The following analysis of Persona and Solaris reveals how movies from unlike countries and of different genres portray the development of opposite human personalities while losing or gaining humanity under the external influences and internal self-recognition. The attempts to create a fine movie about internal and external of human life do not often impress much, especially nowadays when we experience an endless flow of visual images. Probably, it inspires people to look back at the classic works that not only represent the unusual transformations in the forms of self but also produce extraordinary rhythms in the scenes (Tarkovsky 113). To these films, we could confidently add Solaris (1972) directed be Andrei Tarkovsky and Persona (1966) directed by Ernst Ingmar Bergman. These movies come from different cultures and countries. Solaris is an example of the Soviet Union cinematography, and Persona is directed by the Swedish filmmaker. Despite this fact, these movies belong to the most important films of perception which require a deeper understanding of directors’ intentions. While Solaris belong to the genre of science fiction, Persona should be regarded as a modernist horror. However, both films could be prescribed to the genre of psychological drama that studies person (Michaels 15). The films show human exploration and intimate relationships that influence individual perception of self. Particularly, the characters represent the changes in consciousness when an individual interacts with others.
Two stories might convey similar message of an individual looking deeper at his soul, but the actual plot and characters differ. The principal narration of Persona is the story of two women. Elizabeth Vogler (Liv Ullmann) is a famous stage actress. Firstly, she appears on the stage suffering from a nervous breakdown while acting as Electra. Camera catches the very moment she decides to be mute. While analyzing her image, it seems that she is extremely scared of being watched by the others. In the next scene, she is in the mental hospital mute and self-absorbed. Doctor suggests that in fact Elizabeth is sane, but she can no longer pretend to be someone else. She is tired of wearing masks on the stage and in the society because they do not give her the feeling that she is real. Probably, she suffers greatly from experiencing the feelings of imposed roles. As an actress, she is able to change them, but this change does not mean that she always returns to herself. In fact, Elizabeth has lost her perception of self in society as well, and she does not know how to react to the images of war and take care of her own son. The only solution that she comes up with in order to find her genuine role in this life is to become mute. She does not want to seem; on the contrary, she wants to be. It means that it is important for her to be able to accept herself and get rid of the language which serves as one of the tools for wearing masks.
However, her nurse, Alma (Bibi Andersson), does not think that language is a burden. She uses it in order to express her personal role. The characters are totally different. Alma is open and sincere. She is supposed to take care after the actress and help her with her psychological problems. Though she doubts whether the silence is not a sign of a great willpower which she will not be able to resist. She thinks that Elizabeth might choose to be mute in order to manipulate the world. However, later, we could notice that Alma was scared of it because she had her own secrets which she would not normally have told to the person that did not listen. Elizabeth becomes the reason of Alma’s path of self-exploration. Bergman shows that listening without interruptions might be a catalyst for the soul exploration. Besides, Alma is influenced my Elizabeth’s character and her confession is the reaction to their interaction which happens in doctor’s beach house. They go there together as a part of additional treatment because all previous experiments in the hospital did not make any change to Elizabeth. She does not interact with the society. Thus, it is chosen that she should spend some time far from it and cheerful Alma will become a good company for her. The doctor makes this decision because she understands that Elizabeth will not respond to traditional treatment. It is better to give her possibility to make friends with an ordinary person which might stimulate her to open.
Persona shows the journey of metamorphosis in human identity. In fact, we observe the exploration path of self through Alma’s character under the influence of Elizabeth who appears to be already changed. However, her changes symbolize her own choice to search for her personal role, while Alma struggles between different selves without any personal intention. Moreover, before her interaction with Elizabeth, she seems to be comfortable with herself. Now, she is supposed to doubt her roles in the society and understand who she is in reality. It is obvious that Elizabeth listens to her in order to make her also feel that the roles are artificial. Bergman creates an allusion to this intention showing Elizabeth in the role of Electra. Elizabeth is looking for her identity in the same way as her stage character, and she also wants Alma to experience the same struggle. It might be her revenge to the society which demands specific roles from people, but Alma turns to be stronger. She goes from the different stages of self-rejection, but eventually she does not follow Elizabeth’s path and keeps her own identity.
