User reviews

There were two reasons for seeing this Swedish version of 'A Woman's Face'. Absolutely love Ingrid Bergman, a beautiful woman and a very expressive actress that shows in so many of her performances. Another was to see how it would compare to the Joan Crawford film from three years later. Have also always loved and been fascinated by foreign films and there are so many great to masterpiece Swedish films, namely by one of cinema's greatest directors Ingmar Bergman.

Comparing the two versions of 'A Woman's Face', both of them are very good in their own way. Don't overall one version is better or worse than the other, even if one version does things better than the other version. The Crawford film had the better supporting cast (nobody here does acting equal to or better than Conrad Veidt), ending and direction. While Bergman's got going quicker and there is a slight personal preference for the more subtle while a touch more intense tone, her more brutal-looking disfigurement and the starker, which really worked for the atmosphere, production values (though the Crawford film looked wonderful still in its own way). Comparing Crawford and Bergman, they are completely different approaches but both embody their roles and are about equal again in their own way.

Excepting Anders Henrikksen and Tore Svennberg, who were both empathetic and gave all they got, for me the supporting cast didn't stand out really and that did hurt the film a bit. Do agree with another commentator that George Rydeberg was very bland and his character underdeveloped.

Felt that the film felt slightly too short perhaps too.

Loved though the comparitively stark but also atmospherically effective production values, the landscapes not as beautiful but just as foreboding. It suited the dark story very well. The film is strongly directed too, keeping things taut, the atmosphere tense enough and not letting the film get too melodramatic. The pace isn't too leisurely at the beginning and the story stays compelling up to the ending, which is one that is hard to forget, and nails the atmosphere, which is dark and subtly tense yet with an emotional core. The script provokes thought and felt very honest, liked too that it doesn't ramble or feel over-literal.

As with Crawford's version, the lead character is initially reprehensible with her embittered personality, yet with the change of heart it is hard to not feel a degree of empathy. Her disfigurement is brutal and disturbing, more so in my opinion than Crawford's. The portrayal of anger and self-pity was handled very honestly and with great candour, something that will be relatable today, this was handled better in this version. 'A Woman's Face' however is Bergman's film, twenty three years old and the intensity, embittered self-pity, pathos, honesty and nuance she brings to her role is suggestive of her having acted for years before.

In conclusion, very good film with an awful lot to recommend. 8/10

I first caught this on TCM, then had to get the VHS tape. I was impressed by the role as Bergman as a tough who dominated a band of blackmailers. She was impressive in her bitterness, and, even though I don't understand Swedish her anger and self-pity came through very well.

The characteristic of people (anger+self-pity) is so common I appreciated how this was dealt with openly by the film and conveyed by Bergman. The doctor let her know that many warriors suffered as much or more without the woe-is-me attitude.

Something about her self-conscious placement of her hand over her face was very touching. From the doctor's analytic view he wasn't repulsed, but when he could see her facial scars were a source of her bitterness he resolved to change her appearance. The doctor didn't pull any punches though with a private challenge to her before the bandages came off.

And Bergman showed her ability to convey the fight against self pity when she harangued her little charge with a nasty rant of how she never got toys as a child. The boy's unaffected love, and need for love, was a sweet challenge and impetus to our struggling lady's emerging ability to turn outward.

To me, this portrayal of human growth and overcoming of life obstacles was nicely done. You will either feel for the disfigured woman or you will not. But her plight is universal.

"A Woman's Face" starred Ingrid Bergman in Sweden; in the U.S. MGM gave the lead role to Joan Crawford when Greta Garbo turned it down.

It's the story of Anna Holm, a scarred woman, both physically and emotionally, who is in league with crooks and blackmailers. During a botched blackmail/robbery of a cheating wife, Anna falls, hurts her ankle, and comes under the care of the woman's husband, who reconstructed faces injured in World War I.

Well, it's Ingrid Bergman, and as rotten as she looks as the brittle, bitter disfigured woman, at 23 she was a goddess once her face was repaired. She takes a job as a governess to a little boy in a wealthy family, a position originally arranged by her team - and the orders she is given by them are nefarious.

"A Woman's Face" is the story of a woman changed by being able to love and accept love. The MGM version and the Swedish version are both dramatic, exciting, and hold one's interest.

Both films are very good, with the supporting cast at MGM superior to the Swedish one. After all, you can't beat Conrad Veidt when he's evil. Bergman and Crawford have different takes on the role, as you can imagine. Bergman is more pathetic - she is made to look dreadful, and she's more subtle and vulnerable in the role. Crawford has the MGM treatment so her deformity is less; she has the bitterness and strength of the character down in a more overt performance. I enjoyed both actresses.

The sound was off in the Swedish version, which gave me a headache. I couldn't figure out if the dialogue was five minutes behind the action, or if there were sections with no sound and lips moving. A little of both, I think. Nevertheless, it was well worth watching.

