L'infedele

One of the best films I've seen. Liv Ullman does an excellent job directing Bergmans masterpiece of a manuscript. Hollywood has a lot to learn, with their cheesy garbage scripts, Hollywood and this movie represent two different solar systems.

Stunning imagery, great acting, great direction and off course a manuscript that gives you sleepless nights. The actors are very well chosen, the use of light is intelligent and so is the tempo and rhythm of this film.

The viewer is taken to a journey in humanities inner thoughts failures. Suicide and death is relevant as ever to the late Bergman who with his skills takes us through layers and (inner) layers of personalities and feelings these characters have. Feelings of love, betrayal, relationship and co-existence. Each of the characters are dynamic, complex and multi- dimensional and this is again enhanced through the great acting of the actors.

Bravo Bergman and Ullman

An old alienated writer, in an empty house, on a barren seashore, is kept company by characters of his own making. A profound and poignant statement.

This is one of the last scripts Bergman ever wrote.

Heartrending. In the end, these fantasms finish telling him their tale and they leave him. When it's over, he is utterly alone. But, at the end, the camera drifts over and reveals the pages of his now finished book. One is left with the impression that though this is a bleak life, it is not one without meaning or value.

Beautiful performances.

Ingmar Bergman,as you may know it ,wrote the screenplay of Faithless.Bergman ,a great director and a writer-to me--he is more a `writer' than director.

Erland Josephson is Bergman 's best friend and favorite actor in Faithless he plays,well,Bergman!.Erland 's character is an aging film and theatre director who `conjures' up the ghost of Marianne(Lena Endre),an actress and ex lover ,who also became his muse.The film concentrates on her disastrous affair- years ago- with her husband's best friend and the terrible consequences for her own family(as the suffering of her child). Lena Endre is part of Ingmar Bergman troupe(she has worked with him in the theater) gives one of the most exhausting performance I ever seen!.she can seat next to Ingrid Thulin as one of the most captivating female actresses from Sweden(after Greta and Ingrid of course!).Liv Ullman(another Ingmar Bergman muse) in `Faithless',also gives something important:a tribute-- `homage'-- to this unique film-maker.Liv's directorial work it's strong -of course--she had learn from the best!.

Bergman's fascination -through his so productive- career has been the impossibility of relationship between a man and a woman;the egocentrism of an artist and also death.We tend to ` idealize' monogamy and fidelity.FAITHLESS is close to films like Scene from a Marriage,(starring Ullman) or Wild Strawberries(an aging man goes to a metaphysical journey).So ,my question is :was Ullman paying tribute to Bergman or this film is Bergman's gift to his long time muse?.I think is both.

See also Bergman's CRIES &WHISPERS.His tribute to all his important muses,women and actresses of his incredible career.

Anguish and uncertainty,just think of what this words means.Faithless is a complex film about many subjects: `adults' who can't have a connection.'complex woman'_one thing that I love about this film is how complicated the female psyche can be.and the perception of reality/fiction from an artist(he creates from his experience or it is based on fiction and fantasies?).Bergman_through close-up _ had show the `female GAZE'-that particular LOOK. In Faithless his woman sees an extraordinary old man,he is her confidant-she doesn't exist without him-(or viceversa?).Then, she vanishes. an artist can be very faithful with his own art,with his actresses ,with himself---this is a very powerful subject.FILMS are a prove that ghosts really exist,that characters are more alive than real people.Bergman and ULLMAN:faithful talents exploring the blurred line between an artist and his muse.Or when the muse surpasses the creator.(can this be possible?).A wife.A lover.A muse.all of this and more.

9/10

'Faithless', as a film experience, is both novel and old-fashioned. Novel, because films like this simply aren't being made today, films that take the length of an expensive historical epic to concentrate on the characters, emotions, words, experiences and largely interior milieux of a handful of people; people who are not grim, sword-wielding Romans or suave cannibals, just fundamentally decent, cultured people capable of horrendous acts for love, in a low-key, familiar, plausible, yet devastating way. It is a film that knows its audience will accept 2 1/2 hours devoted largely to talk and relationships; where anything sensational, like rape, suicide or murder, is kept off-screen.

'Faithless' is, however, curiously old-fashioned. This kind of film used to be a fairly regular staple of art-house production in the 1960s and 70s, the heyday of its screenwriter, Ingmar Bergman. A time when an audience with this level of patience and willingness to involve themselves in constructing the film's meaning was quite large and influential. Where carefully realised characters, places and dialogue were important; where subjects like marriage, divorce, grief, death, betrayal were explored in complex, understanding ways that never cheated on them for the sake of a quick ending.

Such a throwback is shocking. Even the arthouse alternatives of today have largely forsaken this mode of filmmaking for fear of being labelled unwieldly or -horrors - pretentious. it is not only pre-'STar Wars', but almost pre-post-modern; irony here is a creative tool, not a cop-out attitude. I'm not suggesting that films which privilege character and dialogue over plot and action are inherently superior, but it's nice to see one once in a while.

I know they're a hard sell. I desperately want you to see this film, but I can't promise that you'll be entertained or amused. We are asked to watch, for 154 minutes, the relentless dissolution of a marriage and the adulterous relationship; we are asked to watch characters analyse, torture themselves, seek emotional exits through self-pity and histrionics. We are asked to watch the effect of all this on a young child. We have to watch this path lead to some truly shocking climaxes. Even 'lollipops', such as the pleasure of the affair, the Parisian interlude etc., are soured by our foreknowledge of the events and their general outcome, if not details. There is no Hollywood softening through swelling music or redemptive epiphanies. The film's austerity, autumnal/wintry tone and self-reflexive formal apparatus reminds me of a late Beckett play, like'Ohio Impromptu' or 'That Time'. An old artist (in this case a filmmaker), emotionally paralysed for decades having taken the wrong decisions in a relationship through a monstrous pride and egotism, tries to unravel the processes that led him to his current shellshocked state.

The long, painful move towards understanding involves tortuous conservations with ghosts, memories, past selves, all filtered through, and thus compromised by his own subjective ego, his need to explain and expiate. The film we watch is also about the creation of the film we're watching. Self-reflexivity intrudes throughout - the film projector through the window behind Bergman; the characters all in the arts; the theatre settings; the allusions to Bergman's past works; the motif of the 'Magic Flute' magic box etc. - all emphasising the way characters perform and ritualise their genuine feelings; asking us how we interpret testimonies that are, in any case, the wranglings of a guilty man's head.

The film is such a bracing reminder of what cinema used to do, you're prepared to forgive its faults - the neatness of the plot, especially, tending predictably towards a harrowing, yet cathartic, revelation. Like Francois Ozon's brilliant Fassbinder adaptation 'Water Falling on Burning Rocks', Ullman's Bergman pastiche cannot fully replicate the power of the original; audiences couldn't handle it, we've been intellectually softened. The climax is harrowing, but contained - think of the true horrors of a film like 'Cries and Whispers'. Bergman would never let us, or the character Bergman, off so easily.

But this is Ullmann's picture, and the way she films a scene like Marianne's revelation about her nocturnal plea-bargaining with her husband, or the earlier, squirmingly comic scene where he discovers the lovers in flagranto delicto, have an empathetic, non-exploitative tact that may have been beyond her master.

The performance by Lena Endre was the best I have seen this decade. And the facial nuances of Erland Josephson were superior as well. All in all, the acting surpassed the totality of the movie per se; but, still this is a movie well worth seeing. I wish the US would produce films like this.