Visage de femme

A few years ago I had the opportunity to see the two versions back to back on a big(ish) screen. It was a little film festival at Scandanvia House in NYC. They showed the original Swedish film first followed by the Hollywood monstrosity. There is just no comparison. Bergman is subtle and intense while Crawford is just Crawford. Don't get me wrong, JC was an amazing animal, but I would never call her a disciplined actor. She's all instinct and big, bold strokes. She's like an impressionist painting. You have to step back to see it. Up close it's just an ugly mess. Bergman, on the other hand, is like that Fragonard painting of the girl on the swing, with all the detail, depth and color. Each time you look at it, you see something different that you missed the last time.

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.

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.

This film, which was the original 1938 Swedish version of A WOMAN'S FACE (1941) later popularized by Joan Crawford at MGM. This original version made its US TV debut on Turner Classic Movies this past Friday night. Ingrid Bergman, before she came to America, is the lead as Anna Holm, a scarred black mailer who undergoes plastic surgery that changes her path and outlook on life. It's kind of hard to know if the acting is brilliant or not since it is all in Swedish with English subtitles, but the film holds your interest. It is different in many ways than the 1941 version, but also similar in others. Bergman's performance is comparable to Crawford's, but Bergman's disfigurement is more brutally realistic as are the stark atmosphere and settings in this version; MGM gave their version the usual glamour treatment. Overall, the film deserves 3 out of 4 stars and it's wonderful to finally see this on American TV.

I first caught this on TCM, then had to get the VHS tape. I was impressed by the role as Bergman as a tough who dominated a band of blackmailers. She was impressive in her bitterness, and, even though I don't understand Swedish her anger and self-pity came through very well.

The characteristic of people (anger+self-pity) is so common I appreciated how this was dealt with openly by the film and conveyed by Bergman. The doctor let her know that many warriors suffered as much or more without the woe-is-me attitude.

Something about her self-conscious placement of her hand over her face was very touching. From the doctor's analytic view he wasn't repulsed, but when he could see her facial scars were a source of her bitterness he resolved to change her appearance. The doctor didn't pull any punches though with a private challenge to her before the bandages came off.

And Bergman showed her ability to convey the fight against self pity when she harangued her little charge with a nasty rant of how she never got toys as a child. The boy's unaffected love, and need for love, was a sweet challenge and impetus to our struggling lady's emerging ability to turn outward.

To me, this portrayal of human growth and overcoming of life obstacles was nicely done. You will either feel for the disfigured woman or you will not. But her plight is universal.