User Reviews

With the exception for the abrupt and somehow rushed and unsatisfying ending, "Magician" is a typical (in a good sense of the word) Bergman's film that I liked a lot. I would call it "The Tortured Soul of an Artist or Smiles of a Summer Night meets Hour of the Wolf." I did not know what to expect from the film and was pleasantly surprised by an interesting story; impressive (especially in the earlier scenes in the woods) black and white cinematography; perfect blend of humor, intense drama, and mystery. Acting was perfect - not a big surprise with the cast like that: Max von Sydow, Ingrid Thulin, Gunnar Björnstrand, Bibi Andersson, and Erland Josephson. I'd like to mention Naima Wifstrand as Granny Vogler - what a great actress and what a character - she stepped out from the pages of the fairy tales, the old witch, wise and powerful; she also provides many comical scenes.

7.5/10

I've seen a lot of Ingmar Bergman films and sometimes I don't want to see one of his films about death or mental illness. Well, starting in the 1960s to the 1980s, these were the main themes of his movies, but in some of his earlier films, these are not so pervasive--such as the movies The Devil's Eye (a comedy) and The Magician ("Ansiktet"). Because of this, they may be more approachable to the average viewer who would balk at the much more serious tone of such classics as Through a Glass Darkly (deep depression), Persona (mental illness), Autumn Sonata (repressed anger and abandonment), The Seventh Seal (death and the plague) or Fanny and Alexander (child abuse and emotional neglect).

The story is about a traveling group of hoaxters who put on a show combining magic and "animal magnetism" (i.e., an early name given to hypnosis). When they arrive at a Swedish town, they are forced to come to an audience with the local official and his cronies who want to prove that the act is a fraud. Bergman really doesn't try to resolve this issue, but instead shows how the town officials are really rather petty and mean people. How this traveling group deftly survives this encounter is the main focus of the movie. I especially liked the portion of the movie about the autopsy. It sounds gross, but I thought it was actually kind of funny. One of the officials is a cold and rather nasty doctor who longs for a chance to do an autopsy on the hypnotist. He gets far more than he bargains for--that's all I really want to say--otherwise it might ruin the suspense.

So, overall I liked the movie. It was not great but well acted and not the least bit depressing.

Everybody wants to believe, born into a world that constantly deceives, that magic is real, as we make a deal, with an agent that death's door conceals - or at least that was the case in ages past when such beliefs were seared into you from birth.

Don't be fooled by what you see, the customs, costumes distract thee, a grand façade to suck you in, from birth, controlled, conditioning.

The illusions that confuse and abuse perfectly encapsulated in a magical and mesmerising piece of cinema that merits repeated reviewing, and why wouldn't you with several Bergman stalwarts performing to their absolute best, and some.

Vogler's Magnetic Health Theater rolls into town and is promptly summoned for a meet with the town big wigs. Hoping to expose all involved in the theatre as charlatans, the disbelievers request a personal show before allowing the show to go public. With very interesting results.

There is a belief amongst many Ingmar Begman fans that Ansiktet (The Magician) is far too accessible a piece to be considered one of his greatest pieces. And whilst it does find Bergman more easy to understand for the casual viewer, it's however still complex enough to thrill and niggle the mind in equal measure. Taking two factors that he very much adored, masks and magic, Bergman threads them off into various directions, and in the process testing us the audience as to just what to expect from the story. The mysterious wonder of it all is naturally aided by Bergman's use of light and shadowy trickery, symbols loom heavy without dampening the theme on offer, with nothing of course actually quite being as it seems.

As is normally the case under the master director, the cast are uniformally strong. With Gunnar Bjornstrand and Ingrid Thulin particularly standing out. But really this is all about tricks and ideas relating to magic and its blending in with reality. So much so that with the end comes an awakening that we the audience are indeed props in one of Bergman's shows, and that can never be a bad or even an accessible thing.

A fascinating picture from a very fascinating director. 8/10

I didn't expect to like this movie, given its period, headline subject matter etc. But don't let those factors put you off, there is real depth and some top notch scenes in this surprisingly superb movie.

