MovieChat Forums > Persona (1967) Discussion > Two real women

Two real women

posted 11 years ago by HoratiusFlacc
16 replies | jump to latest

This film is not as pretentious and non linear as some of you might think. I dont intend to convince anybody, I'm just distracting myself. Let's make some sort of summary and follow some parts of dialog with my bad english and nonsense commentary [SPOILERS]:

You wanted to talk with me, doctor?
Have you been to see Mrs. Vogler yet, Sister Alma?

Does this dialog really happen in Vogler's mind? Bergman is simply introducing the caracters and it continues to:

She has had all sorts of tests.She's healthy both mentally and physically.t's not even some kind of hysterical reaction.

It is cleary explained that Vogler does not suffer from a clinical condition. Alma introduces herself to Vogler:

I graduated from nursing school two years ago.
My parents have a farm in the country.
My mother was also a nurse until she got married.

She followed in the footsteps of an image that existed for her. This is not casual for the ”story”.
No bit of dialogue is.
Another important piece forshadowing:

Sister Alma, what's your first impression?

I don't know what to say, doctor.
Her face looks soft,almost childish.
Then you see her eyes...
She has a mean look, I think.

---

Did something frighten you?

No, not exactly. Perhaps Mrs. Vogler needs an older person with more life experience.
I might not be able to handle her.

Handle? In what way?

Mentally.

Mentally?

If Mrs. Vogler's silence and immobility are her decision...

Well?

That shows great mental strength. I might not be able to cope.

Another dialogue happening in Vogler's mind? the film is saying something quite cleary and in a straightforward manner and that is this: Vogler is strong mentally, Alma is weak and naive in contrast. Indeed Alma will not be able to cope.

The radio stuff happens (also important stuff but I would take forever if...).
Then, while Vogler remains isolated listening to Bach in darkness, Alma turns on the light and:

It's funny. You can go about as you please...
...do almost anything.
I'll marry Karl-Henrik and have a couple of children, which I'll have to raise.
All of this is predestined. It's inside me. It's nothing to think about.
It's a safe feeling.
I have a job that I like and enjoy.

That's good, too...
...but in another way
But it's good.
Good.

I wonder what's really wrong with her.
Elisabet Vogler.
Elisabet.

Here, its clear that she's intrigued by Vogler. Later on it will be clear that parts of this monologue are related to life illusions and everyday lies that we all tell ourselves to be able to live. A mask in a mask...

It is also in contrast with Vogler sense of reality and lies. We shall see.
Vogler watches an immolation in horror, cruel reality directly into her. She sees it. She is aware and suffers with it.
...But the monk's conviction also contrasts with her lack of believes...

The reading of the letter.

Her reaction to the photo (forshadowing a late scene).
This woman is not like Alma.
The doctor reveals more of Vogler's mindset:

Elisabet, I don't think there's any point in your staying at the hospital.
It's just hurting you to be here.
Since you don't want to go home,
I suggest you and Sister Alma stay at my summer house by the sea.

Don't you think I understand?

The hopeless dream of being.
Not seeming, but being.
In every waking moment
aware, alert.

The tug of war... what you are
with others and who you really are.

A feeling of vertigo
and a constant hunger
to be finally exposed.
To be seen through,
cut down...

even obliterated.

Every tone of voice a lie.
Every gesture false.
Every smile a grimace.

Commit suicide?
That's unthinkable.
You don't do things like that.
But you can refuse to move and be silent.

Then, at least,
you're not lying.

You can shut yourself in,
shut out the world.

Then you don't
have to play any roles,
show any faces,
make false gestures.
You'd think so...

...but reality is diabolical

Your hiding-place isn't watertight.
Life trickles in everywhere.
You're forced to react.
Nobody asks if it's real or not,
if you're honest or a liar.
That's only important
at the theater,
perhaps not even there.

Elisabet, I understand why you're silent, why you don't move.
Your lifelessness has become a fantastic part.

I understand and I admire you.
I think you should play
this part until it's done...
...until it's no longer interesting.
Then you can leave it,

Not only reveals again that Vogler does not have a clinical condition it makes it painfully clear what is part of Vogler: the existential problems, the search for a truth in a world of illusions and man created perspectives, the problem of the masks in human interaction (in everything), the sense that every person is the poor player that Macbeth mentions in his hour of despair...

This is not part of Alma at this point. She's not that person. She lives her everyday life still. Or tries.

Elisabet, can I read
a bit of my book to you?
Or am I disturbing you?
Listen to this...
"The anxietywe carry with us,
"all our broken dreams, the inexplicable cruelty,
"the fear of death, the painful insight into our earthly condition..."
"...have worn out our hope of a divine salvation.
"The cries of our faith and doubt
"against the darkness and the silence
"are terrible proof of our Ioneliness and fear."

Do you think it's like that? (nods)

I don't believe that.

Again, Vogler's perspective and the contrast with Alma at this point.

To change...

but I'm so lazy.
And it makes me feel guilty.

Karl-Henrik always scolds me
for not having any ambitions.
He says I'm like a zombie.

Bergman continues to hint at Alma's inner weakness and lack of a “strong self”. Oh, so cryptic.

...ones who've been nurses all of their lives and lived for their work...
always in uniform... and they live there.
Imagine having a calling that strong that you devote your life to it...
Believing in something, doing something.

To think your life has meaning.
I like that.
Sticking to it whatever happens.
I think you should be of importance to others.
Do you believe that?
I know it sounds naive but I believe in that

But necessary believes may break....

Yes, he was married.

We had an affair for five years.

Remember her early monologue? Illusions and lies start to break down...

People tell me
that I'm a good listener.
Isn't that strange?
Nobody ever bothered to listen to me.
Not the way you do now.
You listen.
I think you're the first person
to listen to me.

She listened before. Now her weak inner self, her mask, is more of a center, convulsing...

I've always wanted a sister.

I only have brothers.

Crave for association...
She's like a half full vessel that will be filled with some of Vogler's...

I like Karl-Henrik so much, but...
You probably only love once.
I'm faithful to him.

