I have now returned this blog to movies only - you can find my other posts on my substack
https://windowsontheworld.substack.com
PERSONA
"SHAKING THE TREES ... SHOCKING THE MONKEYS"
MOVIE ANALYSIS FOR [VERY] INTELLIGENT PEOPLE
(NOT MEDIA BRAINWASHED SHEEP)
PERSONA - BIRDMAN - MULHOLLAND DRIVE - INLAND EMPIRE - LOST HIGHWAY
THE PRESTIGE - ENEMY
(JOKER'S BIG SECRET COMING SOON)
ALL THESE DEEP FILMS ARE COMPLETELY DECODED HERE
(SKEPTICAL? ... SCROLL DOWN FOR MY FEEDBACK, AND CHECK OUT THE AVERAGE IQ OF MY FOLLOWERS ON TWITTER ... AND WHO SOME OF THEM ARE ... THE VALIDITY / VERACITY OF MY ANALYSIS QUICKLY BECOMES EVIDENT - TO ELEPHANTS - ANYWAY)
RATIONAL AND OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF SEVEN OF THE CLEVEREST FILMS IN HISTORY
I CALL MY BLOG
"WATER FOR ELEPHANTS"
FILM ACADEMICS/FILM CRITICS CALL IT ... "ROOM 101"
(THEIR WORST NIGHTMARE)
FILM ACADEMICS/FILM CRITICS DO NOT WANT YOU READING THIS BLOG
THEY WANT TO PERPETUATE THE "ILLUSION OF TRUTH" AGENDAS / IDEOLOGIES THEY HAVE PAINTED THESE FILMS WITH
(THIS IS THE SAD STATE OF THE WORLD THESE DAYS ...
FACTS DON'T MATTER IN SOME REALMS OF ACADEMIA)
THEY HAVE BRAINWASHED THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO BELIEVE, WHAT ACTUALLY TURNS OUT TO BE, FOR THE MOST PART, ABSOLUTE DRIVEL
(PERSONA - IN PARTICULAR, HAS BEEN HIDEOUSLY "HIJACKED" AND "TAINTED" ... BY PEOPLE CONSUMED BY THEIR OWN AGENDAS, RATHER THAN RATIONAL AND OBJECTIVE INQUIRY)
DON'T BE A BRAINWASHED SHEEP!
WAKE UP!
(JUNE 2019 - SURPASSED 680,000 PAGE-VIEWS)
MOST PEOPLE ARE QUITE HAPPY TO BELIEVE THE DRIVEL THEY ARE FED ABOUT FILMS IN THEIR NEWSPAPERS OR ON THE INTERNET
INTELLIGENT PEOPLE (I CALL THEM "ELEPHANTS") ALWAYS KNEW THERE WAS (A LOT) MORE TO "MULHOLLAND DRIVE"
THIS IS THE PLACE WHERE "MULHOLLAND DRIVE" - THE CLEVEREST FILM IN HISTORY - IS COMPLETELY DECODED
PERSONA - BIRDMAN - MULHOLLAND DRIVE - INLAND EMPIRE
LOST HIGHWAY - THE PRESTIGE - ENEMY
THE ANSWERS WILL SHOCK YOU
INGMAR BERGMAN'S STUNNING MASTERPIECE
"PERSONA"
(AFTER OVER 50 YEARS OF ABSOLUTE DRIVEL - "PERSONA" IS DECODED)
BERGMAN DIDN'T MAKE AN EROTIC FILM ABOUT "IDENTITY" ...
HE MADE A HARROWING FILM ABOUT ABORTION
COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF "PERSONA" IS BELOW
LINKS FOR OTHER FILMS ARE ON THE RIGHT
FOR DECADES FILM CRITICS/ACADEMICS HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHING THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SHEEP, UNFORTUNATELY) - PAINTING THEIR OWN IDEOLOGIES ON DEEP, CRYPTIC FILMS - WITHOUT ACTUALLY DECODING THE CLEVER UNDERLYING THEMES WITHIN THESE FILMS
THEY ARE ONLY DELUDING THEMSELVES - AND THE PUBLIC - THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THESE FILMS
THIS BLOG IS FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO BE BRAINWASHED SHEEP
(This is a general overview of 'Persona' ... and my criticism of the horrific 'academic hijacking' of Bergman's masterpiece, despite him throwing the 'kitchen sink' at us in terms of both subtle, and not so subtle clues ... my scene by scene detailed analysis comes further down)
"PERSONA" 1966
"I think I could turn into you if I really tried ... and you could be me ... just like that!"
THEY ARE THE SAME PERSON ...
ALMA IS CONFRONTING HER FUTURE SELF ... IN A "PROJECTION"
(HENCE THE PROJECTOR IN THE OPENING SEQUENCE)
(BERGMAN "KNOCKED HIMSELF OUT" GIVING US
NOT-SO-SUBTLE CLUES)
JUST THE OPENING SEQUENCE ALONE GIVES US:
WELDING RODS
A "WONKY" PROJECTOR
UPSIDE DOWN FILM FRAMES
(EVIDENCE TWO "SEQUENCES" (PRESENT/FUTURE) ARE BEING "WELDED" TOGETHER)
A LARGE SPIDER (WEAVER OF DESTINY)
AN ERECT PENIS
(SOMETHING THAT GETS WOMEN PREGNANT!)
AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY OF ALL, A BOY IN A MORGUE ... CALLING OUT TO HIS MOTHER!
(THE BOY'S AGE = THE AGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ALMA ... AND HER FUTURE SELF, ELISABET)
JUST HOW MANY TIMES DOES BERGMAN MERGE ALMA AND ELISABET'S FACES? ... AND BLATANTLY TELL US IN THE DIALOGUE? ...
THE ONLY THING MORE HE COULD HAVE DONE?
WRITE IN RED LETTERS ACROSS THE SCREEN ...
"THEY'RE THE SAME PERSON"
(FIRST STOP ... THEY SHOULD HAVE LOOKED UP "PERSONA" ... IN A DICTIONARY)
PERSONA - A THEATRICAL MASK
ONE DAY, HOPEFULLY, THEY'LL GET ... THAT PRETENTIOUSNESS DOES NOT EQUATE TO WISDOM)
(MOST OF THE POSITIVE FEEDBACK I'VE RECEIVED ABOUT MY BLOG ... SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN FROM GENUINELY NICE PEOPLE WITHOUT BIG EGOS)
(ONLY ONE ACADEMIC HAS CONTACTED ME - THANKED ME - AND TOLD ME HE WAS GOING TO SHOW "PERSONA" TO HIS STUDENTS AND DISCUSS MY ANALYSIS - BUT MANY OTHERS HAVE BEEN SNEERINGLY DISMISSIVE
(WOW! - JUST WHAT SORT OF HUMAN BEINGS ARE THESE PEOPLE?)
WITHOUT EVEN READING MY ANALYSIS)
NOT VERY NICE ... (BUT IT JUST EXPOSES THEIR IGNORANCE - THEY REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND MUCH ABOUT FILMS AND FILMMAKING AT ALL ... AND THEY CERTAINLY DON'T LIKE IT WHEN SOMEONE HIGHLIGHTS THIS FACT)
(IT'S A TERRIBLE INDICTMENT OF JUST HOW EGOTISTICAL, IDEOLOGICALLY BLINKERED, AND SELF-SERVING THESE ARROGANT FILM ACADEMICS ARE ... THAT THEY COULD NOT/OR DID NOT WANT ... TO SEE ...
THAT THIS FILM IS ABOUT ABORTION ... IT SCREAMS "ABORTION")
THE (SAD) JOKE ... IS ON THEM ... EVENTUALLY THE TRUTH ABOUT THESE FILMS WILL COME OUT
SOME ACADEMICS/CRITICS HAVE BEEN QUITE NEGATIVE TOWARDS ME (REALLY?) - SEEMINGLY "OFFENDED" SOMEONE HAS DECODED "PERSONA" (AGAIN - REALLY?) AND IT DOESN'T "FIT" WITH WHAT THEY "WANT" "PERSONA" TO BE ABOUT - THEY SEEM TO DESPERATELY WANT TO CONTINUE "LIVING THE LIE" THEY HAVE HIDEOUSLY PAINTED "PERSONA" WITH, AND PERPETUATED, FOR OVER 50 YEARS
IT'S NOT MY FAULT ACADEMICS/CRITICS HAVE WRITTEN ABSOLUTE STONKING DRIVEL ABOUT "PERSONA" FOR OVER 50 YEARS
(AND REALLY DON'T "GET" FILM AT ALL)
ALL I HAVE DONE IS POINT OUT THAT SAD REALITY
(WHICH, ULTIMATELY, IF THEY HAVE ANY INTEGRITY ... THEY WILL APPRECIATE)
(UNFORTUNATELY, FROM MY EXPERIENCE, THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE MUCH INTEGRITY, PROFESSIONAL OR OTHERWISE, WITHIN THE REALMS OF FILM STUDIES)
"NO ONE IS MORE HATED THAN HE WHO SPEAKS THE TRUTH"
PLATO
THEY LIVE ON THEIR OWN SELF-IMPORTANT "ROSE TINTED" CLOUDS, AND "HIJACK" THE ARTISTIC AND CREATIVE WORK OF OTHERS TO FIT THEIR OWN SELF-SERVING IDEOLOGIES ...
THEIR WORLD IS FULL OF PRETENTIOUS, MEANINGLESS DRIVEL ... AND A PEEK IN ANY FILM STUDIES ARCHIVE IN THE WORLD, AT ACADEMIC WORKS, THESES, AND DISSERTATIONS ... ON ANY OF THE FILMS I PRESENT ON
"DEEP CINEMA" ... WOULD PROVE MY POINT
(A GOOD EXAMPLE IS THE BOOK ON "PERSONA" I TALK ABOUT LATER ...
BY SO-CALLED "WORLD AUTHORITIES" (WHAT A JOKE!) ...
IT'S THE BIGGEST LOAD OF UNCONSCIONABLE, GRANDIOSE "TRIPE" I HAVE EVER COME ACROSS)
(BUT ACADEMIC WORKS ON LYNCH'S "MULHOLLAND DRIVE" - "INLAND EMPIRE" - AND "LOST HIGHWAY" ARE ALMOST AS BAD)
(I THINK FILM ACADEMICS SHOULD PSYCHOANALYZE THEMSELVES - AS TO WHY THEY WOULD WRITE SUCH DRIVEL? - WHY THEY THINK IT IS ACCEPTABLE? - WHAT PART OF THEIR BRAIN IS OFFERING UP SUCH DELUSIONAL HYPOXIA? ... AND ALSO DELUDING THEM THAT THEY MAKE A VALID CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY, OR DESERVE THEIR PAYCHECKS)
THE REASON ACADEMICS HAVE GOT FILMS LIKE "PERSONA" SO WRONG ... FOR OVER 50 YEARS ...(OTHER EXAMPLES ARE ALL THE FILMS I HAVE ANALYZED ON MY BLOG) - IS BECAUSE THEY ARE SO INVESTED IN PRESENTING, LIKE POSTURING PEACOCKS, THEIR OWN SIGNATURE "CREATIVE VANITY PIECES" ...
(SUPERFICIAL, SUBJECTIVE "WAFFLE" DRESSED UP WITH "BIG" WORDS DESIGNED TO MAKE THEM LOOK "CLEVER")
... THEY FAIL TO DO ANYTHING MORE THAN SCRATCH THE SURFACE OF THE COMPLEX, CREATIVE WORKS THEY "STUDY" ... BEFORE THEY THEN "CANNIBALIZE" AND FOREVER TAINT THEM WITH THEIR OWN FANCIFUL LEANINGS AND PRETENTIOUS, BASELESS THEORIZATIONS ...
THE LESBIAN CONNOTATIONS ATTACHED TO "PERSONA" ARE TOTALLY BASELESS - BUT IT HAS BEEN BLINDLY TAINTED WITH THIS "IDEOLOGICAL CONTAMINATION" FOR DECADES ...