Max von Sydow, Gunner Bjornstrand and Ingrid Thulin are three of Bergman's most consistent quality performers and all three have major roles in this film. There are a fair number of stereotypical character parts, mostly performed by ensemble quality character actors. Bibi Andersson is capable of far more than her giggly girl part enables her to show in this film. Indeed, there is some comedic material in this film reminiscent of Smiles of a Summer Night, but don't mistake this movie for one of Bergman's less masterful light pieces, this has real depth and substance.

There are some amazing bits of cinematography, especially the early scenes. The pacing of the movie is masterful, as is the clever use of parallels in the story - the failed actor "dying" and then reviving is a prelude to the pivotal incident around Vogler's "demise".

Top notch scenes include Mrs Egerman opening up to Vogler - she seems so lost - also both scenes in which Bjornstrand's character (Vergerus) insists that he was not taken in by the "magic".

This is now in my Bergman top 5, which makes it a "must see" in my book.

(Flash Review)

Taking place in 1848, a traveling magician theater arrives at a well to do local home, with servants, to perform their tricks. The owners have invited some important officials to watch. The performers are met with skepticism and mocked. While their main act appears amateurish, their real performance occurs off-stage as they have been invited to spend the night. While the audience points them out as frauds or charlatans, they expose their own inner vulnerabilities. As some eerie but not really scary events occur will their minds be changed or will they continue to disbelieve? This was an interesting little story with much of the symbolism being clarified and referenced if the viewer has an understanding of Ingmar Bergman's other works.

Many people may have missed the satisfaction of reading the extra layer of meaning in this film: that the "magician" is the the filmmaker or visa versa, in this case Bergman himself. Without giving anything of the plot away, I can say that The Magician is a reflection on Bergamn's role as a creator of illusions. He uses the story of a roving theatrical troupe with an magician to illuminate the metaphor. The apparently abrupt turn of events at the end is Bergman's signal that he is the master of your perceptions in this medium, that he compares to the experience of dreaming.

It is interesting to compare this film with Fellini's 8 1/2, another filmmaker's reflection on the process and meaning of film-making. Two very different sensibilities are at work in these two films, but with surprisingly close parallels in their endings, and involuted plots.

I found this film highly satisfying on many levels, even taken at its apparent face value, as a romp. Seen a second time the illusionist begins to emerge more clearly, from the moment the film opens, with the lighting of the arc lamp of a film projector.

Labeled by IMDb as a comedy, a genre one could ever relate to Bergman's school by the narrowest of margins, this is THE MAGICIAN, Bergman's atypical abandon in conspiratorial ridicule of the dialectic face-off between science and occult, but to what end?

A bandwagon transports the troupe of Vogler's Magnetic Health Theater to a unspecific town where a spectacle is booked, but the group's practice is challenged by Dr. Vergerus (Björnstrand), the Minister of Health, who resolves to debunk their act as pure hocus-pocus. The gauntlet is thrown down, Albert Vogler (von Sydow), the head of the troupe, takes it up with fortitude and selective muteness. It appears that a complacent Dr. Vergerus has the drop on the frozen-out troupe, but a consequential skulduggery is in the pipeline aiming to turn the table and Bergman really jumps the shark to ensure that to happen in its money shot, which takes place inside a locked attic, where Dr. Vergerus gets spooked by an apparently resurrected Albert, although audience is tipped off well in advance. These sequences are rendered with striking chiaroscuro contrast and perturbing foley effect, in lieu of the usual reaction shots of screaming and panicking, Björnstrand imbues a divine flair of restraint into the moment, wavering between being soundly startled and trying to recollect himself at any rate.

Essentially, this is an ensemble piece, schematic vignettes limning human interactions in sometimes frivolous (the love potion gimmick and its knock-on are too tongue-in-cheek to suspend our disbelief), sometimes gnomic (the usual apparition of a witch-like Naima Wifstrand as Albert's garrulous granny verges on being goosebump-inducing) manners, but there is no emphatic through-line to connect all the dots, it is merely a menagerie of grotesque characters, tainted by their heterogeneous foibles and quirks.

Mr. von Sydow brings about a sharp presence through the dichotomy of a man's camouflage and realness (especially by dint of his soul-stirring gaze and stoic looks), and Ingrid Thulin beautifully gets worked up as the intrepid wife of Albert with a gimlet eye. In addition, Bengt Ekerot (the iconic Death himself in THE SEVENTH SEAL 1957, 8.4/10) has a short but critical role as a dying actor succumbing to alcoholism, greatly ignites the screen whenever popping up with his self- destructive yakking, to a rather poignant effect.