Doubts... Another lie ready to break down...
The erotic monologue follows and then

Karl-Henrik, studying to be a doctor,took me to a colleague who carried out the abortion.

Contrast this with what she was saying to herself early on.

You feel guilty for little things.
Can you understand that? And what happens to everything that you make up your mind to do? Is it necessary to do it all?
Is it possible to be one and the same person at the same time?
I mean, two people?

The two people reference is related to the masks theme, not Vogler's supposed “two sides”.
She's starting to break down and question things.

I should be like you.
You know what I thought after seeing your movie that night?

When I came home and looked in the mirror, I thought,

"But we look alike."
Don't misunderstand me.
You're more beautiful.

But somehow... I think I could change myself into you if I tried.
I mean, inside.

I think its clear and straightforward the progression in the film.

Her ”plunge” into Vogler, the crossing and rip apart of masks will start to be more clear. Influenced by alcool she thinks she hears Voglers voice and dreams about her:

Did you speak to me last night?

Were you in my room?

Vogler is a person that searches truth and craves an escape from lies. When she shakes her head negatively we should believe her. You can choose to not believe her, but the film does not incline you towards that choice in any way.

The letter:

She claims that her perceptions do not correspond with her actions.

More of Alma.

With Alma discovering the letter, the breakdown is official. The second part of the film begins after the “break” in the film itself.

Can't you realize the main themes of the movie?:

Is it really importantm that you don't lie, that you tell the truth,
talk with a genuine tone of voice?
Can you live without talking freely?
Lie and make excuses?
Isn't it better to give yourself permission to be lazy and lie?

Perhaps you get better if you just be the way you are.
No, you don't understand. You don't understand what I'm saying.

You're unapproachable.

Elisabet, forgive me.

Oh, my God,I behaved like an idiot. I don't know what came over me.
I'm here to help you.

---

You asked me to talk about myself.

It felt so good. You seemed so kind and understanding.

I had been drinking.It felt so good to talk about it all.
I was flattered that a great actress like you bothered to listen.

Somehow I thought it would be nice if it was of some use to you.

But it is so awful.
It's sheer exhibitionism.

Every bit of dialogue is suficienly clear and important. And brilliant.

Elisabet, I want you to...

I want you to forgive me.
I care for you so much.
You mean so much to me.
I've learned so much from you.

Care and forgiveness...
Btw, is the Unconscious learning something from the counscious here or whatever? I mean, can't you see you're completely missing the points of the film if you insist in imagining that Alma and Vogler are parts of one real person? Indeed a purely psychological view like erratic's and such is limiting and does not understand that the real themes are bigger and truly make Bergman's film an immortal masterpiece.

The problem is if you never thought about the themes of the film ever before, you have trouble seeing them. Like Goethe said people really only listen to what they already know.
A purely psychological interpretation is not surprising from many...
Those that dont even have much from psychological stuff, well, no surprise that the film is just pretentious, incomprehensible or maybe just an horror thing....

Th last part of the movie is Alma breaking down, crossing with Vogler and trying to “exorcise” her “out”. Illusions and masks... inner violence... communication walls...

The husband is a fantasy of her frailer mind. Pay attention to the progression of the film and of her mental state in the film and you can't fail to see it as such. She opens her eyes, its night, seems to wake up from a nightmare. She seems to watch Vogler...

Listen to what she says:

He's calling again.

I'll find out

what he wants from us...
...out here,

far away here in our solitude.

Some words of hope in the movie from the husband:

There's something deep down, difficult to get a grip on.

You love somebody, or say you do...

...it's tangible, like words.

------
More important is the effort.

Not what we accomplish, right?

The husband monologue again is related to main themes of the movie.

Leave me alone!

It's shameful, all of it.

Leave me alone!

I'm cold and rotten

and indifferent.

It's all lies and imitation.

Anyway there's alot to scrutinize in many scenes if you wish (everything is of significance), but: there's two real persons and its Alma breakdown not Vogler's. Don't get stuck with the idea that Vogler is the patient and such, just pay attention to what the film is saying:

I'm not like you.

I don't feel the same as you.

I'm Sister Alma.

I'm only here to help you.

I'm not Elisabet Vogler
You're Elisabet Vogler.

I just realized that this thread is not that good, anyway...

[–] kenny-164 11 years ago

Horatius,

As you would expect I tend to agree with you. I recognize that for all its greatness, the ways in which Persona has been interpreted are rather diverse. But some such intrepretations do not hold up, and seeing the film as either or both a story of two sides of one person or as a primarily psychological exercise is unpersuasive and limiting.

Erratic was correct in alluding to there being interpretations out there that see the primary frame of reference as psychological. a film historian named P. Adams Pitney is associated with a view of the film as an essentially psychological exercise, although I do not understand his view to agree with the notion that Alma and Elizabeth are two sides of the same person (and of course it is not equivalent to see them the same and also see the psychological as the primary frame of reference). In any event I disagree with Mr. Pitney, for the reasons covered in Erratic's thread.

I continue to think the doctor's presence is critically defective to both the notion that Alma and Elizabeth are the same person as well as the psychological being primary. To start with, there is no reason to believe that the doctor exists only either symbolically or in the mind of Elizabeth. She is a real person. As you note she meets separately with Alma, and then Elizabeth. We are to imagine that the meeting with Alma existed as some kind of fantasy in Elizabeth's mind? Why? The film contains no indication (unlike some others) that it is dreamed of or in some other sense did not really occur. (To be clear I do not think the doctor's presence in the film is critical to seeing the film as "correctly" not primarily about the psychological; but it does effectively preclude such an interpretation as primary.)

The doctor's assessment of Elizabeth as NOT having a psychological condition or that such would be the cause of her muteness would also seem to be entitled to deference. Among other things there is absolutely nothing within the film that would tend to indicate her assessment is unreliable.

