Crocky, watch the 5 hour version. That is the only way to watch Fanny And Alexander. In my opinion (without starting any trouble or argument), I think it's senseless to bother with releasing the theatrical version because to me, the 5 hour version feels more complete...the characters are more developed in several ways - one is spending more time with them to get the effect. For instance, during the Christmas part, we spend more time with Oscar the father especially with his wonderful imaginary Chinese empress' chair storytelling (missing in the theatrical version). I was really moved by him doing this with the children - very beautiful with the children's response to Oscar.. so lovely! Then in the following episode, Oscar's sudden death was a blow! Quite devastating this time around with the 5 hour version. This is one of numerous examples.

The theatrical version feels more rushed. This is the story about a family going through changes and the 5 hour version gives you more time to move along with the family. This, in my opinion, works so much better.

Annie Mall, I watched Fanny And Alexander alone because I couldn't wait! I'm planning to have a little holiday gathering.. but I couldn't figure how to squeeze the 5 hours into it. Need to come up with a better plan or strategy. I will probably settle with my favorite Christmas film - A Christmas Story or a vastly underknown film The Shop Around The Corner. However, watching Fanny And Alexander alone in my little cavern was quite an experience. Stirring lots of emotions, reliving that Indian summer afternoon of my youth that changed my life forever.

That wasn't Criterion. I think that's how it was originally broadcast. The Artificial Eye set was divided up the same way (five acts in four episodes).

For those who want to follow Bergman's advice, he also said it should be watched all in one day, with a lunch or dinner break in the middle.

Bergman is a tease. However, if you decide to do that, go easy on the menu...

Finally saw the long version all the way through this past weekend....in one sitting even! The long version is indeed a much different film than the theatrical cut...I remember a long discussion several months back when this was first announced. It came up when someone protested Criterion's inclusion of the theatrical version as a stand-alone release. In any event, after finally seeing the television version....it's almost amazing how the theatrical version became so relatively well-regarded, because in comparison....it's simply not very good.

That being said, while I couldn't find any part of the television that dragged on the viewing experience, still...I felt that there were several bits that the movie could have done without. The full version can be incredibly self-indulgent...yet it's still to Bergman's credit that there is still a masterpiece there.

John

I was thinking about the battle between light and darkness in Fanny & Alexander and especially of how you have many dark scenes that could realistically occur contrasted with the need for magic to save the children and restore a joyful mood.

I think maybe even the Ekhdahl family scenes shows the darkness of the various relationships - you have the (even if its condoned) adultery in the relationship of Gustav Adolf and Alma (perhaps she is afraid of losing him if he does not have extra-marital affairs?), the bitter marriage of Carl and Lydia with its insults from Carl and submissiveness from Lydia as well as its raising of the issues of money, and the marriage of Oscar and Emilie which while it seems fine deals with the issue every couple must face, that of the death of their partner (or their death leaving their partner alone). Even the relationship between Helena and Isak suggests love that might have been fulfilled without societal pressures and it is left to the audience to wonder about that: did Helena marry before she met Isak or did she know him but married her husband for different reasons such as financial (perhaps shown by her talk of her son's finances) religious issues, family pressure etc?

So even in the happier scenes I think Bergman is exploring all the various problems that can occur in relationships before focusing more exclusively on the marriage of Emilie and the Bishop. It seems to me that in the post-Christmas scenes following Gustav Adolph and Maj then Alma, Helena and Isak, and Carl and Lydia that the intention of showing them is not just to round out the family but also to suggest that the film could follow any one of these relationships to explore its themes, and that it is an event like the death of Oscar and the entrance of the Bishop that throws the issues into stark contrast and shows that for all their problems, the Ekhdahl family is a loving one.

