PEEPING TOM FILMS. 4 EDITIoN Articles. Almost the most remarkable thing about Peeping Tom is the critical reception it provoked. This film, disingenuously described by Green,OO,"Michael Powell: Filmography, "in Movie(London), its director Michael Powell as"a very tender film, a very nice one, was uniformly abused in its own country. Derek Hill,s infamous Chamberlin, Phillip, in Film Society Review(London), January 1966. claim that""the only really satisfactory way to dispose of Peeping Gough-Yates, Kevin, ""Private Madness and Public Lunacy, in Tom would be to shovel it up and flush it swiftly down the nearest Films and Filming(London), February 1972 ewer"may have been the most violent of critical assessments, but it olins,R, and lan Christie, ""Interview with Michael Powell: The was all too typical. Powell,'s career as a feature-film director never Expense of Naturalism, "in Monogram(London), no 3, 1972. recovered from the assault. and the road to critical re-assessment of Romer, J C, in Ecran(Paris), July-August 1973. Peeping Tom has been long and hard. Anyone concerned with the Renaud Tristan, in Cinema. (Paris), October 1976. whys and wherefores of this process need look no further than lan Humphries, Reynold, ' Peeping Tom: Voyeurism, the Camera, an Christie(ed Powell Pressburger and Others, where the nature of the the Spectator, in Film Reader(Evanston, Illinois), no 4, 1979 affront Powell offered to orthodox criticism is clearly analyzed. Stein, E, "A Very Tender Film, a Very Nice One: Michael Powells Peeping Tom was only the climactic case in a long series Peeping Tom, in Film Comment(New York), Sept None of this is to suggest, however, that Peeping Tom is not a disturbing movie. In narrative alone it is immediately problematic: Canby, Vincent, in New York Times, 14 October 1979 any story about a man who murders women with the sharpened leg of Sarris, Andrew, in Village Voice, (New York), 15 October 1979 a tripod, filming them as they die, is likely to attract adverse attention Sayre, N, in Nation(New York), 10 November 1979 When the young man in question is played straight, as someone with Johnson, V,"Peeping Tom: A Second Look, in Film Quar whom we are invited to empathise, and not as some rolling eyed (Berkeley), Spring 1980. gothic horror, then the difficulties are redoubled. How can we McDonough, Maitland, The Ambiguities of Seeing and Knowing in empathise with such perverse pleasures? And when the film-maker Michael Powell,s Peeping Tom, in Film Psychology Review involved is such a well-established talent. how can we reconcile his (New York), Summer-Fall 1980 presumed"seriousness"with what is conventionally the subject fc Thomson, David, "Mark of the Red Death, in Sight and Sound Today such difficulties would not be quite as pressing as they were in 1960. Ranges of acceptability have widened, and the line between Dubois,P,""Voir, la mort, ou l'effet-Meduse de la photographie au Art and Exploitation is no longer so easily drawn. Yet even today cinema,"in Review Belge du Cinema(Brussels), Summer 1983. Peeping tom is genuinely disturbing. For all our familiarity with Powell, Michael, 'Leo Marks and Mark Lewis, in Cinematographe (Paris), December 1983 violent movie murder, with sexuality, with the psychology of perver Dumont, P, in Cinema(Paris), January 1984. sion, Powell,s movie can still leave a spectator profoundly uneasy. evault D'Allonnes, F, in Cahiers du Cinema(Paris), January 1984 For Peeping Tom refuses to let us off the hook after the fashion of so Findley, J., in Film Comment(New York), May-June 1990. many horrific movies. Its elaborate structure of films within films Morris, N. A,""Reflections on Peeping Tom, in Movie(London) implicates us as spectators in the voyeurism that fuels Marks Winter 1990 violence. We see the murders through his viewfinder, later we see Bourget, E, Colonel Blimp; Le voyeur. in Positif(Paris), no. 379, them on screen as he projects them for his pleasure. We see his fathers filmed record of experiments on the young Mark, experi September 1992 ments which have turned him into a voyeuristic killer. We see the Bick, Ilsa J, The Sight of Difference, in Persistence of vision (Maspeth), no 10, 1993 movie studio where he works, the setting where he will murder(of all Redman, Nick, and Tomm Carrol, and Ted Elrick, "Theyre Baaack: internal cross-references multiply (and they are endless) the implica tion insinuates itself into our awareness. In watching film, all film. the les), vol 19, no 5, October-November 1994. leasures that we take are finally no different to Marks: the gap Strick, Philip, in Sight Sound (London), vol 4, no. 11, Novem between his and our voyeurism is too small for comfort. ber 1994 It was Powell,s misfortune to make Peeping Tom at a time when Wollen, Peter, ""Dying for Art, in Sight Sound (London), vol 4 ommitment to a one-dimensional notion of realist cinema was at its no. 12 December 1994. Schundt, T, The Films of Nat Cohen and Stuart Levy, 'in Delirious height. Peeping Tom, like all of Powells cinema, is founded on a highly self-conscious manipulation of film itself, and it is impos Cleveland Heights ), no. 4, 1995 ble here to do justice to the resonating visual complexity of films like Jivani, Alkarim, "" Fantastic Voyeur, "in Time Out (London), no. A Matter of Life and Death, Black Narcissus, and, of course, Peeping 1422,19 November1997. Tom. In this cinema it is the medium that is the source of pleasure and Massumi, B. ill is Not Enough: Gender as Cruelty, in the focus of attention, not some instantly apparent moral ingredient Continuum. vol 11. no. 2. 