sunheadbowed 'Trolösa' is the second film to be directed by Liv Ullmann that was written by Ingmar Bergman. That Bergman's DNA is all through the film is not a surprise: Ullmann was Bergman's dear friend, former lover and sometimes enemy, and her work -- and personal life -- will forever be linked with Bergman and his style; it's easy to believe that Ullmann learned all she knows about film-making from her years studying under one of the all-time greats. And she learned well, for she is a very fine director.Even by Bergman film standards, 'Trolösa' is bleak viewing. While so many of Bergman's films are about suffering and pain, there was rarely a feeling of absolute hopelessness at their core: the light shone through the darkness in moments of tenderness and beauty, especially in the eyes of his exceptional heroine actor-cum-martyrs, particularly Ullmann herself.There isn't any such redemption here, which features very strong acting from its three main characters (played by Lena Endr, Krister Henriksson and Thomas Hanzon) but no signs of warmth or hope to cling onto: all three are deeply unlikeable and selfish in their suffering. So much so, it's almost a relief when this long film ends and we're rid of them. It's hard not to feel for the actors because despite their talents this was a very tough script to transform into enjoyable viewing, and it largely fails in this regard.The only character that isn't unlikeable is played by the little girl, Isabelle (Michelle Gylemo), but unfortunately her character is so underwritten that she mostly plays the role of mute suffering in the background. And at the film's ending, after we learn that Marianne dies from drowning, we don't even get to find out what happens to the orphaned Isabelle -- her character is discarded like a prop, which, ironically, is how her parents treated her; yet we hear from dull David, who continues to feel sorry for himself, seemingly always finding new ways to be miserable.Considering what Isabelle went through (the messy dissolution of her parents' marriage and resulting instability, her mother and her new lover screaming at each other constantly, her father committing suicide and nearly taking her with him and finally her mother's death by drowning) she probably ended up in a loony bin.The most affecting and tender performance in the film is given by its best actor, the legendary Erland Josephson, star of countless Bergman films, playing an elderly Bergman wrestling with his demons and attempting to exorcise them the only way he knows how -- by writing films about them.

anikgol One of the best films I've seen. Liv Ullman does an excellent job directing Bergmans masterpiece of a manuscript. Hollywood has a lot to learn, with their cheesy garbage scripts, Hollywood and this movie represent two different solar systems. Stunning imagery, great acting, great direction and off course a manuscript that gives you sleepless nights. The actors are very well chosen, the use of light is intelligent and so is the tempo and rhythm of this film.The viewer is taken to a journey in humanities inner thoughts failures. Suicide and death is relevant as ever to the late Bergman who with his skills takes us through layers and (inner) layers of personalities and feelings these characters have. Feelings of love, betrayal, relationship and co-existence. Each of the characters are dynamic, complex and multi- dimensional and this is again enhanced through the great acting of the actors.Bravo Bergman and Ullman

frankkvinge When i first saw the movie i did not know that it was about Bergmans life,i still dont know what scenes was,or wasnt true to his life,but regardless it was a very suspensful movie it moves kind of slow (but never boring) with kind of typical scandinavian lifestyle,humor,sexual overtones. Marianne was very sexy (for an older lady,im only 33) too.The movie makes you think a lot, and youre not gonna forget the story in a long time, some parts you might remember for decades. It teaches you about temptations (adultery)if you follow them youre gonna get yourselves in a whole lot of trouble,ruin livesI was thinking about Knut Hamsun a lot through the whole movie,thinking that Bergmann had written a great movie just like the many he had directed by Hamsun, (i usualy dont like copy cats) but with his own twist. So when i found out that it was about Bergmans life ,i thought to myself that he must have lived his life like those movies.Great job by Liv Ullmann directing

Ruvi Simmons Faithless, although directed by Liv Ulmann, is undoubtedly a work stamped with Ingmar Bergman's approach to film-making. Equally, however, it is freighted with the pitfalls that many of his pieces fall prey to, and which make him, at time, an extremely frustrating artist. Occasionally, as with the Seventh Seal, one feels he truly is penetrating his subject, delivering a lyrical, profound meditation on the struggle for life and, conversely, against death. At other times, however, it feels as if he is not delving deep enough. Examples of this can be found in Summer With Monika and, to a lesser extent, Fanny and Alexander. The visuals are there, the story, the ideas, but no penetrative insights. Unfortunately, Faithless is marred by the same problem. To watch is like witnessing a pebble skimming the surface of an ocean; each time it looks and seems as if it will break the water and penetrate into the dark sea, it simply glances off the surface and skips onwards.One of the main problems with Faithless is the depth and fullness of the characters. This, of course, is absolutely crucial to the success or failure of a film or play, where there is no omniscient narrator who can illuminate the inner workings of the protagonists. One must rely solely on dialogue and action for insight into the inner workings of the characters, and hence as a means of developing sympathy and an emotional attachment to the events of their lives. In Faithless, the protagonists are never fully developed. Marianne, the female lead inexorably drawn to adultery at the expense of marriage and parenthood, David, her self-deprecating, destructive lover and Markus, her unstable husband, are all depicted as merely reactive, shallow individuals. Since they themselves have no insights into their actions, even when given the opportunity to soliloquise, their actions hold no interest, become tedious to witness, and convey no broader conceptual meanings. The viewer must merely watch them commit deeds without reason, react without reflection, and recall without observing.In addition, the plot of the film is, treated on its own, unremarkable, and covering ground already well trodden, not least of all by Bergman himself. It struck me as strange when viewing this film that a man as advanced in years and as seasoned as a cinematic artist should produce a piece so deeply pedestrian, particularly when some of his prior works have displayed obvious skill, intelligence and passion. Faithless could, irrespective of its bare bones plot, have been elevated beyond the level of mediocrity by the conveyance of a deeper level of meaning, but without this, it is little more than a well-crafted rendering of a familiar story. By no means bad, and certainly better than many films, it nevertheless fails to attain the level of excellence set by Bergman and other masters of the cinematic arts in the past.