The story of Faithless, the new six-part TV series from director Tomas Alfredson (Let the Right One In, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) is familiar to European arthouse fans. Renowned director David Howard, 73, is reunited with the great love of his life, the actress Marianne Vogler, 75, and forced to reflect on the painful consequences of their affair decades earlier when Marianne was married to David’s best friend, Markus. In 2000, actress-director Liv Ullmann (Cries and Whispers), muse and frequent collaborator to the legendary Swedish director Ingmar Bergman (The Seventh Seal), adapted the story from Bergman’s previously unproduced screenplay. The tale of lust, adultery, and the damage wrought by desire, premiered in Cannes and has been hailed as a modern-day classic.
For his limited series adaptation, Alfredson teamed with screenwriter Sara Johnsen (July 22) to reexamine and expand Ullmann and Bergman’s original story. The basics of the plot are the same. Marianne (played by Vikings: Valhalla actress Frida Gustavsson) is happily married to Markus (August Wittgenstein of The Crown). When David (Gustav Lindh of Queen of Hearts) arrives to spend a summer with them in the countryside, a dangerous affection blooms between Marianne and David, triggering a 40-year-long emotional fallout. The elder David is played by veteran Danish actor Jesper Christensen (Casino Royale) with Swedish actress Lena Endre, Marianne in the 2000 original, reprising her role as the older version of the character here.
Fremantle’s Miso Film produced Faithless in co-production with public broadcasters SVT and ARTE. The series is premiering at the Toronto Film Festival next week. Fremantle is selling worldwide.
Alfredson and Johnsen spoke to The Hollywood Reporter about their fears in adapting a classic, how their Faithless differs from the Ulmann/Bergman original and how much the great man of Swedish cinema really understood about women.
Wasn’t it intimidating, if not terrifying, the idea of adapting a classic from Ingmar Bergman and Liv Ullman?
Tomas Alfredson Those are the kind of feelings one has to deal with before you make the decision [to adapt]. If you keep thinking about it after the decision, it’s just going to just limit you and make you scared, so you don’t take risks. In the beginning, yes it was a bit scary in the beginning but I don’t think it limited me. I saw it as a source of inspiration and a great opportunity.
Sara Johnsen I agree. But there is something interesting, as a woman, adapting Bergman. When I went to film school, Bergman was looked upon as one of the great directors who actually understood women and was interested in women. I remember we had a teacher who said: ‘You can only be a great director if you understand or are interested in women.’ And Bergman was the great example of that, as strange as that might sound now.
One of the main things we did with this story was to bring Marianne to life. In the original story, she’s sort of [David’s] fantasy, more an imaginative figure than an actual woman. I actually didn’t want to do this story when I was first asked. I felt, ‘no, it’s Bergman, it’s be done, I want to work on contemporary stories, contemporary sexual politics.’ But after reading it again, I couldn’t let it go, I couldn’t let these characters go, and I found it to be very truthful about some things. Like how passion can tend to make us destroy innocence and love. The ways in which Bergman lets his characters have very interesting dialogs where they reflect on their own feelings but are still not able to break loose. I found that all very interesting. And of course working with Thomas, who had this strong vision of what he wanted, because he’d wanted to do this for so many years.
Gustav Lindh as David and Frida Gustavsson as Marianne in Faithless
Miso
What was it about this story that so obsessed you?
Alfredson In general, when I choose material, I try to trust my instincts, my physical reactions. If I laugh or feel sick, if I get excited or scared, those very basic reactions, then I know it could lead to something interesting. But my motives here changed quite a bit over the years. 20 years ago, when I first started thinking about adapting this story, it was for very personal reasons. I was in a relationship and I got very jealous and I couldn’t handle that. I was very surprised by it. I tried to talk to my friends and the people around me to try and understand these feelings because it’s just ridiculous feeling to have these feelings.
When I saw [the original film], the character of the young David struck me very strongly. But the idea was on the shelf for quite a while and when I got invited to do something for Swedish television, I mentioned it. But I’m a much older person now, with new experiences. And I identify myself much more with the older David than the younger David. My attitude towards the story has changed. It’s also something Sarah has accomplished. The final chords in this series are quite bright and forgiving. Quite merciful. This is something quite unique today, where mercy for people who have done nasty things isn’t something you see much of. It was something I thought recently watching [Democratic Vice Presidential candidate] Tim Walz when he called Donald Trump “weird” instead of something more nasty, like “evil.” He chose to show some mercy, and that had an interesting effect. It’s something similar to this story. Do you agree, Sara?
Johnsen To a certain extent. One of the things with Bergman is that he is merciless. His character really suffers. He’s not afraid to go in where it hurts the most. But I also think that in the original story, there is also some hope because David is at least reflecting on what he’s done. I feel the whole text is full of this. It’s the story of an old man who maybe isn’t feeling such strong passion anymore and looking back on himself as a young man who was obsessed with passion and jealousy and ambition, and the old man feels differently about the young man.
You said at film school you were told Bergman really understood women. What do you think now, after having spent so much time in his world?
Johnsen Can I be 100 percent honest? I’m an old woman now, so maybe I can say these things. But I feel Bergman was obsessed, like really obsessed, with female sexuality. It was a big thing for him to explore and try to understand but he has a very male gaze. He always looks at very beautiful women, for example. But he did portray complex women, which is what makes him interesting. His female characters are complex, which makes it very interesting for me to read his texts. The nice thing about Berman is that he is actually interested in women. Very many filmmakers are not, they just want to look at women and use them as objects. But Berman is interested in women as humans, not only as objects.
