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.

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.

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.

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.

"A Woman's Face" starred Ingrid Bergman in Sweden; in the U.S. MGM gave the lead role to Joan Crawford when Greta Garbo turned it down.

It's the story of Anna Holm, a scarred woman, both physically and emotionally, who is in league with crooks and blackmailers. During a botched blackmail/robbery of a cheating wife, Anna falls, hurts her ankle, and comes under the care of the woman's husband, who reconstructed faces injured in World War I.

Well, it's Ingrid Bergman, and as rotten as she looks as the brittle, bitter disfigured woman, at 23 she was a goddess once her face was repaired. She takes a job as a governess to a little boy in a wealthy family, a position originally arranged by her team - and the orders she is given by them are nefarious.

"A Woman's Face" is the story of a woman changed by being able to love and accept love. The MGM version and the Swedish version are both dramatic, exciting, and hold one's interest.

Both films are very good, with the supporting cast at MGM superior to the Swedish one. After all, you can't beat Conrad Veidt when he's evil. Bergman and Crawford have different takes on the role, as you can imagine. Bergman is more pathetic - she is made to look dreadful, and she's more subtle and vulnerable in the role. Crawford has the MGM treatment so her deformity is less; she has the bitterness and strength of the character down in a more overt performance. I enjoyed both actresses.

The sound was off in the Swedish version, which gave me a headache. I couldn't figure out if the dialogue was five minutes behind the action, or if there were sections with no sound and lips moving. A little of both, I think. Nevertheless, it was well worth watching.