Profoundly immersing oneself into this aesthetically captivating picture of Bergmanesque hallmark (camerawork, art production and their paraphernalia are all first-rate and enthralling to behold) amalgamated with a willfully flippant approach in its narrative, one might tend to be simultaneously attracted and grated, the larger-than-life philosophy which it has been dwelling on eventually comes off as nebulous and scattershot, but undeniably, THE MAGICIAN can also be deemed as a hard-earned fan's favourite because at least for once, Bergman lets up a bit his sharp-edged perspicacity and indoctrination, and salts this escapade-like fable with a dash of nonchalance and slyness.

I was really curious about this film because I've seen it before, but it's been more than a decade since I've seen it and I wondered if I would still feel some resistance to the film as I did before. I remembered shockingly little of it, though my memory of the ending was pretty clear. So, I walked into the film with both little knowledge of what was going to happen and a clear memory of the twist at the end. It was an interesting position to be in.

Anyway, the movie's about a traveling company centered around the mysterious figure of Dr. Vogler, a mute magician who uses a variety of techniques, particularly magnetism, to create his amazing sights. Upon entering a community in the vicinity of the Swedish royal palace, the company is stopped by the local authorities including the police chief, the royal physician, and a man of wealth. The physician and the man of wealth have a bet about the existence of invisible forces influencing life (meaning things like ghosts, not gravity). The physician is strongly in favor of his own rationality, but the wealthy man seems to view the bet as little more than a way to pass the time.

They house the company for the night until the next morning where they perform for the small audience. That night is largely centered around the servant's eating area in the kitchen where the troupe, minus Dr. Vogler and his wife, interact with the servants, selling snake oil and seducing each other. The undercurrent of belief versus non-belief runs through the whole movie, but it's particularly pronounced here as Tubal, the boisterous announcer and master of ceremonies, sells a love potion to the older servant who knows that she's buying snake oil, but is happy for the companionship when she drags him back to her room.

Above, Dr. Vogler and his wife deal with two different seductions themselves. The wealthy man's wife throws herself, in a mixture of depression and seeming boredom, at Dr. Vogler who responds mutely as he always does. The physician tries to tear away Mrs. Vogler, but she's too faithful and Dr. Vogler attacks the physician at the tail end of the event.

The next morning, they go through with the performance which leads to Vogler's supposed death. Here's where the movie actually begins to lose me a bit. Up to this point, I've been wondering how everything ties together (I don't think it does, in the end), but then we see the troupe go through some actions that make it obvious they're part of a scheme but we don't see clearly what it is. So, when the physician comes in and determines that Vogler is dead, we know something's not right, so we're between perspectives. We don't know everything the troupe knows, and we don't know only what the physician knows.

It turns out that Vogler isn't dead. The troupe switched his body with that of a traveling actor who had died in their presence (twice actually, the first time was an act). And this is what I remembered clearly, Vogler running around at the end of the movie, so I knew that Vogler haunting the physician in the house's attic wasn't a ghost. I think it actually helped my viewing, though, because I began to see what this movie might actually be about: illusion. It seems obvious in retrospect, but when we suddenly have a haunting at the end of a movie, and confused circumstances that led to its arrival, it can be hard to fathom what's actually going on.

And, I think that's ultimately the movie's problem that keeps it from some of the heights of Bergman's other works. It's really opaque and hard to fathom just what's going on. This isn't a dig for meaning we're having trouble with, but a more mechanical trouble around who's where and what we're supposed to know is actually happening. The long scene in the kitchen also ends up feeling like it may have a couple too many characters (in particular Sanna, the innocent servant girl, feels superfluous).

I do like the film, though. Like most Bergman, it's intelligent with interesting ideas. Characters are generally wonderfully written as well. However, there seems to be some kind of war at the heart of the film about what needs to be exposed to the audience and what needs to be hidden. Bergman never seems to have quite found the right balance, so it ends up a slightly more frustrating experience than it should be, at the center of what could be considered Bergman's height of creative output.

