613-614 Summer Interlude and Summer with Monika

[tenia]

I admit thinking at the end of the movie : "how the hell did they manage to turn that into an exploitation movie ?!" :-s

[Matt]

The Immoral Mr. Teas didn't even come out until 1959! I think you folks have a skewed understanding of what was permissible on American movie screens in the early-to-mid-1950s during the enforcement of the Production Code. The closest you get to Monika in a 1953 mainstream film is Jane Russell in The French Line ("J.R. in 3D. It'll knock both your eyes out!"). It was released independently without a Production Code seal of approval and then cut after the initial release.

[Gregory]

The problem with using sex to sell an artistic work (I'm no prude but I'd say Criterion's cover does just that) is that people let their imaginations run riot, and then the film turns out to be much different than they expected, especially when the merits of it emerge only by patiently following the kind of story that Bergman was apt to tell. And, putting aside the sex/nudity angle, the claim in Criterion's description that this is "one of Bergman’s most important films" seems likely to add to many people's disappointment, even taking it as a given that back-cover descriptions should be presumed to oversell the merits of a given work somewhat. As an unqualified statement, it comes across as ridiculous, at least to me.
I bought this (and not Summer Interlude) because it's a treat for me to get a Bergman film on blu that I haven't owned at least once before on DVD.

[Matt]

people let their imaginations run riot, and then the film turns out to be much different than they expected

That's pretty much the history of sexploitation films in the US in a nutshell.

Janus Films/Criterion using sex to sell Bergman has a storied tradition, so I'm not surprised by Criterion's handling of this particular film.

[tachyonEvan]

The Immoral Mr. Teas didn't even come out until 1959! I think you folks have a skewed understanding of what was permissible on American movie screens in the early-to-mid-1950s during the enforcement of the Production Code. The closest you get to Monika in a 1953 mainstream film is Jane Russell in The French Line ("J.R. in 3D. It'll knock both your eyes out!"). It was released independently without a Production Code seal of approval and then cut after the initial release.

So it's "important"/"controversial" from an American perspective?

That strikes me as a bit odd. Did Bergman make the film with the intention of Americans watching it? When we're comparing/discussing foreign films, why take an American point of view? I'm willing to bet that most Americans hadn't even heard of this, and people going to see Gentlemen Prefer Blondes or From Here To Eternity probably didn't care that some Swedish film happens to have exactly one (1) pair of buttocks in it. Who cares what was permissible on American movie screens when we're not talking about American movies or American audiences? This is a Swedish film made for Swedish movie screens by and for Swedish people.

[knives]

An American company discussing how a film has affected American culture is not shocking. The film is important in terms of Bergman's relationship to America and that is what Criterion is working on since they are an American company. Like Matt has said you're allowing your modern experiences cloud you. An ass shot was a lot back then not to mention general eroticism.

[PfR73]

This is a Swedish film made for Swedish movie screens by and for Swedish people.

Released on Blu-Ray in America by an American company trying primarily to sell copies to Americans.

[warren oates]

Idk, there's great stuff in Summer with Monika by most standards, even by the immensely high bar set in Bergman's later work. For instance,

Spoiler

the scene with the young jealous kid burning their stuff is perfect. Definitely as strange and true as the best literature I've ever read.

And I'm not sure we're supposed to like the two lovers all that much. We see them as they are, not as they see themselves and that's part of the tragic irony of Bergman's perspective. The film is probably best appreciated after first screening other Bergman masterpieces and/or having read any of his autobiographical musings or the many interviews and biographies. If this is your first, second or even third Bergman, you're doing it wrong. Godard loved this film when it was first released and it's hard not to see why. A frank, explicit and emotionally honest version of the lovers-on-the-run motif that came to obsess him in his own work.

[Gregory]

Yadda yadda yadda, warren -- that's all well and good but it can't address the fundamental problem of insufficient "ass shots."

[Professor Wagstaff]

A high level of sexual content or nudity also doesn't necessarily mean eroticism and I think that this movie shows how good Bergman was with suggesting the sexual content we don't see on camera. Something I found sexier than Monika running naked on the beach was the way she and Harry sat smoking a cigarette, fully clothed, while their bodies were entwined. Also, I'd reference Bibi Andersson's monologue in Persona about an anonymous encounter on a beach as being one of the most erotic moments I've seen in a movie.

[mfunk9786]

I think tachyonEvan was hoping for this

[matrixschmatrix]

I hope for that every single time I watch anything.

[tachyonEvan]

Nah, I just wanted a good movie. As is, I'd probably rather watch Friday The 13th Part VI: Jason Lives! than Summer With Monika.

Idk, there's great stuff in Summer with Monika by most standards, even by the immensely high bar set in Bergman's later work. For instance,

Spoiler

the scene with the young jealous kid burning their stuff is perfect. Definitely as strange and true as the best literature I've ever read.

