Autumn Sonata

Year 13, Day 16 - 1/16/21 - Movie #3,718

BEFORE: Technically, this is the last Ingmar Bergman film, as in something that was made for theatrical release.  It's not the end of my chain, because tomorrow's film is another miniseries made for Swedish TV that was cut down a bit and released theatrically in other countries.  So I'm nearly at the end, just one more marathon viewing session tomorrow and then I can move on to other topics.  I've really had enough of the Swedish people and their complicated problems.

Liv Ullmann carries over again from "Scenes from a Marriage".  

THE PLOT: A married daughter who longs for her mother's love is visited by the latter, a successful concert pianist.  

AFTER: Yeah, it's different details, but really, it's more of the same.  A famous pianist who often went out on tour and neglected her family for years goes to visit her now-married daughter, and everything eventually gets discussed in a blow-out argument.  The mother had numerous affairs while on the road, of course, and at least one was a long-term one, so I'm not sure if this is a statement about Swedish people, or famous people who write their own relationship rules, but either way, I guess Bergman himself is sort of represented in the mother character.  

The elder daughter, Eva, has found her place in the world, she's written two books and is married to a village pastor, who longs to tell her how much he loves her, but for some reason he's been unable to find the words.  Eva, meanwhile, has never felt loved by anyone, and is still dealing with the fact that her son drowned when he was four years old.  Eva takes care of her younger sister, Helena, who is disabled and partially paralyzed - when their mother agreed to visit, she didn't know that her disabled daughter was also living there.  If she had known, she probably wouldn't have come.  As a token, the mother gives Helena her wristwatch - yeah, that's probably just what she needed.

The mother sleeps in the guest room, and focuses on moving her investments around in her portfolio, also considering gifting one of her cars to Eva, then deciding against it.  She awakes in the middle of the night as if she's being choked - I guess being around her daughters is having a negative effect on her?  Some people just weren't cut out to be parents, it seems.  

Everything then comes to a head when Eva and her mother attempt to reminisce about the "good times", only to discover that there weren't any.  Even during the two years when Charlotte wasn't on a concert tour, and tried to be a good mother to her daughters, that made Eva's life even more miserable than when her mother wasn't around.  Her mother made her dress a certain way and cut her hair, get braces to improve her teeth, etc.  

It's too much for Charlotte, she calls a male companion and leaves the next day by train.  Eva then writes a letter to her mother and apologizes, which her husband reads (In Bergman films people always seem to be reading each other's letters, or their diaries, it seems to be the only way the director is able to tell the audience about his character's thoughts...).  Eva visits the grave of her son, Eva's husband is unable to calm down the disabled sister, and Charlotte talks about her paralyzed daughter by asking "Why couldn't she die?"  Well, I suppose that would have made things easier for Charlotte in the long run. 

Basically, it's another full round today of "Why are Swedish people so messed up?".  The theory put forward here is that a mother can't be happy unless her daughter is also miserable.

Also starring Ingrid Bergman (last seen in "Indiscreet"), Lena Nyman, Halvar Björk, Gunnar Björnstrand (last seen in "Persona"), Erland Josephson (also carrying over from "Scenes from a Marriage"), Georg Lokkeberg, Mimi Pollak, Linn Ullmann (last seen in "Cries and Whispers").  

RATING: 4 out of 10 childhood anxieties

Scenes From a Marriage

Year 13, Day 15 - 1/15/21 - Movie #3,717

BEFORE: I'm now two films ahead of schedule, which is great - but I really need to be THREE films ahead if I'm going to finish the January films in January, and hit Valentine's Day the way I want.  So I've got to hold one more double-feature session next week to get back on track.  I can't do it today, this film is nearly three hours long!

Liv Ullmann and Erland Josephson both carry over again from "Cries and Whispers".  

THE PLOT: The many years of love and turmoil that bind Marianne and Johan through matrimony, infidelity, divorce and subsequent partners. 

AFTER: Of course, I knew Woody Allen films long before I watched any Bergman films, and Allen is known as a hardcore fan of Bergman's, he even borrowed plotlines for a few of his own films.  I already mentioned how "Wild Strawberries" influenced "Stardust Memories" (and also, later, "Deconstructing Harry", and many people have compared "Cries and Whispers" to Allen's "Interiors" and noted the similarities between "The Seventh Seal" and Allen's "Love and Death".  The connections between "Scenes From a Marriage" and the movie "Scenes From a Mall" (which starred Woody Allen, though he did not direct it) probably begin and end with the similar titles, however.  Common opinion, though, is that Allen's film "Husbands and Wives" is most closely based on Bergman's famous 1974 film (which started as a 1973 Swedish TV mini-series, which got edited down to a LONG movie for international release.)

If there's another modern movie that evokes the topic and tone of "Scenes from a Marriage", it might be 2019's "Marriage Story", though.  I'm now thinking that film with Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson might be very Bergman-esque, and now that I'm nearly done watching Bergman's key movies I get to call things "Bergman-esque" if I want to.  

This film starts out with married couple Marianne and Johan being interviewed on their 10th anniversary - for some documentary?  Ah, no, it's for a magazine article.  My bad.  I thought perhaps if a documentary was being made about marriage, it would explain why we the audience get to see so many intimate moments between these married partners.  Instead, this film follows the typical "omniscient camera" practice, where the camera is everywhere it needs to be, with no explanation - which we've all gotten used to, it's really only weird when you stop and think about it. But if this were shot like "The Office", with a never-seen documentary camera crew that's occasionally referenced, that would be weird, too, like why would this couple allow the camera crew into their bedroom during such intimate moments, and openly fight and argue in front of the camera.  Either way, knowing too much about the filmmaking process can make most films very hard to believe.  

I'm going to try not to think about this, and soldier on.  Marianne is a divorce lawyer, and Johan is some kind of scientist, it's something to do with optics but I sure didn't understand it.  After being interviewed for that magazine article, they have a dinner party with another couple, Peter and Katarina, who bicker constantly and keep threatening to divorce each other. (This is the "foil" couple, to make Marianne and Johan's marriage look better by comparison, but this effect only last for so long, because their marriage is in trouble a few years (?) later. 

In the second part (again, this was a 6-part miniseries, and it's not too difficult to see where the original breaks were) the couple debates why they're no longer finding joy in their sex life, and Johan shows some of his poetry to a co-worker, admitting that he's never shown it to his own wife.  By the third part, Johan has revealed that he's been having an affair with a younger woman named Paula, and intends to move out.  He's sold his boat and also taken out a loan so that he can provide child support for their two daughters, but it appears that his mind is set on packing up and leaving.  

This is the key turning point to me, it's that difficult conversation that nobody wants to have, yet sometimes it HAS to be had if either or both parties in a relationship are ever going to be able to move forward in their lives.  I had to have this conversation once, and ask my first wife to move out, as she had started some form of relationship with another woman, and then came out of the closet.  It sucks to be the one broken up with, it also sucks to be the one doing the breaking up.  There's nothing good about this conversation except for the promise it holds for the future, but in the present, it just sucks - the only thing worse is then going through the process of dividing up the furniture and possessions.  