The magic of Ingrid Bergman seems to be missing in this movie. Where is her natural talent for acting, that was so evident in Intermezzo? It sounds like she is on a stage, but perhaps you need to understand Swedish to fully hear how artificial her lines sounds. Bergman as a bitter blackmailer does not convince me one bit. The best acting is done by supporting actor Tore Svennberg as the old factory owner, an actor who reminds of British actor C. Aubrey Smith. Another supporting actor, Georg Rydeberg as the heir-not-to-be, was told in acting school that he had absolutely no talent for acting. I wouldn't go that far, but his acting is still undeveloped, .

A few years ago I had the opportunity to see the two versions back to back on a big(ish) screen. It was a little film festival at Scandanvia House in NYC. They showed the original Swedish film first followed by the Hollywood monstrosity. There is just no comparison. Bergman is subtle and intense while Crawford is just Crawford. Don't get me wrong, JC was an amazing animal, but I would never call her a disciplined actor. She's all instinct and big, bold strokes. She's like an impressionist painting. You have to step back to see it. Up close it's just an ugly mess. Bergman, on the other hand, is like that Fragonard painting of the girl on the swing, with all the detail, depth and color. Each time you look at it, you see something different that you missed the last time.

Disfigured Ingrid Bergman is a member of a blackmail ring. When getting the payoff of one of their "clients", she is caught by the woman's husband, a doctor, who performs plastic surgery on her and leaves her looking like.... well, like Ingrid Bergman. However, the ring's newest scam is on. The wastrel nephew of a rich man wants his own six-year-old nephew knocked off, and the gang agrees to do so for money down and a quarter of the inheritance. Miss Bergman takes the job, but with a new face comes a new her....

It's a bravura performance, just the sort that actors love, and Miss Bergman, only 23 years old, is up to the challenge, as she gradually changes. None of the other younger actors are up to her level; they all seem strident and melodramatic in comparison to her. Anders Henrikson, as the compassionate doctor, is the only actor who seems at her level, and their scenes together raise this from an improbable melodrama to high art.

It was her last film with Gustaf Molander, and by the following year, she was in Hollywood, remaking INTERMEZZO for Selznick. MGM would buy the rights to this story and remake it poorly with Joan Crawford in the lead role.

They say this version is not very different from the American remake three years later, but it's not true. Only the basic structure and skeleton are the same. This is an entirely different story of an entirely different character, and Ingrid Bergman is entirely different from Joan Crawford. Actually these two different versions of the same story compliment each other just by their differences, and both have advantages to the other version. George Cukor's direction is more efficient and professional, while this Swedish version is more formal and almost documentary in its straight story-telling. There is no murder trial here and no murder, as there is no villain like Conrad Veidt, and the villain here (Georg Rydeberg) is rather an amateur whose schemes fail by sheer bad luck. The American version is more striking in its grandiose dramaturgy, it is a better written script, while this Swedish version more carefully follows the original French novel. Most would prefer Ingrid Bergman in this role though to the more imposing Joan Crawford. Bergman gives a very special touch to her character by her total conversion from a cold-blooded ruthless gangster spitfire to a very soft motherly heart of great sensitivity. This could be criticized as hardly convincing, but it is the core of the drama: a woman changes character by acquiring a face for the first time in her life after earlier having been doomed as a monster by her disfigurement. The role of the doctor is also more interesting here (Anders Ek) who is perhaps the most interesting character of all, finally setting out for mission work with the Red Cross in China, giving the film a completely different end than the Hollywood version. In brief, both versions are of supreme lasting interest, both for the sake of Joan Crawford and Ingrid Bergman and for their very different twists of the tale.

My first Bergman Swedish film. I came for Bergman and I stayed for Bergman. As usual she carries the whole movie and that what great movie stars do although others were falling apart. The supporting cast tend to over react or was it how they do acting for those days? I love how Bergman put her fingers across her scarred face as if to hide the ugliness whenever one looks closer. If only we can all look like Ingrid Bergman after one successful surgery.

What a wonderful film to discover on TCM Imports. A textured and powerful performance by a very young Ingrid Bergman, and sterling work by a great cast. Everyone plays their part perfectly and the writing is stellar. The details of the story are not important. It's the amazing acting by Bergman that will stay with me long after seeing this film. I've rated the film a 9, but Ingrid's performance is a solid 10. Highly recommended for lovers of good film.

Well, it has a European feel and does not hinge itself on a court-case melodrama like the Joan Crawford version which is molded in the shape of the weepies of the twenties, thirties and forties hollywood. Bergman is not very good in this, especially when her face is scarred. Her performance is a bit too bitter, too harsh, a little exaggerated. She is much better when her face has been reconstructed and gently turning heel and keel as the boy's nanny. An ending of doubt and uncertainty which marks this version is missing from the Hollywood version. I would say the hollywood version is much more perfect and rounded; and definitely, Joan Crawford's performance is better. You can only change the outside, it is only you that can change the inside, is the core/moral of both versions and in that way, both of the stories succeed. One is done with Hollywood cliches and the other with the Swedish/Nordic arty/ realist style of European cinema. Both are different by the look but at heart the same movie.

