 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.109.189.57
I saw this last night for the first time - been seeing a lot movies lately - and immediately watched it again with the commentary track (first time I’ve ever watched a film all the way through with the commentary track… these comments are not based on the analysis in the commentary track -- in fact they're quite different -- but it did help me notice certain things).I found it interesting that in Isak’s dreams/memories/imaginings he was seeing things from his past that he wasn’t actually present for (like the whole strawberry gathering and brunch scene that exposed Sarah and Sigfrid). I find this significant.
In some ways his journey down memory lane reminded me of “A Christmas Carol” but instead of being shown – by others - how his greed destroyed his humanity he was being shown (or showing himself) how his coldness/softness/isolation had destroyed much of his humanity… or did it?
I find it very interesting that we are told, by his daughter in law twice (who could very easily have been projecting the - mighty - sins of the son onto the father) and his dead wife once (who could well have been acting out from the place of knowing that she wasn't Isak's true love), that he was cold and heartless and even cruel but we are shown none of this in the actions of the character. Not in present time and not in his dreams/memories.
I think THE key moment might have been when the bickering husband reappeared as a professor and was interrogating Isak. He (Isak) was found guilty of guilt and reminded of his oath to forgive, and this is, I think, the moment that tells us we are not necessarily watching a story about a cold, heartless or cruel man (indeed in most every scene that includes another person and isn’t a dream/memory he radiates warmth, humanity and humor) who needs redemption; but a hurt man riddled with guilt for not truly loving his wife and judging himself harshly for the self perceived parts of his character (and extrapolating those perceived flaws onto the rest of his life) that made Sarah choose Sigfrid in the first place.
He MAY have been the quintessential “nice guy”, lost THE girl and spent the rest of his life in mourning over it and then in guilt from the effects of the mourning (and the effects of losing her). By the time we see him there’s so much repressed in his psyche about his own self worth in the world of relating to other people that he’s, obviously, in bad shape.
With the spectre of death looming he finally, really digs into his psyche and that combined with some key positive reinforcement (from Max Von Sydow and wife at the gas station, the new Sarah and her two men, the people honoring him and ultimately his son and daughter in law) he finds that elusive peace by forgiving himself for being so hard on himself in combination with recognizing that he is loved (and therefore worthy of love… no matter who Sarah chose).Another general thing I find interesting – and it’s one that makes me question what is and isn’t REALLY happening – is the transposition of characters. For instance the “real” bickering husband and wife show up again as “dream” characters in the interrogation scene and the “dream” Sarah (and Isak and Sigfried?) show up as the “real” Sarah and her two men.
Anyway, whether I’m onto to something or just thinking about too much I thought it was great film.
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
Follow Ups:
...if you look at many of his films through that light, you´ll get a hint of his search, which certainly was honest and coming from the deepest of him.Now, if you look at "Wild Strawberries" again, this time keeping in mind how the Anima contributes to enrich a man´s soul and life, and how barren both can become when the Anima is repressed or, at times worse, neglected; and how, in our psychic life, those aspects of our psyche that we leave aside, or which we repressed during our development, will come back once and again, under different guises, until we finally either accept them and pay them what is due, unless we become dry and die, then your vision will be enriched, and the old man´s dreams, visions, pentimenti, and whatever happens to him in that wonderful film, will make sense..., as the resonances it awakes in your own soul will, too.
A road movie in search of Isak´s soul, with his Anima leading the way would be a fitting description of this gem. And his final surrender of his ego, which doesn´t result in the catastrophe he always feared, but in him becoming a better, deeper, richer man, is depicted in a simply magisterial way, with the confluence of both the external situation and what is dwelling its way towards the light inside him being perfectly timed...
In short, one of the best films ever done. And one I sincerely expect Hollywood never to put its hands on to "remake"it.
There´s more in it, of course. But these were my 2 cents.
Regards
BF
I focused more on my idea that, externally he wasn't actually this cold hearted and cruel person... just that the repression of his psyche (and failures in love) made him believe that he was -- in that shadow side (those words, of course, being left unsaid).I just believe that for this particular story it was the rejection by Sarah that was central to his psychic repression (and that this shadow was a more internal self perception than an external perception of others towards him).
He clearly HAD to go through that pshycic journey or - closer to what I wrote - journey of his psyche.
I may well be wrong about the idea that the shadow side of him which was leaping forward out its repression was more about his perception of himself (from the part of him that was damaged) than the perception of him by others... and that in the confluence of the external and internal he discovered that he was in fact loved and not viewed as some monster (from the external) and that he was really okay, a decent human being (from the internal) but I definitely saw that this - this shadow illuminating journey - was what was occuring.
It's a big part of why I liked the movie so much (and am looking forward to the next one of his I see).
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
f
(The first was Nights of Cabiria.) And omigosh! My roomie's parents took us out to dinner, then to the movie -- with a promise that it would be different.I'll never forget the moment when, after much silence, the carriage wheel (axle?) clanged so loud. I've never jumped like that at a "horror movie". Thank goodness for theatres and theatre sound. (It was the classic revival house, still going, the Brattle.)
