The real question: why aren’t we all obsessed with incest? We all enjoy sex and we all spend a lot of time with families (both of which are recurring themes in Bergman films) so…?
HAHA.
@Troy
Just curious since although a big Bergman fan I have not seen a huge amount of his films. I know Saraband has incest but what other films by him do? Maybe it was implied in the films I have seen and just went over my head or maybe I’m just not remembering.
As far as I can tell from Bergman and a lot of other people from across the sea, incest doesn’t seem to be quite as big of a taboo as it is in America. This isn’t going to say that I’m down with the incest. It just seems to be something that comes up a lot of stuff from Europe/Scandinavia in general. So what I’m saying is that I don’t really have an answer.
I’m really not the biggest Bergman fan. I like select films. The recent ones I have seen that I have noticed the recurring incest theme in are:
Cries and Whispers
Through a Glass Darkly
The Silence
It’s almost always implied…but very strongly implied.
I just bought Cries and Whispers and it is by far the film I own that I am most looking forward to watching. I have very high expectations. What did you think? Will my expectations be met? Also what did you think of the other two should I buy them when I have the money to buy my next Criterion DVD?
It depends on what you watch Bergman for I guess? I generally am only slightly interested in his stories, and fascinated by his talent. Cries and Whispers is probably my favorite of his films “technically”, but my least favorite story wise. Although the performances are incredible. I don’t think you will be disappointed, but you might feel a little strange afterword. :-) I love love loved Through a Glass Darkly. It is fantastic and I would recommend owning it. The silence on the other hand, is also one of his “technical” masterpieces, and there are shots in it that are mind-blowingly brilliant, but I felt disconnected from it for some reason. That may just be me.
I would kill for the Bergman Trilogy Criterion DVD. It is just so hard to save to get a Criterion box set. I always pray when I’m looking through the Criterion DVDs in Barnes & Noble suddenly they will have a 90% sale on all DVDs but that has never happened.
Haha…I’m pretty sure the only way that would happen is if B&N went out of business, and that would be tragic.
Let me know what you think of Cries and Whispers.
I definitely will. I will probably watch it Friday.
I just don’t have the will power for if I have $40 dollars and walk into a store look at Viridiana or Sansho the Baliff (next 2 Criterions I’m probably going to buy) and say nope I’m saving another 40 for the Bergman trilogy. But right now in this message I vow to do exactly that and save my money!
Drew-Barnes and Noble are notorious for seldom having discounts-I worked as a merchandise magr for them for a couple years. Borders can be better. A couple times a year Deep Discount has a 20% off sale which is pretty good since most of their films are already 25% off.
In Bergman’s autobiography “The Magic Lantern” he talks about how he was strongly attracted to his mother. His family life was also very cold and formal, so it was almost definitely some desire for warmness on his part, but it seems pseudo-sexual feelings drifted into the mix too. I like to think that this informs a lot of his work, especially the idea of usually very cold family members secretly harboring affectionate, even sexual feelings towards one another like in “Cries and Whispers”.
Bergman has definitely challenged a lot of my original beliefs about incest being just plain wrong.
@Liz
Do you have any siblings?
Or know anyone in these situations?
All I can say is that nothing has inspired more darkness and despair in our lives than the love of my life’s situation with her father.
You also have to consider the fact that Freud was the rage among the intellectual classes during most of the 20th century.
Although I haven’t seen the three films you mentioned I have been thinking and he probably uses incest because it makes the audience uncomfortable. All his films have effected me greatly emotionally and I believe if you feel awkward and uncomfortable you let your guard down and you are effected more. Just a theory.
troy: yes, though my family just gets on my nerves. and there are several different kinds of incest, obviously the kind that mr. king is talking about is incredibly horrible. this line of discussion is not something that is worth continuing discussion here, and I’m sorry if I opened up any wounds, because that clearly was not the point.
I don’t know if it has much at all to do with Freud, either. It has to do with Bergman’s own feelings, which he seems to have expressed pretty clearly. You don’t continually return to the same themes in your films unless you feel a personal connection to them. Though doing it to challenge audiences and make them uncomfortable was undoubtedly another reason.
I agree with Drew. I think that the theme that Bergman is really obsessed with is the relationship between parents and children. In most of his movies that are strong confrontational scenes between father and son/daughter and in many interviews he refers the troubled relationship he had with his children caused by his indifference. Being Bergman a very sensorial director, it seems natural to use incest or suggestion of incest as a way to “extremize” the emotions felt by the audience. As far as I am concerned they do work for me. He is actually the only director I can recall that can bring such taboos onscreen in such a meaningful way. Can you imagine if Catherine Breillat was making Saraband? I guess the all room would be empty after the first 15 minutes of the explicit incest scene…
incest=wincest
haha but seriously, this is definitely interesting. I tend to agree with Liz on this although it could simply be a case of a larger trend at work here. Incest as a prevalent theme seems to pop up everywhere in historical works in my opinion. Everything as far back as Oedipus to quite recent commercial films such as Gladiator and AI. Of course there is the obvious that incest as a societal taboo is a temporal as much as a geographical trait, so its not exactly a fair comparison, but its definitely something to think about.