Like Marianne and Johan, my first wife and I were friends with another couple that was very close to breaking up, about a year before we did.  The husband wanted to initiate the break-up, and he also wanted to keep the apartment, and that didn't seem right to us.  So we had a tacit agreement that if one of us wanted to split, the other would get to stay in the condo.  I kind of lucked into owning a piece of property that way, as a sort of consolation prize, but I did have to get her name removed from our mortgage and also pay her back half of our investment in the next two years.  It wasn't easy, but I was able to rent out a room and put my tenant's rent toward buying her out - if I hadn't done that I would have had to sell the property.

The remaining three chapters in the film show the couple coming back together at various times, once to discuss finalizing their divorce, a second time to actually sign the papers (this segment was quite difficult to watch, because they end up quarreling and physically fighting) and a final time when they are both married to other people, but they come together for a secret rendezvous at their vacation home, while their spouses are away on holiday.  This last part may seem very confusing to many married or divorced people - like, why go through all the trouble of getting divorced, then married to other people, just to sneak around and come back together again?  Ah, but theirs is an imperfect love, it seems - or maybe they can only be interested in having sex with each other when it's forbidden?  That would probably add some hint of danger to the proceedings, and maybe it's a semi-logical progression, since their sex life got so boring while they were married because it was no longer fun.  

NITPICK POINT: How come after the beginning scene, we never see the couple's two daughters again?  I know that Marianne was awarded custody, and I'm no expert on Swedish law, but wouldn't Johan at least have been granted visitations?  Or have to take them on alternate weekends?  Marianne always reminded him to send birthday cards to their daughters, but was he allowed to attend their birthday parties?  Just asking...

OK, now for the big question, because a lot of this is probably drawn from Bergman's real life - but he was married five times!  And that doesn't count his long-term relationships with actresses Bibi Andersson, Harriet Andersson, and Liv Ullmann.  So forgive me for asking, but how does this make him an expert on long-term relationships?  I guess he's either an expert on marriage or the absolute worst at it, depending on how you look at it.  Great at getting married, but terrible at staying married?  Something like that, right?  Either way, he clearly doesn't speak for all married people, and your mileage may vary, so you may not want to consider having a secret sexual relationship with your ex-spouse, it's probably not healthy in many ways.  A clean break is probably best, plus then you get to see each other at your parents funerals, and (eventually) at each other's.  Wait, that can't be right. 

This is still WAY too long, no matter how you look at it, even though it's been trimmed down from the six-hour miniseries version. Three hours is much too much relationship drama to sit through.  And what was the point of breaking up if they're only going to keep coming back together again?  Give me one solid reason why this story couldn't have them remarry, if they're going to still get together and be on the same page about so many things.  And surprisingly, they don't just get together to debate the existence of God, which is a relief. 

Also starring Bibi Andersson (last seen in "Persona"), Gunnel Lindblom (last seen in "Wild Strawberries"), Jan Malmsjö, Anita Wall, Barbro Hiort at Ornas, Rossana Mariano (also last seen in "Cries and Whispers"), Lena Bergman (ditto), Wenche Foss, Bertil Norström.

RATING: 5 out of 10 Sunday dinners with their parents

Cries and Whispers

Year 13, Day 14 - 1/14/21 - Movie #3,716

BEFORE: And just like that, I'm 2/3 done with the Bergman films - 6 down after this one, and just three to go.  I can make it, now that I've pulled another double, just three more films, spread over three nights.  Two of them are on the longish side, so no more double-features.  Just need to endure a little bit more angst, and this will all be over.  Kind of like where we are in the pandemic now, the vaccine is being administered around the country as we speak, to people over the age of 65 in NYC, so we're protecting the people with the weakest immunities, plus the first responders like health-care workers and people who work in the prison system and nursing homes. Hopefully, now it's just a matter of a few more months and we can re-open restaurants and movie theaters and think about live concerts and sporting events again.  But right now, Americans are dying at the rate of about 4,000 a day, so it remains to be seen how crowded those concerts and sporting events will be.  Yeah, it's still depressing.  

All I can do, really, is stay indoors most days and wait for a chance at vaccination - it's still going to be a while for me.  I can't even volunteer anywhere, that also puts me at some risk.  Another month, maybe, until we see some decline in the stats.  Two months?  Actually, nobody really seems sure - but when you've been under lockdown for 10 months, what's another two?  

Liv Ullmann carries over again from "Hour of the Wolf".  I pulled off another double-feature today, because both "Hour of the Wolf" and "Cries and Whispers" were under 90 minutes in length, and I'm gearing up for a couple Bergman films that are each about 3 hours long.  Again, I feel I must either be crazy for attempting this, or I'm about to go crazy as a result. 

THE PLOT: When a woman dying of cancer in early twentieth-century Sweden is visited by her two sisters, long-repressed feelings between the siblings rise to the surface.  

AFTER: I thought I was getting a handle on what Swedish people are all about - they're simple people, they live on islands and put out their fishing nets each day, they drink milk out of large wooden bowls and enjoy eating fresh berries.  Also, they're cold and emotionally distant, even where their lovers and immediate family members are concerned.  Am I in the ballpark?  This is when I really miss talking to my old boss, because she has a Swedish ex-husband and she could probably confirm a few of the stereotypes I've learned from watching 6 Bergman films now.  Also, artists and filmmakers are tortured souls, but I knew that already, that seems to be fairly universal and not limited to Sweden.  

I started this mini-chain with "The Seventh Seal", not Bergman's first film, but the first one people tend to think of, and that came out in 1957.  Now I'm up to a film released in 1972, and Bergman seems to have suddenly discovered color film.  Gee, it had only been around since the 1930's, so what was the hold-up?  Did he really shoot films in black and white for thirty years longer than he had to?  Maybe he preferred black and white, like Orson Welles did, and he stuck with it much longer than he should have.  Anyway, finally he joined the modern era of filmmaking, just in time to depict a Swedish family where the men all wear black suits and the women all wear white dresses.  Classy - but he's still thinking in terms of black and white, clearly.

That being said, there's a lot of RED in this movie.  The family mansion has red walls and red carpeting everywhere.  At least red is powerful, red is the color of blood, the color of anger, but also the color of passion.  Red's the go-to here for everything that's not either black or white, or cries out to be seen through a red filter.  

I think this one's very timely and pandemic-themed, too - because it's about two sisters who have returned to the family home to be with Agnes, the third sister, in the advanced stages of uterine cancer.  They are there because she's close to dying, only their Swedish natures are probably telling them to run away, or at least keep their emotions in check.  This is also a great opportunity to reflect back on incidents from their lives - Maria recalls her affair with ex-lover David, who happens to be Agnes' doctor (of course) and Karin remembers the time that she mutilated herself with a piece of broken glass so she wouldn't have to have sex with her husband.  Good times? 

