Drew: Excellent, detailed analysis of a complex film that is certainly open to multiple interpretations. Because my own memory of the film is too vague, I will now see it again to see how your own very perceptive take on the film works. I know when I last saw it, I had not thought of either of the characters being imaginary, but you present a striking case for your interpretation. It has made me want to go back and see this unique Bergman film. Certainly, this was his most experimental, and Bergman never goes for the easy or obvious solution in his films. Thank you for presenting this film to us in a unique way. Like you, I am always drawn to movies that require some thought and analysis after viewing. That is what truly creative filmmaking is really about – making us think and reflect – getting us out of our usual stupor of just seeing things at face value. Good stuff!
Drew I second what Bob says. A very convincing argument. I think there’s even a close-up where Bergman sort of merges their two faces. During that period, Bergman seemed drawn to mental illness as a subject, re Hour of the Wolf. I think Persona is Bergman’s best, most audacious film, and one that will withstand the test of time the best. Like Bob, I’m going to re-watch it soon to check my impressions. Thanks for sharing these insights.
Having seen Persona again, I still believe we must take these two women as separate, distinct personalities. I think Bergman certainly implies a psychic affinity between the two, and it is true that he does merge their faces. Bergman purposefully chose two actresses that he thought had a similar look, which he proved to both of them by merging the two faces. He wants us to see them like two sides of a coin, as their lives are connected. To me, the key to their relationship is not in Alma’s constant talking and Elisabet’s silence, but what happens after Alma ‘confesses’ the deeply personal story of the sexual encounter on the beach and then finds Elisabet has ‘betrayed’ her confidence in the letter that Alma discovers. Alma feels that the close connection between them has been severed. It is only when Alma finally confronts Elisabet with this betrayal, that the two are finally able to again achieve a sort of understanding, a merging. Toward the end of the film, we see Alma get on the bus. Surely, she is a real, distinct person, not a figment of Elisabet’s imagination. Bergman is definitely playing with the audience throughout the film, but I think the key to the character’s identity is in the doubling-effect of the two characters – one who is silent, one who speaks. Both are disturbed and can only seek a resolution when they confront painful truths. The journey toward this dark realm of repression and its unleashing is at the heart of Bergman’s treatment. Alma unleashes her hidden demons by actively confessing them, in the open, and Elisabet by finally winning Alma back after her betrayal, by her act of compassion toward Alma – best seen when they are presented side-by-side in the mirror.
As far as the doubling of the dialogue in the one scene, it again emphasizes the fact that we must see the reaction individually in each woman as the scene is repeated. The whole movie has many similar shifts from the face of one to the face of the other, often in stark close-up, so that the physical similarity is mirrored in their separate reactions to events. This scene is key to showing the two distinct reactions each has to the same story, emphasizing the differences underlying their close identity.
One of the things that still puzzles me in the movie, is the fact that, even though we seem to hear Elisabet speaking at times, in the voice-overs of Alma, the only word she actually does say is “Nothing” (in English translation). Surely, Bergman is giving us another key to what this film is about. The montage at the very beginning and the end also provide a mysterious, though completely oblique to me, clue as to the film’s interpretation. We know Bergman was in a crisis state himself mentally (when wasn’t he?) before he made this film, so we must see this as a way for him to confront his own demons – through his two characters. It is interesting to me that Bergman quite often uses female characters in his films, in this case Alma, to reveal his own inner turmoils/confessions.
Yet, it is a film that is open to many different interpretations, and yours Drew, is still a valid one. Certainly, the husband does speak to Alma, as if she were the ‘real’ one, but this could also be interpreted as his reaction to his wife’s silence. Perhaps one should see this film in conjunction with The Silence to get more of an understanding of what Bergman is trying to achieve in this doubling-effect of the two women. In The Silence (a movie I have not seen for many years), we again have a close relationship between two women at the heart of the film. I would now need to see The Silence again to see what the connection is between the two films and the two women characters in each.
I love films that are so open to discussion and have so many different ways of interpretation. Next time I watch the film I will think about your analysis and I will get something totally different out of it. It is just such a great film.
