The Magician (Ansiktet) - Breaking Down Bergman - Episode #20 

Here’s the thing: I love imperfect things. When I look back over the films/books/etc. that have stayed dear to me, it is often the works of art that didn’t *quite* live up to their promise that I return to again and again. So I agree that this film isn’t perfect or as masterfully crafted as The Seventh Seal or other better-known Bergman films, but I honestly enjoy it much more than many of his objectively better films. You bring up some interesting points about the search for truth. The authority figures only want “truth” that will confirm what they already believe. The sharpest of the bunch, the Scientist Vergerus, is still focused only on what he wants to believe. Despite the fact that Vergerus says he “almost feels sorry” that he doesn’t feel anything when he demands that the Magician attempt to hypnotize him, his reaction to *actually* feeling something at the end shows that the sensation is disagreeable to him, and we have no evidence that he has been changed by the experience. But the Magician himself seems to be seeking truth. I’m just not sure what that truth is, any more than I am sure what exactly is torturing him so much throughout the film. Is he in mental agony because he used to have power and now does not? Or is he in a crisis because his art is constantly criticized as “worthless” but he has given his life to it, so what does that make him? Or how can he live if no one will pay him for his art? We have the clue that he sold his house and started traveling again after being successful enough to settle. Why did he do that? What is he looking for? I was struck by his compassion for the dying actor. The actor cannot (at least when alive) benefit the troupe in any way and frankly derides himself for being shallow, devious, and useless. Yet the Magician seems to desperately want to know something from him - the meaning of life? Some confirmation that the inexplicable exists? In some ways Bergman seems to be saying that the truly inexplicable thing is existence itself and death - when life is gone, it’s gone (or is it? The actor comes back after his first "death"…). That said, there *does* appear to be real “magic” in the story and it appears in the form of the Grandmother. She seems thoroughly convinced of her own powers and of the existence of the inexplicable. She foretells the death of the manservant, for example. Does the fact that she has some kind of power hint that the Magician, her presumed grandson, also has or had it? The conceit that the skilled Vergerus could possibly confuse the short, dilapidated actor for the very tall, very imposing Magician is pretty funny. I always wonder if the troupe dress the actor in the Magician’s beard and wig, etc. But I don’t think this is a flaw in the film. To me, the fact that the two men are so different and yet Vergerus *doesn’t notice* symbolically highlights his lack of concern for the real person who is the Magician. Vergerus sees him as mere specimen. He prods him like an animal at a fair at the beginning of the film; he thinks nothing of disrespecting Manda (the Magician’s wife). It could have been anyone under his knife-his conclusions were made even before the autopsy. And speaking of Manda, anyone who could possibly mistake “Mr. Aman” (AKA Manda/Amanda) as a young man seriously needs their eyes examined. Ingrid Thulin is stunningly beautiful and you know right from the beginning that she is definitely no man. But Ingmar Bergman knew that. He’s playing with us! He does the same thing at the end: the abrupt shift from downpour to sunlight is an example of how in an illusion, a dream, a story - anything can happen. I love the beginning in the foggy forest, and the “us vs. them” introduction scene where the authorities and the troupe face off, and especially Vogler’s unmasking (how beautifully Bergman handles light as he slowly gives us a closer look at the Magician’s face as he removes his beard, wig, etc.). I enjoy the servants’ shenanigans (it is very Shakespearean, this contrast between the intellectual and the earthy). I like the fact that the Magistrate and his wife appear to have reconnected by the end of the film (despite wounds on both sides). Some thoughts - I would have loved to see more of the troupe's performance. The magic lantern, for example, makes such a brief appearance. I think a little too much time may be spent on the love lives (or lack thereof) of the maids, although Bibi Andersen in particular is charming. This movie is pretty short, and I wish it could have been much longer! There are so many themes and ideas and wonderful actors and it would have been fun to see them at play for a longer time. As you can see from this looong post, I love this film and enjoyed hearing your thoughts on it. Thank you for helping to make it better known! Bonus: apparently the film was very loosely based on a play by G. K. Chesterton! Had to edit to add: if the Magician is really a symbol for the director/Bergman/the artist trying to create a beautiful illusion that, through craft and imagination, has the power to charm the audience, then maybe that's why the Magician seems so stressed. Creating art that moves another person to FEEL something is so very hard. I know--I write and I'm also an artist. Fighting against your own brain and short-comings is pretty painful at times.

It culminates with a key scene in which The Magician fakes his death and haunts those who would judge his powers. The kind of dreamspace that is utilised so well in “Wild Strawberries” also works adeptly here and foreshadows the menace of “The Hour of the Wolf” among others. But this, and the film itself, is all illusion. Some have argued that this conceptual drive helps explain the leftfield ending in which The Magician is suddenly treated to an audience with the king.

