María Cruz

The Films of Ingmar Bergman

Matthias Hurst
June 2010

How Ingmar Bergmanʼs movie “Through a Glass Darkly” speaks of philosophy of

existence. An analysis from the perspective of Karl Jaspersʼ philosophy.

A family of four, that is looking forward to spending some holiday time together, is faced

with the struggle of human relations in a context of mental sickness, depression and death.

Ingmar Bergman puts the characters of his own creation to test, through a series of limit

situations, to which all four respond in very different ways. The aim of this essay is to track

the process of philosophy -as an activity, a movement of thought- the characters go

through, as well as to interpret the visual language of the movie under the light of Karl

Jaspersʼ philosophy of existence.

The start point of the movie describes a limit situation: Karin is mentally sick, she suffers

from schizophrenia and most probably will not recover. Her family cannot ignore this, and

hence, will respond to this each in their own specific way. Limit situation is a key concept in

Jaspersʼ Philosophy of Worldviews. Men are faced with the struggle of overcoming their

own limits.

Situations such us: that I am always in situations, that I cannot live without

struggle and without suffering, that I ineluctably take guilt upon myself, that I

must die -this I call limit situations. [...] Thus we react meaningfully to limit

situations not by planning and calculations in order to overcome them, but by an

entirely different sort of activity:  namely, by becoming the Existenz possible

within us. (Karl Jaspers: Basic Philosophical Writings, E. Ehrlich, L. H. Ehrlich &

Pepper; Selection 12, A & B.)

According to Jaspersʼ view, the human being, by reflecting upon itself, becomes aware of

itself and the other objects and beings that form part of a larger encompassing context (the

world). The Encompassing as such is also a key concept for the philosopher; and it is the

form of our awareness of being which underlies all our scientific and common-sense

knowledge. It is in this way -by reflecting upon ourselves- that we become aware of our

own position in this larger context as well, and the unconceivable potential of the human

mind. And, together with this, we recognize our knowledge as limited. We, as beings, are

always within a horizon. In this way, the person builds his own worldview, where the

human mind withdraws in order to obtain security, among the limitless possibilities of

human existence. This world view is constructed around false certainties or objectivized

modes of rationality, and tis also called cage (Gehäuse).

In this context, it is by acknowledging the potential of his knowledge, of his conscience,

that human beings have the capacity to transcend. To transcend, in other words, could be

described as breaking the limits of the cage. In the encompassing of subjectivity -meaning,

the awareness of what we our selves are- the mode of transcendent is called Existenz.

Following this trail of thought, what Jaspers means by “becoming the Existenz possible

within us”, is giving a step forward towards realizing ourselves, of fulfilling a bit more

(because it is never complete) the enormous potentiality of our consciousness.

To pick up on the definition of limit situations, they are those that take the person to the

border of his circle of comfort (or cage), and force him to see the potential of

transcendence and the possibility of breaking through, which the person always desires.

I would like to stop at this point to talk about terminology. There are multiple options to

translate the word “Gehäuse”. In German, it is not necessarily a term with negative

connotation, as the word cage is. It is a word that could also mean “housing”, since it

connotes a feeling of comfort. However, I would like to keep the word “cage” for two main
reasons. One, in Bergmanʼs movie the mise-en-scène very frequently suggests the

existence of cages that hold the characters. Two, there are several gestures that could

take us to believe that David -the father of Karin- feels rather comfortable in this limited

space, and has a hard time coming out.

To develop the analysis of this film better, I will focus on the character of David, and him in

relation to his son and daughter.

The first time that we encounter one of these cages is when, right after dinner started,

David goes inside with the excuse of looking for his tobacco. Instead, he breaks down. He

walks up and down the room with anxiety and cries. The framing in this scene s very

important. To start with, the character is twice reframed: first by the door frame, and

secondly by the window. The light that gets through projects the window bars, enhancing

this feeling of being caged in. The frame is made even smaller by the horizontal axis the

table draws, and in actual facts, the character goes from side to side, sometimes off stage,

but never crosses this axis. He feels caged in, he can feel the limits of his cell and wants to

get out. This anguish he feels now is in itself a limit situation, and also the result of other

limit situations that he went through in an extra diegetic context, a time previous to the

period narrated in the movie. From the scene where he is in the boat, talking to Martin

(Karinʼs husband), we learn that he tried to commit suicide when he was abroad. On could

say that the situation of contemplating suicide is that of extreme solitude. The scene

previously described, where he cries, also stresses out that he is alone. There is a

tremendous emptiness, shown when the man walks out of the frame and the camera stays

still.