My conclusion is that Swedish people are pretty messed up.  Oh, they seem fine and beautiful and they make those tasty little meatballs, but inside they're full of repressed emotions and dark thoughts about the nature of human existence. If you've ever tried to assemble a piece of Ikea furniture, and realized that the instructions are incomplete or there are pieces or hardware missing, then maybe you can see where I'm coming from. Karin suddenly realizes that her life (or her relationship) is a "web of lies", and I'm not sure how one can come to this realization all of a sudden, wouldn't it be more gradual, like the lies would come into her life one at a time?  Why does she suddenly reach her breaking point on THAT night, after THAT dinner?  

Note that neither sister feels very close to Agnes, not even while she's sick and dying.  The maid, Anna, is the only one who will hold her, cradle her while she's at her weakest.  Were Anna and Agnes romantically involved?  It's unclear. No one in this family seems capable of having any kind of loving relationship, anyway - again, Swedish people are broken inside.  And the rich people are even more broken than the poor ones.  Which class was Bergman in at this point?  He couldn't have been a struggling young filmmaker at this point, so perhaps somewhere along the way he himself transitioned from a messed-up poor person to a messed-up rich one?  Discuss. 

In the last 15 minutes of the film, something very shocking, impossibly so, happens.  I won't say exactly, but it calls reality into question, and suddenly we don't know if what we're watching is real or an extended (shared?) dream sequence.  This technique has been there in Bergman's films all along - like, is the knight REALLY playing a game of chess with Death?  Are the hitchhikers in "Wild Strawberries" real, or a figment of Isak's imagination?  And was Veronica really there at the party for Johan on the so-called "Isolated" island?  So many things to consider, and in the end there are no easy answers, each viewer has to parse out for themself what is acceptable as part of reality and what is perhaps imaginary.  

In the end, Agnes gets her funeral, the maid is allowed to stay on until the end of the month, but she is allowed to keep Agnes' diary, which contains some memories of the happier days, like sitting on a swing with her two sisters while the servant pushes them back and forth.  OK, a happy memory for Agnes but maybe not for the maid.  But this is what we all have to do these days, think back on the happier moments in our lives, when we were free to leave the house and DO things, even if those things were very mundane, at least we were socializing with the people we cared about.  The cold, distant, emotionless people that we cared about.  (I've simply GOT to find some happier, more positive films to watch!)

Also starring  Harriet Andersson (last seen in "Through a Glass Darkly"), Erland Josephson (also carrying over from "Hour of the Wolf"), Ingrid Thulin (ditto), Kari Sylwan, Anders Ek (last seen in "The Seventh Seal"), Inga Gill (ditto), Henning Moritzen, Georg Arlin, with a cameo from Lena Bergman (last seen in "Wild Strawberries") and the voice of Ingmar Bergman.

RATING: 4 out of 10 reasons that Karin hates Maria

Hour of the Wolf

Year 13, Day 14 - 1/14/21 - Movie #3,715

BEFORE: I've got to get going and start early, because I want to squeeze in two Bergman films today - actually I'm starting the night before, maybe I can get to them both before I crash.  I don't work on Thursdays so I could sleep in, because landing a second part-time job keeps eluding me, it's very frustrating.  At least watching two Bergman films overnight might help keep me from tuning in to MSNBC and watching our democracy crumble, which is another source of constant angst.  

Now it's Liv Ullmann who carries over from "Persona", and she's going to get me almost to the end of this Bergman chain.

THE PLOT: While vacationing on a remote Scandinavian island with his younger pregnant wife, an artist has an emotional breakdown while confronting his repressed desires.  

AFTER: Now I get to play a new game, which is called "Where Have I Seen That Swedish Actor Before?" - and it's going to take a while to break it all down.  Max and Liv, they're the easy ones, of course, but it's the character actors in the smaller roles that are going to drive me crazy.  OK, here goes - the woman who played the Baroness here played Isak's wife in "Wild Strawberries", the old woman who appears to Alma played Isak's mother in that same film, the actor who played Counselor Heerbrand was also Isak's father, and the woman who played Veronica, Johan's ex-lover, was of course Marianne, Isak's daughter-in-law.  Also, the actor who played Ernst von Merkens also played Raval, the priest-turned-thief in "The Seventh Seal".  It's a lot to take in, I know, and I fear things like this will get worse before they get better.  Bergman for sure had a small list of actors that he kept on speed-dial.  (Did they have speed-dial back then?  I'm not even sure.)

This is another film that feels pandemically appropriate, even though there's no direct reference to a plague or any other illness in the world, but it does have a painter and his wife who try to isolate themselves from the rest of society, allegedly so he can get some work done, but also I think because the stress of the world may be getting to him - he's not sleeping at night, and I've certainly felt that recently.  My sleeping schedule was pretty bad before COVID-19 hit, and it's really only gotten worse since.  Most nights I fall asleep in the recliner after my movie, becase sleeping in a sitting position is better for my acid reflux, with my head elevated above my stomach. (I've been on prescribed antacids for two weeks, and they've helped.). If I wake up too early I might get another couple hours of sleep in bed or on the couch, but then I'm on my side, and I can't sleep like that for too long, or I could feel nauseous in the morning.  But 5 or 6 hours in the recliner seems to be the equivalent of 8 hours in the bed, during which I keep waking up.  

I'm getting away from Johan, though, our resident tortured artist.  Some time in his bubble alone with just his wife seems to be helping, the painting and the chores around the shack seem to keep him occupied, but then he starts having nightmarish visions of grotesque people, like the Man with the Beak, the Schoolmaster, and the Lady With the Hat - she keeps threatening to take her hat off, but if she does that, apparently her face comes off too.  Shortly after this, Johan is approached during a painting session by the Baron, who lives on the same island in the big castle, and he invites Johan and his wife Alma to a "modest dinner".  The Baron says he's a fan of Johan's work.

This "modest dinner" turns out to be a formal dinner party, with about six or seven horrid rich people, who ask probing personal questions of the artist, and also talk about torturing another artist by showing him one of his paintings, displayed upside-down.  The Baroness even has one of Johan's paintings on display in her bedroom, and it's a portrait of Johan's ex-lover, Veronica.  (We never actually get to see this painting, or any of Johan's paintings, just like we never saw the McGuffin painting in "RocknRolla".).  But it seems that the Baron & co. have invited Johan and Alma to dinner just to torture them in various ways.  

Back at the shack, Johan discusses the "Hour of the Wolf" with Alma, it's the time between night and dawn when wolves hunt, and most births and deaths occur (umm, can we get a fact-check on this, please?).  He also recounts the childhood trauma of being locked in a closet, and the adult trauma of beating a young boy (who was hanging around while Johan was fishing) with a rock.  The boy was a bit annoying, sure, but he didn't deserve to die - did Johan kill him because he found the boy attractive, and he was trying to repress his attraction to young boys?  Combine this with the story of being "in the closet" and I think Bergman's hinting at something here...

