MovieChat Forums > Sommarlek (1954) Discussion > The film's philosophy

The film's philosophy


This seems to be captured by the ballet master who, towards the end, tells Marie: you only see your life clearly once, when all protective walls have crumbled. You stand there, naked and cold, seeing yourself just the way you are.

I'm not sure I quite 'get' what he meant but his words resonated enough that I wrote them down. I really like that scene between him and Marie.

Keep silent unless what you are going to say is more important than silence.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Poppy,

The expression by the ballet master contrasts with the earlier (and what amounts to self serving) statement by the uncle, who encourages her to "build a wall" around herself.

Left open for interpretation, since Marie effectively takes up her uncle's advice, is whether it was in some sense necessary that she do so. 0ne interpretation, which seems rather facile, but may still be appropriate and accurate, is that it was necessary, in order to get over Henrik. But of course she doesn't so much get over him (although I do believe she claimed to have done so) as steel herself to embark as is implied on some kind of relationship with her uncle. The element of self-abasement involved is tangible, as if Marie was doing a form of penance for having survived. Does this mean then that such relationship was cleansing in some way?

An alternative is to say the wall building may have been necessary to steel herself, but that what ensued cut off any ability to in generic terms have a normal life long after she might have otherwise done so. Even considering the tragedy, and that someone in Marie's place might take an equivalent length of time to "get over" the tragedy, I am quite reluctant to conclude that Summer Interlude is saying that it was necessary. So, if not necessary, why did it happen?

Ultimately I think the better interpretation accepts Marie's conduct as a conscious form of self-abasement, by which process she became an anomic and closed off person. She has apparently recently begun the affair with the reporter, who significantly complains that he has felt nothing from Marie that would lead him to think she has any significant care for him. Henrik's Diary arrives, she relives her past, recalls the way she used to be, and realizes she need no longer remove herself from that part of herself. In other words she can bring back a part of her she left in her past. Perhaps she can go forward in being with the reporter - in fact I think the film means she CAN do so, and leaves unanswered (as not significant to the film even if it would be to Marie!) whether she does.

This interpretation is crystallized in the "current" encounter with the uncle. He wants her to stay the night, and she refuses, refusing in way that suggests that sort of involvement is not acceptable to her any longer. She thus in part opens herself up to acknowledging that her past involvements with her uncle are past, and she now is not willing to continue them. Her memories brought up by the diary having reminded her, she can now stand naked symbolically, and show caring to the reporter. The part of her that was the way she was in the past is reunited with her present self.

I think that is the relation of the film to the stated philosophy.

reply

Thanks for your thoughtful reply Kenny. I missed/over looked the uncle's remark and how that was significant given this final remark. Your comments about Marie's motivation, self abasement, are interesting. I'd need to watch the film again before I could discuss this further as my memory is too hazy.

The distance is nothing. The first step is the hardest.

reply

Poppy,

Thank you, but to be clear despite having seen this film recently I have only seen it once. Perhaps I might modify my view of penance and self-abasement, but it seemed to fit with my first viewing. And you agree, so I appreciate it.

reply