MovieChat Forums > Jungfrukällan (1960) Discussion > Confused about ending

Confused about ending

posted 17 years ago by icetrinket
34 replies | jump to latest

Hi! I loved this film, brutal as some parts of it were, but the ending didn't sit right with me. It made sense to me, when von Sydow exclaimed that he didn't understand God. But I'm not sure what Bergman's motive was, to have the father promise to build the stone church...after he had just felt that God had 'stood by' and allowed the rape and killing, all the killing, to happen. That religious ending didn't seem to go with the rest of the 'godless' tone of the film. Also, why the spring (I assume it was a symbol of the birth of Christianity?) on the spot where Karin lay? She was perhaps, innocent in her naivity, but not all that pure, being vain, bragging a good deal, and having had stayed out all night, on some occasions. One website claims that Bergman felt 'obliged' to add the religious ending, but that doesn't sound right, to me.

I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way. - Gustav Mahler

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] icetrinket 16 years ago

Hi,
I hadn't heard about his child...did he have one who died, or something? I'd heard that Mahler was torn up over his wife's escapades (though he should have let her compose, rather than keeping her as the little wife)and also over his heart trouble.. How off topic are we??!

[–] fokker55 14 years ago

Opsonic? I've never come across that word in my world travels.

Opsonin: A substance in blood serum that renders bacteria more susceptible to phagocytosis by leukocytes.

Persumably, you meant he sought relief by opening hemself to assuage his pain.

Still, odd choice an adjective. Not that I'm complaining.

[–] fearnotofman 16 years ago

I just watched the film for the first time, so maybe my thoughts aren't refined yet, but here's what I think...

This is a period piece, set in the Middle Ages, a period when the Catholic Church had great influence and people were very religious, etc etc. There's that story in the Book of Job where God does all these horrible things to a righteous, good person, but Job still reveres God anyway. The point of the Book of Job is that you're supposed to love God unconditionally, even if his "mysterious ways" seem evil or wrong or whatever. This is Töre's reaction. He doesn't understand God's ways, but he worships him anyway.

As for the spring, maybe it's Bergman's way of saying he HOPES God does exist, and does listen. It reminded me of the ending of Rashomon, where the movie is so dark and depressing throughout, and then the director ends it with a glimmer of hope, even if it isn't a strong one.

Just guesses here, I could be wrong.

[–] icetrinket 16 years ago

You know, that's as good a guess as any, and it makes sense. I just didn't picture Bergman making such a religious film, but perhaps...he did seem to want that thread of hope, in the end, no matter how dark things were.

I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way. - Gustav Mahler

[–] icetrinket 16 years ago

I just thought of something really dark...maybe Bergman was making fun, in a sense, of Tore, by having him build the church...because maybe the spring was actually arising, out of man's foolish pride. Or maybe not...

I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way. - Gustav Mahler

[–] Deadpan87 16 years ago

To me Tore throughout the entire film is fighting whether he wants to serve God or oden. He is a Christian but still holds onto his paganism at times. His wife is a very devout Christian as is Karin. While Ingiri is completely devoted to oden.

Once he finds out the these three brothers killed and raped his daughter he goes to Ingiri to help him because he wants revenge. He knows God isnt about revenge so he goes out to a tree and gets the branches and begins beating himself with them, another form of paganism, before going in to extract his revenge. When he goes in and kills the older brothers, these killings could possibly be justified but once he kills the child he realizes that he let his revenge get the best of him. So at the very end when he prays to God he is still doubtful and doesnt understand why but because even in his doubts he is going out on faith and promising God something, God reveals himself with the spring. The absense of God was felt throughout the film untill the spring comes out and he washes his face(if i remember correctly) with the water as a sort of baptism or renewel.

This is just what I got from it. I was surprised by the ending as well though as many of Bergmans films are about the absolute absense of God and have much less hope.

[–] fearnotofman 16 years ago

Ingeri also washes her face, baptizing herself and signaling her conversion from paganism to Christianity. Good observations about Töre intentionally seeking out pagan rituals and pagan believers when preparing to extract revenge on the rapists/murderers.

[–] tlburns1 15 years ago

I agree very much with this post. Water has always been a symbol of cleansing and renewal.