A lot of good ideas.
@Liz
Personally I feel that his portrayals of incest are all negative. I don’t think Bergman ever felt comfortable with that own aspect of himself, based on his work. I don’t think that feelings that come out of emotional abuse are ever something that we can feel comfortable with, and if his sexual desire for family members comes from that place then I don’t see how it justifies incest at all. It makes us understand a little better the struggle and where the twisted desire comes from, but it doesn’t justify it. I think even if Bergman ever came to the place where he thought his incestual desires were “ok” and “natural” then I would feel sorry for him, because I think that in the end, that would just mean that he was permanently affected by the actions of his family, and his experiences growing up, but that doesn’t make it ok to accept, or natural. Of course that might not have been what you were saying at all…
Maybe this is lit crit in me coming out, but I am not sure how useful it is to ask what Bergman himself thinks about incest and then apply what he says on the topic to his films or vice versa. I think that there are a number (I will only mention 2) of immediate implications to this sort of interpretive posture: 1) Okay, so Bergman had feelings for or a fascination for his mother (perhaps) and he grew up in a stern household, the son of a minister…but even if we knew exactly what the content of those feelings were, would we understand or interpret Bergman’s films any better; 2) it assumes that the theme of incest signifies the same thing in each film. In other words, now that we know what Bergman thinks about incest because we read his auto-biography, we apply that to each film wherein the theme comes up and say, “aha, this is what incest means in this film and this is how Bergman must of thought about incest” instead of paying attention to the specificity of the film and how incest may be used as a trope or theme specific to the individual film. Take a couple of the films already mentioned: The Silence (incestual desire articulated by one sister for the other sister and then of course there is the complex son and mother dynamic and then the way in which the son traingulates the desire that the one sister has for the other sister) and Through a Glass Darkly (incestual desire intimated between brother and sister and possibly between father and daughter…could be a stretch). I think it is important to consider these relationships in their specificity as they relate and are a part of each film instead of dismissing how they might enable an interpretation of the films themselves and attempt to get us to a point where we can decisely say what it is that Bergman thinks about incest (as if he could decisely articulate such a thought…).
Incest has always been a literary symbol for moral decay and latent insanity. It’s the Fall of Man writ large, sexual chaos invading the fabric of “normal” life. It’s extreme. Sartre’s The Condemned of Altona is a good example of a modern play that employs these themes. Bergman may be using incest in this way, or he may be critiquing the family unit in a dramatic way. Saying that in families people are forced into too close a proximity with each other — with the results being psychological, emotional, physical and even sexual invasiveness.
yep
@Matthew
Good long winded point Matthew, but I don’t see what that has to do with this thread. The question isn’t what Bergman thought about incest, or how we should interpret his films that deal with incest. The question is, why does incest repeatedly occur in his films, as opposed to other director’s films. Bergman probably used incest as a theme or plot point in his films more than any other director. No one would be foolish enough to say that this was because it just suited the themes he was already trying to deal with. Incest isn’t something that is universal, or even common enough to relate to for most people, so I don’t think that we can honestly view his work, realize the common theme of incest, and not be curious as to why it is so common. You say it won’t help us understand the artists work, but there is nothing wrong with trying to understand the artist.
@Troy,
Well, I am good at long winded points!
First of all, I never (foolishly) wrote that Bergman used incest because it suited the themes he was already trying to deal with; however, I did write that we should pay attention to the specificity of the film and how incest may be used as a trope or theme specific to the individual film. There is a big difference between what I wrote and how you interpreted the argument.
Second, you state, “the question is why does incest repeatedly occur in his films” and oppose that question to the fact that you are not asking “what Bergman thought about incest or how we should interpret his films that deal with incest”; however, in the post to which I responded, you wrote:
“I don’t think Bergman ever felt comfortable with that own aspect of himself, based on his work. I don’t think that feelings that come out of emotional abuse are ever something that we can feel comfortable with, and if his sexual desire for family members comes from that place then I don’t see how it justifies incest at all. It makes us understand a little better the struggle and where the twisted desire comes from, but it doesn’t justify it. I think even if Bergman ever came to the place where he thought his incestual desires were “ok” and “natural” then I would feel sorry for him, because I think that in the end, that would just mean that he was permanently affected by the actions of his family, and his experiences growing up, but that doesn’t make it ok to accept, or natural. Of course that might not have been what you were saying at all…”
You then state in your response to me:
“Incest isn’t something that is universal, or even common enough to relate to for most people, so I don’t think that we can honestly view his work, realize the common theme of incest, and not be curious as to why it is so common. You say it won’t help us understand the artists work, but there is nothing wrong with trying to understand the artist.”