During the film, we are also able to see the change in the relationship between Elizabeth and Alma. They start as the nurse and the patient. However, in the beach house, Alma does not wear uniform and Elizabeth is not locked in the hospital room. It seems that they manage to establish friendly rapport. Their constant interaction erases the boundaries that might have been imposed in the society. In fact, two women become extremely close. We could notice it by Elizabeth’s touches and Alma’s passionate talks. The scene when they look at the mirror simultaneously proves their close connection. Moreover, it seems that faces substitute one another. Bergman chooses to concentrate the light on the faces and hair in order to highlight the stage when the personalities of both characters resembles most. It is the moment when Alma begins to feel that her identity is fading away as she becomes Elizabeth. We could also interpret this scene as the problem of identification which makes people wear masks because there is no other choice. Elizabeth’s mask of silence influences Alma to wear the mask of self-rejection which causes uncontrolled aggression. It means that such a strong connection between different identities requires one to be influenced more than the other. In this case, Alma appears weaker in the beginning.
When it seems that two women melt in one another, it is clear that they have switched the roles. Alma accompanies Elizabeth in order to help her. However, it is Elizabeth who reminds a psychiatrist that listens to his patient. It is most vividly seen in the scene when Alma talks about her sex experience on the beach. Elizabeth sits still while Alma talks. She does not interrupt but let her friend reveal other identities she possesses. Finally, Bergman shows that Elizabeth is satisfied with the result because it makes Alma neglect her personality. She manages to influence the nurse with her silence and take revenge for the imposed roles of the society. She wants to do it because Alma can learn how to coexist with them, but she cannot.
During their interaction, Alma also puts on the mask neglecting her own identity. She represents a person that loses her humanity and gains rigidness because of the melting into Elizabeth’s identity. She turns from a kind nurse into a woman that expresses her self-doubt in an angry manner. While talking about her life, she mentions that she wants to become Elizabeth. She believes that it should be very interesting to be an actress that should not follow the roles of the society. In fact, she does not know that she is more accustomed to them than Elizabeth because she can change them according to real emotions. What differs them is that Alma responds to every change expressing her emotions while Elizabeth hides them under her muteness.
Before the realization of self, Alma starts hallucinating and taking Elizabeth’s role in the relationships with her husband. However, what makes the film so unique is that it is hard to genuinely agree if her experience is a fantasy or reality (Sontag 1). An audience might perceive that everything happening in the real time. It is significant because the director aims to show that human exploration of self happens mainly in the head of an individual. Bergman tries to say that identity is a subtle notion and its changes hard to notice. The relationships between women are getting worse when Alma discovers that Elizabeth does not take her seriously. When Alma realizes that the influence of Elizabeth’s silence is so strong, she desperately tries to bring back her identity. From the beginning, the story starts with psychological changes that caused Elizabeth to remain mute. It ends with a philosophical doubling between two different identities as it is clear that selfishness and kindness, artificial and genuine, silence and voice cannot exist together (Sontag 6). Elizabeth and Alma leave the house separately. The crescendo of their relationships is reached when Alma refuses to accept Elizabeth’s identity in own consciousness because she considers it to be wrong.
