Through a Review Darkly - Learning Bergman
Through a Glass Darkly reminded me that there is no real definition for what is considered “cinema”. It’s easy to compare a large tentpole film like The Avengers, with say, The Lighthouse and speculate on which is the “real film”. But if that was our mentality, wouldn’t we have to do the same for films like this? They are starkly different in form, yet both films achieve a visceral response in me. This alone cemented that these arguments are redundant. On a direct level, there are no other films that should be directly compared to the one you are watching at that moment in time. The keyword here is SHOULD, because personally, I know that this is sometimes impossible to do.
Through a Glass Darkly is an incredibly inspiring film. With only a small budget and limited resources, Bergman was able to create such a powerful yet insular film. If you ask most budding filmmakers these days to make something with what they have, most will complain and always yearn for greener pastures of more money, a better setting, and/or better equipment. Bergman essentially says, ‘Fuck it, I’ll film at my house’. Before I get lost in my diatribe of pretense, I should share a plot synopsis of Through a Glass Darkly.
“A young woman, Karin, has recently returned to the family island after spending some time in a mental hospital. On the island with her is her lonely brother and kind, but the increasingly desperate husband (‘Max von Sydow’). They are joined by Karin’s father (‘Gunnar Björnstrand’), who is a world-traveling author estranged from his children. The film depicts how Karin’s grip on reality slowly slips away and how the bonds between the family members change in light of this fact.”
I avoided this film for one major reason: my understanding of what the tone of the film would be. As a result, I have done myself a disservice. Being an independent filmmaker, I am always looking to learn and understand how to make good films with limited resources. This film, like many other great small films, proves that ‘less is more’. A lot of films can overstay their welcome, and can at times take two hours to tell a story that could be told in eighty minutes. Bergman, understanding this, made a film that clocks in at eighty-nine minutes. Not one minute is wasted or pointlessly dragged out; everything we see is essential, and even amplifies the things we don’t see.
Casting Harriet Andersson was an inspired choice. (At one point in time she was a left-field sex symbol thanks to Bergman's Summer with Monika). Due to her working-class appeal and girl-next-door charm, she becomes an incredibly sympathetic character. Had he cast someone with a huge star presence, it would have been much harder to sympathize with her, and the heartbreak I experienced whilst watching this character’s descent into a schizophrenic breakdown would have been dampened.
Everyone did an excellent job in this picture, and I recommend it to anyone looking to make a small independent film. You will learn a lot more from this than watching Die Hard 3: With a Vengeance. Because the scope of the film is small, I can’t give it a perfect score; however, I think this film wears its imperfections like a badge of honor.
