User Reviews

Separate cultural worlds entwine and collide, as David and Karin collude and backslide, betraying a friend, the other a partner, to gorge on themselves as their passions are transferred, not sure what will come of their clasps and embrace, with eyes that adore though there's often no grace, two lost lonely souls, with nowhere to go, marooned in their worlds by the seeds they have sowed.

It's not the most engaging piece of cinema from the maestro, Bibi Andersson is as gorgeous as ever and presents Karin in a way only she could. As for Elliot Gould, I'm not sure he really fills the role, cultural European Arthouse cinema is not what I would ever associate him with, and it shows, especially if you compare him to the legacy of legends that have preceded him.

Not one of Ingmar Bergman's- Sweden's greatest director and one of the greats in film history- masterpieces like The Seventh Seal, Fanny and Alexander, Wild Strawberries, Cries and Whispers and Persona. But it was better than I'd heard it was and it beats All These Women and The Serpent's Egg any day. The Touch is wonderfully shot by Sven Nykvist, no surprise as Nykvist's cinematography was always striking, complimenting the gritty yet beautiful locations just as well. There are moments where Bergman's inexperience in bilingual shows but he still directs capably and most thoughtfully with not many signs of heavy-handedness or pretensions if any at all. The music is appropriately atmospheric and takes care not to be intrusive. The story for the first two thirds is touching and mostly compelling, with themes and plot strands that are relatable to anybody going through the same thing, it didn't come across as heavy-handed to me, and have a sense of Bergman's style. Bibbi Anderssen is superb in a very nuanced portrayal, if there was a pick for the best thing about The Touch it would definitely by Anderssen's performance. Max Von Sydow is as enigmatic and stoic as ever, with facial expressions and eye contact that speaks volumes, a very sympathetic performance. The Touch is sadly hurt by mainly Elliot Gould as a rather stiff lead, and the awkward dialogue written for him(Anderssen and Von Sydow are not as badly affected though, though they have had much better material) and padding in the final third particularly that leads to literally nowhere are just as problematic. That is personal opinion though. Overall, not a bad film at all, in fact it is an interesting one especially for Anderssen and the cinematography but Bergman has done much better than this. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Like the little girl who, when she was good, was very very good, but when she was bad she was horrid, Bergman seems either almost supernaturally brilliant or shockingly bad. Sadly, this film must be filed in Column B.

The main problem is with Elliott Gould's character. Badly written and performed, he is simply not believable as an object of attraction for the always wonderful Bibi Andersson. His childish behaviour is jarring and not provided with any convincing underlying rationale. Instead, he is simply irritating and increasingly repellent.

Max Von Sydow is his always reliable self as Andersson's cuckolded husband, but his role isn't big enough to salvage a sinking ship.

Bergman in English simply doesn't seem to work (see also The Serpent's Egg) and makes one fleetingly wonder whether his Swedish films are similarly stilted in their original language. But then one remembers the brilliance of Scenes from a Marriage, Autumn Sonata and all the rest, and reaches the conclusion that this clunker is the exception that proves the rule.

This underrated Ingmar Bergman film is a disappointment to some and a puzzle to others. But if the viewer looks past the mundane story line, a middle class marriage threatened by a moody, violent stranger, one can see just how much richness Bergman has invested into this otherwise predictable type of story. I found Karin, the modern heroine in this story, to be a perfect symbol of the flip-side of Bergman's fascinating female protagonists.

The harsh criticism that Elliott Gould received for having accepted this role was unjustified and grossly exaggerated. Taking on a role like this is a thankless task at best and his interpretation of the despicable David was misunderstood. I think it was an authentic and courageous performance, an example of an actor who decides to portray the character straight without looking to advertise his own star persona.

Confronted by a type like David, we can understand how Karin could succumb to his advances and not even see where she's heading in this self-destructive relationship. We see stranger stuff than this in real life, why not accept it being put to an audience by the greatest film director who ever lived?