However negative this solitude may seem, however painful, in Jaspersʼ view it is a

necessary step when confronted with a limit situation. The philosopher outlines three
“leaps of Existenz evolving in limit situations” 1 . The first one implies solitude. Jaspers sees

that loneliness harbors other possibilities. Confronted with nothingness itself, everything

could happen. It is the “eye of an existence that breaks forth” 1. Faced with this

overwhelming solitude, David could have chosen to kill himself, but he didnʼt. There is

nothing left for him to do, but remake himself. He has to find new meaning, because he

already rejected the alternative option. This solitude is transformed into knowledge for him,

and makes him more open to other limit situations to come. As much as we dislike Davidʼs

attitude in the film, it is true that he does not turn away from these situations. Jaspers says

that the only way to avoid limit situations is to close oneʼs eyes to them, and pretend they

are not there. Davidʼs attitude is annoying, he is very much self-centered and has difficulty

feeling sympathy for others, but he never denies the fact that there is a problem about his

relation to others. What we may see as reluctance to change at the beginning and through

the film, in the end results in actual communication, an actual step forward. The knowledge

he inherited from his solitude could have something to do with this, because it helps him

recognize the limit situations that are to come and that we as spectators witness in the

movie.

The second leap is toward elucidation, outside the cage, where the person no longer finds

himself indifferent to the world, but rather finds his own being, in which he is deeply

moved. The third leap implies grasping the limit situations of existence as an infinitely

concerned Existenz. Possible Existenz is transformed into actual Existenz. We could say

that the movie develops between Davidʼs first leap and his second leap, although this is

not completely terminated at the end of the film. Throughout all the film David is caged in,

and only in the end does he see the possibility of stepping out.

The cage as image is present all along the film. The scene where David is writing, early

morning after the first night, he is sitting in his chair in front of the desk, perfectly framed

1 Karl Jaspers: Basic Philosophical Writings, E. Ehrlich, L. H. Ehrlich & Pepper; Selection 12, C.
within the limits of the box that is formed by the window and the projection of the window

bars. This cage is also present very often for Karin. When she goes through her fatherʼs

papers, she is inside the cage alone. Also, the scene where she speaks to Martin, a few

times her torso is framed within the limits of the window in the back.

David encounters other limit situations as well, aside from attempting suicide and the

emotional breakdown. In the scene of the boat, we can see how Martin judges him guilty of

not caring for Karin, of using her for his novel. David is guilty of being intrinsically selfish

and closed in his world. Acknowledging the consequences of oneʼs actions, and finding

oneself guilty could lead, in Jaspers thinking, to inactivity. “If I am shocked by these

consequences of my actions, then I can as well think to avoid this guilt by not entering the

world and thus not doing anything”, the philosopher states (Selection 12, E). We can see

how David is facing multiple limit situations, he cannot turn his head away, so he is ready

to take action in order to make a significant change. Being accused of selfishness, he also

finds himself alone in his little cage-world. All these situations take him to the same point,

he is seeing the same thing over and over again. There is nothing left for him to do but act.

It is only in the clear awareness of more highly developed conditions that one

can say: Being I myself means being solitary, but in such a manner that in

solitude I am not yet myself; for solitude is the consciousness of being ready for

possible Existenz, which can be realized only in communication. (Karl Jaspers:

Basic Philosophical Writings, E. Ehrlich, L. H. Ehrlich & Pepper; Selection 9, A.)