In the film, Elizabeth represents the negative doubling which cannot take over an identity that is genuine. It is clear that the characters are different. However, we are not able to predict whether they will be able to coexist until Alma’s voice contradicts Elizabeth’s silence. The most important moment in their relationships that terminates their integration is Alma’s monologue about Elizabeth’s maternity and her rejection of this role. Alma repeats her monologue for two times. Firstly, the camera is concentrated on Elizabeth. We see her face in the close-up which helps us to understand the emotions of the woman. The camera’s focus helps to understand that it is hard to accept the story of her life because it is the truth that she does not know how to take care of her son. The camera switches to Alma when she tells that she is not Elizabeth. Her face shows confidence because she reaches the harmony with the perception of her own identity. She understands Elizabeth. When she finishes her dialogue, we could see the shot of once face consisting of two parts. It is the highest moment of their melting, but it is also the end because Alma refuses to be Elizabeth Vogler. She wants to have a choice and does not become someone else. She keeps her identity because she manages to see that the actress is artificial. Her roles are not real because she does not know how relive them in real life. Camera helps us to understand that one can accept his role and mistakes, but another is not able to do it. It signifies the difference in the characters and personalities. Generally speaking, the film is about the path a human being chooses in order to reach harmony with the roles and personal identity. This path consists of various roles and identities which models a person. Their story finishes with the separation as two different identities cannot always be the one. One image of two faces is a contradictory because one part will always prevail over the other (Elsaesser).
Bergman produced this film in order to show how the integrity could divide human identities. His goal is to show his audience that it might be hard to live in the society and find the role in it. However, one should not close himself or herself from the outer world and preserve emotions within the soul. We are all lost in this world, but the interaction with others help us to find balance in life. Alma’s interaction with Elizabeth, for example, helps her to find the balance in her social roles and remain true with herself, even the external influences might seem unreasonably strong. Indeed, both films are about lost people who look for themselves. However, Persona seems more intense in terms of how the final result was reached. In this film, the interaction is negative, while the interaction in Solaris has more positive appearance because the characters manage to find mutual understanding. Moreover, they are ready to sacrifice in order to save the life of another person. The role of these films is to help the audience pay attention at their own interaction in real life and understand how their identities are influenced by them.
Solaris is the film about “people lost in the Cosmos” that are supposed to understand themselves during their close connection with an alien mind (Tarkovsky 198). Andrey Tarkovsky mentions that the main theme in his version of Solaris is focused on a human that is given a chance to find the truth about his own identity. Kris Kelvin (Donatas Banionis) is supposed to expose his consciousness in front of ocean’s attempts to understand humans. In the end, it is hard to say for sure whether the ocean manages to understand the astronauts. However, there is no doubt that Kris manages to understand himself and bring back his humanity with the help of the ocean. The story starts with the atmospheric images of the Earth. On the island where nature is preserved from the technological world, Kris strolls for the last time in the gloomy mood. Together with him, we are able to see the lake which Tarkovsky might have used to highlight that Kris pays great attention to the water as he is going to be surrounded with on Solaris. The image of his home brings tranquility to the soul as everything is green and alive, compared to the city. It is clear that his home should be a very cozy place to live in. In fact, such places follow people during their whole life, especially when they try to understand themselves. Despite being fully integrated into the scene of nature, he appears to be reserved and distant from his relatives. He thinks about his space trip to Solaris where he should decide whether to continue studies of the ocean or not. His father tries to explain to his son that the existence of space should not be decided by people. They have already changed the Earth according to own inability to understand it (Hanley). It is another theme that is hidden underneath contrasting realities of a big city and ‘dacha’. Tarkovsky implies that modern world is not changing for the better and it is crucial to “be real in itself,” or we will destroy an isolated islands of genuine nature. It means that life is at risk.