(BY PEOPLE WHO SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER)
(THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER ALRIGHT - TO TAKE ALMA'S "CONFESSION" OF A TRYST ON THE BEACH WITH YOUNG BOYS AT FACE VALUE - WITHOUT ANALYZING AND LOOKING AT THE REASONS BERGMAN WOULD CREATE SUCH A SCENE IN HIS FILM - IS UNFORGIVABLE - THIS WAS ONE OF THE MORE OBVIOUS CLUES THAT ALMA WASN'T CREDIBLE, AND DIDN'T "ADD UP")
THE "LIBRARIES" OF DRIVEL WRITTEN ABOUT "PERSONA" JUST HIGHLIGHT WHAT ABSOLUTE STONKING RUBBISH PSYCHOANALYSIS OF FILMS REALLY IS ... IT IS SIMPLY AN EXCUSE FOR THESE PEOPLE TO HAVE A FIELD DAY WRITING DRIVEL, AND PUMPING / PIMPING THEIR EGOS WITH
"CLEVER" WORDS ... ULTIMATELY, "CLEVER" WORDS THAT WILL MAKE THEM LOOK INCREDIBLY STUPID
(I HAVE NEARLY THROWN UP READING SOME OF THE ACADEMIC "PSYCHO-BABBLE" WRITTEN ABOUT THE FILMS ON MY BLOG)
(I WOULD SAY TO THESE PEOPLE - "GET A LIFE!" ... BECAUSE THE ONE YOU'RE IN ... IS AN INCREDIBLY PRETENTIOUS "DREAM")
THEY "TALK" A LOT ... IN LOVE WITH THEIR OWN "VOICES" ... BUT THEY DON'T "LISTEN" ... TO THE CLEVER MINDS THAT SILENTLY WHISPER FROM WITHIN THE HYPNOTIC TWO-BEAT CADENCE SIGNATURE ...
OF MASTERFUL SCREENWRITING ...
(A WISE MAN LISTENS HARD ... FOR WHAT ISN'T SAID ...
THE SILENCE BEYOND THE TREES)
(UNDERSTANDING THESE FILMS NEEDS RATIONAL OBJECTIVITY ... NOT ACADEMIC "PSYCHO-BABBLE" ... AS SHOULD NOW BECOME VERY OBVIOUS)
(QUITE FRANKLY ... ACADEMICS MUST HAVE BEEN SO KEEN TO "STAMP" THEIR "ILLUSION OF TRUTH" SO-FULL-OF-THEMSELVES IDEOLOGICAL POSTULATIONS ON THIS FILM ... THEY DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO STUDY THE TITLE PROPERLY, LET ALONE THE FILM ITSELF)
(ACADEMICS SEE WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE)
(THEY ARE VERY SELECTIVE AS TO WHAT THEY "SEE" ...
AND TEND TO "TWIST" OR IGNORE ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T FIT WITH THE "IDEOLOGY" THEY WANT TO PAINT A FILM WITH ... IN THIS CASE THEY HAVE "TWISTED" THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE TWO WOMEN ... AND IGNORED AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOUNDATION STONE OF THE FILM ...
... THE BOY IN THE MORGUE)
(I STILL CAN'T FATHOM THE SHEER ARROGANCE AND SHALLOWNESS OF THE EGOCENTRICALLY BLINKERED, FLAWED MINDSETS OF THOSE THAT COULD DO THIS - THE CLUES ARE ALL THERE - BLATANT CLUES - OVERWHELMING CLUES - THAT THE FILM IS ABOUT ABORTION)
(EVEN RECENTLY, ONE ACADEMIC REPLIED - WITHOUT READING MY ANALYSIS - THAT HE WOULD "THINK ABOUT" MY CONCLUSION "PERSONA" IS ABOUT ABORTION - AS IF HIS WOULD BE THE FINAL SAY ON THE MATTER - A TYPICALLY CONDESCENDING RESPONSE UNFORTUNATELY - HE DIDN'T NEED TO "THINK" - ACADEMICS HAVE BEEN "THINKING" ABOUT "PERSONA" FOR 50 YEARS, AND STILL HAVEN'T GOT IT RIGHT - HE JUST NEEDED TO "LISTEN" - TO READ MY ANALYSIS - I AM SOMEONE WHO DOES "LISTEN" - TO WHAT A DIRECTOR IS TRYING TO SHOW ME - AND MY ANALYSIS IS THOROUGH AND CONCLUSIVE - I'M PERFECTLY HAPPY TO DEBATE ANY OPINION FROM SOMEONE WHO HAS ACTUALLY READ IT - UNFORTUNATELY, MANY ACADEMICS SEEM WAY TOO FULL OF THEMSELVES TO DO THAT)
ONCE AGAIN ... "PERSONA" IS NOT ABOUT "IDENTITY"
"PERSONA" IS ACTUALLY ABOUT A WOMAN IN CRISIS ...
... BECAUSE SHE IS PREGNANT ...
SHE'S WORRIED THAT HAVING THE BABY WILL RUIN HER DREAM OF A SHOWBIZ CAREER ...
OR HER SELFISH PURSUIT OF STARDOM WILL MEAN THE BABY IS UNLOVED ...
(SHE EVEN SAYS - "I'VE LEARNED QUITE A LOT")
"PERSONA" IS A "CONFRONTATION" ... WITH HERSELF
AND IT'S ABOUT ... AN ABORTION
(A VERY CLEVER TWIST IN "PERSONA" WILL ACTUALLY LATER DEFINITIVELY EXPLAIN ... COMPLETELY VERIFY, AND BRING NEW DEPTH TO THIS DEFINITION)
(IT'S A CONFRONTATION ... AND IT'S NOT ABOUT THE WOMEN
... IT'S ABOUT THE BOY!)
(THE BOY THAT TAKES CENTER STAGE IN THE OPENING CREDITS ...
AND BEGINNING OF THE FILM ... A FACT CONVENIENTLY OVERLOOKED BY PEOPLE TOO EAGER TO PUSH THEIR OWN AGENDAS ... FOR OVER 50 YEARS)
BERGMAN THREW "THE KITCHEN SINK" AT THEM ...
BUT THEY WERE JUST TOO FULL OF THEMSELVES TO "GET" IT ...
"FORGET WHAT THE DIRECTOR IS TRYING TO SHOW US"
("WE"RE TOO FULL OF OURSELVES TO "LISTEN" ... WE LIKE TO "TALK" ...
OUR "VOICES" ARE WHAT'S IMPORTANT!")
"WE'RE GOING TO STAMP AND TAG OUR OWN "SIGNATURES" ON THIS FILM"
YES ... LIKE HIDEOUS GRAFFITI
(THEY CERTAINLY LIKE TO "TALK" - APPARENTLY, ENOUGH TO FILL AN ENTIRE LIBRARY HAS BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT THIS FILM - BY EGOTISTICAL PEOPLE WHO ONLY PRETEND ... TO "LISTEN")
AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENED ... FOR 50 YEARS ...
THIS FILM HAS BEEN "HIJACKED"
BERGMAN'S CENTENARY YEAR ...
IS A GREAT YEAR ... TO CLAIM IT BACK ...
R.I.P. INGMAR BERGMAN
FILM DIRECTORS DO NOT JUST PUT "A BOY IN A MORGUE" INTO THEIR FILMS TO INCREASE RUNNING TIME - IT IS MIND-BLOWING THAT THIS CRUCIAL ASPECT OF THE FILM WAS SO "DISCARDED" BY PEOPLE WITH EGOS SEEMINGLY HUNDREDS OF TIMES MORE FOREFRONT THAN THEIR OBSERVATION SKILLS
SOME OF THE THINGS THEY "IGNORED" IN PERSONA
THE OPENING SEQUENCE OF CLUES - INCLUDING THE PROJECTOR (IT'S A "PROJECTION") - THE SPIDER - THE ERECT PENIS
THE BOY IN THE MORGUE - CALLING OUT TO HIS MOTHER
ALMA'S FOOTWEAR - IT'S INAPPROPRIATE
THE DOCTOR'S DIALOGUE - ABOUT "ROLE-PLAY"
BERGMAN'S USE OF SHOTS - SUCH AS ALMA'S FINGERS BEHIND HER BACK WHEN THE DOCTOR SAYS ELISABET HAS BEEN AFFLICTED FOR 3 MONTHS
"ELECTRA" - A PLAY WITH TWO DIFFERENT OUTCOMES
ALMA'S OVER-THE-TOP INCREDIBILITY
(HER DIALOGUE HAD SO MANY CLUES)
THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF "PERSONA"
THE RING ON ALMA'S FINGER
THE MERGING OF THEIR FACES - MORE THAN ONCE
THE DIALOGUE INDICATING THEY ARE THE SAME PERSON
THE REAL INTERPRETATION OF ELISABET STROKING ALMA'S HAIR
THE BOY HAS NO NAME - BECAUSE HE WAS NEVER BORN
FAKE PHOTO OF THE BOY - DRESSED IN WHITE, THEN BLACK
PHOTO OF THE HOLOCAUST - "FINAL SOLUTION"
THE FACT THAT ELISABET JUST "DISAPPEARS"
THE BOY STILL CALLING OUT TO HIS MOTHER AT THE END
HIS MOTHER "FADING OUT"
OF THE SEVEN FILMS I HAVE ANALYZED ON "DEEP CINEMA" - "PERSONA" WAS, BY FAR, THE EASIEST TO "GET"
"PERSONA" "SCREAMED" IT'S SOLUTION VIRTUALLY AS SOON AS THE YOUNG BOY REACHED OUT TO HIS BLURRED MOTHER
(ACTUALLY, ALMA "THROWS" VARIOUS "SCENARIOS" AT ELISABET ... IT'S VERY SIGNIFICANT THAT ELISABET IS MUTE ... BECAUSE, ULTIMATELY, IT IS ACTUALLY ALMA, WHO HAS ALL THE ANSWERS)
BUT ANGUISHED PRESENT PERSONA ALMA ... CAN SAVE HIS LIFE ...
QUITE FRANKLY - THIS FILM WAS AN ABSOLUTE BREEZE TO ANALYZE
MY ADVICE TO ACADEMICS - IF YOU WANT TO STUDY MASTURBATION ... STUDY THE LIKES OF FREUD AND JUNG (SO REFLECTED IN YOUR WORK!)
IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND FILMS ... STUDY SCREENWRITING
I HAVE YET TO COME ACROSS A FILM ANALYSIS BY A PSYCHOANALYST (AS OPPOSED TO A FILM ACADEMIC) THAT HASN'T BEEN AN EMBARRASSINGLY BAD (HORRENDOUS) LOAD OF COMPLETE AND UTTER "TRIPE"
HOW THESE PEOPLE CAN HOLD THEIR HEADS HIGH OR LOOK THEMSELVES IN A MIRROR (AT LEAST WITHOUT LAUGHING AND WAVING THEIR PAYCHECK AT THEMSELVES) IS BEYOND ME
(ACADEMICS DON'T TEND TO STUDY SCREENWRITING BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY ARE "ABOVE" SCREENWRITING ... WELL, NO ... THE ONLY THING "ABOVE" SCREENWRITING ... IS EMBARRASSMENT)
(IF YOU ARE PREPARED TO WRITE DRIVEL ... THEN YOU BETTER BE PREPARED FOR IT TO COME BACK ... AND BITE YOU ON THE ARSE)
FILM STUDIES (AND FILM CRITICS CIRCLES) ARE JUST NICE LITTLE "CLUBS"
WHERE THEY ALL PAT EACH OTHER ON THE BACK AND GIVE EACH OTHER PhDs
(IT'S SOME MEMBERS OF THESE "NICE LITTLE CLUBS" THAT ARE DOING THEIR UTMOST TO SUPPRESS AND BLOCK MY BLOG - FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT I AM ACTUALLY RIGHT ABOUT THESE FILMS (INTELLIGENT RATIONAL PEOPLE REALIZE THAT PRETTY QUICKLY) - IF MY BLOG WAS A LOAD OF RUBBISH, THEY WOULDN'T BE BOTHERING)
HOW DID THEY MISS THE OVERWHELMING "IN YOUR FACE" CLUES? ...
