV mini-series from the same director a year earlier. At the moment of writing this review (december 2021) the film is the highest rated Bergman movie on the IMDB database.

The film can be interpreted as a sort of "When Harry met Sally" (1989, Rob Reiner) in reverse. In "When Harry met Sally" a man and a woman take a very long time finding out that they are destined for each other. In "Scenes from a marriage" a man (Johan played by Erland Josephson) and a woman (Marianne played by Liv Ullmann) take a very long time finding out that their breaking up and divorce is not the end of their relationship (and maybe not even the end of their love). When we add "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf" (1966, Mike Nichols) to the equation we can make the following mapping:

"When Harry met Sally" is about the pre marriage phase.

"Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf" is about the marriage phase.

"Scenes from a marriage" is predominantly about the post marriage phase.

From this mapping it can be derived that in essence the naming of "Scenes from a marriage" is less fortunate.

Given the high rating the movie was a bit of a disappointment for me. I have seen better Bergman films, for example "Fanny and Alexander" (1982), also a TV mini series turned into a feature film.

The reason for the disappointment is I think the fact that in the movie the blame for the failure of the marriage is somewhat unilateral put on Johan. It is not a bad guy versus good girl movie, certainly not, but already in the first scene we see a confident Johan boasting at a journalist while Marianne is the modesty itself. Also in later scenes the man (not always Johan) is usually the one acting annoyingly. In the second scene for example Johan and Marianne are dining with a couple that starts quarilling with each other after a couple of drinks. By the way this scene owes a lot to "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf".

Disappointing for me or not the film has had a lot of influence. Sometimes the influence is on the whole oeuvre of directors such as Woody Allen and Richard Linklater. Sometimes the influence is on specific films about failed marriages such as in "Winter sleep" (2014, Nuri Bilge Ceylan) and "Loveless" (2017, Andrey Zviagintsev).

Incredibly uncharasmatic and annoying dissection of a relationship that might have intelligent things to say about relationships but as is typical of its writer, failed to create it with characters that command any pathos whatever.

If it has intelligence, it;s no more than they have in the average episode of Everybody Loves Raymond and they are able to convey the problems of the bourgeois family in a way that doesn't send me to sleep. Having an honest and truthful message, intelligently expressed does not a good movie make. That isn't a movie, that's an article in Cosmo.

No visual storytelling and a lot of conversation that conveys what a better film maker would be able to convey visually in its one half of a plot.

Some people just can't appreciate intelligent movies. Just because this found its audience and is apparently as inaccessible as it could be is not the same thing as being intelligent.

I can now see why the sociologist who supposedly made the fictionalized statement that "after the release of the film, the divorce rate in Sweden went up", that is, that marriage is not so closed after three hours of agonizing torture (I can't imagine how traumatizing the five-hour trial version of the play would have been for me) in Bergman's terribly masculine and disgustingly enclosed space for two people (even though he tries to make it less closed by filming street scenes he never filmed himself). (I shudder to think how traumatized I would have been by the five-hour trial in the theatrical version.) One can't help but be impressed by the fact that the marriage is so long and stinky like an old woman's foot-wrapping (or rather a young woman's foot-wrapping, after all, Bergman's close-ups and audio-visuals don't stink so much), and it's so stinky and long that I can't begin to imagine how much of a grasp of the narrative has been taken away from him by starting to see such a movie again, following the two Farrow documentaries. Bergman's grasp of the narrative is that of a young girl whose virginity has been taken away and who has fallen into self-indulgent abandonment. Coupled with Bergman's own sexuality, the scenes are portrayed more like a sm dystopia created purely for the purpose of aggravating the marital relationship and creating a dystopia.

An insufferable three hours of tedium, it would be enough to make any Bergman viewer watch this movie if they were to be completely intolerant of his mediocrity (I can't believe Peter Cowie is trying to hardcore praise this one).

Seriously, why did they even bother filming this "movie" and what was the point of it? I am putting "movie" in quotes because I don't even think this is a movie. If this qualifies as a movie, then Youtube videos should also count as a movie. Putting 2 people in a room and having them do meaningless small talk for 3 hours is NOT a movie, so therefore this is NOT a movie.

There is no plot, no storyline, no character development, not even any acting. Characters literally just read out their lines with zero emotion. This reminds me of a theater play put together by middle school kids where they just read their lines without even knowing the meaning of what they are saying.

Who seriously thought it was a good idea to publish this thing and call it a movie? Of course sheeple on IMDB will sing praises of it because they can't think for themselves and they've heard critics praising this so it has to be a masterpiece because god forbid people have their own independent thoughts different from critics.