Gould, cast over Paul Newman and Robert Redford, believed Bergman's screenplay was semi-autobiographical.

It has since had a limited rerelease by the Film Society of Lincoln Center in 2011 and a home media release by The Criterion Collection in 2018.

In a small town in Sweden, Karin is a housewife, married to a hospital physician named Andreas and bringing up their two children.

The couple ask David to dinner at their house and he tells them about his work at a medieval church, where a 500-year-old wooden statue of the Virgin Mary has been uncovered.

Later he shares his family history with her, telling her many of his relatives were murdered in Nazi concentration camps during World War II.

In the church, David shows Karin the restored statue of Mary, telling her that it is being consumed from inside by a previously unknown species of insect.

Paul Scherer at Indiana University South Bend argued the film contains "fairly explicit reference to the Garden of Eden and such related themes as Satan, temptation and the fall".

[9] In drawing up his story, Bergman was inspired by the death of his friend, an actor, 15 years previously.

[14] The film was shot on the island of Gotland, as well as at Film-Tcknik Studios in Stockholm and in London, between 14 September and 13 November 1970.

[17] Gould believed Andersson's character was influenced by Ingrid Karlebo, a woman Bergman was living with at the time, and that the film was semi-autobiographical.

"I was the leading male actor for a moment in the Western world, and I think that was embarrassing to him, because the way it was sold by ABC, with the beautiful picture of me and Bibi…the movie is not about a woman and a man.

[14] Actress Sheila Reid stated Bergman consulted with her about how the British apartment should look, and that her scene involved some improvisation.

[8] In The New York Times, Vincent Canby believed language was the problem, describing the dialogue as "lifeless translations" and the film as dull.

[23] Richard Schickel was favourable, calling the film "as mature, mysterious and disturbing as anything Bergman has done in the last few years".

[26] Gene Siskel awarded three out four stars, writing, "In The Touch, Bergman is not a magician, but a fine filmmaker presenting a small story".

[27] Other favourable reviews were written by Penelope Gilliatt in The New Yorker,[28] Molly Haskell in Village Voice and Jan Dawson in The Monthly Film Bulletin, who wrote it was "probably the most memorable and the most moving portrait of a lady that Bergman has given us".

[13] However, Robbie Freeling, writing for IndieWire, panned it as "a maligned work that nonetheless betrays the underlying, but univocal idiosyncrasies of its author".