An appropriately mysterious Gothic tale with fascinating characters, who may or may not actually possess certain powers, the material is envisioned well by Ingmar Bergman, with careful attention to lighting design, and the acting is superb. Max Von Sydow is given the most intriguing part to play, and he pulls it off well, but Ingrid Thulin and Naima Wifstrand both deserve mentions for breathing life into their fey characters too. The film is about illusions ultimately, and those who are too critical to suspend their disbelief. It is a bit hard though interpreting exactly what Bergman intended by some of the oddities that he has placed in, such as dispersing poison to a young man. Are these attempts to add humour to the tale? Even with these odd inclusions and rushed ending that is a let down, it is quite a satisfying film overall. The music is great, the acting is excellent, and the interesting characters help make this film one of Bergman's most intriguing pieces.

The three films that Ingmar Bergman produced at the close of the 1950s -- DET SJUNDE INSEGLET, SMULTRONSTAELLET and JUNGFRUKAELLAN -- tower so high in his output that one might forget that these were not his only productions of the era. ANSIKTET ("The Face", released in English-speaking markets as THE MAGICIAN) from 1958 is one of his lesser-known films.

In mid-19th century Sweden the magician Albert Emanuel Vogler (Max van Sydow) goes from town to town promising people cures for their ailments and performing magic tricks, including what was the sensation of the time, hypnosis. He is joined by his tout (Aake Fridell), his "ward" Mr. Aman (Ingrid Thulin) and his "grandmother" and the troupe's maker of patent medicine (Naima Wifstrand). After fleeing the law after a performance in one town, they pass through the forest and enter another community. Here they are detained by the authorities, so that the physician Vergerus (Gunnar Bjornstrand), the consul Egerman (Erland Josephson) can decide a wager on whether Vogler's tricks are real spiritual powers or scientifically explainable illusions.

While ANSIKTET should not be overlooked for fans of Bergman, I think it's fair that the film is not ranked among Bergman's greatest achievements. Characterization is pretty slim -- we get no idea of why Vogler and his companion chose this life, and Vergerus is so shallow that Gunnar Bjornstrand seems wasted. And had the film ended three minutes earlier it would have been one of Bergman's more powerful conclusions, but instead we get a completely unexpected happy ending that just seems lame. Much of the middle part of the film depends on sex jokes that are funny at times, but I suspect anyone who knows Bergman's great output will continuously be thinking that he's capable of so much more than this.

Still, ANSIKTET does have a generally thought-provoking dramatic arc, and some moments will prove memorable. I especially admired the battle between Vergerus and Vogler and the magician's breakdown (funny how his temperment appropriately changes with his clothes in this scene).

Yet another film where the artist/magician (i.e. Bergman) is tormented by the bourgeoisie (i.e. The Swedish establishment). Wake me when it's over. And pay your goddamn taxes, Ingmar!

Most of Ingmar Bergman's films are meant to titillate the intellect. The Magician is no exception. It is rich with symbolism. I think it ranks right up there with "Death in Venice" on the list of misunderstood movies.

I believe the most rewarding level of meaning in "The Magician" is the religious one. Bergman was often concerned with the implications of religious beliefs. And almost always from the attitude of doubt. Consider the lines in The Seventh Seal where the vicious monk, annoyed with the knight's persistence, asks, "Will you never stop asking questions?" and the knight replies resolutely, "No. Never."

Watching this movie with the idea of Vogler as Jesus provides a perspective that informs the characters and their conduct. This melancholy magician, doubted and persecuted by the powerful, surrounded by strange and suspicious persons, is simultaneously visionary and earthy flesh and blood. He only wants to perform his miracles for the masses. Or is he a charlatan? What a powerful way to pose that question.

The Magician's original Swedish title is Ansiktet, which in Ingmar Bergman's language means 'The Face'. It's also worth noting (thanks to the Peter Cowie essay with the DVD) that the subtitle in the script is 'A Comedy'. Is much funny in this film? There is some absurdity - very dark, brooding, harrowing, sometimes horror-movie absurdity - but maybe it's there. There's even some humor to be had among the supporting characters, like the (for 1958 frank) sexual talk with Bibi Andersson's character and the younger man with the magician troupe. But it's all the same fascinating to see those two points - the fact that, as in many of Bergman's other films, the face is key as almost a plot device, and that he sees it as a comedy. But hey, so did Hitchcock with Psycho, right?

