Explain the film?

callumm,

I am afraid that there are two questions in your post, and that Persona is perhaps the best example I can think of as a film that shows there's a vast difference between the answers to the two questions.

What happens in the film is in fact rather clear. It proceeds in a time linear fashion. No flashbacks, no real jumps forward in time. Yes, there are the purely cinematic devices of the beginning, ending and the noted "break' in the middle. But even these are rather straightforward - a beginning series of references to other films and film images. Within the narrative portoin of the film is set a story about an actress who has chosen to go mute, been attended to by a doctor who identifies her condition as not psychological or medical in nature, but as chosen, but for what reason? She "prescribes" spending time with a nurse who will attend to her in a place of remove from the world. The two interact with the actress remaining mute essentially through the entire film. There are at least two dreamlike sequences, but again they occur chronologically. Threats of violence and on example of physical harm occur, sexual matters are raised, and the two women after appearing to becoming friends end up with the nurse in particular disatisfied, and we last see either of them with her leaving on a bus.

But, how to explain what this all means?

In a word I think the narrative is placed within the cinematic references to indicate that this film is consciously proceeding as a cinematic exercise, with all the limitations and possible strengths the art from entails. The subject matter is affected by this recognition, and concerns the nature of the human persona, which is the mediating presence between those around us, and our inner "real" selves. We see this mediating presence to be one that does reveal, but only to an extent, while also if not always simultaneously prone to being a "mask", meaning that which hides and protects rather than reveal. See Carl Jung's analysis of the term persona.

But to be clear this is not a primarily psychological film. It is instead primarily an Existentialist examination of the role of the persona in the dynamic of being with others, as is perhaps best explained in the work of Martin Heidegger.

So, the ending ends as it does because the two women find they cannot "get past" the inherent limitations that the persona's dynamic presence, meaning the way their personas interact, prevents a truly authentic relation between their inner selves.

Left unclear is whether there is in fact any pure inner self, which I think the answer to is no, you cannot separate your inner self from your persona. But that's just my view of the answer to the question.

I believe it is merely "art for art's sake".