The biggest attention is given to Kris’ transformation, though. When he arrives at the station he finds that the astronauts have strange guests and their biggest challenge is to remain humans. It seems that it is a hard task for Dr. Snaut (Jüri Järvet) and Dr. Stratorius (Anatoli Solonitsyn) because they start forgetting how to be themselves, even if the space station is full of things from the Earth. In the film, we might notice that for characters it is important to remain humans. They invent some simple tricks to make the sound of the leaves. It is shown as bad because when a person forgets how to be human, he cannot respond correctly to the problems. The reason why the astronauts appear on Solaris is the attempt to understand the only living thing on this planet – the ocean. The scientists have spent many years trying to understand it. What significant about this urge to control something in the space is the proof that humans would rather ruin something unknown that try to understand themselves. Metaphorically, the ocean could be seen as a symbol of human consciousness for which it is hard to understand inner self. In the film, it is seen that the ocean also forces Snaut and Stratorius to suffer from people from their past. It happens because the ocean reads the mind of the people on the station while they are sleeping in order to find connections that are hidden deep in the mind. Unfortunately, the visitors are the reminders of the mistakes that people regret mostly. For Dr. Gibarian (Sos Sargsyan), it was so difficult to bear this reminder that he committed a suicide. His past did not let him live as he became extremely depressed. He left a note for Kris saying that “it has something to do with consciousness” (Solaris). He might serve as an example of human denial to accept things that compose an identity. During his sleep, Kris’ guest also appears. Hari (Natalya Bondarchuk) is his wife who also committed a suicide but on the Earth. Her appearance is not a surprise as the ocean grabs the most important parts of consciousness that people would be willing to forget, but these parts keep bringing the pain. Kris consciously tries to hide his fear of not being able to protect his loving woman (Lopate). Moreover, he feels that he is responsible for her death. In the movie, he mentions that he wanted to come back, but it was too late when he finally came.
Firstly, it is evident that Hari is a phantom. She could hardly remember her past and feel inexplicable need to be always around Kris. Gradually, Kris’ acceptance of her presence makes him different, more grateful for being human with an ability to experience emotions. However, the longer Hari stays with him, the more human she becomes. It is interesting that she manages to gain humanity by being around humans. In the both films, humanity means to be able to feel your own identity while being in the relationship with the others. Humanity means not only to find an identity, but also be able to give your life for the others. In Solaris, Hari gains it entirely, while Alma loses the second part because she feels betrayed in Persona. Other humans in Solaris are not able to guard their humanity among other humans because they isolate themselves from the others. The most vivid example of this is seen in Hari’s monologue on how people have lost their humanity. Dr. Stratorius is also a good example of a person that prefers not to show his emotions but to concentrate on science. He does not like the idea of following some feelings. Besides, he does not want to see that Hari has soul. Besides, his visitors have souls because they are taken from his head, and they show his human identity. While Hari talks about her feelings that she learnt recently, the camera focuses on her face. It highlights that she wants to be listened and regarded as a person with feelings. Moreover, it is the first time when we could see tears on her face. Tarkovsky points her possession of human through this monologue. Unfortunately, as a human, she realizes that she needs to sacrifice her life in order to save Kris from hallucinating as his spirit is overloaded with inner tensions. The film finishes with the same image of Kris at home. However, this time he appears to be more grateful and involved in his relationships with the father and place where he lives. He observes everything passionately. The last scene shows very touchy moment when he hugs his father. It seems that he eventually finds the harmony with himself and accept his belonging to his home. While camera moves back, we are able to see that his home is an island in the ocean. This moment symbolizes that for Kris path of exploration it was crucial to understand the importance of home and relationships with beloved people. Solaris has turned into an exploration of human spiritual dimensions which brings peace by the acceptance. The film implies that human identity is influenced greatly by the relationships with caring people. Thus, it is essential for the audience to see that the dearest could help to reach harmony. Both films have different stories. While analyzing them, it is also important to understand to which genre they belong.
Ingmar Bergman himself liked to describe Persona as a poem (Wood 56). Throughout the film, the audience could feel how attentive the director was to details in order to make a visual narration smoother. It was vital for Bergman as a modernist director to concentrate on the minimalism while amplifying the personal drama of the portrayed characters. For example, the scene when two faces appear in front of the mirror is not crammed with unnecessary details. Clearly, it is important to spot at that moment how two personalities fade away in order to become a single one. Owing to the earlier description, Persona is considered to be a psychological drama with the fragile emphasis on the body interactions, light, and the environment. The audience could perceive the changes in the identities with the help of body movements. When the relationships between characters are fine, their touches are light. Elizabeth compares their hands, for example. However, when Alma understands the reason of her self-doubt she starts beating Elizabeth. It is the last scene when the women interact. Light could help the audience to understand what is the focus of the scene. For instance, the most ‘lighted’ parts are the faces of the characters. Every time, Bergman is eager to show thought the faces the emotions people experience inside. Truly, while watching the film, an audience is hooked with the dramatic change in the characters. Lloyd Michaels points that Ingmar Bergman’s Persona is, undoubtedly, a unique movie that cannot be repeated due to its beautiful mystery (Michaels 4). It means that Bergman managed to puzzle the audience with characters’ identities and their struggles in an aesthetic way. His characters are highly appealing and it is interesting to observe them. Persona could also be added the genre of modernist horror where the story intrigues and attracts simultaneously by the director’s investigation on inner demons. Although some resemblance between the genres of two movies could be found, this aspect of Persona makes it different from Solaris.
