Thirst

I thought I had seen every Bergman film ever made, so I was thrilled to stumble onto this one the week after he died. I had no trouble following the intertwining stories because I kept track of the characters' names and their relationships. So what confused many viewers seemed totally justified, especially compared to films in our post-Altmam era where more and more we see "stories" where seemingly unconnected people's lives crisscross and are junxtaposed ("Magnolia," and "Babel" to name a few).

The filming is fantastic for the time and prefigures the use of close ups in "Through a Glass Darkly." Very different from "Port of Call" just before and "To Joy" just afterwards. I found the film less bleak than "Prison," its lyrical moments prefiguring "Summer Interlude," one of my favorite early Bergmans.

The lesbianism was blatant enough for me, much more obvious than in "Young Man With A Horn," made around the same time in the US. Curiously, this section of the film helped illuminate Bergman's use of the theme in "The Silence," and this makes me want to view that film again. The fact that this is a film Bergman didn't write is intriguing, because he harmonizes his visual language to the rhythms of the screenwriter's oral one. The dialog was rather light for the seriousness of the situations. Perhaps Bergman himself would have been heavier-handed.

Lastly, there are the actresses, and here Bergman's direction of actors seems to solidify, as I find his previous films much more uneven on this score. Here the women, especially the young dancer, show real depth.

Keep in mind that this is not his first film, but still an early work, a seed that will grow into later masterpieces. Then you won't be disappointed, even after the mediocre last minutes of a work that definitely showed promise.

Ingmar Bergman very quickly became one of my favourite directors. Have only been familiar with him since 2012 which was around the period when my film and television taste started to broaden, but it was easy to be intrigued by his distinctive directing style so it was easy to get into his work. Not all his films are great and he was not immune from misfires, but many of them are very, very good and even masterpieces, it is not hard to see why he became such a big influence in cinema.

None of Bergman's late-40s films, when he was still learning his craft and finding his style, are among his best work. It was around the early-mid-50s when he began to come into his own. His early films are still interesting though and there are not really any duds. The most commercially successful of Bergman's early films, 'Three Strange Loves' as called in my country is certainly very intriguing and it is well done in a lot of areas. The story is very flawed and something of a big caveat but 'Three Strange Loves' is fine from a directing standpoint and has a lot to recommend.

'Three Strange Loves' story could have been executed better. The structure is very jumpy, with some constant backing and forthing that was sometimes hard to follow. The flashbacks intrigue mostly but occasionally drag and some could have been placed better and not as randomly introduced or as fragmented.

Do agree as well that the supporting characters' subplots are not as involving as that of the central couple. Some are also not as necessary or as cohesive as others and feel like padding.

On the other hand, 'Three Strange Loves' is well made visually, with the photography being both stylish and atmospheric. Bergman's directing was becoming more refined all the time and there are enough glimmers of brilliance, one can see his distinctive style coming through in some of the more symbolic imagery. The music complements the tone very well and fits appropriately. The script is thought-provoking and sometimes poetic.

Although the story's execution could have been much better, it fascinates thematically with heavy themes not trivialised and actually pretty daringly uncompromising. The tone, revolving around an ahead-of-its-time and not as frequently portrayed back then subject, is bleak and purposefully not a pleasant watch, but the central couple plot is often harrowing and has genuine moments of poignancy. Complete with a strongly written female lead character and the two lead performances are quite powerful.

In a nutshell, well done early on but Bergman went on to much better things. 7/10

Bergman is beginning to develop some of his personal traits to be found in the later, more mature film. He hasn't yet learned to unveil the characters quite yet but the interactions are quite interesting. There are several stories going on here and a couple of groups of characters and sometimes the switching back and forth can be confusing. I would certainly agree with one reviewer that "thirst" was used not only metaphorically throughout but quite literally from the first image of an eddy of water during the credits to the very end. The characters are always drinking something or other - water (it's midsummer after all), wine(one of the characters is an alcoholic), even milk. The characters are actually quite self-centered, as in so many of Bergman's earliest films, and not particularly likable. The scene with the "therapist" was especially disturbing and the characters seem more prone to bounce off each other than anything. It's when they start to communicate that the trouble really begins to brew as we've learned from the later films.

Curtis Stotlar

Bergman's first foray into marriage - a long visited topic for him. Moving on from a previously familiar summer holiday romance scenario that ends in pregnancy termination, the story shows how the now sterile ex ballet dancer faces frustrations with her new husband. The married soldier that was the subject of her affair (I presume he was killed in action), leaves a widow who comes to haunt her, in spirit and in body.

For Bergman, we see his first slightly bleached-out ultra close up and face to face shot. The psychiatrist too makes a first appearance as emotional damage is pursued as a topic. There's also quite a bit of flash-backing and a train journey that runs through most of it which is supposed to symbolise both a passage in time but also the empty, barren vessel she now feels herself to be.

The distinctively intelligent dialogue that so appeals to me is sharp and acerbic, probably for the first time. "I only stay alive so I can keep you as miserable as you've always kept me" is typical of Ingmar's angst. Subtleties of depressive subjects such as suicide are shown by someone leaping to their death into water but all we hear is a plover or some-such seabird changing its call.

A little lumpy in its narrative but for those who love Bergman, the gems are starting to shine and we are reassured by the burgeoning qualities of who we now know to be one of the World's greatest ever directors.

Interesting film, but this is clearly not the very best of the great Bergman. Several relationships are examined under the microscope (so far, so Bergman). The film jumps around between the relationships in a slightly distracting way, but eventually you get to the bottom of who used to be with whom etc.

Gosh it's bleak out there, Bergman seems to share Strindberg's views on marriage and relationships at this time - the references to Strindberg stress that point. There's adultery, bitter rows between partners, lesbianism (inexplicit) and suicide. It ought to have me at the edge of my seat, but somehow doesn't quite do the business for me in the way that most Bergman films do. Perhaps this one hasn't aged well.

Worth seeing for the dedicated Bergman fan - it's pretty short and has its moments. If you are looking for an initial view of Bergman, look elsewhere.