Another visit from the castle, the Baron's counselor visits the shack, and invites them to another party (hey, we're supposed to be quarantining here, no parties!), one where the special guest will be Veronica, Johan's ex-lover and the subject of that unseen painting. The counselor also leaves a gun on the table, inteneded for protection from small animals at night.  Or perhaps it's another method of tempting and torturing Johan, since he promptly uses the gun to shoot Alma, since he plans on attending the party and re-connecting with his ex-lover.  

Johan's second trip to the castle is very nightmarish, one man walks on the walls and the ceiling, and the party guests are revealed to be the demons from his nightmares, like the Man with the Beak and the Man with No Eyes.  The older woman who lives at the castle tries to seduce him before she'll reveal the location of his ex-lover, but he persists in tracking down Veronica, only to find that she's dead and laid out on a slab.  Nope!  She's alive, she was only tricking him. (This seems to be a recurring theme for Bergman, like the patient who Isak in "Wild Strawberries" diagnosed as dead, only to have her come alive and laugh at him.). By this point Johan is a laughing-stock for the castle's inhabitants, he's wearing a ton of make-up and he's been taunted and teased, so he runs off into the woods.  The Hour of the Wolf is a difficult time, for sure.  

Bergman ends on Alma, who was only grazed by the pistol shot.  She muses that spending so much time together often causes married people to think alike, and in some cases to even start to resemble each other, or become one another.  Should she have loved Johan more, or less, which way would she have been better able to help him?  

A little research tells me that much of this was based on Bergman's own nightmares, plus a little of "The Magic Flute".  Bergman had written a story called "The Cannibals" or "The Man-Eaters", but a bout with pneumonia prevented him from filming that, and he made "Persona" instead in 1964. "The Cannibals" eventually became "Hour of the Wolf", and film scholars generally regard this now as a portrait of Bergman's own disintegration, as a story about an artist who can't maintain a good relationship with reality, whatever that ends up meaning.  The artist's wife seems to be in a good mental place, at peace, but the artist clearly is not. Does that just go hand-in-hand with being an artist (or filmmaker)?  Bergman was married five times, not including his five-year relationship with Ullmann, so was there a continual cycle of meeting women, getting married, being tortured and conflicted, then abandoning them and moving on to the next?  Discuss. 

And if tortured artist Johan Borg here is the stand-in for tortured filmmaker Ingmar Bergman, how else are they alike?  Do the inhabitants of the castle represent film critics?  Is the scandal of Veronica Vogler a reflection of Bergman's own relationship scandals?  Was he always the crazy one in the relationship, and did his relationships keep him grounded?  Or did he just have to run off into the woods every few years and abandon his life partners?   

Also starring Max von Sydow (He's back! last seen in "Through a Glass Darkly"), Gertrud Fridh (last seen in "Wild Strawberries"), Naima Wifstrand (ditto), Ulf Johansson (ditto), Ingrid Thulin (ditto), Georg Rydeberg, Erland Josephson, Gudrun Brost (last seen in "The Seventh Seal"), Bertil Anderberg (ditto).

RATING: 5 out of 10 diary entries

Persona

Year 13, Day 13 - 1/13/21 - Movie #3,714

BEFORE: Moving on to Bergman Film #4 - I'll be almost halfway through after this one, and if I can double up again tomorrow, then I'll be 2/3 of the way through. I'm sort of jam-packing the week this way, and I hope I don't use up so many slots that I'll be bored in November with no movies to watch, but I want to take advantage of the fact that this film (along with several other Bergman films) is now available on HBO Max, I don't have to wait for TCM to run more Bergman films later on - strike while the iron is hot!

Gunnar Björnstrand carries over from "Through a Glass Darkly" - I think he's the only actor to be in all four Bergman films so far in the chain.

THE PLOT: A nurse is put in charge of a mute actress and finds that their personae are melding together. 

AFTER: I'm always afraid when I see a tagline like this one - is this going to be another film like "Lost Highway" or "Mulholland Drive" where one character becomes another one, or two actresses swap roles suddenly?  (Actually, that's not exactly what happens in either of those films, I think my brain just simplifies those plots because they're so enigmatic...)  It's also very possible that Lynch borrowed or stole some narrative techniques from Bergman, if what's happening here in "Persona" is what I think it is.  

Honestly, though, I'm not sure WHAT exactly happens in the final third of "Persona".  A lot does happen, I suppose, but none of it makes much sense.  The opening is very surrealistic, calling to mind the old techniques of Bunuel, as seen in "Le Chien Andalou", or the film equivalent of a Dali painting.  Bergman apparently went through his "artsy" phase and tried to get all deep and complicated, but to me, just showing mages of a lamb being butchered, a close-up on a hand as a man is being crucified, then shots of dead bodies in a morgue isn't really "high art", it's just random weirdness.  

But all that somehow leads in to the main story here - which is about Elisabet, an actress who had some kind of breakdown while performing on stage, and is now mute as a result, and Alma, the nurse who is assigned to take care of her.  While in the hospital Elisabet watches, on television, a man set himself on fire during the Vietnam War, and this affects her - as does a letter from her husband that contains a photo of their son.  Alma reads the letter aloud, and Elisabet does not react well.  So the doctor sends the two women to a cottage by the sea (it's Faro Island again, Bergman's favorite shooting location...)

At the cottage, Alma talks, and talks and talks, while Elisabet listens.  What else would a mute woman do?  All of Alma's backstory comes out, her first love, an affair with two young boys, a pregnancy and an abortion.  While driving to town, Alma also reads Elisabet's unsealed mail, and she learns that Elisabet is studying her for some reason.  Well, that's what actresses do, they study people because anything they learn could come in handy for a later role, right?  No big deal.  But Alma feels used, and threatens Elisabet with a pot of boiling water, which causes Elisabet to (finally) speak.  The two women fight, Alma begs for forgiveness, and then Elisabeth looks at photos of Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, for some reason.

Eventually Elisabet's husband shows up, and because he's blind (and Elisabet is mute, or self-imposed mute, whichever), Alma speaks for Elisabet, the husband mistakes one for the other, and ends up having sex with Alma instead of his wife. (Umm, I think?)  Then a bunch of other weird stuff happens, like Alma sort of figures out why Elisabet tore up that photo of her son, and Alma scratches herself on the arm and draws blood, and makes Elisabet drink it?  But I'm sorry, I didn't see how their personalities were merging in any way, unless I missed something - so I'm still very confused over what really happened here.  

Here's what I suspect, though - Bergman had some kind of relationship with Bibi Andersson, and according to Wikipedia, he bumped into her on the street when she was with her friend, Liv Ullmann.  Bergman thought the two women looked very similar - but I disagree, I don't think they look alike at all, except they're both blonde Swedish women.  I think he was attracted to Ullmann, and wanted to be with both women, either together or separately, and casting them in the same movie was a way to bring that about.  Or he'd get to sleep with at least one of them, again or for the first time.  