Solaris could be described as a rhythmic poem because Tarkovsky is considered to be the father of a “poetic film” (Menard). For Tarkovsky, poetic film meant the ability to reach a smooth flow of the scenes which described inner drama of the characters. He was also attentive to details in his film as Bergman. Besides, he was astonished by the notion of time and its ability to change the pace of the narration (Tarkovsky 114). He believed that time could change spectators’ perception, so it is important to find the internal rhythm in order to supply the films with an aesthetic framework (Tarkovsky 114). Apart from this, he did not regard montage as the way to highlight the time. In Solaris, he was eager to shoot the scenes in such a way that he did not have to edit them later (Tarkovsky 126). This trick could be well-perceived with the images of the ocean. They are really smooth. We could also feel its mood from the waves. For example, when the crew decides to send Kris’ thoughts to the ocean, it could be seen that it starts studying them. Tarkovsky thought that a poetry of the film could only be reached by the awareness of the reality (Tarkovsky 21). He did not create any unreal objects for the film. In fact, his illusion of science fiction comes from the images of Hong Kong (Johnson 101). What is important also is that he shows relationships between ordinary people. In Persona, the relationships between people are also real, but their integration makes a spectator doubts whether he sees reality. Of course, the genre of “a rhythmic poem” might not exist, but Tarkovsky’s tradition to reach it makes Solaris “the drama of grief and partial recovery” (Lopate). Kris is a protagonist in this drama. The audience is offered to dive together with him into spiritual journey and experience his trip to space, dreams, and changes. He goes to space to decide whether to destroy the ocean or not, but eventually he finds himself because the ocean offers him to gain his own humanity by bringing dear people to his life. He did not expect to find harmony in space, but it changed his perspective on the relationships. His identity changes and he learns how to be present in the life. Besides all of these titles, Solaris remains a science fiction as it shows the future of a human nation and its relationship with other planets. Tarkovsky might have used this particular genre in order to show that the progress is inevitable, but people could keep their island of balance and harmony if they learn how to listen to their humanity. The main topic of the film is consciousness which makes Solaris a metaphysical science fiction because it covers the growth of human personality in the connection with the world he or she lives.
Looking back at the production of the films, it is important to mention about the process of shooting and directors’ feelings about their films. Persona is the film of Swedish director, Ernst Ingmar Bergman. Before Persona was produced, the audience was already familiar with the prevailing psychological aspects in Bergman’s films (Holmerg). According to Susan Sontag, Persona bears some similarity to The Silence (1963) because they are both represent “personal agony” in the response to the contrary powers which exist in life. Despite the fact that both films might contain similar themes and stories, Persona is much more sophisticated emotionally and meaningfully (Sontag 1). The reason why this particular film has gained such a strong appearance compared to the other films lies in the personal circumstances of the director. Ingmar Bergman once mentioned that Persona is the film that saved his life (Holmerg). It helped him to bring back his belief in personal art and remain in the cinematography (Holmerg). In fact, the most enigmatic film was inspired by director’s careful analysis of the environment and his unique ways of compiling emotions with images (Michaels 13).