1997 Peeping Tom turns that cinematic awareness back on itself, offering Singer, James, ""England,s Glamour Parade, in Outre(Evanston), aesthetic satisfactions along with their disturbing implications. It is vol.1,no.7,1997. a film that is paramountly about cinema, about the experience Maslin. janet. Next to this. Norman looks sane cinema, a film which makes voyeurs of us all. That is genuine Times, 29 January 1999 disturbing 930
PEEPING TOM FILMS, 4th EDITION 930 Articles: Green, O. O., ‘‘Michael Powell: Filmography,’’ in Movie (London), Autumn, 1965. Chamberlin, Phillip, in Film Society Review (London), January 1966. Gough-Yates, Kevin, ‘‘Private Madness and Public Lunacy,’’ in Films and Filming (London), February 1972. Collins, R., and Ian Christie, ‘‘Interview with Michael Powell: The Expense of Naturalism,’’ in Monogram (London), no. 3, 1972. Romer, J. C., in Ecran (Paris), July-August 1973. Renaud, Tristan, in Cinéma, (Paris), October 1976. Humphries, Reynold, ‘‘Peeping Tom: Voyeurism, the Camera, and the Spectator,’’ in Film Reader (Evanston, Illinois), no. 4, 1979. Stein, E., ‘‘A Very Tender Film, a Very Nice One: Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom,’’ in Film Comment (New York), September-October 1979. Canby, Vincent, in New York Times, 14 October 1979. Sarris, Andrew, in Village Voice, (New York), 15 October 1979. Sayre, N., in Nation (New York), 10 November 1979. Johnson, V., ‘‘Peeping Tom: A Second Look,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Spring 1980. McDonough, Maitland, ‘‘The Ambiguities of Seeing and Knowing in Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom,’’ in Film Psychology Review (New York), Summer-Fall 1980. Thomson, David, ‘‘Mark of the Red Death,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1980. Dubois, P., ‘‘Voir, la mort, ou l’effet-Méduse de la photographie au cinéma,’’ in Review Belge du Cinéma (Brussels), Summer 1983. Powell, Michael, ‘‘Leo Marks and Mark Lewis,’’ in Cinématographe (Paris), December 1983. Dumont, P., in Cinéma (Paris), January 1984. Revault D’Allonnes, F., in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), January 1984. Findley, J., in Film Comment (New York), May-June 1990. Morris, N. A., ‘‘Reflections on Peeping Tom,’’ in Movie (London), Winter 1990. Bourget, E., ‘‘Colonel Blimp; Le voyeur,’’ in Positif (Paris), no. 379, September 1992. Bick, Ilsa J., ‘‘The Sight of Difference,’’ in Persistence of Vision (Maspeth), no. 10, 1993. Redman, Nick, and Tomm Carrol, and Ted Elrick, ‘‘They’re Baaack: More Definitive Laser Versions,’’ in DGA Magazine (Los Angeles), vol. 19, no. 5, October-November 1994. Strick, Philip, in Sight & Sound (London), vol. 4, no. 11, November 1994. Wollen, Peter, ‘‘Dying for Art,’’ in Sight & Sound (London), vol. 4, no. 12, December 1994. Schundt, T., ‘‘The Films of Nat Cohen and Stuart Levy,’’ in Delirious (Cleveland Heights), no. 4, 1995. Jivani, Alkarim, ‘‘Fantastic Voyeur,’’ in Time Out (London), no. 1422, 19 November 1997. Massumi, B., ‘‘To Kill is Not Enough: Gender as Cruelty,’’ in Continuum, vol. 11, no. 2, 1997. Singer, James, ‘‘England’s Glamour Parade,’’ in Outré (Evanston), vol. 1, no. 7, 1997. Maslin, Janet, ‘‘Next to This, Norman Looks Sane,’’ in New York Times, 29 January 1999. *** Almost the most remarkable thing about Peeping Tom is the critical reception it provoked. This film, disingeniously described by its director Michael Powell as ‘‘a very tender film, a very nice one,’’ was uniformly abused in its own country. Derek Hill’s infamous claim that ‘‘the only really satisfactory way to dispose of Peeping Tom would be to shovel it up and flush it swiftly down the nearest sewer’’ may have been the most violent of critical assessments, but it was all too typical. Powell’s career as a feature-film director never recovered from the assault, and the road to critical re-assessment of Peeping Tom has been long and hard. Anyone concerned with the whys and wherefores of this process need look no further than Ian Christie (ed.) Powell Pressburger and Others, where the nature of the affront Powell offered to orthodox criticism is clearly analyzed. Peeping Tom was only the climactic case in a long series. None of this is to suggest, however, that Peeping Tom is not a disturbing movie. In narrative alone it is immediately problematic: any story about a man who murders women with the sharpened leg of a tripod, filming them as they die, is likely to attract adverse attention. When the young man in question is played straight, as someone with whom we are invited to empathise, and not as some rolling eyed gothic horror, then the difficulties are redoubled. How can we empathise with such perverse pleasures? And when the film-maker involved is such a well-established talent, how can we reconcile his presumed ‘‘seriousness’’ with what is conventionally the subject for a shocker? Today