Not as bad as the recently watched The Serpent's Egg (1977) made in West Germany but still enough of a Curate's egg to ensure that the bad parts infect the whole. The English dialogue, written by Bergman is wretched and it is an indication of the man's dictatorial attitude that it should have got through to the screen. Elliott Gould seems terrible but that may be in part because of the words he has to spout, well maybe he should have said something, or improvised like he has before. Not with God in the room, perhaps. Bibi Andersson does better and truly apart from the stunning cinematography is the only reason to watch this abomination. Starting appallingly, the film does pick up, probably as with any bad film, we almost get used to the unconvincing dialogue but then the last third is almost laughable. The director has, of course made great films, before and after this, so we will put it down to having been 'lost in translation' and leave it to the completists.

This has to be the most generic title Bergman ever used. I kept forgetting what the movie was called as I got ready to put in the disc.

Anyway, here's a fairly solid late entry into the Bergman oeuvre. It could have been better, especially in its final third, but it's anchored by a fantastic performance from Bibi Andersson and the first two thirds are quite interesting.

Karin is a happy housewife to Andreas in a small Swedish town, and they have two children. The movie actually begins with Karin arriving just too late to the hospital to see her mother alive for the last time. The sight of her mother's wedding rings sends her into a crying fit and, hiding away in a closet, she encounters David for the first time. David is an American-Jewish archaeologist visiting the area for work on a church. He's invited to Karin and Andreas' house where he quite boldly announces to Karin, just out of earshot of Andreas, that he's in love with her. She doesn't know what to do with such a protestation. Everything we've seen about her live indicates that she's actually quite happy, but we can sense a certain void sexually. After David goes home, Andreas and Karin are entering bed where Andreas says that he was going to seduce Karin but he's just too darned tired.

She meets him at the church he's working where he shows her a remarkable sight. Behind one of the walls is a perfectly preserved statue of the Virgin Mary (this has very strong metaphorical properties which really come out late in the film). Karin then, for reasons she can't explain to herself, decides to meet David at his apartment (a run down little domicile in direct contrast to the bright white and clean state of Karin's home with Andreas), and begin an affair with him. David, though, is obviously psychologically off-center. He even slaps Karin at one point, who reacts in, first, shock and then in a motherly laugh as though her child had just thrown a meaningless tantrum. That's something that really jumped out at me, Karin's treatment of David is less like an impassioned lover and more like a mother treating a child. She even calls him childish at one point. She's not looking for physical love (perhaps that's how it started), but she stays because David needs her.

Andreas doesn't need her. He's a very busy man as a doctor. Her children don't really need her either. They've entered their teens and are largely self-sufficient (the daughter, the older child, even cooks the meal at the beginning of the film). There's quite a bit here to chew on, and it's as strong as anything in Bergman's later career.

The third act, though, is a bit more on point than the typical Bergman. We learn that David's family was almost completely wiped out in the Holocaust. We also learn that there's a muscular issue that runs in his family from a late visit with his sister in London. But when Karin receives her ultimatum from Andreas to either stay in Sweden with him or go to find the recently disappeared David in London, I sensed something was missing. I wanted more from Andreas. I wanted to get into his head as much as we did Karin and David. The movie suddenly felt like a three-legged stool where the third leg is a few inches shorter than the other two.

Still, in the final moments as Karin rebuffs David to end their relationship one final time, I was engaged. She's pregnant with (most likely) David's child, and she can't have anything to do with David anymore. Is it because she finally sees him as the destructive personality he's always been? Or is it because she's finally got someone who will rely on her fully again (the baby)? In fact, from the time I started this review to this moment, I've actually grown in appreciation of the film. I still think that Andreas should have been fleshed out more, but Karin's journey has grown in my estimation as I thought it over.

Bergman's rather unique work, without its own staid to the point of being old-fashioned audiovisual language, the camera has become more flexible with the addition of English monologues rather a shift towards westernized directing (of course, Married Life breaks this doubt)

The plot is quite tight but drags a bit, and the information is very sketchy (as he always is), the worst part is the sex scene with David, which is quite breathless and disgusting, and can be called Bergman's last male explosion in his middle age.

Compared to its own rules and regulations of the audiovisual, this THE TOUCH in the flexible lens seems to give Bergman more emotional space to narrate a love story, but at its root that kind of drama does not fit the attributes and a dad taste of strong patriarchal color, it is also very difficult to let a person empathy.