I like Bergman for this because it seems better to show the problems than presenting a purely lyrical, wonderous Christmas - it made me feel the situation was more realistic, and that how wonderful something is can be subjective, but if this is the case then also how bad things are can also be subjective and will pass. I'd like to think that the reason for the Christmas scene (as well as for it being so long) is to provide not just Fanny and Alexander but the audience with a wealth of moments that they can cling to when the film turns dark at the Bishop's house. I think that Bergman is illustrating the need for such moments to pull us through the dark times, and that without them people would be less able to cope with the sometimes harsh realities of life. This rememberance I think is also related to the need for a healthy imagination as shown by Alexander inventing his stories and the Bishop trying to stop them, and thereby I think Bergman suggests the Bishop is trying to stop Alexander from having a life in his own head (with his thoughts of home and his interpretations of life in the form of his stories) now that he has full control over his external existence (perhaps this may be a comment by Bergman at the power of organised religion over peoples ways of thinking?).

The problems do seem very probable and realistic (the Ekhdahl family's problems and the relationship between the Bishop and his new family with the use of religion as a controlling force and the caning of Alexander) and I'm not sure what to make of the resolution of the darkness by magic. I think this is a good thing, giving us different views depending on who we are as audience members and what we are feeling at that particular time.

I know in my case that if I'm feeling in an 'up' mood whilst watching it the use of magic seems like a vindication of imagination and the supernatural over the oppressiveness of real life and situations that are almost impossible to overcome - its the literal expression of an imagination that has been so stifled during the course of the Bishop-centred part of the film.

If I'm in a 'down' mood it gets me to wondering if maybe a magcial act was the only way Bergman could see to get the children out of the house, and that the Ismael character seems more creepy and perhaps vindicative in the use of the power of Alexander's hatred to start the fire. It makes me think that maybe Bergman could not see a realistic avenue of escape for Emilie and the children, especially clear to the audience after the ineffectual attempts of Gustav Adolph and Carl to talk to the Bishop.

However, I think the tone of the film is happy and that my 'down' interpretations while possible, are not likely given the amount of emphasis placed on imagination and magic or supernatural events throughout the film, and I find hope that in Alexander's darkest moment in the attic the vision of the children that, while it is disturbing, shows that Alexander is still not mentally beaten by the Bishop. And when Isak reads the story, Alexander's imagination is allowed freedom again and produces one of the finest dream moments of the film, showing that he will be scarred by the memory of his experience with the Bishop, mentally rather than the maid's (Harriet Anderson's) physically scarred hands, but has come through the ordeal. It is interesting to contrast this with Through A Glass Darkly where the visions lead the character into madness.

I think this shows how important the television version is compared to the theatrical one. A lot of important events are removed and that compromises the above interpretation, with the cutting down or removal of almost all the imaginings of Alexander and his interactions with Fanny either with the other children at Christmas with the magic lamp, or with their attempting to kill the Bishop. It shows that whilst Alexander is the primary focus where the imagination is concerned, Fanny is more than willing to be a part of his stories and imaginings, even if it is left unclear what she sees of the father's ghost, for instance.

I would definitely agree with you John about there being no problem with the five hour version but the three hour seems to have superfluous bits, perhaps it was Bergman's way of subconciously getting the audience to want to see the longer version!

I'm not sure how far off track I've got with this interpretation but it has been very interesting to think it through!

Has anyone else looked inside their F+A box when all the digipaks are removed? Take a look.

Hope this wasn't posted elsewhere.

Yeah I found it inside the package accidentally when I removed the disc folder for the sixth time...very nice touch.

I too noticed it. I've been putting off posting about it for some time.

Ever since someone pointed out the interior of the Bergman Trilogy box matches the wallpaper in the Through a Glass Darkly's "special" room, I've always checked the insides of boxes. I love that Criterion does that kind of detail work.

Speaking of box insides: has anyone else gotten screwed over by the placement of the little anti-shoplift tag thingy? In several of the cardboard packs (in particular, F&A, Slacker, and Battle of Algiers) I've gotten ones placed such that when I slide the booklet and/or digipack in, the edge catches and crumples.

I scraped them out of the Slacker and Videodrome covers with a butter knife. The cases slide in much nicer now.

Yeah, those tags have got to be removed. Unfortunately removing them damages the box slightly.