My first reply is methodological, which is to say that I do not think that it is a productive or intellectual interpretive posture to say that the reason why incest occurs in Bergman’s films is because of something that occured in his life. Moreover, and correct me if I am wrong, but you ostensibly suggest that Bergman repeatedly dealt with incest because of some unresolved occurence or desire that he was not able to adequately face up to or act on in his personal life. Even if that is accurate, are the films reducible to Bergman’s life? is the life reducible to the work? In other words, in attempting to answer the question as to why incest occurs in his work, you have already set in motion a desire to seek an answer as to what Bergman thought about incest, what his desires were, hypothetical situations that may have constituted his fascination with desire, etc…
And incest is not something universal or common? Incest is one of the most popular themes in art and literature and given the fact that Bergman was an artist, it does not strike me as all that bizarre that he would look to incest as a theme or trope for reflection. So, maybe you learn something more about the artist, maybe you don’t, but all that you have written about Bergman (except for calling his films technical masterpieces even if you don’t like the stories) were hypothetical imaginings that do not offer any insight or understanding of the artist or his work. In other words, if the aim of your question is to understand Bergman and specifically to understand why Bergman references incest so often (and there are many other films to do so…), then let’s try to (and with reference to the work) understand instead of what seems to here be an effort to pathologize the artist by appealing to what you think is or is not okay or normal.
Bergman certainly had his “obsessions” but incest was hardly one of them. There are few incidents of incest in his very large body of work. In the most explicit instance, which has been discussed here, in THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY, it is used as a dramatic driver, but hardly the subject of the film.
The subject of the film is three men on an island with a mentally damaged young woman, in extremis, and all of them helpless to help her. The adolescent Minus, horny and unthinking, misuses his sister and brings on her schizophrenic break, her relapse. And perhaps Bergman over-reached here, could have found some other device … but a sub-theme is his life’s work was also that horny boy.
But this is no incest movie, and Bergman never made one.
@Matthew
HAHA! Now you force me to be long winded.
First of all let me apologize if the term “foolishly” offended you, because it was not directed at you but was stating the obvious to further the point.
Secondly, I think the paragraph which you refer to:
“I don’t think Bergman ever felt comfortable with that own aspect of himself, based on his work. I don’t think that feelings that come out of emotional abuse are ever something that we can feel comfortable with, and if his sexual desire for family members comes from that place then I don’t see how it justifies incest at all. It makes us understand a little better the struggle and where the twisted desire comes from, but it doesn’t justify it. I think even if Bergman ever came to the place where he thought his incestual desires were “ok” and “natural” then I would feel sorry for him, because I think that in the end, that would just mean that he was permanently affected by the actions of his family, and his experiences growing up, but that doesn’t make it ok to accept, or natural. Of course that might not have been what you were saying at all…”
was only intended as a reply to what Liz stated about her feelings on Incest after reading about Bergman. I was using Bergman’s situation based on what she knew, as a reference to make my point about a single individuals “situation” changing belief on whether incest is right or wrong. It was never intended to be a further insight into what Bergman felt or believed. True I stated:
“I don’t think Bergman ever felt comfortable with that own aspect of himself, based on his work."
but that was only so that I could make the point:
“I don’t think that feelings that come out of emotional abuse are ever something that we can feel comfortable with.”
Bergman’s situation was an example in this instance, not the point. I used my own interpretation to further that point, not assuming my interpretation is even accurate or wanting to discuss it’s accuracy. This is why I used the terms “I don’t think” and “if”.
Personally I feel that if any person, not necessarily Bergman, has been emotionally abused, then we cannot base our opinions of what is right or wrong based on their actions/reactions; nor can we use their actions/reactions as justification. But this is a whole new topic not really appropriate for The Auteurs. :-)
Thirdly, you wrote:
“My first reply is methodological, which is to say that I do not think that it is a productive or intellectual interpretive posture to say that the reason why incest occurs in Bergman’s films is because of something that occured in his life.”
If he did not use incest because it simply suited the themes, which is something I’m not quite sure you agree with, then it most certainly was because of something that happened in his life. We don’t use recurring themes in our work because randomly, by mere chance, those things occurred to us. There is in every instance, a connection between what we experience, what we are preoccupied with, and what comes out in our work. And beyond that, there is always a reason for that preoccupation.
