INGMAR BERGMAN's Fanny & Alexander QUESTION

[Super Baby]

I have just finished watching Inmar Bergman's 1983 film Fanny & Alexander.
I thoroughly enjoyed this film and look forward to seeing it again in the
near future.
I now want to address a section of the film that confuses me. The section
I am referring to is Fanny and Alexander's escape from the Bishop's palace.
When Uncle Isak (the Jewish friend of the family) goes to buy a chest from
the Bishop (Fanny and Alexander's step-father) while sneaking the children
out in the chest.
We first see the children come down the stair case from their locked room
being lead by their Jewish friend. At the bottom of the staircase they
both climb into the waiting chest and hide under a black cloth inside while
the Bishop counts his new profit in his office. When the Bishop returns he
notices nothing. After some conversation with the Jewish rescuer the
Bishop explodes accusing the Jewish friend of trying to steal his children.
The Bishop charges upstairs to the children's room. The Jewish man stays
behind and falls to his knees while screaming and looking to the ceiling.
At the same time a bright white glowing light falls upon the rescuers face.
We then cut to the Bishop busting into the children's room. Here he is
transfixed on "THE CHILDREN" who we just saw climb in the box! The Bishop
then turns around and finds his wife proclaim, "Don't touch them!" The
Bishop then returns down stairs and finds the Jewish man leaving with his
new chest (Filled with two children). The bishop only stares at the man
leaving.
Now what happened here? Did a divine power fool the Bishop? What was the
mother doing in the children's room? Did the Jewish man have some magical
power?
Please help. I am looking for any comment or answer to my concern....

Thanks,
klun...@gac.edu

[Chris J. Robinson]

First of all, there is a six hour version of the film that was originally
shown on Swedish television. But this has nothing to do with your query.

All I can say is watch other Bergman films: Wild Strawberries, Persona,
Hour of the Wolf, After the Rehearsal (to name but a few). You will find
a somewhat similar theme throughout: the dream...

Bergman carries this thematic baggage from his August Strindberg roots (he
was a infamous Swedish playwright who was completely batty, but did write
a great many fine plays (Miss Julie, A Dream Play etc..) He loved to use
confound naturalists with his use of dream imagery, where quite often in
his plays, you have no idea whether you are or are not in a dream. You may
have noticed at the end of Fanny and Al, that the grandmother is reading a
Strindberg play to her daughter in law. This is A DREAM PLAY. The line she
reads...Anything can happen. Time and Space do not exist (I may not be
spot on with my quote here). Anyway I think it's a wonderful line about
the freedoms of the imagination. The infinite possibilities..etc..

Anyway, I'll cut my "essay" off there. The scene can be what ever you want
it to be. Did Alexander dream it? If so, then is the rest of the play a
dream? Remember while he was wishing for the Bishop's death, the bishop
was in fact dying. Does Ismael possess dark powers? Did God respond to
Alexander's wishes? Does the film only exist within the mind of Alexander?

Of course, there is also the whole HAMLET analogy.....

Sorry I think I've gone over the top here, but I think you get the point.
Check out Strindberg for the better understanding. And remember, Bergman
often referred to FANNY as part Ghost story.

Chris

[Keith Howie]

klun...@gac.edu (Super Baby) wrote:

> I have just finished watching Inmar Bergman's 1983 film Fanny & Alexander.
> I thoroughly enjoyed this film and look forward to seeing it again in the
>near future.
> I now want to address a section of the film that confuses me. The section
>I am referring to is Fanny and Alexander's escape from the Bishop's palace.
> When Uncle Isak (the Jewish friend of the family) goes to buy a chest from
>the Bishop (Fanny and Alexander's step-father) while sneaking the children
>out in the chest.

>snip, snip

I saw F&A for the first and (so far) only time a few years ago before
I was very familiar with Bergman and his films. Thus I am sure a lot
of what was in it went over my head. Your query rekindled my interest
in the film and I intend to see it again soon. I expect that it will
make a lot more sense (and be more enjoyable) than it did (was) the
first time.

