Who's the savage?
I'm surprised to see nobody discussed the topic...
Maybe it is that obvious? Who do you think kills all these animals?
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > En passion (1970) Discussion > Who's the savage?
I felt the savage was not just one person but the island peoples' collective passion turned wrong. Just as Andreas finally lashes out at Anna when his passion has turned cold and he is filled with self-loathing and humiliation I feel the brutal killings of the animals on the island was an illustration of human despair and what it may do if not acknowledged so that it may be restrained in way before it can break loose and wreak havoc. Andreas commented that most people hide the painful parts of their soul from others. Maybe this is the consequence of that.
"We must go, darling, we have the Bishop for lunch..."
"I hope he's tender."
Excellent reply. Elis's fascination with cruelty is a red herring, but also an echo of the island's isolation--and Bergman's as well.
I think Elis's fascination with cruelty clears of him any wrongdoing, at least in he context of this film. Erland mentions, when talking about his character, how much he hates hypocrisy. He is speaking about Anna's hypocrisy, in particular. Anna pretends to be a truthful, religious person, but in reality she's a lying psychopath. Andreas calls her out on her fake religious zeal, and we even learn early on that she's lying every time she mentions how happy her marriage was. We find out, as she's driving toward the end, that she in fact killed her husband and son, and maybe even was trying to kill herself in the process. The car didn't slide, she crashed it on purpose.
She's crazy, and she hides it behind her veil of honesty and faith. More than likely, she's the one who was killing the animals.
This is an interesting topic that I still have not made my mind up about. At first i thought it was Andreas himself that was committing the acts, but I realize now that was stupid since he was the one that rescued the dog from the hanging. However, what do you all think about Anna being the savage? Did her passion and hypocracy turn her into a savage beast? any comments?
shareThat actually was my guess.".....Physical & psychological acts of violence..."The look Max gives her at the horse burning.
shareAt first i thought it was Andreas himself that was committing the acts, but I realize now that was stupid since he was the one that rescued the dog from the hanging.
I don't believe it was Andreas who did the killings, but, if it was him, he could have tried to hang the little dog, but then changed his mind and released him.
BTW, horrible scene with the little dog to hang him up like that for the sake of a movie! share
I think, though it's not mentioned in the film, it's Anna who did all the animal killing. I think Bergman gives us some hints of this fact, like showing Anna with a wild expression on her face immediatelly after the scenes with killed animals, or, showing her coming to the stables on fire towards the end.
share[deleted]
I think it's neither ridiculous or uniteresting.Remember Anna is both "respectable" & "religious",but something's definitely wrong & Andreas knows it.
shareIt's not clear who is the savage. First I thought Johan or Andreas could be, but later I dumped that idea. At the end of the movie I thought Anna could be the savage, Bergman gives us some hints to think about that possibility, but it's not conclusive.
This as many subjects on Bergman's films will always remains open to many interpretations. As many as the viewers of the movie. I think that was Ingmar Bergman's idea.
Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.
She was in the bed at the time of the fire
shareI am not sure who's behind the animal cruelty, but do u remember when she was praying for the guy who committed suicide, Andreas came in and gave her a scorning look and said I think you're praying for yourself, and Anna didn't reply properly, and remained silent. So could it be she felt guilty because of all the other guy went through?
And also repeating that phrase" psychological and physical", we saw the psychological torture, but except from Andreas' side we didn't see any physical thing from Anna.
Then again it may have been symbolic.
I think this is a very good answer. It would have been impossible for Anna to have started the barn fire. She was lying in bed at the time, which Bergman made very clear by cutting to her there at the appropriate time.
The last time I watched this film (this very morning actually!) I saw it with a friend who was viewing it for the first time. He commented that perhaps one of the points in the film is for us to be tempted to falsely condemn Anna, much as the innocent man in the film was condemned by citizens.
In this film we can be certain of very little, except that there is much uncertainty and we must make the best of it and live our lives as well as we can with this uncertainty.
[deleted]
Michelangelo Antonioni
shareWell, I'm glad I'm not the only one who was thinking that Anna could have been involved. Though, I don't think that we're supposed to know whose behind these acts, I agree that some amount of room for suspicion is given by Bergman. Though, ultimately, I don't think Anna had anything to do with it, I found her reaction to the neighbor's death suspiciously interesting. Of course, the movie works without ever even knowing who the savage was.
share[deleted]
It could be. When Andreas killed the bird I thought it could have been him, because he screamed right before they found the 8 dead sheep, and he was there. Also, he did it with ease. Anna seemed a little thrown off by this.
share[deleted]
I did it. I couldn't help myself.
My Movies:http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=27163862
[deleted]
I was always convinced that it was Anna since Bergman gave quite a lot of hints in the movie (the praying for herself, her cruelty, her face after the bird was killed and it was her asking for the bird to be killed, and Andreas suggesting that she did it, Anna killing her husband and son, and with the fire I believe it was her telling Andreas there was a fire so she did that too imho). I still think she did it, there were simply too many hints.
shareI disagree it was Anna at least to the extent some here argue it clearly was her. The point about the glimpse of the person running away from the dog just left to hang from the rope could not have been Anna with her bad leg. I also think she seems to have been sleeping when the barn fire was set.
Since Bergman did not make clear who it was, I tend to agree we are meant to understand the killings as part of some general malaise. But, is that supposed to be particular to the location? Perhaps, if by particular is meant particular to isolated locations. Bergman himself enjoyed his moments of isolation in the islands. But it is also obvious he did not stay there.
It kind of reminds me of the implied tension in Wordsworth's Tintern Abbey poem. The frame of reference there is of the city dweller thinking back to his encounters with nature, in a natural and not urban setting. The implication is that such remembrances make one's life, and one's spirit, better for having had that experience of immersion in nature. But what about the urban side of that experience, the implied balance in that frame of reference to a part of one's life spent in not only the urban setting but among people?
Andreas imo shows the tensions that I think Bergman is concerned about where a too great focus and interest in solitude and isolation from others can lead to. The island's isolation is felt not only by Andreas, of course. It makes no sense to think so.
Just as in Tintern Abbey we may stop and wonder what would happen to the writer who stayed there, not returning to the city, we wonder what might have been happening to the residents of the island who don't leave it. We have the example of the vigilantes who kill his friend Johan.
I don't mean to suggest that the questionable behavior of rural people is an explicit subject or theme here. But I do think isolation in both the physical and emotional senses is. That would fit with the killer not being identified, implying it may in fact be more than one, and a faceless presence existing in that society and place.
[deleted]