DID THE THOUGHT JUST NEVER OCCUR ... TO ANY OF THEM ... THAT ALMA MIGHT HAVE GOOD REASON ... TO DECEIVE?
(DESPITE BERGMAN MAKING IT GLARINGLY OBVIOUS)
"IT'S ALL JUST A SHAM AND LIES"
JUST LIKE LYNCH AND "MULHOLLAND DRIVE" ... BERGMAN MUST HAVE BEEN BOTH HIGHLY AMUSED AND PERPLEXED BY THE "OCEANS" OF UTTER DRIVEL WRITTEN ABOUT HIS FILM ... DESPITE HIM "KNOCKING HIMSELF OUT" GIVING US CLUES - THAT CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED, CONSERVATIVELY, AS "OVERKILL"
IT JUST HIGHLIGHTS THE VAST GULF BETWEEN HOW FILM CRITICS AND ACADEMICS LOOK AT FILMS (BLINDLY EGOCENTRICALLY AND WAY TOO EMPIRICALLY) ... AND HOW FILMMAKERS ACTUALLY IMAGINATIVELY AND RATIONALLY CRAFT THEM
MANY SEEM TO WANT TO CONTINUE LIVING THE LIE - THE "ILLUSION OF TRUTH" THAT "PERSONA" IS SOME FREUDIAN / JUNG BASED STUDY OF "IDENTITY" - AN UTTERLY RIDICULOUS ASSERTION WHEN STUDIED LOGICALLY AND RATIONALLY
THE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING MOVIES ... IS SCREENWRITING
GREAT SCREENWRITERS SAY SOMETHING ... WITHOUT SAYING IT
THE "ILLUSION OF TRUTH" CREATED FOR "PERSONA" HAS FIFTY YEARS OF INERTIA BEHIND IT, AND MANY SEEM TO HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN PRESERVING THE MATERIAL THEY HAVE ALREADY PUBLISHED ABOUT IT, AT ANY COST - INCLUDING THEIR INTEGRITY
(THE SHEER CLOSE-MINDED PRETENTIOUSNESS AND ARROGANCE OF MANY ACADEMICS, WHO SEEM TO THINK IT IS BENEATH THEM TO CONSIDER ANY OPINION OTHER THAN THEIR OWN, PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT HAVE PUBLISHED THEIR OWN MATERIAL / IDEOLOGY ON ANY OF THE FILMS ON MY BLOG, HAS BEEN VERY SOBERING AND EYE-OPENING, AND, ULTIMATELY, REFLECTS VERY BADLY ON THEM)
(BUT THAT MIGHT BE WISHFUL THINKING - IN THE CASE OF "PERSONA", THERE HASN'T BEEN A RATIONAL THOUGHT PROCESS FOR FIFTY YEARS)
"PERSONA" IS DESCRIBED ON WIKIPEDIA AS "CLIMBING MT EVEREST FOR FILM SCHOLARS - THE ULTIMATE PROFESSIONAL CHALLENGE" - THE SAD TRUTH IS ... THE DAILY CROSSWORD IS FAR HARDER TO WORK OUT THAN "PERSONA"
THE OPENING SCENES
The first thing to ask - what is Bergman showing us? ... and why?
We see some welding rods and a projector - seemingly, a slightly wonky, breaking down projector
(This is the first clue ... that something here is not right ... something is "breaking down" ... wonky)
(Alma is the one "breaking down" ... she is the wonky "projector" ... and that's exactly what's happening ... Alma is "projecting" a (slightly) wonky fantasy)
Bergman is showing us a "persona" ... in crisis
We see some frames upside down ... something is being projected .. and edited (welded together) ... two pieces of film ... edited ... two personas ... into one film
(I think the animation sequence may represent that this "film" (projection) is being "created" ... it's a "projection", rather than "real" - as animation is "created" ... rather than just recorded)
It's two different personas ... of the same person ... and there's going to be a "confrontation"
(I wasn't taking much notice ... but then, suddenly, there's an image of a penis ... wtf! ... why is this here? ... has my copy of the film been vandalized? ... why on earth is there an image of a penis?)
It's later you realize the significance of the penis ... it has changed a woman's life ...
... a penis got her pregnant!
(When you think about it - why on earth would a respected director put an erect penis into his film? - because it has a very important connotation - pregnancy! - 'Alma' is pregnant, her story of abortion is a projection ... a scenario ... a fantasy ... as you will soon realize)
We see a comic scene of a man confronted by a skeleton and a vampire - "confrontation"
Then we see a large spider (ambush? - weaver of destiny?) and a sheep being killed (death)
Then some sort of brutal crucifixion (for sins?)
(later, you realize - it's not actually some sort of self crucifixion for sins - it represents her fear of being "nailed down" - tied in to one course of action ... she fears, and does not want to be, "tied down" - this is even mentioned later in the dialogue)
Then a full-screen brick wall and forest of trees (depression?)
(later, I realized ... the wall is a seemingly impassable barrier in front of her ... she has a difficult dilemma that is causing her mental anguish ... the trees probably represent her mind ... or the different pathways through her dilemma)
We see a morgue ... dead people
Then a young boy ... morgue-like too ... because 14 or so years ago Alma decided to have an abortion - to chase her dream of stardom ... and went on to marry Karl-Henrik Vogler ... changed her name to Elisabet (her stage name) ... and became a star
(this isn't (quite) what actually happens - but it's close enough for now ... I'll save that big reveal for later)
The boy is in a limbo world in the morgue ... because present persona Alma can save his life ... she can decide to not have an abortion - Alma is a woman in crisis, and she is "calling out" and confronting her future persona, Elisabet ... to help her make the biggest decision of her life - will she be able to live with her decision if she decides to abort the baby? ... she worries the baby won't be loved if she keeps it
When she gets on the bus at the end ... alone ... she has made her decision ... the boy still reaches out from the limbo world of the morgue ... wondering if his mother will save him ... we can work out the answer
Two things film scholars have failed to realize ... for over 50 years ...
"Persona" is about the "opportunity cost" of abortion ... and about deception ...
Alma, actually, hasn't had an abortion ... and is also hiding an even bigger secret ...
A secret encoded ... in the title of the film ...
Note - the boy puts glasses on to read ... his mother was Alma
(Notice the very subtle ... but, once you see it, very obvious ... emphasis on both of them putting on their glasses)
(Alma says she comes from a family of seven boys - and she likes boys - that is why she sees herself having a boy)
"I like boys ... but I'm sure you know that"
(Another massive clue ... they're the same person)
(Elisabet didn't really have any children - this persona chose stardom)
(Although, Alma does "throw" various scenarios at Elisabet ... Elisabet is mute because she is really only a "sounding board" ... it is really Alma with all the "answers" ... this whole scenario is Alma's analysis ... of herself)
(Just like "Lost Highway" and "Inland Empire" ... this film is a fantasy ... Alma is pregnant ... she has gone to the beach house to make her decision - to keep the baby or have an abortion - she confronts a future version of herself ... another persona ... to, ultimately, make a decision ... deep in her mind, she already knows the answers)
(The boy's age (somewhere between 12 -15 yrs) represents the age difference between the two personas ... Alma and Elisabet)
Alma is actually confronting Elisabet about the boy she has aborted to pursue an acting career ... the film is about the "opportunity cost" of each persona - Alma and Elisabet are the same person
Alma is the persona that took up a steady nursing occupation in order to get married and have a family ... the "opportunity cost" being stardom
(Although we will later realize ... in a stunning twist ... that everything is not as it seems ... and that "the elephant in the room" that Bergman deliberately inserts into his film to confuse us ... is actually part of one of the cleverest revelations in cinematic history)
The "opportunity cost" for Elisabet is that she endured an abortion to pursue her dream ... the "opportunity cost" being a child's life ... guilt, and a perhaps less than fulfilling existence
(Although, we see later, Elisabet doesn't really seem to suffer much guilt, and is indifferent - this will frustrate Alma - and is a big factor in her decision)
Alma is about to make the most important decision of her life ... and she is confronting her future persona ... inside a fantasy ... a fantasy caused by Alma's terrible dilemma and anguish
(I think Bergman is using trees to represent the mind ... just as Lynch does in "Inland Empire")
(Just as Betty and Rita are the same person from different time periods in "Mulholland Drive" - Alma and Elisabet are the same person (different personas ... actually not different personas at all) from different time periods in "Persona")
The premise being that Alma is confronting Elisabet to see if she should have an abortion, or if there is any chance she can keep the baby - Elisabet is in this situation reluctantly - she has been "plucked" from the future ... a future where she has remained childless to pursue a career
(When Alma shows Elisabet photos of "her child" (notice the boy does not have a name ... this is very significant) ... and describes her as a bad mother ... she is just confronting Elisabet about possible future scenarios should she keep the baby ... she is accusing that Elisabet will be a bad mother ... trying to get Elisabet to respond so she can gauge her reaction ... but, for the most part, Elisabet remains indifferent and mute ... only speaking to save herself (from scalding water) ... not her baby ... leading to Alma's intense frustration towards the end ... and, ultimately, her decision)
PERSONA is about a tortured woman in crisis - one persona wants to keep the baby - the other persona has already aborted it
She goes to the beach house to make her decision
PERSONA isn't about "Identity" ... it's about the opportunity cost of ABORTION
The whole situation is Alma's anguished fantasy - when the doctor says that Elisabet has been in this state for three months, Alma has her fingers crossed behind her back - because Alma is three months pregnant (so, if she is to have an abortion, it will have to be an illegal one)
(Alma says her mother was also a nurse ... until she got married - this is a significant clue ... Alma is engaged ... after she gets married ... she is going to become a movie star)
Note: Elisabet's play - "Electra" - has two very different versions of the same basic story ... (this is the same sort of amazing detail that Lynch goes to)
(Lent is also mentioned - a period of self-examination)
Elisabet has been "called out" by Alma ... who is confronting her about her past choices ... desperately wanting to see if she can live with either decision ... to have ... or not have ... an abortion
Nurse Alma is wearing very inappropriate shoes - indicating that something is not quite right in this "world" we are watching - it's some kind of fantasy
Alma suggests Elisabet should have an older nurse (referencing the age difference (past/future) between the two personas)
When Alma turns on the radio - I think it is Elisabet's voice they hear (but, as an actress, imitating Alma - asking for forgiveness - that's why Elisabet laughs, then turns it off - it's more likely to be Alma asking for forgiveness - because, throughout the film, Elisabet is indifferent and doesn't really care about anything ... except herself)
I think the images of street fighting and self-immolation (happening in another world) indicate that Elisabet has been isolated from confronting turmoil and death ... and it horrifies her when she has to - she has "isolated" herself from her abortion ... and she is anxious because she knows what's coming (nervously peeling the apple) - Alma has effectively "ambushed" her (the spider)
Alma decides to relax Elisabet by taking her to the seaside
Alma says "It's inside me"
At times, Alma speaks for both personas (it's a clue that this is really her fantasy - and we are in the present, not the future - Elisabet is the future persona) - hence her comments and references to her looking like Elisabet, and feeling like her, like they are one (they are)
Bergman is throwing everything but the kitchen sink at us so we get his premise - but it hasn't worked out that way - just like with Lynch, an "Illusion of Truth" has taken hold (that the film is a "study" of "Identity")
(I can't see Lynch showing us the erect penis ... or the comments re pregnancy and abortion ... he would have made us work it out ... Bergman wants us to "get it" ... Lynch doesn't care)
(I also don't see Lynch resorting to narration ... which, if compared to someone like Lynch, shows a director hasn't really done their work properly (in my opinion) ... they've taken the "easy" route ... rather than a creative one - Lynch always takes the creative route and doesn't give a damn whether the audience gets it or not ... I will watch a few more Bergman films before making a more general comparison to Lynch's work)
(An example - I recently watched the film "Molly's Game" - Sorkin drove me nuts with the narration - he didn't need it - it was lazy - amateur hour - forgivable (not really) perhaps as it was his first foray as a director - he could have done it all without any narration - and the film would have been better for it - watch the opening ten or twenty minutes with the sound down - you'll understand what I mean - anything critical could have been done with clever dialogue or scenes - not necessarily adding to the running time, if that was the excuse - we also went a reasonably entertaining two hours twenty and followed Molly Bloom from her teens to her thirties without any romance/sex in her life whatsoever - really ... do I have to read her book to find out? - or is this a clue ... that Molly never gave up any more details than she had to?)
