I am not even why some might feel Shame is among Bergman's very best, considering other candidates, which as a Bergman fan I think are numerous. Really the only Bergman film I have seen which is more a failure than success was The Serpent's Egg. So we are imo talking about a rather exacting standard.
To be sure the film has its virtues, some even great. Great performances by von Sydow and Ullmann, and Liv looks gorgeous at times while, great actress that she is, also being quite convincing, and human, in her character's less attractive moments. Bjorntrand should also be mentioned in his supporting role.
I also unlike some critics did not feel the first half was overly long, or that the war scenes were inadequate or worse. Not at all. It was something frankly other than length, or even editing, that I found less than impressive.
Jan and Eva's struggles, both with each other and the outside world, were set in the context of the war and its aftermath. In principle this is not a choice I would think of criticizing. External stresses on a relationship, particularly where there are internal stresses as well, is obviously a useful and common (in a good way) means of then seeing what results, how each reacts both in themselves and in relation to each other.
I recently saw this film again, and previously I wondered whether the film answered if there is something particular about war and violent conflict that is critical, even significant, to what happens to Jan and Eva. Bergman played into this ambiguity, I think, by NOT showing the war to have any specific cause, or even implicitly to refer to any other type or kind of conflict beyond more or less suggesting that it is a civil war.
That however does not mean the context being a war can be minimized in importance or relevance. There are after all I think too many specific references to the war's direct impact on the couple, and their respective responses to and attitudes about what the war means to them. And the ending visually seems quite tied to the observation that the bodies are those of soldiers, and not some random group of civilians. Is this not to have significance? Was there no real intention behind this choice?
Speaking of intention, is it possible that Bergman intended the question whether the fact that the cause of social disintegration was a war rather than some other calamity to have an ambiguous answer?
My most recent viewing suggests a possible answer that DOES provide a connection to the context of the war. To some extent, as has been I think widely noted about this film, the dynamic of the relationship shows Eva to have the upper hand, the more stoic and therefore appealing emotional response compared to Jan's rather pathetic whimpering. Eva manages their money. She holds up her end of the division of labor, while Jan often does not. While Eva herself is clearly feminine, she is the stronger of the two, suggesting (particularly in her involvement with Jacobi) that she is the dominant one. She is even dismissive of Jan, occasionally with a good amount of disdain. Yet by the end it is Jan who seems to have the greater position and power.
How does this occur?
A repeat viewing has I think provided me with an understanding that to some extent I think I should have seen all along. What I think can't be missed as a critical factor in Jan's increasing dominance is the role of violence.
By the time Jan rids himself as a rival of Jacobi, he is well on his way to changing the dynamic of his relationship with Eva. And he does so by engaging in violence. In that connection I think the war serves not only as the literal and practical way in which he is presented the opportunity of ridding himself of Jacobi, but also the example of how to do so. I doubt in short that Jan is the kind of man who would have responded to his wife's affair BEFORE the war in any similar manner. To be sure it is the rebel group who both provides him with the opportunity, and encouragement. But he clearly relishes the killing.
Not only that, he goes on to engage in physical violence against Eva. He being stronger and bigger, she has no real immediate way of stopping him. But the film does not suggest that she objects too much, or might respond down the road when she gets some chance to get back at Jan. Instead we see the two lying together in the boat, a vision of the couple unified rather than in conflict.
Is this then a manifesto for male dominance through violance, threatened or even actualized? I think the answer nonetheless, despite the foregoing, is of course not. This follows because the film does not show them as having achieved anything.
In fact in material terms the couple are clearly worse off than before, and might not even survive their time on the boat. What then can we say is the point of Jan's journey, his transformation?
This is I think where the film is lacking. Unlike some of those Bergman films made in this same period, where the issue of communicating with others in authentic or less than authentic means is examined, the thematic here is different. The problem is that it is not terribly clear what that thematic meaning is.
It occurs to me one could argue that Shame stands for the notion that Jan's using the violent example of war to resolve his lack of meaning and existential anxiety resolves nothing, achieves nothing. But this take on the film lacks impact when one considers how wretched Jan had become prior to changing the dynamic. In saying things are overall no better, one cannot ignore that the previous dynamic being in effect was unsustainable for Jan. In fact it was so much so that even possible impending death is not clearly a lesser choice.
Other Bergman films of this period are notable for not indicating that the main characters will live happily ever after, or even will overall be better off. But I do not think they leave the viewer with the same sort of virtually nihilistic ending that is in Shame. While Alma and Elizabet in Persona should be understood to have learned some great truths, it is not clear at all how they will take what they have learned and in one way or another have a better life as a result. But it is possible. It is possible that one or more of the main characters in The Passion will be able to build on what they have learned, even if only to the extent that Andreas should realize he would even be better off in isolation than with Anna.
But with literal death, or at a bare minimum the risk of death, the end result of the actions and choices Eva and Jan have made, and an alternative, a starting point as unattractive as what preceded, how can we look at Shame as having made some point? It is not even clear it is a cautionary tale, let alone that it sets us up to identify that which was lost by Jan as better than what he is left with.
Well, as I have said before, maybe even additional viewing might be necessary to gain a better understanding of htis film.
reply
share