While ingraining his own personality into the films, Bergman remained a puzzle for his audience, especial in his own country. His professional career was a controversy. When his popularity was growing abroad, he was doomed to face misunderstanding of the Swedish target audience that refused to comprehend modernist experiments, even during the French new wave. People did like Bergman’s comedies, but his belief in the film as a medium of personal recognition made some slightly irritated. Birgitta Steene mentioned that Swedish regarded his films “too personal and too out of step with contemporary Swedish culture” (Steene 103-110). What the audience was waiting for was the films that should not carry any extraordinary details and refer to the problems in the society (Steene 103-110). Their aim should be the strict correspondence to the real life and events without leaving the spectators with unsolved questions. Obviously, Ingmar Bergman could not be regarded as a mass filmmaker due to those expectations. His passion for turning a film into a performing art and a poem of an individual unrest made him a classic director of arthouse cinema (Holmerg).
Solaris was directed in 1972 by Andrey Tarkovsky, a Soviet and Russian filmmaker. Before the realization of Solaris, Tarkovsky has already earned a title of the most intriguing director who concentrates on the notion of coherence in the images (Hanley). He is famous for slowing the time in his films and embracing the colours and textures in a highly aesthetic way (Skakov 2). In Ivan’s Childhood (1962) and Andrei Rublev (1966), Tarkovsky shows his personal style in creating dramatic pictures with a minimal intrusion into the film frame. A minimal intrusion means a creation of a plain scene that makes a spectator believe in it. In order to reach this result, Tarkovsky works accurately attaching details and meaning. His aim in creating a vivid narration is to make his characters static but full of meaningful energy (Tarkovsky 17). In Solaris, he manages not only to make memorable characters, but he also invites the audience to witness their spiritual growth. Even though Solaris is a science fiction, its main purpose is not to show aliens. Tarkovsky has chosen this genre to show personal growth because it was the safest way to reach the audience (Johnson 113). Both Solaris and Persona show personal growth, but the directions are different. Kris grows, while Alma turns back to the nature.
Despite the fact that Andrey Tarkovsky created extremely important films, he was able to produce only seven during his life. Solaris is the third film that Tarkovsky did not really expect to create. The reason for this lies in the peculiarities of Soviet cinematography that even after the death of Stalin continued practicing strict censorship. The cinema administration turned down a great number of Tarkovsky’s proposals before he was offered to pick something safer (Johnson 99). Because of this, he chose to adapt a science fiction novel written by Stanislav Lem as it was believed by Soviet Union that this genre would only interest children (Johnson 99). However, his target audience was eventually bigger with the help of Tarkovsky’s intention to make the movie about relationships between people rather than relationships about people and aliens. Andrey Tarkovsky was recognized as the most prominent director of the art cinema, but he was doomed to follow all bureaucratic procedures at home (Johnson 101). He was able to save the most part of his work untouched because the administration let him release the films (Johnson 105). It is interesting that Tarkovsky even managed to add a small parody of Soviet Union showing the scene with administration meeting concerning Berton’s experience in Solaris (Johnson 100). It was the first evidence that the ocean reads human mind. The scientists refused to believe in it and spend time talking whether to continue studies on Solaris. This episode could be regarded as a symbol of unnecessary actions while solving certain issues.
Ingmar Bergman started to work on Persona in 1965 when he was hospitalized with a viral infection (Michaels 13). He explained that a writing process was his way to keep creating. Moreover, Bergman became truly enthusiastic to create the story about Bibi Anderson and Liv Ullman because their similarity inspired him greatly (Holmerg). Persona means a mask for the actors in Latin. He was also willing to create “a cinema about cinema” (Elsaesser) By adding an image of a film projector with carbon rods in the time frame of the film, Bergman had the intention to involve his audience in the act of seeing and make a film an object of active participation (Sontag 4). He adds this scene in the beginning and in the end of the film which creates some resemblance to the frame. Only the audience could see this sharp episode as a reminder that they are watching the movie and they should respond to it accordingly. It was Sven Nykvist who helped him to reach it during the process of production. He filled the movie with his famous close-ups and let Bergman’s ideas become so mystically powerful (Holmerg). The shooting of the film took place mostly in Fårö and lasted until September 1965. When everything was finished, Bergman felt some kind of emptiness (Holmerg). He relived his film from its birth till the last minute of production fully. It made Persona an example of real self-reflection. The same could be said about Solaris as its episodes also prove how essential it was for Tarkovsky to make the images speak about the atmosphere in the film.