The placement of the meeting in the film is not haphazard, either. The doctor's assessment and her view that Elizabeth should leave the clinic in turn lead directly to her remove to the house on Faro, with Alma. It leads to the thematic turn away from the possibility that this is primarily concered with Elizabeth's psychological condition to a more existential frame of reference. (By that I mean that the social context of her dealings with Alma, explored using techniques and representations that use doubling, becomes primary. The context becomes the Heideggerian concept of "being with others".) This leading away is complete - the doctor never again appears or is even mentioned. WHile she does predict what will happen to Elizabeth, it is in terms of how Elizabeth will eventually put aside her chosen muteness, and not about some changed psychological condition or treatment.

But... I do not wholly agree with what I take to be the implications of your post. Most critically there most certainly are elements in the film that are non-linear. (Perhaps this is less an issue than it might be. You in fact merely say the film is not as non-linear "as some might think" without identifying who those some might be. Certainly not me, I would hope. Heh.)

To be clear here I do not mean that Persona is not completely linear only in the sense that it fails to follow a "normal" narrative arc. One other sense in which it is not linear is that the opening and closing scenes do have a certain random element while also having elements of forward movement. (The reasons why Bergman chose this approach I think I would prefer to discuss elsewhere. Including them here strikes me as a bit of a digression.) But there is, for example, nothing that ties in the image of the spider or of the silent film sequence to the narrative of Elizabeth and Alma in any conventional sense.

The other way that Persona is non-linear concerns its use of the doubling technique. Most obviously recognition of this interpretation is supported by the repeat of Alma's monologue describing Elizabeth's life. Strict linear progression is abandoned for an exercise in doubling.

But in general, I think one needs to recognize, as you do, that for however much complexity is recognized to exist in Persona, that does not mean that all that appears literal is to be discarded as such, and ONLY viewed symbolically or as representative of some kind of purely mental or psychological phenomenon.

So in general i agree with you, and thank you for reminding us why erratic's interpretation is flawed and unconvincing.

[–] HoratiusFlacc 11 years ago

Maybe saying that the film is not as "non linear as some of you might think" is not proper english on my part. There's obvious "non linear" elements.

Maybe more proper is to simply say that the film is not as surreal, stupidly ambiguous, incomprehensible as some people write about.

Someone in this message boards wrote:
"Instead of trying to wrap your heads around what was actually happening, why don't some of you just try enjoy the experience of the emotional journey it takes you on. The sounds and images, in my opinion, don't have to intellectually MEAN anything. I merely found the emotions they conjured to be a very interesting way to spend a couple of hours."

That's well and good for the poster, I'm sure, but its bizarre to me that someone ends up saying that "The sounds and images, in my opinion, don't have to intellectually MEAN anything".
Persona is not simply that kind of film, imho.

I also think that it is not proper to say that one should essentially just use one's imagination to make sense of stuff, that the film is made to just stimulate diferent interpretations. It can and it does inevitably, but, again, it does not seem to me that specific kind of movie, if you know what I'm trying to say.
It tends to go around certain themes (discussing them can lead to different perspectives, of course, but it tends to certain themes and several sufficiently clear dialogues/monologues touches them in different ways...).

There is a conducting string that directs the movie in a particular path with a particular planned progression, imho. That there's a proper sort of structure tying most together against the "this makes no sense!" claims is what I meant.

I will say, for example, that to my own personal perception it actually feels perfectly natural for the film to dissolve the "boundaries" of reality and dream in the last part.
It feels natural to me because of my thoughts related to the main themes in the film and because I feel that Alma's changes, breakdown, mask convulsions, etc, follows a particular sort of step by step progression.

If the husband dream came at the first days of their living together, for example - well, the entire movie would be different and maybe weirder (you know what I mean and trying to say?). But it comes when her inner state is in this particular condition that you are following. Still some people seem to be put off by it, confused.
She thinks she hears Vogler's voice with the influence of alcool and tiredness, that she sees Vogler during the night,etc... It builds up steadily. It's not random and incomprehensibly surreal.

Anyway, It seems to me that it is when one tries to explain something from an idea first, to make the idea work as you can with what you can see, instead of starting with the clearer elements of the movie, that one arrives at trying to explain it in a purely psychological way.

Because there are clear elements in it. There are enough things plainly stated in dialogue that helps you connect the dots and suggest the reflections and themes. And one can actually start with that, I believe, to move forward in the complexity.
I dont want to exagerate the "it's clear" idea in such a film (and I certainly dont want to affirm too much "its crystal clear!"), I just think that, well, - what I mean is that focusing on the human reactions, revelations and interactions that happen is what is important to understand the film.

I feel there's some lack of psychological depth in the purely psychological interpretation actually. But I wont go now into make that clear (heh).

Really, does one just start to go with and through the human revelations and interactions of the film or should one try to intelectually see most scenes as surreal symbols of Vogler's mind struggle?

I see the appeal and the possible justifications but how much poorer it is to just consider all that as a part of Vogler's mind...

The point of my first post was that, in this complex film, by starting with some focus on plain lines of dialogue and realizing the initial portrait that the film suggests of Alma and the initial contrast with Vogler, what type of person Alma seems and then the violent inner development, that Volger's silence is related to her existential perspectives and a particular struggle for what can maybe be truth and authenticity (not the subconcious or whatever, its not the same...), one would realize that seeing them as one person literally is just forced and unnatural in the film, one would realize that forcing them literally into conscious-uncounscious or whatever is slicing part of the richness, the bigger depth around the caracter's masks, problems and interactions.

Probably a fail, because a longer essay would be needed and also because, in the end, one sees things as one sees things somehow... Its all related to the themes of the film as well....

[–] kenny-164 11 years ago

Horatius,

I am enjoying our discussion. First of all thank you for the clarification regarding Persona's non-linear elements. I appear to be right to have felt we did not really disagree on this. I of course have never denied or thought that Persona has narrative elements; only that I believe it is a mistake and inaccurate to see it as primarily about a story.

But you are correct in saying, however much complexity exists, or perhaps more accurately however much what is in the film can be delved into at deeper levels of understanding and meaning, this does not mean that all that is in the film can or should be viewed symbolically or as occuring within Elizabeth's psyche alone, ignoring the literal in effect completely. The film quite simply is not at all a fantasy, despite some dream or fantasy sequences.

