The Devil's Eye (1960)

Not rated, but this is supposed to be a bit of a sex comedy without any of the nudity or actual on-screen sexuality.  There's a Patton Oswalt bit where he notes that euphanisms for vulgarity -with the intent of being for all audiences -often gets way grosser.  That's what's going on here.  There are so many moments where the words they say are technically clean, but the intent behind them is wild.  This isn't exactly a family friendly film.  

DIRECTOR:  Ingmar Bergman

OH MY GOSH, INGMAR BERGMAN!  I get it!  Move on.

It will be a miracle if I get this done.  I have been on a roll today and have been catching up on all of the blogs that have been creeping up on me.  I'm happy to say that I finished The Devil's Eye in the last hour.  However, if I can knock this bad boy out pretty quickly, I am going to be in a good place productivity wise for the long weekend.  It's really weird being me.

I get so frustrated with Bergman.  Maybe Bergman never thought that all of his collected works would be in one massive box set.  But watching every single Bergman movie shows a lot of the cracks and breaks in this master's ouevre.  Part of what frustrates me about Bergman is the same thing that bothers me about Woody Allen.  (There's an irony here.  As I write about how easy it is to note Bergman's faults when binging all of them, you can probably say the same thing about my commentary on Bergman.  I tend to write the same things.)  As much as I find both Bergman and Allen's works incredibly impressive and genius, I often criticize both of them for being so invested in their comfort zones.  Both men were prolific in making movies about infidelity and that's just disappointing.  Mostly, I find Bergman disappointing because he treats what must be a subjective lifestyle as a universal truth.  Now, I just experienced The Devil's Eye for the first time.  I know very little about it. I didn't read any essays on it.  I didn't do any research.  So anything that I'm saying is simply an emotional and critical response from an individual's perspective.  If my guesses are accurate, good for me.  If not, please understand that I'm trying to unpack someone who is significantly smarter than I am.

As much as this might be an original work by Ingmar Bergman, there is an element of fairy tale here.  I can't help but think that Bergman is adapting a morality play probably from the era of strict religious restrictions.  After all, this is a story about the importance of keeping chaste.  It follows a lot of the same beats that we'd see in classic theatre, having the literal devil send up his servants to tempt good people into sin.  With the case of The Devil's Eye, it plays up what must be a culturally relevant adage saying something along the lines of "A woman's chastity is a sty in the devil's eye."  I don't know if it really matters whether or not the story is wholly original or simply an adaptation of a cultural standard.  But what the real point is that Bergman is settling into something that has been beaten to death when it comes to storytelling: marriage is a bit of a sham and that cheating is a part of love.

Now, I will say that Bergman does some clever things with this thing.  There are two women from two different perspectives when it comes to marriage.  The virginal Britt-Marie represents the affianced.  Renata represents the comfortably married wife.  Both women end up breaking their vows to certain extents.  Bergman paints Renata as the character who seems more stalwart in her beliefs about marriage.  The fact that she cheats on her husband is meant to be a little bit of a surprise, especially considering that her pastor spouse seems to be the moral grounding of the movie.  But Britt-Marie comes across as the one who is willing to sacrifice her maidenhood.  It's actually odd that she doesn't because she kisses the demonic Don Juan without much arm twisting.  Now, to Bergman's credit, he comments on this for the first time.  I'm so overwhelmed with Bergman movies treating this kind of kiss as a non-issue.  It is the epilogue of the film, condeming Britt-Marie for this kiss despite the fact that she spurns Don Juan until her returns to perdition.  I kind of applaud Bergman for allowing his narrow world view to open to some criticism.  

But the thing that really bugs me about Britt-Marie's kiss with Don Juan is how casually she allows it.  That initial kiss is frustrating because a lot of Bergman's movies have such an important moment as a matter-of-fact thing.  If anything, it is not only a criticism of women, but on humanity itself.  Britt-Marie, from moment one, declares her undying love for Jonas, who is shown to be imperfect by the second act of the film.  However, when Don Juan, who has barely started his crusade to steal her virginity, asks her for a kiss, she not only obliges, but becomes the dominant kisser in that scenario.  It's frustrating.  The rest of the movie is a nonchalant shrugging off Don Juan.

Now, the joke apparently lies in the tragedy of Don Juan.  I say "joke" because Bergman tells us that this is a comedy.  I'm kind of thinking that this is a comedy much like some of Shakespeare's works are comedies instead of tragedies: evil is overcome and it ends in a marriage.  But Bergman attempts to build Don Juan into a sympathetic character.  I mean, I applaud that. But it also is a weird take considering that Don Juan does little soul searching in the film.  What Bergman is shooting for is that love has made a slave out of Don Juan.  He has finally met his match and that love that he has is torture for the lethario who has made a name for himself based exclusively on lust.  I can see how this is trying to be a comedy, but I'm not having it. 

Instead, what I see is Don Juan not wanting to be a better man, but instead feeling spurned.  It's meant to be wildly romantic.  I don't get any of that.  I get a sad man who has always gotten what he wanted out of life and the afterlife, only to be rejected for the first time.  We're supposed to feel bad, but rejection is part of life.  Britt-Marie is not meant to be a prize to be won and the movie kind of forgets that.  I know that she is unobtainable because she is with Jonas, but that's kind of missing the point.  It shouldn't matter that she is with Jonas.  Britt-Marie shouldn't be a prize in any scenario.  I kind of wish that Jonas ended being as much of a butthead as he started off being through the entire movie and she still rejected him.  That's a far more interesting movie for me.

What I am struggling to unpack is the entire story of the pastor.  See, the pastor, who is the father of Britt-Marie, is a self-proclaimed simpleton for the Lord.  He may not be the smartest apple in the bunch, but he is devoted to the Lord and his family.  Now, the closest thing to a hero that this movie has to offer because he traps a demon in his wardrobe.  It's great.  It's the stuff of old timey folklore.  As much as everyone views him as too naive to do anything great, he's the only one who gets an upper hand over the devil.  That's cool.  And in typical devil form, he tempts the pastor with forbidden knowledge.  The devil knows that the pastor's wife is cheating on him with another devil and offers him a key so that he can be broken by her infidelity.  But because the pastor has a simple faith, he resists the devil.

But even once he's resisted, he is still basically forced into the same outcome.  This is the part that frustrates me.  Part of what I give Bergman credit for, which is different from a lot of his other films, is his gracious attitude towards the symbol of faith.  As bumbling as the pastor is, he has the faith of a child.  Yet, he still has to eat from the tree of knowledge by having confirmation that his wife, indeed, was unfaithful with a demon.  That almost seems like it's cruelty for cruelty's sake.  Like, the point of that moment is that the pastor is so secure in his faith that he forgives his wife for her indiscretion.  But why bother put him through his first trial if he doesn't reap the rewards of his good behavior.

I so wanted to love this.  Parts of it, I'll even concede, are pretty good. But honestly, it felt like something that I would put on in youth group --minus the raunchy bits.  Considering that we've gone over this a bunch of times in better forms, The Devil's Eye doesn't do a lot for me.