# Talk:Fanny and Alexander

The article says "set in 1907-08..." I'm going to change this as soon as I've watched the whole thing, because it continues at least into 1909. The opening Christmas celebration is 1907; Oscar dies in January 1908; and when Emilie announces that she's leaving the theatre, she specifically mentions that Oscar has been dead for a year now, making it January 1909. (The show they're doing is Twelfth Night, which is of course appropriate to January and backs up this date.) I've only seen the first two parts so I don't yet know if it continues beyond 1909.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.100.97 (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC) 

If the major part of the film takes place during 1909, approximately from January to August, then the epilogue is early summer 1910. Anyway the film isn't strictly historical - there's several things that just don't fit in the Sweden of 1907-10, even apart from the overtly magical elements to do with Isak and his nephews. There's no trace of the big general strike that hit Sweden in the summer of 1909, and which affected all walks of life for a number of weeks. The mores and attitudes aren't quite realistic either - the way they embrace May and her child at the end, adopt them,  would have been inconceivable at that time. Strausszek (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Image:Fanny&Alexander.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fanny&Alexander.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Uma Thurman was also listed as appearing in this film." - WHAT?82.181.84.89 (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No. no. no. Though the parts of Emilie and the Bishop were originally written for Liv Ullmann and Max von Sydow, and an elder sister of Fanny and Alexander, Amanda (who is around in the published script, though she sort of disappaers from view) was intended for Bergman's and Ullmann's daughter Linn Ullmann. She wasn't availiable either, it turned out, and the part seemed a bit superfluous, so it was removed from the schedule./Strausszek (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
As Roger Ebert pointed out, Faithless was Bergman's last Feature Film work. Though not directed by him, he did write an original screenplay. --64.114.135.25 (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do not understand the paragraph that goes "However Pernilla Wallgren (later known as Pernilla August) who also did well as... " as it is clear and self-explanatory that those are two separate actresses.

An IP editor added the claim:

"The statements that all (or most of) the main actors of the ensemble generally knew each other well personally before being hired, and that the film was a quick shoot, are erroneous though; the cast were not, generally, close old friends, though many of them had worked with one or a number of the others in the past, and the film took about six months to shoot before editing could begin."
If true, this needs a ref; and then it should go into the Production section, not Critical reception, where it certainly doesn't belong - so it's here. If not... Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Emilie's remarriage is abruptly presented to the audience, with no scenes of the courtship. We do not see Edvard (the Bishop) proposing. We do not see her discussing him as a new mate with  anyone. So instead of “finds a new suitor in the local bishop, a handsome widower, and accepts his proposal of marriage, moving “ I suggest “marries a widowed local bishop, moving”.
2. The Bishop's contest of wills with Alexander is, I agree, worthy of mention in even the shortest summary.  However the “something Emilie had not expected” is speculative and should be removed. More important than Emilie's expectations is that Alexander learns from the ghost of the Bishop’s first wife that she and her children were locked up for days and died trying to escape.  The Bishop gets really nasty when he hears of this account, which would be damaging to him if believed. His dramatically forceful extraction of a recant by Alexander confirms to the audience that Alexander has by supernatural means come to know the truth. The ghost's tale is a turning point in the contest between the Bishop and Alexander. It deserves mention in the plot summary.
3. The phrase “as well as some magic,“ should be removed. Yes, the ghosts of the first wife and her children appearing to the Bishop do slow him down, allowing Isak to succeed in smuggling the children out. However, this is a small point. Admittedly, it confirms that in this movie ghosts are real. But it does not deserve mention.
4. The happy, life affirming final speech by Gustav is important. It is Bergman's summary of the movie and belongs in a plot summary. But the occasion of his speech need not be covered in detail. Which babies? A christening dinner? The plot summary would be better if these details were removed. The speech is important because it addresses, however obliquely, the question Are Ghosts Real? Tomday (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you edit the plot summary (removing surplus detail, especially) to make it as good as possible? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If the work is filmed at Uppsala is one thing, but set there is a different matter. Uppsala is the Archdiocese of Sweden and is the home of the archbishop of Sweden. (There is only one of the kind in Sweden) And as Jan Malmsjö portrays a local bishop, can the film hardly be set in Uppsala. I guess it's a fictional city. Are there any sources that possibly could be of help ? Boeing720 (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research Ribbet32 (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fanny and Alexander/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 09:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I will review this article. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