Fourthly you wrote:
“Even if that is accurate, are the films reducible to Bergman’s life? is the life reducible to the work? In other words, in attempting to answer the question as to why incest occurs in his work, you have already set in motion a desire to seek an answer as to what Bergman thought about incest, what his desires were, hypothetical situations that may have constituted his fascination with desire, etc…”
To these two questions, I answer yes. You may disagree, but I think that his work is reducible to his life, and that his life is reducible to his work. Must we reduce it to that? No. But can we? Yes. That is part of the beauty of great art; when we so desire we can do just that, and at times it is how we better understand ourselves as artists, as creators, as humans. Art does not stand alone from the artist, and it shouldn’t. The point of this thread is to understand the reason behind his preoccupation with incest. Maybe he stated why himself once in an interview or a biography. Would it be wrong or even conterproductive to take it further, to delve deeper into the reasons behind the reasons? No, but that is not the point of this thread.
Finally you wrote:
“And incest is not something universal or common? Incest is one of the most popular themes in art and literature and given the fact that Bergman was an artist, it does not strike me as all that bizarre that he would look to incest as a theme or trope for reflection. So, maybe you learn something more about the artist, maybe you don’t, but all that you have written about Bergman (except for calling his films technical masterpieces even if you don’t like the stories) were hypothetical imaginings that do not offer any insight or understanding of the artist or his work. In other words, if the aim of your question is to understand Bergman and specifically to understand why Bergman references incest so often (and there are many other films to do so…), then let’s try to (and with reference to the work) understand instead of what seems to here be an effort to pathologize the artist by appealing to what you think is or is not okay or normal.”
I never stated that it was bizarre or abnormal for him to use incest as a theme. I think I clearly stated that what is abnormal about it is his repeated use, and his tendency to always return to that theme. Incest might be a popular theme in art and literature (though I would disagree with your judgment of how popular), but it is not common in practice universally. I would say that there is a reason behind every use of incest in art or literature, no matter how often it occurs, and that is the point of my question. Why specifically is it a theme, a recurring theme, in Bergman’s work?
And I will not even respond to the last sentence, as you are judging me based on what you think is okay, while accusing me of making an effort to pathologize Bergman.
Thanks for the discussion! It keeps me on my toes. :-)
@MMOORE
Now that is something to discuss! :-)
Not too spur on too much polemic, but incest is an archtetypal conflict. Which is different than suggesting it is commonly practiced. It is a constitutive conflict, spurring the distribution of women for arranging reproductive relations and influential in monitoring children’s sexual behavior (to give a few examples). I am, moreover, glad that MMOORE wrote “But this is no incest movie, and Bergman never made one.” Thanks for looking at the films themselves instead of trying to psychologize Bergman, which as I said I do not think is a rigorous or methodologically sound interpretive posture. I am not judging anyone on what I think okay so much I am judging on the lack of attention paid to the films, the hypothetical situations created, the attempt and committment to know the director’s psychic life in the manner in which it has been suggested to be pathological. Like I said, it is a methodological concern but that is as much as I will say on the topic (for now) as I don’t want to be that guy in a thread that starts going crazy on everybody and ends up looking like an idiot. I would encourage anyone who wishes to discuss Bergman’s films to please message me as Bergman is a very important director for me.
I should also metion to Troy that I do believe that there is a great deal of a connection between and artist and his or her work. I also believe that the work of art takes on a life of its own. With that said and as I am sure you know, Bergman created Persona shortly after he had a traumatic experience recovering from anaesthesia after a surgery. The first time I watched Persona was after I too had a traumatic experience with recovering from anaesthesia after a surgery. I felt something watching that film that I cannot describe, but I felt a very strong and intimate connection with that type of pain and agony. I felt something of myself, of what had just endured, shown to me. I saw that and felt it while watching every moment of that film. It was one of the most visceral experiences I have ever had. So I think I hear or identify something in your questions that is interesting and thought provoking (though I also do think that MMOORE has highlighted an important point), but I just would go about asking or interrogating such questions or concerns in a different fashion.
Many of Bergman’s themes do not represent “common practice” among people. Obsession with death, religious agony, amnesia, forms of mental illness — all are extreme metaphors for alienation, loss of self, inability to communicate. If there is incest hinted at or explored directly in his films (and I think it is the subject of The Rite), then it’s one of those metaphors, imo. I would never look toward a Bergman film to mirror reality as it exists around me every day; he’s too hermetic and rarefied an artist to document the everyday.
Troy Of America
Why Bergman is obsessed with incest?