It is interesting to explore how communication takes place when the characters are within

the limits of the Gehäuse. Communication is vital in Jaspers philosophy, a key movement

to actual Existenz. However, throughout the movie communication is unsuccessful. An

example of this is the scene of the theatre play. For Jaspers, true communication happens

between two individuals who are in a situation of equality, not one who overpowers the

other or that for some other reasons, breaks the symmetry. The scene with the theatre

play happens at an early stage in the movie, and the characters are still confined to their

own island. David sits in the chair, and from that point on, they play is portrayed with a low

angle shot. This at first sight could imply that it is Davidʼs point of view, which is totally

valid, but moving to a deeper sense of analysis, one could say that this choice of angle

puts the play in a higher position. Whenever there is a reverse shot, that shows the father,

it is done from a high angle, literally looking down on him. It is important to bear in mind

that Minus wrote this play, and at the beginning of the film he was complaining about how

he couldnʼt talk to his father -or rather, that his father didnʼt speak to him. Going back to the

theatre play, as seen as an act of communication, the inequality is evident. This analysis

could be taken further, to the reactions of the play. When can clearly see in two or three

moments that David is deeply disturbed by the argument -an artist who contemplates

joining death in marriage but later on gets cold feet. However, the play is supposed to be

amusing or enlightening. We can see this in Martinʼs face, who is smiling all along. There

is one line that Karin says that is rather amusing as well: “But who are you? I cannot talk to

just anybody, even if I am dead”. And when he answers, he seems to be making fun of the

artist -he is a poet without poems, a painter with no paintings, and so on; like his father,

who is a writer with no (serious) novel. In this act of communication there is clearly

someone who is being mocked at or even abused, and someone else who exerts this

power. In this way, we can see right from the beginning that there is something wrong with

how this characters communicate. Karl Jaspers wouldnʼt call this communication, since he

says superiority and victory are never desired, because they are perceived as disturbance
and guilt2 . David and Minus actually talk, we see them doing so when they go together to

set the nets, so what is Minus asking for? He has a need for real communication.

Real communication -what Jaspers would call such- only takes places by the end of the

movie. The first time it takes place is inside the boat, when David talks alone with Karin.

Their eyes are at the same level, so from a narrative point of view, no character is above

the other. Furthermore, David is asking with an honest will to know, to understand. And in

these scene Karin and her father are both equally open to each other. Karin is

embarrassed, so is David, though for very different reasons. Throughout all the movie he

seems to be very proud of his work as an artist, and even bears an air of seriousness. As

though he believed better what Karin and Minus said about it than what Martin expressed

in the boat. Only in the broken ship does he come out clean and confess his view over his

work: “It makes me sick to think of all the life I have sacrificed for my so-called art”. At this

point, they are equally exposed and vulnerable, and the things they say is truly

meaningful. This is is how communication is supposed to take place -aside from the

content, it should always be given in a symmetrical relation between the people involved.

The people involved should remain always two, and this is actually what happens. David

was only able to achieve true communication because he had experienced solitude

before.

The second moment when real communication takes place is when Minus and David talk

after Karin and her husband leave for hospital. Even though it is a father-son relationship,

and there is no equality if we take into consideration the roles, there is a way in which they

are both equal. When Minus steps into the room he says he is scared, and we can see the

same fear in Davidʼs eyes. Minus wants an answer, and he doubts his father is going to be

able to give him one, something that David is not sure about himself. However, he

proceeds to talk after he has taken in what his son said, actually comprehended him in his

2 Karl Jaspers: Basic Philosophical Writings, E. Ehrlich, L. H. Ehrlich & Pepper; Selection 9, C.
demand. He says something very meaningful as well, since (in my view) he describes the

process he has been going through all along the period of time the movie depicts:

“Suddenly the emptiness turns into abundance and hopelessness into life. Itʼs like a

reprieve, Minus, from a sentence of death”. It s very significant as well, since he speaks

about love, which in Jaspersʼ philosophy is the basement of all relationships.

Without love, consciousness remains at a loss. Without it, conscience is

reduced to the confines of emptiness and formality. Through love, the despair of

limit situations is overcome. Inspired by love, ignorance turns into fulfilled

reality; love is the bearer of ignorance while ignorance, in being borne by love,

is the expression of this love. Love is the return, out of vertiginousness and

dread, into the certainty of Being. (Karl Jaspers: Basic Philosophical Writings, E.

Ehrlich, L. H. Ehrlich & Pepper; Selection 13, B.)

It is by acquiring this knowledge that David has taken the first leap out of his cage. The

movie ends with Minus expressing his happiness: “Dad talked to me!”. It was so important

for Minus that his father spoke to him because it meant that he recognized him in his

individuality. It is only in these conditions of equality and solidarity that truth and

meaningful things are spoken, and for this the characters struggle throughout the movie.