Une femme suédoise entame une liaison avec un archéologue étranger. Mais c'est un homme marqué émotionnellement, un survivant juif d'un camp de concentration, par conséquent, leur relation s... Tout lireUne femme suédoise entame une liaison avec un archéologue étranger. Mais c'est un homme marqué émotionnellement, un survivant juif d'un camp de concentration, par conséquent, leur relation sera douloureusement difficile.Une femme suédoise entame une liaison avec un archéologue étranger. Mais c'est un homme marqué émotionnellement, un survivant juif d'un camp de concentration, par conséquent, leur relation sera douloureusement difficile.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 1 nomination au total
- Secretary to Andreas Vergerus
- (non crédité)
- Hospital Matron
- (non crédité)
- English Civil Servant
- (non crédité)
- Anders Vergerus
- (non crédité)
- Karin's Mother
- (non crédité)
- Dr. Holm
- (non crédité)
- Museum Employee
- (non crédité)
- Agnes Vergerus
- (non crédité)
- The Archeologist
- (non crédité)
- Bellboy
- (non crédité)
- Therapist at Museum
- (non crédité)
- Therapist
- (non crédité)
- Woman on Stairs
- (non crédité)
Avis à la une
Karin (Bibi Andersson, one of Bergman's key actresses) lives a rather calm, routine life with her husband Andreas (Max von Sydow) and their two children. After her mother dies (which I suppose sets up her emotional indecisiveness for the film), she meets David (Elliot Gould), and the two slowly begin an affair. But David is not the most stable of people, and it shakes Karin up at first. Soon they fall in love, but are separated, the sort of usual machinations with an infidelity story begin to unfold, and yet not losing the emotions from before. The three key actors of the film, Andersson, Von Sydow, and Gould, seem to live in these characters, and especially Gould (for whom this would be his only role with the director) conveys a sort of double nature that is also within Karin. His performance is one that I would put in a list of his best- you can tell everything he wants and fears in his face and actions, within the careful framing, this is a man on the edge. Bergman had once described Gould as a "difficult" actor to work with, but that tension came out the right way on screen, at least from my perspective.
As I mentioned, in lessor hands this could become a further melodrama, and part of the films refusal to subvert to that category is a credit to not only Bergman, but to cinematographer Sven Nykvist. Whenever I see a film with their collaboration (or even if it's Nykvist with, perhaps, a lessor director), I always watch for how Nykvist moves the camera. How seamlessly he follows these characters, and in their darkest recesses he lights them like the light and control on their faces is part of the writing. A lot of times (appropriately so) one may not even feel the presence of the camera, as if Nykvist doesn't even have a technique. But it is here where not only does he and Bergman go with their touches of light and dark, they also go for a documentary feel in the production.
Basically, this is an experiment for Bergman, as it is for his fans to endure. He's experimenting with a genre done hundreds of times, he experiments with music (unlike some of his dramas, which includes Bach or Mozart, here it's kind of pop-sounding for the period), and he experiments with his cast this time around. Is it as powerful and awe-inspiring as his "trilogy" or his other great works? Probably not. But it is unfortunately panned down as a lessor work of his, which isn't necessarily true. The film also needs to be seen by more people of today, as it is virtually impossible to buy on video or DVD. A-
The point of the film cannot be to show how two contrary characters complement each other, as Andersson was even more happy with von Sydow before and because it's all told in such a detached manner. The portrait of a love would like to involve the spectators to convey the joy and pain of it. Instead the question why Andersson turns away from von Sydow toward Gould seems intentionally perplexing. The dialogues and acting of the lovers is cerebral and cold, as if they were reciting dazedly on a stage, astounding themselves with their actions and feelings. As if they were actuating on an impulse isolate from their personalities. This impulse or drive is not eros, as especially at the beginning of their affaire sex is more a problem than a fulfilment to these two diffident lovers. Maybe love or the need to feel and give love is itself such a drive, an autonomous thing asserting itself regardless of the circumstances and the characters involved.
The central metaphor of the film is a medieval wooden statue of Mary, recently excavated after being buried for centuries - like Gould's and Andersson's potential to be lovers or man and woman. But with the disinterment of the Mary there also come alive insect larvae inside her, corroding her from within. Before they meet Gould attempted suicide and Andersson was reduced to a wife. They flower in their new love and it destroys their lives.
Civilization means in many ways the domestication of our impulses. Therefore Andersson realizes that she must not harm lastingly her family and Gould's hidden wife/sister. This is true. But Gould is telling her that she is lying to herself by not eloping with him and he's right, too.
After having just finished watching it, I can say I was very pleasantly surprised with the film. A lot of the things said about it are just plain false -- the plot is very much in keeping with Bergman's other material. A married woman, Karin (Anderson), falls in love with a disturbed architect, David (Gould), and the two begin an emotionally confused love affair. Karin is caught between her happy bourgeois life with her husband (Sydow) and children, and her passionate, unconventional relationship with David. Acting in bad faith, Karen refuses to choose between her two lives, though both David and her husband eventually push the decision on her. Like most Bergman films, its a psychological roller coaster and a bleak portrayal of the coarseness of human relationships.
Bibi Anderson does a wonderful job in a very difficult role, and Max von Sydow plays the part of the honest and good intentioned husband very well, playing hard on the viewer's sympathies. The stiff performance of Gould echoes that of Carradine in "The Serpent's Egg," so it must unfortunately be attributed to Bergman's struggle with directing in English, not on Gould himself. If I recall, the film was made in both Swedish and English, both versions filmed at once, which poses obvious production difficulties which might account from the some times mechanical treatment of the script.
The film has an excellent pace to it, and moves very swiftly and smoothly, wonderfully shot by Nykvist in a way very similar to "The Passion of Anna." Unlike a lot of Bergman's depressing work in the 1970s, I felt good about the film when it was over.
I don't know why this film has such a poor reputation -- I'm very much baffled after having seen it. My guess is the obvious mistake of having made it in English accounts for most of this.
Its seems a lot like Bergman's other work in this period. Very Good.
It's not the most engaging piece of cinema from the maestro, Bibi Andersson is as gorgeous as ever and presents Karin in a way only she could. As for Elliot Gould, I'm not sure he really fills the role, cultural European Arthouse cinema is not what I would ever associate him with, and it shows, especially if you compare him to the legacy of legends that have preceded him.
Title (Brazil): `A Hora do Amor' (`The Hour of the Love')
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesLast collaboration between Ingmar Bergman and Max von Sydow.
- Citations
Sara Kovac: Are you going to have a baby? Is it David's child or your husbands?
Karin Vergerus: Does it matter?
- ConnexionsFeatured in Citizen Schein (2017)
Meilleurs choix
- How long is The Touch?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
Box-office
- Montant brut mondial
- 6 446 $US
- Durée1 heure 55 minutes
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1