It's clear that we will probably have to agree to disagree on this issue. I've illustrated the points that lead me to the conclusion that this film is misogynist in nature - in fact it oozes misogyny, in my opinion. You've provided no reason, as yet, to reverse that opinion.
"Out of billions of people you really think that Bergman invented a completely unique character? I find it puzzling that you are so reticent to think there can exist a "subservient woman" who obsesses over a dead child."
Nope - I don't think Bergman invented a completely unique character. On the contrary, I am saying he has painstakingly cobbled together all of the worst and most unattractive traits of STEREOTYPICAL females into these 2 unfortunate characters. My reticence to believe in Eva is tied into the fact that all of her traits have clearly come from the mind of a man who views women generally from a very outdated (even for 1978) mindset. His view that one woman could embody all of these negative traits (willing submission to her clearly "superior husband", such extreme moroseness, lack of any kind of sexuality, repression, hysterical anger and resentment, etc) makes it clear that his ethos is anti-woman.
"I havent' observed every family in the world so it would be arrogant of me to assume such a family does not exist just because I've never observed one. "
Heaven forbid you should say anything that might come across as arrogant.
"I only wanted to suggest it as an alternative possible interpretation of the film that would subvert the foundations of yours. "
I find it a frankly impracticable alternative, and naive to the point of absurdity. I will consider the foundation of my interpretation unshaken.
" (There's a reason why you can't quote "standard" texts like dictionary or encyclopdias in university papers) "
This is not a university paper, however. I'm happy to report that it's been a couple of degrees and several decades since I last submitted one. This may be why I no longer feel it necessary to converse in eduspeak, you know, the convoluted jargon of the professional educator, or perennial student. You must have met at least a few of those in grad school.
" I think most people that I know who have seen the film do not view her in a negative light. It's possible that you are seeing into her character elements that you want to see, "reaching" if you will. I guess my main point is that you should rethink the archetypes you are using because they are not as settled as you might think. "
Your anecdotal evidence based upon "most people you know" is a weak foundation for an argument. Many view this film as a misogynist mess, among them Glenn Kenny, reviewer for Premiere magazine, who writes: "(Bergman's misogyny) reaching a culmination of sorts in one of his latest, sourest films, Autumn Sonata. "[A] hysterical diatribe...It is common knowledge that Ingrid Bergman tried to rebel against the burdens of guilt and wickedness heaped upon her character; her own personal history might suggest that on some level (conscious or unconscious) Bergman was using the actress herself in a particularly cruel and malicious way."
" If you believe in characters in films, then you have to allow for deeper character development (even when not directly addressed in the film), especially in psychologically-minded films of Bergman. Your archetypes unfortunately are too limited in this case to be successfuly applied to Autumn Sonata. There is simply to much characterization to "fit" into the archetypes. "
I agree, in principal with some of what you say, but not with regard to this particular film. I accept that these characters are endowed with bags and bags of emotional undercurrent. I also agree that we don't need every single one of them to be addressed in the film. My point is that no matter to what excruciating level of detail these characters have been developed, they have been created from a mindset that views the female as either virgin or whore. It's lose-lose for the women in this film. Charlotte has to be a villain because she chose career over family, Eva has to be a shrill frump of a harridan because her mother neglected her AND forced her to have an abortion AND because she critiques her playing of Chopin too severely. (I wonder if they use emoticons in university papers these days)
"PS: Not that I am condoning the following strategy, but many people attempt forego the moral outlook of art (including film) when passing judgement. I have found myself unable to do this at times but I have also had success with it. For example, Tropa de Elite is a Brazilian film that seemingly supports the use of violence to achieve political ends. I may not agree with that assessment but the film is superb. Nobody can act objectively but a conscious acknowledgment to this strategy may temper the effect of a film's morality.
Can you really think that anyone over the age of 12 would be unfamiliar with the idea of a film having merit on more than one level? (artistic, moral, etc) Yes fine, the cinematography in this film is beautiful, but that's a given when Sven Nykvist is the cinematographer. I even think that some of the dialogue Bergman has crafted is exceptionally good, particularly Charlotte's critique of Eva's attempt at Chopin - in fact I found that exchange brilliant on several levels. And the acting of the two leads is magnificent. However I find this movie has been sabotaged by the pervasive hatred of women that permeates it.