My film theory professor Bruce F. Kawin has detailed his explanation of the movie in his book “Mindscreen”. His explanation is that Elizabeth represents Bergman’s silent God, whom is represented as a spider in his films Through the Glass Darkly and Winter Light. That idea is hinted at in the opening of Persona when the image of a spider transforms into Elizabeth’s face. The silence of Elizabeth is a continuation on the theme of the silence of God in the film The Silence. A God that hates her own children.
Therefore the scene with the broken glass would represent the crucifixion, as it is a direct attack on God. There are further allusions to the crucifixion in the beginning of the film, with the stigmata and the sacrificial lamb. At that point, God manifest as the world of the film is destroyed and needs to reassemble itself.
The final few scenes are represented as dreams in the screenplay where Alma confronts Elizabeth and drinks of her blood. Alma reconciles with Elizabeth by agreeing to say “nothing”. By the end the reality of the film has been deconstructed to “nothing”. In the film Bergman made directly after Persona, Hour of the Wolf he begins the film with the audio of the set under construction, as a representation of the world reconstructing itself after being deconstructed.
@ Ray, I have to say I like the grace and elegance of that explanation. The drinking of the blood fits in there, since the apostles drank Christ’s blood as a sacrament. The symbolism of the Holocaust boy in the photo makes more sense in that conext, too, since the Holocaust is often seen as a historical moment where “God abandoned people.” Here, it’s not so much that she is indifferent, but that she herself is helpless — an impotent God. Or perhaps a sadistic one. Also, now that I think about it, Alma makes her “confession” of the beach orgy as if she were giving something up to God, it’s a confessional moment. How interesting. Thanks for the perspective.
Jason, this is the PERSONA thread I was talking about. Drew and Ray Squirrel both offer compelling, and varying, interpretations of what the film is about, suggesting its complexity.
PERSONA is mystery enough, and one needn’t over mystify it. If there aren’t two women in this story, then we have no story.
There is immense significance to Elisabet being an actress. She’s seemingly quit the stage and fallen silent, but she’s playing a role throughout the film, acting her silence. And in an almost blood-curdling way, a kind of mute Lady Macbeth in her treatment of Alma.
The repeated dialogue in what I think of as the “prosecution sequence” — if you read the script this scene was to cut back and forth between the two actresses. According to Ullmann, Bergman liked the out-takes so much he decided to keep them both. Esthetics or pride, I’ve watched PERSONA at least ten times now, and I myself wish he’d stuck with the script here…
Even the merging faces was a darkroom accident. Bergman was surprised when he saw it and showed the loop to Ullmann and Andersson and neither one could recognize herself, thought she was the other, and this fascinated Bergman. And so he used it.
I really appreciate your attempt of giving a seemingly new interpretation. However, in my opinion this interpretation overlooks myriads of other devices that Bergman has meticulously assembled. It’s not enough to see the movie solely in narrative terms as ‘Persona’ as a modernist movie heavily depends on formal devices. Besides there are several lengthy and profoundly researched studies on Persona against its modernist, aesthetic and political contexts. Prof. Lloyd Michaels" "Persona’ (Cambridge university collection, 2000) encompasses many invaluable texts and Prof. John Simon’s ‘Bergman Directs (1972) scrupulously analyses (almost shot by shot, with references to other interpretations) ’Persona’. Therefore, in my view any new explanation should contest and surpass those studies with enough evidence to be authoritative. ’Bergman’s effort is far deep and the texts I mentioned cast little light on them:-) But this interpretation obviously needs more study and concrete evidence…
I saw Persona for the first time yesterday and, as you may expect, it was a startling and thought-provoking experience. Not even The Silence prepared me for it’s visceral brilliance and incredibly successful experimentations, not least it’s broad possibilities for interpretation.
However, my response to The Silence also made me look at Persona in a similar way. I see it as a film about inner conflict, of a spiritual nature, and how one responds to the knowledge of our absurd existence in a universe that is hostile to us. How we respond to a life in which we have been abandoned by God. Both characters, as in The Silence, are different parts of one entity – an entity torn apart by the choice one has to make between bitter silence in the face of God’s silence, or the attempt at a passionate existence in spite of it. A passionate existence, however, wrought with its own dangers, and its own form of bitterness; a bitterness directed at past regrets, and a bitterness directed at one’s own relationship with their own self.
