I am no professional critic, so I received the movie in the personal way in which every viewer should do with every movie, at least in their inner forum.
It is the first Bergman movie, and I cannot estimate if it will be the last or not. I found it recommended as "soothing" somewhere, and being aware of how much of an important director Bergman is considered, I thought why not give it a try.
It wasn't really soothing, but it wasn't difficult to watch either. The Swedish are weird for the less Nordic Europeans, that showed here too. Why are they so quiet, then so dramatic all of a sudden? And in this movie why were they marring cousins? Someone said once it is their climate...
I also wondered why it seemed that upper class could meditate of their lives and in the same time waste them, suffer and sigh (not only in this movie, but this one brought it back), while the financially undetermined characters are supposed to always be occupied with the simpler yet equally cruel struggles of everyday life?
So, I would contest the validity of the life cameo here because of the main character being so particular. Why take an individual so atypical and expand on life philosophy through him? And the greatest objection is that this movie seems purposeless, a luxury that in our era is very rarely permitted. Maybe judging it by the year it was made this would be less disturbing, but now...The old man has his dreams, his childhood flashbacks, the vague thoughts to change some things, yet it is considered somehow enough that he achieved some kind of human connection with his daughter in law, an encounter with some youngsters and half of a discussion with his son.
Well, it is not. People who do not bend all their lives for those close to them, leave traumas and marks that may not heal even after generations have come and gone. It is not enough to have a few dreams and half of a conversation, then forgive oneself and talk about epiphany. The film does not take a stand, therefore the likes of Isak could watch it and think that having thoughts is enough to change the world for the better, even the wrongs they have done.
And this is not moralistic talk. It is hard for humans to tell each other the truth, even harder to accept it. A movie, a book, a play can build a bridge over this gap. If a piece of such art tackles such a delicate subject it shouldn't let it in the air.
The movie is a cowardly approach of regret.
Interesting little thing: the way he was mixing with the past characters, him as an old man, the others young, telling him they remained young.
It is the first Bergman movie, and I cannot estimate if it will be the last or not. I found it recommended as "soothing" somewhere, and being aware of how much of an important director Bergman is considered, I thought why not give it a try.
It wasn't really soothing, but it wasn't difficult to watch either. The Swedish are weird for the less Nordic Europeans, that showed here too. Why are they so quiet, then so dramatic all of a sudden? And in this movie why were they marring cousins? Someone said once it is their climate...
I also wondered why it seemed that upper class could meditate of their lives and in the same time waste them, suffer and sigh (not only in this movie, but this one brought it back), while the financially undetermined characters are supposed to always be occupied with the simpler yet equally cruel struggles of everyday life?
So, I would contest the validity of the life cameo here because of the main character being so particular. Why take an individual so atypical and expand on life philosophy through him? And the greatest objection is that this movie seems purposeless, a luxury that in our era is very rarely permitted. Maybe judging it by the year it was made this would be less disturbing, but now...The old man has his dreams, his childhood flashbacks, the vague thoughts to change some things, yet it is considered somehow enough that he achieved some kind of human connection with his daughter in law, an encounter with some youngsters and half of a discussion with his son.
Well, it is not. People who do not bend all their lives for those close to them, leave traumas and marks that may not heal even after generations have come and gone. It is not enough to have a few dreams and half of a conversation, then forgive oneself and talk about epiphany. The film does not take a stand, therefore the likes of Isak could watch it and think that having thoughts is enough to change the world for the better, even the wrongs they have done.
And this is not moralistic talk. It is hard for humans to tell each other the truth, even harder to accept it. A movie, a book, a play can build a bridge over this gap. If a piece of such art tackles such a delicate subject it shouldn't let it in the air.
The movie is a cowardly approach of regret.
Interesting little thing: the way he was mixing with the past characters, him as an old man, the others young, telling him they remained young.