And I'm not sure we're supposed to like the two lovers all that much. We see them as they are, not as they see themselves and that's part of the tragic irony of Bergman's perspective. The film is probably best appreciated after first screening other Bergman masterpieces and/or having read any of his autobiographical musings or the many interviews and biographies. If this is your first, second or even third Bergman, you're doing it wrong. Godard loved this film when it was first released and it's hard not to see why. A frank, explicit and emotionally honest version of the lovers-on-the-run motif that came to obsess him in his own work.

It's my third Bergman, so maybe that's part of the problem.

I understand the "we see them as they are, not as they see themselves," but I fail to see the "tragic irony". Nor does anything about this feel particularly "tragic." They're wholly responsible for their own fates, and they're kind of a pair of deplorable individuals, to boot.

[mteller]

Yeah, that scene where they torture kittens and mutilate babies really turned me against them. DEPLORABLE.

[med]

Yadda yadda yadda, warren -- that's all well and good but it can't address the fundamental problem of insufficient "ass shots."

I think you're showing a lack of respect to tachyonEvan's Joe Bob Briggs approach to cinema appreciation.

[Donald Brown]

That's an insult to Joe Bob Briggs.

[tachyonEvan]

Come on, I'm clearly not saying that I thought that Summer With Monika was a bad film because of its lack of nudity. I thought Summer With Monika was a bad film for the number of reasons I detailed above.

The only way the nudity even factors in is in the film’s perceived historical significance, which is a whole other issue.

But hey, if you’d rather insult me than actually try to justify why the film is “good,” by all means, continue. You seem to be enjoying yourselves.

[warren oates]

Now, now, let's comport ourselves with the dignity worthy of our collectively advanced age and moviegoing experience. Young tachyonEvan is making a an effort, passionate and haphazard as it may be, to work his way through the canon so as not, in the future, to be disproportionately blown away by the "moral genius" of a merely okay film like A Separation. So we ought grant him that.

So far as I can see it, his main problem is that he's coming at many of these works with a serious generational 'tude: "Like, okay, supposed classic of world cinema, entertain me, biatch!" Whereas, if you just quietly watch the thing and reflect upon what it's trying to do, that might work better.

Even the fact that Summer with Monika may have directly influenced a film he recently very much enjoyed like Breathless does not seem to motivate him to dig deeper. Alas, these are the days when the youth of the world get their definitions of key literary concepts not from books and scholars, but free on-line dictionaries! And the definitions are entirely tautological!

The sadder question for me is where has empathy gone? Since when must we "like" characters to relate to their dilemmas? And how does a filmmaker's judgement-free presentation of said dilemmas invite such harsh condemnation?

[mfunk9786]

I think you're alone, regardless of age/experience, in thinking that A Separation is "merely okay"

[warren oates]

Nah, check the thread with Zedz, my elder bro mfunk.

[tachyonEvan]

Now, now, let's comport ourselves with the dignity worthy of our collectively advanced age and moviegoing experience. Young tachyonEvan is making a an effort, passionate and haphazard as it may be, to work his way through the canon so as not, in the future, to be disproportionately blown away by the "moral genius" of a merely okay film like A Separation. So we ought grant him that.

So far as I can see it, his main problem is that he's coming at many of these works with a serious generational 'tude: "Like, okay, supposed classic of world cinema, entertain me, biatch!" Whereas, if you just quietly watch the thing and reflect upon what it's trying to do, that might work better.

Surprised you recognized me enough from my posting to know that I am, in fact, new at this and “working my way through the canon.” Even though A Separation remains incredible in my book.

However, I didn’t approach Summer With Monika – or any of the films I’ve seen so far – with that attitude. I wasn’t satisfied with The 400 Blows at first, so I watched it twice in a row, and appreciated it a lot more the second time around. Maybe Summer With Monika needs further viewings, but it didn’t strike me as a film fraught with subtlety. There are many other films with beautiful nature shots that work much better. Most of the screen time of the film consists of teenagers snogging or shots of water/rocks. As I said, there were moments at the end of the movie that I enjoyed, but for the most part, no thank you. I’m not the only one who’s posted in this thread who was underwhelmed by this film.

Yes, I expect films in the Criterion Collection to impress me. They’re in the collection for a reason, and Tiny Furniture/Armageddon/etc. aside, for the most part, it seems safe to assume that the reason is that they’re good films. I think it’s impossible to go into ANY of these films without preconceived notions or expectations of SOME kinds – by their very nature, I expect them to be worth my time. I walked away from Summer With Monika devoid of that feeling.

Even the fact that Summer with Monika may have directly influenced a film he recently very much enjoyed like Breathless does not seem to motivate him to dig deeper. Alas, these are the days when the youth of the world get their definitions of key literary concepts not from books and scholars, but free on-line dictionaries! And the definitions are entirely tautological!

English major – can’t help myself when I have an opportunity to take use of “dramatic irony” literally.
But what do you mean, “dig deeper”? What deeper digging are you hoping I do in this case? I understand that Summer With Monika may have influenced Breathless, but Breathless (as far as I’ve perceived so far) does everything better.