I've heard a lot of things about this film -- it generally gets low reviews, is described as "unBergmanesque", and the fact that its so difficult to find led me have very low expectations for the film. I expected something between the atypical Bergman plot of "The Serpent's Egg" and the disturbing social violence of "From the Life of the Marionettes." I finally tracked down a copy, poor in quality, and expected mediocrity at best when I put it in.

After having just finished watching it, I can say I was very pleasantly surprised with the film. A lot of the things said about it are just plain false -- the plot is very much in keeping with Bergman's other material. A married woman, Karin (Anderson), falls in love with a disturbed architect, David (Gould), and the two begin an emotionally confused love affair. Karin is caught between her happy bourgeois life with her husband (Sydow) and children, and her passionate, unconventional relationship with David. Acting in bad faith, Karen refuses to choose between her two lives, though both David and her husband eventually push the decision on her. Like most Bergman films, its a psychological roller coaster and a bleak portrayal of the coarseness of human relationships.

Bibi Anderson does a wonderful job in a very difficult role, and Max von Sydow plays the part of the honest and good intentioned husband very well, playing hard on the viewer's sympathies. The stiff performance of Gould echoes that of Carradine in "The Serpent's Egg," so it must unfortunately be attributed to Bergman's struggle with directing in English, not on Gould himself. If I recall, the film was made in both Swedish and English, both versions filmed at once, which poses obvious production difficulties which might account from the some times mechanical treatment of the script.

The film has an excellent pace to it, and moves very swiftly and smoothly, wonderfully shot by Nykvist in a way very similar to "The Passion of Anna." Unlike a lot of Bergman's depressing work in the 1970s, I felt good about the film when it was over.

I don't know why this film has such a poor reputation -- I'm very much baffled after having seen it. My guess is the obvious mistake of having made it in English accounts for most of this.

Its seems a lot like Bergman's other work in this period. Very Good.

My favorite scene in The Touch was at the beginning, when a woman (Bibi Andersson) arrives at a hospital and is told her mother has passed away. She enters the room, and sees her mother lying there peacefully, with traffic noises audible through an open window. She enters the room and her eyes survey the scene. Her mother's eyes are still open, as if still looking out the window. We can only imagine what she was seeing in her last moments, or thinking about. There is a tight shot of her hands, adorned with wedding bands, then a close-up of her face. She was once in love and married, those rings were slipped onto her fingers and were there all these decades. As morbid as it sounds, we wonder if they should be taken off and held onto. Through the window, a double-decker bus pulls up to a stop, and we realize that of course, life goes on, oblivious to this little scene. There are shots of the medical equipment that was used to keep her alive, now no longer turned on. Her daughter sees the clock on the nightstand - 5 minutes to 3:00 - still ticking away. Next, photos of children, who we'll latter see are her own children, and her mother's grandchildren. Then a water glass, still half-full, and her glasses. When she last used these objects, did her mother know it would be the last time? She approaches the body, touches her hands, strokes her hair, and embraces her, then draws back and leaves, after a brief backward glance. I found the economy in this scene and how much it conveyed without words or dramatic affectation simply brilliant.

Unfortunately, this has little to do with the rest of the film, which is about the woman having an affair with a visiting archaeologist (Elliott Gould). Not surprisingly, her life is soon all tangled up, like that the ancient runestone of the knotted up snake she happens across while visiting the site he's working at. Her husband (Max von Sydow) works too hard but when he catches on he's quite stoic about it, not lashing out at either of them and simply telling her lover that his wife must choose. She's in the next room of the apartment listening in, mind you. There's something quite nice in the treatment of Andersson's character, who is not only not judged, but is also empowered.

Adultery stories are as old as the hills, and while this one is elevated by Andersson's charm and von Sydow's restraint, ultimately it falls short because of a lackluster script. How the archaeologist acts comes across is more than a little affected, careening between bold flirtation (telling her husband he'd like to see travel photos of her nude during a slideshow), impotence during their first encounter, later tortured and angry while screwing her, hitting her out of frustration when she arrives late another time, and a little bit of tenderness. I can't really fault Gould as some critics did, I just think Bergman tried to get in too much angst and it was in some rather heavy-handed ways, making the passion of the affair ring false. As he put it in 1994, "The story I bungled so badly was based on something extremely personal to me: the secret life of someone who loves becomes gradually the only real life and the real life becomes an illusion."