Did you view it with subtitles? If so, I wonder whether they've been redone, the originals were crappy. The dubbed version is the best job I've seen (heard?), and clarifies the scene in the operating theatre where, as it happens, an abortion is being carried out. Whose?...
clark
was what it might have been like to see this in an earlier time... when it was more revolutionary (and/or just to be seeing it in a theater). I have to admit that I had to work a little upfront to let it take me for a ride as many things in it are almost the stuff of later student film cliches. Once I put that out of my head and got into it it was easy to see the brilliance of the work.Yes, I did see it with subtitles. Don't know if they were redone. It's a Critereon Collection disc so MAYBE they sorted some of that out. Still couldn't tell it was an abortion scene in that dream. Who's? I may have to see it again and really think about that. Maybe it was just about swimming in the collective unconscious as when he came out of that dream he was told the story of his son's reaction to his daughter in law's pregnancy.
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
"Who's?" Who's not?... ;-)CLARK
over intellectualize! :--)
You raise many fascinating points. I'll just mention a couple: I thought, perhaps, he was present in the scenes he showed, he just didn't envision himself in the memory of them.
Second, from his interactions with the housekeeper, I thought he showed his curmudgeonly self. I thought Bergman was being "straight" in telling us this (through other characters). In fact, I think it's a powerful part of the film, the old man realizing his nature and finally finding peace in his last times from a contemplation of his earlier life.
The power of a father's personality to influence his son also evaporates under your analysis.
But, different interpretations are fine: that's the hallmark of a great work of art, it's not easily pigeon-holed.
I did let it sweep over me... enough so that I watched it again immediately with the commentary... which is when I started really thinking about it. Although things like his not being present in that first memory and being found guilty of guilt and reminded of forgiveness I noticed right away.During the scene of the strawberry gathering and the brunch someone (I think it was the twins) mentioned that Isak and his father were out fisihing (or on a boat) and wouldn't be back for brunch.
I don't know how curmudgeonly he actually was with the housekeeper. He was emphatic that he HAD to leave immediately by car but he was fine to make his own breakfast and pack his own suitcase, etc. Plus she stuck by him for, what was it? 30 years? and said that his day of being honored was the most important day of her life.
As for the power to influence his son... I don't know that this was really a theme in the movie (there certainly was no real talk and/or sightings of Isak's father) but being the product of a loveless marriage, a mother who died when he was 8 and a father guilt and self doubt (in personal relationships) ridden he certainly was influenced.
Anyway, a lot of really subtle stuff in this film and no claims that my interpretation is somehow objectively correct... but I do think it's possible and yes, I agree that being open to interpertation is a hallmark of great art. In fact I'd say it's rare that most artist's have all (or, someetime's any) of various post facto ascribed subtext's in mind when they make their art.
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
That's an important and accurate observation, I believe. Some offhand thoughts:Film is art. In all its elements. But, as I briefly argued with tinear (Brando v Neuman), I really wonder how important it is for a particular viewer to be able to read deeply into the "art" of it to derive great enjoyment, or even inspiration.
Did Bergman or anyone associated with him set out to make great art, to make films filled with particular nuance. I really doubt it. I think he is inspired by an idea, and then he improvises using the resources available; imaginatively, intuitively. The result is so personal, so representative of his idosyncratic make up as to evade analysis or criticism, initially, by its very nature.
Artists labor to "discover" their creations, and as often as not are as surprised as the observer when they read the content. Greatness comes when excellence for its own sake is pursued and revealed. In a moment or over a career.
I believe the primary purpose of film - of art - is to appeal to the senses. I think the artist knows and intends this. On balance this appeal must be sympathetic, otherwise one walks away. Only after the fact should one -artist or observer - legitimately wish to ascribe deeper significance.
buy phentermine without prescription
v
asd
It hardly qualifies as "art" but, like many people, I wrote a fair amount when I was younger (mostly, mostly bad poetry) and to this day there are times when I look back on some of it and think... "Oh! That's what that meant!!" And that might change multiple times with the same piece.Also, I work with, for and around a lot of creative people (and a lot of director's) and it's funny to see say a music video that eventually gets posted on youtube and to read people's comments about what they think it's about or what the references might be, etc. and they're almost always different from what the director was thinking (or at least what was shared about the thinking).
About Wild Strawberries... the commentary track mentioned that the dreams were replications of IB's own dreams (that he had a knack for remembering them in detail) which could well mean that even as he incorporated them he didn't REALLY know what they meant.
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
Nice writeup, Steve, although I skipped most of it - as I suspect I will be revisiting the film some time soon, I did not want to color my impressions.How familiar are you with Bergman in general? It is easy to say every movie he ever made is a must - just a different shade of it. And that definitely include the films directed by Liv Ullmann based on his writing - they are unmistakably his, she was a great pupil and managed to maintain the continuity while developing her own touch. HIGHLY recommended. Not gonna bother you with names, so easy to find.
But won't be the last.I tried to watch Seventh Seal about 3 years ago but I was sick at the time and couldn't give it the attention it needed and wound up turning it off.
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
The Seventh Seal is not the easiest movie to watch. But I am sure you will get through the whole list eventually... you must.
a
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
