Ingmar Bergman’s Hour of the Wolf is a challenging film to interpret, as the many layers
of reality and truth conjure up numerous confusing questions. Based on my understanding of art
film conventions, I would argue the purpose of the film is to explore the foundation of mental
instability, through the psychological breakdown of the lead characters, Johan and Alma Borg.
Three scenes in particular provide strong evidence for this interpretation, as well as each
exemplifying one of three major principals of art cinema. The first is the discourse between
Johan and Baron von Merkins after the dinner party, which is a subtle example of authorial
expressivity. It is almost as if Bergman is addressing the audience directly with his own thoughts
on the struggles of being a tortured artist. Secondly, the flashback to when Johan killed the child
is an obvious use of ambiguity. This is likely the scene that will baffle the most viewers, as it
arrives in the middle of one of the least ambiguous scenes in the entire movie. Finally, the ending
of the film shows psychological realism. Alma Borg directly addresses viewers and provides us
with her own thoughts on the psychological states of Johan and herself. Throughout Hour of the
Wolf, Bergman deftly utilizes the major components of art cinema such as authorial expressivity,
ambiguity, and psychological realism, to explore the roots of mental instability.
When analyzing any art film, it is important to look for situations of authorial
expressivity. Emerging out of the modernist movement which began in the 1880s, art films do
not attempt to tell us objective truths about reality. Instead, they can only tell us about
themselves, and thus tend to deal with the process of making art. Bergman decides to use
authorial expressivity in Hour of the Wolf by making Johan a literal artist, conveying to viewers
that this is the character that best represents himself. We must pay close attention when this
character speaks about the process of making art and the perils of being an artist, as this is a
symbolic display of the director inserting their own thoughts and ideas directly into the film.
The most important example of this comes in a scene about 39 minutes into the movie. It begins
with Baron von Merkens rambling on about the manifestation of art, to witch Johan replies:
I call myself ‘artist’ for lack of a better term. There is nothing self-evident in my creative
work, except the compulsion to do it. Through no intent of my own, I have been pointed
out as something apart, a five-legged calf, a monster. I have never fought for that
position, nor do I do so now to keep it. Yet I may well at times have felt the winds of
megalomania sweep across my brow. But I believe myself to be immune. I need only for
one second remind myself of the utter importance of art in the human world in order to
cool myself down again. But that does not mean the compulsion does not remain. (Hour
of the Wolf)
This lengthy reply blatantly states Johan’s fears and insecurities of being an artist: his obsession
with his art, his shame of how being an artist makes him a freak in society, his delusions of
grandeur. This is where we first begin to see what is causing Johan to descend into madness. We
begin to understand how, combined with his relative isolation, he could hurt his loved ones and
lose his grip on reality.
We can also look at the stylistic aspects of the scene, for more evidence that Bergman
wanted this monologue to stand out. The shot begins when the Baron addresses Johan as “sir
Artist”, and the camera quickly pans over to Johan. He then steps forward so that he is right in
front of the camera, with strong lighting from the top and right of the frame to accentuate his
features. The whole speech is delivered in a single take, with very little mobile framing so that
viewers do not get distracted. Meanwhile, the rest of the cast are visible in the midground,
staring and intently listening to what Johan has to say. Johan mainly addresses the Baron who is
located behind the camera, and at one point turns to address the rest of the characters. This gives
viewers the sense that Johan is addressing the audience, more than that he is speaking directly to
a particular character. In other words, Bergman is speaking to us, the audience, through the
words of Johan.
The rest of the scene also utilizes some other common art film conventions. The
transition into this scene does not establish much spatial or temporal continuity. We do not know
where in the castle the action is taking place, or how long it has been after the last scene. We are
also still unsure at this point whether the characters other than Johan and Alma are part of a
fantasy or not. However, there is not any authorial expressivity outside of that one monologue. In
fact, the credits are the only other part of the entire movie where Bergman makes his presence as
director known, as he adds non-diegetic sound from the films production to let viewers know
they are being shown a manufactured reality. Therefore, the convention of authorial expressivity
is used selectively, but not frequently, and the extreme self-consciousness is underplayed
compared to most other art films.
The most prominently used feature of art cinema in Hour of the Wolf is undoubtedly
ambiguity. Ambiguity has to be a prominent feature in art films for two reasons. First of all,
almost all aspects of classical cinema are implemented so that the film has continuity and makes
sense, so any films opposing the classical paradigm must be at least somewhat ambiguous.
Secondly, an important function of art cinema is that it recognizes there is no objective truth, and
therefore everything must be ambiguous. Although ambiguity is present in every single scene in
some form, it is the most noticeable in the flashback about 53 minutes into the film. In this one
short scene alone, the viewer is presented with many questions. We do not know when the
flashback took place, who the boy is, why the boy bit Johan, or why Johan suddenly killed the
boy. We do not even know if the events actually happened, or if Johan’s faulty recollection is
actually a symptom of his declining mental state. This scene is important because it presents
viewers with a reason for Johan’s psychosis. The flashback is not necessarily a literal
representation of Johan killing a child, but possibly a symbolic representation of Johan’s past
traumas, with the boy’s death possibly being symbolic of Johan’s loss of innocence at a young
age. Ambiguity is necessary in this scene to covey to viewers that the scene is not literal, but still
provide them with a reason for why Johan is descending into madness.
