★ 7 / 10
I thought there something of the "Brief Encounter
CinemaSerf
I thought there something of the "Brief Encounter" (1945) to this gently simmering tale of love - only this time we are on the water rather than a train.…
I thought there something of the "Brief Encounter" (1945) to this gently simmering tale of love - only this time we are on the water rather than a train. "John" (Jarl Kulle) is the handsome and rakish captain of a small boat who runs a regular shipping route taking him into a small village harbour where he shops in a grocers and regularly encounters a young waitress who has a daughter of her own. Quite swiftly, we can clearly observe that there is a rapport building between the sailor and a girl who identifies herself as "Anita" (Christina Schollin) and that steps up a gear when he takes himself skinny dipping and she takes up residence at the end of the pier - without (?) knowing he's in the water. From this nervous embarrassment comes an invitation from him to take her and "Helena" (Helena Nilsson) to the zoo in Copenhagen and though she is intensely conscious that she cannot just become his woman in another port, so their relationship is prone to quite lively vacillations as their skills at walking on eggshells starts to become compromised by some genuine feelings of affection. As events advance, it looks like if they are to have to any future together, they may well have to leave this town - but is she ready for that and is he ready to commit to a woman who might not have actually told him her real name? Essentially this is a simply structured love story with characters that are empathetically developed with a degree of tempramentality, quirkiness and even the odd dark humour and though I could perhaps have done without the sometimes overly complicated flashbacks, there is something engaging about the straightforwardness of the plot, here. Aside from showcasing the reputational double-standards of behaviour between the sexes, this also leaves us guessing to an extent about just what might happen. This isn't a join-the-dots exercise and at times the skills of both Kulle contrasting his "Jack the Lad" attitude to women with his obviously growing feelings for "Anita" and the remarkably understated but powerful Schollin delivers us chemistries that rather effectively sum up the ebbs and flows of any arrangement subject to that biggest of all pressures - not being free to be free. The supporting assembly also delivers quite potently to craft an atmosphere of compromised claustrophobia and there is something of the lapping tide to the pace of this stylishly photographed film, too.
★ 8 / 10
Seen it in Swedish without subtitles. Loved it
R T
Seen it in Swedish without subtitles. Loved it a lot. Very emotional.
Seen it in Swedish without subtitles. Loved it a lot. Very emotional.
Romantic classic; not gimmicky enough for today's fans
lor_
After all these years (I remember the hub-bub when this was released in '66) I was thrilled to finally see DEAR JOHN, a great Swedish film which proved to be…
After all these years (I remember the hub-bub when this was released in '66) I was thrilled to finally see DEAR JOHN, a great Swedish film which proved to be the "date movie" of its day here in America. And I also discovered why it has fallen into obscurity.Writer-director Lars-Magnus Lindgren, a very talented & versatile filmmaker, brought impressive technique to telling a simple tale, of a wanderlust sailor and a single-parent waitress who fall in love. Nowadays there would have to be a hook, some fantastic or deus ex machina gimmickry to keep the audience's attention, as in the string of dreadful Nicholas Sparks soggy-romance adaptations, including coincidentally a new film called DEAR JOHN.But Lindgren wisely keeps it simple, natural, believable and moving, his only trick being a very complicated time structure of flashbacks and flashbacks within flashbacks. There's method in this approach, as the film's final two twists take on a depth thanks to the careful foreshadowing (playing off and around the film's title implication of a farewell note).Casting is in no small measure the secret of Lindgren's success here. Jarl Kulle is the 30-something hero, quite different from his archly played Bergman roles of the period like THE DEVIL'S EYE and ALL THESE WOMEN. Because they're Bergman works, though among his least favored, I used to see them all the time, but DEAR JOHN remained elusive all these years.Kulle's sailor has a Billy Budd hairstyle which immediately gives Kulle the necessary youthful appearance. He seems self-centered and "one of the guys" for the early part of the film, leading the audience to believe he's only out for a sexual conquest to tell all his pals about. This adds wonderful panache when the tables seem to be turned in later reels, all leading to an even-handed and satisfying romantic conclusion.As the leading lady we don't have a blonde bombshell but instead the very ordinary (but lovely) Christina Schollin, who reminded me strongly of America's Mary Stuart Masterson (they even have the same toothy smile). Like Schollin, Masterson was cast in many leading roles for about a decade starting in the mid-'80s but never broke out of the pack to achieve stardom. Even her BENNY & JOON opposite Johnny Depp didn't cement her in the pantheon.With Schollin, the breaks were there, the performances too, but she's still too little known. Her Arne Mattsson film WOMAN OF DARKNESS is brilliant, and of course it doesn't get any better than Bergman's FANNY AND Alexander. Back in DEAR JOHN she is touching, so natural one never feels you're watching a star turn. The script's frank treatment of sex (there are many jokes later on about Kulle's "John Thomas", not the sort of thing you'd see or hear about in a Hollywood movie of the time) is its initial drawing card, with extremely tasteful nude scenes.So flash-forward to the 21st Century and it is precisely the hokey films that fans (and grubby video distributors) have revived. Sex movies like Joe Sarno's INGA or a slew of Mac Ahlberg soft (and hard) porn titles are in circulation, but not DEAR JOHN.Helena Nilsson is wonderful, again completely natural, as Schollin's cute child, and Kulle's impromptu spiriting them away to Copenhagen to see the zoo is a beautifully directed set-piece. And Rune Ericson's black & white visuals are evocative -I've always loved his work for Mai Zetterling and this movie explains why she made him her go-to d.p.Now I'll have to hunt for even more obscure Schollin/Kulle pairings from the early '60s: Lindgren's LOVE MATES and Swedish WEDDING NIGHT; unsung quality cinema.
71%
AUDIENCE
6.4/10
471