Not to digress but I have to wonder why someone would insist on seeing Persona as necessarily either a pure fantasy or purely literal. That kind of binary thinking is inappropriate for this film (in fact binary thinking often gets in teh way of understanding). The fact that there are dreamlike elements is not some signal to completely ignore the literal. i think instead the challenge, if you want to call it that, is to discern where it is appropriate to distinguish the real, the literal, from the imagined.

After all it is common to human experience to both live in the "real" world and also to wonder about it in some non-literal way, outside the purely material of the "here and now". This is a useful notion not merely in understanding Alma's character but also in terms of understanding Bergman's choices and what they mean.

For example the scene where Alma and Elizabeth are in the room in the middle of the night, both dressed in their nightgowns, with the sheer transparent curtains or hangings in the room, is not to be understood as actually occurring. Aside from the elements of the setting itself, which are clear enough, we consider this scene's placement in the structure of the film as a clear sign that Alma has begun to consider how much similarity of identity she may have with Elizabeth. How far is she prepared to think this might extend? It is also interesting that the scene contains no verbalization by either woman. Is Alma in her dream considering whether non-verbal communication might help Elizabeth? Or is she instead subconsciously "addressing" a need of her own?

And of course we also see in this scene a representation of the theme of doubling.

But, the next morning, Alma asks Elizabeth if Elizabeth had come into her room in the middle of the night. Elizabeth shakes her head, with an expression of concern. This is interesting for a couple of reasons. First of all there is no reason to think Elizabeth is lying. This in turn indicates that Alma had to have dreamed it. In turn this also means that Alma was not sure whether she had dreamed it - why else would she have had to ask Elizabeth this question? IN turn this is a signal to the viewer that Alma is having (beginning to have? or had before as well?) difficulty separating her thoughts and experiences that are literally real from imagined.

The placement of this sequence of scenes also alerts the viewer to the possibility that later scenes (imo obviously the even more bizarre encounter with Elizabeth's husband) might also be imagined (and in fact in that case is being imagined).

But does this mean that EVERYTHING is imagined or dreamt? Of course not.

Bergman nonetheless it is fair to say chose not to be too obvious, if you will, in revealing that which might be literal and that which might be fantasy. Why? Well part of the answer is that he is not primarily concerned with revealing the progression of a narrative. If he were it would make sense for him to make clear to the viewer, to reveal, the elements or events that move the narrative's progression forward. He instead is using a mix of cinematic representations to address the overall concern of the film, which is a thematic examination of the dynamic relation among personas, communication and our search for authentic meaning.

I also happen to think one can get a better idea what Bergman was up to in Persona if one considers, to at least some extent, the place Persona holds in film history. As I mentioned on erratic's thread I at one time did see Persona as portraying Alma and Elizabeth as two sides of one personality. To be clear I did not see the film as portraying something that essentially occurred only in one or the other character's psyche. Instead I thought the portrayal was archetypal, in the sense that Alma and Elizabeth were serving as examples, representative types. And it is not incorrect to see Alma and Elizabeth as to some extent representative examples of types of personalities. But it is imo incorrect to see them, even symbolically and not literally, as two sides of "the same" person. For all the reasons discussed elsewhere there is no real purpose shown in the film for seeing them as the same - no movement toward unification, no resolution, no purpose in such a perspective.

Instead I have had the benefit in recent years of extending my familiarity of the work of some of Bergman's contemporaries. I suppose this interest began back in 2007 following Bergman's death, and the death the same day of Antonioni. My familiarity with Antonioni was limited to my great fondness for Blow-up, awareness of Zabriskie Point and The Passenger. But I did not know his films with Monica Vitti. I more saw Bergman in the context of comparisons with Fellini on one hand and the French new wave directors.

In any event I noted how the comparisons made between Bergman and Antonioni seemed to use this kind of pat distinction between them, that Bergman was more concerned with interiority, and this was reflected in the manner in which his films were made. Antonioni on the other hand in this pat understanding preferred to view his characters in the landscape, whether literally outside but also in closer quarters, dealing with others, but always with a more exterior perspective. As with everything else this is an overstated distinction, but there is something to it to be sure. The similarities between the two were also characterized rather simplistically - both were working from an Existentialist perspective. Again, there is definitely truth to this observation, but this hardly exhausts how their work is similar. (just to complicate it more Bergman has famously commented on Antonioni in less than purely laudatory terms, but also mixed in with some statements of admiration. Antonioni seems to have been much more circumspect in commenting about the works of other directors, including Bergman.)

What I have come to learn is that while Bergman, as I have long known, was influenced by Fellini (an obvious example is the scene in Hour of the Wolf where Johan first visits the von Merkens estate - Felliniesque!), he also shares aspects with not only the French, such as Truffaut and Resnais, but quite a good deal with Antonioni. (of course it is more clear that Bergman influenced the French than the other way around, to be clear.) I mentioned earlier in erratic's thread the specific aspects of L'Avventura and L'Eclisse. Both films, as well as the other two he did with Monica Vitti, La Notte and Red Desert, defied expectations of conventional narrative. But we also see much in Antonioni's films where he uses and explores cinematic representations of doubling.

Doubling is interesting for its connection to the concerns of Existentialist filmmakers. I have come to understand the significance of doubling as a cinematic exercise or technique that is useful in examining that which is essential in the metaphysical sense, meaning as pertaining to the search for meaning in human relations and connections. But doubling does not mean an equivalency between the two persons, entities or dynamics that are examined. Doubling certainly considers similarities, but does not require or imply a process which ends with unification of identity. The polarities of what is "doubled" remain.

In other words my experience of viewing the four Monica Vitti films Antonioni did has made me more aware of the cinematic vogue in the period leading up to Persona's production for films that made use of doubling. Such use tied into the essentially Existentialist frame of reference, and Bergman in Persona (and elsewhere - most obviously in The Silence, but also later in The Passion, which co-starred Bibi Andersson and Liv Ullmann again) made use of it to a great extent.