Bergman is way less subtle than Lynch in physical aspects (for instance the prostitutes in LA, and the nightclub scenes in "Inland Empire" - it was Death Row) - but deeper with dialogue - I got the morgue - the boy in limbo "waiting" - and the abortion, but the dialogue was harder to fathom - (the similarities with Lynch's work are mind blowing - Lynch's work appears to have dozens of influences, which I think just reflects his incredible filmmaking knowledge - I don't think he consciously imitates anyone -
the similarities are just testament that these are two of the greatest
Directors / Screenwriters to have walked on this planet, and they were both at the top of their game)
(People tend to overlook that the greatest Directors are often also the greatest Screenwriters)
What sort of woman rips up a photo of her own child (it's a very big clue) - perhaps a guilty, (or less than guilty) selfish one - who was a "bad mother" - because she had never been a mother, and had killed her child before it was born - a persona now not wanting to face "the cost" of what she has done (a child's life) - a woman who had wanted to remain in the future, in the comfort of her denial - not be confronted by her "bleeding heart" alter ego ...
"Persona" is all about the "opportunity cost" of abortion
Alma is effectively saying to Elisabet - "You put the boy in the morgue 14 years ago - I can save him if I choose - have you been able to live with your choices? - could I live with your (my) choices? - what should I / we do?"
(I suspect Karl-Henrik's name is Karl Henrik Vogler (notice how Alma only refers to him as Karl-Henrik - she doesn't become "Vogler" until after the abortion - which is effectively when Alma sees the "split" in personas)
(Actually - the persona "change" happens (or doesn't happen) at the point of decision about the abortion - when Elisabet disappears - has Alma become Elisabet - or will she stay as Alma?)
(Big similarities with Mulholland Drive - when Betty disappears - and Rita becomes "Betty+")
Note : When Alma tells Elisabet that she's had an abortion - she is talking about post the beach house - so the persona change must happen when she leaves the beach house - after Elisabet disappears - when she gets on the bus alone - we don't know which persona she is - Elisabet or Alma - will she have an abortion - or not?
(To those that are confused because Alma says she has already had an abortion ... this film is a FANTASY - the entire timeline (which actually imitates a circular mobius strip if I want to complicate things further) belongs to both the personas ... Alma's past also belongs to Elisabet ... and Elisabet's future also belongs to Alma ... they are the same person ... and any point on that timeline belongs to both of them)
(Just as Elisabet exists in the fantasy as an "entity" from the future ... so does the abortion ... Alma can insert anything she likes from her real, and her imaginary, timeline into her schizophrenic fantasy ... just as she later inserts her future husband Karl-Henrik Vogler ... it's her fantasy ... this is the biggest decision of her life, and the intense anguish and disorientation it is causing her, is driving her fantasy)
(Once again, like with the other films I have analyzed on Deep Cinema, it's a case of the audience falling into the trap of taking things too literally (the first thing you have to learn about deep and clever films - is not to take them at "face value" - they are way cleverer than that ("Birdman" is a good example) - and it makes me cringe when I see them taken at "face value" by critics and academics - they should know better) - there's a very good reason not to believe a word Alma says - and it's the title of the film)
(When it finally dawns what Bergman is actually showing us ... everything becomes crystal clear)
(Bergman is setting up an incredible "payoff")
(Alma says "Is it possible to be one and the same person at the very same time?" - this is a very big, very unsubtle clue ... Bergman is trying too hard in my opinion ... compare this to "Have you ever done this before?" - "I don't know ... have you?" in "Mulholland Drive")
(As to Bergman trying too hard ... I would argue the film doesn't need some of the images at the beginning - the penis - the sheep - the skeleton/vampire etc ... I think the welding rods, the projector, the spider, perhaps the crucifixion, are very clever ... and a good opening to the film ... but the rest are not really necessary to the premise ... the merging of Alma and Elisabet's faces later, again, is a step too far (in my opinion) ... the key to the whole movie is the boy in the morgue ... and the confrontations between Alma and Elisabet ... once you get the real premise (and it's not hard) ... a lot of the clues Bergman has inserted are just overkill, and detract from the overall cleverness of the film ...
 |
| Bergman throws everything at us - including the "kitchen sink" - could he have been more obvious? - without writing in red letters across the screen - "They're the same person" |
(Also compare Bergman's very direct "hitting you in the face" clues to the subtlety of Inarritu's "Birdman" ... which (mind-blowingly for most) isn't really about the theater stage at all)
The "Illusion of Truth" umbrella created (by so-called "world authorities" on "Persona") for this film has really limited hard, open-minded investigation of it's true premise (exactly the same thing has happened with Lynch's "Mulholland Drive") ... once you discard or totally ignore this ridiculous "umbrella" of drivel, it really is a breeze to analyze)
(Alma says ... "I think I could turn into you if I really tried ... and you could be me ... just like that!" ... ("I mean inside" - she's telling us she is Elisabet "on the inside") - Bergman really is taking the "direct" route here ... the "Illusion of Truth" created for this film really has a lot to answer for ... just like Lynch, Bergman must have been highly amused by the "ocean" of drivel written about his film ... the second most written about film in history ... and certainly the most misunderstood)
(Bergman wanted to give us another clue about the abortion ... and he chose a rather direct way to to it ... I personally would have left out the comments about the pregnancy / abortion ... but I suppose he wanted to explain how Alma would have obtained an illegal abortion, and he may have wanted to deliberately further cloud the waters of his stunning puzzle ... I may be taking him to task at this point over some of his choices ... but they are actually just a clever smokescreen, because, ultimately, Bergman's most subtle touch in this film ... had me dropping my coffee ... and breaking my best Kobayashi porcelain mug ... despite his overkill, Bergman has pulled off a masterpiece ... it's genius taking just a little longer to register, than Verbal's miraculous recovery from his crippling limp ... Bergman gives us both Verbal Kint AND Keyser Soze)
(Just like the three Lynch films I have analyzed, this film is a puzzle ... that makes a powerful statement)
(So she leaves the beach house as either the "Elisabet" persona (that has decided to have an abortion) - or the "Alma" persona (who has decided not to have an abortion) - the actual stage name change will come later - but when she leaves the beach house she has decided which path (persona) she is going to take)
(Alma is speaking for both personas at times (because Elisabet's life - the next 14 years or so ... is just as much her life as Elisabet's) - she says she had an abortion - then cries in regret (she's trying to get a reaction from Elisabet - she's trying various scenarios) - the conflict is going on in her mind - she is bouncing her thoughts and feelings off her mute persona - using her mute persona as the "vehicle" to bring them out - a troubled person just needs someone to listen to them - then whatever is troubling them all spills out - the other person doesn't have to do anything - just listen - and often the "talker" will "see" solutions for themselves - just by talking about things - even if it is a one-sided monologue - and that is what is happening here ... Elisabet is a sort of "sounding board" ... for Alma to sound out her anguished mind, and the various scenarios running through it)
(It has taken "Elisabet" 14 years or so to forge her childless and "selfish" career)
Alma is effectively asking (herself) hard questions
Future persona Elisabet effectively put the boy in the morgue 14 years ago ... (an abortion) ... he's in a limbo world ... because present persona Alma can get him out ... Alma can save his life (if she chooses not to have an abortion)
(I think the "Holocaust" photo represents that the young boy's life is in the balance ... just like Elisabet's "son" in the morgue ... it could also represent ... that this is a "final solution")
(Note the boy in the "Holocaust" photo is holding up a hand ... just like the boy in the morgue)
Alma inserts her future husband into her fantasy ... play acting that she is a good mother ... then admits it is a sham ... that she really is cold, rotten, and indifferent
(Bergman recreates a scene from the morgue - (the upside down woman in the morgue, that scarily opens her eyes, looks very much like an older version of Alma, particularly the upside down shot of Alma we now see) - as a clue - Alma awakes, as if from a nightmare - then observes a sleeping Elisabet ... she says "He's calling again ... I'll find out what he wants from us" - she's talking about the boy in the morgue ... then we see "Mr Vogler" - who says "The doctor explained everything" (the pregnancy) - "The hardest part is explaining to your (not "our" - indicating this is not real - it's Alma's fantasy) little boy" (the abortion) - "Mr Vogler" isn't blind ... he's just not real (like Elisabet isn't "real") ... this is all just fantasy ... he talks about "seeing each other as children ... tormented, helpless, lonely children" - this is talking about the "helplessness" of children in the womb / morgue - he's talking about abortion ... notice the background - all the twisted vines ... representing the mind - this is all fantasy)
(Lynch uses a similar theme in "Inland Empire" - where "woods" represent the mind)
(When Elisabet tears up the photo of the boy ("strange" boy - there's something not quite right about that photo) - the boy is dressed in white - when we see the photo again (it appears torn, but taped together) - the boy is dressed in black - little clues that this is all fantasy)
(At the start of the film ... the boy is in a 'white' environment ... the morgue ... but, in this fantasy ... he's 'alive' ... the 'white ' photo represents the boy ... 'alive' ... the 'black', torn photo ... represents the boy ... dead ... aborted ... Bergman gives us a very poignant ...'fade to black' at the end of the film, I noticed it ... it's a big clue as to what Alma's decision is)
Alma is worried that if she tries to have the baby (as her Elisabet persona) she will resent and hate it ... so her choices are simple - have an abortion and take the path of her "Elisabet" persona ... or have the baby as her "Alma" persona and remain a nurse (and bring the baby up loved)
Alma sends Elisabet back to the future - she has made her decision - she gets on the bus alone
The welding rods separate ... the two personas are now separate again - the ending is open to interpretation (only if I'm being polite ... there really is only one pathway that Alma can take) ... but as Elisabet goes back to the future and the boy's mother fades to a blank white screen ... it would seem that Alma feels the baby will be unloved and does in fact decide to have an abortion
PERSONA is about ABORTION ... a pregnant, anguished woman confronting her future self ... about the opportunity cost of having an abortion ... a future as a nurse with a family (sacrificing her dream of stardom) ... or, going for the dream, and sacrificing a child's life ... she has to make the biggest decision of her life ... and when she gets on the bus at the end, alone ... she has ...