In "The Touch", Bergman almost seems to take his vaudeville seriously, but without giving it substance. For once, the master doesn't seem to be able to deal with either his story or his characters, whose psychology is reduced to their desires and impossibilities. We wait for them to reveal themselves, but nothing will come out of it other than their conventional discomfort. A disappointment.

...and I think part of the reason for that is, aside from some notable uses of symbolism (some subtle, some not so subtle, in part due to the photography), the story is rather simple. This gives Bergman room to try and get us to understand these characters. In lessor hands (or rather, hands not as proficient in the soul-searching drama as Bergman is) this could be almost a TV melodrama. But I would disagree with some critics- notably with Ebert- that Bergman has lost his tone with this picture. In some ways it is more modernly set than some of his other films (and that it is in English sets it apart from some of his trademark Svensk Filmindustri pictures), however it doesn't hurt it terribly so. There were times while watching the film, mostly in the first fifty minutes, that I thought this was one of Bergman's best, by giving his control somewhat over to the actors, who are all sensational. While it doesn't quite live up towards the end, and feels abruptly finished, the climax doesn't feel too compromised. The Touch is like the Adrian Lyne film (which draws itself from a Chabrol film) Unfaithful, only this film seems a little more steeped in reality than outright sexuality.

Karin (Bibi Andersson, one of Bergman's key actresses) lives a rather calm, routine life with her husband Andreas (Max von Sydow) and their two children. After her mother dies (which I suppose sets up her emotional indecisiveness for the film), she meets David (Elliot Gould), and the two slowly begin an affair. But David is not the most stable of people, and it shakes Karin up at first. Soon they fall in love, but are separated, the sort of usual machinations with an infidelity story begin to unfold, and yet not losing the emotions from before. The three key actors of the film, Andersson, Von Sydow, and Gould, seem to live in these characters, and especially Gould (for whom this would be his only role with the director) conveys a sort of double nature that is also within Karin. His performance is one that I would put in a list of his best- you can tell everything he wants and fears in his face and actions, within the careful framing, this is a man on the edge. Bergman had once described Gould as a "difficult" actor to work with, but that tension came out the right way on screen, at least from my perspective.

As I mentioned, in lessor hands this could become a further melodrama, and part of the films refusal to subvert to that category is a credit to not only Bergman, but to cinematographer Sven Nykvist. Whenever I see a film with their collaboration (or even if it's Nykvist with, perhaps, a lessor director), I always watch for how Nykvist moves the camera. How seamlessly he follows these characters, and in their darkest recesses he lights them like the light and control on their faces is part of the writing. A lot of times (appropriately so) one may not even feel the presence of the camera, as if Nykvist doesn't even have a technique. But it is here where not only does he and Bergman go with their touches of light and dark, they also go for a documentary feel in the production.

Basically, this is an experiment for Bergman, as it is for his fans to endure. He's experimenting with a genre done hundreds of times, he experiments with music (unlike some of his dramas, which includes Bach or Mozart, here it's kind of pop-sounding for the period), and he experiments with his cast this time around. Is it as powerful and awe-inspiring as his "trilogy" or his other great works? Probably not. But it is unfortunately panned down as a lessor work of his, which isn't necessarily true. The film also needs to be seen by more people of today, as it is virtually impossible to buy on video or DVD. A-

"The Touch" begins with a death and a woman in red and since the woman is Bibi Amdersson we know we are in Bergman territory. The dialogue may initially be in Swedish but before the credits have rolled Elliott Gould has appeared and the dialogue shifts to English. Yes, it's Bergman and Bergman as we know him but this time in English, at least for a good deal of the time. The film was largely dismissed on release but has since built up something of a reputation. Gould is miscast; it''s hard to accept him as an intellectual and you keep feeling his character would sound better in Swedish but in any language both Andersson and Max Von Sydow as her husband are superb. There is nothing new here; this is Ingmar doing what Ingmar does which is either up your alley or it's not. As one of his many scenes from a marriage it's certainly more than adequate, if hardly groundbreaking. Sven Nykvist was once again the cinematographer so it looks terrific. A masterpiece? Certainly not, but difficult to dismiss either.

