I'd Prefer a Demonstration to a Lecture
This weekend's review: A Lesson in Love.
I was admittedly wary about A Lesson in Love before I sat down to watch it, suspecting it was going to hit all the beats that you imagine when you think of the phrase “art film”, especially “European art film”. However, I like to try to broaden my horizons now and again, so I gave it a shot anyway. Sadly, it turned out my instincts were mostly right.
The story revolves around David Erneman (Gunnar Björnstrand), a gynecologist. As the movie begins (after an introductory monologue assuring us that this is a comedy), we see him breaking things off with his lover (Yvonne Lombard). Flashbacks scattered throughout the movie reveal that she was the one to seduce him, that he resisted a bit but then gave in, and that his wife Marianne (Eva Dahlbeck) and daughter Nix (Harriet Andersson) aren’t particularly happy about this. After ending the relationship, David decides to try to get his wife back, meeting up with her (unexpectedly on her end) on a train and talking with her about the nature of love, marriage, relationships, and similar things. Since this is billed as a comedy, you can probably guess how things are going to end up, but you have to get through a lot of philosophical musing to get there.
I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that you have to be able to get into the right mindset when you watch movies like this, a mindset I’ve never been able to master. A few dramatic or profound statements can work, but when more attention seems to be being paid to discussions of life (generally with flowery language) than plot, the movie loses me. This movie is a prime example of that, made worse because some of that philosophical bent winds up making the movie more confusing. For example, even though David seems to want to reconcile with his wife, he tells her to her face that “the marriage bed is love’s demise”, which wouldn’t do anything to endear him to me if I was Marianne. Then there are two different flashbacks that probably are supposed to tie into the themes of love and how relationships can be odd, but both feel off in different ways. In one, a fight breaks out and then is just as quickly smoothed over, and in the other, it just keeps going and features characters who don’t appear in the main story, thus feeling mostly pointless. Also, there’s a subplot involving Nix that doesn’t go anywhere, and while I understand why she’s in the movie (to show David one of the consequences of his affair), it would have been better to cut out her character quirk of hating girly things or actually have a payoff for it. But like I said, I think I get too caught up in plot instead of focusing on the philosophy and symbolism. Maybe this all makes more sense if you look at it in that way.
There are a few other minor things worth noting. One of these is a supporting character, Sam (John Elfström), who’s David’s chauffeur and general servant. In practice, he doesn’t serve much purpose except being the guy who helps David’s plans come to fruition. Yet there’s a throwaway line when he’s first introduced that reveals that he murdered his fiancée and then had a lobotomy to take the murderous impulses out of him. It’s said so matter-of-factly that I was convinced this was going to be relevant in some way, but it never is. In another movie, this could probably have been played for comedy (very warped comedy, but still comedy), but as it stands, it just makes him have a creepy vibe for the rest of the movie. Speaking of comedy, the movie doesn’t take any advantage whatsoever of the fact that David’s profession is gynecologist. There’s one amusing comment made early in the movie, and then his job rarely comes up after that. He could have been a banker for all his career mattered to the story. I wouldn’t mind so much if it wasn’t for the fact that gynecologist isn’t exactly a normal career to show in movies, and since there seemed to be a focus on sex in the movie, I assumed David’s being a gynecologist would play into that. Just another missed opportunity, apparently. In general, I could tell when moments were supposed to be funny, but they almost never worked for me, and I don’t know if that was a matter of personal preference, changing times (this was made in 1954), or things being lost in translation (the movie is in Swedish). Knowing me and the way art films generally are, it’s probably a bit of all three.
Unless you’re someone who “gets” art films, I probably wouldn’t recommend this one. There’s not much plot to speak of, and what plot is there is predictable. It may be a lesson in love, but it’s a lesson we’ve all heard before. And generally from much better teachers.
I was admittedly wary about A Lesson in Love before I sat down to watch it, suspecting it was going to hit all the beats that you imagine when you think of the phrase “art film”, especially “European art film”. However, I like to try to broaden my horizons now and again, so I gave it a shot anyway. Sadly, it turned out my instincts were mostly right.
The story revolves around David Erneman (Gunnar Björnstrand), a gynecologist. As the movie begins (after an introductory monologue assuring us that this is a comedy), we see him breaking things off with his lover (Yvonne Lombard). Flashbacks scattered throughout the movie reveal that she was the one to seduce him, that he resisted a bit but then gave in, and that his wife Marianne (Eva Dahlbeck) and daughter Nix (Harriet Andersson) aren’t particularly happy about this. After ending the relationship, David decides to try to get his wife back, meeting up with her (unexpectedly on her end) on a train and talking with her about the nature of love, marriage, relationships, and similar things. Since this is billed as a comedy, you can probably guess how things are going to end up, but you have to get through a lot of philosophical musing to get there.
I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that you have to be able to get into the right mindset when you watch movies like this, a mindset I’ve never been able to master. A few dramatic or profound statements can work, but when more attention seems to be being paid to discussions of life (generally with flowery language) than plot, the movie loses me. This movie is a prime example of that, made worse because some of that philosophical bent winds up making the movie more confusing. For example, even though David seems to want to reconcile with his wife, he tells her to her face that “the marriage bed is love’s demise”, which wouldn’t do anything to endear him to me if I was Marianne. Then there are two different flashbacks that probably are supposed to tie into the themes of love and how relationships can be odd, but both feel off in different ways. In one, a fight breaks out and then is just as quickly smoothed over, and in the other, it just keeps going and features characters who don’t appear in the main story, thus feeling mostly pointless. Also, there’s a subplot involving Nix that doesn’t go anywhere, and while I understand why she’s in the movie (to show David one of the consequences of his affair), it would have been better to cut out her character quirk of hating girly things or actually have a payoff for it. But like I said, I think I get too caught up in plot instead of focusing on the philosophy and symbolism. Maybe this all makes more sense if you look at it in that way.
There are a few other minor things worth noting. One of these is a supporting character, Sam (John Elfström), who’s David’s chauffeur and general servant. In practice, he doesn’t serve much purpose except being the guy who helps David’s plans come to fruition. Yet there’s a throwaway line when he’s first introduced that reveals that he murdered his fiancée and then had a lobotomy to take the murderous impulses out of him. It’s said so matter-of-factly that I was convinced this was going to be relevant in some way, but it never is. In another movie, this could probably have been played for comedy (very warped comedy, but still comedy), but as it stands, it just makes him have a creepy vibe for the rest of the movie. Speaking of comedy, the movie doesn’t take any advantage whatsoever of the fact that David’s profession is gynecologist. There’s one amusing comment made early in the movie, and then his job rarely comes up after that. He could have been a banker for all his career mattered to the story. I wouldn’t mind so much if it wasn’t for the fact that gynecologist isn’t exactly a normal career to show in movies, and since there seemed to be a focus on sex in the movie, I assumed David’s being a gynecologist would play into that. Just another missed opportunity, apparently. In general, I could tell when moments were supposed to be funny, but they almost never worked for me, and I don’t know if that was a matter of personal preference, changing times (this was made in 1954), or things being lost in translation (the movie is in Swedish). Knowing me and the way art films generally are, it’s probably a bit of all three.
Unless you’re someone who “gets” art films, I probably wouldn’t recommend this one. There’s not much plot to speak of, and what plot is there is predictable. It may be a lesson in love, but it’s a lesson we’ve all heard before. And generally from much better teachers.