A Mulher que Vendeu a Alma

They say this version is not very different from the American remake three years later, but it's not true. Only the basic structure and skeleton are the same. This is an entirely different story of an entirely different character, and Ingrid Bergman is entirely different from Joan Crawford. Actually these two different versions of the same story compliment each other just by their differences, and both have advantages to the other version. George Cukor's direction is more efficient and professional, while this Swedish version is more formal and almost documentary in its straight story-telling. There is no murder trial here and no murder, as there is no villain like Conrad Veidt, and the villain here (Georg Rydeberg) is rather an amateur whose schemes fail by sheer bad luck. The American version is more striking in its grandiose dramaturgy, it is a better written script, while this Swedish version more carefully follows the original French novel. Most would prefer Ingrid Bergman in this role though to the more imposing Joan Crawford. Bergman gives a very special touch to her character by her total conversion from a cold-blooded ruthless gangster spitfire to a very soft motherly heart of great sensitivity. This could be criticized as hardly convincing, but it is the core of the drama: a woman changes character by acquiring a face for the first time in her life after earlier having been doomed as a monster by her disfigurement. The role of the doctor is also more interesting here (Anders Ek) who is perhaps the most interesting character of all, finally setting out for mission work with the Red Cross in China, giving the film a completely different end than the Hollywood version. In brief, both versions are of supreme lasting interest, both for the sake of Joan Crawford and Ingrid Bergman and for their very different twists of the tale.

Disfigured Ingrid Bergman is a member of a blackmail ring. When getting the payoff of one of their "clients", she is caught by the woman's husband, a doctor, who performs plastic surgery on her and leaves her looking like.... well, like Ingrid Bergman. However, the ring's newest scam is on. The wastrel nephew of a rich man wants his own six-year-old nephew knocked off, and the gang agrees to do so for money down and a quarter of the inheritance. Miss Bergman takes the job, but with a new face comes a new her....

It's a bravura performance, just the sort that actors love, and Miss Bergman, only 23 years old, is up to the challenge, as she gradually changes. None of the other younger actors are up to her level; they all seem strident and melodramatic in comparison to her. Anders Henrikson, as the compassionate doctor, is the only actor who seems at her level, and their scenes together raise this from an improbable melodrama to high art.

It was her last film with Gustaf Molander, and by the following year, she was in Hollywood, remaking INTERMEZZO for Selznick. MGM would buy the rights to this story and remake it poorly with Joan Crawford in the lead role.

Well, it has a European feel and does not hinge itself on a court-case melodrama like the Joan Crawford version which is molded in the shape of the weepies of the twenties, thirties and forties hollywood. Bergman is not very good in this, especially when her face is scarred. Her performance is a bit too bitter, too harsh, a little exaggerated. She is much better when her face has been reconstructed and gently turning heel and keel as the boy's nanny. An ending of doubt and uncertainty which marks this version is missing from the Hollywood version. I would say the hollywood version is much more perfect and rounded; and definitely, Joan Crawford's performance is better. You can only change the outside, it is only you that can change the inside, is the core/moral of both versions and in that way, both of the stories succeed. One is done with Hollywood cliches and the other with the Swedish/Nordic arty/ realist style of European cinema. Both are different by the look but at heart the same movie.

What a wonderful film to discover on TCM Imports. A textured and powerful performance by a very young Ingrid Bergman, and sterling work by a great cast. Everyone plays their part perfectly and the writing is stellar. The details of the story are not important. It's the amazing acting by Bergman that will stay with me long after seeing this film. I've rated the film a 9, but Ingrid's performance is a solid 10. Highly recommended for lovers of good film.

Before I write this review, I must confess that I watched the Hollywood version of this film (with Joan Crawford) before I took a look at this one. Personally like to watch the remake before the original, to see how well it stands on its own as a film.

A Woman's Face stood damn fine on its own as a film- true, I am a fan of Crawford and not a //huge// fan of Bergman (I liked her in some roles, i.e. Cactus Flower and Gaslight, but wouldn't consider her a favourite), but the Hollywood A Woman's Face definitely is not a bad film. And neither is this one. I enjoyed both immensely. They were both wonderful- comparing the acting styles of Bergman and Crawford is like comparing a fish to an apple. They're definitely not the same.

There are some differences between En kvinnas ansikte and A Woman's Face (well, der, one's in Swedish and one's in English) other than the performances of the respective leads in their respective films: En kvinnas ansikte is much less lushly produced, but the dialogue oddly seems much more stilted in places.

There is no romantic attachment between the doctor and the character of Anna Holm in this version, but there was in the remake (minor spoiler). The sleigh ride where Tornsten Barring tries to kill Lars-Erik is much more disastrous in this version as well- in the remake, Crawford gets to wield her revolver. As well, this story is told all in a straight line, whereas the remake is faintly film-noiresque in that it starts in a courtroom and the story is told through flashbacks. Neither film has an outright happy ending.

Bergman is much better in the second half of this film than she is in the first. True, her scar makeup was more grotesque than Crawford's, but at the same time it looked more artifical. She looked like Gollum on one side and Ingrid Bergman on the other.

I also don't buy Ingrid Bergman as embittered or menacing, so her transition was a relief, because she actually got to do some acting. I bought Anna Paulsson the newly moraled governess more than I did Anna Holm the bitter gangster when Bergman was playing them. She is given a lot of lush closeups and flattering camera angles (think there was some soft focus in there).

One flaw the film does have is that some of the supporting actors are rather hammy (watch the film and you'll see which ones I mean). As well, while the cinematography is excellent, the editing isn't. Those are very minor things. I also did feel that there was a bit of a lull in the film about halfway through, but now I'm nitpicking.

Overall, highly recommended. Watch the original and the remake back to back.