Letters to the Editor
-
About Snobbery and Elitism, and Bergman
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
This passage, from Corinthians, contains the title of one of my favorite Bergman's films: Through a Glass Darkly. Bergman's religiosity was deeply ambivalent and hardly served the purpose of a calm haven. It was more like a slippery wreck on which one holds on to stubbornly for dear life in the middle of a gale at high sea. His attitude towards faith probably changed with age, but his belligerence never ceased as can be appreciated in his last film, Saraband.
Is the Bible elitist too? It was considered so by the Catholic church until Luther decided that the church and the priests shouldn't interfere between the faithful and the direct appreciation of the scriptures; the priests were no longer to be the only interpreters of the holy text, which had existed up until the Lutheran reform only in Latin and Greek.
If by "elitist", the many readers who've written about their aversion to Bergman and what they think he represents, mean being concerned by other things than the circumstances and workings of survival, vital to over 90% of mankind, but clearly not the main concern of the wealthy and privileged (since most seem to agree to link elitism to wealth), then, yes, Bergman, and almost every director that has ever interested or moved me is elitist.
It is true that depression and angst and existential crisis, as they are depicted in Bergman films in particular, are not a common occurrence amongst the working class. Which does NOT mean it doesn't exist. I believe that the main difference resides in the fact that to dwell and expand on these feelings and concerns is a luxury that most working class people simply can't afford and can't be bothered with. However, I believe that these 'debilitating ex/in-cursions' can open you up to other experiences and other insights, and, yes, even at times elevate you from the main workings of the business of being alive. Dealing with anguish, guilt and doubt are not the sole prerogative of Bergman and his ilk: the bible contains numerous passages that deal precisely with these issues.
Myself, having been brought up in an absolutely atheist South-american household at the very antipodes of Bergman's own nordic and oh-so-protestant upbringing, I don't believe in God, but I believe in Bergman, in his quest, in his struggle which is so very human, and which has brought me closer to understanding faith and its implications. I owe this to Bergman, and for that I am forever grateful.
This being said, there a number of Bergman films I find pretentious and frightfully self-indulgent to the brink of insincerity and ludicrousness (I'm thinking here of "The Passion of Anna" and "The Hour of the Wolf"), but this will never undermine the times I've felt elated and crushed at the same time watching his several incursions into (his, mine, your) human psyche, with his enlightened direction of actors and highly inspired use of space, color and light, in a beautiful hommage to his first craft in illusion making as a man of theater. I sense that Bergman felt crushed at times by that sensation that he was merely an "illusion maker", and that doubt, one his great drives, is precisely what makes him so great.
On a less transcendental plane, has any of the Bergman bashers watched his "Scenes from a Marriage"?
I would like to finish with the Merriam Webster definition of the word "snob":
1 : one who blatantly imitates, fawningly admires, or vulgarly seeks association with those regarded as social superiors.
2 : one who tends to rebuff, avoid, or ignore those regarded as inferior b : one who has an offensive air of superiority in matters of knowledge or taste.
I think everybody who's criticized Bergman will agree with me that Bergman cannot be accused of the first definition of "snob". I doubt that they will recognize themselves in the second definition, however.
Thank you Bergman, indeed.
-
I believe...
"I believe that the main difference resides in the fact that to dwell and expand on these feelings and concerns is a luxury that most working class people simply can't afford and can't be bothered with."
A large and popular photo and video store in Manhattan on the corner of 9th Ave and 34th Street called B&H employs predominantly Hassidic Jews (and I don't remember a single woman face working there) who proudly wear their signs of distinction. Or take monks most of who work for living all their lives.
But I doubt that there are companies where employees wear badges that say "A Humble Bergmanian".
So my answer is that the absolute majority of our honorable working class are just pathetic human beings whose choice for meaning has always been any tale that tell them it justifies their existence forever.
In my film there is this exchange:
Jenya: ...So you lied to me all this time... Why?
Jose: Not all the time, Jenya, no... 'Cause I can't live with no meaning, OK'?! Like you.... like animals!
Jenya: You call all we've gone through meaningless? I thought there were plenty of meanings, just no ultimate one.
Jose: But I need more assurances in life, in relationships!
Jenya: We all need more assurances in life. What I am asking you why you need to lie to me to get one? Why do you need false assurances for God's sake!?
Jose: Aha, you said: "for God's sake!"
Jenya: It's just an expression. Don't fucking insult me.
Jose: Stop cursing! Maybe it's better for me! Maybe it's better to live with false assurances than to live with none!
Jenya: Are you stupid? Are you that stupid?! False assurances are better? I had false assurances from you what good was it for, eh? Tell me.
Jose: I didn't say it right. It's not that it's false.
Jenya: Ah! God is true then. How do you know it's true? Why do you need to lie to me if it's true...
And on and on. To make a long story short: it's helpless.