MovieChat Forums > Scener ur ett äktenskap (1973) Discussion > Abuse versus time and the evolution of c...

Abuse versus time and the evolution of couples

posted 9 years ago by Felonious-Punk
8 replies | jump to latest

I got it! Johan and Marianne don't represent perfection, not even in the end. They even say that they love each other in an imperfect human way. The point is not to forgive Johan for the abuse scene. You might even hate him, and hate Marianne for forgiving him and calmly waiting as he signed the pappers, and for later approaching him in the theater, but the movie is not flawed. It shows a step from Marianne's parents, where the wife just accepted everything the husband did, to Marianne and Johan. There has been growth, even though it was long arduous, painful and bloody. It was a revolution. Their kids' relationships will hopefully and most likely be even more respectful of women.

My attempt to list the best movies of all-time: http://www.themoviecanon.blogspot.com

[–] Zoomorph 9 years ago

It sounds like you've interpreted your feminist bias into the film. The film itself does not suggest that Marianne is better or worse off than her mother, although the generations are certainly different. Nor does it suggest that Johan's treatment of her was bad, that a she was better off without him, that their divorce was good, that their children were better or more successful than they were, etc. Life is complex and, thankfully, Bergman did not wrap it up in a tidy formula for easy comprehension. If you think you've "got it", then congrats on momentarily deluding yourself.

~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~

[–] Felonious-Punk 9 years ago

Sorry, Zoomorph, but you're wrong there. From the beginning, we are presented with a traditional 1950s-ish couple: Johan works and gripes about women's lib/feminism just like Archie Bunker but without the charm, while Marianne stays at home to shy to voice her feelings. We see the time pass, their styles change, and their attitudes move with the times, until Johan becomes a softened, more present and more respectful man, and Marianne becomes a bold, and vibrant woman who says what she feels and who loves deeply.

Towards the end of the movie, when we meet Marianne's mom, Marianne asks her if she ever fought with her husband. She says no, they didn't talk, they simply existed, she gave her husband whatever he wanted. If you don't see any improvement, I will pray for you.

So either you haven't seen the movie or you don't know how to analyze Bergman's communication-style. But that's what the movie is about. You can call it a tidy formula for easy comprehension if you want, but you sure didn't get it. Also, I think the movie is still bomb because it portrays truth in a beautiful way.

My attempt to list the best movies of all-time: http://www.themoviecanon.blogspot.com

[–] Zoomorph 9 years ago

Sorry, I don't believe that the film is about humanity approaching "perfection" via women being treated different... lol.

It's actually about the progression of fashion. Did you see the old clothes her mother wore and the new style clothes her children were wearing? Yea, you can interpret anything you want into the film, but you're reaching.

~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~

[–] Felonious-Punk 9 years ago

Interesting. I see the movie as being about time and the hard battles fought for a love which is based on respect. You joked that you see it being about time and the progress of fashion. I know you were joking, but maybe that's where you stand philosophically. Yes? Time doesn't bring better styles, it just brings different styles, and sometimes the old styles come back again.

Maybe your philosophy is right, and maybe I do tend to get too hyped about things getting better and evolving towards perfection. But that does not change the fact that the movie was made and shown during the height of the women's lib/feminist movement. It doesn't change the fact that there are allusions to the women's rights movement, and it doesn't change that the protagonists are textbook examples of a man and woman who adapt to the new principles, for better or worse.

Oh, and yes, it's true, you can watch a movie and interpret anything you want from it. You can even bake it or put it in a stew. But what I'm interested in is connecting to what is at the core of it, the driving force, the feeling or message that the cast and crew infused it with.

My attempt to list the best movies of all-time: http://www.themoviecanon.blogspot.com

[–] Zoomorph 9 years ago

> Time doesn't bring better styles, it just brings different styles, and sometimes the old styles come back again.

That is exactly where I stand philosophically. Time doesn't bring better or worse anything (be it fashion or political/social trends). Time brings change and we interpret that change as "better" or "worse" based on our biases. The most narrow-minded people tend to consider their interpretation as the right or only one and are most deeply convicted of it. They tend to be blind to all other interpretations and to like to misinterpret their own views into others, works of art, history, etc.

This film is set in a certain period of time, so it's not surprising that things of that era would appear in it. The film is about marriage and relationships, so it's not surprising that it would showcase several examples of them. I'll even admit that social change and how it's impacting the role of marriage and the dynamics of relationships is an important theme in the film.... But I can't detect any judgement on Bergman's part that these social trends are "good" or that we're advancing towards "perfection" -- I think you invented that!

If he was trying to convey any point, I'd suggest that it was that "it's complicated": that relationships are changing and in some ways they're better, in some ways worse, in some ways easier, in others harder. Not only are they changing, but in some ways they haven't changed at all! Everything is relative and there are trade-offs. I'd like to interpret this film as being designed to challenge superficial views on relationships and feminism, not to promote them.

I think "Scenes From A Marriage" explores human communication and relationships on a much more fundamental level than that of "feminism", which, IMO, is very superficial. I suspect that it will be relevant for a long time -- as long as there are meaningful human relationships -- irrespective of the success, failure, or relevance of feminism.

~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~

[–] kenny-164 9 years ago

WHile I generally agree with Punk's pov on feminism, I thik Zoo has the better argument regarding hte meaning of this film. It is about complexity, with no judgment reached about social development being superior in any compelling way. It specifically addresses feminism, and arguably presents effects of feminism on the behavior of the characters. But it does not do so by concluding anything has been resolved for the better.

[–] jrhpax 9 years ago

No way do I condone the abuse.

But Johan and Marianne had killed a bottle of cognac and they were both drunk.

I'm not judgmental about the drinking, either -- but when two people are drunk, this type of violence -- and hysterics -- are likelier to occur.

Might I add that Johan was immediately sorry, and Marianne seemed to forgive him. There was never any evidence that this was a recurring behavior, or that Johan was abusive before or after this incident.

I'm not defending Johan, just trying to understand him. I think the characters of Johan and Marianne are among the best-written in cinema, and I'd hate to see the character of Johan labeled as a "jerk" or an "abuser" or whatever. He's a deeply flawed human being, but I empathize with him.

[–] kino66 8 years ago

Great summary, kenny:

WHile I generally agree with Punk's pov on feminism, I thik Zoo has the better argument regarding hte meaning of this film. It is about complexity, with no judgment reached about social development being superior in any compelling way. It specifically addresses feminism, and arguably presents effects of feminism on the behavior of the characters. But it does not do so by concluding anything has been resolved for the better.

The implication of the word "feminism" has become so overwrought. One could say that Ibsen's A Doll's House was a "feminist" play, but so what? "Feminist" or not, it's the story & characters that matter.

Totally agree with this: Johan was deeply flawed & sad:

I'm not defending Johan, just trying to understand him. I think the characters of Johan and Marianne are among the best-written in cinema, and I'd hate to see the character of Johan labeled as a "jerk" or an "abuser" or whatever. He's a deeply flawed human being, but I empathize with him.