Serpent's Egg (1978)

Mediocre

When Ingmar Bergman was in self-imposed exile from Sweden, in the late 1970s, over a flap where he was accused by the Swedish government of tax evasion, he made several films abroad. One of them was The Serpent's Egg (Das Schlangenei-Örmens ägg), an English language film (his second- The Touch was the first) made in 1978, in West Berlin studios, for legendary film producer Dino de Laurentiis, who was reeling from the financial disaster that was his 1976 remake of King Kong. This film did nothing to change the producer's fortunes, as it is easily the worst Bergman film I've yet seen. This is a reputation that most other critics agree with, as well. That said, it is not realy a bad film- merely a muddled and poorly edited one, and by Hollywood's dim standards, especially considering this is a horror film, it is quite complex and superior to films in that genre that had mass appeal, such as the Hollywood fare of the day, like the remake of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers and Coma.
But, diehard Bergmaniacs who have never seen it will be as repulsed as those to whom this film is an anomolous monstrosity. It is jagged, non-fractal, and often a totally disorganized mess. Yet, despite all that, it does come together quickly and cohesively in the last twenty minutes to provide a chilling and well acted end. If only the opening hundred minutes were even half as good this film might rank as a horror classic along the lines of Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. Yet, as poor as the bulk of the film is, what is even more astonishing is that Bergman, himself, is listed on IMDB as having written the screenplay. It seems hard to believe, as this is easily his worst screenplay- far worse than noble failures like Cries And Whispers, although the look of the film is unmistakably a Bergman film- from the musical score to the lighting and photography by Sven Nykvist.
But, there are many problems besides the script.... All in all, The Serpent's Egg is to the Bergman canon what a film like Mr. Arkadin, that bizarrely brilliant abortion of a film, is to the Orson Welles oeuvre. That's to view it at its best. At its worst it is a bad sub-Kafkan work of art attempting to deal with the craziness that threads about the edges of individuals and societies. What is truly odd is that it narratively is 180° from the way most bad films unfold. Instead of fraying apart from a promising beginning, it is a mess that only near its conclusion seems to find its focus. The last twenty minutes are truly excellent, and Bergman at his best. Interestingly, it is also the only time the film really gets really `personal' with its until then undeveloped lead character. Until then, it is off the rack and unspun. Bergman fans should watch this film, though, for in failures one can see the architecture that great artists use successfully in their great works, but which the greatness hides. Here, a faltering Bergman has the curtain pulled back, and we see him not as The Wizard Of Oz, merely as odd.
Shiver.
September 20, 2008

A thanatoxic culture

In his earlier years as a writer/director, Bergman often said he wished film making was an anonymous art. Although he later rejected the desire as "romantic," I appreciate his point. It's difficult to watch a Bergman film with fresh vision. One simply expects a Bergman movie to be of a certain type, and if one comes along that disappoints this expectation, it's all too tempting to dismiss it as a dog.

Disappointed expectations are, I think, a good part of what lies behind negative responses to "The Serpent's Egg." It's true that the film isn't one of Bergman's best. Even he and Liv Ullman admit as much. He thinks it was overdone--"on steroids," as he says--and Ullman thinks that the Bergman got overwhelmed by the Hollywood big money and attitude that produced it. It also doesn't help that David Carradine, who plays the lead role, has got to be one of the worst actors Hollywood has ever produced. (What a study in contrasts, by the way, watching his wooden performance alongside Ullman's brilliant one.)

But even acknowledging its failings, "The Serpent's Egg" is, I think, a very good film. What it isn't is a "typical" Bergman film--at least on the surface. It's busy, gaudy, and has an undeniable Hollywood. Moreover, the script doesn't quite hold together, and at times has a tinny, cheap thriller tone. Yet it's still very much Bergman.

What Bergman wants to do is present a portrait of a culture that is self-destructively toxic. The serum which the evil Dr. Vergerus (nicely played by Heinz Bennent) uses to control minds is aptly named "thanatoxin"--thanatos is Greek for death--and is a metaphor for the alienation, violence, greed, debauchery, and hopelessness that social dissolution and poverty breeds. "People have lost the future," as one character says. Inspector Bauer (fantastically played by Gert Froebe), at one point says that he, like countless other petty civil servants, are simply trying to hang on long enough in the chaos to preserve a bit of local order. If these aren't Bergman themes, nothing is.

One scene is especially memorable. Liv Ullman goes to a priest because she feels guilty about the suicide of her ex-husband. The priest, who seems over-worked and under-inspired, finally tells her that God is so far away that absolution can only come from other humans. In the name of his humanity, he forgives her, and then he asks that she forgive him his apathy, his indifference. Classic Bergman, and terribly moving. August 8, 2008

Not Bergman's best, but not a bad film overall

This movie has a notorious reputation for being Bergman's 'worst film.' His collaborators have stated that he was overwhelmed by the demands of supervising a large crew; additionally, Bergman had never made a film on anything approaching a typical Hollywood budget. THE SERPENT'S EGG was supposed to be Bergman's break-through to the mainstream film market. Indeed, even though the film flopped in America, it made decent money in Europe, and became Bergman's largest grossing film of all time.

