![]() | Fanny and Alexander has been listed as one of the
Media and drama good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 10, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article says "set in 1907-08..." I'm going to change this as soon as I've watched the whole thing, because it continues at least into 1909. The opening Christmas celebration is 1907; Oscar dies in January 1908; and when Emilie announces that she's leaving the theatre, she specifically mentions that Oscar has been dead for a year now, making it January 1909. (The show they're doing is Twelfth Night, which is of course appropriate to January and backs up this date.) I've only seen the first two parts so I don't yet know if it continues beyond 1909. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.100.97 ( talk) 14:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Image:Fanny&Alexander.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Fanny&Alexander.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 06:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
"Uma Thurman was also listed as appearing in this film." - WHAT? 82.181.84.89 ( talk) 00:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
As Roger Ebert pointed out, Faithless was Bergman's last Feature Film work. Though not directed by him, he did write an original screenplay. -- 64.114.135.25 ( talk) 06:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do not understand the paragraph that goes "However Pernilla Wallgren (later known as Pernilla August) who also did well as... " as it is clear and self-explanatory that those are two separate actresses.
An IP editor added the claim:
If true, this needs a ref; and then it should go into the Production section, not Critical reception, where it certainly doesn't belong - so it's here. If not... Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
1. Emilie's remarriage is abruptly presented to the audience, with no scenes of the courtship. We do not see Edvard (the Bishop) proposing. We do not see her discussing him as a new mate with anyone. So instead of “finds a new suitor in the local bishop, a handsome widower, and accepts his proposal of marriage, moving “ I suggest “marries a widowed local bishop, moving”.
2. The Bishop's contest of wills with Alexander is, I agree, worthy of mention in even the shortest summary. However the “something Emilie had not expected” is speculative and should be removed. More important than Emilie's expectations is that Alexander learns from the ghost of the Bishop’s first wife that she and her children were locked up for days and died trying to escape. The Bishop gets really nasty when he hears of this account, which would be damaging to him if believed. His dramatically forceful extraction of a recant by Alexander confirms to the audience that Alexander has by supernatural means come to know the truth. The ghost's tale is a turning point in the contest between the Bishop and Alexander. It deserves mention in the plot summary.
3. The phrase “as well as some magic,“ should be removed. Yes, the ghosts of the first wife and her children appearing to the Bishop do slow him down, allowing Isak to succeed in smuggling the children out. However, this is a small point. Admittedly, it confirms that in this movie ghosts are real. But it does not deserve mention.
4. The happy, life affirming final speech by Gustav is important. It is Bergman's summary of the movie and belongs in a plot summary. But the occasion of his speech need not be covered in detail. Which babies? A christening dinner? The plot summary would be better if these details were removed. The speech is important because it addresses, however obliquely, the question Are Ghosts Real? Tomday ( talk) 06:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
If the work is filmed at Uppsala is one thing, but set there is a different matter. Uppsala is the Archdiocese of Sweden and is the home of the archbishop of Sweden. (There is only one of the kind in Sweden) And as Jan Malmsjö portrays a local bishop, can the film hardly be set in Uppsala. I guess it's a fictional city. Are there any sources that possibly could be of help ? Boeing720 ( talk) 04:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ssven2 ( talk · contribs) 09:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I will review this article. Thank you. —
Ssven2
Looking at you, kid
09:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
@ Ribbet32: Thank you for addressing my comments, and congratulations. Another Bergman film promoted. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 04:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
The note attached to the naming of the location where the film takes place suggests that the place is not explicitly named in the film, but at the beginning of the second part we are shown the sign in front of the theater announcing the upcoming production of Hamlet and it shows the theater is named the "Upsala Theater". The spelling with only one "P" is out of date now, but that is how the name of the town was spelled at the start of the 20th century when the film is set. 47.54.108.74 ( talk) 02:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
The plot as it stands is a fair description of the cinema theatrical version (albeit with too little detail of the first half of the 3+ hours). I removed a scene which does not appear in that version, where "Emilie's former brothers-in-law confront Edvard to negotiate a divorce, using the children, the bishop's debts, and the threat of a public scandal for leverage, but Edvard is unmoved." Can someone who has seen the full TV miniseries version (i.e. not me) add a second version of the 5+ hours plot, and add it as a second, alternative version? Masato.harada ( talk) 05:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Fanny and Alexander has been listed as one of the
Media and drama good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 10, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article says "set in 1907-08..." I'm going to change this as soon as I've watched the whole thing, because it continues at least into 1909. The opening Christmas celebration is 1907; Oscar dies in January 1908; and when Emilie announces that she's leaving the theatre, she specifically mentions that Oscar has been dead for a year now, making it January 1909. (The show they're doing is Twelfth Night, which is of course appropriate to January and backs up this date.) I've only seen the first two parts so I don't yet know if it continues beyond 1909. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.100.97 ( talk) 14:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Image:Fanny&Alexander.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Fanny&Alexander.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 06:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
"Uma Thurman was also listed as appearing in this film." - WHAT? 82.181.84.89 ( talk) 00:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
As Roger Ebert pointed out, Faithless was Bergman's last Feature Film work. Though not directed by him, he did write an original screenplay. -- 64.114.135.25 ( talk) 06:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do not understand the paragraph that goes "However Pernilla Wallgren (later known as Pernilla August) who also did well as... " as it is clear and self-explanatory that those are two separate actresses.