The film is happening inside her mind ... until Elisabet disappears, and she gets on the bus at the end ... alone ... she has made her decision ... it would appear that she has decided she is going to be a bad mother ... she is going to become the selfish Elisabet ... she is going to have an abortion
We see Elisabet back in the future ... so it appears the film has a sad ending ... Alma realizes she can't be a good mother ... Alma is just as flawed as Elisabet (which is logical, as they are the same person) ... and she realizes she has the same vanity, selfishness, and ambition as the future version of herself does
(I think the glamorous soft-focus shot where Elisabet strokes Alma's hair shows the bond and alludes that Alma can't resist the allure of Elisabet's lifestyle and stardom ... she realizes that she can't escape her future persona ... she can't escape her destiny)
 |
"Look at you ... you're going to be a movie star" |
(Although Alma confronts Elisabet about not loving her child (a scenario where she keeps the baby) ... we can deduce that Alma does decide to have an abortion ... hence her future self never has any children ... Alma decides she cannot be a mother, either as a nurse (she realizes she is too selfish to stay a nurse) ... or as a selfish mother (Elisabet ... she realizes she can't be a mother as Elisabet ... the child will not be loved ... the only time Elisabet speaks is to save herself ... not her baby) ... Alma realizes she cannot escape her destiny as childless Elisabet ... she is going to have an abortion)
(The ending is powerful - initially, I thought the film ended with us not knowing what Alma's decision is - when I re-watched the ending, I realized that Alma actually does decide to have an abortion - I realized, that had I watched the film in a theater, with my first impression of the ending ... I would have wanted to talk about the film in the car on the way home ... knowing she had an abortion, I think I may have not wanted to talk about the film on the way home ... that's how powerful the ending is ... (having been at the paternal end of an abortion some years ago, I can vouch it is a lifelong and deepening scar) ... initially, I couldn't see the point - (Alma doesn't change anything ... the whole beach house scenario doesn't change anything - why bother? - everything has already happened) - but it does slowly dawn on you that this movie is a stunning statement, and Bergman got it exactly right)
(The point is - whatever Alma decides to do ... will have already happened ... the confrontation between the personas will always involve a childless Elisabet and a bad mother Elisabet (which it does) ... which will always become a childless Elisabet ... because Alma will always choose abortion rather than be a bad mother ... this movie is actually a mobius strip (theoretically) ... the scenario and outcome will always be the same - she continuously calls the childless Elisabet back from the future - throws bad mother accusations at her - decides she will be a bad mother ... and decides to have an abortion ... the clever way Bergman has set this movie up means there can only be one (sad) outcome ... ABORTION ... Alma cannot change her destiny as Elisabet ... she will always see her future self as a bad mother ... because she knows Elisabet better than anybody ... Elisabet is her)
(You can think of the movie as a circle, or wheel ... the circle contains Alma's life up to and including the beach house ... and the continuation of her life 14 years or so into the future as Elisabet ... Alma or Elisabet can describe any point on that circle ... because it has actually already happened (that is why Alma is able to say she has already had an abortion ... because she and Elisabet are the same person ... and Elisabet's past, is also Alma's)
Elisabet, if she talked, could also talk about events before the hospital or beach house, because it his her past just as much as Alma's ... probably the reason Bergman has Elisabet not speaking ... as, given the situation, Elisabet would have talked about the past ... and given the game away ... that they are the same person ... having Alma effectively speak for both of them avoids that problem
In summary ... both personas can access any part of their combined past ... because they are actually the same person
Remember ... this is a FANTASY - Elisabet is the future version of Alma - the entire timeline belongs to both of them ... as does any point in time on that timeline
There is obviously a schizophrenic element to Alma's fantasy - was another woman actually present during her beach encounter with two boys? - I think Alma see's herself as a "good" girl persona ... and a "bad" girl persona ... and when she cuts her arm (in fantasy) and Elisabet drinks her blood (this is actually another massive clue re fantasy) ... I think this is a last desperate attempt to impart her "good" persona into her "bad" persona ... a last desperate attempt to save the baby's life ...
(by both personas actually - Elisabet is being conciliatory here ... or is she? - maybe she is just ensuring that both personas are "fused" together, their destiny as one, inescapable ... she knows she will, ultimately, "win" ... maybe it's actually Elisabet who has "ambushed" Alma ... and is going to "crush" her "bleeding heart conscience" once and for all)
... but once again, it is all just a sham ... by both of them (and Alma realizes this - her violent frustration ... is actually with herself) - she really wants to become Elisabet, not stay as Alma ... the spider has already woven her "web of destiny" ... she cannot escape it ... her future (as Elisabet) is sealed ... and this is the inexorable truth ... they are one ... and the same ... they share the same blood ... the same DNA ... the boy in the morgue belongs to both of them ... as one ... and they both put him there ... Alma violently slaps Elisabet ... because she realizes she is already caught in her web ... and struggle as she might ... she can't escape ...
(This was my first Bergman film ... I wasn't expecting anything so deep, or so clever ... a great masterpiece of cinema ... it's just a shame "Illusions of Truth" are generated for deep and clever movies like this ... and blind people to their true genius)
(Some people may argue that Elisabet has a child - but let's be clear ... the boy is in the morgue - Elisabet goes back to the same future (we see the movie camera) ... the boy reaches out to his mother and she fades out ... Alma gets on the bus ... she has made her decision ... she cannot escape her destiny ... in this mobius strip (it's not really a mobius strip, but "history" is, effectively, repeating in this mind-warp fantasy, and Alma's decision, really, is actually historical) ... she always decides to have the abortion ... and because she has an abortion ... she knows it's a boy ... the boy stuck forever in limbo ... waiting for his mother to save him)
(The phone ringing represents Alma calling ... because, ultimately, it is part of Elisabet's mind that reaches out to the boy ... and "lets him in" ... (just as Alma says "I'll see what he wants") ... but Elisabet is out to "bury" both of them ... this is her "final solution")
Elisabet's son isn't given a name ... because he was never born ... he will never be born ...
We see Elisabet, in the beginning of the film, in what appears to be a stage play - "Electra" - we also see her in the same play at the end of the film ...
(Which is, perhaps, another indication that nothing really changes - this scenario actually happened some 14 years ago - it is merely an "aberration" that momentarily passes over Elisabet while she is performing her play - a fleeting moment ... then it's gone (it could actually be the future - and the film is a momentary flashback to the past - a momentary "stab" of conscience, that stops Elisabet in her tracks, but, because this scenario has actually already "played out" 14 years ago ... means she barely misses a beat, and carries on - see how clever the film is - and it's "circular" structure - it can be "viewed" from the present, or the future)
(From the "future" perspective ... the boy has both been calling out to his mother from the morgue for 14 years ... and Elisabet wants to "silence him" ... and not calling out from the morgue ... Elisabet has never felt any remorse or guilt ...
(Note, when the boy wakes up and reads his book ... his place is bookmarked ... this isn't the first time he has been "woken" (by Elisabet's "soul") ... to call out to his mother)
From the "present" perspective" ... it's Alma's anguish that has "woken" him from the dead, after 14 years ... called out to him (the phone ringing) ... the boy is now "calling out" to his mother (and has been ever since Alma realized she was pregnant) ... Alma can save his life ... Bergman has set up a very clever "perspective" in this film)
(I like the "present" scenario best ... but the movie is "circular" and everything is actually past, present, and future - I always like to look at films "from different angles" ... different perspectives ... you can never take these great Directors for granted ... you have to think "outside the box" ... just like they do - all the films on "Deep Cinema" are perfect examples)
... and also being filmed as a movie actress - Bergman wanted to show us her in the play (because it's a very clever clue) - but have no doubt - it's the same future as before - she is both a movie star and a theater actress
(I am not familiar with Bergman's work - I only watched "Persona" because it kept coming up in comparison to "Mulholland Drive" - but, from my limited knowledge, I believe he was both a film director and a theater director?)
Alma even talks about seeing one of Elisabet's films (she can mention this, just like she can mention the abortion) .... Elisabet is both a film and theater actress, just like many are (Glen Close, Meryl Streep - and dozens of others) - the boy is in the morgue - he's been there for 14 or so years (the actor playing the boy is actually about 15 years old, but looks younger) - Elisabet had an abortion
The ring on Alma's finger bothered me the whole movie ... Bergman puts it in our face throughout the film ... we're supposed to notice it ...
She said she was Nurse Alma ... 25 years old and engaged to be married ... the story of the boys on the beach was suspect ... there was a dramatic element to the encounter ... that didn't really add up ... (other things - like Elisabet teaching her to smoke (when she had had a lover who smoked) also just didn't add up ... how would you teach or explain smoking (if it's even something that needs to be "taught") ... without speaking? ... she says she has seven brothers? ... she talks about sounding "phony") - she later confronts Elisabet about the photo ... she goes to say she wants a baby ... will love it ... but all her words die mid-sentence ... she says Elisabet can do what she wants ... she is Nurse Alma ... she will never be like Elisabet ...
(But, we have already deduced ... she is Elisabet ... so we have two different personas ... one wants the baby ... the other killed it ... or do we?)
If you analyze Alma's dialogue ... virtually none of it adds up (she even says "It doesn't make any sense ... nothing fits together") - how is one island/beach "sunnier" than another? - is a teenage girl going to kayak to another island to go sun-bathing? - do we see any other islands? - if there are, they're all remote and secluded - she says she is faithful to Karl-Henrik ... then tells us about her beach tryst - but it's not real ... it's a little acting sequence ... within her fantasy 'projection' ... Bergman is giving us an 'act', within an 'act' ... and making it 'unrealistic' ... as a clue ... to 'Alma' ... she doesn't 'add-up' ... and an even bigger clue ... to understanding his film!
(Alma says she's a good 'listener' ... but no one ever listens to her ... except Elisabet! - it's another clue ... they're the same person - but it's also another very big clue ... as to who 'Alma' actually is)
Just like in Lynch's "Mulholland Drive" ... there is virtually something (deliberately) not quite right with every scene ... a facade of tiny holes ... like termites quietly eating away at your house ... a house that is still standing after 50 years in this case ... but is just waiting for someone to give it a good shake ... and it comes crashing down ...
(On top of all the people who have written such utter and absolute drivel about it I might add)
"It's all just a sham and lies"
Then I realized ... the ring ...
She's already married ... she's already Elisabet Vogler ... she's already embarked on a career as an actress ... Alma is her biggest role ... it's all an act ... Elisabet Vogler has had us fooled for over 50 years ... it's Elisabet Vogler, actress, that gets on the bus ... Elisabet has just convinced herself ... that she is going to be a much better actress ... than a mother ...
Remember the doctor mentions a rehearsal - you don't actually have rehearsals once you start performing a play to a paying audience - each performance is a rehearsal for the next performance - but notice the doctor says Elisabet apologized to her colleagues ... not the audience - so Elisabet was in rehearsal - a clue to the performance she is about to give as Alma - this is all a "rehearsal" ... for Elisabet's future as an actress ... not a mother
In this final twist ... I realized that it's Nurse Alma that doesn't exist ... Alma is just a role that actress Elisabet is playing out ...
ALMA IS A ROLE ... (NOT A PERSON, BUT A "CHARACTER" - A "PART" ELISABET IS PLAYING, IN HER SCHIZOPHRENIC ROLE-PLAY FANTASY) ... ALMA IS A REPRESENTATION OF ELISABET'S "SOUL" - "ALMA" IS LATIN ... FOR "SOUL"
(No one else listens to 'Alma' ... because 'Alma' ... is a portrayal ... of Elisabet's soul! ... Now Bergman's film gives up it's big secret ... that has been 'in our face' the whole time ... the title of his film!)
(remember the doctor's dialogue ... about 'role play' ... now it all makes more sense)
Persona actually means "mask" or a character played by an actor ... and that's exactly what is happening ... Elisabet Vogler is playing a character / she has put on a "mask" ... "Nurse Alma"
 |
| "The bitch said I have to lose the fucking sunglasses ... stay in character ... fuck her! ... who does she think she is" |
This is all just a role-play exercise, as pregnant Elisabet ponders her future career and motherhood ... it is simply a "performance" ... to confront, wrestle with, and ultimately, ... appease ... her demons
(This also explains the letter from her husband - she has become pregnant - and has isolated herself at the beach house - to confront "herself" - but it's actually "Alma" she's playing - she's determined to let Alma "play herself out" - she's going to "bury" her good girl "I want a baby" Alma persona once, and for all, as well as the boy)
(Just as Lynch's character in "Inland Empire" - Lost Girl, kills her conscience ... here Bergman has Elisabet killing her "soul" (Alma is Latin for soul) ... implying that going forward into the future, Elisabet will have no "soul")
(Alma says "Your soul would be far too big ... it would stick out everywhere" - Alma represents Elisabet's soul)
(It's Elisabet's soul (Alma) that "hears" the boy calling out from the morgue (remorse, guilt) ... without her "soul" Elisabet will not "hear" the boy calling out to her from the morgue)
(It's 'Alma' ... that has 'heard' the boy calling out ... it's 'Alma' that calls back ... via the ringing telephone ... ultimately, Elisabet ... is out to put both 'Alma' and the boy in the morgue ... and she does ... the 'telephone line' ... connecting her to the boy, via 'Alma' ... will go 'dead' ... forever ... the person (persona) that leaves the beach house, alone ... is Elisabet ... she effectively 'buries' both the boy ... and her soul / conscience ('Alma') ... at the beach house ... they both ... will never 'bother' her again)
('Alma' represents Elisabet's soul ... in other words ... 'Elisabet's 'guilt' ... so it is 'Alma' who 'phones' the boy, 'awakening' him ... and 'Alma' who hears him 'ringing' ... establishing this two-way 'torment' ... Elisabet will effectively ... eliminate both of them ... to 'free' herself .... to make sure the 'crucifixion nails' never pierce her palms ... either to 'nail/tie her down ... or 'torture' her with 'guilt')
The full significance of Alma's "It's inside me" becomes clear ... not only alluding to pregnancy, it also alludes to Alma just being a superficial facade ... a character, a superficial persona ... played by Elisabet (the "truth" being "beneath" the facade she has created ... the real persona is actress Elisabet)
(Alma has already told us she is Elisabet "on the inside" - Alma is a 'theatrical mask' - a character, being played by Elisabet - hence the title of the film .... 'Persona' = 'theatrical mask' - 'a role played by an actor')
(50 years ... and academics ... in their haste to posture like pretentious peacocks, and paint 'Persona' with the trademark ideological drivel that super-saturates their ultra-delusional halls of grandiose mediocrity ... hadn't bothered ... to look in a dictionary!)