However, i will quibble with one comment above. Tore is not engaging in paganism when he beats himself. Self-flagellation has been a common practice in Catholicism since the Middle Ages, and it is still practiced in some monastic orders today. It is meant both to show God that the the s-fer is serious about wanting forgiveness and as a form of self-distraction. It's hard to think about, say, sex when you are in extreme pain.

The practice is (or was -- I haven't been in a while) still performed symbolically in the Catholic mass. En mass, the congregation beat their breasts thrice, saying, "Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. IOW, "Through my fault, my fault, my most grevous fault."

Even as a thought, revenge is a sin. Tore wants forgiveness, perhaps because he is afraid of God or perhaps because he loves God so deeply and yet is angry with God. His act is a sign of sincerity but also an act of desperation.

Just my opinion. I could be wrong.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thomassmccallum 11 years ago

wow. I didn't think of it like this, but now that you put it out there it fits perfect.

"Hey, Buster hit her. I just gave her the roofie."

[–] frequency-2 16 years ago

Tor had Faith in God regardless of all that happened. The spring was a miracle from God, why a spring where the dead girls head was is up to you.
Tor's Faith is immutable, no matter what happens or how angry or confused he may be about God's ways. I think the church he promises to build brings the miracle of the spring, because Tor's vow proves he is faithful and doing pennance for his 3 killings.

[–] icetrinket 16 years ago

Perhaps...I'm dubious though..

I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way. - Gustav Mahler

[–] beertunnel 16 years ago

It's a satire. The father is being mocked by Bergman at the end for thinking that building a church will redeem him for what he did.

[–] Aeneas-2 16 years ago

The whole point of Tor's prayer is that he is seeking God's forgiveness DESPITE the fact that he doesn't understeand God.

Though Bergman himself did not keep with his Lutheran upbringing, I disagree that his films mock the faithful. I think the overriding theme is that we can't know or understand anything beyond our earthly lives, yet many hope for something more.

I will say that standing by that uncertainty, and not blinking but actually emphasizing the inability to know, is why Seventh Seal is actually a much better film than The Virgin Spring, in my opinion.

One other interesting thing about this movie is how it was essentially remade, or at least greatly emulated, by Wes Craven with Last House on the Left.

[–] markovici 15 years ago

I think it's like this

Tore says:
"You see it, God. You see it. The innocent child's death, and my revenge. You allowed it. I don't understand You. I don't understand You. Yet, I still ask your forgiveness. I know no other way to live. I promise You, God... here on the dead body of my only child, I promise you that, to cleanse my sins, here I shall build a church. On this spot. Of mortar and stone... and with these, my hands."

So, just like those rapists and murderers prayed at the evening table, Tore will build build a church to redeem himself. He will build a church, something thats supposed to be holy and untainted, because of the blood on his own hands. And so, he believes, he will be forgiven for murdering an innocent child.

However what he did to himself with birch branches was most certainly a pagan ritual. because he did all that not to distract himself for sin, but to prepare himself for revenge. When he got out of the water and finished with the branches, he asked for a knife.

So in a way he takes what he needs from both religions.
When he needs support and courage for revenge, he will obey the pagan ritual (like he probably does when he plants his crops.. etc). However, he turns to Christianity for the very reason Christianity became such a popular religion. It "offers" him forgiveness and salvation.
The moment he became a criminal he wanted to build a christian church. And so, he thought he'd wash away his sins. In a way he chose to replace his own conscience with christian obedience.

I believe that was the point Bergman was going for, but then again this is just my interpretation.

[–] Jesstears 15 years ago

Aeneas said:
__________________________
One other interesting thing about this movie is how it was essentially remade, or at least greatly emulated, by Wes Craven with Last House on the Left.
__________________________

Some fool on the board said that Craven's wasn't a remake. I was laughing so hard I couldn't type. Hellen Keller could see Crave's was a ramke.

I also agree with Aeneas that Bergman was not mocking man. Bergman's movies, to me, deals with a lot of character study and he does it in a short period of time. That's what I loved about this movie in particular, and I guess its because I noticed it in this movie. I saw Persona and The Butcher (I think its called) which are great movies. I have fallen in love with Bergman's movies.