Fair enough...there are definitely elements of this film that I loved, but as a whole, it didn't come together for me. Thanks for watching with us!

Essential Bergman YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The film deals probably with his most important theme which is humiliation.

The faithful motif of the family, the travelling players, is there again, only this time they are also alchemists, alternative health practitioners (representing Bergman the artist and his troupe I guess). When they come up against the various institutions of scepticism, Bergman is questioning science just as he’d previously questioned God. Sounds deep but somehow the film doesn’t play that way and feels more like a rom-com with heavier-than-average themes.

I so enjoyed this. David seems more certain about what he says then this gal does.

Given the running theme of the ‘mask’, were they really the sort of people all along who could be bought in this fashion, is Bergman messing with moviegoer expectations, making something dark appear light (the film has no genre to speak of), or did the studios simply ask him to shoot a more ‘positive’ twist? Either way, “The Face” has interesting ideas that stay with you even though the disparate way they are thrown together in the film might not be as interesting to watch.

I just watched this one again, it really is one of my least favorite Bergman films and I was even more disappointed by how another viewing really didn’t change my opinion. Out of all his films this one also doesn’t seem to stand the test of time as well; it seems dated, a lot of the acting is dated and I NEVER feel that way about a Bergman film. The beginning is great and the end is good but the movie drags so much.

I think as an artist I found myself so deeply moved by the desperation in Max Von Sydow’s performance that I am willing to forgive some of the awkward elements of the film. Also the jarring nature of it was to demonstrate that film too is a spectacle, a performance, a magic trick that we suspend disbelief for. Also I find it a bit silly to complain of the films tired cliches by comparing it to films like the prestige which came out nearly half a century later. How can a work of art react against what has not yet come? I was really hoping you would go the other route and point out earlier films that used these archetypes. Definitely essential Bergman for me.

This one works better after a revisiting it. I think it’s got even more going on than you gave it credit for. To me the film is about the truth. What the deadbeat actor says about truth in the beginning is basically the thesis statement. We see lots of characters who represent things. The grandmother represents the old days when superstition was more common but we do see her predict a few things oddly. Like she predicts the man hanging in the closet, and when the actor comes in her little chant is meant to make us wonder if he is dead or if she raised him from the dead. There are a lot of reveals of hidden truths in the film and the reason for them is to make us as an audience start questioning things. And every time part you’re wondering what’s happening is the point to some degree, at least in regards to things like whether or not it was the actor or the magician at the end. The continuation of the gloomy ending and then the happy one is one final “you never know what’s true” from Bergman. But I agree this is a little more cluttered and and not as fully realized, however it’s still a real gem of film for me. Oddly enough it’s also got some of his best laughs for me, the wife of the police chief equivalent airing all their dirty laundry with the magnets. It’s funny but also serves as another moment of questioning the truth. I enjoy the assistant Tubal and his scumminess and then his change at the end where he mentions how the cook says we should live for the afterlife or something of that sort. But there’s your callback to the talk earlier in the film relating to science and god.

Brilliant film that questions and twists everything, all possible categories of making existential sense: rationality, love, fiction, the supernatural, death and (not least by ending on such a deluded note) itself are led ad absurdum. Yet, there's also light, it's not overly serious and almost straight forward at times in an "entertaining" manner (humour, stylization, exaggeration etc.), potentially implying questions about wethere a carefully crafted art piece and the momentary, real feelings it evokes, can be senseful enough to justify an existence, even if no certainties remain.

His most under-rated.

This is the only Bergman movie I liked at all (I've seen a couple). In fact, I loved this one. It was a classic monster movie with the artistic/cerebral nature of film noir, it's straightforward, and has a happy ending, which are all things I love.

je ne me lasse pas de revoir ce film; j'aime tout Bergman, vraiment tout; mais une tendresse particulière pour Ansiktet. A voir dans sa langue originale.

When I first saw “The Face” aka “The Magician” I remember thinking it was one of the better early Bergman films. Now, predictably, watching them all in order at this point in my life invites much reassessment. I maintain that “The Seventh Seal” is by far the best one pre-60s, but I got a lot more out of “Wild Strawberries” this time around (unsurprisingly, in that it’s about getting older) and a lot less out of “The Face”.

Your Bergman vids are great. Disagree with you a bit on this one though. Love this film. Great Bergman movie in my opinion.

Seems David has ambitions of going solo! ;)

The end of this video is fabulous.