teodorodontosaurus
It may sound strange, but my advice is to see the shorter version first in order to fully appreciate this. Being a "love it or hate it" type of movie, only then you can decide whether the longer version is worthy of your time or not.
I've seen the shorter version first and it left me hungry; it clearly feels rushed and incomplete; there are many moments that don't seem to interconnect very well. I admit, the cutting could have been done better for the shorter version; it feels too abrupt and affects the overall pacing. Nevertheless, it fueled my interest for the four-part miniseries; I wanted more details!
Just as I anticipated, the longer version is clearly superior because of the extraordinary character development and the inclusion of many key scenes.
It really feels that Bergman gave the very best of him and "squeezed" all his inspiration into the making of this movie. Everything here is extremely colorful and rich-textured. Indeed, the cinematography and dialogues (especially monologue scenes) are very reminiscent of the works of Andrei Tarkovsky. I must add that there are many semi-horror moments throughout the movie.
poetcomic1
I loved and watched and re-watched re-re-watched the theatrical release of Fanny & Alexander on its original VCR tapes years ago. I was so looking forward to the 'uncut' version as filmed for Swedish television and was appalled at how it dragged. My main complaint is that numerous aspects of the edited version are mysterious and intensely cinematic but become un-mysterious, explained, talky and boring in the long version. I have had F & A fans attack me about this but stand my ground. It is worth remembering that it is Ingmar Bergman who edited the theatrical version and made all the choices - word for word and scene by scene for what we see. Bluntly put, the long version 'explains' too much and in doing so, makes the viewer less intrigued and less involved. I give this a '10' but only for the 'movie' not the Swedish mini-series.
hannadunakin
Fanny and Alexander is truly an extraordinary film that is worth one's time. I cannot stress enough how much of a masterpiece this film was, and I won't let anyone tell me otherwise. The film version (which is what I saw) was actually the cut version. It was originally made as a four-part TV movie, that if watched all at the same time, would be a total of about 6 hours. Although very long, if it's at all like the movie, count me in!The beginning of the movie is a little slow. All the characters are being introduced, so the story isn't developed until Oscar Ekdahl passes away unexpectedly. Now before I continue, it's important to note that the Ekdahl family is very close. The one who keeps the family together is the grandmother Helena Ekdahl. She is passionate towards keeping her family together, especially during the holidays, which is like a marvelous party in the Ekdahl household. The Ekdahl family is so loving and wonderful, that they even consider their "help" family. The beginning of the film is based around Alexander and his imagination and thoughts. Fanny isn't truly introduced until Oscar's death, which was Fanny and Alexander's father. With almost no time to mourn, their mother Emilie Ekdahl marries the towns bishop, Bishop Edvard Vergérus, in hopes of starting a new life, little did she know, a completely new life is what she would get. Emilie, Fanny, and Alexander moved into the bishop's home where he lives with his mother, sister, sick aunt, and maids. The bishop makes it very clear that his new family could not interact with their "old" family, the Ekdahl's, and from there, things begin going down hill. Emilie thought that she would have the same loving and cherishing marriage and family like she did before, but she was wrong. Especially when she discovers the relationship between Alexander and the bishop. Alexander is abused and mistreated frequently, with no reason, and Fanny is always forced to watch. After such discovery, Emilie also finds out she is pregnant with the bishop's child.This movie made me cry, laugh, yell, and feel every emotion possible. I was hesitant to watch this film because I'm not a fan of reading subtitles, but Fanny and Alexander has definitely opened several cinema doors for me. I can safely say that this will not be my last foreign film. As much as I loved Ingmar Bergman's directing in this movie, I need to acknowledge the camera work by Sven Nykvist. He made the brilliant choice of having many wide shots of characters, which I thought really set the mood of each scene. Not only that, but he took advantage of the small spaces he had in some of the scenes by moving the camera around a lot. What was also outstanding was how the lighting was chosen throughout the entire film. It was always bright and cheerful in the Ekdahl household, but in the bishop's house, it was always dark and scary. Some beautiful art that shouldn't be left unnoticed.What I found quite interesting though was the fact that Fanny came first in the title of the movie, because the focus was mostly on Alexander, what he did and thought. Sometimes we would learn a little bit about Fanny, but only through Alexander. Might I remind you that Fanny isn't even really introduced until her father's death, and to top it off, she rarely speaks. So why was the decision made to put Fanny before Alexander? Is there a symbol or significant scene about Fanny that I missed? All in all, I would recommend this movie to any cinema lovers. It is a must see. If you didn't like foreign films before, you will after watching this film. It is powerful in so many aspects, and I promise, you will not be disappointed.
Mikael Kuoppala
A very broad story for Bergman, "Fanny & Alexander" contains a load of interesting themes and ideas, ranging from religion to sexuality to aging and the difficulty of growing up. It's visual style glows in warm tones of red, and the cavalcade of characters is diverse, with some nicely applied magical realism to spice things up even further.I did feel that the film kept the viewer at too great a distance to its characters, which are left a bit thin and vague for my taste. Could this be due to the alleged autobiographical components? Furthermore, I felt that the storytelling wasn't as tight or sharply directed as in Bergman's best masterpieces.