The Magician is set in the mid 19th century and is Bergman right after the one-two punch of The Seventh Seal and Wild Strawberries continuing his cinematic inquest into truth and enlightenment. The conflict is not exactly plot driven, though there is a solid premise and a good story: a "Magical Health Troupe" (that may not be the exact wording, but 'health' is in there) arrives to do a performance - this includes the Magician Vogler (Max von Sydow) and his assistant "Mr" Vogler (Ingrid Thulin, dressed like a man for a little while) - for a heavily skeptical doctor and his group (other Bergman regulars include Erland Josephsson and Gunnar Bjornstrand, the latter being the doctor). This troupe carries some baggage with them - they've been in prison before, it's spoken of - and it's obvious just by Sydow's face, with a fake beard and dyed hair, that there's something 'funny' going on.

Rationality and irrationality, that's what's at play here, and also the whole idea of what constitutes believing in something that's outside of the 'scientific' explanation. It's interesting to see that Dr. Vergerus (and this name would later pop up as antagonists in Bergman films, most notoriously in Fanny & Alexander) is probably more interested in doing the eventual autopsy of Vogler than really seeing any magic 'tricks' he has to offer - if they're tricks at all. And it's even noted that they are charlatans by one of the members in a key scene. But Bergman's aim here, and what drives things to be so moving and compelling and even touching, is how other characters react to these magicians, with their 'potions' and fortune telling. One of the doctor's wives actually takes a liking to Vogler - it should also be noted this is over the course of a night - and it's one of those scenes that is so striking for the tension in Sydow's face, how everything is building up inside of him.

It may be almost a spoiler to say that Vogler can, in fact, speak and just chooses to use it as part of his disguise. But the conflict is constantly driven by the choices and world-views of these characters, and this goes too for a 'dying' actor who is seen early on in the film and... we assume he dies en route to the main part of the story, but he re-appears mid-way through to give Vogler some late-night advice before he departs again. Is this Bergman putting himself in the film, saying that whether you bring illumination and wonder and the unknown in the world that you're still mortal? Probably, and it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

There are two main magic acts in the film, and they're both brilliant, awe-inspiring works if only on technical grounds: how characters move in the frame, the surprises that come to these people. One of these is a little quicker (the one you'll see involving 'invisible chains)). In the second, without saying too much, Vergerus does do an autopsy on a character late in the story, and this is something closest to a horror movie (ten years before Hour of the Wolf no less) and how Bjornstrand moves in this attic, how the elements may be playing 'tricks' on him, but most importantly how Bergman is making his own magic trick going on is shocking and a lot of fun.

It's actually terrifying, and in the way that you may wonder how it's being done... or, maybe that's not true, you know so much of the conflict has led to this point in the story - between what is quantifiable to a villainous man of science (yes, in this story, villainous) and what may be unknown in the world of conjuring and pulling the imaginary out of thin air - and it's because of that that you can't turn away from what will come next, while Bergman uses all the tools of cinema (cinematography playing with light and shadow, ominous music, how the actors move and react in such a tight place).

Some of the choices aren't great; I wondered why there was such BIG music near the end, it felt out of place. And I almost wished there were more 'little' moments in the film, like when the Granny character sings to one of the lady workers at the house and she slowly falls asleep. That's a really nice moment that adds to that hypnotic ambiance in The Magician. Yet I can't recommend it enough, especially to those just getting into the director's work. Not everyone here may be likable, matter of fact even the characters you're supposed to have most sympathy for are manipulative and jerky and full of angst. But do they make for some great drama? You betcha.

When 'Vogler's Magnetic Health Theater' comes to town, there's bound to be a spectacle. Reading reports of a variety of supernatural disturbances at Vogler's prior performances abroad, the leading townspeople (including the police chief and medical examiner) request that their troupe provide them a sample of their act, before allowing them public audiences.

The film was distantly inspired by G. K. Chesterton's play "Magic", which Bergman numbered among his favorites. Bergman staged a theater production of "Magic" in Swedish at one point. Chesterton is an author who needs more love, and if it comes from Bergman, all the better.