If you watch the interview linked in one of the posts above, you'll find Liv Ullman corroborating that both she and Ingrid Bergman were forced to act AGAINST the script because it had so little verisimilitude with anything any real life woman would ever say or feel.
reply
share
solaribalu
15 years ago
Although Ullman's acting is superb, it is wasted in this cooked-up paean to the partriarchal system where women must be vilified should they dare to tread outside their assigned roles of mother and domestic slave
This film is not about “gender issues”. It’s about a parent-child relationship, and could almost be equally told in a father-son relationship if not for the particular physical closeness existing between mother and child starting before s/he’s born (something which does not occur in the same way between father and child – it is different).
But why oh why does this kind of criticism always seem to be about how people are “seen” and never about the child’s point of view or their needs? Why do people get defensive by putting their concerns about their image first, before their children? Let’s look at the core of it. If Eva’s mother, Charlotte had committed herself to her CHOSEN path of starting a family, then she wouldn’t have to see it as domestic slavery. You’re saying she should be able to shirk her responsibilities towards other human beings, with no criticism even if things go wrong. Once somebody has a child, no amount of rhetoric will change the child’s world. What does change that world is the commitment or absence of either parent – sometimes with awful repercussions, and even that effect will vary from child to child.
After all, what greater condemnation is there than for a parent to discover a rift between themselves and their child because they didn’t commit to their child? It goes without saying that naturally, women are not exempt from this possibility. And if Bergman experienced this himself, or felt that strongly about it, he had every right to write about it.
So, much as I enjoy Liv Ullman’s acting, I found her attitude in this interview nauseating! I couldn’t agree with Solipsism’s comment more:
If she truly felt that the script was misogynistic, then the TRULY feminist thing to do would be to never associate yourself with it.
this is just another poor example of people looking for injustice where there is none as well as behaving like unprofessional children in the process.
If someone can be so embittered about one man’s portrayal of a woman, consider how somebody might react to having had a motherless childhood!
My reticence to believe in Eva is...His view that one woman could embody all of these negative traits (willing submission to her clearly "superior husband"
Why is it so unbelievable that somebody can be screwed up as a result of her upbringing? Let’s get real – people are human, and can encompass several negative traits at a particular point in their lives. If she is suffering from depression, her behaviour is entirely feasible. And where do you get the impression the husband is superior? I didn’t get that impression at all.
If anything, the men are passive in this film. Stefan, the father of the aborted child obviously disappeared off the scene (because the mother “ruined” their relationship) Even though he was much older than Eva, apparently he could do nothing about this. Eva’s father was kind to her, but helpless about their situation. He waited for Charlotte to make that decision to come home. Eva’s husband sits passively in the background, having watched her go through massive changes with hardly any input on his part. Charlotte’s partner on the train has hardly a word to say about her ramblings – and in any case seems unlikely ever to challenge her. It’s hardly an attractive portrayal of men as helpless or inactive.
she is the patently pre-fabbed poster girl for the patriarchy, and the invention of someone who sees females as creatures in need of redemption by the male gender
Oh come off it. This just sounds like rhetoric to me. And the only visible call for redemption is that between the mother and daughter.
No, it’s no picnic in the park and it’s one individual’s way of depicting family strife. Whether or not you’ve seen all those traits tied up in one family, the fact is, many people are traumatized by abuse or neglect in their childhoods. Rarely do they have the chance to say what they really feel the way this character does. Let’s remember this IS a film, so these issues are intensified for dramatic effect. And still, we are given an insight into why the mother is that way. She isn’t BAD but she made some BAD mistakes. Not every woman is able to be a mother (outside the literal sense of the word) and it’s fair to bring up this aspect of family strife. This is a snapshot of dramatized reality, and though unpalatable, shouldn't be considered a lie.
reply
share