Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient: Victoria University Students' Paper. Vol. 29, No. 10. 1966.

Reply:

Reply:

In Her Comments on the Bergman review, Miss Forans states that Bergman has not got her stupefied, yet she seems sufficiently agitated by my remarks to misconstrue most of them. If she has another look at the Cowle section Miss Forans will find stated quite explicitly that I did not intend this to have any bearing on my own opinions about Bergman. It was indicative of the kind of nonsense that is written about him by his admirers. Mr. Boyes has stated elsewhere, and I agree with him in this respect, that every review of a Bergman film should open with the words "Bergman is the most overrated director in the world."

It is difficult to criticise Miss Forans's letter as much of it consists of quotations from the review, mostly without attached comment. However, I cannot really see what is so unfathomable about a phrase like "the sexual hijinks of the underlings are quite superfluous." Perhaps Miss Forans would wish to ascribe some metaphysical significance to these portions of the film. She would have many eager companions in this pursuit. And phrases like "catch-penny Freud" seem to me to be quite clear.

Miss Forans accuses me of "taking portions of the film out of context," failing to notice that she had just taken out of context phrases of the review when implying a contradiction between "uncompromising" and "compromise." According to her peculiar criteria I would doubtless be committing this crime if I should take any individual item for discussion. It seemed to me quite clear that in the last sequence of The Virgin Spring, the father was more concerned with the killing of the three brothers than the death of his daughter.

In her remarks on Wild Strawberries, Miss Forans writes: "The statement is not redundant: one does not by definition suffer guilt if one is guilty." If she examines the review carefully she will find that what I actually wrote was "when one suffers guilt one is, by definition, guilty" which is exactly the opposite. Miss Forans then describes my criticism as not worth printing if reasons are not given for finding portions of the film "blatant." How could one Justify an assertion that "X is blatant" when writing about a film? Suffice to say that if Miss Forans finds Bergman's symbolism subtle and imaginative, then she is indeed a true disciple.

Miss Forans then asks, referring to the narrative flow of The Magician, "what would be smooth enough?" Well, the excision of the "sexual hijinks of the underlings" would be a good start. She then asks, "Can it be said that Bergman films lack human warmth and are unmoving?" Yes, indeed. If Miss Forans reads the review carefully she will find that I have said it. If she Is asking whether or not this can be said justifiably, then I can only answer that any assertion of this kind is determined by a basic emotional attitude to his films—a response which is capable of some rationalisation but not much analysis. Perhaps Miss Forans would like to propose an entirely objective criteria for film criticism and film aesthetics. This would be a monumental step, and I gather from the tone of her letter that she feels quite capable of it.