Anyway, I went to a book that I bought some time ago but have never
read all the way through. It is "God, Death, Art, and Love: The
Philosophical Vision of Ingmar Bergman" by Robert E. Lauder. The
following is a quote from it:

"...the stern, sterile bishop is the typical representative of
institutional religion in a Bergman film. ... He is contrasted with
the warm loving Isak, who eventually, through magic, rescues Alexander
from the clutches of the bishop. However Alexander, who is some kind
of stand-in for young Ingmar, articulates a view of God which sums up
Bergman's emotional reaction to his perception of his stern religious
upbringing. Much of F&A recalls what Steene (?) has identified as the
sensuous and magic world associated with the apartment of Bergman's
grandmother. But the other stern and moralistic world is also
present, and the God who represents that world is rejected by
Alexander. etc., etc."

I know this doesn't answer the question you posed, but maybe it will
provide some insight that will help you understand the scene better.
As I said, the circumstances under which I saw the film don't allow me
to make an intelligent commentary on the scene you describe or the
text I have quoted above. I do recommend the book, though.

Keith

[Chris J. Robinson]

I just want to offer a different perspective on the Lauder book. It is one
of the worst books written on Bergman. A thoroughly unimaginative and
limited interpretation. Like a lot of theorists (if he can be called that)
he takes what he needs from Bergman's work (like Peter Cowie) and fits it
into his theory. He then throughs the rest out. I remember Bergman saying
in BERGMAN ON BERGMAN that academics like to try and fit square pegs into
round holes.

I wish I could be more precise in my condemnation of the book, but I gave
it away seconds after finishing it. If it serves any purpose it stands as
an inspiration to anyone lacking the confidence to write an academic piece.

I seem to recall that like a lot of Bergman criticism it is ahistorical
and chooses to ignore any film he made before SEVENTH SEAL.

Better readings on Bergman:

Philip Mosley: CINEMA AS MISTRESS
Peter Harcourt: Six European Directors
Frank Gado: PASSION of Ingmar Bergman. Gado pychoananalytical approach is
somewhat tedious, but he does deal with every film Bergman made.
Robin Wood: Ingmar BErgman....Poor Robin has wilted as a critic now (see
his attrocious writings in the "marxist" journal, CINEACTION.How one can
live in the upper middle class range AND be a Marxist is beyond me!) :)

books to avoid:

Anything by Peter Cowie. Somehow this guy worked his way into the
Scandanavian scene. Possibly one of the worst writers. Now, given that he
has written a few books on Bergman...this leaves some wholes..

Also check out Bergman's auto-bios, MAGIC LANTERN and IMAGES. Somewhat
romantic (but hey, this is Bergman!) recollections, but very enjoyable
nonetheless.

Anyway I'm sorry that I couldn't be more precise in my condemnation of
Lauder's farce, but get it out of the library and see for yourself.

Actually, to sort of sum up, there is a serious lack of good critical
writing about Bergman's work. Academics have, and maybe this is good,
failed to transfer his work from the "humanities" to the post
structuralist movement. Generally, the pomo movement rejects Bergman and
Fellini because "peg" won't fit into the "hole", largely due the
humanistic attitudes of both, which is now unfashionable in academic
circles, where you must repress your own thoughts in favour of what
Barthes, Focault, Baudrillard and the rest of the French crew think. These
academics remind me of Tom Townshend, the character METROPOLITAN. At one
point he says that he doesn't need to read a book to have an opinion on
it and that he prefers to read Literary criticism because that way he gets
the two views: the essay writer and the author. That my friends sums up a
lot of academics today.

Once again, I have move outside of the discussion. :)

I would like to hear why you liked Lauder's book, KEith. I should add that
I was writing a piece on Bergman at the time and may have been overly
hostile towards his book, though I recall that it encouraged me to keep
writing.