But I didn't pick up on "one personality consuming the other" or "the fusing of two personalities into one", this must be largely open to interpretation.  The general interpretation of this film is that it seems to be about "duality", but I'm not so sure - are Alma and Elisabet supposed to be the opposite sides of - something?  Or does their resemblance (again, I don't see it) mean that they are collectively just one entity, or two parts of one entity?  I prefer the Carl Jung theory of "persona" (thanks again, Wiki) which treats the word as if it's a synonym for "mask", that we all have a face that we show to the world, which is separate from the internal soul.  Think of the Roman God Janus, who had two faces (and what's the name of the first production company credit we see on screen?  Janus Films!)  And who wears masks?  Actors and actresses, especially in the older productions, like Greek plays.  Elisabet had her breakdown while acting in "Electra", which is a Greek drama.  See?  This makes so much more sense. 

I think this is also one of those films that people like to reference to sound smart, or to appear to be a big film expert.  People who SAY that this is their favorite film are just doing it for the effect. It's like a classic rock fan saying that Steely Dan is his favorite band - he just doesn't want to admit it's The Beatles or The Rolling Stones, because then he'd just be perceived as common.  

"Persona" is on that list of the "1,001 Movies to See Before You Die", and by the time I get to the end of the Bergman chain, I'll have seen 437 of those movies.  Not too shabby - I think I'll be at 438 by the end of January, but no immediate plans to cross any other films off.  I guess maybe I'll have to watch the other 562 after I die?  But as for "Persona", I think I side with the reviewers who have called it one of "the most pretentious movies of all time".  Sorry.  

Also starring Bibi Andersson (last seen in "Wild Strawberries"), Liv Ullmann (last seen in "A Bridge Too Far"), Margaretha Krook, Jörgen Lindström. 

RATING: 3 out of 10 beach chairs

Through a Glass Darkly

Year 13, Day 12 - 1/12/21 - Movie #3,713

BEFORE: I'm going to go for it, watch as many Bergman films as I can this week, the extra ones I have access to, thanks to HBO Max - because who knows, I may not be able to pass this way again.  So it will be the four films I had on my DVR from late 2019, a fifth that TCM ran about a month ago, and then four more from HBO Max.  Nine films in seven days?  I must be insane.  But, then again, this might be a good time for the Bergman marathon, I'm thinking - cold weather, Seasonal Affected Disorder, endless (?) lockdown, and all the existential angst caused by the pandemic, death and unemployment all around.  Plus the political landscape right now, that's a whole other hornet's nest of misery and uncertainty.  Plus, what the hell else do I have to do right now?  

This makes four-in-a-row (quatt-row) for Max von Sydow, I don't think he'll be here tomorrow but he'll be back one more time on Thursday - when I think I'll have to do another double feature to finish January on track.  

THE PLOT: Recently released from a mental hospital, Karin rejoins her emotionally disconnected family at their island home, only to slip away from reality as she begins to believe she is being visited by God.  

AFTER: We were re-watching "Blazing Saddles" a week or two ago, and though it's still a very funny movie, it's also a little sad for me because of how many actors from that film are now deceased - Gene Wilder, Cleavon Little, Madeleine Kahn, Harvey Korman - it's basically everybody, except for Mel Brooks and Burton Gilliam.  I mean, in a way they're immortal because they appeared in this comedy classic, and at least they'll always be remembered, but it seemed like every year we lost another one - David Huddleston in 2016, John Hillerman in 2017, and some of the cast was old when they MADE the movie, so there's no way they're still around now.  

Going back to the older Bergman films, there's that same kind of feeling - I think maybe the Germans must have a word for a movie where the entire cast is now confirmed to be no longer alive...I'll have to check if "The Seventh Seal" qualifies, since Bibi Andersson died in 2019 and Max von Sydow in 2020.  But today's film is NOT one of those films, Harriet Andersson is still alive, she turns 89 this year on Valentine's Day. Meanwhile, the last surviving Munchkin from "The Wizard of Oz", Jerry Maren, died in 2018 at the age of 98.  

This topic is the bread and butter of Bergman's genre, I think.  Everybody's getting older, and they've completed 50 years of medical service, or they still haven't written that best-selling novel, or they want to know whether God exists, and they can feel that time is running out.  Does God exist?  If so, what kind of a God allows us to feel so cold and so emotionally distant from everybody else?  And is there more to life than putting out the fishing nets, taking the boat into town to pick up groceries, then bringing in the nets at the end of the day?  OK, sure, there are good things about life to enjoy, like fresh milk and strawberries, plus a good brisk morning swim, but what about the bigger, unanswered questions?  

"Through a Glass Darkly" features Karin, a woman who's been unwell, we don't really understand her "condition" at first, is it a physical ailment, or is it more like madness?  Did she have a breakdown or what?  It turns out that she imagines that she talks to God - which is a form of madness, especially when God appears to her in the form of a giant spider. Her husband tries to take good care of her, but he simply can't watch her around the clock, not when the fishing nets have to be put out and he's got to take the boat into town for supplies.  Her father's also dealing with the fact that her condition is incurable, but he deals with it by trying to work the situation into the novel he's writing. (Also, Dad reveals he once tried to kill himself by driving off a cliff.)  And her little brother is at that awkward teen stage where he's curious about girls but also kind of hates them - plus he wishes he could just have one conversation with his father about anything.  Curse these emotionally distant Swedes!

During a thunderstorm, and while her father and husband are out on the fishing boat, Karin is left alone with her younger brother, Minus.  And she crosses a line - they couldn't really talk about such subjects in a 1961 movie, but we can assume they had some form of sexual contact.  And that's the tipping point, Karin determines she can't handle the real world and needs to be hospitalized.  Once she leaves by ambulance helicopter, Dad and Minus hope that their love for Karin can help sustain her - perhaps God is love, or love is God, and love is all around.  Minus also got his wish, a conversation with Dad!  Achievement unlocked!  

This was filmed on the island of Faro (not to be confused with the Faroe Islands...), where Bergman later lived in isolation, much like one of his characters.  There are just four actors, unlike some of his other films that had huge ensembles - but don't worry, everything's still going to connect.  Bergman's inspiration was a woman he had lived with when he was younger, who said she heard voices telling her to do things.  We get it, Ingmar, the crazy ones are always the least sexually inhibited ones, but you need a more stable partner in the long run.  Bergman also had diary notes about visiting his parents on an island - so probably von Sydow's character here is the stand-in for Bergman himself, right?  Because he dedicated the film to his wife (Karin was his mother's name, though, hmmm....).

Also starring Harriet Andersson (last seen in "Dogville"), Gunnar Björnstrand (also carrying over from "Wild Strawberries"), Lars Passgard.  

RATING: 5 out of 10 creaky floors 

Wild Strawberries

Year 13, Day 12 - 1/12/21 - Movie #3,712

BEFORE: I've got a difficult decision to make - I could really open this Bergman thing up and add several more films, the man did direct about 70 films after all - and the linking seems to just BE there, no matter what order I watch his films in.  (But I'm going to try to stick with chronological...) Having added two films already which are streaming on HBO Max, searching on "Bergman" on that service led me to four more that I wasn't planning on.  But if I watch them all, that could seriously mess me up, not just mentally but also I'd have to double up films, or risk not finishing January on time.  Plus, it's one thing to use up a bunch of slots here in January, because it's a new year, plenty of room, still 290 free slots before the end of the year, but what if I'll need those slots in November?  I just came off of a very boring November and December where I could only watch a small number of movies, and that's no good.  34 or 35 films watched in January, instead of 30 or 31, could mean that will happen again.  