such difficulties would not be quite as pressing as they were in 1960. Ranges of acceptability have widened, and the line between Art and Exploitation is no longer so easily drawn. Yet even today Peeping Tom is genuinely disturbing. For all our familiarity with violent movie murder, with sexuality, with the psychology of perversion, Powell’s movie can still leave a spectator profoundly uneasy. For Peeping Tom refuses to let us off the hook after the fashion of so many horrific movies. Its elaborate structure of films within films implicates us as spectators in the voyeurism that fuels Mark’s violence. We see the murders through his viewfinder; later we see them on screen as he projects them for his pleasure. We see his father’s filmed record of experiments on the young Mark, experiments which have turned him into a voyeuristic killer. We see the movie studio where he works, the setting where he will murder (of all people) Moira Shearer, star of Powell’s The Red Shoes. As the internal cross-references multiply (and they are endless) the implication insinuates itself into our awareness. In watching film, all film, the pleasures that we take are finally no different to Mark’s; the gap between his and our voyeurism is too small for comfort. It was Powell’s misfortune to make Peeping Tom at a time when commitment to a one-dimensional notion of realist cinema was at its height. Peeping Tom, like all of Powell’s cinema, is founded on a highly self-conscious manipulation of film itself, and it is impossible here to do justice to the resonating visual complexity of films like A Matter of Life and Death, Black Narcissus, and, of course, Peeping Tom. In this cinema it is the medium that is the source of pleasure and the focus of attention, not some instantly apparent moral ingredient. Peeping Tom turns that cinematic awareness back on itself, offering aesthetic satisfactions along with their disturbing implications. It is a film that is paramountly about cinema, about the experience of cinema, a film which makes voyeurs of us all. That is genuinely disturbing. —Andrew Tudor
FILMS. 4th EDItION PEPE LE MOKO PEPE LE MOKO Duvillars. Pierre. Jean Gabin's Instinctual Man. in Films in Review(New York), March 1951 Aubriant, Michel, " Julien Duvivier. in Cinemonde(Paris), 28 france, 1937 November 1952 Nolan, Jack, " Jean Gabin, " in Films in Review(New York), April 1963. Director: Julien duvivier Cowie, Peter, ' Jean Gabin, 'in Films and Filming(London), Febru- Production: Paris Film Production: black and white. 35mm: running Renoir, Jean, ""Duvivier, le professionel, ""in Figaro Literaire(Paris), ime:93 minutes. Released 28 January 1937, Paris. Filmed in Pathe 6 November 1967 studios in Joinville exteriors shot in Algiers, Marseille and Sete Simsolo, Noel, in Image et Son(Paris), March 1972 Vincendeau, Ginette, " Community, Nostalgia, and the Spectacle of Producers: Robert and Raymond Hakim; screenplay: Julien Duvivier Masculinity, ' in Screen(London), November-December 1985 d d Henri La Barthe(under pseudonym Detective Ashelbe)with Garrity, H.A. "Narrative Space in Julien Duvivier's, Pepe le Moko, Jacques Constant and Henri Jeanson, from the novel by Detective in French Review, vol. 65. no. 4. 1992 Ashelbe, photography: Jules Kruger and Marc Fossard; editor Marguerite Beauge: sound: Antoine Archaimbaud: production de- signer: Jacques Krauss; music: Vincent Scotto and Mohamed Yguerboucher Pepe le Moko had an immediate success scarcely rivalled in French film history. Its director, Julien Duvivier, was instantly hired Cast: Jean gabin(Pepe le Moko): Mireille Balin( Gaby Gould); Line by Hollywood, where the film itself was remade the next year, with Noro(nes): Lucas Gridoux (Inspector Slimane): Gabriel Gabrio Anatole Litvak directing Charles Boyer, as Casbah. Pepe ranked as Carlos); Fermand Charpin(Regis ): Saturnin Fabre(Grandfather); the year's top film in many countries, including Japan, and it remains Gilbert Gil(Pierrot): Roger Legris(Max): Gaston Modot(immy) today a cult film of a stature similar to that which Casablanca enjoys Marcel Dalio(L'Arbi); Frehel (Tania); Olga Lord(Aicha): Renee in the United States Carl(Mother Tarte): Rene Bergeron(Inspector Meunier); Charles A chronicle of the adventures of a dandy criminal hiding out in the Granval(Maxime Kleep): Philippe Richard(Inspector Janvier); Paul casbah section of Algiers, Pepe le Moko is really a film about the Escoffier( Commissioner Louvain): Robert Ozanne(Gendron); Georges bitterness of lost dreams. Pepe, as created by Jean Gabin, is in no way Peclet(Barsac); Frank Maurice(An inspector captive of the outlaw life he leads. Controlling his minions by his authoritative personality and the notoriety of his name, he is above them all. Only Sliman, the algiers police inspector, has an inkling of the real man and his motives. Pepe's gang is set off against the police Publications force, while Pepe and Sliman struggle on a higher plane, respecting one another, respecting even more the fate that both believe rules The film opens with documentary footage and informational Duvivier, Julien, and Henri La Barthe, Pepe le Moko, in Avant-Scene commentary about the Casbah. We learn of the mixture of races, the du Cinema(Paris), 1 June 