Chris

[Don Weinman]

In <klundqui-2...@server-06.slip.gac.edu> klun...@gac.edu

(Super Baby) writes:
>
> I have just finished watching Inmar Bergman's 1983 film Fanny &
Alexander.
> I thoroughly enjoyed this film and look forward to seeing it again in
the
>near future.
> I now want to address a section of the film that confuses me.
The section
>I am referring to is Fanny and Alexander's escape from the Bishop's
palace.
> When Uncle Isak (the Jewish friend of the family) goes to buy a chest
from
>the Bishop (Fanny and Alexander's step-father) while sneaking the
children
>out in the chest.

You have received some fascinating, but ambiguous, answers. Here's mine
and it is straightforward.

Yes. It was divine power, Issac was praying and his prayers were
answered since he is a good man, the mother and the children are good
people, and the Bishop (for all his Godlike posturing) is not.

The others who answered you are not wrong, but I think they are making
more of the situation than Bergman did. <g>

DPW

[Chris J. Robinson]

Don Weinman (dwei...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>
> You have received some fascinating, but ambiguous, answers. Here's mine
> and it is straightforward.
>
> Yes. It was divine power, Issac was praying and his prayers were
> answered since he is a good man, the mother and the children are good
> people, and the Bishop (for all his Godlike posturing) is not.
>
> The others who answered you are not wrong, but I think they are making
> more of the situation than Bergman did. <g>

Perhaps, but author intentions are often boring and limited. You cannot
ignore the social context of Bergman's work. Bergman was a HUGE Strindberg
reader, thus, while you're interpretation may be right, it ignores a large
element of Bergman's cultural roots. I say there is no logical answer and
that rather than seeking finality, read Strindberg and watch earlier
Bergman films. If there is an answer, it will be found there. But it won't
be one but many.

[Keith Howie]

aj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Chris J. Robinson) wrote:
>I would like to hear why you liked Lauder's book, KEith.

[God, Death, Art, and Love: The Philosophical Vision of Ingmar
Bergman]

> I should add that
>I was writing a piece on Bergman at the time and may have been overly
>hostile towards his book, though I recall that it encouraged me to keep
>writing.

I only recommended it; I didn't say I liked it. I also said that I had
never read it all the way through. But, seriously, any book that helps
to clarify (or at least stimulate) one's thoughts about a subject as
complex and as given to multiple (and conflicting) interpretations as
Bergman's films can't be all bad, even if one disagrees with much of
what is contained in it. I seem to recall that Bergman has given few
insights into how specific scenes in his films should be interpreted.
While I don't consider this as license to interpret a scene anyway one
wants to, I think there can often be several valid, but contradictory,
interpretations. This is what makes discussing these types of films
so much fun.

Another poster has expressed an opinion that we are making too much
of this particular scene. He may be right.

Keith

[josh.c...@gmail.com]

Isak’s nephew makes puppets. The children upstairs are lying on the floor and their mother says don’t touch them and the children neither move nor speak. It might be magic but the logical explanation is that the “children” upstairs are puppets that look like Fanny and Alexander

[jwd...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 29, 1995 at 12:00:00 AM UTC-7, Super Baby wrote:
> Here he is
> transfixed on "THE CHILDREN" who we just saw climb in the box! The Bishop
> then turns around and finds his wife proclaim, "Don't touch them!" The
> Bishop then returns down stairs and finds the Jewish man leaving with his
> new chest (Filled with two children). The bishop only stares at the man
> leaving.

> Now what happened here? Did a divine power fool the Bishop? What was the
> mother doing in the children's room? Did the Jewish man have some magical
> power?
> Please help. I am looking for any comment or answer to my concern....
>
> Thanks,
> klun...@gac.edu

I first went with the puppet theory, then I rewatched it again. There is clearly a cinematic "break" or transition with Uncle Isak's lighting when he screams. To me that signaled a "cut" or transition with reality. I could still be puppets.

But it could also be that F&A never made it out of their nursery prison and feigned sleep to fend off the Bishop. The rest of the movie is Alexander's fantasy until the morning back at Ekdahl House.

The scene with Ismael and s/he being the innermost thoughts and wishes of Alexander and eventually obliterating himself to be part of Alexander, and the precise narration of events from lantern toppling to the Bishop's burning death were part of Alexanders conscious interpretation at the parsonage while escaping with his family.

My thoughts.