I think I'll try to double-up a bit this week, if the Bergman films are not too long - many are under the 90-minute mark, which is good - I can watch two a day sometimes.  I was hoping to contain the Bergman project all into one week, but now I think it's going to creep into next week, too.  The whole point was to clear the five films off my DVR from 2019 that were taking up space, now it seems I might be down for nine Bergman films before i can move on.  Well, I am at home most days, with nothing to do, maybe it's a sign that I need to do this.  And maybe, if I'm thinking positively, if vaccinations go well and the U.S. can turn this COVID thing around, maybe we can get back to traveling and take a vacation later in the year, and I can take a break from movies - so it's a form of optimism if I load up January and clear my calendar later on.  Yeah, let's go with that. 

Max von Sydow carries over from "The Seventh Seal" and so do several other actors.  Nothing on the level of last year's 26 actors carrying over between "Twilight" movies, but whatever. 

THE PLOT: After living a life marked by coldness, an aging professor is forced to confront the emptiness of his existence.  

AFTER: Von Sydow only appears briefly here, as a gas station attendant - obviously he wasn't old enough at the time to play the main role of the aging college professor, but it is what it is.  Max certain acts the hell out of his grease monkey role.  I wish that somebody could have remade this film in the 1990's or 2000's with von Sydow as the lead, that could have been great.  

I'm learning so much about Swedish culture in the 1950's, though - this is just a film about a car trip taken by a professor with his daughter-in-law, on his way to receive an award in Lund for his 50 years of medical service.  Along the way they encounter a bunch of misfit characters, and also the professor visits his childhood home and this triggers a series of flashbacks.  The fact that the same actress plays both a young student they give a ride to AND the cousin from his youth that he was in love with probably triggers some memories loose, too.  

Dr. Isak Borg grew up in a big family with 10 kids - and one attractive cousin, it seems.  Sara, the cousin, was torn between Isak and his brother, but she'd go on marry the brother, it seems.  Visiting that old house allows Isak to watch the scenes from his childhood play out again, in the style of "A Christmas Carol", where Scrooge was an observer of the past who couldn't interact with it.  He remembers the day of Uncle Aron's birthday party, the big celebration and how the twins wrote a song for him, and of course that's the day that he kissed his cousin Sara after she picked, you guessed it, some wild strawberries.  

Borg's traveling by car with Marianne, his daughter-in-law, (though she calls him "Uncle Isak") who's been staying at his house - and gradually we find out that there's marital tension between her and Isak's son, Evald.  Perhaps Evald takes after his father a bit too much?  But after the first stop the pair is joined by three young students, one played by the same actress as Sara, who seems to be in a three-way relationship with the other two hitchhikers, Anders and Viktor, and that sort of mirrors the love triangle Dr. Isak had with Sara and his brother - right?  Later after a near collision with another car, a married couple joins the group, but they quarrel so much that the group votes to kick them out of the car after a while.  "Don't fight in front of the children."  (Children?  They're college students!)

One could possibly make a case that some of these characters are not real - come ON, the girl looks exactly like Isak's cousin?  And she's in a love triangle?  She's a figment of Dr. Borg's imagination, right?  Or a ghost or the reincarnated spirit of his cousin?  No?  I guess maybe I'm reading too much into things here, probably a lot of young Swedish women look very similar.  

Anyway, as the 16-hour car trip progresses, Dr. Borg starts having dark dreams again, this time he's trying to pass his college medical examinations, but it's not going well.  He can't see anything under the microscope, the words on the blackboard don't make any linguistic sense, and he diagnoses the patient as being dead, only to have her laugh at him for doing so.  (The examiner and the patient are played by the same actors as the quarreling couple from the car, another use of dual roles.). Hey, we've all been there, right?  Had that dream where there's a pop quiz and we forgot to study, or we left our books in our locker, or forgot to wear pants to school?  Right?  I think after just two films I'm cracking the Bergman code, this was a very troubled man who had a lot of stress dreams about school and death and relationships.  In other words, totally normal.  

The trip progresses, and after one more stop to visit Borg's elderly mother, and one more round of stress dreams (I think this one shows Borg's wife cheating on him, but honestly I'm not sure)

eventually the odd band gets to Lund, just in time for the ceremony at Lund University.  Dr. Borg is honored, and the hitchhikers stick around to watch him in the procession.  Isak's son Evald re-connects with his wife Marianne, despite the fact that she is pregnant and he doesn't want to have children.  I think what this is really about is how the people we encounter during the day affect our dreamscape at night - the encounter with the quarreling couple reminded Dr. Borg of his own unhappy marriage, and meeting the young students triggered dreams of his own childhood and also gave him the college stress dream.  But after he gets the affirmation and commendation from the university, and he is asleep in his son's home, he dreams of a family picnic by the lake.  He's found some kind of peace, and not just having the death dreams any more.  We should all be that lucky, at least from time to time.  

This whole film came about after Bergman went on a long drive from Stockholm to Dalarna, during which he stopped in Uppsala and visited his grandmother's house.  And Woody Allen essentially remade this film, not once but twice, as "Stardust Memories" and "Deconstructing Harry".  But I see a lot of connections here to more modern films that I watched last week - the dual roles (also seen in "A Kiss Before Dying"), the long car trip (also seen in "Locke") the flashbacks (seen in "Capone") and the marital stress (also seen in "Wildlife").  Why do I get the feeling that so many other films are going to feel "Bergman-esque" when this week is over?

Also starring Bibi Andersson, Ingrid Thulin, Gunnar Bjornstrand, Gertrud Fridh, Ake Fridell, Gunnel LIndblom, Maud Hansson, Ulf Johansson (all carrying over from "The Seventh Seal"), Victor Sjostrom, Julian Kindahl, Folke Sundquist, Bjorn Bjelfvenstam, Naima Wifstrand, Gunnel Brostrom, Gunnar Sjoberg, Ann-Marie Wiman, Sif Ruud, Yngve Nordwall, Per Sjostrand, Gie Petre, Eva Norée, Goran Lindquist, Pek Skogsberg, Lena Bergman, Monica Ehrling. 

RATING: 6 out of 10 gallons of free gasoline

The Seventh Seal

Year 13, Day 11 - 1/11/21 - Movie #3,711

BEFORE: As planned, I've arrived at the Ingmar Bergman movies - and I asked a friend to recommend the best ones, to make sure I'm not missing anything important.  I already had five planned, now it's seven, but they're still going to link together, because this director tended to use the same bunch of actors, again and again.  At least, I think they're going to link together, even if I watch them in chronological order.  When in doubt, go earliest to latest, right? 

Max von Sydow carries over from "A Kiss Before Dying". 

