Cela ne se produirait pas ici

This film is essentially Bergman does Hitchcock (in the mood of, say, "Foreign Correspondent," but darker . . . and yet with some moments of delightful humor). Bergman is making jabs here at the expected complacency of Swedish society in a situation in which malevolent foreign-based movements would be afoot. Beautifully photographed, and with splendid acting, this film is insightful, taut, intelligent, thought-provoking, and--to sum things up--most enjoyable, with no longueurs, no holes in the plot. Though for some reason Bergman himself ultimately didn't like it, that's no reason for this entertaining and enriching film to be unavailable. If you can find a screening, don't hesitate to partake of it!

This is perhaps the most obscure of Ingmar Bergman's films, allegedly recognized by himself who, dissatisfied with the result, successively opposed its exhibition and edition on video or DVD.

Myths aside, this is certainly an atypical film by the Swedish master. Halfway between a film noir and a Hitchcockian spy thriller, it still fails to captivate the viewer.

The plot is complex and confusing. It seems like a veiled allusion to the Soviet Union and the occupation of the Baltic countries. Are these the metaphorical small country that wanted peace and that was swallowed by the giant dictatorship? Probably. But the film is not clear. Denmark was also swallowed up by the Nazi giant, without offering a fight. Sweden itself was dragged into a humiliating neutrality, semi-collaborating with Nazi Germany, fearful of the Soviets. Only the Norwegians fought, eventually successfully, against the Nazis and the Finns withstood the Soviet offensive, before Moscow was forced to contain the Nazi invasion, abandoning the Finnish war, but holding the occupied territories in Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

In this entire political context, in the aftermath of World War II, to whom was Bergman's criticism directed? To Denmark? To his own guiltyly neutral Sweden? To the occupied Baltic countries? Most likely to all, mainly because they were not able to recover the independence of the occupied Baltic states after the end of the war.

But everything is assumptions. The film is purposely dark and disguised as a simple American thriller, with more form than content.

A minor work, in the very rich universe of Bergman's cinema.

In a small unknown land, some shenanigans are planned, by those whose doctrine's quite extreme and excessively underhand. There are spies and double crossings, lots of frothing layered with scoffing, bizarre capers, detailed papers, including lists by extreme shapers. Some chasing is not quite bracing, there's a rush and then some racing, with a man who ends up facing into a casing all embracing. In the end you've no idea, if you need to harbour fear, on the ship moored at the pier, where they find the estranged dear, who had the needle to adhere, as she approached from the blind rear (woman shrugging emoji).

You will be able to tear yourself away, is all I'll say.

"This Can't Happen Here" is possibly Ingmar Bergman's most obscure movie, so a viewer, upon finally getting the chance to see it, might be hopeful to discover a hidden gem; unfortunately, the film is obscure for a reason. It is a dull and disjointed spy "thriller" about...well, the story is hard to follow but as far as I can tell it's about a briefcase containing a list of planted enemy agents and a traitor who wants to sell the case to the Americans. A few embryonic traces of Bergman can be found in the occasional philosophizing, like in the scene that the title is derived from, but most of the film looks like a standard B spy programmer of the era, only in Swedish language. Don't get your hopes up too high for this one. ** out of 4.

I saw this at the 2018 London Film Festival. It was in the Treasures section, but this is no treasure, in fact it's a total dud. No wonder Bergman, a strong contender for the title of greatest auteur ever, didn't want it shown in his lifetime. This tale of espionage bears no relation to the rest of his work, and could have been made by any hack. He showed no enthusiasm for the material, and I can only assume that, having already notched up two divorces and five children, he was in dire need of money. The acting and camerawork are good, but tales involving fictional countries, and fights where the gun-toting villain is so easily disarmed, are frankly pathetic. Respect the great man's wishes and watch one of his masterpieces instead: there are so many.