In a small town in Sweden, Karin Vergerus (Bibi Andersson) is a middle-class housewife, married with Dr. Andreas Vergerus (Max von Sydow) and having a son and a daughter. She meets the disturbed German-American Jewish architect David Kovac (Elliott Gould), who is restoring a church in her town, and has recently become friend of her husband. David has drinking and smoking problems and after a dinner party at the Vergerus's home, he confesses his infatuation for Karin to her. This declaration revives her sensuality and femininity, which were forgotten after fifteen years of stable and loyal marriage. Karin has an affair with David, tearing apart her world: in one side, she has the stability and safety of her boring marriage and bourgeois life, and in the other side, she has the freedom of the relationship with her lover. She has lots of difficulties to decide the course of her life. This magnificent open end film is another wonderful work of Ingmar Bergman, his first English spoken movie. Bibi Andersson, Max von Sydow and Elliott Gould have again outstanding performances in a touching story about a thirty-four years woman divided in two possible lives and without knowing how to decide the way to be followed. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): `A Hora do Amor' (`The Hour of the Love')

I guess the ones who are most apt to truly understand the depth of this movie are those who live a situation similar as Anderson's character - a housewife, dutiful to her husband and children, living a normal, stable, yet boring life. Then bursts into her life a charming, attractive, mysterious and intriguing man. Elliott Gould gives an amazing performance - different from the usual type of character he portrays, still perfect and natural. Thinking back at the movie, I cannot imagine any other actor doing playing the role the way he does. The movie is simply wonderful.

Bloody hell, that was bad. I love most Bergman films, but this was shocking. I lay most of the blame with Elliott Gould. Admittedly, he was dealing with a dreadful script, but he took wooden recitation to new lows. To be fair, the Swedish actors made a far better fist of the risible script, considering that they were using a second language (raising my rating from one star to two). This verges on a Monty Python parody at times - watch it and chortle.

It's the story of a married woman falling in love with another man. The married couple - Max von Sydow and Bibi Andersson - does live in fine rapport, their personalities matching well. Both are quiet, contemplative, and very rational persons, not liable to act spontaneous. The intruder - Elliott Gould - on the idyll which they embody together with their teenaged daughter is in contrast an impetuous man, uncompromising, overbearing, and tormented by inner contradictions and compulsions. Andersson tells him at one point that he hates himself. The two clandestine lovers aren't appropriate for each other. They have difficulties to accept the other's social behaviour and stance and don't like it to lie to their environments. But soon they cannot live without each other anymore.

The point of the film cannot be to show how two contrary characters complement each other, as Andersson was even more happy with von Sydow before and because it's all told in such a detached manner. The portrait of a love would like to involve the spectators to convey the joy and pain of it. Instead the question why Andersson turns away from von Sydow toward Gould seems intentionally perplexing. The dialogues and acting of the lovers is cerebral and cold, as if they were reciting dazedly on a stage, astounding themselves with their actions and feelings. As if they were actuating on an impulse isolate from their personalities. This impulse or drive is not eros, as especially at the beginning of their affaire sex is more a problem than a fulfilment to these two diffident lovers. Maybe love or the need to feel and give love is itself such a drive, an autonomous thing asserting itself regardless of the circumstances and the characters involved.

The central metaphor of the film is a medieval wooden statue of Mary, recently excavated after being buried for centuries - like Gould's and Andersson's potential to be lovers or man and woman. But with the disinterment of the Mary there also come alive insect larvae inside her, corroding her from within. Before they meet Gould attempted suicide and Andersson was reduced to a wife. They flower in their new love and it destroys their lives.

Civilization means in many ways the domestication of our impulses. Therefore Andersson realizes that she must not harm lastingly her family and Gould's hidden wife/sister. This is true. But Gould is telling her that she is lying to herself by not eloping with him and he's right, too.

