I have to suggest the opposite.

I found it a fascinating venture to watch the movie and then theorize as to which parts were expanded in the miniseries (and hope/wish that these were expanded)... Each time I thought that a particular scene could have easily been longer, the longer cut delivered (while leaving those that I was content with the same)...

You can only experience the film for the first time once, why experience it in the expurgated version. The film version is a curiosity, not a starting point.

The full cut is clearly the only answer. I don't see any reason why dividing the film into episodes is any problem. It's obvious that it was the way the film was conceived, and the theatrical cut is missing far too much for me to look at it as anything other than a curiosity, as stated above.

Ditto for the equally wonderful Scenes from a Marriage.

Truth, and as far as the segmentization goes, watch it as Bergman intended: Watch disc one, break to eat dinner, go back and watch disc two.

Thanks for the info, I was going to watch the theatrical version but will definitely start with the longer version. Anyways I hear Fanny and Alexander is one of his most accesible films, but I can't see it being as great as Wild Strawberries, because I honestly don't think any other film hits my emotions as hard as that did. I am also debating on whether to go with The Eclipse of Early Bergman or The Film Trilogy from Criterion as my next purchase.

A Film Trilogy is roughly a million times better than Early Bergman

Accessible? Yes, I can see that, but hopefully you don't translate that as lesser. It's not nearly as "austere" or "experimental" as some of the films that marked the two decades or so prior, but it has this youthful sensibility, no doubt since the film revolves around Alexander, and with a boy at the center, and with Berman strongly identifying with him, it develops a great supernatural-fairy-tale atmosphere, and a nostalgic sense of childhood (without the sentimental b.s. that usually comes with it) which I find makes the film a lot warmer and inviting than the most of his work.

For the most part, I consider what I've seen of the Early Bergman to be for completists only. Bergman is an example of a director whose career started out completely lackluster and forgettable then took off (with Summer Interlude arguably the beginning of the Bergman we know). You're better off checking out every post-51 Bergman you can find before you settle down with the Eclipse box.

Were did you hear about that approach? I would have thought one episode at a time, or even one act at a time (two different acts in Episode 2) Either with breaks in between, or a different act each evening for five days.

If I remember correctly, Bergman himself said that about going to dinner after the first half, it's somewhere on the extras. But I honestly found it very difficult to stop watching this film after disc1, so I ended up watching it almost without any break at all. And I wouldn't say it's less emotionally compelling than "Strawberries", on the contrary. It has a similar humanity and nostalgia for the most part, but is almost more overwhelming due to the violence of the father and Bergman's constantly highlighting the glories of theatre. I think this was a film that was very close to his heart in many respects, and it shows. Also the cinematography and the colours are so stunning that you hardly want to leave the film before its over. Watching it as a whole in one go is a somewhat exhausting experience, of course, but well worth it. Somehow I wasn't able to sleep the night after it, because my mind was replaying constantly what I had just seen, so be warned.

This is a Xmas favourite in our household and the shorter theatrical version has been a standby when fidgety Mother-in-laws and the like have been present. But regarding your point Tom, I too thought this was a highly personal affair that he invested a huge amount of energy and emotion into.
I was therefore slightly taken aback if not saddened when he ruefully described it as a bit of a soap in one of his last interviews. Perhaps he was being Puckish but it seemed genuinely to have slipped in his own estimation.

Well, in a certain way I thought the same (it being 'soap' in a Bergman way), because it clearly isn't as relentless and concentrated as, say, "Cries and Whispers" or "Marionettes", and perhaps he thought it was simply too plainly 'beautiful'. But Bergman indeed could be 'puckish', and was hardly the best judge of his own films. There are many films that he and others downright dismissed in later years which I nevertheless liked, e.g. "All these women", which must be the most-hated of all of Bergman's films (I always think I'm the only person in the world who actually likes it). But after all, I can't think of any Bergman film that I didn't like at all apart from "Serpent's Egg", and that is a film I only find bad in comparison to his other works.
But "F&A" clearly is a favourite, though I can't imagine this to be Christmas viewing. It's extremely beautiful, but still far too dark for the occasion. Not exactly a 'feel good' movie.