THE 'DRAMATIC' SCENES - EXAMPLES: WHERE 'ALMA' DESCRIBES HER BEACH TRYST - 'ALMA' TALKING ABOUT HAVING AN ABORTION - AND SEVERAL OTHER SCENES .... ARE CLUES .... THAT 'ALMA' IS 'ACTING' ... 'ALMA' IS A ROLE ... THAT YOUNGER ELISABET ... IS 'PLAYING'
BERGMAN PUT 'DRAMATIC' SCENES INTO THE FILM AS CLUES ... THEY HAVE SMALL CUES ... THAT ALL IS NOT QUITE WHAT IT SEEMS
(ALL THE 'DEEP' FILMS ON MY BLOG ... ARE NOT WHAT THEY MAY, INITIALLY, SEEM TO BE)
(Alma being just an imaginary character played by a younger Elisabet also explains her "strange" husband - too old to be a medical student, everything about him doesn't quite add-up either - once again Bergman is inserting deliberate clues, for us to work out Alma's secret - that everything that comes out of her mouth is suspect - it's all just a fantasy ... an act ... by Elisabet ... the real persona is actually mirrored by the persona that doesn't speak - in reality, there is actually no-one to talk to ... she is on her own at the beach-house ... this whole scenario, this role-play, is going on in her anguished mind)
Elisabet already knows the answers ... but she needs to convince herself ... to justify herself ... to banish her demons for good ... from her self-centered, somewhat selfish career path ... from her future ... as an actress ...
(This is all some sort of role play - an "audition" ... for herself ... to herself ... against herself ... for her future ... if she's good enough ... then, in her, perhaps selfish, eyes she's going to become an actress ... and justify having an abortion ... if she's not good enough (playing "Alma") ... then, perhaps, she will concede ... and have the child ... but Elisabet is battling her "soul" ... and she is determined ... that she is not going to lose)
(Effectively ... this is an audition / interview - Elisabet is "interviewing" herself (as Alma) re acting ... Alma is "interviewing" Elisabet re motherhood via the (acting) role-play)
(Elisabet is playing a role ... her 'soul' ... 'Alma' ... she is 'interviewing' her 'soul' ... she is out to conquer her 'soul' ... and, ultimately bury it ... because she really wants to be a childless, no strings attached, not 'nailed down' movie star - opposing her, confronting her, her inner 'demons' (as she sees them) are putting up a good 'fight' ... and are ... conversely, interviewing Elisabet for 'motherhood' - 'Alma' ... her 'bleeding heart' soul .... wants to be a mother ... but, ultimately ... her 'spider' ... has already woven her destiny .... she is always going to 'fade out' in the end ... as the boy calls out to her - Elisabet ... was always going to win ... and bury ... both her soul ... and the boy ... this was always a 'projection' ... that had, in fact, already played out)
Elisabet Vogler wants to be free of any guilt, any remorse, any self-incrimination ... any artifact that could hinder her ambition and future success ... Elisabet Vogler wants to be a very famous actress
Nurse Alma has indeed cured her ... of any vestige of self-doubt
Elisabet Vogler has decided that this is the last time the boy will call out to her from the morgue ...
Indeed ... Elisabet Vogler ... despite the artificial dialogue that ultimately gives her away ... is a very convincing actress ... she has convinced us ... and herself ...
Elisabet Vogler will never be ... a mother
(When Alma (actually Elisabet) looks into the mirror, as she leaves the beach house ... and we see the scene with Elisabet brushing back Alma's hair in the mirror re-enacted ... this is the point of final confirmation - Alma no longer exists - it's Elisabet, actress, that will get on the bus ... the allure of stardom is too strong ... the spider has already woven her destiny ... she was never going to escape the web of bright lights she had already spun for herself ... yes, all this is really selfish Elisabet's "ambush" ... her master plan ... Alma, and the boy, never really stood a chance)
Elisabet Vogler has ensured, that for her ... there will be no "opportunity cost" of abortion ... this is a "final solution"
(The boy will never "call out to her" from the morgue)
The film ends relatively abruptly - this is all Elisabet's "show" now - it's "cut and dried" - she has "ruthlessly" "ambushed" her "bleeding heart" soul ... and "exorcised" both Alma and the boy from her future ... she gets on the bus to get on with her life ... without her "soul" - the boy's mother fades out ... the film spools off the projector ... the welding rods extinguish quickly ... fading into a black screen, which Bergman pauses on for a few seconds ... then the credits roll - as opposed to the white "world" the boy has been living in ... his "world" is now, suddenly, ... black ...
SUMMARY OF "PERSONA"
"Alma"(really Elisabet) is pregnant - she is in crisis
She wants to marry her boyfriend ... and become an actress ... not have children
(She may or may not be already married ... the ring may be just part of her "projection" - but it is significant ... and I think it indicates her "future" - and her "lies"- (role-play - she said she was engaged) - that she is acting/it is all an "act" - it refers to women having a different role after they are married (in terms of 1966 thinking) as per her mother - in "Alma's" case, as an actress ... or a mother - "multi-tasking" is a modern term) - hence she is already "acting out" her future ... as an actress (hence the role-play), rather than a mother ... her desire to be a famous actress is stronger than her desire to be a mother ... she already knows she is going to bury the boy ... this whole exercise is really to bury her "soul" ... her guilt)
She is worried a child will ruin her chances of becoming a famous actress
She worries she will be a bad mother (She knows she will be a bad mother!)
She creates a "projection" ... where she interrogates her future self
Her "future self" cannot talk back ... because she doesn't exist ... her future self isn't really the one with the answers
"Alma" is the one that really holds all the answers ... she already knows the answers ... she just needs to "extract" them from her mind ... and rationalize them alongside her dreams of stardom
The boy doesn't really stand a chance ... and neither does "Alma's" (Elisabet's) "soul"
Elisabet is going to "bury" both of them (her "soul" "Alma", and the boy) ... forever ... on the island
Elisabet is effectively destroying her soul/her conscience/her guilt - it is never going to haunt her
The boy in the morgue is never going to call out to his mother ...
What a stunning masterpiece!
I can't wait to watch another Bergman film
Just like Lynch, it appears Bergman makes films that are appreciated as important works of "art" ... even when they are completely misunderstood ...
(I never saw any sort of "lesbian attraction" in "Persona" - or, as the beach "orgy" is described in the book (by so-called "world authorities" on "Persona") I talk about below, - "crypto-lesbianism" - it's amazing how people see what they are predisposed to see, or want to see - really, if I had had a hard copy, I would've taken it outside ... poured petrol over it ... and burnt it ... it is the worst load of absolute unconscionable drivel I have ever come across)
(People that write such hideously pretentious drivel (virtually everything I have read about "Persona" since doing my analysis of it has been "horrendously pretentious drivel") always try to hide behind cliched cop-out excuses such as "It's art ... it has many interpretations" et cetera etc (the number of times authors of inane drivel about one of the films on my blog have contacted me with this sort of rubbish, trying desperately to defend some pathetically myopic piece they have written) - but as my blog proves ... it's just not how highly intelligent and creative filmmakers make films ... and these "excuses" are really just a "front" for their mediocrity and lofty, grandiose pretentiousness)
(Saying a film has "many interpretations" ... is code for "I haven't got a clue what it's about ... but that's not going to stop me from "getting away with" writing "oceans" of drivel pretending I do")
(Very few (if any) films have "many interpretations" in relation to the way directors actually plan and create them - this is certainly just a cop-out excuse for (getting away with) writing absolute stonking drivel about them)
To me ... understanding films like this ... brings a far greater level of appreciation ... not only of their true creative genius ... but also of their standing as important works in cinematic history ...
Teaching yourself to understand film ... is a very worthwhile endeavor - I would recommend it to all film scholars ... it enhances the experience and enjoyment of film ... by a considerable factor ... you begin to "read" and "get" films ... to the point you don't have to write drivel about them ... you can write rationally and informatively, on what films are really about (I was going to add "confidently" ... but film scholars have been "confidently" writing drivel for decades) ... and you don't have to wait 50 years for someone to tell you what they're actually about ...
(As to Bergman's "overkill" with the clues ... I stick to my opinion - after Lynch, "Persona" was a breeze to analyze - I think he should have gone with less clues - particularly the penis and the face merges (contrast the face merges, with the subtle way Lynch "merges" Betty and Rita at Sierra Bonita in "Mulholland Drive") which I think were steps too far - not to be (too) big-headed ... I still would have "got" it ... the "keys" were the boy in the morgue waving out to his mother (which I basically got straight away) ... and the ring on Alma's finger, which, after having it waved in our faces the entire film, wasn't too hard to grasp by the end of the film either ... it's simply about screenwriting ... getting on the same wavelength as the director ... it enhances the film ... you learn to "follow" films as if you are reading or writing the script ... understanding, and even anticipating what the screenwriter/director is going to show you next ... you "get" what they are trying to show you ... and, often, you marvel in their choices ...
As I say on my "Mulholland Drive" post ... you start to see films with your mind ... not just your eyes ... it "opens" your mind, and your "experience" ... you see the good and the bad ... but it actually enhances both - you see the genius in "Enemy" ... but you see the flaws in films like "Nightcrawler" and "Nocturnal Animals" ... I believe anyone who wants to make a career out of filmmaking, or Film Studies ... should study screenwriting as a foundation and critical component ... understanding the mechanics and art of screenwriting (I taught myself) and learning "expression" through the discipline of the medium ... in my opinion ... enhances your life ... it's as simple as that)
(notice that I have "ellipse" "overkill" - it's my "thing" - it's now how I express myself ... I don't regret it ... whether I use them correctly or not ... I feel they enhance how I express myself ... it's a "tic" I now have ... from screenwriting)
(You start to really appreciate directors like Lynch, Villeneuve, Inarritu, Nolan, now Bergman - but you're quick to see where they disappoint you too - a case in point, Tarantino - one of the most talented and exciting screenwriters ever - but has never quite lived up to his masterpiece "Pulp Fiction" again)
(I saw "Inception" on one of the biggest Imax screens in the world ... and that movie felt so "right" ... apart from the casting of Ellen Page - but who was fantastic in "Hard Candy" - an absolute masterpiece of low-budget filmmaking - make sure you listen to the director's commentary)
(Good films don't actually have to totally add up, as such, ... but they do need to feel "right" - it's why films like "Inception" and "Mulholland Drive" rate as great movies ... other examples might be films like "Safety Not Guaranteed" (how I wish they had seen the wonderful opportunity with the tin at the end) ... or the more recent "Colossal" (which I absolutely loved) ... "Interstellar", despite Nolan's best efforts to get the science right, just didn't feel "right" ... and fell down on many levels ... other films like "Blade Runner" or "Apocalypse Now" are so well done on so many levels, and feel so "right" as a movie experience, they will always be masterpieces no matter how many "Director's Cut" revisions are "remastered" trying to iron out perceived flaws ... while others, such as "Prometheus", are so inherently flawed ... they never come close to being memorable ... let alone considered "classics")
I don't believe a film can take it's rightful place in history ... until we truly understand it's creative secrets ...
