MovieChat Forums > Ansiktet (1959) Discussion > intentional error in the ending?

intentional error in the ending?

posted 17 years ago by heptaparaparshinokh
10 replies | jump to latest

I noticed that the abrupt ending to the film seems to be marked by a sudden shift in weather - the movie comes along wonderfully until the scene in the rain shifts to a brift sunny day - at which point, there is also a shift in tone - with the seemingly tacked on happy ending. I wonder if the studio forced bergman to change the ending to something more positive, and in response, he created this obvious technical flaw to point out the seperation between his original idea, and what he was made to do in the studio's commerical iterest. It seems like too much of a coincedence. does anyone know if he spoke about this anywhere?

Tarkovsky is the king.

[–] delach 17 years ago

I think Bergman has said that he was thinking of "The Beggar's Opera" for the ending - will post the source if I can find it. It definitely wouldn't have been imposed by the studio. I think you're right that the sudden shift in weather is meant to emphasize the sudden turn in fortunes.

[–] MudFlapp 16 years ago

It was him having a jab at the Hollywood films of Capra and Cukor
as well as him playing the biggest trick on all of us.
By revealing that we don't even know what kind of movie we are watching!

[–] MudFlapp 14 years ago

WE DID IT WE FINALLY DID IT!
http://www.criterion.com/films/27521-the-magician

[–] SherlockVonEinstein 14 years ago

i think you're final line, regarding how "we don't even know what kind of movie we are watching" sums up my experience with this film. at times, it seemed like it was a horror film in the vain of "hour of the wolf," whereas at other times it was more along the lines of a farce or sex comedy. i enjoyed the film over-all, but it definately lacked the focus of his better known films.

[–] Harold_Robbins 13 years ago

A very strange film, turned out to be perfectly appropriate for a gray, drizzly autumn day. I'll be revisiting this one.

"'Nature,' Mr. Allnut, is what we are put here to rrrrrriiiiise above!"

[–] trymyproduct11 13 years ago

I don't think it was tacked-on at all. I think it continued with the ever-present theme of the relationship between artist and audience. When all was said and done, they were effective in their aims -- everyone was moved in one way or another. And if you treat the film as an allegory, which I'd argue it is at least partially, it would make sense for them to move on to a "larger" audience.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] paengmanila 12 years ago

I kept noticing others argue that the ending was abrupt or rushed or not satisfying. I found it strange and intriguing.

[–] shoolaroon 11 years ago

I don't really argue with the concept of the ending but perhaps with the way it is timed - if it had played out for a few more minutes I think it might have worked better, but it feels rushed. But maybe that's how it is - the performers/artists did their piece, got their reactions and were trying to leave town ahead of the police they assumed would be after them....and then they were given a reprise that indicated that even the King wants to be moved. No one is immune from the desire to experience more than our mundane lives usually allow. The artist is king after all....I love this movie.

[–] kenny-164 10 years ago

Nice comments here about how the ending in effect challenged our understanding of what kind of film it is. Also that Bergman took a shot at Hollywood's propensity for tacking on too happy endings. And yet the ending is not implausible, although clearly something less than tolerable.

I think in part the business about the king in part helped to show Vergerus, the police chief and the Consul that their little game of harassing the Voglers not only was over, but had gone nowhere.