It used to Kubrick was my man, then I discovered Haneke and now Bergman and I think Bergman beats them both. He's very straight forward, which is also why I like Kubrick and Haneke.

I didn't understand the spring scene either, but then again I'm not religious and have blocked all the symbolism from my mind for I was forced to go to church and forced to believe in God. But after reading this thread, I now see the symbolism.

As for the church being built with mortor and stone, I started thinking about the whole "he who without sin caste the first stone." I am probably way off base, but that's what came to my mind.

I will be watching Through the Glass Darkly tomorrow. I have to revist The Seventh Seal. Any other recommendations, please pass them on.

----Nikki

[–] scarletminded 15 years ago

Wow, I could see it being a satire. Scandinavians are very proud of their pagan heritage and Asatru is still a religion in Iceland and other Scandinavian nations, so I could see Bergman using that to convey how pointless organized religion is.

I mean paganism did a lot of stuff, good and bad in the movie. But it had action. Christianity didn't have any action in the film. When people wanted something, they prayed to Odin and not the Christian God, and Odin seemed to answer, while the Christian God didn't. The girl died because of Odin's will and the hateful sister, where all the Christian mom could do was be passive, while people did pagan ritual and sacrifice around her, first to kill, then to right that killing.

And maybe the spring at the end is satire, that they think a little water coming out of the ground under Karin is so symbolic they should convert...but you can see from the rest of the film that nature (via Odin) is listening, but the Christian God isn't...I mean this within the context of the movie.

Nice food for though to mull about in my head before I sleep!

Hail Odin! :P

[–] valenzuela171 15 years ago

i thought tore washing himself was a reference to pontius pilate, as in hes not responsible for these men's deaths. i may be wrong though.

[–] BenGrimms_Thing 15 years ago

I took the spring as cropping up as a result of the relatively pure, though prideful, Karin's death happening there. The spring then coming as a new source of life, and of cleansing and it being effectively brought, by Karin.

[–] yoda87960 15 years ago

To me, the spring was God. The father wanted to build the church in that spot to atone for his sins, even though he mostly blamed God for his inaction. Immediately after the speech, the spring bubbled up. The spring would keep him from ever putting a building on the spot and engaging in any sort of ritual that would make up for what he did.

[–] dancetildawn 15 years ago

Interesting how paganism was still such a big part of people's lives in Sweden as late as the 14th century. It took quite a long time for Christianity to dominate the country.

[–] skiop 15 years ago

It took quite a long time for Christianity to dominate the country

And now it's a mostly secular country, with churches being more about history and architecture than religion.

[–] das-d 14 years ago

Maybe, just a maybe, I am extremely uncertain about what I am going to say. When the mother talks about her guilt, the father mentions his own. What guilt, if not the same passion that ignited the rapists. And if it is correct, the killing of those three brothers is just a ritual: cleansing his own lust towards his daughter. The three brothers must come to the same house, because, they are actually another aspect of the father. The pagan layer is a lower layer, more base, more full of sin and truth, where the father flagellates himself and kills some symbols of his own self. And on the higher layer, the layer of christianity, he now returns, cleansed after everything. And hence the water, as the irony of this cleansing. (Please, this was just a wild guess, don't kick me for it.)

[–] beauedson 14 years ago

at minimum partially correct, with the sexualized greeting between the father/daughter at the beginning, father humping the daughter-tree when he tore it down, and tightly shot/framed sexualized murder/knife rape of the brothers by the father; it's not like those things were inserted randomly

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] craigbhill 11 years ago

Terrible terrible terrible hooey, so hooey-ful it hurts to go thru it point by point.

Bergman later denounced the film, for reasons i don't want to guess at out of respect, but heere goes, it MIGHT have been because of others' overwrought tidy little napsacks of conclusions like the post above.

Trust me, he would never want anyone to think the film was an evocation of the "christian" god Bergman all but loathed in every other instance.

~ Native Angeleno

[–] moon-girl 14 years ago

The Criterion edition of this film has a commentary by the author explaining in some detail why certain things are in the film and what she intended them to mean. Definitely worthwhile for anyone who's interested in this film.