5.6.10

Persona

I've watched three Bergman films in the past 24 hours. One of which being Persona, which is amazing, wonderful, gorgeous. And difficult like all of Bergman's films. Its a challenge not to look away and compose myself, take a break. It would be easier to take in that way, but I resent my compulsion to do this. I managed to watch all three without pulling my eyes away. I always feel like I'm doing something a little bit dangerous while watching Bergman. I've watched the intro upward of 20 times. Warning: cock, animal slaughter, violence. Y'know. In case you're not into that on a sunny Saturday afternoon. And the last segment...mirror stage, anyone?

9 comments:

  1. Bergman seems the most pretentious of the pantheon directors, and when he gets into this sort of arty territory it comes of as silly and labored. He's best when hes showcasing human drama, which is why 'Scenes from a Marriage' and 'Virgin Spring' are his best works.

    Have you seen Jorgen Leth's sort 'The Perfect Human'? Its a better example of the experimental filmm-aking style in the opening of Persona.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not sure what people mean when they throw around the label 'pretentious' anymore. I didn't feel it. But I can agree to disagree. I do agree, though, that I have seen similar disturbing-montages-with-the-intent-to-be-avant-garde before. This strategy seemed legit taken in the context of the entire film, which is All human drama. The images suit the psychoanalytic themes that run through the entirety.
    I have seen Jorgen Leth's 'The Perfect Human.' I came upon it through Trier's 'Five Obstructions,' which I loved. The original is lovely and minimal. But not my thing. I don't think it is at all comparable to the prologue of Persona. Experimental, sure, but a completely dissimilar style/intent.

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. What do you get out of the montage?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cock, animal slaughter, violence is more of a Sunday afternoon thing for me. Rock. I'm not up on Bergman or the other people you two just mentioned in comments, but I enjoyed what I just watched.

    My word verification was "subfi"

    ReplyDelete
  5. James - here are some of my more immediate thoughts. If this comes across as self-indulgent - oops, I just get excited and start to nerd-out.

    Most obviously the montage is full of images of sacrifice, including self-sacrifice. It's a very self-referential film, so it is constantly drawing attention to the problems of artistic representation itself. The artist sacrifices something in the creation of a full-fledged "art object," and any piece of art is a reflection of a particular subjectivity, which is always performative. Creation of the subject is always a negotiation of adding and subtracting (in the Lacanian sense, but also in terms of Freudian object catheses, etc.). Elizabet retracts from this role (when she literally "removes herself" from the stage), but she has to sacrifice something of herself and then Alma, as well, to compensate for the subsequently fractured identity she comes into. I think the intro is kind of a short-form version of how this kind of event takes place in the unconsious, and the rest of the film plays out the power struggle how it would appear in 'reality.' Two subjects trying to reduce the other subject to a sacrifical Other. Even at the beginning we see how the gaze of the film/artist/audience is something destructive, and that it necessarily exhausts itself (represented by the frenzied film reel). The image of the slaughtered sheep in particular reminds me of the several scenes (in this movie, but in Bergman generally) of characters peeling fruit. Its about shaping, manipulating, consumption (of the 'Other), which is always a sacrifice on both ends. Hence the vampirism near the end.
    I also thought it was interesting that he included an image of an erect penis at the beginning, because the film doesn't have men in it at all, however, their presence is really strong, subliminally. When Alma talks about having to abort her baby (another kind of sacrifice), and the orgy, she talks about it like it was incredibly destructive. It was an invasion for her, even though the orgy was instigated by the women and was the best sex she ever had. Its strange because the presence of male sexuality/power in the film that starts at the introductory montage is an illusion - the power to sacrifice, the power of sex, is present not in the men, but in the women. And this is obviously a terrifying realization for Alma (who, strangely, becomes increasingly 'masculine' in appearance as she begins to resist Elizabet and her attraction to her).
    The part of the intro with the kid in the hospital (or whatever) touching the screen is, for me, a straight up visualization of how the mirror stage functions. The mirror stage itself is a kind of compromise, or sacrifice, due to the transition from the imaginary into the symbolic. And what takes place between Alma and Elizabet is similar to the see-saw of desire. Blah blah blah. Lacan.

    Mmm love this film.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Interesting experience. Could you clarify what you mean by:

    The artist sacrifices something in the creation of a full-fledged "art object,"

    as I'm not quite sure what you're saying there.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I guess this has to do with my own personal feelings about art and its creation and what it means to be social and in-the-world. I mean - creation is an expulsion of some kind, and its about vulnerability. I think that the artist puts something of themselves into the work that becomes not-theirs (Kind of like transcendence, or whatever - you overstep your temporality but in the process you kind of lose yourself in a larger picture). It's like an intentional Othering, the work is yours and not-yours at the same time. So creation, in a sense, is a loss. But you get a lot back in return; its not entirely a negation. It also has to do (again, this is totally my opinion) about realizing, in the act of creation, the limits of your power to "see" and represent something accurately. In the act of creation you kind of have to sacrifice the concept of the self-contained, uniform and "knowing" subject.
    Sorry for being so abstract. That probably makes no sense at all, but that's the best I can do right now.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So you end up swapping puzzle pieces of yourself with the audience?

    Do you mean sacrificing a degree of authorship (because nothing is objective and etc.) in order for the piece to take on its own life.

    Or do you mean more as if in the process of creation you have a sort of epiphany like moment that seems to come from outside of yourself? Or...am I misreading you entirely?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I guess the second is most accurate. I mean it in a Heideggerian transcendence, projection kind of way. It has to do with his whole concept of "care" (or at least, how I interpret it). If you wan to talk more about all this, we should do so over email. you.would.rather.be.sleeping@gmail.com

    :)

    ReplyDelete