Half our family is Polish the other Scottish. We don't do 'feel good' for Xmas and F and A is a favourite here too.

It's common for this film to be taken out at Christmas for my family too. I think it's cause were a bunch of cynical alcoholics - or let it get the better of us every Christmas.

I watched the first episode of "Fanny and Alexander" on Christmas Eve this year. One of the things that I love most about those sequences -- apart from the virtuoso introduction of the various members of the Ekdahl family -- is how they evoke this wonderful sense of nostalgia for childhood in general, and Christmas Eve in particular. There's something so familiar with a sprawling family Christmas, with everyone -- flaws, jealousies, and all -- exposed and shining.

Where I live, Fanny & Alexander in longer cut is one of the traditional Christmas time films in tv. Few years ago there was a period when they didn't air it, but then they began to show it again. It could be because the party at the beginning of the film is shown in a very nostalgic way (Sweden is our neighbor and the Christmas traditions in our countries are very alike) and especially for the older viewers it brings back memories from childhood.

Interview with Bertil Guve.

I remember when I was working at my local video store during the winter holidays, people kept asking for this movie. It must be like that in many places.

I gave in and rented the 3-hour cut from the library, because it's the only one they have. In one way, it's entirely different from the rest of his films (at least, the ones I have seen), but in another way, it's similar, perhaps just a different realm in his world of film. A more sentimental realm.

You missed out.

So did the hundreds of Americans who first saw it in theaters in the 80's. At some point I'll see the full version and it won't make a tip of difference which one I saw first.

Sure, but it will give you a completely different perception and perhaps opinion of the film. The great qualities of "F&A" are the details, the slow-going but caring view Bergman gives us of his characters, the emotional intensity that is created by this. This isn't exactly lost in the theatrical version, but is much more impressive in the long one.

I prefer the 3 hour cut. Bergman's one of those directors who insists on showing you everything, which makes him very hit and miss for me. (probably the reason why my favorites of his - Sawdust and Tinsel, Winter Light, Virgin Spring, Persona - run 90 min and under).

The chopped down version of F&A creates ellipses which give a sense of a world continuing offscreen, which I think works beautifully for the subject matter.

Having seen both, I have to say that the brief fantastic moments from the 5-hour version, particularly the frightening glimpse of Death in the beginning are sorely missed. I did not think the cut scenes were Bergman showing everything at all, but rather they served to render the characters in even greater detail. Another very long film, Fassbinder's Alexanderplatz spent so much time developing its characters (and through them, environment) that they seemed like intimate friends by the end. If it were cut down to just follow the plot the entire point of the film would be lost, and I think Fanny & Alexander works in a similar way, though they are very different films. The only scene I could have done without is the one with Isak reading to Alexander. I guess in Magic Hate Ball's case it is understandable, but if you are going to sit down to watch a great film for three hours already, what are two more? Gosh, I wish more of my favorite films had five hour cuts available.

I would use this exact same example in my favor. In the 3 hour version, Alexander wanders his grandmother's house, and it's already full of death and death animated: the pregnant emptiness of his breathing, the clocks that tick towards death while spinning cherubs, the faux Greek statue that magically moves...there is no need for dude in Death costume to beat us over the head with a plastic scythe: this is Bergman at his worst; he has to show everything.

As for B.A., I don't think you can compare the two at all. B.A. is the story of Germany's 20th century, and Fassbinder had to give it the truth of fiction. It's a 15-hour documentary about his actors taking a history lesson. F&A is pure make-believe- it only exists in Bergman's head.

All of the libidinous uncle's best scenes aren't in the short version. If there were no other reasons to dismiss the three-hour version, that would be enough.