It is very interesting that, as if fate had called me, after watching such a movie that can be used as a paradigm for psychoanalysis, I also encountered a paradigm of psychoanalysis in reality. But I chose not to say it, in case she splashed me with boiling water like the heroine in the film.
Frankly speaking, I think almost everything that can be said has been said in the two long essays of "Puff". One is about the theme of the film, and the other is about the artistry of the film and some of Bergman's characteristics. So I can only say some personal feelings here.
This is the first Bergman I've seen, and I feel like I'm using a movie to describe a typical instance of psychoanalysis that Freud had fantasized about. Some people say it is "textual", but I think it can only be regarded as a script, but not a novel. For me, fiction should include more of the surrounding things, the environment. And for this point, I want to criticize Freud. I think he and this film rarely involve the natural environment in the psychoanalysis of people. But I think that's also a big part of deciding one's actions.
I think what Bergman lacks the most is the real environment. What he shoots, or the place where the protagonist lives in the movie, is similar to an unconscious, or superconscious world. And I also think that this is a kind of world described by people such as Haruki Murakami and Hesse. It has the sense of elites and intellectuals of traditional Western Europe; it also has the illusion of a capitalist society. It will involuntarily discard many real-life things, such as the color of the walls, the decoration in the house, etc.
For me, this is actually not complete enough. I think the complete should be similar to Tarkovsky's, giving the character's emotions to everything around him. Such as aquatic plants, such as dead trees, and even the color of the entire world you see. Perhaps Bergman's approach of throwing away something and going deep into the heart of the character will be simpler, more straightforward, and more exemplary. But if we really want to put psychoanalysis into practice, or really want to know someone who exists in real life; I don't think Bergman's method alone will work. Because we are missing so many things, we can only see what the person we want to know wants to see, not what affects him.
But Bergman's work is not meaningless, nor is it weaker than the old tower. Just like Newton's three laws, it is the basic condition for deriving the theory of relativity. Although it does not conform to the facts under high-speed motion, we cannot say that it is meaningless; let alone that his achievements are not as great as the theory of relativity.
In other words, I think there is actually another way of interpreting this film that is not very correct. The two women are actually the same person. If I think this way, I think it's a bit demeaning to the movie, but it actually makes sense when you think about it carefully. Just have fun.
View more about Persona reviews