I think if one better understands the significant role doubling played in those films, how it was used as a cinematic technique, and what it means and does not mean, one will better understand that it is not part and parcel of an exercise that seeks or is intended to result in a unification. Nor does doubling require a conclusion that either establishes equivalency, or in "failing" to acheive equivalency means the exercise failed.

[–] HoratiusFlacc 11 years ago

Let's see if I can try to develop more of my own thoughts now on the last part of the film in a decent fashion, not claiming that they're absolute:

At the one hour of film, after we see Vogler staring at that "holocaust" picture found in her book, Alma is convulsing while sleeping in bed.

- A dream. It begins to our eyes:

Alma seems to wake up. Radio mumbling and a call from afar. Observes Vogler sleeping. Interacts with what she dreams as Vogler's husband. The monologue. ”Exorcism”. Back to the hospital and "nothing". The symbolical crossing-with-Vogler scene again

- End of dream.

Alma wakes up at morning in the summer house.
It was all Alma's dream.

Let's go more deep into it.

The husband scene:

We have to first take into account that Alma had expressed earlier in the film a desire, connected to her particular admiration of the actress and what they have in common, to "become" like Vogler in the inside.
The scene of the first dream with the hair caress already represents a crossing of identities/masks.
But, it is especially in this long dream and through means of this dream that a deeper fusion seem to happen.

The conversation in this scene resounds something of what Alma gathered from the husband's early letter. Its part of the Vogler mask she's "enveloping herself" with, in a way.

But it seems that the words expressed are all self deceptions and it all breaks down after a try of reassurance for the dreamed man, the affirmation that he's a wonderful lover:

Give me a sedative,
throw me away.
No, I can't go on anymore
My darling...
Leave me alone!
It's shameful, all of it.
Leave me alone!
I'm cold and rotten
and indifferent.
It's all lies and imitation.

Such last words reminds us of Vogler's earlier rejection of the “role” of wife, but at the same time they may also be revealing or changing something about Alma herself as well.

It is to note that Alma making love with the dreamed Vogler's husband can also remind us of her previously painful affair with a married man that she had loved.

Maybe it's not just Alma acting as Volger in her own dream, suggesting the try of a connection with Vogler through the erotic.

Although it could seem that Alma is just reenacting something related to Elisabet and her “wife role” and her distress in not being able to eventually continue with the deceptions needed in a relationship (and it can't be an accident that Elisabet's face appear as it does), it's possible not to stop there.

What this scene ends up revealing, imho, is the existence of a painful recognition in both women that they do not feel they had/have authentic love relations with their mentioned men and have trouble assuming the illusions necessary in a typical wife/girlfriend “role”.

That Alma was not having with Karl-Henrik a authentic connection with a proper sense of meaning, despite the way she was deceiving herself at the beginning of the film and first interactions with Elisabet, had already been before suggested to us viewers in other ways.
She even said regarding the relation with the married man that "in some strange way it was never quite real. I dont't know how to explain it. At least, I was never quite real to him".

Although Alma at the start of the film seems to stand in contrast with Vogler, the revelations about Alma as the film advances reveal that certain actions do not go along with her mask to herself and others.

Through the connection with Vogler the contradictions about Alma also come forth. It's her dream, after all.

The monologue follows. Still a dream.

Regarding what is said, we already knew that Vogler had rejected the relation with her son. Nothing new to us and her (and this is not happening in face of the real Vogler, anyway...).
So, is this dream scene just a psychological revelation of a hidden desire in Alma to hurt or eventually force Vogler into facing her lack of “motherliness” (and what would be the point then of having different camera pespectives and the blending face shot?)?

Actually, in my present point of view, Alma is mixing perceptions of Vogler's atitudes and life with her own.

(Its curious how Vogler in the dream (while we have the camera perspective of her reactions) smirks briefly and shakes her head as to deny that she had found herself "thinking about what he'd said"... This shake of head does not happen at that same point of the monologue when we have mainly the perspective of Alma's face. Maybe a coincidence or lapse or maybe not.)

For me, the scene seems to reveal that Alma with and "through" her mixed perceptions of Vogler ends up tapping into and facing her personal pain regarding her abortion stated before:

We were both pleased.
We didn't want to have children.
Not then, anyway.

It doesn't make any sense.
None of it fits together.
You feel guilty for little things.

One must remember that one of the reasons for Alma to try to “become” Elisabet is also because she felt they had something in common:

When I came home
and looked in the mirror, I thought,
"But we look alike."
Don't misunderstand me.
You're much more beautiful.
But we're alike somehow.
I think I could change myself into you if I tried.
I mean, inside.

This speech comes after the admission of the abortion.
It's not just about appearances. Taking into account the context, she feels that what they have in common is the fact that they, each in their own way, have both rejected a child.

When the monologue is repeated and the camera perspective changes, it seems that Alma ends up feeling this time that her words could be turned against herself:

No!
I'm not like you.

I don't feel the same as you.

Continuing Alma says confused:

I am not Elisabet Vogler.

I would like to have...

I love...

She would really like to have children? She loves Karl-Henrik ?
What's at the end of those sentences?
Actually, why can't she finish them?
Do these unfinished sentences have to do with Vogler or herself or both at the same time?
Does such sentences reveal an effort of Alma to regained herself and "expel" Vogler or actually suggest something about Alma herself?

Indeed we can ask the question: does Alma get confused and distressed because Vogler is taking over her to the point that she feels what Vogler feels (even if it's Alma's dream...), or because that “through” the perceptions and interactions with Vogler she's realizing what she does not wanted to utter - that she also lacks “motherliness”, that she feels herself cold and indifferent inside, that she does not find meaning in children and familiy life despite the previous lies to herself (“her perceptions do not correspond with her actions...”)(and maybe its because of this that her first love relation ended up being with a married man with a lower chance for the commitment...).

I don't want to say that one can be certain of the answer just observing this monologue.
I do incline myself, as one can see, to the second answer because of Alma's inner drama and developments throughout the film. I mean, why did we learn the contradictions that we learned about Alma before? Throughout the film we realize more about Alma's life than about Vogler...

Finally one should understand the following: one can't coldly perscrutate another's mask like that without that ending up changing and affecting oneself – for me, this is one of points for the repetition and different camera perspectives.
- Her words end up turning against her.

