I was hesitant to write anything about this film at first because I wasn't sure if my negative reaction was from moodiness or the result of disappointed expectations. I haven't seen too many Bergman films, but most of the ones I've seen present interesting ideas, but as though they were the most earth-shattering profound concepts ever conceived. It can be a bit much.
Okay, so here we have a movie that deals with similar themes as his later, better film, "Hour of the Wolf". Liv Ullman plays a popular actress who goes mute in the middle of a stage performance. A nurse, played by Bibi Andersson, is assigned to care for her. Eventually the two take a vacation to a cottage out on the beach (a typical Swedish method of recovery?) where a series of interactions begins to take their toll on their personalities. Here the film seems to investigate the line that is blurred between people's identities who are in close proximity over long periods of time.
It seems the characters are established exclusively in order to explore Bergman's philosophical meanderings and musings, which involve the significance of the interior and exterior views of the self. Elizabeth (Ullman) seems to be someone who recognizes her lack of a strong internal identity. Alma (Andersson) is the opposite and manifests a strong internal sense of self but a weak external influence. Maybe Bergman is also saying something about the role of the artist -- that their persona is stolen by so much giving, so much internal conjuration and performance. That over time, society consumes the artist's inner world by making their gifts into novelties and taking the inner spirit for granted.
But I don't really know and that's the problem. Many people say this movie is open to interpretation and that's what makes it so deep. But I think such an explanation only proves that this film is too broad or vague and relies too much on hind-sight and art-house praise. On some level it becomes too self-indulgent to really be enjoyable. I really suspect that many individuals like this movie because they view it with the same self-impressed state of mind as Bergman did when he made it.
I can certainly credit Bergman with having a knack for writing decent dialog and for being inspired in his film-making. He really is empowered to make films. But he also seems obsessed with his own perceptions, making complicated and fractured works about feelings and ideas that could be presented more concretely. But then again, many people like him for that, or his aesthetic, or a variety of other reasons that I haven't mentioned here. I enjoy some of his works, but this one didn't interest me too much.
Okay, so here we have a movie that deals with similar themes as his later, better film, "Hour of the Wolf". Liv Ullman plays a popular actress who goes mute in the middle of a stage performance. A nurse, played by Bibi Andersson, is assigned to care for her. Eventually the two take a vacation to a cottage out on the beach (a typical Swedish method of recovery?) where a series of interactions begins to take their toll on their personalities. Here the film seems to investigate the line that is blurred between people's identities who are in close proximity over long periods of time.
It seems the characters are established exclusively in order to explore Bergman's philosophical meanderings and musings, which involve the significance of the interior and exterior views of the self. Elizabeth (Ullman) seems to be someone who recognizes her lack of a strong internal identity. Alma (Andersson) is the opposite and manifests a strong internal sense of self but a weak external influence. Maybe Bergman is also saying something about the role of the artist -- that their persona is stolen by so much giving, so much internal conjuration and performance. That over time, society consumes the artist's inner world by making their gifts into novelties and taking the inner spirit for granted.
But I don't really know and that's the problem. Many people say this movie is open to interpretation and that's what makes it so deep. But I think such an explanation only proves that this film is too broad or vague and relies too much on hind-sight and art-house praise. On some level it becomes too self-indulgent to really be enjoyable. I really suspect that many individuals like this movie because they view it with the same self-impressed state of mind as Bergman did when he made it.
I can certainly credit Bergman with having a knack for writing decent dialog and for being inspired in his film-making. He really is empowered to make films. But he also seems obsessed with his own perceptions, making complicated and fractured works about feelings and ideas that could be presented more concretely. But then again, many people like him for that, or his aesthetic, or a variety of other reasons that I haven't mentioned here. I enjoy some of his works, but this one didn't interest me too much.