The whole purpose of this film is character studies of four neurotic adults and their dysfunctional relationships. The late 1960s produced tons of this type #!%!. Whose afraid of Virginia Wolfe etc etc etc... All these movies do is make me realize how innocent and normal I am after all. They are all praised to high heaven by every brainless sycophant out there.The gist of the story is an unhappy affair that develops between a self delusional woman Anna (Liv Ullman)--who may have killed her husband by driving a car off the road-- and a loner Andreas (Von Sylow) who has been in prison for writing bad checks. There are two other main characters an architect and his wife who spin their neuroses right along side those of the two main protagonists. A subplot involves someone killing maiming and torturing animals--great fun.It gets one extra star for Von Sylow's wonderfully expressive eyes.I watched this thing through...my main thoughts at the end were who killed and tortured the animals? Was it Andreas? or Anna?? neither?? Were animals actually sacrificed for this stupid movie?Regret watching this movie Bergman or not... it leaves me with absolutely nothing except the memory of the killed animals and some messed up adults.If you are masochistic and want to mentally slice and dice and analyze neurotic unappealing people and watch scenes of mutilated animals be my guest.But if you want to be entertained and uplifted avoid this like the plague.

Even with Bergman's star actors, all three or four, it's a question whether the "psychological turmoil" they undergo is interesting enough. It seems like another Bergman drama involving people with deep problems caused by traumatic events in their lives which no doubt is more than anyone can handle yet they involve each other yet it doesn't help anyone because the scars are too deep where they can't help the other damaged person in coming to some kind of a healing but even causes more harm than good. Add to that random cruelties in an isolated area and you have the makings of a Bergman film. Outstanding photography, and beautiful Liv Ulman, and Bibi Andersson in the prime of their careers make it a worthwhile experience.

This movie captures the essence of the brooding Northern Germanic man. A sullen almost depressing piece, the truth displayed in this film is startling. This psychological drama probes four interesting characters.Max Von Sydow tries to hide from life by isolating himself on a remote island. His longing for social contact driven by his sexual needs propel him into an affair with his architect neighbour's wife and an eventual tragic relationship with a widow played by Liv Ullmann.A montage of interviews with the four main actors about the roles that they are playing are interspersed throughout the film giving an immediacy to the sense of mood and truth in this cinematic effort.Bibi Andersson is sensual in her role as is Liv Ullmann, who is at her loveliest. This movie speaks more truth about the desperation in peoples' lives than most.A brilliant effort worth seeing over and over.

Ingmar Bergman's talent and importance are not in question, but now that we can look back on his career as a whole, it's clear that not all his films are equally inspired.THE PASSION OF ANNA is so beautifully acted and photographed, it almost disguises the emptiness at the center. Not only the characters, but the filmmaker himself seems tired, discouraged, uncertain of what he wants to say.It's hard to be bored watching such fine actors work, but the story they're acting doesn't add up to much. Lacking inspiration, Bergman falls back on his customary verbosity and adds morbid touches, such as the unpleasant scenes of animal cruelty here, or Andreas and Anna watching on television a filmed execution in Viet Nam or somewhere, that seem to have no purpose other than arousing revulsion in the viewer.Bergman's concentration on the cruel and the depressing almost to the exclusion of every other aspect of life must have seemed fresh and daring in the 1960s and 1970s, but now he can seem almost adolescent in his obsession with the morbid. Samuel Beckett's plays, chic during the same era, have not dated well either. There's a lot more to life, and to art, than cruelty, suffering, and death, but you'd never know it from Beckett or from Bergman films such as this one.In an interview excerpted in the special features, Bergman says art must be useful, otherwise "we can all go to hell". It's very hard to say what the use of a film like this might be, except to make audiences weary and depressed.Dark works which illuminate the human spirit can be valuable (O'Neill's incredibly depressing, but richly rewarding LONG DAY'S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT is an example) but sometimes Bergman seems to have had a contract to make a film and not a lot to say. Still, everyone was being paid, the distributor required a film to be made and delivered, and it was.One can feel Bergman using a variety of techniques in this film to find meaning in his story -- voice-over narration, improvisation, breaking the fourth wall to interview the actors about their roles -- but one senses he never really does. The film is obviously the work of a highly intelligent and talented writer/filmmaker, but it never really pays off. Viewing it is sometimes painful, sometimes boring, but rarely illuminating.I feel the same way about CRIES AND WHISPERS, an unpleasant and, to my mind, pointless film rated very highly by others. Both CRIES and ANNA are cruel films, cold at the center. Bergman's lack of compassion seemed terribly modern, honest, and "truthful" in 1969, but now it looks more and more like a deficiency in the filmmaker's own sensibility.