(The 4:3 ratio has always been like a box, too.)
His editing points are distinctive, sometimes sharp. For example, the nurse got out of the car after reading the letter, and after two or three seconds of switching to the distant view of the lake
(It's a feast for the face!)
Next, to an accepting, but wary expression
female doctor said (a woman again?) "Your lifelessness is a foregone conclusion" At that time, Elizabeth's face
and her eyelids drooped down immediately. For a person who doesn't want to talk, the face is of course an answer. Didn't he make good use of this.
The scene, for Bergman, is a functional thing, and the traces of the scenes in his films are very strong. And narratively, he's using a step-by-step approach to developing emotional changes -- he's backing up these cut points with an emotional development (reasonable), so to speak. That's how his rhythm developed.
For example, after the first three brief (and equally easy to deal with) conversations between the two women, Bergman uses a zoomed-in shot to show the beginning of an emotional shift:
Here is a long shot of the conversation . But when the nurse said this, the camera zoomed in on her.
It can almost be said that paying attention to the point where his shots change, you can capture Bergman's overtones. (It's like that in Hollywood~)
Besides, his shots don't even move very slowly like Tarkovsky's - it's also a way of expressing emotional changes, but, to use an inappropriate metaphor In other words, one is stepless and the other is graded.
And in cinema as a whole, he can be called an emotional structuralist.
For Bergman, or for most experienced directors, the choice of medium or close-up, or long shot, for a scene, is a question of "too" practicality.
Bergman is also a master of form, but has he developed content, emotion in form so well? Generally speaking, he goes so far in form because he digs so deeply into the emotions of the characters.
But Bergman's use of bizarre methods in the film, especially the opening and closing credits, is a bit suspicious. Of course I feel suspicious, because Bergman's thinking about images (his films are unique not because of his thinking, but more intuition) seems simple and superficial in this place, and tends to be rhythmic.
Sangetta put it this way:
"The usual way of analyzing a familiar, obscure film of this type is to ignore the bizarre differences in the film and look at the film as a whole, that is, to The details of the film are considered in a unified spiritual theme. But in my opinion, this method of analysis is actually covering up the difficulties in understanding the film.”
But in the same way, Bergman is also from a “holistic” "Go up and conceive the production of the whole film, but this "wholeness" is not a certain theme that Susan Sontag said. To some extent, Bergman uses this film to make this "wholeness". "Dig it out. This also makes the choice of "analysis method" seem irrelevant
. The action of the nurse wearing glasses to read the letter reminds me of the same action of the child in the opening film, which looks melancholy and mature. People can't help but think of their relationship, but it doesn't seem to feel like a mother-son relationship.
In terms of subject matter, maybe I can still understand Bergman, but in terms of expression, maybe it's hard to do like him.
His actor's face, his tone of voice. All are full of "visual" excellence. (Focusing on the eyes, the light and shadow are handled so enchantingly that one can't help but be drawn to the face.) Sometimes, because it is so good and pleasing to the eye, one can't help but think about the meaning behind such a performance.
The words full of introspection and prose are mostly confessions, and the faces that say these words are sometimes a spear and shield relationship, and some are also full of obscenity. (a compliment)
Because sometimes people can't help but forget the faces that are a bit sloppy (though those faces are, to a certain extent, accurate) and remember some of the words in it.
View more about Persona reviews
