Talk:Persona (1966 film)

Most erotic scene in film history?

What is this about the "most erotic scene in film history"? I don't recall anything even remotely erotic in Persona. The only two things I could imagine you're referring to are: (a) Vogler walking into Alma's room at night and (b) Alma forcing Vogler's face into her bleeding arm.

The scene where Alma gives a detailed description of the orgy on the beach with the young boys. I wouldn't say it's the most erotic- more like most explicit, especially effecting because you don't actually see anything. And FYI- some older copies of Persona in the U.S. edit this scene out, so if you haven't seen the film in a long time you probably didn't see this scene.

a transmigration of two souls?

The high price of Ingmar Bergman films requires me to read these entries carefully before I go out and buy one on DVD, but can you or someone else clear up the suggestion in the main article that what he have here, is a story about the transmigration of souls, specifically, between a person who is mentally distressed, and the person who is there to support her? I hope I'm not reading this into the story but that is what certainly seems to be implied. Are there occult or spiritual activities in the movie?

It is deliberately vague. No, there is no obvious occult or spiritual activity in the movie. You can read it that way if you want to, I suppose, but they never say that. I think most people would say that one woman's depression or existential angst rubs off onto the other woman, who gets angry and runs away because "I'll never be like you". Or you could see it as a kind of split-personality thing. 202.10.92.121 (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of Persona

I added some details regarding Persona's restoration, but I thought I'd add some stuff here to confirm/discuss my sources. I saw a restored version of this in 2004, and an MGM archivist attended the screening to give a brief lecture. I think it was Kirk, I can't remember, but it's most likely him because he also discussed other projects he did, like [i]The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly[/i] as well as [i]Heaven's Gate[/i]. (If it helps, he was an older guy grayish hair, I think a goatee-type beard and moustache, sort of a tall, lean guy...does that sound like Kirk?)

Persona was restored with Bergman's other MGM-owned films, I think the plan was to show them at film festivals and such in conjunction with some other Bergman project that was surfacing at the time. Anyway, Kirk said that when he first went to work, people told him about a 'long' version of Persona, which threw him a bit because he wasn't aware of an extended cut, but as it turns out, the 'long' version was really the uncensored version, with less than a second of extra footage (which of course is the penis shot). He then talked about the subtitles, and his Swedish wasn't great, so he had to hire some people to translate for him; for the orgy recollection, he knew enough to recognize it was a very graphic recollection, but he had to get several translations of that scene because people were reluctant to give him a suitably graphic translation - possibly out of embarassment. One person did, it was easily the most graphic translation he got, and that's the one he used.

He also mentioned that MGM's home video department and their film archives are two completely different departments, there really isn't a whole lot of communication between the two - hence, you get DVD's that don't necessarily use the best restoration work available, and you get mistakes like MGM's Ingmar Bergman set which messed up the aspect ratio on several Bergman films. [i]Persona[/i] was NOT one of those mistakes (BTW, sites like DVDBeaver's posted screenshots of MGM's new DVD and other DVD's, showing some possible 'cropping' all around the frame on the MGM DVD, but in all honesty, this is pretty minor and doesn't hurt the compositions in the film, IMHO).

I think this article needs serious cleanup to conform to NPOV. It makes disparaging comments about many interpretations of the film, and encourages a psychoanalytic reading.

NPOV?

I think this article needs serious cleanup to conform to NPOV. It makes disparaging comments about many interpretations of the film, and encourages a psychoanalytic reading.

Highly non-NPOV

This article is definitely not NPOV, openly hostile and belittling to any but the "allegory of the psychoanalytist-patient relationship" interpretation, which is clearly the author's. Unless multiple references can be supplied in which Ingmar Bergman states explicitly that the film was intended ONLY as an allegory of psychoanalysis, all references to that reading should be moved to their own section and the other interpretation sections should be rewritten as per NPOV. The article could also use attention from someone knowledgable about the history and impact of the film. A movie this powerful and influential deserves better treatment.

Edit: Ok, I've removed the most egregious violations of NPOV, but it truncates the article severely, as most of the interpretations section was unsalvageable. Again, very much in need of expert attention to expand the roster of critical readings and general information. Pages like this are the very worst of Wikipedia--one of the most influential films of the latter half of the 20th century, and what should be a clear and illuminating article gets co-opted into some snarky amateur psychoanalyst's Film Studies paper. Shame on you.

Original Research?

The section on interpretations, particularly the Brechtian Alienation Technique section, seems to be largely comprised of original research. There are very few citations to support the claims it makes.Liquidcow 16:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Persona 001.jpg

Image:Persona 001.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

202.10.95.253 edit

Is the object we see at the beginning of the film a camera or a projector?

Are the many value judgments 202.10.95.253 makes standard film criticism or POV?

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a film reel being fed into a projector. The end, too, shows a reel being removed from a projector. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.10.92.121 (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot Summary Problems

I deleted the "Epilogue" from the plot summary because it completely mixed up the order of what happens in the film. The whole plot summary is very very long and takes tons of subjective liberties in the interpretation of the plot, something that really isn't suitable for a such a film or such an article- perhaps someone more eloquent and skilled can clean this up and just give the basic plot instead of a film school interpretation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.40.97 (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Alleged Thích Quảng Đức Suicide Footage

The guy burning to death on TV is not Thích Quảng Đức. He is sitting alone on the street corner, while Thích Quảng Đức had a large group of monks encircling him to make sure the police couldn't get to him. If I had to guess, I'd say it was one of the monks that followed his example in the months following Thích Quảng Đức's suicide, but there's no way to know for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.170.240 (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Parodied?

Currently there is an image with no proven significance, with this text:

"Persona's shots of overlapping faces have been widely parodied. In this scene, Elisabet mirrors Alma's pose exactly, while never breaking eye contact."

We need a source for this whole idea. I'm going to tag it. Filmfluff (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Would a screenshot or two of other films parodying the depicted picture qualify? I can get screenshots of that scene being parodied in Love & Death and The Simpsons. 203.219.29.254 (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Plot summary breaches personal research/NPOV

There's nothing at all within the film itself to suggest it's broken into three "Acts" as the plot summary states. Even the summary's claim that there's a "Prelude" is a stretch: all there really is is a pre-titles sequence, as there also is in Goldfinger! I strongly suggest deleting this framework completely since there's nothing to justify it in the film - it's personal research driven by a personal point of view. 86.133.169.28 (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)