Exploring Objective Value and Contemporary Romanticism in Bergman’s Through a Glass Darkly

Ingmar Bergman’s Through a Glass Darkly (1961) guides us through a complexly woven critique on moral systems, social constructs, mental illness/abnormalities in perceptions and the “shoulda/coulda/woulda” of life. Objective value is a complicated topic, hinging on timespace, geographic location, cultural nuances, and the like. When it comes to objective value, what concerns me are the increasing societal definitions that leave us labeled, boxed, and guided without agency. The deafness, the muteness of experience. The stains these leave. The isolation that results.

Bergman has a way of showing you basic — and objectively good — human emotions/experiences/relationships and then, after stripping away all metaphors and symbolism, shows you the pure value, complexity and dualistic beauty of human experience and connection. It is only after Bergman has created a shared understanding of the naturalistic nature of human experience that he begins layering on the fabrications that bind, bastardize, and restrict.

To be sure he is truly testing his audience, Bergman uses extremes, especially for his time, like in The Rite and Through a Glass Darkly, to test the audience’s commitment to objective value and the role of society. As you make your way through Darkly, you’re ultimately left with a longing for something that seems attainable, but somehow impossible, and an embarrassment hinging on your societal involvement and support.

I’ve fallen in love with this Bergman Romantic undertone; that society takes humans as pure beings and, through social, political, and economic constructs bastardize the good, obscure the positive, and attempt to control the natural progression of life, experience, and death.

In this, we cosplay God.

Each character in this film goes through, before our eyes, a reckoning of what they should be in relation to others and to the Self. They recoil in the mirror upon their reflection. Why? Because they have replaced a simple moralistic guide with a system that is deeply flawed, and deeply limiting, in an attempt to understand and categorize life. But ultimately, it should be understood that:

Life is simple.

The truth is simple.

We complicate both as we attempt to assert control — as we attempt to create a reality in our own, distorted image.

This is precisely where Bergman shines the brightest, in his exploration of the Romantic ideal that the individual is of incredible importance, more so than any political conviction, social norm, or imposing rule/law on natural order. We’ll be talking more about Romanticism, stay tuned!

I’m convinced that in this film, one of the main characters, Karin, is not completely delusional, she has awakened to the confines of her social presence/roles , expectations, and the unreasonable demands placed on her. She is overwhelmed, overstimulated, and trying to make sense of herself and the condition(s) she finds herself in. Just like her mother before her.

We have been trained to be tempered, easy to read and enjoy — but the understanding you’re left with at the end of a Bergman is that we are our own worst enemies. We overthink it all, we restrict so much, and there’s a warm light and love within us. Our narratives hinge on simple beliefs and actions, made unnecessarily complicated, which can easily become through (in)action a tragedy or a comedy.

At the end of this film, you’re left with the understanding that while there are objective values, becoming yourself in a system is truly an exercise in “the only way out is through.” I absolutely don’t suggest that we exist without social, economic, and political systems; I simply believe what is currently in place has become uncontrollable, misaligned, and largely grotesque.

Romantic Poet John Keats contemplated the value of negative capability, that is, the ability to entertain uncertainties, doubts, and universal mysteries without binding this exploration to fact and reasoning. If asked to give an example of this mental and philosophical exercise, Bergman films would be the perfect place to try it out. I have no answers to this but I have a lot of thoughts and questions. However, ultimately, I’m content with grappling with the meaning of art, life, and the mysteries both explore in a contemplative and open manner.

Negative capability, as I see it, allows for a certain level of freedom from the existential angst that accompanies the contemplation of life — its meaning, its vastness, and why it does/doesn’t matter. This is not to say there is no angst involved, however, I find it beautiful to have the emotional and intellectual capacity — and drive — to consider so many angles of my own human experience and existence.

That being said, to align yourself with your own greater good — your own purpose — is to do the emotional and intellectual work. I suppose you can kick and scream or you can gently spread out your blanket and fall deeply in thought. From here, igniting action becomes its own endeavor, but you must understand yourself and where you are headed before any action can take place.

As much as we talk about societal binds, Bergman reminds us that people, places, history, and belief also constrict. Constructing meaning is solitary work that becomes collaborative only when you’ve identified components and partners that support your vision(s), belief(s), and desire(s).