1981 numbers and kinds of vices represented in the maze of alleys even the police fear to enter. Pepes entrance is spectacular: a close-up of his Books hand holding a jewel, then his face tilted as he examines the jewel i the light. Soon after, while being pursued, he ducks into a secret Gauteur. Claude and Andre bernard. Gabin: ol. Les avatars d'un hideaway and there encounters Gaby( Mireille Balin). Once again it mythe, Paris, 1967 her jewels that attract both him and the camera in successive close-ups Chirat, Raymond, Julien Duvivier, Lyons, 1968 of their faces. When Sliman enters to escort Gaby back to the safety of Inthologie du Cinema 4, Paris, 1969. the grand hotels, the knot is tied. Sliman even remarks, It is writter Sadoul, Georges, French Films, London, 1972. Duvivier treats the entire intrigue as if with Sliman's magistr Missiaen, Jean-Claude, and Jacques Siclier, Paris, 1977 ud, Sylvie, Jean gabin, Paris, 1981 comprehension. Never indulging in suspense, he nevertheless inflates Brunelin. Andre, Gabin. Paris. 1987. key moments with an abundance of stylistic flourishes. Most famous Billard. Pierre Julien Duvivier. Milan. 1996 is the death of the informer Regis at the hands of Pepe and his gang. Shoved back against a wall, hysterical and pathetic, Regis bumps into Articles pals, pumps a revolver full of bullets into his thick body. Just before this scene Pepe and Gaby express their love by reciting antiphonally Variety(New York ). 24 March 1937. the Metro stops they know, moving through a remembered Paris from Greene, Graham, in Spectator(London), 23 April, 1937 opposite ends until they say together"La Place Blanche. Sliman cht and Sound (london), Spring 1937 looks on, knowing that he has caught Pepe in the net of desire and New York Times. 4 March 1941 nostalgia. The Casbah will no longer serve as a refuge now that Gaby
FILMS, 4 PÉPÉ LE MOKO th EDITION 931 PÉPÉ LE MOKO France, 1937 Director: Julien Duvivier Production: Paris Film Production; black and white, 35mm; running time: 93 minutes. Released 28 January 1937, Paris. Filmed in Pathe studios in Joinville, exteriors shot in Algiers, Marseille, and Sete. Producers: Robert and Raymond Hakim; screenplay: Julien Duvivier and d’Henri La Barthe (under pseudonym Detective Ashelbe) with Jacques Constant and Henri Jeanson, from the novel by Detective Ashelbe; photography: Jules Kruger and Marc Fossard; editor: Marguerite Beauge; sound: Antoine Archaimbaud; production designer: Jacques Krauss; music: Vincent Scotto and Mohamed Yguerbouchen. Cast: Jean Gabin (Pépé le Moko); Mireille Balin (Gaby Gould); Line Noro (Inès); Lucas Gridoux (Inspector Slimane); Gabriel Gabrio (Carlos); Fernand Charpin (Régis); Saturnin Fabre (Grandfather); Gilbert Gil (Pierrot); Roger Legris (Max); Gaston Modot (Jimmy); Marcel Dalio (L’Arbi); Frehel (Tania); Olga Lord (Aïcha); Renee Carl (Mother Tarte); Rene Bergeron (Inspector Meunier); Charles Granval (Maxime Kleep); Philippe Richard (Inspector Janvier); Paul Escoffier (Commissioner Louvain); Robert Ozanne (Gendron); Georges Peclet (Barsac); Frank Maurice (An inspector). Publications Script: Duvivier, Julien, and Henri La Barthe, Pépé le Moko, in Avant-Scéne du Cinéma (Paris), 1 June 1981. Books: Gauteur, Claude, and André Bernard, Gabin; ou, Les Avatars d’un mythe, Paris, 1967. Chirat, Raymond, Julien Duvivier, Lyons, 1968. Anthologie du Cinéma 4, Paris, 1969. Sadoul, Georges, French Films, London, 1972. Missiaen, Jean-Claude, and Jacques Siclier, Paris, 1977. Milhaud, Sylvie, Jean Gabin, Paris, 1981. Brunelin, Andre, Gabin, Paris, 1987. Billard, Pierre, Julien Duvivier, Milan, 1996. Articles: Variety (New York), 24 March 1937. Greene, Graham, in Spectator (London), 23 April, 1937. Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1937. New York Times, 4 March 1941. Duvillars, Pierre, ‘‘Jean Gabin’s Instinctual Man,’’ in Films in Review (New York), March 1951. Aubriant, Michel, ‘‘Julien Duvivier,’’ in Cinémonde (Paris), 28 November 1952. Nolan, Jack, ‘‘Jean Gabin,’’ in Films in Review (New York), April 1963. Cowie, Peter, ‘‘Jean Gabin,’’ in Films and Filming (London), February 1964. Renoir, Jean, ‘‘Duvivier, le professionel,’’ in Figaro Littéraire (Paris), 6 November 1967. Simsolo, Noël, in Image et Son (Paris), March 1972. Vincendeau, Ginette, ‘‘Community, Nostalgia, and the Spectacle of Masculinity,’’ in Screen (London), November-December 1985. Garrity, H.A., ‘‘Narrative Space in Julien Duvivier’s, Pépé le Moko,’’ in French Review, vol. 65, no. 4, 1992. *** Pépé le Moko had an immediate success scarcely rivalled in French film history. Its director, Julien Duvivier, was instantly hired by Hollywood, where the film itself was remade the next year, with Anatole Litvak directing Charles Boyer, as Casbah. Pépé ranked as the year’s top film in many countries, including Japan, and it remains today a cult film of a stature similar to that which Casablanca enjoys in the United States. A chronicle of the adventures of a dandy criminal hiding out in the casbah section of Algiers, Pépé le Moko is really a film about the bitterness of lost dreams. Pépé, as created by Jean Gabin, is in no way captive of the outlaw life he leads. Controlling his minions by dint of his authoritative personality