|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
- Artists
- Ingmar Bergman Films
- Liv Ullmann Films
- Max von Sydow Films
- Mental Breakdown
- Psychological Horror
- Scandinavian Films
Review:
Ingmar Bergman’s feature-length follow-up to Persona (1966) was this unique entry in his oeuvre: a surreal, psychologically dense horror tale which comes across like a fever dream. The film opens and closes with Ullmann narrating the story:
… but she is otherwise relegated to an observer’s view, as her husband experiences increasingly troubling memories, encounters, and visions. Early on, he shows Ullmann a series of art works that we can’t see, but which all eventually — later — come to life in some fashion.
“Look here; I haven’t shown these to anybody. You see, I’ve drawn them. This is the most common figure: he’s almost harmless. I think he’s homosexual.”
“Then there’s the old lady who’s always threatening to take off her hat. You know what happens then? … Her face comes off with it, you see.”
“Here. This is the worst one. I call him the Bird Man; I don’t know if it’s a real beak or if it’s only a mask. He’s so remarkably fast! He must be related to Papageno from The Magic Flute. The others: the flesh-eaters, the insects, and especially the spider man.”
“Here, the schoolmaster with the pointing stick in his trousers, and the chattering, hard-as-metal women.”
None of this makes much logical sense — though it does take place within an actual visit to a castle on the island, populated by a chattering group of art-lovers:
… who seem to dabble in the macabre.
Events culminate in a morbid reunion between von Sydow and his former lover (Ingrid Thulin), who he’d “seen” formerly on the rocks.
The film ends with an incomplete sentence spoken by Ullmann.
“There are so many things to ponder — so many questions; sometimes you don’t know up from down, and you get completely…”
What? We’re not sure. End scene.
Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:
- Max von Sydow as Johan Borg
- Liv Ullmann as Alma Borg
- Sven Nykvist’s cinematography
- Numerous memorable images
Must See?
Yes, as another unique and intriguing Bergman movie. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.
Categories
(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)
Links:
|
4 thoughts on “Hour of the Wolf (1968)”
Rewatch 6/22/21. Not must-see, though Bergman completists will want to see it.
As a teen, I was obsessed with Bergman films. At one point, I sensed there were two types of them: the straightforward … and the other ones.
So when I first saw ‘HOTW’ as a teen, I was swept up in it the way that Bergman usually swept me up. I wasn’t looking at it with a critical eye. But I did note that it was the kind of film that critics loved to analyze. What did it all mean???
Seeing it again, I don’t think the film has held up all that well. It’s been called Bergman’s only horror film – and there are certain sequences that substantiate that (esp. the well-executed demon-child sequence and basically the last 15 minutes or so – which has some riveting imagery).
But it’s an oblique film. I don’t think I would ever call Bergman pretentious (at least not knowingly) but I see this as more of a (DP) Sven Nykvist film – he’s given a number of opportunities to showcase what he does well against the framework of an obviously eccentric work.
The best thing about the film is the conceit of its title (and what it means) – but it doesn’t seem to me that Bergman exploits that conceit to its fullest. We do, however, get a lot of angst re: love affairs, superficial people with power and deep, personal insecurity.
I’ve approached Bergman somewhat in reverse from you — I was a “purist” as a young ff (only watching his best-known titles) and am just now getting around to enjoying his other work.
I can see the pretention element (and yes, I think it’s fair to attribute that to Bergman!), but for me this was an intriguing and no-holds-barred dive into an artist’s (a.k.a. Bergman’s) psyche.
It’s weird and non-linear, but I appreciated Bergman going “all the way” with the darkness. Here, he seems to be especially having fun with make-up and low-grade special effects (i.e., the wall-climbing instance), while in “Shame,” he was a kid in a candy store with explosives. 🙂 (That film had definite Godardian vibes.)
If I remember correctly (and I can’t guarantee that I do), the first Bergman flick I saw was ‘Wild Strawberries’ – just as I entered my teens (thanks to the foreign film fests at a local university that I became addicted to). That experience was enough to make me want to see everything he did; to play catch-up with past titles (which I largely did when I moved to NYC) and also see new films as they were released. In other words, I wasn’t thinking about what was best-known. Each film was more like part of my ‘therapy’. 😉
Overall, I don’t think I tend to be overly critical of Bergman’s work – it’s generally too meaningful for me. But I will admit that, on a revisit, ‘Hour of the Wolf’ had less impact. I don’t think it’s a bad film, by any means; I just wouldn’t list it with Bergman must-sees.
“Wild Strawberries” was most definitely my first Bergman film, seen with my (Norwegian) mom. I loved it even before watching it because I loved wild strawberries themselves, which we were taught to look for on the ground during our every-five-years visits to Norway (so they are firmly entrenched in childhood memories, which is fitting).
I can understand Bergman as therapy. 😉 I stayed away from his darker works because — actually, because I was worried they would hit too close to home (being Scandinavian like me and all). My mom related a lot to his upbringing with a super-strict father, which was her situation as well and led to nothing but heartache. I have enough distance now that I can manage it.