Although this film is great for its portrayal of science versus the supernatural, what really makes it worthwhile is Bergman's use of color. No one, and I mean no one, mastered black and white like he did, making every film a joy to watch even if the story was not good. (Luckily, his stories are always good.)

Some reviewers have set themselves out to compare The Magician squarely against Ingmar's previous two masterpieces, The Seventh Seal and Wild Strawberries and mark The Magician down, unfairly. It almost cannot be possible to attain the dizzy heights of adulation of those two and as such, we are treated something lighter and possibly, more enjoyable.

Mr Bergman, in his long illustrious career covered many types of subjects. Starting with straightforward and rather dull dramas, through kitchen-sink (Ikea style?!!) and onto the darker shades of human psychology. And beyond, sometimes.

The Seventh Seal succeeded due to its extraordinary storytelling and imagery - along with just about everything else. Wild Strawberries due to its poignancy and leading performances that resonated with a sense of recognition and support in its audience. Other titles offer dark, deep blackly brooding death obsessed monologues that brush against exquisite period dramas of superb detail and cinematography.

The Magician, though has always been one of my favourites. Neither comedy nor horror film but light, often humorous drama that touches upon the Wonder in us all. We all want to see behind a master of illusion and the mixture of nostalgia, set in the comparatively fairytale setting of Scandinavia. I almost find it more akin to Conan Doyle than the witch- hunting or almost unfathomable symbolisms found in many other Bergman's.

As Bergman is one of my favourite directors of all time, warts and all and have 47 of his films I'd say this has much to offer, both to fans such as myself as well being good family entertainment that strengthens his cinematic arsenal, not weakens it.

I appreciate Bergman's mastery of cinema very much, especially his inimitable ways of story-telling, together with the splendid photography of Gunnar Fischer or Sven Nykvist, and - always - a magnificent cast of first-rate actors. Undoubtedly, "Wild Strawberries" or "The Seventh Seal" are classics of world cinema.

And with regard to the cast and cinematography, "The Magician" is no exception to this appreciation. - However, I do feel a bit uncomfortable each time a touch of humour comes up in Bergman films. In my humble opinion, these movies mostly haven't aged so well - be it that our sense of humour has changed over the past 50 years, be it that Bergman's humour might seem a bit forced, in the first place. My overall impression of "The Magician" is that of a fairly heterogeneous movie with a tremendous beginning, then with several changes of mood (and BTW large plot holes, as well), and finally a rather unfitting ending.

In my opinion (I truly hate to say so): one of Bergman's weaker efforts.

The Magician came out at the high point of the famous and fantastic Swedish director, Ingmar Bergman's career, it came out right after Wild Strawberries and The Seventh Seal and right before The Virgin Spring and his famous "Spider-God" or "God's silence" trilogy. But the magician has not been remembered in the same light as those films, in fact it's been mostly forgotten. The Magician follows Volger's Magnetic Health Theater a traveling performance troupe that is run by Albert Emmanuel Volger. (Played by Max Von Sydow.) Many authority figures are skeptical on whether they should be allowed to perform in public. So they are asked to come perform for Dr. Vergerus (played by Gunnar Björnstrand) and Police Superintendent Starbeck (played by Toivo Pawlo) at the house of the rich merchant Mr. Egerman. So that they can see if the performance is fit for public consumption.

After watching the Magician I can see what it is less popular than The Seventh Seal and Wild Strawberries, it lacks the dark atmosphere and theological complexity of The Seventh Seal, and soft subtle human emotion and melancholy of Wild Strawberries. But even though The Magician lacks the depth of some of his other films, Ingmar Bergman's skill and style are still present. The Magician is mostly restrained to the large estate of Mr. Egerman, which is composed of some of the best sets I've seen in an Ingmar Bergman film, this gives the film a wonderful isolated feel. The film's isolated feel is only magnified when coupled with the film's sense of mystery, which makes for one very entertaining film.

