[.ca] The Shame

wrongly cropped from OAR 1.37:1 to 1.66:1 and it looks awful:
MGM have not fully researched the OAR of this film. They have released this DVD in the wrong aspect ratio (1.66:1 instead of 1.37:1) resulting in A LOT of bad looking framing. The film may have been released theatrically in the US at 1.66:1 but if so THIS WAS WRONG. The OAR of the film is 1.37:1 and it is released in this ratio around the world (see the recent French DVD for example).

One of the five gems of Bergman:
This film is simply extraordinary. The performances given por Von Sydow and (one of my female icons) Liv Ullman, are superb. It's just the genius of Bergman what it makes the great difference. The story increases gradually in organic intensity. The passions and the hopeless get together and produce an efervescence state very close to the paranoid. ¡A real landmark in the story of the cinema!.

MGM corrected the OAR problem:
MGM recalled the original issues of "Hour of the Wolf" and "Shame" because they were presented in a fake widescreen that cropped the top and bottom of the film. These are masterpieces that should not be missed, and they are now beautifully presented in their proper aspect ration of 1.33:1 with the entire image now intact.

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.

A Brilliant Interpersonal Conflict...:
Shame (Skammen) is a drama set in a pre-war and war where the film depicts the interpersonal relationship between Eva (Liv Ullman) and Jan (Max von Sydow) and how the present circumstances affect the couple. Jan is a neurotic dreamer who attempts to avoid anything that causes him any level of discomfort. His wife, Eva, is a hopeful realist with dreams about a better future where they both can be happy. Eva is the anchor that secures Jan in their mundane existence on a small farm on a remote island as they have withdrawn from public life. Jan is the reason why they no longer live in an urban area because he does everything within his powers to stay away from people and civilization. The solitude is wearing on Eva, which emerges every now and then in the shape of irritation. However, Eva expresses her deep love for Jan by hiding her irritation and instead focuses on the happy moments that they have. Eva and Jan are aware of the imminent threat of war as their neighbors inform them occasionally, but when the war breaks out they are not prepared for its brutality as it tears them apart. They both realize that they distance themselves from each other as their characters slowly change. Bergman personifies the rift that develops between couples as they emotionally part during a phase when change comes from dramatic situations. The subtlety in which the confrontation between Eva and Jan is illustrated in is an example of Bergman's refined skills as a storyteller as he places them in a war where the couple does not wage war against each other. Shame offers a painfully cinematic experience, however, this is Bergman's intentions as he brings another brilliant event to the audience.