Tarkovsky finished the script for Solaris in June 1969 (Johnson 98). The following year the casting started. During Solaris production, there were also other difficulties. For example, the budget for the film was significantly reduced when the shooting had not been completed yet (Johnson 98). Moreover, Tarkovsky was also supposed to cut some parts of the film not only because of the administration censorship but also because of Stanislav Lem. The Polish author did not agree with Tarkovsky on the vision of his story. Truly, Tarkovsky expanded narration and decided to show Kris’ Earth life which was full of sorrow and grief (Lopate). Probably, for this reason, Lem was not satisfied with this interpretation as it concentrates more on the humans. While he was eager to create a real science fiction, Tarkovsky wanted to focus on the intellectual and emotional depth of the film (Lopate). In his book, he remembers that the science fiction elements were distractive. He believed that the idea of the film could be influenced by the unreal constructions that make an audience unable to perceive the real story (Tarkovsky 199-200). What makes Solaris unique is that it embodies Tarkovsky’s passion for establishing the connection with his viewers regardless of how others want to intrude. He managed to add special atmosphere to the scenes of the ocean and nature. Kris’ inner struggle is so bright that we could even feel it physically when he wakes up sweating. Tarkovsky concentrates camera on the small details in order to encourage people to notice how they relate to our lives.
The analyzed movies, Persona and Solaris, are the one of the greatest examples of classic art cinema. They are classic because both Ingmar Bergman and Andrey Tarkovsky were in the origin of the production of new psychological films which inspires others by their aesthetic images and representation of human exploration of self within particular circumstances. It is what that they have in common. The characters in the both movies are looking for the meaning of their identities. In fact, they manage to find the meaning but in the slightly different ways. While Kris experiences total harmonization with the world and himself, Alma is in the hurry to leave the house because she is uncomfortable with Elizabeth. She also undertook the inner changes. However, her self-reflection shows that is scared of acquiring someone else’s role. It is important that all the characters have special meaning, and their presence is vital for making the audience understand how we connect with each other and how it influences our personalities. The images from the films helps to spot the changes in the characters. In Persona, it is seen with the image in the mirror when Alma and Elizabeth have their identities connected. It also gives an impression that Alma starts losing herself in reality. In Solaris, we are able to see the change with the help of Kris’ phantom wife who serves as the aspect of our consciousness that should not be neglected if we want to reach peace. Even though he might be scared when he first met her, her reincarnation influences him positively because he is able forgive himself.
Both directors used different narrations in their films, but they pursued the same goal. With their vividly minimalistic images and complex relationships, they created characters that change their personalities However, while Kris Kelvin grows and recovers his human identity under the contact of the ocean, Alma becomes more vulnerable and loses her initial human characteristics. However, they are both able to find it eventually. The characters embark on the opposite paths, but their message is carried through their spiritual journeys. Indeed, they both show that self could be influenced by others, but how an individual sustain its influence depends on his inner power. For example, Kris accepts the presence of Hari in his life. He interacts with her knowing that it is not his primary mission. However, he feels that by sharing the presence with Hari, he could become happier. What makes an identity in this film is the harmony which person could reach by the acceptance of the others. What makes Alma’s fight prominent is that she manages to avoid external influence and find strength to protect her own identity which should be strong and genuine. In Persona, it could be seen that human identity means the ability to preserve own believes and emotions which help to react genuinely to different events in the world. Both directors teach us that in modern world it is important to believe in yourself and let your inner strength guide you.