(And the reason Elisabet laughs? ... she's laughing at her own performance)
 |
| "You really are a good actress (well, good enough to fool those pretentious and egocentric, blinded by their own self importance, so-called "film academics" for over 50 years - till someone pointed out to them you were actually acting) ... you're going to be a great one ... but you already know that" |
(Elisabet is, effectively, studying and critiquing her own performance ... her role as "Alma" ... in her own "role-play")
(Note - when Elisabet leaves the beach house, she is no longer "Sister Alma" - she is Elisabet - but she does appear to be still wearing her nurses uniform under her coat (and flat nurses shoes) - this would indicate that Elisabet is actually a nurse ... just not "Sister Alma" (she had to have some occupation before marrying and embarking on a career as an actress - Carl Henrik has encouraged Elisabet to be more ambitious) - she is now on a new career path - as an actress)
(Also - I now realize - I think the older woman in the morgue who scarily opens her eyes - is actually representing Alma - Elizabet's "soul" - Elisabet was out to "silence" and "bury" both the boy, and her "soul" Alma ... and she did ... and she "woke" both of them to do it - it's Alma that hears the boy - she represents Elisabet's soul - and it's her nightmare she awakens from - at the same moment the woman scarily opens her eyes in the morgue - both the boy and Alma are actually "in the morgue")
"Persona" - the answer was in the dictionary all along ...
(The Oxford English Dictionary should add "Film Studies Texts" to it's definitions of "Pretentiousness" and "Drivel" - and "Film Studies Archives" to it's definitions for "Waste of Space" ... the sad thing is ... there's an incredibly strong argument ... for them to do just that!)
Thanks for reading
Plissken Boon - the only authentic Black Belt (10th Dan) Film Studies Master in the world (Kodokan Film Studies - Zurich)
(PhD ... yeah right!)
 |
| :"Only see what they want to see ..." |
(I DON'T DO SPECULATION - I CAN ACTUALLY PROVE, BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, WHAT THESE MOVIES ARE ABOUT, WITH EXTREMELY DETAILED ANALYSIS)
THE BOY IS JUST CONVENIENTLY BRUSHED ASIDE BY PRETENTIOUS ACADEMIC "HIJACKERS" - BLINDLY FOCUSED ON THEIR OWN PATHETICALLY CLOSED-MINDED, EGOTISTICAL AND DOGMATIC "AGENDA OF DRIVEL" FOR THE FILM
(OF, QUITE FRANKLY, OUT AND OUT, UTTER BULLSHIT - AS AN EXAMPLE, CHECK OUT GWENDOLYN AUDREY FOSTER'S CHAPTER IN THE BOOK I HIGHLIGHT BELOW)
THIS HAPPENS WITH ANY "DEEP" FILM THAT CHALLENGES COGNITIVE ABILITIES, AND IS A VERY SAD INDICTMENT ON FILM ACADEMIA GLOBALLY - FILM STUDIES IS BEING HIJACKED, UNDERMINED, AND INCREDIBLY DEVALUED
| This book is the worst load of drivel I have ever come across in my life - by so-called "world authorities" on "Persona" If universities offered majors in "Drivel" (some would argue they already do) then this book would be one of the major (pun intended) texts ... as it is in Film Studies ... funny that ... (This book is available to read or download free of charge (https://archive.org/details/pdfy-58IVV6WXD3uy2y0O) if anyone wants to verify my description of it - but I'd be quick - if the authors have any sense they'll remove all traces of it smartly) |
(THEY NEED TO START "SEEING" FILM - WITH RATIONAL MINDS, RATHER THAN EMPIRICAL EYES AND TUNNEL-VISIONED IDEOLOGIES)
THEY'LL TRY TO TELL US IT DOES ...
JUST LIKE HOW THEY HAVE TOLD US THAT THEY HAVE UNDERSTOOD FILM FOR THE LAST FIFTY YEARS ...
THINGS NEED TO CHANGE
 |
| (Several hundred so-called "film scholars" got it in their inbox - but you were the only one that insisted on advertising the fact that your incredibly pretentious arrogance far outshines your intelligence ... please forgive me if from here on in ... I can't help myself referring to you as ... "The Piffle Princess") This is from a Film Studies so-called "scholar" - so blinded by her pretentiousness, she doesn't bother with a rational thought process - the "Illusion of Truth" with this film is so entrenched, it blinds someone who should know better - and she's not the only one - it's sad enough film scholars didn't "get" this film in the first place - it's doubly sad that some of them are so blinded by their pretentiousness, that they can't "get" an extremely rational and unequivocal explanation For some time (50 years in terms of "Persona"), it's film scholars who have been writing "piffle" - and one peek inside the "Persona" book I mentioned earlier, or one of the many thousands of dissertations sitting in Film Studies archives (anywhere in the world) about the films I have analyzed on my blog, will easily prove my point Some of them seem so arrogant - that only a film scholar is entitled to solve these films, only a film scholar can be "right" about these films, that the drivel they have written about these films is the only "correct" way to look at them - but they never actually analyze the facts staring them in the face - and it's the facts within the film that actually should be doing the talking (I doubt the concept that "this guy could be right" even crossed Ms Backman Rogers mind ... not even for a flickering millisecond ... such is her narcissistic arrogance and the egotistical "superiority" she feels the letters "PhD" empower her with (lol!) - (she reminds me of the academic aka known as "Dickhead" at the bottom of my "Birdman" post) ... she's totally blinded by her feminist ideology ... and irrational conclusion that the two characters portrayed in "Persona" are somehow playing a game of lesbian attraction) Well, sorry Ms Backman Rogers ... the film is about abortion ... not everything in this world can be hijacked by "Queer Theory" (till rational minds claim it back in this case) ... no matter how indignant a fuss you make (And blocking me on Twitter for sending you a friendly tweet about "Persona" only highlights your "off the planet" conceitedness and arrogance - you're not the only one ... but you certainly fit the profile of the sort of people who block me ... the profile of people who follow me is a far "nicer" demographic all round - and there are far too many nice people in this world, to waste any time bothering with arseholes) (There's a hell of a lot of "piffle" that's been written about them being lesbians - "oceans" of it - imagine if I described the books you have written as "piffle" (oh ... the horror of it!) without having read them ... are they free on the internet too?) (Film studies libraries are awash with and drowning in "piffle" - on anything above the level of "Shrek") Ms Backman Rogers has now fallen very silent - her silence speaks far louder than her "piffle" ever will (To call my analysis of "Persona" "piffle" displays an incredible arrogance - and total ignorance of the true art of screenwriting and filmmaking - and I'm sure Ms Backman Rogers will be forevermore reminded of this every time she catches a glimpse of the "ink" and "paper" PhD hung on her wall) Film scholars have had over 50 years to work out "Persona" (they had 15 years for "Mulholland Drive") - but someone else climbed "Everest" first ... and they have no one else to blame but themselves ("Mulholland Drive" maybe - but "Persona" is like taking an express elevator to the 86th floor of the Empire State) (Maybe some will ... take the elevator ... climbing Everest indeed ... in their dreams ... I would change the Wikipedia entry to ... "the ultimate professional embarrassment" ... "what 1929 was to bankers")  (Ignorantly calling my work "piffle" is just another few shovel loads out of the big Grand Canyon sized hole they've all been digging for themselves ... for 50 years) (Once the truth is out ... it just won't go back in the box ... no matter how many indignant madams throw their toys out of their prams)  After over 50 years - "Persona" has been decoded - (as well as "Mulholland Drive" - "Inland Empire" - "Lost Highway" - "Birdman" - "The Prestige" - "Enemy") - have any film critics/academics got in touch with me to discuss it? - not one (in three years) - integrity? ... pathetic - the grim joke's ... on them ... (It would appear that film academics feel themselves to be so superior within the realms of film analysis ... that to them it is unthinkable that an outsider could possibly have a valid opinion ... and the wall of silence / condescending comments I have been subjected to would certainly bear this out) (Their "superiority" is really showing isn't it ... all 50 arrogant years of it ... dripping like "crypto-lesbianism" from their egg-covered faces ... as they push ear plugs further into their ears, adjust their ever-darkening polarizing goggles ... and paddle their "supertanker-sized" pile of "load of rubbish" theses out into deeper water ... the words - "Titanic" - "iceberg" - and "sinking" come to mind) (They were fine with Roger Ebert ... because he never challenged them ... me ... I'm gonna' blow their straw house down) (I actually already have - I sent copies of this analysis to several hundred academics - one publicly called it "infuriating piffle" (then went very quiet) - another said he appreciated me sending it to him (one of the few so far), and that he was showing the film to his students - another had the audacity to say I only wrote about boring films (wtf?) (I promptly showed his condescending themed reply to his boss) - but, overall, I doubt there will be many (other than some pretty easy to identify hard-core ignorant ideologists) that will ever try to convince anybody, ever again, that "Persona" is "crypto-lesbianism" - I think pretentious drivel (most people would be shocked and horrified just how much is out there ... it's one thing to put forward rational argument ... it's something completely different to put forward and augment "illusions of truth" based on illogical, irrational speculation) is slowly going to become an anathema in Film Studies - as distasteful as plagiarism ... it will have to if Film Studies is to have any credibility ... and, who knows ... pretentious types like "The Piffle Princess" may slowly disappear completely ... up their own backsides - they're head and shoulders there already) (It will have to for Film Studies to survive - if you took a group of great film Directors into any university Film Studies archive in the world ... I'm certain they would be rolling around in hysterics, tears rolling down their faces, reading dissertations about their films) For way too long Film Studies seem to have been based on a "Liberal Arts" foundation, but, as my blog proves, films are a "different and unique" species, with their DNA tied directly to the masterful art of screenwriting - a disciplined and rational art that has been relegated and erroneously overlooked by "over-blown" egotistical academics with tangential agendas for decades The credibility of the above book was high - it's now zero! (If anybody would like to discuss or dispute my assessment ... please be my guest)  The sad and pitiful fact is ... most film critics / academics wish I'd go away ... so they can keep living blissfully in their rose colored cloud of drivel ... well into retirement ... like Whos in Whoville (I'm actually Horton ... The Truth Fairy - but they see me as ... The Grinch - who crashed their drivel-laden gravy train) From the way they have treated me ... I'm sure many of them wish this blog would just quietly go away ... so they didn't have to face the truth about these films ... Most of them are probably totally oblivious ... floating in their self-manufactured Truman Show bubbles ... filled with psychoanalytic texts ... peer-group adulation triumphantly hanging from walls ... and little bowls of innocuous blue pills on every desk ... confidently handing out their latest "self-published", very "limited edition" books at Film Studies conventions ... and applauding loudly the latest theories on "crypto-lesbianism" and "Queer Theory" in Marvel movie franchises (Film Studies faculties must be places of soft muzak and the very thin air of high altitude ... delusional hypoxia is common on Everest ... particularly at cloud level)  I've reached out to them so many times ... now I just drive my own train ... "DRIVELPIERCER" (I don't bother reaching out to them anymore ... they're obviously only interested in churning out drivel - creating their own "pseudo-truth" ... and saving face ... rather than observing the real facts staring them in the face about these movies - hiding in their "fascist world" of "untruth" ... eventually the "history" they have tried to write will come undone ... their drivel will be exposed for the sham it is) (I can tell a lot of academics are reading my blog because of the large number of Unix hits it's getting ,,, but maybe it's just desperate students) I swear ... I heard this faint voice calling out from Yale Film Studies ... "Help us ... Please!" "Mulholland Drive" has been the real "Everest" to climb - it is the cleverest film in history - by a factor of 50 - and also the most complex by the same factor - just trying to articulate it's explanation is incredibly difficult - and only a very small % of the population seem to actually grasp it's explanation - (such is the incredible depth and complexity of this film, I'm struggling to find the best way to rewrite and articulate my analysis to make it more readily fathomable) - David Lynch will go down, in his lifetime hopefully, as the most outstandingly creative and clever film director in history ... but just like the explanation of "Mulholland Drive" ... it may take the world quite a while to realize, that that is a very valid description of his genius (It's going on for three years since I decoded "Mulholland Drive" - and the clock is still running - I wonder how long the clock will run with "Persona" before "lightbulbs" go on, and film scholars "grasp" my explanation - going by "Mulholland Drive" - and the other films I've analyzed - (politely contacting them didn't work - I was just ignored) - it could be a while) "Deep Cinema" proves that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever "superior" about being a film critic/academic (and after years of "study" ... there should be) ... they should spend a lot more time actually learning how to understand film ... rather than showcasing their conceited pretentiousness by writing oceans of laughable and meaningless drivel Can you imagine a world where Math academics didn't actually "get" Math? ... where English academics didn't actually "get" English? ... where Engineering academics didn't actually "get" Engineering? ... where Law academics didn't actually "get" Law? Well, we do live in a world where Film Studies academics (along with film critics) don't actually "get" Film ... (despite publishing oceans of drivel trying to convince us that they do) (It would have been a (very) good bet that unless someone (as I have) had come along and said "Enough is enough!" ... that this miserable cloud of drivel about "Persona" and the likes of "Mulholland Drive" would have perpetuated for another 50 years ... both Bergman and Lynch deserve better) (Film Studies students should be taught to appreciate film ... the creativity of it's medium ... the depth and passion swirling amidst it's creation and expression ... to marvel in it's genius ... to despair in it's abuse ... and to celebrate it's "voice" ... calling ... from the past ... to the future ... just like great books ... but different ... from a world of visionary creatives ... that weren't taught to write drivel and vanity in Film Studies classes ... but taught themselves ... to masterfully write and express themselves in the infinitely imaginative world of screenwriting and filmmaking ) (Note - not many authors get to write the screenplay for their novel's screenplay adaptation ... screenwriting is a different discipline entirely) Currently, Film Studies is a (very) sad state of affairs, and academics (and film critics) blocking me left, right, and center, burying their heads in the sand, and denying it has a problem, isn't going to change that fact anytime soon The problem for them ... is I'm right ... and there's only so long they can deny that ... before the flaky rot ridden foundations of their straw house give way ... to the truth The Film Studies "cloud" is rapidly losing the very little altitude it (never) actually had ... fast (It seems it was only ever an over inflated "hot air" balloon) As I said, things need to change in Film Studies ... soon  |
DEEP CINEMA
https://plisskenboon.blogspot.com/
PLISSKEN BOON
(Taught himself (no drivel) film studies)
(My real passion is Gravity - not the movie - wait till I solve that one!)