Tone-deaf, tasteless, and ultimately pointless. Ingrid Bergman is was the only thing that held this together as she always did but other than that it was pretty terrible. The beginning took its precious time however the last 30 minutes were a complete rushed blur that took the audience for fools. It completely forgets about 90% of the plot points and just says "we will disguise our mistakes with a happy ending for the anti-hero and give her a fresh start." which is something that we have all seen before only it was better and wasn't done in 90 seconds.

Not worth your time.

This film, which was the original 1938 Swedish version of A WOMAN'S FACE (1941) later popularized by Joan Crawford at MGM. This original version made its US TV debut on Turner Classic Movies this past Friday night. Ingrid Bergman, before she came to America, is the lead as Anna Holm, a scarred black mailer who undergoes plastic surgery that changes her path and outlook on life. It's kind of hard to know if the acting is brilliant or not since it is all in Swedish with English subtitles, but the film holds your interest. It is different in many ways than the 1941 version, but also similar in others. Bergman's performance is comparable to Crawford's, but Bergman's disfigurement is more brutally realistic as are the stark atmosphere and settings in this version; MGM gave their version the usual glamour treatment. Overall, the film deserves 3 out of 4 stars and it's wonderful to finally see this on American TV.

Before I write this review, I must confess that I watched the Hollywood version of this film (with Joan Crawford) before I took a look at this one. Personally like to watch the remake before the original, to see how well it stands on its own as a film.

A Woman's Face stood damn fine on its own as a film- true, I am a fan of Crawford and not a //huge// fan of Bergman (I liked her in some roles, i.e. Cactus Flower and Gaslight, but wouldn't consider her a favourite), but the Hollywood A Woman's Face definitely is not a bad film. And neither is this one. I enjoyed both immensely. They were both wonderful- comparing the acting styles of Bergman and Crawford is like comparing a fish to an apple. They're definitely not the same.

There are some differences between En kvinnas ansikte and A Woman's Face (well, der, one's in Swedish and one's in English) other than the performances of the respective leads in their respective films: En kvinnas ansikte is much less lushly produced, but the dialogue oddly seems much more stilted in places.

There is no romantic attachment between the doctor and the character of Anna Holm in this version, but there was in the remake (minor spoiler). The sleigh ride where Tornsten Barring tries to kill Lars-Erik is much more disastrous in this version as well- in the remake, Crawford gets to wield her revolver. As well, this story is told all in a straight line, whereas the remake is faintly film-noiresque in that it starts in a courtroom and the story is told through flashbacks. Neither film has an outright happy ending.

Bergman is much better in the second half of this film than she is in the first. True, her scar makeup was more grotesque than Crawford's, but at the same time it looked more artifical. She looked like Gollum on one side and Ingrid Bergman on the other.

I also don't buy Ingrid Bergman as embittered or menacing, so her transition was a relief, because she actually got to do some acting. I bought Anna Paulsson the newly moraled governess more than I did Anna Holm the bitter gangster when Bergman was playing them. She is given a lot of lush closeups and flattering camera angles (think there was some soft focus in there).

One flaw the film does have is that some of the supporting actors are rather hammy (watch the film and you'll see which ones I mean). As well, while the cinematography is excellent, the editing isn't. Those are very minor things. I also did feel that there was a bit of a lull in the film about halfway through, but now I'm nitpicking.

Overall, highly recommended. Watch the original and the remake back to back.

Swedish film, based on the play by francis de croisset. Was remade with joany crawford in 1941, with some really big studio names. Here, ingrid bergman is anna, who has a disfiguring scar. She blackmails people, with the help of her crew. When a doctor fixes her face, he encourages her to find a more honest profession. The suspense when he takes the bandages off! They keep hiding that part of bergman's face with equipment, a mirror, the doctor's head. Funny. Making us wait to see how it came out. As far as leaving one's past behind, it's more difficult than we think. Sometimes that past catches up and starts trouble again. Directed by gustaf molander. He made a TON of films with bergman. They made intermezzo twice... the swedish version and the murrican version. One funny note -- the swedish word for END, the last thing we see on the screen. Imdb thinks it's too dirty to type here, so you'll have to watch it for yourself. Funny.

Did you see the 1941 courtroom drama A Woman's Face starring Joan Crawford? If you did, you might not have known it was a remake of a Swedish flick starring Ingrid Bergman three years prior. In this subtitled oldie, Ingrid stars as a woman with a disfigured face who leads a gang of thieves and blackmailers. Since the world is cruel to her, she thinks it's fair that she be cruel to it. But when she unsuccessfully burgles a plastic surgeon's home, he takes pity on her and decides to fix her face.

A fresh start on the outside leads to a fresh start on the inside. Slowly, Ingrid learns kindness and love. For an early role of the young actress, she does a very good job. The biggest criticism of the movie is that it feels very, very old. It doesn't feel like it was made in 1938; it feels like it was made in 1928. If you like silent movies or early talkies, you could try it out to see Ingrid talking in her native language. It's structured differently than the Joan Crawford movie, and if it weren't for the obvious disfigurement, you might not recognize it as the same film.