Imho, by means of this fusion of perspectives and by trying to break Vogler's stance and mute mask in front of her in the dream, Alma finally ends up shattering her own “Alma mask”.

She says:
"I've learned a lot".

Then she tries to establish herself as a separate, to get rid of the “oneness” with Elisabet, this particular perspective inside of her, through means of a sort of a violent and symbolic “exorcism”.

After, we find Elisabet apparently catatonic and Alma more dominant. It seems that Alma has done it.
It would seem that she has regained herself, achieved a resolution inside herself, found her “true” self.

Is this so?

“Nothing”

And now we arrive at the main thought of the film.

Again, one could expect, in a purely psychological perspective, that through the symbolic “expelling of Vogler” and the realization of her own self deceptions that Alma would find her true sense of self.
But this is not what happens. There's no typical resolution, no firm sense of being:

“Nothing”

On the other hand, this is also not about Alma and Vogler ending up in that scene as simply lost in psychological terms. That perspective's still superficial.
The film is existential.

The film suggests the following thought to me: that not only human perceptions and interactions with what we call reality, ourselves and others are made out of limited masks, subjective perspectives or surfaces of illusions, but also that “beneath” those masks there's nothing – that is: no recognizable “true” self, no absolute “being” behind the “seeming” that can be discovered, no concrete “essence” to hold on to, no real authenticity with others, no truth, no meaning.

Everything is a mask of nothingness:

Repeat after me...
Nothing.
Nothing.
No, nothing.

- Nothing.

There.
That's right.
That's how it should be.

Human interaction and perception is dependent on masks, all is layers and interactions of illusions.

Not understanding this perspective (doesn't matter if one agrees with that or not), means not understanding Vogler's stance and misinterpreting her (because without that understanding, one of the few ways to make sense of her is, of course, to assume that there's some psychological conflit in her mind).

She mutes herself because of an awareness that a true authenticity is not possible. It is also because of this that she also rejects the relations with her husband and son.

Alma's story in the film expresses the possible contradictions between the perceptions to ourselves and others and the actions while living life.
It expresses the limits in trying to find a true sense of meaning for ourselves and an authentic understanding through the interactions with others.
It suggests dangers in the act of piercing the masks.

In the end, she seems to have failed at truly connecting with Vogler (they go their separate ways - Volger packs and doesn't even show a gesture to Alma apparently) and at finding a proper sense of meaning.

Still, her life does go on, though.

[–] kenny-164 11 years ago

Horatius,

I suppose with a film as complex as Persona, which seems almost designed to create disagreements about what it really means (which I think despite my adherence to my own pov, is one of its great strengths), it is inevitable that one person's viewpoint is not likely to completely correspond to another's.

Before I begin I would like to comment about erratic, and to be clear that it is certainly possible, putting aside erratic's specific interpretation of the film, to view the two women as representing two sides of one psyche. Variations on this understanding are also possible - is the one psyche Alma or Elizabeth? Is the better frame of reference psychological, erotic, existential or something else? Is the film best understood as an unfolding narrative, or as an exercise in examining themes, or some combination of both? And even in examining the two women as two parts of one psyche, is this shown as a symbolic representation of a single person's makeup, or of archetypes? And still left is the questino whether we see a merging, a doubling, or even an unresolved break.

As I have mentioend elsewhere, I originally felt Persona was "about" a representation of two sides of the same psyche. but as I have also said I think that understanding is too limiting, less productive and enlightening if you will, than an understanding that focuses on the social, an interaction between two people in an Existentialist search for authenticity and meaning.

I freely admit that what supports this understanding, in part, is how i see Persona and where Bergman was during its making in the larger context of not only films made in the period before it, but also in the larger social context. another consideration that changed my view of this film came from an increased awareness of Bergman's other works, his common themes and his overarching Existentialist frame of reference. Together these understandings led to a change of interpretation. But, in so doing it was not at all necessary to impute things into the film or ignore things in it. To the contrary i believe these insights have REVEALED a thematic organization of the film's contents that leads me to the interpretation I have.

I suppose ironically a further development, even in a different direction, of my understanding and interpretation of the film is possible with furhter viewing. For example, why if Elizabeth is truly trying to overcome her existential anxiety does she seem to at the least engage in passive forms of aggression toward Alma? Given the perception of the film's concern with the dynamic of piercing or getting around the masks we present in order to find greater authenticity, is this passive aggressive posture an example of a reflexive defensiveness?

Well, certainly I have not exhausted all possible understanding of this one could even argue uniquely complex and meaningful film. So let's turn to what I not so much disagree with in your post as question.

I specifically want to start with your assertion that Alma's repeated monologue is a dream. I agree for the record that the encounter with Elizabeth's husband is. But you say more or less that the film follows that scene with a continuation of Alma's dream, this time of her repeated attack on Elizabeth and her dysnfunctional relation with her son.

In the film itself, however, between these two longer scenes is a relatively brief shot of Elizabeth's hand or hands on a table, while Alma tries to raise them. As she does we see a picture, and Alma notices -

"It's the picture of your little boy, the one you tore up.

"We have to talk about it.

"Tell me now, Elisabet."

At this point, of course Elizabeth says nothing, continuing her muteness. But obviously we recall when Elizabeth tore up the picture, wondering why, but certainly recognizing a lack of what we can call a common reaction to a viewing of a picture of her son. It also appears that the picture has been taped back together. Why? but Elizabeth of course says noting. So Alma says

"Well, then, I will."

And then the monologue proceeds and is repeated.

I cannot understand this brief shot as part of a dream. I think instead it is a signal we have left Alma's dreamworld behind, at least for the time being. The little scuffle over the picture certainly is not a signal of a continuation of the earlier dream. There is a thematic connection, one of alienation from Elizabeth's family, but I think best understood now in the context of the encounter between the two women and not in a dream of Alma's.

I also have a somewhat different take on the meaning of "nothingness", but will leave that off to a separate discussion.