The sadder question for me is where has empathy gone? Since when must we "like" characters to relate to their dilemmas? And how does a filmmaker's judgement-free presentation of said dilemmas invite such harsh condemnation?

Judgment-free? This is a different discussion, but how can Bergman present this situation with a completely neutral perspective on his characters? When

Spoiler

one character leaves for six months on a dime when he’s previously expressed concern over his father in the hospital, and his girlfriend later sleeps with a man who lit their freakin’ boat on fire because she’s bored/unhappy

I have a hard time believing that Bergman’s perspective is “judgment-free.” My “harsh condemnation” stems from the fact that I had no sympathy for these characters at any point until the film’s conclusion, when how awful Monika is really comes to a head. Maybe I'm being a bit more heartless than is fair, but I'm honestly surprised that you've got this outpouring of sympathy for these teens.

[warren oates]

My “harsh condemnation” stems from the fact that I had no sympathy for these characters at any point until the film’s conclusion, when how awful Monika is really comes to a head.

So could it be that this is intentional, that the film is building to this epiphany? That the characters seem childish and indulgent to you until they realize the consequences of their running away? It's no accident that Godard cites this same moment in his critical appreciation which you can peruse in Godard On Godard.

And, yes, I do believe that Bergman, master dramatist that he is, shows us his characters without judgment. We see what they want, what they do and what happens to them. But we're not invited to render a sentence on who's at fault. Just the opposite, I think, whereby he's offering us an opening to radical empathy.

[knives]

Why is sympathy important? Many characters from lesser and greater films are the POV yet garner no sympathy. It doesn't seem like a practical complaint especially when sympathy is not a concern of the director.

[warren oates]

Why is sympathy important? Many characters from lesser and greater films are the POV yet garner no sympathy. It doesn't seem like a practical complaint especially when sympathy is not a concern of the director.

You're right. Sympathy, likeability, relatability = not important. No protg need be pleasant or do what we'd personally approve of or want something that's generally societally acceptable. But empathy is pretty much all important. We need to the see a character's dilemma dramatized in such a way that we can understand their choices psychologically. And if that's done masterfully, with a big heart and zero judgment, then you've got real drama.

Which is weird because we've been talking about A Separation too and that's the thing I think the film does most successfully, allow us to take the perspectives of each of its characters, really see things from their POV.

[tachyonEvan]

My “harsh condemnation” stems from the fact that I had no sympathy for these characters at any point until the film’s conclusion, when how awful Monika is really comes to a head.

So could it be that this is intentional, that the film is building to this epiphany? That the characters seem childish and indulgent to you until they realize the consequences of their running away? It's no accident that Godard cites this same moment in his critical appreciation which you can peruse in Godard On Godard.

Firstly – she seems “childish and indulgent” only to me? You didn’t react that way? Or are you saying “the audience” in general finds the characters childish and indulgent? Because that’s no demonstration of mastery – the characters ARE childish, indulgent, impulsive, lustful, etc. How can you deny that Bergman wrote them as such?

Do you think Monika really understands – or for that matter, cares – the consequences of their summer excursion? Seems like textbook teenager to me – she’s excited once she thinks she’s pregnant, but completely disinterested once she actually is in possession of a child. I believe I remember a line that essentially amounted to “I just want to have fun!” So at the end, we’re left with Monika – irresponsible as she’s always been – and Harry – who’s now on his own, recognizing what huge mistakes he’s made. I see no character growth from Monika – is that the point? To juxtapose the completely different impacts that this shared adventure has had on the two people? I suppose that’s an interesting sketch of these characters and their journey, but again, I’m not sure it’s executed as well (effectively/enjoyably) as it could have been.
I can buy that this is a film that leads to much more interesting discussion than the film is itself enjoyable. I mean, clearly I’m here talking about it. There are interesting things going on in this film, but I think – again, on first viewing – its flaws outnumber its successes.

Another question is one of what Bergman wants to have presented us with? How are we supposed to react? Not that this has a black-and-white answer. My friend – who watched the film with me – remarked that they should consider showing the film as a PSA to middle schoolers in health class to prevent them from getting pregnant and ruining their lives.

And, yes, I do believe that Bergman, master dramatist that he is, shows us his characters without judgment. We see what they want, what they do and what happens to them. But we're not invited to render a sentence on who's at fault. Just the opposite, I think, whereby he's offering us an opening to radical empathy.

Is this how you feel/how one should interpret all characters in all Bergman films? Because I didn’t necessarily feel that way about the other Bergman I’ve seen, either.

And what I don’t buy is that the audience isn’t supposed to pass judgment – how can we not? Are there other villains in this film, outside of Lelle (himself a teenager), who himself ends up as the object of Monika’s affection despite all his jealous violent outbursts? Is anyone other than Monika and Harry accountable for their actions?