However, upon reading through this thread, I must say that I adore the Elizabet-as-God idea. I’m going to have to pick up Mindscreen some day – it was recommended in a previous thread, and I adored what I read on Amazon, I just didn’t have the cash to buy it at the time.
I can’t wait to watch Persona again. My response to Bergman has been strange. I began with The Seventh Seal and Wild Strawberries – both provoked a tame reaction from me, but I certainly appreciated their craft. It wasn’t until I saw Through A Glass Darkly that he really struck a chord with me, and I can only say that I am glad he did eventually strike that chord. With Persona he presented me a piece of work that has impacted me as strongly as Antonioni’s L’Avventura or Dostoyevsky’s Notes from Underground.
Drew Gregory
So I posted my response to a few questions someone asked on IMDb a little while ago about Persona. I’m curious to see what people’s response to my opinion is and if anyone agrees with me.
- Do you think Alma(Bibi) and Elisabeth (Liv) are two distinct personalities in the flesh? If not, which of these two do you think is the REAL person, and which one the imaginary? Why? Or do you think it doesn’t matter who is real or imaginary? Why?
Answer: I believe that Elisabet is the only real person. I feel she suffered a mental break down and created Alma for a number of possible reasons. As with other multiple personality films that were inspired by Persona I feel that when conflict is created it is just the main character’s fantasy slipping away. Reality is starting to seep in so trouble occurs in her fantasy.
- What do the images shown throughout the movie (the hand being hit with the hammer, the boy waking up and admiring the picture, etc. etc.) signify?
Answer: I believe the images symbolize Elisabet’s mind. Obviously some of the images are disturbing, as is her mind at the moment.
- Do you think there is any significance in Elisabeth being an actress by profession?
Answer: Yes, I believe her profession in life is turning herself into somebody else so this is just a further hint that indeed she is the only woman.
- Why is the same dialogue (Alma talking to Elisabeth about being a mother) repeated TWICE in the movie?
Answer: I believe it is spoken twice purely because it is such an important part. Due to Elisabet’s silence the viewer never really knows much about her or why she suffered her breakdown. I believe all of what Alma says reflects Elisabet’s feelings but I mean there isn’t any straight forward information about Elisabet.
- What do you think is the signifance of several scenes dialogues such as :
- The scene where Alma talks about having sex with the young boysThe scene were Alma and Elisabeth stroke each others hair in front of the mirror-
Answer 1: I believe that this scene is just a different way of telling the later scene that is spoken twice. In this speech she has an orgy with a woman she has never met before and two young boys. She says that as she was having sex she felt like she never had and guessed that she had become pregnant. She did become pregnant and had an abortion. In the scene spoken twice Elisabet has a child purely because someone gave her the challenge by saying that she would be a poor mother. After having the child she hates it and it haunts her. In both stories each woman gets pregnant in an “incorrect” way. One from a young boy in an orgy, and the other just because she wants to prove something to someone. Alma gets an abortion, but Elisabet does not. This can be interpreted multiple ways. It can show that Alma is still upset about the abortion so Elisabet needs to realize that regretting having the child doesn’t change anything because even if she successfully lost it nothing would have changed. Or this can show that Alma has certain parts about her Elisabet wished were her and she wishes she had successfully had an abortion.
Answer 2: This I believe is plainly just a dream where the two personalities are merging. As I said before reality is starting to creep in while she is asleep.
- What do you think is the significance of the husband scene?
Answer: This is the scene that confirms that only Elisabet is real. Elisabet’s husband talks to Alma as if she was Elisabet. He says to her lines like “Don’t you think I understand?” and “The doctor has explained things.”. The doctors and her husband know about her multiple personality disorder.
- What really makes you like this movie, and why and how do you think this is distinct from other Bergman films, or just other films you have seen?
Answer: I’ve always enjoyed movies that aren’t completely straight forward and that leave room for discussion. I also enjoy movies that are abstract because they in a way deconstruct your mind so when dramatic incidences happen you are fully engulfed in the story. In comparison to other Bergman films I believe it is easily more abstract then the few others I have seen, but still it has in a way the same touch. It still easily fits in with other Bergman films despite being so different.
I also want to add that at first it might seem strange to think that Alma is the imaginary person and not Elisabet due to the fact that Alma talks the whole time. It is hard to see Alma as not real because we know her better but in truth I believe we know Elisabet very well through Alma’s words.