Visage de femme

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.