Scenes from a Marriage

(Bergman's theatrical version)

I perhaps haven't seen Bergman in 6.5 years?

The title is appropriate: these are just scenes. As far as I can tell, there's nothing higher going on. And the scenes aren't about the disintegration of a marriage as I thought beforehand -- that happens early and abruptly. Most of the movie is post-apocalypse. Blue is the Warmest Colour is about the disintegration of a relationship, and it's gut-wrenching as I recall, as hope is gradually ground to ash. Scenes from a Marriage features the eruption but mostly explores the ashy aftermath. This really reflavors the movie, since enduring a slow eruption, with hope of escape, differs greatly from a sudden eruption and a lot of dead time trying to rebuild. To me, much of Scenes from a Marriage was more depressing than sad. The eruption was sad, but the rest was bleak.

This movie immediately and finally surprised me by its normalcy. I'm not sure whether you could call the relationship abnormal, given divorce rates, just like I'm not sure when abnormal psychology becomes normal. But in any case, this is so much more normal than other Bergman I remember. It's highly realistic, not just aesthetically, but all the way through -- which seems unique among Bergman I've seen. I wonder if the premise and legacy of the movie are primarily its intimate realism: here's a long movie almost exclusively of closeups of two characters as they talk incessantly, intimately, and believably. I wonder whether such intimacy x realism was original at the time. It's probably been done much more, recently (like Blue is the Warmest Colour, maybe Blue Valentine). Other Bergman I remember being stylish and philosophical. Scenes from a Marriage is artsy in concept but not style, and it's not really philosophical. I like the concept: microscope examination of a relationship. But without style or philosophy, you're leaving a lot of justification to the viewer's ability to connect with the characters, i.e. the viewer's history. I could connect with some of this, but it's still a little tough to justify. What did I gain? Probably some empathy, and a broader vision of cinema. I don't regret it. I like it.

But I don't love it. It wasn't emotional enough for me to justify the lack of style and moral. It was very sad to me a couple times, and depressing or relieving elsewhere, but the spectrum wasn't quite broad enough to be rich. It's a good cinematic study though, and I was continuously attentive to their dialogue.

This is the least child-appropriate PG movie I've ever seen (2001 is G). Sex abounds -- it's almost the orbital center to all the other clutter. Even without it, these are very mature themes.

I'm pretty sympathetic to Marianne. It's a little crushing when Johan leaves her, so whatever happens after that is framed in terms of her redemption, which doesn't really come. Ultimately he's the one who left -- however much he suffered was founded on his choice, while her suffering wasn't founded on a particular choice or fault of hers. I wanted victory for Marianne, and humbling for Johan. The humbling came around, but not the victory I hoped for. She's permanently scarred, without enough redemption for me to leave with a good feeling.

I appreciate Liv Ullmann's performance. Who has been more exposed? Just Adele in Blue? And this is 1973, when movies are more guarded. She's valiant, hiding behind no beard or black iris. Everything about her is naked and abandoned, and to do it for so long, with so many lines, delivered to such a close camera, is stunning. I could say some similar things of the male lead, but I get a totally different sensation with him, his character being despicable to me where hers isn't, and him being male where she isn't. I've loved movies that explore naked and abandoned males, but for various reasons my sympathy is low with Johan. Liv of course I remember from other movies -- I think she's the silent one in Persona -- so I was impressed by her exceedingly normal, vulnerable role.

Edit: I just read about the film. Critics seem to agree, Ullmann's performance is the heroic, though Josephson's is also complex and true. It's hard not to feel the greater sympathy for the victim, who is also the more beautiful of the pair. See my old post On my favorite "people" in cinema -- my perception of the character and of the performance are deeply linked. Here, there's no question Ullmann's is the taller performance as it's linked with her character. She seemed to get more praise and awards than he.

Critics also seem to roughly share my perspective on the value of this movie. When I was rambling about it not being philosophical earlier, I now recall what I was measuring it against: his "silence of God" themes. Those are absent, and it's just a marriage story.