160
Semeiks is talking about something
other than style here. What I do
find irritating is the open-mouthed
thrall in which Bergman seems to
hold his admirers, particularly on
what seems to me his thinnest occa–
sions. My piece was written in part
at least as a reaction to the exces–
sive and rather automatic praise of
those reviewers who tend to recog–
nize film art only when it presents
itself in capital letters. I agree that
Cries and Whispers
is a powerful
work - - it couldn't be otherwise
given the nature of its subject -–
but it is also formulated and hol–
low. Ms. Semeiks's assumption that
a work can't be both harrowing and
vulgar (and significant) makes no
sense.
A
much lesser film than
Cries
and Whispers, The Exorcist,
on an–
other level, is all these things.
I have no particular disagreement
with her readings of particular
scenes, and I think her analysis of
the film's overall theme is just, al–
though I think she makes a tactical
error in trying to justify the film's
enervated quality by arguing that
Bergman intends his characters as
deenergized. That's like justifying
being dull about dullness. In my
essay I was talking about the move–
ment of the film being enervated,
which has little to do with the
"self-conscious poses" of the char–
acters.
Any half·serious work, particu–
larly if it is abstract and symbolic,
is susceptible to intellectual justifi–
cations that demonstrate its integ–
rity.
It
is a common error to sup–
pose -- our schools I suspect are
to blame -- that what a work
translates into is what it is.
J
onna
Semeiks reads the Bergman film as
a literary text - - there is never any
indication in her letter that the
LE TTE RS
writer is talking about a motion pic–
ture -- and her analysis, which is
sometimes quite eloquent, takes
Cries and Whispers
at its most in–
flated evaluation of itself. My ob–
jection to
Cries and Whispers,
my
irritation with it if you will, has to
do with the disparity between the
claims of profundity the film makes
for itself (and beguiles others to
make for it) and the morbidly sen–
sational and platitudinous experi–
ence it actually offers.
CORRECTION
The Paul Klee drawings
In
PR 3/
1973
were reproduced by permis–
sion COSMOPRESS and SPADEM
1973
by F.R.R. Inc.
Par t rh a psody, part nightmare
THE
OLD OItE
by
Da\'id
~ li dd l cbrook
@
"THE OLD ONE is by one
of the most imaginativ e
young writers at work to–
day."
-
JOHN
HAWKES
~~d9~ d~~'r~~over ~rion
press
$2.95
Paperback
P.O. Box
2244
plus
25 <
postage Eugene. Oregon
97402