and the notoriety of his name, he is above them all. Only Sliman, the Algiers police inspector, has an inkling of the real man and his motives. Pépé’s gang is set off against the police force, while Pépé and Sliman struggle on a higher plane, respecting one another, respecting even more the fate that both believe rules them all. The film opens with documentary footage and informational commentary about the Casbah. We learn of the mixture of races, the numbers and kinds of vices represented in the maze of alleys even the police fear to enter. Pépé’s entrance is spectacular: a close-up of his hand holding a jewel, then his face tilted as he examines the jewel in the light. Soon after, while being pursued, he ducks into a secret hideaway and there encounters Gaby (Mireille Balin). Once again it is her jewels that attract both him and the camera in successive close-ups of their faces. When Sliman enters to escort Gaby back to the safety of the grand hotels, the knot is tied. Sliman even remarks, ‘‘It is written, Pépé.’’ Duvivier treats the entire intrigue as if with Sliman’s magistral comprehension. Never indulging in suspense, he nevertheless inflates key moments with an abundance of stylistic flourishes. Most famous is the death of the informer Regis at the hands of Pépé and his gang. Shoved back against a wall, hysterical and pathetic, Regis bumps into a jukebox, setting off a raucous song just as his own victim, aided by pals, pumps a revolver full of bullets into his thick body. Just before this scene Pépé and Gaby express their love by reciting antiphonally the Metro stops they know, moving through a remembered Paris from opposite ends until they say together ‘‘La Place Blanche.’’ Sliman looks on, knowing that he has caught Pépé in the net of desire and nostalgia. The Casbah will no longer serve as a refuge now that Gaby
PERSONA FILMS. 4 EDITIoN and thoughts of Paris have corrupted Pepe. Later, in a moment of quiet these sentiments and their outcome are of the style and spirit of poetic e st before the denouement, a homesick old singer, caught like pepe realism. One can see why the film was banned as demoralizing and the Casbah, puts a record on the gramophone and, tears in her eyes, debilitating first by the French government at the start of the war and sings along with the record, a song about the glories of Paris. Duvivier then by the Vichy government once the new order had come to power pans along a wall from a picture of this woman when she was young After the war it returned as a classic and beautiful, to the record player, and then to the woman's tea choked face. It is a magnificent summation of the films ability to -Dudley Andrew summon up unfulfilled desire and nostalgia. The films dynamic conclusion unrolls directly from these senti nents: Pepe's obligatory outburst against another informer(Marcel Dalio), his breaking away from his common-law wife, his descent PERSONA from the Casbah-accompanied by the theme music of the film and a totally artificial rear-projection that places us inside his obsessed Sweden, 1966 pathos of the lost dream from the finale, as Pepe finds his way aboard Gaby,'s ship and then is arrested inches Director: Ingmar Bergman away from her, though neither of them realizes how close they are. As the ship pulls out, he sees Gaby on the deck but the whistle of the ship Production: AB Svensk Filmindustri; black and white, 35mm drowns out his call. She is looking far above him. at the Casbah he has running time 84 minutes: length: 2320 meters. Released 18 October left. He tears his stomach open with a pocketknife. Virtually a private 1966, Stockholm. Filmed 19 July 1965-17 September 1965, with masturbation, his suicide is the climax of his longings, represented by some scenes shot in February and March 1966, in Svensk Filmindustri the mysterious and elegant Gaby and by the memory of home. Both studios, Stockholm, and on location 932
PERSONA FILMS, 4th EDITION 932 Pépé le Moko and thoughts of Paris have corrupted Pépé. Later, in a moment of quiet just before the denouement, a homesick old singer, caught like Pépé in the Casbah, puts a record on the gramophone and, tears in her eyes, sings along with the record, a song about the glories of Paris. Duvivier pans along a wall from a picture of this woman when she was young and beautiful, to the record player, and then to the woman’s tearchoked face. It is a magnificent summation of the film’s ability to summon up unfulfilled desire and nostalgia. The film’s dynamic conclusion unrolls directly from these sentiments: Pépé’s obligatory outburst against another informer (Marcel Dalio), his breaking away from his common-law wife, his descent from the Casbah—accompanied by the theme music of the film and a totally artificial rear-projection that places us inside his obsessed mind. Duvivier wrings all the pathos of the lost dream from the finale, as Pépé finds his way aboard Gaby’s ship and then is arrested inches away from her, though neither of them realizes how close they are. As the ship pulls out, he sees Gaby on the deck but the whistle of the ship drowns out his call. She is looking far above him, at the Casbah he has left. He tears his stomach open with a pocketknife. Virtually a private