MovieChat Forums > En passion (1970) Discussion > Sheer rubish!

Sheer rubish!

posted 11 years ago by rasheed_node
3 replies | jump to latest

It's always difficult to condemn works of such masters but you've to do what you've to do. Grossly overrated and a meaningless film to the core. I watched this film twice, you have to if you wish to attack work of holy man of cinema such as Bergman. But in my case, I always watch movies twice, as a rule.

1. Anti-religion ism (or it's anti Christianity?! really?!) of Bergman is really getting on my nerves. Religion is evil. That's OK with me who resigned from religion at the age of 20 and has never looked back in 3 (three) decades since but still the fact remains that the religion is, was and is going remain a psychological necessity of millions of people around the world. Of course people manipulate religion, for this precise reason, in fact. Which is obvious & expected.

2. Liv Ullmann (Anna Fromm) is a 'pre-declared' or 'labelled' religious person in this film. So she's an evil who stage managed a car accident in which she got her first husband & her own only child killed. Can you believe it?! Such a clinical car accident? She knew she will survive that accident and other two will definitely get killed! What was she? a professional racing car driver?!LOL! crap.

3. This film should never have been made, in the first place. A simple & experimental stage version would have sufficed. This could be said about many other Bergman films but no one dares to say so. For example: "Through a glass darkly".

4. And those tiresome close ups! Please, if you don't know what to do with your camera, please stop misusing it!

5. Nothing could be more incredible or ridiculous then the way Max von Sydow (Andreas Winkelman) & Liv Ullmann (Anna Fromm) are shown entering into a relationship in this film. Do audiences have to accept it as an stupids only because the film is directed by Ingmar Bergman? LOL, This is my precise point. Bad work is bad work, even if it is done by Bergman. I hate it when weaker points are not condemned but sometimes, glorified in the name of deeper & higher arts & artists by gutless/spineless viewers/critics who basically lack self confidence as an art lovers. No one OWNS the art, not even Bergamn!

[–] kenny-164 11 years ago

rasheed,

I am tempted to ignore your post condemning one of my favorite films since your post is virtually incoherent. But I will try and point out at least the errors that I can follow.

First of all, I do not see any connection between Anna's religious views and her what you call evil. We know as a general matter that people who see themselvse as religious are nonetheless capable of evil. And so are atheists and agnostics. For example Elis's character is almost certainly an atheist, and we see him as a manipulative man without a core. Is his character a condemnation of those without religious convictions? Well, perhaps his lack is in fact problematic for him, but this hardly means Bergman was condemning all without religious beliefs. In short you are ignoring that the characters are complex, and there is no causal connection between these two aspects of Anna's personality. Your reasoning here is inappropriately reductive.

Personally I do not share Bergman's atheism, but as a believer myself I respect that he attempted to answer questions of such importance, and did so in a way that I learn from.

Returning to your post, I have no idea what you are talking about in suggesting Anna knew she would survive the car crash. I don't think you do, either.

"tiresome close-ups" - this is too revealing. Why are they tiresome? I think Bergman uses them to challenge the viewer to share the interiority of the character, and what they show. All while knowing that there is a limit, and the portrayal is any event fiction and not real life. This of course parallels Elis's description of the limitations of photography to reveal inner truth, one of the great scenes in all Bergman films, i think.

I also do not know what you are talking about in complaining about the way Anna and Andreas embark on their relationship. You need to be more specific, if you can.

[–] kenny-164 10 years ago

I wanted to circle back to this post since I referred above to Bergman's atheism. i do think he was more or less of an atheistic POV when he made this film, but earlier he was more struggling with religious belief, and i have since come to understand in later life his views evolved to a more complex understanding. That in turn allowed him to see that God as some overall spiritual entity probably did exist, or somewhere between possibly and probably. A BBC interview conducted a few years before his death referred to his deceased wife's having a continued spiritual presence, and he disavowed the "understanding" he took away from his previous "understanding" regarding a temporary drug induced coma experience in the sixties being some kind of proof of the nothingness that followed death. He also spoke about God not as one would in terms of an organized religion, but as a more general concept that "probably" existed. In short he moved away from his atheism to a kind of agnostic belief that tended toward belief in God.

[–] samoanjoes (56659) 5 years ago

I've seen this film twice as well and something just didn't sit right both times.