Ftr I am even inclined to think that the interviews may have a positive value, after all.
I think up to now, like many I believe who have commented on their inclusion, I have considered the value, or absence thereof, of their inclusion partly in terms of the content of them, and whether such value overcomes the objection that they break the presentation.
But it occurs to me that Passion is filled with many breaks of different sorts. There is Bergman's narration, with parts of the narration coming at certain times, but mostly the film does not have narration, even at times it well might. (the timing of when he narrates is in itelf a fascinating aspect of this film.) Of course WHEN Bergman does include narration, it always adds. But I also think every time he does, as voice overs do in general, it however subtly acts to take us out of the diagetic.
Abrupt cutting to another scene also can have the same effect. This is also I think intentional.
Think of the time in this film when we move from the opening understanding of Andreas's character. First we have the opening, with him rather sloppily pacthign the roof, allowing cement to slide down tiles and not being cleaned up, the bucket falling and him first picking it up, then leaving it on the ground, the decision to ride his bike and begin an aimless wandering, his seemingly gratuitous (although it seems less gratuitous later) exchange of pleasantries with Johann, and of course his pretending to leave Anna alone so that he can surreptitously overhear her phone conversation, his slight leer as she leaves, and his rifling through her purse, reading her letter. By then we picture our apparent protagonist as a sketchy and untrustworthy person.
But then Bergman moves to a walk through the forest, the discovery of the hanging dog, Andreas saving the dog, and treating it tenderly in his home. Now we have reason to question who Andreas really is.
I think Bergman is doing two things here. One is to make it clear that he knows as well as us that this is only a story, and his story, but he also does so in ways that undercut what we think is going on, to make us question our previous "understanding". I think the interviews are part of that. Even the content of the interviews contributes to this undercutting. For example how reliable, how accurate, are what the actors say about their characters? Is some of what is said accurate, and other not accurate? Is what each say the same as Bergman's own view of the characters?
Many viewers of this film also question the purpose of the whole subplot involving animal torture and killing. The viewer wonders if one of our central four characters (as well as Johann, who is explicitly addressed as the possible source), is behind those acts. this also subtly leads the viewer to question the "understanding" of each of them that we derive solely from the acts exhibited by them in the diagetic. I think this is one of the reasons the animal subplot is included, as part of the way the film so often challenges our set perceptions.
Bergman's approach here, throughout the film, is brilliant. The first time I saw Passion I thought it was a less experimental, and more conventional, film certainly than Persona. Even more conventional than films like The Silence or Shame. But I think in fact it is at least on one level a very unconventional film, in a way that works. In fact and in many ways what it says about perception is arguably even more significant than in Persona, The Silence, and other films like Hour of the Wolf.
In short, I have come to the view that the interviews are a positive element in the film.
reply
share