masturbation, his suicide is the climax of his longings, represented by the mysterious and elegant Gaby and by the memory of home. Both these sentiments and their outcome are of the style and spirit of poetic realism. One can see why the film was banned as demoralizing and debilitating first by the French government at the start of the war and then by the Vichy government once the new order had come to power. After the war it returned as a classic. —Dudley Andrew PERSONA Sweden, 1966 Director: Ingmar Bergman Production: AB Svensk Filmindustri; black and white, 35mm; running time 84 minutes; length: 2320 meters. Released 18 October 1966, Stockholm. Filmed 19 July 1965–17 September 1965, with some scenes shot in February and March 1966, in Svensk Filmindustri studios, Stockholm, and on location
FILMS. 4th EDItION PERSONA Producer: Ingmar Bergman; screenplay: Ingmar Bergman: photog. Gibson, Arthur, The Silence of God: Creative Response to the Films phy: Sven Nykvist; editor: Ulla ryghe; sound engineer: P O ngmar bergman Pettersson; production designer: Bibi Lindstrom; music: Lars- Wood, Robin, Ingmar Bergman, New York, 1969 Johan Werle, special effects: Evald Andersson; costume design: Mago Bjorkman, Stig, Torsten Manns, and Jonas Sima, Bergman on Bergman, London. 1970. Cast: Bibi Andersson(Alam): Liv Ullmann (Elisabeth Vogler); Sjogren, Henrik, Regi: Ingmar Bergman, Stockholm, 1970 Margaretha Krook(Lakaren): Gunner Bjomstrand (Herr Vogler Young, Vernon, Cinema Borealis: Ingmar Bergman and the Swedish Jorgen Lindstrom(The boy). Ethos. New York, 1971 Simon, John, Ingmar Bergman Directs, New York, 1972 Ranieri, Tino, Ingmar Bergman, Florence, 1974. Publications Kaminsky, Stuart, editor, Ingmar Bergman: Essays in Criticism, New York. 1975 Ullman, Liv, Changing, New York, 1976. Bergom-Larsson, Maria, Ingmar Bergman and Society, San Bergman, Ingmar, Persona, Stockholm, 1966 translated as Persona Diego, 1978 in Persona and Shame. New York. 1972 Kawin, Bruce, Mindscreen: Bergman, Godard and the First Person Film. Princeton 1978 Books Lange-Fuchs, Hauke, Der friihe Ingmar Bergman, Lubeck, 1978. Marion, Denis, Ingmar Bergman, Paris, 1979 Sjogren, Henrik, Ingmar Bergman pa te Stockhom, 1968 Houston, Beverle, and Marsha Kinder, Self and Cinema: A Steene, Brigitte, Ingmar Bergman, New York, 1968 Transfonmalist Perspective, New York, 1980 33
FILMS, 4 PERSONA th EDITION 933 Producer: Ingmar Bergman; screenplay: Ingmar Bergman; photography: Sven Nykvist; editor: Ulla Ryghe; sound engineer: P. O. Pettersson; production designer: Bibi Lindström; music: LarsJohan Werle; special effects: Evald Andersson; costume design: Mago. Cast: Bibi Andersson (Alam); Liv Ullmann (Elisabeth Vogler); Margaretha Krook (Läkaren); Gunner Björnstrand (Herr Vogler); Jörgen Lindström (The boy). Publications Script Bergman, Ingmar, Persona, Stockholm, 1966; translated as Persona in Persona and Shame, New York, 1972. Books: Sjögren, Henrik, Ingmar Bergman på teatern, Stockhom, 1968. Steene, Brigitte, Ingmar Bergman, New York, 1968. Persona Gibson, Arthur, The Silence of God: Creative Response to the Films of Ingmar Bergman, New York, 1969. Wood, Robin, Ingmar Bergman, New York, 1969. Björkman, Stig, Torsten Manns, and Jonas Sima, Bergman on Bergman, London, 1970. Sjögren, Henrik, Regi: Ingmar Bergman, Stockholm, 1970. Young, Vernon, Cinema Borealis: Ingmar Bergman and the Swedish Ethos, New York, 1971. Simon, John, Ingmar Bergman Directs, New York, 1972. Ranieri, Tino, Ingmar Bergman, Florence, 1974. Kaminsky, Stuart, editor, Ingmar Bergman: Essays in Criticism, New York, 1975. Ullman, Liv, Changing, New York, 1976. Bergom-Larsson, Maria, Ingmar Bergman and Society, San Diego, 1978. Kawin, Bruce, Mindscreen: Bergman, Godard and the First Person Film, Princeton, 1978. Lange-Fuchs, Hauke, Der frühe Ingmar Bergman, Lübeck, 1978. Marion, Denis, Ingmar Bergman, Paris, 1979. Houston, Beverle, and Marsha Kinder, Self and Cinema: A Transformalist Perspective, New York, 1980
PERSONA FILMS. 4 EDITIoN Manvell, Roger, Ingmar Bergman: An Appreciation, New York, 1980. Jones, C.J., "Bergmans Persona and the artistic Dilemma of the Mosley, Philip, Ingmar Bergman: The Cinema as Mistress, Lon- Modem Narrative, in Literature/Film Quarterly(Salisbury, Mary on,1981 land ), winter 1977 Petric, Vlada, editor, Film and Dreams: An Approach to Bergman, Iverson, E, in Kosmorama( Copenhagen), Spring 1978 South Salem. New York. 1981 Campbell, P N, " The Reflexive Function of Bergmans Persona Cowie, Peter, Ingmar Bergman: A Critical Biography, New York, 1982. in Cinema Journal(Evanston, Illinois ) no. 1, 1979 Livingstone,Paisley, Ingmar Bergman and the Ritual of Art, Ithaca, Scholar, N,"Anais Nins House of Incest and Ingmar Bergman's Persona: Two Variations on a Theme, in Literature/film quar- terl - ly(Salisbury, Maryland), no 1, 1979 Jones, G. William, editor, Talking with Igmar Bergman, Dal. Cascbicr, Allan. "Reductionism Without Discontent: The Case of Wild Strawberries and Persona. in Film Psychology review Lefevre, Raymond, Ingmar Bergman, Paris, 1983 (New York), Winter-Spring 1980. Eberwein, Robert T, Film and the Dream Screen: A Sleep and Boyd, D ,"Persona and the Cinema of Interpretation, in Film a Forgetting, Princeton, 1984 Quarterly(Berkeley), winter 1983-84 Dervin, Daniel, Through a Freudian Lens Deeply: A Psychoanalysis Barr, Alan P, * The Unravelling of Characters in Bergmans Per- of Cinema, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1985. sona"in Literature/Film Quarterly(Salisbury, Maryland), vol 15,no.2,1987 Gado, Frank, The Passion of Ingmar Bergman, Durham, North Bellour R. "The Film Stilled, "in Camera Obscura(Bloomington, Carolina. 