DEEP CINEMA blog Copyright © Plissken Boon 2016 All Rights Reserved
Copyright Registered
THINGS ACADEMICS SHOULD HAVE NOTICED
"I think I could turn into you if I really tried ... and you could be me ... just like that!"
ELISABET IS ALMA'S FUTURE SELF
THE BOY HAS NO NAME - HE WAS ABORTED - HE HAS CALLED OUT TO HIS MOTHER FOR 14 YEARS ... FROM THE MORGUE
THE WEDDING RING ON ALMA'S FINGER
"PERSONA" MEANS - A MASK, OR ROLE PLAYED BY AN ACTOR
"ALMA" IS A ROLE - PLAYED BY AN ACTRESS, ELISABET
"ALMA" IS AN "ACT" - A ROLE PLAY - AN AUDITION - TO SEE WHETHER ELISABET WILL BECOME AN ACTRESS... OR A MOTHER
COCO'S APARTMENTS ARE A HAVEN - FOR REDHEADS DITCHED BY HOLLYWOOD
SILENCIO IS A REPRESENTATION OF HOLLYWOOD
IMAGES SYNCED WITH SOUND
SILENCIO WAS FILMED IN LA'S HISTORIC TOWER THEATER - THE FIRST TO SCREEN A "TALKIE"
THE WOMAN WITH THE BLUE HAIR - LYNCH'S VERSION OF NORMA DESMOND - WHO HATED "TALKIES" - AND SAYS "SILENCIO" - SPANISH FOR "BE QUIET"
(GLORIA SWANSON SPOKE SPANISH - LAURA HARRING SPEAKS SPANISH)
THE BLUE BOX IS THE "GATEWAY" TO HOLLYWOOD - BETTY IS TOO INNOCENT FOR HOLLYWOOD - HER FUTURE SELF RITA, GETS "RECYCLED" THROUGH THE BLUE BOX - BACK INTO HOLLYWOOD (AS CAMILLA)
BETTY "DIES" AT THE EXACT SAME MOMENT DIANE SELWYN COMMITS SUICIDE (LONG STORY)
THE DIALOGUE AT WINKIE'S IS PURE SCREENWRITING - SCREENWRITERS PUT "DAY" AND "NIGHT" AT THE END OF THEIR SLUGLINES - TO DESCRIBE THE LIGHT
THE HOBO IS "THE ONE WHO'S DOING IT" - THE SCREENWRITER - LYNCH'S VERSION OF JOE GILLIS - IF HE HADN'T RUN INTO NORMA DESMOND
THE WAITRESS HAS TWO NAMES - BECAUSE MULHOLLAND DRIVE IS MADE UP OF MULTIPLE DRAFTS - AND IS AN EXTREMELY TRUNCATED VERSION OF THE ORIGINALLY ENVISIONED TV SERIES
DAN'S "DREAMS" REFER TO SCREENWRITING DRAFTS
LYNCH SHOWS US THE BACK DOOR AT WINKIE'S (WE INFER THE SIGN IS THE SAME ON THE INSIDE) - TWICE - IT'S A CLUE TO THE TWO-SIDED MOBIUS NATURE OF MULHOLLAND DRIVE
DAN DYING IS A CLUE THAT THE SCREENWRITER WIELDS GREAT POWER OVER THE CHARACTERS
"HAVE YOU EVER DONE THIS BEFORE?" "I DON'T KNOW... HAVE YOU?" - IT'S A MOBIUS STRIP - LYNCH IS HAVING A JOKE WITH THE SEX SCENES - BECAUSE BETTY AND RITA ARE ACTUALLY THE SAME PERSON
BETTY AND RITA ARE "COMPOSITES" OF CAMILLA AND DIANE - THEY ARE THE SAME PERSON - FROM DIFFERENT TIME PERIODS
"WHAT WAS IT LAST TIME?" IN THE BOARDROOM COFFEE SCENE IS ANOTHER CLUE TO THE MOBIUS STRUCTURE OF MULHOLLAND DRIVE
(LYNCH IS ACTUALLY RUNNING BOTH SIDES OF THE MOBIUS STRIP AT THE SAME TIME)
MULHOLLAND DRIVE ACTUALLY COMPRISES FOUR TIME PERIODS (LONG STORY) ALL RUNNING CONCURRENTLY - THEY EACH COVER AT LEAST 12 YEARS
THE BETTY / RITA STORY IS THE TWIST IN THE MOBIUS STRIP - WHICH JOINS BOTH SIDES - IT COVERS ONLY 3 DAYS
MULHOLLAND DRIVE IS EASILY THE CLEVEREST FILM IN HISTORY
THINGS ACADEMICS HAVE IGNORED IN "PERSONA"
THE BOY IS IN A MORGUE ... CALLING OUT TO HIS MOTHER
"I think I could turn into you if I really tried ... and you could be me ... just like that!"
ELISABET IS "ALMA'S" FUTURE SELF
THE ERECT PENIS (HOW WOMEN GET PREGNANT!)
(ALMA IS ACTUALLY PREGNANT ... AND IN CRISIS)
THE SPIDER (WEAVER OF DESTINY)
THE PROJECTOR ("PERSONA" IS A "PROJECTION")
"ELECTRA" IS A PLAY ... WITH TWO DISTINCT OUTCOMES
LENT IS A PERIOD OF SELF-EXAMINATION
ALMA'S INCREDIBILITY (IT'S A ROLE-PLAY!)
(THE DEF. OF "PERSONA" - ACTOR / MASK / ROLE-PLAY)
("ALMA" IS A "ROLE" - PLAYED BY YOUNG ACTRESS ELISABET)
(SHE'S AUDITIONING HERSELF - ACTRESS? ... OR MOTHER?)
THE CONFRONTATIONS ABOUT THE "UN-NAMED" BOY
ELISABET'S SUDDEN DISAPPEARANCE (INTO THIN AIR)
THE BOY'S MOTHER FADES OUT AT THE END
(ALMA (ELISABET) DECIDES TO HAVE AN ABORTION)
I wrote this for my 'Mulholland Drive' post
THIS IS THE GIRL
“ALICE IS SO BLACK AND WHITE”
SAYS THE JABBERWOCKY
“NOT ME …I’VE GOT BLUE HAIR”
SAYS NORMA, AS SHE STUDIES HER CARDS
“AHA!” SAYS THE CHESHIRE CAT
“A THREE DIMENSIONAL GAME OF CHESS!”
“I WROTE THIS”
SAYS LYNCH
“ARE YOU THE MAD HATTER?”
SAYS THE MARCH HARE
“YES … AND NO” SAYS LYNCH
“MY RABBITS ARE MUCH … BIGGER!”
“BUT IT’S NOT YOUR TEA PARTY”
SAYS THE WHITE RABBIT
“THIS IS THE GIRL”
SAYS LYNCH AS HE MILKS THE COW
“SHE’S MY NEW NEIGHBOR”
“AH … TODAY IS TOMORROW”
SAYS THE WHITE RABBIT
“I JUST FOLLOWED YOU” SAYS LYNCH
AS HE SWALLOWS A RED PILL
“BLUE PILLS ARE BETTER” SAYS ABSOLEM
AS HE TAKES A PUFF, AND EYES ALICE
“WE DON’T STOP HERE” SAYS TWEEDLEDEE
“WE DON’T STOP HERE” SAYS TWEEDLEDUM
“BUT I’M THE RED QUEEN” SAYS ALICE
“YOU LOOK LIKE THE WHITE QUEEN” SAYS DORMOUSE
“HER NAME IS RENEE” SAYS ABSOLEM
“I DON’T LIKE TEA” SAYS THE WHITE RABBIT
“WHAT DO YOU HAVE IN THE WAY OF COFFEE?”
“THE COFFEES BAD” SAYS LYNCH
TAKING ANOTHER SIP OF HIS MILK
“BAD COFFEE IS BETTER THAN …”
SAYS THE MARCH HARE
"SHUT UP!"
INTERRUPTS LYNCH
“NO COFFEE"
SIGHS THE MARCH HARE
SAYS LYNCH
“YOU’RE MY FAVORITE BUBBLEGUM”
SAYS THE CHESHIRE CAT, WITH A WINK
“OFF WITH HIS HEAD!”
SAYS ALICE
“LOOK AT ME … AND TELL ME IF YOU’VE KNOWN ME BEFORE?”
SAYS LYNCH
“IN YOUR DREAMS COWBOY”
SAYS ALICE
“I DON’T DO DREAMS”
SAYS LYNCH
“BUT I DO DO MOZART … DO YOU LIKE RABBITS?”
“YOU’VE PULLED … YOU HAD ME AT BUBBLEGUM”
SAYS ALICE
“IT’S HAPPENING AGAIN” SAYS LYNCH
“CUT! CHECKING THE GATE!”
"I HAVEN'T HAD MY CLOSE-UP"
“THANK YOU NICOLE”
SAYS LYNCH
“I LOVE THE HAIR”
“I DYED IT THE SAME COLOR AS MY PET MONKEY”
SAYS ALICE
WEEPS NORMA
“SWEEEET” SAYS LYNCH
“BUT I THOUGHT YOU WERE NICOLE?”
“READ THE SCRIPT”
SAYS ALICE
“I’M FROM POMONA”
“THIS IS THE SCRIPT!”
SAYS LYNCH
“TOO OBVIOUS!” SAYS NICOLE
AS SHE HOLDS UP A PHOTO OF NAOMI
“THIS IS THE GIRL”
KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE DONUT
Copyright © Plissken Boon 2016
All Rights Reserved Copyright Registered