Ingmar Bergman certainly ranks among the elite of film directors, yet missteps with this, his first (of two) English language film. The Bergman regulars, Bibi Andersson and Max von Sydow star as an upscale Swedish married couple whose lives are altered by the seemingly mysterious appearance of American Elliot Gould. After a series of (not so) discreet passes, Andersson finds herself falling for the moody, unpredictable Gould.Sven Nykvist's cinematography and one surprisingly tender love scene nearly save this, but, the film is unable to overcome two glaring flaws: the awkwardness of the dialogue (written by Bergman) and the poor performance by Elliot Gould. Gould, I suppose, can be an engaging actor, but is way out of his league; this film is, ultimately, only for completists.

Maybe I finally found my recommendation for a first Bergman movie to watch, if you are not aware of his output. Just because it is considered a lesser Bergman does not mean, it is a bad movie. Actually I thought it was a pretty decent one, to say the least.

Elliot Gould has a really tough role to portray, though it is the woman in the lead again who has more convincing to do, with her character. But both are really good in conveying their feelings, as weird as they may seem to some. And while this again is not an easy movie or story, it is one that can be followed really easy. Not many Bergman fans are fond of it (as you can see by that rating), but that shouldn't put you off. Try it for yourself

My wife and I just saw Elliott Gould's private copy of "The Touch" at a film festival. We both thought it was a fantastic movie. Scenes were so realistic and true to life. I also thought that the cinematography was a work that I would rate very high. I have discussed this movie with friends and it seems that quite a few of us could relate to a few of the characters in our own lives. The movie was directed superbly in my opinion. The intensity throughout the movie was an emotional roller-coaster to me. I found that afterwards I had sweated profusely but this was a good thing. Elliott said that this movie was not available to buy or rent. I would be interested in knowing if anyone out there knows of its availability. Thanks

Obviously meant for the US market starring Gould. Hardly a notable Bergman production, but much above most comparable run of the mill Hollywood production. Is it worth seeing now? For curious viewers and Bergman fans, mostly. Ghee those actors are sexy.

"The Touch," is Swedish and English, though the majority is in English. It was released in 1971, got very mixed reviews, and was a box office dud. Among the "mixed" reviews I'm one who really liked the film and would place it among my top five Bergman films.

The story involves a Swedish physician, Andreas (Max von Sydow) and his mid-30s wife, Karin (Bibi Andersson). They have two children and on the surface appear to have a solid marriage, though we know Karin is experiencing grief on the recent death of her mother. An American archaeologist based in London, England, is in their town working on a rare image of the Virgin Mary found in an old local church. David (Elliott Gould) is somewhat erratic and has some mental health issues. Part of his history includes losing many relatives including his father, in Germany in the Holocaust.

The story revolves around a lengthy affair between Karin and David, following it from its beginning through a stable period and to its apparent conclusion. At one point, Andreas, who knows something is amiss for a long time, finally confronts David after receiving an anonymous letter informing him of Karin and David's relationship.

David abruptly returns to London. Karin follows him in an effort to find out why he left, and meets David's sister who keeps his house and may have a relationship with David that goes beyond a sisterly one.

There is no resolution at the end, which fits the nature of the film.

I found Bibi Andersson to do a wonderful job portraying a woman trying to hold the two parts of her world together. The story line flowed very well, I liked the musical score. I liked the subtle humor found at multiple places. The image of wedding rings seemed prominent at several points. There were other images around the Virgin Mary that I found less accessible.

With all the clarity of the metaphor of the wooden Mary eaten by insects from the inside, we are left with the essential questions, put abruptly in the very last words:

• Duty? What duty? To whom? To the husband who forbade? To the child to be born? To the family? To the lover's sister?

• Will it be fulfilled?

• Karin is lying? Is she? If so, is it wrong? Is it on the contrary acceptable? Should David accept it?

• Will she kill the larvae or destroy the statute?

• How to resolve the contradictions? Should one? Should one not? Should Karin and David? Do they? Or do they try to escape?

• They seem to be failing, but at what? Are they doomed to fail?

Sure, this is an update, a postmodern one, over Mme Bovary.