1986 Johns, Marilyn Blackwell, Persona: The Transcendent image, Chi Indiana), September 1990. Gul chenko, V, in Iskusstvo Kino(Moscow ), no 8, 1991 ago,1986 Kirk, Caroline, in Premiere(Boulder), vol 5, no 10, June 1991 Jarvie, lan, Philosophy of the Film: Epistemology, Ontology, Aesthet- Sontag, S. "Tolshcha fil, ma, "in Iskusstvo Kino(Moscow), no. 8, 1991 ics, London and New York, 1987. Bergman, il paradosso di un'Ateo cristiano, " in Castoro Cineme Bergman, Ingmar, Laterna Magica, Stockholm, 1987; as The Magic (Florence), November-December 1991 Lantern: An Autobiography, London, 1988 Wood, R,""Persona Revisited, in Cine Action(Toronto), no 34, 1994 Cohen, James, Through a Lens Darkly, New York, 1991 Persson, Goran,"Persona Psychoanalyzed: Bergman's Persona: Bjorkman, Stig, and Torsten Maans, and Jonas Sima, Bergman on Rites of Spring as Chamber Play, in CineAction(toronto),no Bergman: Interviews with Ingmar Bergman, Cambridge, 1993 40.May1996 Cohen, Hubert I, Ingmar Bergman: The Art of Confession, New Lahr, John, "The Demon-Lover: After Six Decades in Film and York, 1993 Theatre, Ingmar Bergman Talks About His Family and the Inven- Long, robert emmet, Ingmar Bergman: Film and Stage, New tion of Psychological Cinema, in The New Yorker, voL. 75,no York,1994. 13,31May1999 Tornqvist, Egil, Between Stage and Screen: Ingmar Bergman Directs, Amsterdam. 1995 Blackwell, Marilyn J, Gender and Representation in the Films of Ingmar Bergman, Rochester, 1997 Persona may be Ingmar Bergman's most consciously crafted film; Michaels, Lloyd, editor, Ingmar Bergman's Persona, Cambridge, 1999. it may also be one of his most enigmatic. The plot is a tour-de-force distillation of an agon between two women, Alma(Bibi andersson), Articles: a young and Elisabeth Vogler (Liv Ullman) her patient, a successful actress who has withdrawn into silence. The psychic Macklin, F. A, in Film Heritage(Dayton, Ohio), Spring 1967 tension between the two women, and the power of the silent one, Sarris, Andrew, in Village Voice(New York), 23 March 1967. reflect Strindberg's short play The Stronger, a source many critics of Films in Review(New York), April 1967 the film have noted. Yet Bergman is even more daring than Strindberg, for more is at stake in his film. and he sustains the one-sided Corliss, Richard, in Film Quarterly(Berkeley), Summer 1967 Sadoul, Georges, in Lettres francaises(Paris), 12 July 1967 conversation for the length of the feature film In many ways Persona is"" the nature and conventions of Comolli, Jean-Louis, " The Phantom of Personality, in Cahiers dr the feature film-most obviously because Bergman begins the film Cinema(Paris), September 1967 by showing the ignition of an arc projector and the threading of a film, Sontag, Susan, in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1967 and ends it with the same projector being turned off. The greatest Leiser, Erwin, in Film Comment(New York), Fall-Winter 1967 visual shock in all of bergmans often startling oeuvre must be the Durgnat, Raymond, in Films and Filming(London), December 1967 Harris, Michael, in Take One(Montreal). no 8, 1967-68 rip), burns, and introduces strange material, apparently foreign to the Wood, Robin, in Movie(London), Spring 1968 story of the two women. Hofsess, John, in Take One(Montreal), August 1968 Actually, the material comes largely from a pre-title sequence. By 'Ingmar Bergman: juge par deux critiques suedois, "in Avant-Scene the time Persona was made, the pre-title sequence had ceased to be du Cinema(Paris), October 1968. a novelty and was on the way to becoming a tired convention. Bond, Kirk, in Film Culture(New York), Winter-Spring 1970. Generally, a pre-title sequence presents some bit of action prelimi Young, Vernon, ""Cinema Borealis, " in Hudson Review(New York), nary to the main action of the film, but not essential to its comprehen- Summer 1970 sion. The pre-title sequence of Persona, however, is utterly unique. It
PERSONA FILMS, 4th EDITION 934 Manvell, Roger, Ingmar Bergman: An Appreciation, New York, 1980. Mosley, Philip, Ingmar Bergman: The Cinema as Mistress, London, 1981. Petric, Vlada, editor, Film and Dreams: An Approach to Bergman, South Salem, New York, 1981. Cowie, Peter, Ingmar Bergman: A Critical Biography, New York, 1982. Livingstone, Paisley, Ingmar Bergman and the Ritual of Art, Ithaca, New York, 1982. Steene, Birgitta, A Reference Guide to Ingmar Bergman, Boston, 1982. Jones, G. William, editor, Talking with Ingmar Bergman, Dallas, 1983. Lefèvre, Raymond, Ingmar Bergman, Paris, 1983. Eberwein, Robert T., Film and the Dream Screen: A Sleep and a Forgetting, Princeton, 1984. Dervin, Daniel, Through a Freudian Lens Deeply: A Psychoanalysis of Cinema, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1985. Gado, Frank, The Passion of Ingmar