I really shouldn't even have to say this, considering it's an Ingmar Bergman film, but the acting is great. A lot of Bergman favorites like Max von Sydow, Gunnar Björnstrand, Ingrid Thulin, and Bibi Anderson all star in the Magician, and they're all as good as ever. Max Von Sydow deserves special praise, his character doesn't even speak until an hour through the film, but everything we need to know about him is told through his pose and facial expressions. His character is one that is filled with a deep sadness, he has clearly lived a difficult life but it know it is finally his chance to prove himself to real professionals. The films cinematography is on par with most Bergman films of the time. The film was shot by Gunnar Fischer, who has done wonders on some of Bergman's past films like The Seventh Seal and Smiles of a Summer Night and does wonders here. He captures the dark halls of Mr. Egermans estate perfectly.

Even though I can see why The Magician is not considered as good as some of Ingmar Bergman's other films, it is still criminally under seen. The film is one of they most "comfy," Ingmar Bergman films out there. And sure it may not be as complex or beautiful as some of his other films it is still classic Bergman. And if you're an Ingmar Bergman fan you definitely don't want to pass this film up, but if you're not familiar with Bergman I would suggest checking out some of his more famous films before watching this one.

7.9/10

It's not Bergman as his most tormented or saturnine, but it's thoroughly entertaining, more theatrical (in a good sense) than say Persona or In a Glass, Darkly, and still an unqualified masterpiece on a level of artistry that no one making films today seems to be able to achieve. It makes me think in some ways of Shakespeare's plays like the Henry IV with their mix of tragedy and comedy--all done with tremendous showmanship. I'll bet Orson Welles admired this film-- if he ever saw it.

Bergman seems almost forgotten today. Films like this one, Naked Night, Hour of the Wolf, Persona, etc., hardly ever crop up on TV or film festivals. When Bergman is represented, it's usually by The Seventh Seal (not my favorite, and a film that begs for a parody), Wild Strawberries, Smiles of a Summer Night (because of the musical version, no doubt), or Fanny and Alexander, which is more recent, and most important, in color. What a pity. The man created a body of work virtually unsurpassed in the second half of the 20th century.

"The Magician" is one of my personal favorite Bergman films! While it isn't as classic as films like "The Seventh Seal" and "Wild Strawberries", but I think that this film deserves just as much credit as other, more acclaimed Bergman films.

This is, without a doubt, one of Bergman's lighter films. While the film does get really dark and even sad at times, a majority of it is surprisingly light, and there's tons of comic bits! Trust me, it's much lighter than a film like "Winter Light", a Bergman film that's basically about a priest that starts losing his faith and just becomes depressed. While that isn't really the whole film, that's the basic plot synopsis!

"The Magician" is also very beautiful to look at (like all other Bergman films). The lighting and cinematography are beautifully Gothic and fit the story well.

Overall, this is an amazing, funny, and beautiful film from a masterful filmmaker.

Where I wasn't a huge fan of Bergman's most famous film 'The Seventh Seal', I found much more enjoyment in 'The Magician'. Perhaps I just needed to understand the vibe and tones that Bergman typically displays in his characters and plots. Either way, The Magician is a fun & oddly creepy film at times. And an even greater display of Max Von Sydow's talent.

7.5/10

Its a film I was disappointed with.

The acting was overboard by and the direction was wayward. I thought that the director Ingmar Bergman sought to offer us a mystique spell and took the help of Magic and illusions in this. The visuals are nice but there is haphazardness in the placing of scenes. The characters seem to have been half baked and not fully evolve. There are not enough reasons presented as to why anything happens. The climax makes the whole film comical, gesturing that we can get away with whatever crime we did, if the intentions are for good.

It's not about the realities we live with but more-so about the imagination of director. I really if the story was about the magician or is it it about something else called the imagination of the magician. Why he goes after people who are not for him, how he gets selected suddenly by the king at the end? Questions left unanswered do not satisfy the hunger of watching this, and rather left me in lurch and disappointment.

The acting was mediocre considering that it was Max Von Sydow, arguably a great Swedish actor who played the protagonist. I did not understand his angst nor did I get to know what the silences meant. The others (I do not remember their names) are just OK.

The sound track is great, the guitar was used generously and creates the mood nicely. The cinematography was just right. The art direction is extravagant perhaps adhering to the need of the period in which the film was set. The editing could have been way better. The moments where Grandma speaks some lines could have done in a better way or better chopped off.

It's an average watch and not a fully satisfying one for me. A 2/5 for this.