[–] HoratiusFlacc 11 years ago

First of all, I'll say that there's no use developing the same kind of discussions that exists in the other thread (because it's pretty silly by now).

The signal that the dream is over is when Alma wakes up. Plain and simple. And that's it. Elisabet doesn't drink Alma's blood for real or becomes catatonic...

Btw, I remember the picture still being tore not taped. Almost for sure I remember seeing it well enough in the repetition that it's not glued. Not important, anyway. The picture could be intact in the dream...
I find it curious that it could be a signal that reality came back and that Bergman would think it so and wanted the viewers to view it as so...
We're not that clever, Kenny, and should not be in this matter.

Alma wakes up. The dream is over.

Only this: because those scenes are Alma's dream one could recognize that you exaggerate when commenting on the passive forms of aggression towards Alma from Elisabet.
Before that, Elisabet gets cut in the foot. Then what? Nothing, she caresses Alma and sits down to read a book. Alma then pushes her into talking and there's a violent scene with Elisabet defending herself from Alma's physical agression. Then what? They calm down and Elisabet presents a cup to Alma as peace offering. Proceding, once more Alma tries to hurt her and Elisabet not willing to take it again runs away. Alma chases her crying, Elisabet turns around and almost seems that there could be a reconciliation, but she can't forgive. Next morning Elisabet packs a back and seems to go back to the theater.

[–] kenny-164 11 years ago

Horatius,

I agree it is not important whether the picture is taped back together, but the pieces are not separate as Elizabeth raises her hand.

The main reason I see this brief scene as indicating the dream is over is that it presents an entirely different context from what preceded it. In the preceding scene Elizabeth turns away from Alma even as her husband embraces Alma, as you know.

When the film goes to the encounter involving the picture, it is a new scene, the husband has disappeared, Alma touches Elizabeth's hands and, indicating the kind of response notably lacking in the previous scene, Elizabeth first resists Alma's attempt to see what she is hiding with her hands. In short there is an overt interaction between them that is what was notably missing from the previous scene. In addition the subject matter has changed. The erotic context of the previous scene has also been removed (not to digress, but this is another signal that the erotic is a too limiting frame of reference). And on an emotional level, the pleadings of Alma, the attempt to understand Elizabeth by taking her place in a sexual encounter with Elizabeth's husband has been replaced with what begins in the physically aggressive act of forcing Elizabeth to reveal what is under her hand. In short Alma has moved from an effort to identify with Elizabeth to a more aggressive and even rejecting posture. (Why she does so I think is reasonbly clear enough, but in the context of the present discussion that consideration does not seem to relate to when and whether the dream/fantasy scene that preceded it has or has not continued.)

I also do not agree that Bergman signals the endings of Alma's dream/fantasy episodes with an overt signal such as her being seen awakening. In the previous clear example of a dream sequence of Alma's, that being the wordless encounter of the two women dressed in their nightgowns, we merely see the two women the next morning. Concededly the context of it being morning clearly implies they have both woken up - it was not necessary to show them literally waking and getting out of their beds. But more importantly I am not sure, and tend in fact to think otherwise, that the the encounter with Elizabeth's husband was necessarily a dream. It was clearly a fantasy, but did it have to have been dreamed?

Compare to the if you will dressed in nightgowns encounter. The context there, the Swedish midsummer extended twilight, the way the women are dressed, clearly establish it is "occurring" in the middle of the night, when of course Alma would have at least at some point been sleeping. The scene before that was also clearly in the evening, and the women talked about sleeping, in Alma's case to some extent to sleep off the effects of the wine. And in the following scene Alma explicitly makes it clear that the nightgown scene was at night when she asks Elizabeth if she had come into her room the night before.

None of those contextual elements are present in connection with the encounter with Elizabeth's husdand, establishing whether it occurred at night, let alone necessarily as a dream of Alma's.

This is relevant not only in terms of whether the encounter that begins with the photo of Elizabeth's son represents a continuation, or not, of the encounter with Elizabeth's husband. It also raises the question whether Alma's state has become one where she might fantasize while not literally dreaming.

Now, what that might mean in the context of the film is not something I am prepared to go into at this point. I am not even prepared to conclude that one should, let alone "must", understand the encounter with Elizabeth's husband as fantasized and NOT dreamt. But I do think it has to be of some relevance that the contextual elements present in relation to the nightgown encounter have no parallel in the husband encounter.

As for erratic's thread, yes, it seems to have reached a kind of denouement, one I frankly saw coming several days ago. The discussion became pointless, and one party or the other having first recognized such must also, having recognized the futility of further discussion, end it. I understand erratic made some rather personal insults, but I do not think it necessary to respond to them.

In any event i think two other issues would seem to call for further response from me. ONe is the issue raised yesterday on Alma's reference to nothing, or nothingness. The other is your discussion in your most recent post of the relative nature of the respective aggressive postures of the two women. I will get back to them later.

[–] kenny-164 11 years ago

Horatius,

Going back to yesterday's post on this thread, I first want to focus on this section:

"The film suggests the following thought to me: that not only human perceptions and interactions with what we call reality, ourselves and others are made out of limited masks, subjective perspectives or surfaces of illusions, but also that “beneath” those masks there's nothing – that is: no recognizable “true” self, no absolute “being” behind the “seeming” that can be discovered, no concrete “essence” to hold on to, no real authenticity with others, no truth, no meaning.

"Everything is a mask of nothingness: "

(You then quote the film’s final lines.)

"Human interaction and perception is dependent on masks, all is layers and interactions of illusions. "

One of the things that struck me about this discussion in Existentialist terms is the difference in view between Heidegger on one hand and Sartre and the other French Existentialists. Given the effects of the history of Philosophy, the French had difficulty getting out from under the effects of their arguably most significant philosopher of all time, that being Descartes. The effects of this Cartesian background can be simply seen in the difference between Sartre's simple formulation that Existence precedes Essence. Heidegger instead posits that Essence lies in Existence. The difference? For Sartre, existence conceptually can be considered seperately from essence, and so can the opposite.