Check out the inside of the Doinel Boxset. It's velvet.

The 5-hour cut of Fanny and Alexander is nothing short of a revelation. It may even replace Cries and Whispers as my favourite Bergman film. The 3-hr version is practically obsolete; hell, it must have been torturous for Bergman to cut those additional two hours - which include my now-favourite part of the movie, Isak's story and the following dream sequence in the desert. These two scenes constitute one of the most beautiful pieces of cinema I have ever experienced.

Criterion have certainly outdone themselves with their magnificent Fanny and Alexander boxset. Kudos guys.

Also, in A Bergman Tapestry: Fanny and Alexander (on the second disc of the 5-hour version), you should see the look on Pernilla August's face as she recalls how nervous she was when working with Bergman for the first time - it's priceless!

Just got my set today and hoping to dip in. Question: has anyone listened to the cowie commentary? Recommended? Want to ask as 3 hours is a tall order in hectic schedule but if it's one of his better ones I'll put in the time.

If you're going to watch the 3-hour cut at all, you might as well turn the commentary on. It's obvious that the shorter cut is inferior, and it's nice to have Cowie there to point out what's been cut. Not particularly insightful or rewatchable, but I think it's the best way to watch the theatrical version.

First, an admission: I tend to like most of Cowie's commentaries (definitely a minority opinion on this forum). I find him to be well-prepared and insightful (though some of his personal asides can be irritating). That said, I thought he did an excellent job with Fanny and Alexander. I'd encourage you to invest the time forthis one ...

I put on the Cowie commentary while I did other things, and didn't really watch the tv version very closely. It worked out just fine. This is actually how I listen to a lot of commentary tracks, since most of them don't really address what's happening on the screen (and when the do, it's easy enough to turn and look). It's not a mindblowing commentary, but it's not bad.

I just watched this for the first time (yay) and I was totally unprepared for it. Nobody mentioned how creepy this film is!!!! The whole scene with Ismael had me wide eyed and shaking, and I don't get scared by movies! The part in the puppet theatre when the door opens was scary too. Did anybody else think of Hannibal Lecter the first time they saw Ismael in his room (or think of Ismael the first time watching Silence of the Lambs)? Damn now I won't be able to sleep tonight!

...or the scene in the attic that probably inspired a certain wretching scene in Sixth Sense.

I've checked out the whole box set and am just amazed by the good job. Cheers, CC. Cowie commentary leaves a little to be desired, but still passable. The Making of doc is the best making of I've scene so far. Watching Bergman and Nykvist in action is a treat and I love when the camera catches Bergman's half-lidded eyes as he watches the filming of a scene.

I don't get how the children escaped!
The jewish guy went to buy the box, he had them come downstairs and get in the box then the bishop went up stairs and found them and then they were there in the box again.
Also there was a pause much like a layer change when the jew ran up the stairs.

I would suggest when you get to this segment again put on the audio commentary. Peter Cowie does a pretty decent job of explaining it. But don't worry it is intentional.

I don't know Cowie's explanation (the box is on loan at the moment), but Jesse Kalin's chapter on Fanny & Alexander in his Bergman book has a nice non-explanation of the scene that fits nicely with themes of the film as a whole.

From the interview book Tre dagar med Bergman ("Three days with Bergman") by Olivier Assayas and Stig Björkman:

Well, I finally got around to watching F&A, and am only half way through the TV version (watched disc 1), and am in love with the film. I've seen a few Bergmans now, and having watched his earlier films before this one, really make it something worth waiting to see.

One thing I wanted to add is that to my eye, the black levels really seemed to suffer in the darkly lit scenes. This is something I haven't read about anywhere, but I found it quite distracting. I wonder if this has something to do with watching NTSC on a PAL TV. My TV supports NTSC, but it is primarily PAL. I buy most of my discs from R1, and I have noticed this on plenty before it (both PAL and NTSC), but I read nothing of it in reviews. I should also note that plenty of my R1 discs don't suffer from this on my TV.

Can anyone else comment on this?