this is one of Bergman’s most complicated movies to watch. it really threw me off, felt more like Antonioni than Berman but on second viewing it made sense.
I’m not as crazy about Berman as some of you guys, but The Slience is an excellent film.
I love this film.
And you know what? I don’t read any symbolism into it at all. I read it as a straight-ahead narrative. As a man recounting a trip he took when he was a boy. It doesn’t have to mean anything more than that to be a splendid, evocative, moody film.
When you are a very young kid, the actions of the surrounding adults seems weighty and laden with significance and mystery…. and you have sensory experiences which you’ll remember forever. That’s the point Bergman is making. No need to bring allegory or symbolism or fevered dissections into it.
“No need to bring allegory or symbolism or fevered dissections into it.”
Well, no need to act as if your interpretation is the only correct one. Besides, how do you know Bergman’s intention?
I’m just stating my gut hunch after having watched it four times in the last six months. For me, the actual events which occur onscreen seem like meaningful, memorable human events in themselves—- ie., there is plenty of “story” there, AFAIAC—- and do not (necessarily) require further dissection.
FWIW, the actor who is the boy in this film…. is now a friend of mine, and we’ve discussed his participation in this film several times. So there’s that.
“FWIW, the actor who is the boy in this film…. is now a friend of mine, and we’ve discussed his participation in this film several times. So there’s that.”
What are you implying? That your interpretation has greater credibility due to your being friends with one the actors in the film?
That’s absolutely ridiculous. We’re discussing the actual film, here.
“…and do not (necessarily) require further dissection.”
I don’t have a problem with your interpretation. What annoys me is that you are precluding analysis. What is wrong with more discussion (or as you call it, dissection)? Great works tend to invite multi-vocality.
The Silence definitely feels like an allegory though. for what though? well, that’s why boards like this exist :-)
Some argue it’s for the difficulty of love, and the problem of communication. others have different theories. i don’t believe it’s a straight forward movie though.
that’s why boards like this exist :-)
I didn’t preclude anything, Sean. I merely proffered my opinion…. as I have a right to do.
Feel free! Analyze away! Offer your opinions on what the symbolism must be.
i don’t know why u guys even interrogate if there are some sort of hidden symbols in this film, yeah of course this is bergman,and we all know that he was influenced mostly by his relationship with his mother. well yeah whatever…. we can say many things about it .but i don’t have to find out some things like that to simply just adore this film..i just can’t understand how can a bergman fan cannot see the poetic side of it.if you’re talking about the darkness of it,well yeah hello! i couldn’t stop myself and i watched this film 4 times and i wanna worship ingrid thulin. and i think i love this movie cause the bond between two characters slowly turn into hatred and disgust and they become more and more repulsive to each other,they confront with these overwhelming strange feelings that they have kept inside,and the sickness of ingrid thulin’s character is kind of proves that.and the pity disappears with the suppose to be sister tenderness…the wanting of hurting becomes a sadistic act so that gunnel’s character finds this almost mute character to have sex with (they can’t understand each other but they can have sex so gunnel’s character kind of use this guy as a priest to confess some of her fears and sins.) but at the same time you can feel the sexual tension between two women caused by the love between them (that makes them sick too,there’s a motherly love in both of the characters which they can not avoid and there’s this child too,his father is not there so the sisters share this son’s love and care.) so that’s why it makes u think that there’s some kind of an incestual relationship between them,then u can see the flames of hell,that from a point there’s no turning back,and there’s a silent violence between them,an abstract violence which can bleed them just like a sharp knife can do. and just like in persona or cries and whispers the characters are throwing up their grudges.and just like in passion of anna and the hour of the wolf we can see that the madness is something close , possible and simple.and you can’t escape from the dominant primordial beast that is inside of u,and the consciousness makes them tired. so all these makes me sweat , and i remember the phrase of sartre : “hell is other people” so no exit….. well yeah that’s a challenge,if u can’t take it it’s so easy to hate this film iguess.
you keyboard has no return key?
yeah sorry,why do u care anyway…u shared your “holy” idea.and i did share mine.and why do u have to be so cruel by saying “the worst film of bergman”.what is this some kinda contest?.sometimes people can like a film out of personal reasons or just because it’s originality …… so respect that.and i think that’s good cause i can see that this film made u think a lot so it’s not that horrible.why do u search for words???just leave it alone.u say that it’s a film with no words but maybe you don’t see them.and you don’t have to actually…