An IP editor added the claim:
If true, this needs a ref; and then it should go into the Production section, not Critical reception, where it certainly doesn't belong - so it's here. If not... Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
1. Emilie's remarriage is abruptly presented to the audience, with no scenes of the courtship. We do not see Edvard (the Bishop) proposing. We do not see her discussing him as a new mate with anyone. So instead of “finds a new suitor in the local bishop, a handsome widower, and accepts his proposal of marriage, moving “ I suggest “marries a widowed local bishop, moving”.
2. The Bishop's contest of wills with Alexander is, I agree, worthy of mention in even the shortest summary. However the “something Emilie had not expected” is speculative and should be removed. More important than Emilie's expectations is that Alexander learns from the ghost of the Bishop’s first wife that she and her children were locked up for days and died trying to escape. The Bishop gets really nasty when he hears of this account, which would be damaging to him if believed. His dramatically forceful extraction of a recant by Alexander confirms to the audience that Alexander has by supernatural means come to know the truth. The ghost's tale is a turning point in the contest between the Bishop and Alexander. It deserves mention in the plot summary.
3. The phrase “as well as some magic,“ should be removed. Yes, the ghosts of the first wife and her children appearing to the Bishop do slow him down, allowing Isak to succeed in smuggling the children out. However, this is a small point. Admittedly, it confirms that in this movie ghosts are real. But it does not deserve mention.
4. The happy, life affirming final speech by Gustav is important. It is Bergman's summary of the movie and belongs in a plot summary. But the occasion of his speech need not be covered in detail. Which babies? A christening dinner? The plot summary would be better if these details were removed. The speech is important because it addresses, however obliquely, the question Are Ghosts Real? Tomday ( talk) 06:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
If the work is filmed at Uppsala is one thing, but set there is a different matter. Uppsala is the Archdiocese of Sweden and is the home of the archbishop of Sweden. (There is only one of the kind in Sweden) And as Jan Malmsjö portrays a local bishop, can the film hardly be set in Uppsala. I guess it's a fictional city. Are there any sources that possibly could be of help ? Boeing720 ( talk) 04:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ssven2 ( talk · contribs) 09:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I will review this article. Thank you. —
Ssven2
Looking at you, kid
09:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
@ Ribbet32: Thank you for addressing my comments, and congratulations. Another Bergman film promoted. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 04:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
The note attached to the naming of the location where the film takes place suggests that the place is not explicitly named in the film, but at the beginning of the second part we are shown the sign in front of the theater announcing the upcoming production of Hamlet and it shows the theater is named the "Upsala Theater". The spelling with only one "P" is out of date now, but that is how the name of the town was spelled at the start of the 20th century when the film is set. 47.54.108.74 ( talk) 02:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
The plot as it stands is a fair description of the cinema theatrical version (albeit with too little detail of the first half of the 3+ hours). I removed a scene which does not appear in that version, where "Emilie's former brothers-in-law confront Edvard to negotiate a divorce, using the children, the bishop's debts, and the threat of a public scandal for leverage, but Edvard is unmoved." Can someone who has seen the full TV miniseries version (i.e. not me) add a second version of the 5+ hours plot, and add it as a second, alternative version? Masato.harada ( talk) 05:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)