can somebody explain

i guess it's all a matter of whether YOU like it or not...
what kind of movies are you into? i'd recommend giving him another
chance. if you're more into horror, you should watch hour of the wolf.
persona is also really well known and very different for it's time.
what are some other films/directors you're into?
i liked this movie for many different reasons, one, it looks beautiful (just like all of his films). the lighting is perfect, the quality is perfect. the story is interesting to me and knowing that it was taboo at the time makes me more interested too... i didn't grow up in Sweden at the time and it makes me wonder
what the people thought about the subjects.
one of my favorite parts is when the circus performers dress the kid up and play with him. it felt neat. also, there are many different ways of interpreting it... just like any other movie of his (and i can understand someone not liking that.)

so yea, that's why i liked it.

You're admission that you didn't "get it" reveals your sensitivity to Bergman's rich acknowledgement of the human condition. Despite the late great Bergman's worthy attempt to make it impossible to "get" this film; despite the fact that the entire point of the film is to reveal to the viewer his or her own amazing creative processes for wresting some kind of meaning out of meaninglessness, most people do manage somehow to attach meaning to this film. They find some way to "get it." It is they who are lost, not you.

One falls into the film. We look for clues. Why does an announcement of a certain event show up in a quick shot of a newspaper, as well as in an idle fragment of conversation? We sift every nuance for meaning. There are enough "coincidences" in the film to make us believe that maybe we are not lost. The Silence's coincidences are much like the ones we find in our own lives. We are able to attach meaning. We must attach meaning. And we do.

The Silence is not about relationships, but about barely attempted human connections. The characters, as many of us do in actuality (?), often believe they know what the other is thinking, what another believes--and they are wrong. One cannot know these things. When we guess, we are often using the other person as a self-reflection. Only asking brings us closer to understanding. Each of us is truly alone in the Silence of living.

Finally, Bergman shows us that all the clues we've collected, all the rationalization and guessing we've done was useless. For all the ceremony of connectedness, nothing in the film is connected: not the characters, not their words or actions, not the places, not the circumstances...nothing. At the same time, Bergman communicates his deep understanding of the condition of being human. Like the young boy in the film, we must have something to believe in so that we can go on. Thus, the boy is given a "letter" from his dying aunt. He treasures it. It will give him the meaning he needs to sustain his life. Truly, it is a magic letter. Although it merely lists the translations of certain words into a non-existent language, there is power in its mystery. Furthermore, the aunt did promise it to the child, did write upon the paper, and did give the paper to the child, folded and in an envelope. The child sees her as having interest in something beyond herself--most importantly, interest in him and in the life he will lead. This will be the foundation whereupon he will build his life. It may be enough.

Personally I feel that we are not supposed to "get it", rather the film is supposed to get you. It never will if you are constantly trying to "get it". Perhaps you have engaged the film (typically with the intellect devoid of feeling, like Esther, or with your attitude devoid of spirit, like Anna) instead of having become engaged (sympathetically and without judgment, like Johan).

(PRN) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id-bFpYQzXE

See if this helps.

Every human being has 2 conflicts: MIND vs BODY. (eg., your body tells you to eat a lot, but your mind tells you overeating is unhealthy).

ESTER represents the mind (she is intellectual, rational, a translator, listens to Bach).
ANNA represents the body (she bathes too much, eats, is sexual, unintellectual).
THE BOY represents that part of us that is both a part of our mind and body, but seeks something else (eg., God).

Ester(mind) is alcoholic, sick and dying.
Anna (body) is promiscuous, unfulfilled and bored.

If our mind dies (as Ester does), can the boy (our spirit) survive if only he is left with Anna (a physical existence). Thus, the theme is, if God does not exist to intermediate between MIND vs BODY, our spirit may not survive on BODY alone.

THis is just my interpretation of Bergman: His characters are separate symbols of the various parts of our individual make-up. This may also help with understanding PERSONA and CRIES AND WHISPERS.

"I really wanted to like this movie. But I just didn't see what was so good about it. "

There you go, I didn't like it either. It's ok not to like something. I've sat through 4 Bergman films, began to watch and couldn't take 3 others, and in total have only enjoyed/liked 2: Fanny and Alexander and Wild Strawberrys.

there is a whole lot of hilarious crap in this thread. if you didn't like the silence, don't write Bergman off. he's made a stack of way more accessible movies, with the silence being at the other end of the scale. i think to enjoy (not appreciate but actually be entertained) the silence you'd need a bit of retrospective history on the director, because the things he talks about are easier to understand once you've already been introduced to them.

even the 3 films in the trilogy are a good place to start, just make sure you watch them in order.

Thanks for one of the most disarming, forthright question/posts I've ever seen on this site. I think you may be suffering a little touch of expectation anxiety. Or, in the alternative, this particular Bergman film may simply fail to deliver (for you). It's all rather subjective. I say don't force it. Check out a couple of other Bergman films (Seventh Seal or Wild Strawberries or perhaps Scenes from a Marriage((?)) and, at some point, you may decide to come back to this one and see it differently (or not). Just don't force it. Just let it happen. Have you considered taking a film class or two? Bergman is often covered and sometimes a little critical analysis is a good thing. But look out for the critical overload that can effectively shut you off from ever really 'experiencing' a given film or filmmaker. Good luck.


'I'll tell you right out, I am a man who likes talking to a man who likes to talk.'

To be honest, this is really not a good Bergman film to start with. Wild Strawberries is almost ideal, in that it introduces all of his themes in a very approachable and likable manner. The Seventh Seal is also often recommended as a good place to start.

This really isn't a good place to start because 1) it's the third of a trilogy of independent narratives (which can be watched out of order, but make more sense in context), and 2) because if you don't come into it with and idea of what Bergman is doing, you're very likely to get distracted by all the sex.

The Silence is an investigation of the soul after the loss of faith. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the two women are really best viewed as two competing aspects of the self, one holding to a rational, Kantian morality that is failing, and the other accepting that in the absence of faith, everything is permitted. If you keep that in mind watching it, it makes a lot more sense than as a straight narrative.

The brilliance of The Silence, at least for me, is not in a new commentary on how to life after the death of God, but in the narrative presentation. Bergman gives us an almost surreal setting, taking away everything extraneous to the story by rendering it unintelligible. The place and the language spoken there are non-existent; Esther suffers from a mystery illness; we have no idea why they are there; and the whole thing is in the shadow of apocalyptic war. It's like a photo where the subject is sharp, and the background is fuzzed out - we have an idea of what's there, but the photographer/director is drawing our eyes to the important parts. The setup could not be more appropriate for the subject matter of the soul afloat in the absence of God. The alienation, the loss of foundation, and the loneliness are captured perfectly by this audacious move. While the film is imperfect, the unique and unparalleled presentation takes it to the level of genius.

That said, it's entirely comprehensible how someone could dislike this film.