It's true, from the outset, that you can sense this isn't a typical Bergman movie. The emotional intimacy present in his previous films is gone. Bergman, who visualized things microscopically, was being asked to visualize macroscopically. The expansive vision of this film seems antithetical to the introspective Berman. His talent was most evident when he worked in small, manageable environments, focusing on individual actors. Here, he is trying to recall a time and place that demands meticulous attention to detail: Weimar Berlin. Bergman was in over his head.

There are certain elements of the film that were almost certainly a bow to the financial realities of working with producer Dino de Laurentiis (whose production company ultimately went broke in the 80's). For instance, the film stars David Carridine, who was a hot commodity at the time, but seems lost in this film; he is unable to respond to Bergman's direction and equally unable to respond to the script's visceral material. It's worth noting that longtime Bergman collaborator Liv Ullman seems at a bit of a loss, too. She turns in a very lukewarm performance, rising to the occasion only once in the whole film.

Despite all of this, THE SERPENT'S EGG is a good movie. But they key to finding the film's merits is the understanding that you have to look at the film NOT as a typical Berman movie, but rather, as Bergman trying to create a piece of German Expressionist cinema. Many aspects of the production, including the sets and the cinematography, echo the work of directors like Fritz Lang, F.W. Murnau, and G.W. Pabst, who comprise the backbone of 1920's German film. THE SERPENT'S EGG is not so much an homage as it is a re-imaginging of the German Expressionist milieu.

The film coalesces in the last 20 minutes, and it is a bit of a slog to that point. But it is ultimately worth it. The numerous red herrings that Bergman throws in seem sloppy because they ultimately do not contribute to the film's coherence; they seem to work against the main storyline rather than add to it. The film seems overlong and lumbering at times, and it is hard to say if that is an intentional aesthetic element or just Bergman's uneven performance as director. The end, however, is as chilling as any you'll find in film noir, containing a twist that echoes both Kafka and Musil.




June 24, 2007

Is It Really The Master's Mistake?

Fear, Loathing, and Despair in Berlin, November 1923

This film universally considered "the master's failure" but I don't agree with the statement. It is very different from the rest of Bergman's films I've seen but that does not make it failure for me. It is only Bergman's second film in English and it boasts an unusual for his films large budget (Dino De Laurentis was a producer) with enormous and elaborate sets. Bergman was able to recreate on the screen Germany (Berlin) of 1920th exactly how it was seen in the films of 1920th German directors - Fritz Lang's films come to mind first. Another film that The Serpent's Egg reminded me of was Bob Fosse's Cabaret - the theme of the Feast during the Time of Plague sounds very prominent in both films, and the cabaret's musical numbers in Bergman's film could've came from Fosse's. I was very impressed by Liv Ullmann's singing and dancing in the beginning of the film - she can do anything.

In spite of the film's obvious differences from Bergman's earlier work, it explores many of his favorite themes. It is in part a political film about the helpless, distressed and terrorized members of society that face the merciless and inevitable force of history and are perished without a trace in the process. Also like the earlier films, The Serpent's Egg explores its characters' self-isolation, inability to communicate, their attempt to cope with the pain of living, their despair, fear, and disintegration.

The Serpent's Egg may not be a perfect film and a lot has been said about the abrupt and heavy handed ending, the dialogs that don't always work, and David Carradine's performance as a main character. Perfect or not, I think it is an interesting, visually always amazing (cinematography by Sven Nykvist is above any praise) and very honest and thorough study of the human condition in the unbearable situation.

In the documentary 'Serpent's Egg: Away From Home' (2004), Ingmar Bergman, Liv Ullmann and David Carradine talk about making the film, how it started and how and why it was so different. Liv said that couple of years ago she and Bergman had seen The Serpent's Egg for the first time, and they both liked it. I am in a good company, then, because I believe that Serpent's Egg is an unforgettable film and everyone who was involved in making it should not be ashamed of it. I am yet to see a Bergman's film that I don't like.


April 8, 2007

The awful truth!

By unexplainable reasons, this film at least to my view was the most discrete film among the impressive cinematography of this Swedish master. The plot definitively doesn't fit according we usually expect from him. The main role featured by David Carradine is simply inconsistent. And if you consider the linearity of the script you will be negatively frustrated with the final result.

Because after having watched all the films of this notable director (one of my favorite ones),maybe this is the only default along the succesful career of Ingmar Bergman.
February 28, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...