#### Comments
General
Some cases, you have written "Bergman", and at other times, "Ingmar" (for example:"Ingmar's relationship with his sister Margareta during their shared childhood is depicted through the character Fanny, who is included in the title though she is not as large a character as Alexander. Bergman had previously modeled characters after his mother, Karin Åkerblom, as simultaneously "virgin and seductress": Emilie also fits that self-contradictory design."). Be consistent with this (If the names of wither "Ingmar" or "Bergman" or both together show up in quotes as quoted by someone, then leave it as it is).
It became necessary to refer to Ingmar in paragraphs dealing with more than one Bergman to avoid confusion. I'm otherwise not on a first-name basis with Mr. Bergman. Ribbet32 (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Section-wise
"who becomes abusive towards Alexander for his vivid imagination." — Alexander isn't mentioned before this. Do clarify in the lead by saying it as "who becomes abusive towards one of the siblings, Alexander, for his vivid imagination."
Actually, it refers to the eponymous children before then: "http://www.dictionary.com/browse/eponymous eponymous: being the person after whom a literary work, film, etc, is named"
"The documentary film The Making of Fanny and Alexander was made simultaneously with the feature and documents its production." — Write a synonymous word for "documents" to avoid repetition of "document".
Tweaked Ribbet32 (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
"Alexander had fantasized about his stepfather's death while living with Isak. Isak's mysterious nephew," — "Isak" right after one another. Rephrase the sentence. Maybe like "Alexander had fantasized about his stepfather's death while living with Isak. Ismael Retzinsky, Isak's mysterious nephew,, explains that fantasy can become true as he dreams it."
Tweaked Ribbet32 (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
"Bergman intended the film to be his last feature film" — Avoid repetition of "film". Can be written as "Bergman intended it to be his last feature film".
Tweaked Ribbet32 (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
"although he wrote several screenplays afterwards and directed for television." — Is this line sourced? If not, do source it.
Yes Ribbet32 (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the "Pre-production" section has many instances of the word "for" close to one another. Vary the sentences a little bit.
Tweaked Ribbet32 (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
"On the first day of photography, Bergman decided to stage a pillow fight, which Wallgren credited for putting her at ease." — Was she nervous on the first day? She would've been. A bit more clarity would be required in mentioning that.
Tweaked Ribbet32 (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
"Portraying the burning Aunt Elsa, a male stunt performer was actually burned by spilled napalm." — Did the performer die or survive? Again, a bit more clarity would be required in mentioning that.
Tweaked Ribbet32 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
"Note d shows one big statement/quote. Either try trimming it and explaining it or put it in a quotebox. The former would be better.
Trimmed again Ribbet32 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
"relatable though more specific in its story" — Do you mean Ebert says the characters are relatable to the audience? Do clarify.
Tweaked Ribbet32 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
"As a student, the film was shown as" — Was the actor an actual student the time he saw the film or does it refer to "student of cinema" kind of thing?
Tweaked Ribbet32 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Source review
Ref no. 102 — Is JP's Box office a reliable source? Can you find a better alternative?
It's used throughout English and French Wikipedia, which may not mean much, but it has also been used as a source in published books by scholars [1] [2] [3] (p 60). Ribbet32 (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Add the "subscription required" tag for References 145, 147 and 148.
Done Ribbet32 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Change the ISBN in Bibliography to ISBN-13 (all of them) like how you have done in this article for one of the books
Don't understand this one. The template does not recognize "ISBN-13" ("Unknown parameter") Ribbet32 (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I looked at the tool you left on my user talk. It looks like it's from some US site rather than ISBN's international official website, and when I tried one it converted an ISBN into a random string of numbers that could no longer bring up the correct edition of the book. Since the ISBNs are correctly copied from the actual book sources, I don't see this as a required "fix". Ribbet32 (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
The books appear correctly for the first four after placing the isbn-13 number though, year and all. I checked them myself.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 04:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Ssven, I don't understand this sudden concern with removing referencing information and making ISBNs unusable. Verification is a GA criterion. Also, it's hard to do much given the constant edit conflicts, and there's really no reason to split the review between here and my user talk. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Quite right. As you pointed out "Since the ISBNs are correctly copied from the actual book sources, I don't see this as a required "fix"". I do apologise if I was persistent about it.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 04:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
"Haenni, Sabine; Barrow, Sarah; White, John, eds. (2014). The Routledge Encyclopedia of Films (Revised ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-68261-5"
Page numbers missing for Reference nos 83, 100 and 116.
Unfortunately, those pg numbers are unavailable to me, but I noted the chapters in the first two. The third is Maltin, his book is in alpha order. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
That's about it from me, Ribbet32. Good job expanding the article on such a significant landmark film in Bergman's career. Address these comments and the article will be promoted.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
Pass or Fail: 

@Ribbet32: Thank you for addressing my comments, and congratulations. Another Bergman film promoted.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 04:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The note attached to the naming of the location where the film takes place suggests that the place is not explicitly named in the film, but at the beginning of the second part we are shown the sign in front of the theater announcing the upcoming production of Hamlet and it shows the theater is named the "Upsala Theater". The spelling with only one "P" is out of date now, but that is how the name of the town was spelled at the start of the 20th century when the film is set. 47.54.108.74 (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The plot as it stands is a fair description of the cinema theatrical version (albeit with too little detail of the first half of the 3+ hours). I removed a scene which does not appear in that version, where "Emilie's former brothers-in-law confront Edvard to negotiate a divorce, using the children, the bishop's debts, and the threat of a public scandal for leverage, but Edvard is unmoved."
Can someone who has seen the full TV miniseries version (i.e. not me) add a second version of the 5+ hours plot, and add it as a second, alternative version?Masato.harada (talk) 05:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, meaning it has to be more than excessive plot summaries; real-world aspects of the film, including its reception and production, are important. The two versions have the same plot (I've seen them); what you're requesting is akin to  having two plot summaries on Apocalypse Now, one for the theatrical and one for Apocalypse Now Redux, and it was wrong of you to take it upon yourself to remove something just because you didn't see it. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I removed the description of a scene correctly because it is not included in one version of the film, not because I didn’t see it, and I note you have not reverted that change. Waving your finger at me is not in the Wikipedia spirit of respect and courtesy to other contributors, and is disappointing.  Perhaps you could improve the article by describing the material in the two hours difference between the two versions? The only indication in the current article is that Bergman regretted ''’losing much of the fantasy material. He remarked, "This was extremely troublesome, as I had to cut into the nerves and lifeblood of the film’'', so clearly the differences are important. Masato.harada (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)