User Reviews

I have to agree with the previous comment, this is certainly a sad film I would go further, it's actually a grim little tale. Bergman pulls no punches, the medaeval world he shows is a hard, harsh, bleak place. There is a sense of menace in almost every scene and the actual rape is graphic and nearly unwatchable. The characters are not finely drawn, but after all this is a fairy tale in the older mould. They are there to represent types and conditions. The sad, doting mother; the unbending Christian gentleman; the flawed cleric; the ferocious, deceitful rapist-murderers. The tale on one level is very simple and can be simply followed; jealous sister curses more favoured sister, favoured sister is cruelly killed, killers ironically claim refuge of her father, father exacts revenge on them. So far we have something that could have come out of many a European ballad tradition. However, on another level it contains fundamental comments on humanity and human behaviour, Christian moral theology and our reaction to it. The father's faith is tested, he is not the man he thinks he is and his religion is not what he thinks it is either, though he submits and adopts a position of blind hope. The killers represent the complete absence of good that Aquinas maintained was the definition of evil. The young brother is the pain of conscience. In many ways it is a play on the deadly sins, apart from gluttony they are all there; wrath on the part of the father and pride in his daughter; envy in the half-sister; lust and avarice in the herdsmen and so on. It is truly an exemplary tale, as a medaeval legend should be. I bought this film casually at a street stall in Taipei for an absurdly small amount of money and it lay on a shelf unwatched for quite some time. In a bored moment one night I slipped it in the player and found myself enthralled until the finish. The cinematography, of course, is excellent but the joy is the dark threat that filigrees it, the simple but powerful emotions both quietly and violently displayed. It lacks the grandeur of "The Seventh Seal". It's a smaller and more compact number but it some ways the better for it, the evocations are more direct and the violence unnerving. I recommend it very highly indeed, you will be thinking on its themes long after this simple little tale finishes.

The murder scene...I occasionally show this movie to my tenth graders; when I first did, I hesitated: these kids have been raised on slasher movies, I thought; they're going to think the murder scene is lame. No, not a problem. Even with no splashing blood, or background music, or extravagant muscle...they are silent and horrified. And it seems to me--but I've never been sure--that you can actually hear the second herdsman's spine snap, when Tore has him in that terrible bear hug.

Re the scene where Karin's body is left abandoned. It begins to snow. One of my most insightful students once commented on that: "the virgin isn't a virgin any more, and spring is over." Finally: when my advanced classes discuss the effectiveness of restraint, I bring up the scene where one of the herdsmen offer's Karin's clothes to Mareta. No swelling background music; she doesn't scream, or faint; but says "I must ask my husband what a fitting price would be for such a valuable garment." Brrr.

Pauline Kael (who she? They cry in unison) denounced this stunning film as revolting and the subject matter is harrowing and explicit for it's day. Just because it is, doesn't mean the story, although a legend; is not worth telling. The murdered girl is just like a dear friend of mine so it's particularly distressing to sit through. I can see where Tarkovsky got his floating pollen from, or maybe both he and Bergman were influenced by Dreyer. Great scenes include the guilty boy staring up at the stars while a grandfather torments him with a speech about conscience and the cruelty of the heavens, and Sydow's stabbing of one of his daughter's killers. It happens unsparingly in front of the camera, and is absolutely searing and indelibly imprints itself upon the memory, as it shows the slow, hard reality of taking a man's life from him. Sydow is also superlative after he has killed the child and stares down at his hands, unable to reconcile them as being his own. He brilliantly conveys a man who expected to be rewarded for his virtuous life in service of the lord and his bitterness over God's perceived betrayal. Or is it about betraying ones self?

Bergman admitted that the ending with the spring was somewhat tacked on and over didactic, even bogus, as he had already said what he had wanted to say on the matter of religion in previous films and that the matter was 'closed' in his mind to a certain extent. Perhaps this is why Kael questioned whether the film really needed to exist. I can't answer that one but it is a film of authority and power which makes you question what you would do in similar circumstances, and how you might reconcile your actions with your faith. Leaving aside the religious issue, which Bergman does appear to be half hearted about, it unquestionably sides itself with the need for forgiveness and the moral duty to do good. Recommended, and great performances.

The only child of the chieftain (Karin) is sent to deliver candles with the pregnant servant (Ingeri) who is jealous of the girl since she is still untouched, young, brave, and naive. When they are on their way, she is attacked by the shepherds and only Ingeri makes it home again in remorse.

