Rated R. This is a solid R. The opening shot of the film involves nudity, which is odd, because this might be the least sexual of Bergman's films. The movie is more about the horrors of war on the civilian public. As such, absolutely awful things happen to the protagonists and the people around them. There's also some coercive rape in the movie. There's violence and death all around the movie and characters casually commit suicide. There's a lot of upsetting imagery.
DIRECTOR: Ingmar Bergman I think I'm in a sweet spot when it comes to Bergman. I don't think I'll be able to finish this blog tonight, but that is also how I start most of my blogs. Shame might be the most on-the-nose of the Bergman movies I've seen so far. It makes me feel like a real simpleton that these are the movies I glom onto, but that doesn't change the fact that I really liked this movie. It was an incredible film and I want to feel like the movie might be in a subgenre of its own. Okay, that might not be the most accurate thing that I've ever written. I'm mortified that I want to make Shame a double feature with Children of Men. I know. Both movies are probably in the cinematic canon. They're both smart war films by smart directors. But also, like, you don't have to be a genius to get either one of them. I'm not saying that these movies aren't smart. They're very smart. Shame got me all kinds of turned around thinking about character dynamics and the role of politics when it comes to filmmaking. But if you put zero thought into this movie as an audience member, you'd probably still walk away with getting most of what Bergman was going for. He rarely hands you something like that. It's not like there isn't stuff to unpack, but the stuff that is unpacked is about nuanced takes. I mean, I'm still going to try and unpack it. I'm not a monster all of the sudden. Part of what kind of caught me off-guard about Shame is that it starts very similarly to Berman's other works. I don't know if it shocks anyone, but the film once again starts Liv Ullmann and Max von Sydow as a husband and wife. Big surprise! They both don't really like each other. There's also the discussion that Jan, played by von Sydow, may have had a tryst during a romantic break from his wife, Eva. There's this animosity between the two characters and it took me a minute to realize that the war that they were talking about was a literal war. (What? I'm not used to Bergman setting his movies during actual wars.) But he almost starts us in medias res. (I mean, almost. His action is in the middle of a debate where there's all of this history that we don't really know about.) Bergman gives us just enough about Jan for us to jump to conclusions about the man. I hate to be the kind of guy who makes an avatar from an unlikable character, but I instantly understood Jan. There's a lot of me in Jan. I don't want it to be absolute because it does not end up in a healthy place for this character. I have the privilege to sit in my clean (by me!) living room typing away on a laptop. I am not in the middle of a war. But if the beginning of the movie is any indication, I understand Jan in a way that is deeply uncomfortable. Again, I'm grafting my experience onto this character, but Jan seems to have too much of an empathy problem. (Remember how I said I understood Jan? Self-glaze.) He is not at war, but he's also disgusted by the notion of war. He feels simultaneous guilt for not fighting for his country and a deep revulsion for the violence that has consumed people from his country. A lot of the movie, it seems like we should be criticizing Jan for his wishy-washy attitude towards violence. But ultimately, Jan is kind of right. Every time he encounters elements of the war, both on his country's side or not, it fills him with despair about the role that mankind plays when it comes to casual attitudes about life and death. Honestly, every part of the war has horrific baggage attached to it. When the enemy gets the jump on them as they are about to leave, the two are humiliated and forced to make propaganda for the enemy. The enemy even fails to get the footage that they want and they're still harassed by their own side. Their government is almost excited to abuse Jan and Eva. That footage is obviously fake, yet they relish at the notion of harassing these two civilians. Their humanity is stripped and Jan almost seems to predict that this is how people would behave. Again, I'm giving my own experience into this whole thing. The odd thing is that the title has so much meaning and I'm not quite sure where the shame is supposed to lie. Initially, Eva seems depressed that Jan is so weak when it comes to dealing with valor and honor. (Note: My goal in life is to avoid killing anyone before I die. It's the small things.) But as the movie progresses, Jan is forced into more and more morally compromising scenarios, leading to him becoming almost comfortable with the notion of murder. And as Jan becomes more violent, Eva looks at Jan with more scorn. That's where my frustration and my joy for the complexity of the movie (I swear, it's there!) butt heads. Is the shame for not standing up to a violent force or the toxicity of men or is for losing oneself to the violence surrounding them? It's fascinating. Like, that one scene! (For the one person who may have seen this movie that might be reading this blog, THAT SCENE?) I'm talking about the scene where Jacobi gives them 23,000 kronor (which I have no idea how that translates out to U.S. dollars in 2025) and Jan doesn't hand it over. Now, this is the first scene where Jan doesn't bend the knee to whomever is holding the gun. He knows where the 23,000 kronor is. He knows that they're going to destroy his house looking for it. But He also wants Jacobi dead for raping his wife. And Eva is mortified by this action. See, if I was reading this scene as Jan, I would have thought that Eva would be impressed that Jan actually stood up for her. Eva has always thought of Jacobi with contempt. She had to sell her body to this man and seemed disappointed that Jan let Jacobi walk all over them. But instead, she's the one who gives up that Jan has the money first. She's actually floored that that he's not confessing where the money is. By the way, I'm so far off about how much 23,000 kronor is. Is that enough to rebuild a house? I know that money doesn't have that much value when there is no one to give the money to, but I am curious if it was worth it. But it's not about 23,000 kronor. It's about murdering Jacobi and getting him out of their lives. It's not like there haven't been anti-war movies. I tend to like anti-war movies. But rarely is there an anti-war movie from the point of view of the civilian populous. I have less enthusiasm about when these movies are about soldiers. I don't know. I have a hard time relating to soldiers. But there haven't been the thing that freaks me out. I've had lots of thoughts about what it would be like if there was a war on domestic soil. But this movie is the right thing that I wanted to see. The horrors of war is bad from the soldiers' perspectives; seeing from people who want nothing to do with it is even more horrifying. It's exactly the anti-war movie I was looking for. |
Film is great. It can challenge us. It can entertain us. It can puzzle us. It can awaken us.
AuthorMr. H has watched an upsetting amount of movies. They bring him a level of joy that few things have achieved. Archives
February 2025
Categories |