Bergman, Durham, North Carolina, 1986. Johns, Marilyn Blackwell, Persona: The Transcendent Image, Chicago, 1986. Jarvie, Ian, Philosophy of the Film: Epistemology, Ontology, Aesthetics, London and New York, 1987. Bergman, Ingmar, Laterna Magica, Stockholm, 1987; as The Magic Lantern: An Autobiography, London, 1988. Cohen, James, Through a Lens Darkly, New York, 1991. Bjorkman, Stig, and Torsten Maans, and Jonas Sima, Bergman on Bergman: Interviews with Ingmar Bergman, Cambridge, 1993. Cohen, Hubert I., Ingmar Bergman: The Art of Confession, New York, 1993. Long, Robert Emmet, Ingmar Bergman: Film and Stage, New York, 1994. Tornqvist, Egil, Between Stage and Screen: Ingmar Bergman Directs, Amsterdam, 1995. Blackwell, Marilyn J., Gender and Representation in the Films of Ingmar Bergman, Rochester, 1997. Michaels, Lloyd, editor, Ingmar Bergman’s Persona, Cambridge, 1999. Articles: Macklin, F. A., in Film Heritage (Dayton, Ohio), Spring 1967. Sarris, Andrew, in Village Voice (New York), 23 March 1967. Films in Review (New York), April 1967. Corliss, Richard, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Summer 1967. Sadoul, Georges, in Lettres Françaises (Paris), 12 July 1967. Comolli, Jean-Louis, ‘‘The Phantom of Personality,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), September 1967. Sontag, Susan, in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1967. Leiser, Erwin, in Film Comment (New York), Fall-Winter 1967. Durgnat, Raymond, in Films and Filming (London), December 1967. Harris, Michael, in Take One (Montreal), no. 8, 1967–68. Wood, Robin, in Movie (London), Spring 1968. Hofsess, John, in Take One (Montreal), August 1968. ‘‘Ingmar Bergman: jugé par deux critiques suédois,’’ in Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), October 1968. Bond, Kirk, in Film Culture (New York), Winter-Spring 1970. Young, Vernon, ‘‘Cinema Borealis,’’ in Hudson Review (New York), Summer 1970. Jones, C. J., ‘‘Bergman’s Persona and the Artistic Dilemma of the Modern Narrative,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), Winter 1977. Iverson, E., in Kosmorama (Copenhagen), Spring 1978. Campbell, P. N., ‘‘The Reflexive Function of Bergman’s Persona,’’ in Cinema Journal (Evanston, Illinois), no. 1, 1979. Scholar, N., ‘‘Anais Nin’s House of Incest and Ingmar Bergman’s Persona: Two Variations on a Theme,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), no. 1, 1979. Casebier, Allan, ‘‘Reductionism Without Discontent: The Case of Wild Strawberries and Persona,’’ in Film Psychology Review (New York), Winter-Spring 1980. Boyd, D., ‘‘Persona and the Cinema of Interpretation,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Winter 1983–84. Barr, Alan P., ‘‘The Unravelling of Characters in Bergman’s Persona’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), vol. 15, no. 2, 1987. Bellour, R., ‘‘The Film Stilled,’’ in Camera Obscura (Bloomington, Indiana), September 1990. Gul’chenko, V., in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), no. 8, 1991. Kirk, Caroline, in Premiere (Boulder), vol. 5, no. 10, June 1991. Sontag, S., ‘‘Tolshcha fil’ma,’’ in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), no. 8, 1991. ‘‘Bergman, il paradosso di un ‘Ateo cristiano,’’’ in Castoro Cinema (Florence), November-December 1991. Wood, R., ‘‘Persona Revisited,’’ in CineAction (Toronto), no. 34, 1994. Persson, Göran, ‘‘Persona Psychoanalyzed: Bergman’s Persona: Rites of Spring as Chamber Play,’’ in CineAction (Toronto), no. 40, May 1996. Lahr, John, ‘‘The Demon-Lover: After Six Decades in Film and Theatre, Ingmar Bergman Talks About His Family and the Invention of Psychological Cinema,’’ in The New Yorker, vol. 75, no. 13, 31 May 1999. *** Persona may be Ingmar Bergman’s most consciously crafted film; it may also be one of his most enigmatic. The plot is a tour-de-force distillation of an agon between two women, Alma (Bibi Andersson), a young nurse, and Elisabeth Vogler (Liv Ullman) her patient, a successful actress who has withdrawn into silence. The psychic tension between the two women, and the power of the silent one, reflect Strindberg’s short play The Stronger, a source many critics of the film have noted. Yet Bergman is even more daring than Strindberg, for more is at stake in his film, and he sustains the one-sided conversation for the length of the feature film. In many ways Persona is ‘‘about’’ the nature and conventions of the feature film—most obviously because Bergman begins the film by showing the ignition of an arc projector and the threading of a film, and ends it with the same projector being turned off. The greatest visual shock in all of Bergman’s often startling oeuvre must be the moment near the middle of Persona when the film rips (or seems to rip), burns, and introduces strange material, apparently foreign to the story of the two women. Actually, the material comes largely from a pre-title sequence. By the time Persona was made, the pre-title sequence had ceased to be a novelty and was on the way to becoming a tired convention. Generally, a pre-title sequence presents some bit of action preliminary to the main action of the film, but not essential to its comprehension. The pre-title sequence of Persona, however, is utterly unique. It