Before the rape happens we can see Ingeri almost wants her to feel the same way as she does and, to be hurt. I think this is the most attractive part of the story. The envy and the regret of the servant. The fact that she hates her and herself since she could not do anything about it.

I think the cinematography is great and the actors did an amazing job. The atmosphere adds a simple depth to the movie. We can really tell after the crime scene spring is over and suddenly winter begins. As snow drops on the dead girl. And after the vengeance of the father, it is suddenly spring again.

At some point, I was thinking maybe the movie tried to criticize the false reality of some religious people that belives "God would not allow such horror" but I do not think that is the case. Since at the end we see a spring that comes out from the ground as if she left it on the earth. This made me think that the movie tries to show us something miraculous about religion. However, maybe the director wanted to do both.

And finally why I gave 6/10. When I am watching, listening to a story, I do not like being fooled. I do not like it when the author or the director goes with what comes to mind first. Here, in this case, it is the question that I ask when I saw the girl going to the woods with her pregnant servant alone "In what world or time a chieftain, a father sends his only girl to the woods like this?" After seeing that I could not focus on the movie anymore. Again maybe this was the criticism. But still. I can not buy it. And also the fact that most of the movie was just a predictable set of events.

However, it is still better than most of the horror or drama in Hollywood.

Being an atheist, I have always found it challenging to review a religious movie, because I worry that my criticism will be more about religion than about the movie. This difficulty is compounded if it is not clear what the attitude of those who produced the movie is toward that religion, whether they intended the movie to be a criticism of religion or a defense of it. In other words, it is not clear to me whether "The Virgin Spring" looks upon the simple faith of some fourteenth century peasants in the same way that parents will smile at their child's belief in Santa Claus, or whether the movie actually shares that faith in God and encourages us to do likewise.

Anyway, as I said, there is this fourteenth century family of Swedish peasants headed by Töre. His daughter is Karin, who is a blonde virgin. Well, her body may be pure, but her soul is not. She is lazy, vain, and spoiled, smug in the fact that she is so cute and adorable that she can do as she pleases. She has a foster sister, Ingeri, who is a brunette, a bastard soon to give birth to a bastard of her own. The two of them set out for church to do something or other, and on the way it turns out that the other night Karin was flirting with the man that got Ingeri pregnant. Though there is no hope that he will marry Ingeri, yet Karin's dalliance with him infuriates Ingeri. Just to rub it in, Karin taunts Ingeri for no longer being a virgin, while gloating over the way she will someday be married in all her virginal purity. She really made my flesh crawl.

They get separated, and soon after Karin comes upon three goat herders that rape and murder her. They strip her body of her beautiful clothes. Later, they ask for lodging at Töre's house, not realizing he is Karin's father. That night, they present Karin's clothing to her mother as a gift, saying it belonged to their sister. She tells Töre about it. He asks Ingeri what she knows, and she admits that she witnessed the rape and murder and feels guilty because she wanted Karin to get her comeuppance. Töre then murders the three goat herders, one of whom was just a boy, who had nothing to do with what happened to Karin. Then Töre feels guilty for having committed murder. The whole family goes out to where Karin's body lies dead. When they find her, Töre raises the ancient problem of evil, asking why God let this happen and then let him commit murder, while at the same time saying that he begs God's forgiveness.

Now, this is what I was talking about. Are we supposed to approve of Töre's attitude or should we be disgusted? I mean, I'm disgusted. In fact, it is even a little disgusting that he had to wait until his daughter was raped and murdered before questioning how an all-powerful, loving God could let this happen. After all, God has been standing by and letting girls get raped and murdered for centuries, and it is only now, when his daughter is a victim, that he takes exception to God's indifference. So, am I being disgusted with the movie or with the religion that this movie is premised upon?

It gets worse. Töre promises to build a church on the spot where Karin died, in hopes of being worthy of God's forgiveness. Then, when they lift up her body, water begins to gush from the ground where she lay, becoming a spring. The family treats the water as if it is a miracle, a replenishing gift from God. That's right. Karin's rape and murder have been worth it, because now we are going to get a church with a little spring nearby. Perhaps I should point out that there is no shortage of water in that area, the family having crossed a large stream on their way to get to Karin, so it is not as though the spring will bring needed water to a parched region. It's just more water.

Here we go again. I don't know whether we are supposed to regard that spring as a real miracle or not. If it is a miracle, then we have to wonder: as long as God was willing to perform a miracle, why didn't he miraculously save Karin instead? If it is not a miracle, are we supposed to despise or admire the family for thinking it is one?