There are also a few stylistic choices that are immediately noticeable and add to the
ambiguity of the scene. The first is the lack of dialogue. This adds to the scene by making it
seem more like a memory long forgotten, as opposed to something recent and salient. There is
also the use of background music. This is the only use of non-diegetic sound in the entire movie
outside of the credits. One interpretation for this is that the lack of music in the rest of the film
symbolizes Johan’s isolation and disconnection from reality, but music can be used in this scene
because it happens before Johan started to go crazy. Therefore, we can conclude that this
traumatic event was one of the triggers that lead Johan to lose his grip on reality.
The flashback is placed in the middle of a larger scene, where Johan and Alma are
staying up together all night due to Johan’s insomnia. The scene begins to explore Johan’s past
trauma before the flashback has yet to occur, as he brings up the topic of his childhood
punishments. He was locked in a closet as a child and told about a small man who would eat his
toes off. He would also be beaten by his father more than he could bear with a cane. The problem
with this scene is that everything outside of the flashback is relatively unambiguous. We know
when it takes place, we learn what the ‘Hour of the Wolf’ is and why it keeps Johan up at night,
and the camera focuses on Alma’s face to convey her growing concern with her husband. It all
seems straightforward. However, I think this adds to the effect that the flashback has. Because
the flashback comes in the middle of a scene that is providing the viewers with a lot of
exposition, it comes as a bigger surprise and stands out more from the events that are occurring
around it. Therefore, the convention of ambiguity is only used when it serves a purpose, and
definitely adds to the exploration of the causes of Johan’s mental instability.
The third major principle of art cinema that is integral to Hour of the Wolf is
psychological realism. As art cinema attempts to work in opposition to the conventions at play in
classical cinema, it tends to break down cause-and-effect narrative logic in favor of a narrative
that is more concerned with the psychological complexities of the characters. Johan and Alma
are both perfect examples of the kind of psychologically complex characters that are a hallmark
of art cinema. They lack goals, but have feelings and contradictory feelings, as well as being
developed though flashbacks and fantasies. Time and space is also used throughout the film to
serve the characters instead of the narrative. Although there are many fantasy sequences
throughout the film that are used to create psychological realism, the most important scene
arrives at the very end of the movie. Bergman returns to showing Alma addressing the audience
directly, reminding us that the film is framed through her account of events, and her subjective
interpretations of the incident. The monologue Alma presents to us is very important:
Is it true that a woman who lives a long time with a man eventually winds up being like
that man? I mean, she loves him, and tries to think like him, and see like him? They say it
can change a person. Was that why I began to see those ghosts? Or were they there
anyway? I mean to say, if I had loved him much less, and not bothered so of everything
about him, could I have protected him better? (Hour of the Wolf)
This quote provides definitive proof that Alma shared a similar mental state to her husband. She
also hallucinated, and also wound up losing her grip on reality due to her own fears and
insecurities. It was just less severe than it was with Johan. This revelation that Alma shared
Johan’s decent into madness is a perfect example of psychological realism, and hints that the
movie is Alma’s story just as much as it is Johan’s.
The final scene is really easy to discuss stylistically. It consists of a single take, with
nothing visible except for Alma’s face, and nothing audible except for Alma’s voice. This adds
to the psychological realism, as there is nothing in the mise-en scene to distract viewers. Since
we see and hear nothing but Alma and her thoughts, we are instantly aware that what she is
expressing are her true inner feelings. There is an obvious emphasis on character over plot and
setting. The film then ends with a fade-out, which is a scene transition that Bergman uses
frequently. This adds to the dream-like quality of the movie, stylistically emphasizing it as a
manufactured reality originating from the character’s minds.
Finally, there are a few ways in which Bergman undermines his own attempt at building
psychological realism. By attempting to make characters complex, he sometimes makes them
unbelievable and un-relatable. For example, Johan killing the child for no reason, or Alma seeing
the same hallucinations that Johan does, do not seem like things that are realistic. It becomes
difficult for viewers to decipher the film, when not only the plot lacks structure and realism, but
also the characters. However, it could be argued that all this serves to enhance the theme of
mental instability. By making characters even more complex and contradictory than other art
films, Bergman highlights the unreliability of the narrative, and forces us to question the films
depictions of truth and reality. Therefore, even though there are moments in the film that do
things that art films are not supposed to do, these ruptures still add to what the filmmaker is
trying to accomplish.
In conclusion, Bergman exhaustively relies on art film conventions to create an intimate
portrayal of a tortured artist who becomes unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. Authorial
expressivity is used to give viewers a personal perspective on how the fears and insecurities of
being an artist can become an unbearable burden. In addition, ambiguity is used to create a
figurative representation of Johan’s past trauma. Finally, psychological realism is used to convey
the fact that while some of the on-screen events may not be real, Johan and Alma’s psychosis is.
Overall, despite occasional deviations from the art film conventions, Bergman is still able to
create and in-depth exploration of the roots of mental instability through the use of authorial
expressivity, ambiguity, and psychological realism.
Works Cited:
Vargtimmen (Hour of the Wolf). Dir. Ingmar Bergman. Perf. Max von Sydow and Liv Ullmann.
Lopert Pictures Corporation, 1968. Internet.