Heidegger instead points out that essence never exists apart from existence. Even conceptual attempts seeking to define "essence" will come up short once the effort ignores or leaves behind the recognition that it must be considered together with existence. In fact for myself this is what makes Heidegger's view the more radical break from Western traditions of Philosophy, and he is clearly correct. Even hearing Heidegger's formualations, the French still did not free themselves of the Cartesian frame of reference:

I think, therefore I am.

Heidegger's answer is the I am is never separate from the thinking, the consciousness, experienced in "real life". Yes, we can conceptualize consciousness apart from existence. But immediately something is left out, lacking.

Turning to the concept of persona, and i think the point of the film Persona, the lesson perhaps works both ways.

I think we are in agreement, Persona says we cannot pierce or get around our personas, at least not past a certain point. But I suggest if that is true, then it is also is likely true that there is no separate "inner self", authentic or otherwise. What is beneath the mask is never separate from the mask.

In existential terms, I think this is clearly the case. At no time do we even experience our own inner self with complete disregard for how we relate to others. (Here I mean others in the broadest sense of the word.) And of course we never experience "others" without their masks.

If the foregoing is the case, then I think two things follow from it.

First of all, there is "nothing" that exists beneath our personas that is ever wholly separate from them. Otherwise stated, there is nothing that exists apart from our mediated experience of being with others.

Second, this does not mean there is literally nothing beneath our personas; only that what is beneath cannot be separated.

So, I suggest that the "nothing" referred to at the close of Persona is not meant to be a statement that behind our masks there is nothing. Instead is that there is no state of existence wholly behind or apart from our masks. There is no Cartesian separation between our masks and our "inner" selves. They always exist together.

I will return to the balance of your observation tomorrow.

[–] kenny-164 11 years ago

Horatius,

Sorry I did not get back here until today, and i don't have very much time, but I did want to respond to this from your post:

"this: because those scenes are Alma's dream one could recognize that you exaggerate when commenting on the passive forms of aggression towards Alma from Elisabet.

"Before that, Elisabet gets cut in the foot. Then what? Nothing, she caresses Alma and sits down to read a book. Alma then pushes her into talking and there's a violent scene with Elisabet defending herself from Alma's physical agression. Then what? They calm down and Elisabet presents a cup to Alma as peace offering. Proceding, once more Alma tries to hurt her and Elisabet not willing to take it again runs away. Alma chases her crying, Elisabet turns around and almost seems that there could be a reconciliation, but she can't forgive. Next morning Elisabet packs a back and seems to go back to the theater."

Well, aside from the encounter where Elizabet hits Alma, bloodying her nose, the bad feelings definitely were there after Alma read the letter Elizabet asked her to post. I guess a lot turns on how one views the fact that Elizabet left the envelope unsealed.

On one hand the unsealed envelope not only made it easier for Alma to open and read it, but also made it easier to understand that she did (as an element of the narrative's arc). It somehow seems less of an invasion of privacy, even if it still is, to read an unsealed letter. But did Bergman merely not want to show us Alma finding some surreptitious means of opening it? And still wanted to use the reading of the letter as a part of the narrative?

(Not to digress but arguably Alma had a professional reason and as well as a personal one aside from mere curiosity to read the letter - how was Elizabet doing? What would the letter reveal in that regard? It makes sense to me that Alma would feel she had good reason to read it.)

This is another of those cases where the notion that Bergman doesn't waste references and parts of his film, that he puts them in for a reason, bumps up against the fear of reading too much into interpretations of what is in the film.

Having said that, I do think there is significance to the fact that Elizabet left the letter unsealed. Why would she do that?

Elizabet feels, as the letter imo definitely reflects, an ambivalence about Alma. On one hand she seems to appreciate what Alma does for her, and one can even say Alma is entertaining Elizabet, such as with the story of the orgy on the beach, but in general as well. But on the other the letter indicates Elizabet's view that Alma is immature, even unserious, and not in her league.

But the other element that might be present is that Elizabet might be ambivalent about Alma's involvement in the effort to encourage Elizabet to talk. She may appreciate what Alma does, and does so with good intentions, but at the same time why does Elizabet not talk? It is not out of mere spitefulness (she obviously chose to be mute before she met Alma). Elizabet is committed to changing her persona by becoming mute for at least a period of time of her own choosing. Elizabet could well resent the notion that she should give up her mute persona, having chosen it for reasons that no doubt were persuasive for her, "merely" because Alma is invested in the effort to get her to talk.

So she writes this letter, leaves it unsealed, and Alma reads it. If Elizabet had hoped for or expected this result, how else to read the whole thing than as a rather effective and obvious act of passive aggression?

By putting her words in writing she also obviously is able to maintain her muteness, and Alma's reading the letter triggers a narrative arc that proceeds to Alma's change of behavior toward Elizabet. (The change may not have been wholly to Elizabet's liking, but she did want to have Alma's behavior toward her change.)

Not that Elizabet's own feelings about Alma are even on balance negative. You are of course correct that Elizabet evidences acts of friendliness toward Alma. But those acts do not wholly displace the passive aggressions.

IN the end, however, I think (despite having seen Persona not that long ago) I need to see it again with the specific focus on the way Elizabet treats and behaves toward ALma. I appreciate your suggested view on it, and will get back to it in the near future.

One other point - I think Elizabet wonders whether Alma put or left the glass on the ground that cut her foot, but was unsure how to act, and did not really know whether this was some intentional act. Her expression was one of questioning, wondering, not foregiveness or even understanding. So i don't know about considering her behavior as friendly toward Alma.

[–] spank-my-17 9 years ago

@HoratiusFlacc
Thanks for your great posts! :)
I was on the "two sides of one woman" theory before, but you have made me rethink parts of the film and now I'm coming around that it's more about Alma's breakdown and inner conflict about ones true self/the mask. Love it! :D

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] reima09 10 years ago

Impressive!

*beep* movies

[–] reima09 10 years ago

Impressive!

*beep* movies

[–] jasherjasher 10 years ago

Agreed, Reima09 -- *fascinating* discussion by two people who clearly know their stuff in both psychology and film/literature. I have enjoyed reading every word of it. Thank you Horatius and Kenny!!! :)

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]