tca,
On one hand I completely agree with you as to the purpose of the opening and closing sequences. They alert us to the way Bergman is telling us Persona is a consciously cinematic exercise. But to be frank I do not at all see how this supports or indicates that Alma and Elizabeth are the same person.
As you may have noticed from the other threads I acknowledged I used to feel they were/are the same. But for some reasons that might seem unrelated, as well as additional viewings of the film, I have come to conclude that viewing of the film is too limiting and ultimately unpersuasive. To summarize:
Persona in the context of other Bergman films. His major work that immediately preceded Persona was The Silence. Many assign more significance to The Silence's being the third, and the close, of Bergman's so-called trilogy where he put aside further ontological and theological explorations of the relation of man to God, or the lack in effect thereof. And it is true that Persona did not continue any overt reference to such relation. But the more direct connection, I think, other than the obvious one where both films concerned primarily the relationship of two women, is how The Silence was also overtly about difficulties of an existential sort in communicating between and among people. This general theme continued after Persona as well, in Hour of the Wolf's quasi-horror film context of a wife's difficulty communicating with her husband while he is suffering a breakdown of his own ability to relate to her and others, a similar increasing dysfunction in Shame's couple attempting to continue as such in the context of civil war and strife, and perhaps most significantly in The Passion. In the latter film the four main characters begin with different perspectives and personalities, and we see them search in each other and in their relationships for meaning and authenticity, against a backdrop of a somewhat unforgiving landscape and unexplained happenings in the surrounding society. In short the focus is on the Existentialist concept of being with others, the more significant consideration if you will than the purely psychological. Bergman's films in this period show an ongoing concern with attempts to find meaning with others by communication, and the limits thereof.
Persona as a social psychological concept. While all recognize that "persona" is a concept identified by Carl Jung, whose field obviously is psychology, it is the social aspect of the concept that is its hallmark. It is the mediating dynamic of the persona that is its most significant feature. The persona is how we interact with others, both each of ours and those of the people we are with. again, the social is primary.
The doctor's assessment of Elizabeth. By showing Elizabeth in the doctor's clinic, Bergman raises the question whether her muteness can and should be seen as a psychological issue. But he disposes of this in the doctor's assessment, instead saying Elizabeth chose muteness for reasons that to her seemed authentic. Again, this is an Existentialist perspective. The doctor's assesment also comes early in the film. The film's structure alerts us to the fact that the film has moved on from a psychological to a Existential-social perspective (being with others).
The Narrative Arc. While I consider Persona to be primarily a thematic work, it does have narrative elements. But if the subject of the narrative was a single person represented by two actors, one would think such narrative would explore tensions leading to some kind of resolution. Why does this follow (I ask since at least in theory it does not necessarily follow that such an examination MUST lead to a resolution)? But then what is the purpose of considering a single person portrayed by two roles or portrayals unless it is to get to some point about that person? In other words the dynamic of the use of two characters to portray a single person would lead to some resolution, either of the two coming together, or remaining apart. On a practical level Persona shows neither. (I appreciate this is a much more complex assessment than my simple conclusion would indicate, but this post will be long enough already! - I assure you I believe I have a mroe than adequate basis for this assessment.) Why then did Bergman chose the narrative elements he did in a film about an individual portrayed by two roles if they do not get to any point about that individual?
Instead the point is social - our personas may limit our ability to find genuine meaning in others, but do so for protective purposes (this is the point of the elements of psychological aggression and even some physical acts of violence or threatened violence in the film).
Of course any viewer of Persona will have to acknowledge that not everything in it is supposed to be viewed literally. But neither is it a film that is devoid of literal elements. To the contrary I think Bergman challenges us to reach conclusions about what is literal, what is not, and what perhaps may be some mix of the literal and something else. But if at least SOME of the film's events and elements are literal, then it does not make sense to view the whole thing as some kind of symbolic representation of the conflicts and developments within a single psyche.
I think it should be obvious, again not just from Persona but from Bergman's other films, that he is trying to explore subjects that have meaning to potentially all of us. While the struggles of a single person to deal with one's own conflicts can have meaning of universal application, it is more persuasive that there is universal application if the subject and primary frame of reference is social.
"This movie was my very first experience with Bergman, and if his other works are anything like this...Let's just say I have a lot of viewing to do"
For myself I am not sure I would recommend Persona as the first Bergman film I would watch. It is relatively difficult, although you seem to have done a very good "job" of understanding the way it challenges us. But it is the first one you have seen. I would merely respond that I think Persona is his best film and not all that similar as a cinematic exercise (even if thematically it relates to other of his films) to his other films. What should you watch next? I don't think his work needs to be seen in any chronological order (not even the so-called trilogy). I might start with The Seventh Seal (not to contradict myself, but I do think one should see The Seventh Seal before Wild Strawberries), perhaps immediately followed by Wild Strawberries ( or not!). Also I would recommend The Passion or The Silence next. Winter Light is also excellent but a bit tendentious. One of his early films like Summer with Monika is also valuable.
reply
share