Persona (1966) Review

It is true that part of the reason I chose this film is that it shares its title with a song (and album) that I enjoy. But also, psychology is something I find fascinating. I don’t think I could handle a full course in it, but I do enjoy learning about it and occasionally theorising with friends (or friend).

Persona (1966), is a Swedish psychological drama directed by Ingmar Bergman. Right from the opening, this film does an amazing job at getting in your head. At least, in mine. Bergman uses shocking, or disturbing, imagery along with flashing images between titles and focused (uncomfortable) sound design to confuse and unsettle the audience. Some of the images are flash-backed to later on in the film to reveal more information about them and justify their presence in the story, which I loved. I dislike being confused but I do like the feeling of figuring something out, putting together the pieces.

I must warn you if you plan to watch this film but don’t wish to see animal organs, close your eyes once you see the sheep (I did flinch and put my hand in front of the screen).

The story follows a young nurse, Alma, as she cares for and confides in her patient, Elisabeth Vogler, a stage actress who has become mute. She struggles with her admiration and concern for Elizabeth, becoming frustrated with her lack of response and confused as they begin to reflect each others' personalities (or personas, as the title suggests)

Again, I was really impressed by the acting in this film, this may come up every review. It’s important. Most of the film is just the two women, with one of them mute! Yet they perform so well. It was as if I were in the room with them at times, I could feel their emotion. Incredible.

Bergman wasn’t afraid to use long shots, occasionally using just one shot for a whole scene. Far from being boring, these were very effective in adding to the discomfort and uneasy feeling of those scenes.

There were also very intentional camera moves, drawing our attention to specific objects or expressions. The few quick camera moves were often to highlight a character’s hands. Hands, along with the music, were a great source of tension in this film, having been associated with pain and violence in the opening with this reinforced midway.

Speaking of music, which was a great fit for the film, there were also rhythmic taps throughout. They were sometimes disguised/brought in with sound effects like rain or crockery.

The shots are focused on a single character focus for a large portion of the film - even blocking one character by the other in some shots. This is unconventional so it throws the audience off but intrigues them. It makes them uncomfortable but invites them deeper into a character. This film really matches the title - and brings the audience in to be part of that.

There were times I felt as though the dialogue (and accompanying visuals) made it seem like a poetic art film. It took me a step back from the characters or even the overall story for a moment then oscillated back to more real moments and deeper connections with characters. Another thing I thought was done well was letting the audience feel uncomfortable, and then letting them almost get used to it, before pulling them in deeper, normalising, and creating different kinds of discomfort. One example of this is letting actors walk in and out of shot, leaving the audience as onlookers, passers by, outside the story and missing out, letting them get uncomfortable with the lack of involvement, settle in to it and then unsettled to be lead on in the story.

The film explores vulnerability, mental and emotional strength as well as many other topics. What I did like about this film, which I don’t like about a lot of films, was its ambiguity. Many themes could be explored within it, some talk about the exploration of identity, others of motherhood and marriage. So much can be drawn from this film, which fits perfectly with its title, persona.

Toward the end of film, I was questioning what was even real (in the story world). Have I been watching a mystery or a cruel social experiment? What did it all mean? And thinking about its ambiguity, it fits amazingly well. You could explore one of the many themes within the film, you could theorise as to the characters’ relationship or their past, what happens next? Or you could step back, and see all those themes and all those theories and the film itself as a representation of a mind, of a persona. It could be yours; it could be mine; it could be ours (or society’s). Or you could see it as a metaphor for something else. That’s where the aspect of art comes into film.

I can definitely relate to situations where you care so much for someone, and put effort into relationships, and sometimes end up breaking down yet they remain incredibly nonchalant. But then I am quite an emotional person. Saying that, I was the only person in the cinema not crying during The Fault in our Stars (2014) when I went to see it with my friends. In my defense, I was extremely dehydrated, and it was just too sad, you know? Like it was shoving sadness in my face... anyway.

Persona is an example of unsettling cinema that is still extremely compelling. It’s not very graphic, not by today’s standards, and thinking back on it, it doesn’t bother me at all, but I still found myself tense and scared (I know it’s just a movie!) It’s a film that inspires me to think about film outside the story and how I can use the film itself to say something, while keeping a story within it. I’ve also learnt new techniques to creep out an audience (if the audience is anything like me).