Cheap Shame (Special Edition) (DVD) (Liv Ullmann, Max von Sydow) (Ingmar Bergman) Price

Related Products

Customer Reviews of Shame (Special Edition)

Stunning evocation of love and war
Sweden never had a civil war, but Ingmar Bergman imagined it in this brilliant film. Like Stephen Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan", "Shame" brings home the horror of wholesale butchery without a drop of sentimentality. Unlike that movie, though, "Shame" comes nowhere near hero-worship. In fact, I think it's actually the more masterful of the two films, for it evokes war's brutality on a much smaller scale and yet with greater subtlety and closer attention to the impact of destruction on individuals.

Filmed in 1968, at the height of the Cold War, "Shame" portrays the ordeal of a young couple named Jan and Eva Rosenberg (Max von Sydow and Liv Ullmann), who own a small farm on a remote island in Sweden and who struggle to survive as the conflict that ravages the mainland spills over and starts to engulfs them. Jan and Eva are thoroughly apolitical and want nothing to do with the war. While obviously evoking the competing totalitarian ideologies of the Cold War (communism & capitalism), Bergman's genius is that he never actually identifies what these two competing ideologies are. By doing so, he creates a film that has no explicit political message unless it be that war is hell. The film forces us to step outside our own narrow political prejudices and look directly at the effects of war on humanity, irrespective of politics. For Bergman, belief systems are totally irrelevant. By not even telling us what they are here in the first place, he focuses exclusively on the human tragedy involved.

Moreover, by setting this conflict in Sweden, an affluent Western country that has never been involved in a major modern war, Bergman makes us consider what war must feel like when it shows up in one of "our" societies. This is no a faraway place, and it has not been ravaged by ancient feuds and incessant hatreds down through history. It is as close to "us" here in the West as could be. Furthermore, by setting "Shame" in a country as pristine and "virgin" as Sweden, Bergman brings home to us with crushing force what most Europeans and Americans are now unable to fathom in hindsight due to so many decades of adjustment to it -- the savage, soul-splitting nightmare that devoured Europe in the 20th century and tore civilization apart at its very seams.

The visual impact of this film is also stunning. For while Scandinavian filmmakers had already filmed such incredible movies in color as "Elvira Madigan" (1967), Bergman chose to film this one in black and white. The effect of the black-and-white still-shots of Sydow and Ullmann's faces is remarkable (and what a face Sydow has!). The script and plot is phenomenal, alternating masterfully between understated and yet overpowering scenes of love and war.

Brilliant movie. Five stars.

---

Bergman's War Movie; And One Of His Very Best
One doesn't think of Ingmar Bergman as a director of action or thriller (genre) movies. But he directs the war sequences in "Shame" with stunning confidence. It seems he could have made many more big (even epic) movies if he had been so inclined. This film features Bergman veterans Von Sydow and Ullmann as ordinary people who are turned into refugees by a ferocious war in which they get caught. They lose everything, are harassed, beaten and exploited. Eventually the neurotic Von Sydow proves he will do anything to survive. Simone Weil once wrote "the great mystery of life is not suffering, but affliction." That is: suffering brings out the best in some people, others it turns into beasts. This movie asks that most painful question: what would you do in the same situation? The film presents a harrowing landscape of hell on earth that ends in a climax that will inevitably remind you of "Titanic", although Bergman did it first. It's more immediately accessible than many of Bergman's other movies because the anguish here takes external form, not just emotionally interior terror. A neglected masterpiece that should be seen at least as often as his other great works.

---

Great film; bad commentary by Gervais
Among the Bergman films I have seen, this is an unusually realistic and absorbing film. In fact, I recommend this film to people who probably would not appreciate or enjoy his other films.

But for the same reasons I recommend the film to mainstream filmgoers, I fear that the film might not reward repeat viewing in the same way as Bergman's more difficult films (like Persona, The Silence, perhaps Cries & Whispers). Of course, not everyone buys DVDs for the same reasons I do.

Anyway, I'm writing this review mainly to warn viewers of this DVD not to expect much from the audio commentary by Marc Gervais. He speaks mostly of other films, of the actors, of the varying degrees of greyness, and of his own mundane middle-class lifestyle. On the latter point, consider the fact that Gervais completely ignores the great "shame" monologue when he naively talks about how waiting in a crowded doctor's office is probably the closest thing any film viewer has experienced to the concentration camp-like environment which the protagonists must endure.

Worst of all, Gervais gets the war all wrong. He doesn't realize that the final bombardment defeats the invaders ...at least for a while, at least on that part of the island. He doesn't realize that the government doesn't change hands -- it just gets incredibly repressive, just like governments do in wartime. He actually believes that Jacobi acts as a traitor following the invasion of the island.

In making these mistakes, Gervais obviously misses so many clues that contradict Gervais' interpretation. For example, there is the silence following the big bombardment -- indicating that the invaders have been put down. Then there is the reaction of the camp officials to Ullman's participation in the filmed interview. Plus, the camp officials speak of the invaders liquidating nearly all the citizens (note that the events & scenes onscreen indicate that the citizens might have been killed in the crossfire more than anything else). Finally, there are many smaller clues that Gervais should have recognized later. Like when Jacobi speaks of having just visited his son in the military while his son was on leave -- something that would be impossible if Jacobi were acting as traitor or even living in rebel-controlled territory.

Generally, Gervais seems oblivious to the different ideological discourse on each side. Yet somehow Gervais lived through the 1960s and the Cold War without learning how to recognize the discourse and behavior of reactionary regimes or even the most stereotypical discourse of the orthodox, dogmatic left.

As a result of his misinterpretation, Gervais misses the fact that a once-friendly & benign government becomes arbitrarily cruel and repressive to it's own people. He also misses the fact that the govt bombs its own territory -- nearly destroying our couple's house -- to finally "pacify" part of the island. Finally, he misses the way in which the danger comes from one side, then from the other side, then from the other again, then of course from within.

I discuss this at length only because this is a matter of completely misreading the film, of the plot itself, of essentially conflating two different characters at various points.

True, both sides are shown to be equally guilty in this film. And Bergman dresses them in identical uniforms. But still, I expect better from a scholar's commentary ...and from any DVD release from such a significant -- and notoriously challenging -- director as Ingmar Bergman.

PS: If you like 'Shame', don't miss 'Come and See'. The recent 'Bloody Sunday' also serves a similar purpose -- to document and demonstrate the power of war to reshape individuals in the most horrifying ways.