Bergman and Tarkovsky created a special meditation on cinema in Persona (1966) and Solaris (1972). Their films are about films. It could be seen better in Bergman’s frame with the carbon road, but Tarkovsky was also eager to involve his audience to take part in the creation of the film while using his special techniques to capture the notion of time. In Solaris, we could experience how much time it takes to do something in the movie. For example, we could understand how much time Kris’ space journey takes because of the sound of Bertan’s journey in the car. We might not see the space station, but it is clear that these two actions overlap in order to give the audience an impression of time.
While the directors tried to make intellectual and emotional films, the meaning of Persona and Solaris for the directors themselves is different. For Bergman, Persona was his own choice to remain in the cinematography. For Tarkovsky, Solaris was an imposed choice to remain in the cinematography as he was doomed to follow the preferences of administration. Despite all the difficulties they faced during the production, the films helped them to improve their personal styles. Thus, Tarkovsky became known for his ability to represent time and human struggles in a highly smooth way while Bergman was famous for showing aspects of human communication in the exploration of one’s identity. Both movies contain special rhythm that helps the directors and their audiences to understand each other without extra words. One of their greatest works, Persona and Solaris, will always be the path that shows human dimensions. Moreover, they will remain the examples of changes in human consciousness that lead to harmony and self-recognition.
Appendix
Figure 1. Still from Persona showing a film projector with carbon rods.
Figure 2. Still from Persona showing Elizabeth as Elektra.
Figure 3. Still from Persona showing Elizabeth and Alma’s first melting.
Figure 4. Still from Persona showing one face of Elizabeth and Alma.
Figure 5. Stills from Solaris showing the last walk of Kris on the Earth.
Figure 6. Stills from Solaris showing the ocean.
Figure 7. Stills from Solaris showing Hari’s monologue.
Figure 8. Stills from Solaris showing final scene of Kris spiritual path.
Works Cited
Barr, Alan P. “The Unravelling of Character in Bergman’s Persona.” Literature/Film. Quarterly. 1987, 123-136.
Elsaesser, Thomas. “The Persistence of Persona.” The Criterion Collection. 27 Mar. 2014. Web. 27 Mar. 2016. <https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/3116-the-persistence-of-persona>.
Hanley, David. “The Natural and Modern Worlds in Solaris.” OffScreen. January 2011. Web. 30 Mar. 2016. http://offscreen.com/view/natural_modern_solaris>.
Holmerg, Jan. “Persona.” Ingmar Bergman. 20 May 2012. Web. 30 Mar. 2016. <http://ingmarbergman.se/en/production/persona>.
Johnson, Vida T. and Petrie, Graham. The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual Fugue. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994, 98-111. Google books. Web. 27 Mar. 2016. <https://goo.gl/atwztb>.
Lopate, Phillip. “Solaris: Inner Space.” The Criterion Collection. 27 May 2011. Web. 30 Mar. 2016. <https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/239-solaris-inner-space>.
Menard, David George. “A Deleuzian Analysis of Tarkovsky’s Theory of Time-Pressure, Part 1.” OffScreen. August 2003. Web. 27 Mar. 2016. <http://offscreen.com/view/tarkovsky1>.
Michaels, Lloyd. Ingmar Bergman’s Persona. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2000, 1-24.
Persona. Dir. Ingmar Bergman. Perf. Bibi Andersson, Liv Ullmann. AB Svensk Filmindustri, 1966. Film.
Skakov, Nariman. The Cinema of Tarkovsky: Labyrinths of Space and Time. London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, 2012, 74-100.
Solaris. Dir. Andrei Tarkovsky. Perf. Natalya Bondarchuk, Donatas Banionis, Jüri Järvet. Mosfilm, 1972. Film.
Sontag, Susan. “Persona.” Styles of Radical Will. New York, 1970.
Steene, Birgitta. “The Transpositions of a Filmmaker – Ingmar Bergman at Home and Abroad.” Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006, 103-127.
Tarkovsky, Andrey. Sculpting in Time: The Great Russian Filmmaker Discusses His Art. Trans. Kitty Hunter-Blair. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1989, 198-199.
Wood, Robin. Ingmar Bergman. UK: Littlehampton Book Services Ltd, 1969, 144.