THE PLOT: A man seeks answers about life, death and the existence of God as he plays chess against the Grim Reaper during the Black Plague.  

AFTER: This film has been on my DVR since December 30, 2019 - that's when TCM did a big Bergman retrospective and I nabbed four films.  Longtime Bergman actress Bibi Andersson had died a few months earlier, so this may have been as a tribute to her.  But then it took me so long to work out a way to watch them, that it's now early January 2021, and I'm watching them in tribute to von Sydow, who died the following year.  Sometimes TCM and I just manage to end up on the same page, or similar pages, anyway.  I think many of Bergman's films are now on HBO Max, but at the time I recorded these, I couldn't have known that would happen, because HBO Max wasn't even a thing in 2019.  

Back on January 1, I thought maybe "Parasite" was a perfect pandemic, or at least lockdown film.  You know, because of - wait, no spoilers here - but "The Seventh Seal", like "The Reckoning" a few days ago, is set during the time of the Black Plague.  What could be more appropriate, and I didn't even KNOW that about "The Seventh Seal" going in.  Could I have known on some unconscious level, or is it just another coincidence?  Either way, it seems very fitting to watch a movie that discusses the plague while I'm basically sequestered at home trying to avoid one myself.  Umm, except for half-days three days a week when I take the subway into Manhattan - which is I think the safest NYC borough right now, thank God I don't live or work in Staten Island!  

Of course everybody in modern times knows the iconic scene from this film - the one where the knight plays chess against Death himself.  What's weird is that if you're any kind of film buff at all, you know that scene even if you've never seen the whole film, like me, or have an awareness of what the context or deeper meaning of it is.  Possibly this is because it's been referenced and parodied so many times, most notably in "Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey", where the title characters end up playing Battleship, Clue and even Twister against the Grim Reaper, who keeps calling for "best two out of three" and then "best three out of five".  Death, it seems, is a sore loser - or perhaps just always determined to win in the end. 

The other notable comedy film that pokes fun at the Grim Reaper is "Monty Python's Meaning of Life", when the Grim Reaper interrupts a dinner party to claim everyone who ate the tainted salmon mousse.  Now I believe that comedic scene is ALSO a parody of "The Seventh Seal", because at the end of the Bergman film, when Death finally comes for the knight, the fallout from the chess game is that he gets to take the souls of all the knight's companions, and he's at a similar-looking dinner table with many of the important characters from the film.  

Because this isn't just one story, you see, it's several small interconnected stories, there's a troupe of actors (hmm, just like in "The Reckoning...) who travel the countryside in a wagon, and they and the knight interact with people in the same town, and a number of things take place - one actor is falsely accused of stealing another man's wife, another of the actors actually DOES fool around with the blacksmith's wife, the knight's squire meets a mural painter and also an ex-priest who is now a thief, and the knight encounters a woman who is accused of consorting with the Devil, who is scheduled to be burned at the stake.  Through it all the knight searches for some proof of life beyond, even proof of the Devil, because that would be proof of God and the afterlife, even in a roundabout way.  But the condemned woman's' eyes show no proof of the Devil, he determines that she's just insane.  I wonder why the knight doesn't ask Death about the afterlife, wouldn't you think that he would know?  

Other characters try to parse out what they can about the meaning of life the best they can, while the conversation keeps turning back toward the plague. They even discuss the plague while they're out eating together at the inn, which shows an appalling lack of understanding about how disease is spread.  Thankfully, we modern people know that during a pandemic, we need to avoid getting together with friends whenever possible, stay at home and order take-out, and only leave the house for emergencies and to buy basic supplies. We know this, right? RIGHT? Filling up two carts at Wal-Mart with non-essential on a weekly basis is not considered a required trip, and if the store is crowded, that's putting yourself, and your family by extension, at risk, especially if you keep refusing to wear a mask.  As our newly-elected President keeps saying, this is not a political issue, it's a public safety issue.  And, collectively, we need to be smarter than all those people who died during past plagues, who just didn't know.  WE KNOW what will prevent the spread of airborne viruses, but we ALL have to do it, for it to be effective. 

There were other things I found particularly relevant in all the musings about life and death here, but since the film was in Swedish and I had to READ it rather than HEAR it, it seems that a good sleep has allowed me to forget most of them.  How about, "We must make an idol of our fear, and call it god."  A-HA!  God doesn't exist, he's just a construct of man's fears.  I knew it!  "Why does he hide in a cloud of half-promises and unseen miracles?  How can we believe in the faithful when we lack faith?  What will happen to us who want to believe, but can not?"  See, I knew I liked this knight character, he and I are sort of on the same page.  We've seen too much going wrong in the world to believe that there's anyone up in the sky, running the show, who loves us very much but also won't make himself visible to us, and if we don't listen to him and do what other people tell us he says, then he'll throw us into Hell forever and we'll burn for all eternity in agony.  Because he loves us.  See, it's all a bunch of hooey, malarkey!

The knight calls out to God in the darkness, but it's as if no one's there.  So perhaps there isn't anyone there, or he just remains silent.  That's the eternal question, isn't it?   But I'm not sure that life without God in it has to be a "preposterous horror".  What about living for today and trying to have a good time while you're here?  Sure, it's a bit impossible to do when we're setting new records every day for the number of people dying, but that's going to end in a few months, right? RIGHT?  Like the knight also says, we have to remember the twilight, the bowl of milk, the fresh strawberries, people sleeping, people talking, people playing music, and carry those memories with us on our journey, because they will sustain us, even if God doesn't answer us. 

Otherwise, if he can't do this, then his heart is a void, and he will be indifferent to others, living in a world of ghosts, a prisoner in his own dreams.  And Death walks along with us during our journey, always there, ready for a game of chess.  Better start practicing your game...and don't even think about accidentally knocking over the pieces, because he remembers where they were.  Tipping over the pieces is a forfeit, anyway, you shouldn't do that if Death is your opponent.  Death has a mean sense of ironic humor, too - he spotted that actor faking his own death with the trick knife, and then later chopped down the tree he was sitting in.  Not cool, death.  Funny, sure, but not cool.  

Wow, so that's a Bergman film, huh?  A lot of insight into life, death, love, and the meaning of it all, and there's nothing like a plague to bring all that into focus.  I wonder if this is the best of his films and it's all downhill from here, or what.  Guess I'll find out this week. 

Also starring Gunnar Bjornstrand, Bengt Ekerot, Nils Poppe, Bibi Andersson, Inga Landgré (last seen in "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"), Ake Fridell, Inga Gill, Erik Strandmark, Bertil Anderberg, Gunnel Lindblom, Maud Hansson, Gunnar Olsson, Anders Ek, Benkt-Ake-Benktsson, Gudrun Brost, Lars Lind, Tor Borong, Harry Asklund, Ulf Johanson.  