I give up. I'll have to let someone who actually believes in God tell me what I am supposed to make of this movie.

Based on the 14th - century Swedish legend, "Virgin Spring" is a moving and haunting tragic story about a young girl who was raped and killed while on the journey to the church. The killers unknowingly asked for the shelter at her parents' house... One of three was a young boy who only watched the crime.

Max von Sydow gives one of his best performances as an outraged father. Ingmar Bergman and his genius cinematographer Swen Nykwist reconstructed the medieval world full of realities and life, stunningly beautiful and deadly dangerous in the same time. Certainly a masterpiece and one of my favorite Bergman's films after the repeat viewing. Powerful simplicity.

Karin (Birgitta Pettersson) is the spoiled child, doted on by her mother -- spared the rod and well-pampered. Her father tries to be stern, but can't help but laugh when she offers to lie to the priest (despite the family being very religious). She remains innocent like a child half her age.

The servant girl, Ingeri (who is noticeably darker than the fair Karin), has become pregnant with a bastard child and taunts Karin, insisting she, too, will give in to men when one makes a move. This story is taken from the traditional tale "Töres dotter i Wänge" with surprising accuracy.

Bosley Crowther of the New York Times says this is "a straight equating of violence and revenge, of brutality and compassion", and that "Bergman has stocked it with scenes of brutality that, for sheer unrestrained realism, may leave one sickened and stunned." Crowther, who finds the plot overly simplistic, says "the conflict is simply and clearly what it probably was in that age—between the pagan urge to have vengeance and the Christian will to forgive."

On that last point, I think there is more to be said. For one thing, it is odd to have a Christian morality tale from an atheist director. If the conflict is simply pagan versus Christian, how does Christian morality win in an atheist's tale? Methinks there is something more afoot.

Ivan Butler believes that the "horror is in the revenge more than in the original wrong." I disagree. The murder of rapists cannot be seen as more vile than the rape and murder of a young girl. He also suggests that "the father's fury may be partly motivated by an incestuous affection for his daughter", though this claim has very little support, in my opinion.

Most reviews will focus on the film's brutality. While the violence is strong at times, it seems to dance on the line without crossing over into glamorization. And for any modern film-goer, there shouldn't be anything here that hasn't been seen before, for better or worse.

This story went on to be remade by Wes Craven as horror revenge film "Last House on the Left"... and then remade again. It has become something of a perennial revenge tale.

Director: Igmar Bergman, Script: Ulla Isaksson, Cast: Max Von Sydow (Tore), Birgitta Valberg (Mareta), Gunnel Lindblom (Ingeri), Brigitta Pettersson (Karin), Axel Duberg (herdsman), Tor Isedal(mute herdsman), Ove Porath (boy)

Midieval tale about a wealthy Sweedish family. They send their privileged and rather spoiled daughter on a journey to the church to deliver candles as an offering for the virgin mother. Her less fortunate pregnant step sister is asked to go along. While on their journey, the step sister develops a fear of the forest and also complains of being sick. Karin,the privileged daughter, has her stay with a hermit in the forest while she continues the journey alone. Along the way she runs into a three goatherds,two man and a young boy who are brothers. They complain of being hungry due to their long journey so out of kindness, she offers to picnic with them in which she shares her bread with them. The two man proceed to rape her and then kill her while the young boy watches helpless. Her step sister had left the cabin where she was staying and witnessed the whole thing but did nothing to help Karin. By chance, the three brothers turn up at Karin's parents farm. The herdsman tries to sell Karin's valuable garments that they had removed from her to her mother. This leads the father to take revenge on the herdsman.

This is a film I would strongly recommend to anyone especially lovers of classic cinema. The only other Bergman film I have seen is The Seventh Seal which is also outstanding. This film was extremely troubling to me not only because of the brutal act but also because Karin did not deserve this. We have a young innocent naive girl whose trust was betrayed. In this film we see the dynamics of these two sisters. Karin was privileged and spoiled by her parents especially her mother. Her father is more stern but she is still able to break him down with her charm. The step sister is of a much lower stature. She works as a servant and farm hand while Karin doesn't have to do any work. As a result, the step sister has a strong resentment toward Karin. Unlike the Cinderella storey, Karin is very kind to Ingeri, her step sister. She is also very concerned for her as a result of her being pregnant. When she comes across the herdsman, being from the wealthy upper class, she could have easily blown them off but instead she spends time with them and offers them her food only to get violated and murdered in return. In actuality, seeing three men(while two men and a boy) in the forest should have caused her to run away.

