Truly Dreadful Film

Some things I liked some I did not.

An absolute waste of money

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

This would be fine as an Italian farce. It is basically the story of a dull man who is full of testosterone (interesting because he's a gynecologist). Through various affairs and indiscretions, he has lost his connection to his wife. They are a match for one another and fight and spar through the whole thing. There is a little Taming of the Shrew action. First he steals her from his best friend; then he offers her back; then he wants her again. It is clever enough, I guess, but I expect more profundity from Bergman. Some of the banter is clever but ultimately, it's that old story of a man and wife, playing at a game, pretending not to be married and then setting up an encounter.

"A Lesson in Love" was, at least to some extent, an exception in Ingmar Bergman's production which reached its breakthrough one year later with "Smiles of a Summer Night". Then continued with such masterpieces as "The Seventh Seal" and "Wild Strawberries". However, even if "A Lesson in Love" wasn't the film which defined Bergman, it is still very enjoyable, witty and intriguing. In a sense, it meant a follow-up for "Summer with Monika" which gave a kick-start for the sexual liberalization of Scandinavia. In the very beginning, "A Lesson in Love" reveals the essence of its nature, which is veritably ironic: "A comedy for grown-ups. This could just as well be a tragedy. Its protagonist isn't the man nor the women but the unpredictable life itself." The story centers around a couple who have been married for 15 years. Both have had their affairs but now -- through memories of past and days spent together -- it's time for a possible reconciliation during a train travel where they 'accidentally' come across with each other. Gunnar Björnstrand is fabulous with his sarcastic charm as the man who has lost his faith in enduring, eternal love. In addition, Harriet Andersson plays a fantastic supporting character as the man's charming yet rebellious daughter.It is no wonder that Bergman chose train as the main milieu for this film which is, for most parts, built on numerous flashbacks, memories and dreams. For isn't train really the milieu which captures the core of our logic -- of our subconsciousness? During the train travel, all that is essential is performed in front of our eyes: the unhappiness of the protagonist's marriage is, paradoxically, due to its harmonic welfare. It lacks on something very substantial, something irrational. It is as if the sterility of bourgeois life had suffocated all genuine emotions which often are the factors that make marriage lively and vivid. That is to say, similar thoughts prevail the mood of this film which were due to characterize all of Bergman's subsequent films."A Lesson in Love" is not necessarily your regular comedy of the 1950's but, to my mind, it has several laugh-out-loud moments. In this film, Bergman is at his best striking a few blows at the patriarchal, while depicting marriage as a real purgatory. In fact, Bergman's comedy is so black that, at times, laughter is about to get stuck in one's throat. Such serious matters he makes fun of. The whole ridiculous absurdity of the society, which is built on the unjust institutions of marriage, religion and fatherland, culminates in the dinner party scene where a prayer is rendered, a thigh is flashed and a fight breaks out. Such anarchist criticism bears a striking resemblance to the films of Luis Buñuel who also operated poignant analyses of the western society. By conducting a rather sensual study on sexuality and the contradiction of eroticism and love, "A Lesson in Love" even manages to gather some feminist features, making the film extremely interesting in its historical context.Although the film includes a few expressionistic images and discusses some existential themes, which have made Bergman so famous, it is still a very unusual work for the director. It is really the thesis of the film which makes it recognizable. For, in the end, the lesson of this session, both gloomy and jolly, isn't left ambiguous: romantic love is impossible unless if structured on the act of deception and severe self-betrayal.

I used to adore this movie in my early 20s for some reason, and watched it several times then. I'm no longer that impressed today. Ingmar Bergman admitted he loved watching US screwball comedies in his youth, so this is his take on that genre. Imagine Cary Grant in his typical role in a black-and-white US screwball comedy, and that's exactly the character ably portrayed by Gunnar Björnstrand in _A Lesson in Love_. But, there's one big difference: Björnstrand is not just the Swedish version of Cary Grant here: he at the same time manages to be the same character he portrays in arguably Bergman's greatest masterpiece, _Wild Strawberries_ -- a film made 4 years after this one. Indeed, another parallel between the two is the character of the elderly professor, portrayed here by the veteran actor Olof Winnerstrand; 4 years later, it would be another veteran actor, Victor Sjöström, once again as the father of the Gunnar Björnstrand character. In fact -- and this is astonishing -- many of the insights and sentiments spoken by the characters in _A Lesson in Love_ could appear, unedited, in _Wild Strawberries_, too; there's a consistency of outlook in these Bergman-like characters, even in a film that is presented as pure comedy. Whereas _Wild Strawberries_ focuses on the father, _A Lesson in Love_ highlights the son's marriage struggles; both have in common that they are portrayed as egomaniacs -- while whatever occurs in the movie is meant to correct that bad assessment of the character; nothing is so clear-cut in Bergman's world as to make it possible to condemn anyone as pure egomaniac, and that's that. Harriet Andersson is great in portraying a teenage girl's identity crisis; the performance is as realistic as one would expect in any dramatic movie. Feminists would shred _A Lesson in Love_ to pieces nowadays, because it shows the man ultimately "winning" over -- or "winning over" -- the woman. The slapstick is so-so, and will likely impress the viewer more when it is watched in a normal viewing environment; however, if you choose to stop and rewind and re-watch several scenes in closer detail, you are apt to notice several awkward moments. Some takes are so flagrantly unsynchronized to the preceding takes that it almost makes you wince; it's as if Bergman wanted to finish the movie as fast as possible. However, the dialogues and observations are witty or clever enough to keep you interested for the 90+ minutes of the movie's runtime, even if the ending (starting with the quay scene) is far-fetched and difficult to believe as realistic.

Bergman and comedy don't quite go together. Some of his comedies are so naff you almost wince. This film has the odd naff moment - the last 30 seconds being the nadir, but on the whole this is a charming (rather than funny) piece, enjoyable throughout. Bergman casts several of his usual suspects who perform well. There is a great scene on the train between David, Marianne and an uncouth salesman which will stick in the memory. Some of the marriage material is typical, cynical Bergman, but this is Bergman in a light rather than dark mood.This film has its moments and is worth the 90-odd minutes. Not one of his classics and not the place to start if you want to fall for Bergman.