RATING: 7 out of 10 flagellants

A Kiss Before Dying

Year 13, Day 10 - 1/10/21 - Movie #3,710

BEFORE: Matt Dillon carries over from "Capone", and it only took me ten days to link from Korean film "Parasite" to something with Swedish actor Max von Sydow, to whom I've dedicated Movie Year 13.  That's some next-level linking, I think, and I only had to watch a few terrible movies with Tom Hardy to get there. This means I can start the Ingmar Bergman chain tomorrow, which was the whole point of starting 2021 where I started and getting here how I got here.  I jumped back 29 years, from 2020's "Capone" to today's film, released in 1991, and then tomorrow I'm jumping back another 34 years to "The Seventh Seal", released in 1957.  That's a lot of time-traveling for 2 days.  

THE PLOT: A determined student murders his pregnant secret girlfriend and moves on to her twin sister, who gradually becomes suspicious of her new lover.  

AFTER: I think I passed on this film several times, possibly because I confused it with "The Long Kiss Goodnight", which is this weird amnesia-based spy thriller from 1996, which I have seen.  Finally on like the 8th opportunity to record this, I realized it was not that film, and was something else entirely.  But this is also a weird mystery thriller, in its own way.  Most murder mysteries don't tell you who the murderer is right off the bat, for one thing.  Secondly, it's got both Max von Sydow AND a member of the Beastie Boys in it, which reminds me a bit of "The Boys from Brazil", which starred both Laurence Olivier and Steve Guttenberg. (It's true, look it up if you don't believe me...I still have a hard time with it, apparently.)

Jonathan Corliss is like a poor man's Patrick Bateman - this came out around the time that "American Psycho" was making the rounds as a novel, but years before it became a film.  The two stories are similar because they depict serial killers as sociopaths, which to me is a bit of a cop-out because they never really take the time to explain the WHY of the killing.  "Oh, well, he's a sociopath, that's why."  That's not enough for me.  I guess here we have the added advantage of Corliss marrying in to the Carlsson family (twice) so he can get his hands on their copper fortune.  But there are so many things about this plan that don't add up, and they all go toward making it unbelievable.  

Clearly, he's targeted a vulnerable family - for years he's saved newspaper clippings about the Carlsson's family misfortunes, tragic deaths of family members have occurred, leaving magnate Thor Carlsson with just two daughters, so Corliss sets out to marry one, but kills her, then targets the other, under another name.  OK, but WHY does he kill the first daughter, just because she got pregnant?  He's willing to be a husband, but not a father?  I mean, I guess it's possible that somebody out there in the world might kill their girlfriend for this reason, but there are other ways out of this situation.  That's just who this guy is, apparently, his quick and easy solution to everything is to commit murder.  But is any murder quick or easy?  They all seem like a lot of work - and with all the planning that he's been doing over the years, he can't plan a better solution to anything than to kill?  This is verging on a NITPICK POINT here.  

This is based on a 1956 movie with Robert Wagner and Joanne Woodward, maybe that's why some of the plot elements seem a little outdated - and now it's been 30 years since this film came out, so it's kind of double-outdated.  You probably couldn't even say "abortion" in a 1956 film, and to have that carry over to 1991, it's a little odd.  But the murder has to happen to drive the plot forward, I guess.  Then Corliss has to kill again once twin sister Ellen starts investigating Dorothy's murder, just to cover up his first murder, and then he has to kill some random guy while hitchhiking just so he can use that man's identity going forward.  THEN he has to fake his own death, again, it just seems like a lot of work.  

We never see how he meets Ellen after that and starts dating her - presumably he starts volunteering with her street-level charity outreach organization in order to prove that he's a decent guy, but again, that's more work.  Does Corliss even have a job?  This just leads to more questions.  Obviously he's targeted a rich family, and once he's married to one of the daughters, he'll be on easy street, but he's got to support himself somehow during the courting process, right?  Then you've got to factor in the costs of disposing of bodies, those large suitcases probably aren't cheap at all.  

Corliss takes over the identity of Jay Faraday, another one of his victims - this also feels like something that would have been easier to do in 1956, but more complicated in 1991. What did he do about changing his driver's license, passport and other documents since he looked nothing like the previous Jay Faraday?  How did he get a marriage license under the new name without proper ID?  And then there's another NITPICK POINT about forensics and police work, which is fairly non-existent here.  Possibly in 1956 you could type up a phony suicide note, kill somebody to make it look like suicide, and that might be enough.  But in 1991, wouldn't the Philadelphia police department have dusted the victim's computer keyboard for fingerprints?  Wouldn't the NYPD have checked that hotel room drain for traces of blood?  What about the envelope that the suicide note was mailed in, wouldn't that have fingerprints or DNA from saliva?  

After all that, after Corliss/Faraday gets married to Ellen, he considers taking a job in the Carlsson copper company, working directly under his father-in-law.  WHAT?  All that was just to get a JOB, which means more work, all day, every day?  He's part of a rich family now, and now even after all the killing, he's got to work harder than ever?  This is probably due to the strained relationship between Ellen and her father, plus her desire to do charitable work that probably pays her very little, but her father BOUGHT them an apartment, he's still going to provide for them, he should be on Easy Street now and not have to worry about his career.  Besides, if he'd wanted a job, he could have had that banking job way back at the beginning. No, he'd rather commit a few murders and change his identity.  Why?  Because he's a sociopath, of course.  

Eventually Corliss is undone by a chance encounter with an old co-worker, plus he kind of forgot that there are still college yearbooks out there that still have his photo in them?  Plus for some reason he saved something in his old childhood room that detailed his entire plan for success.  How stupid - and convenient for anybody looking into his backstory.  I'm sorry, but there's a lot here that just doesn't add up, and I think a lot of the problems came from remaking the film without updating certain elements from the 1950's for the 1990's.  

Also, I don't know if this is a writing problem, an acting problem, or a directing problem, but I just found it very hard to take most of the actors seriously here. There was usually something in their delivery that made them hard to believe - and it's a little hard to pinpoint.  Maybe this was the style back in 1991, I don't know.  It's kind of like the problem some people have with Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen in the "Star Wars" prequels - the dialogue is there, but there's just a lack of emotion behind it.  Some people blame George Lucas for this, saying that he knew how to work with robots and alien creatures, but not human actors.  This feels a little bit like that, where Matt Dillon and Sean Young are concerned.  (Don't worry, Max von Sydow, you were fine...)

Also starring Sean Young (last seen in "Blade Runner 2049"), Max von Sydow (last seen in "Star Wars: The Force Awakens"), Diane Ladd (last seen in "28 Days"), James Russo (last seen in "Once Upon a Time in America"), Ben Browder, Martha Gehman (last seen in "Practical Magic"), Jim Fyfe, Lachele Carl, Joie Lee (last seen in "Summer of Sam"), Shane Rimmer (last seen in "Reds"), Adam Horovitz (last seen in "While We're Young", with cameos from Frederick Koehler (last seen in "The Circle"), Rory Cochrane (last seen in "White Boy Rick"), and archive footage of Bud Abbott, Lou Costello, Bela Lugosi and James Stewart (last seen in "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room")

RATING: 4 out of 10 Carlsson Copper train cars