As an example of her gullibility, right before she is about to be raped, the men say things like "what white hands you have" and she replies buy saying something to the likes of "because a princess never has to work" then they proceed by saying "What a lovely neck you have" while sitting very close to her. She than says something to the likes of (I am going to be way off here!) "how else can a lovely princes wear her bracelets". She then goes on to tell them about their farm and her well to do life. She is not saying all this in a stuck up way trying to brag. Again she is a very naive girl who has lived like a princes. She expects the men to share her enthusiasm! The step sister did not do anything possibly out of resentment to her step sister or it could have been out of fear. When the herdsman arrive at Karin's parents farm and her father finds out what they have done to Karin, he kills them including the boy. This is another very tragic part of the movie. Like Karin, the boy was also innocent. He had nothing to do with the rape and murder of Karin. One could argue that he could have stopped his brothers instead of just watching. In reality, their is absolutely nothing he could have done. His older brothers are grown men while he is just a small boy. As a matter of fact, they physically abuse him. Not only is the boy a victim like Karin but he is also an outcast like Ingeri, the step sister. He is treated bad by his brothers and Ingeri is treated bad by her family although not by Karin. After Tore,the father, kills the two man and goes after the boy, he runs to Mareta, the mother, for protection. She tries to protect him from Tore but is unable to do so and the father proceeds to kill him.

Tore immediately feels remorse for what he had done. The parents and farm hands go to find Karin's body led by Ingeri. When Mareta lifts Karins body from the ground, a spring arises from the site. Tore vows to God to build a church there.

Ingmar Bergman's 1960 film The Virgin Spring (Jungfrukällan) is, despite its winning the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film in 1961, one of his lesser outings. Part of this is, no doubt, due to the fact that the bulk of the film was not written by Bergman, but by novelist Ulla Isaksson, who based her thin script upon a medieval ballad called Töre's Daughter At Vänge. The title of the film is a double entendre which refers to the chaste lead character's outing during the springtime, and a rivulet of water that emerges from where her corpse is eventually found by her family after she is raped and murdered. Compared to the films which preceded it, it lacks the emotional heft of The Seventh Seal or Wild Strawberries, and compared to the films that followed it, it lacks the filmic daring of Persona or A Passion. It is an odd film in the Bergman canon, and ranks with Cries And Whispers and The Serpent's Egg as one of the few filmic mediocrities the director ever crafted. Its characters are wooden, almost unintendedly comic, their motivations and reactions are wholly stilted and artificial, and the symbolism is often heavyhanded. Fortunately, it's only an hour and a half in length. It's little wonder that only a dozen or so years later horror filmmaker Wes Craven (and Sean Cunningham) would launch his forgettable career with a film heavily influenced by, if not flat out based upon, it, called Last House On The Left…. Yet, the reason why this film fails to live up to the high standards of most Bergman films- although, by contrast, it's still worlds better than 99.9% of the Hollywood crap churned out today, all boils down to that most important, yet overlooked, reason why all films fail or succeed, and that's because, despite being a visual medium, a film must be well written, with well developed characters and a scenario that can emotionally affect a viewer, be that in the archetypal or realistic vein, to succeed artistically. This film never gets off the stylistic fence and decides whether it is a realistic film nor a symbolic allegory. Thus it fails on both scores, and the bulk of the blame for that can be laid upon the pro-Christian leaning script of the novelist Ulla Isaksson, who wrote an earlier Bergman film, So Close To Life, a few years before. While there is no comparing Wes Craven's 1972 filmic spin on this theme, Last House On The Left, in any cinematic nor artistic terms to The Virgin Spring, in one odd way, Craven's later film does seem more relevant, for it never attempts to find reasons for, nor make sense of, its anomic violence, thus it cannot fail, on that level. Bergman's film asks the big questions, and when its own silence bellows forth no answers, its hollowness only too easily engulfs its own inquisitions, which displays flaws the lesser film could only dream to be vilified for.

Saw this a long time ago, and this time around only Bergman's prowess with the camera via Sven Nykvist worked for me. The heavy Christian bubble business at the end, the virgin spring, after the 'God, I don't know you', and then a quick 'I'm sorry; I'll build a church here' and THEN the gurgling spring begins to gurgle. All that's left is for his raped daughter's eyes to begin fluttering. Yikes, he should have faded out with one of those small town Mexican processions, or some clips, as the spring breaks loose, from a Lourdes ad with Jennifer Jones.

As I understand it, Bergman wanted to excise the "spring" footage; too bad he didn't get his way.