The film was nominated for, and won, several awards across the world, but the specter of Bergman still lingers over the film, even if oppositionally. The Swedes depicted on screen are nothing like those in the Bergman universe. They are not rich, depressed, and well educated. Ingemar and his brother and mother live in a shanty house slum, and his uncle's country place is only a little nicer, even if the scenery is much more wholesome. And despite having far more reason to moan than Bergman's characters do, Ingemar is marked by a perseverance one can only refer to as 'dogged.' The cinematography by Jörgen Persson is solid, although there is a repeated static shot of the cosmos, whenever Ingemar gets reflective, that looks like something from a 1950s sci fi film where the word 'Science!' is spoken ecstatically, which should have been made to look a bit more engaging. Granted, this might be the typical textbook sort of photo that a child would associate with outer space in those days, but it still drags on the often deeper narration Ingemar provides, and simply looks cheap.
While the film was based upon a novel with the same title, written by Reidar Jonsson, and the screenplay was written by Hallström, Jonsson, and Brasse Brannstrom and Per Berglund, the character of Ingemar succeeds less on the words the character speaks, and mostly on the uncanny acting ability- or even inability, of Glanzelius- who never had another major starring role. There is just something 'off' about little Ingemar, something which, as reflected in the screenplay, is missing in comparison to Glanzelius's portrayal. The text would lead one to believe Ingemar is just another kid, if perhaps one a bit 'off,' yet Glanzelius's unaffected portrayal reveals him to be perhaps 'slow' or borderline 'autistic'- as he might now be labeled, especially when he goes on all fours and barks like a dog or cannot drink from a glass in public without spilling the liquid all over himself. Then there is the actor's very appearance, which has an odd, almost maniacal twinkle in his mien, akin to a young Jack Nicholson's.
All in all, My Life As A Dog is a good non-Hollywood Hollywood film, albeit a deeper one, without forced emotions. It is a film that hints at a promise Hallström has yet to fulfill, opening up the query over whether or not it is better to never fill potential by existence and failure or by not existing at all. Perhaps Ingemar already thought that through whilst pondering that dog high above his own canine plight?
While the film was based upon a novel with the same title, written by Reidar Jonsson, and the screenplay was written by Hallström, Jonsson, and Brasse Brannstrom and Per Berglund, the character of Ingemar succeeds less on the words the character speaks, and mostly on the uncanny acting ability- or even inability, of Glanzelius- who never had another major starring role. There is just something 'off' about little Ingemar, something which, as reflected in the screenplay, is missing in comparison to Glanzelius's portrayal. The text would lead one to believe Ingemar is just another kid, if perhaps one a bit 'off,' yet Glanzelius's unaffected portrayal reveals him to be perhaps 'slow' or borderline 'autistic'- as he might now be labeled, especially when he goes on all fours and barks like a dog or cannot drink from a glass in public without spilling the liquid all over himself. Then there is the actor's very appearance, which has an odd, almost maniacal twinkle in his mien, akin to a young Jack Nicholson's.
All in all, My Life As A Dog is a good non-Hollywood Hollywood film, albeit a deeper one, without forced emotions. It is a film that hints at a promise Hallström has yet to fulfill, opening up the query over whether or not it is better to never fill potential by existence and failure or by not existing at all. Perhaps Ingemar already thought that through whilst pondering that dog high above his own canine plight?