# Talk:Persona (1966 film)

What is this about the "most erotic scene in film history"? I don't recall anything even remotely erotic in Persona. The only two things I could imagine you're referring to are:
(a) Vogler walking into Alma's room at night and
(b) Alma forcing Vogler's face into her bleeding arm.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pesapluvo (talk • contribs) 10:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The scene where Alma gives a detailed description of the orgy on the beach with the young boys. I wouldn't say it's the most erotic- more like most explicit, especially effecting because you don't actually see anything. And FYI- some older copies of Persona in the U.S. edit this scene out, so if you haven't seen the film in a long time you probably didn't see this scene.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.40.97 (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The high price of Ingmar Bergman films requires me to read these entries carefully before I go out and buy one on DVD, but can you or someone else clear up the suggestion in the main article that what he have here, is a story about the transmigration of souls, specifically, between a person who is mentally distressed, and the person who is there to support her?  I hope I'm not reading this into the story but that is what certainly seems to be implied.  Are there occult or spiritual activities in the movie?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.177.27.14 (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It is deliberately vague. No, there is no obvious occult or spiritual activity in the movie. You can read it that way if you want to, I suppose, but they never say that. I think most people would say that one woman's depression or existential angst rubs off onto the other woman, who gets angry and runs away because "I'll never be like you". Or you could see it as a kind of split-personality thing. 202.10.92.121 (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I added some details regarding Persona's restoration, but I thought I'd add some stuff here to confirm/discuss my sources.
I saw a restored version of this in 2004, and an MGM archivist attended the screening to give a brief lecture. I think it was Kirk, I can't remember, but it's most likely him because he also discussed other projects he did, like [i]The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly[/i] as well as [i]Heaven's Gate[/i]. (If it helps, he was an older guy grayish hair, I think a goatee-type beard and moustache, sort of a tall, lean guy...does that sound like Kirk?)
Persona was restored with Bergman's other MGM-owned films, I think the plan was to show them at film festivals and such in conjunction with some other Bergman project that was surfacing at the time. Anyway, Kirk said that when he first went to work, people told him about a 'long' version of Persona, which threw him a bit because he wasn't aware of an extended cut, but as it turns out, the 'long' version was really the uncensored version, with less than a second of extra footage (which of course is the penis shot). He then talked about the subtitles, and his Swedish wasn't great, so he had to hire some people to translate for him; for the orgy recollection, he knew enough to recognize it was a very graphic recollection, but he had to get several translations of that scene because people were reluctant to give him a suitably graphic translation - possibly out of embarassment. One person did, it was easily the most graphic translation he got, and that's the one he used.
He also mentioned that MGM's home video department and their film archives are two completely different departments, there really isn't a whole lot of communication between the two - hence, you get DVD's that don't necessarily use the best restoration work available, and you get mistakes like MGM's Ingmar Bergman set which messed up the aspect ratio on several Bergman films. [i]Persona[/i] was NOT one of those mistakes (BTW, sites like DVDBeaver's posted screenshots of MGM's new DVD and other DVD's, showing some possible 'cropping' all around the frame on the MGM DVD, but in all honesty, this is pretty minor and doesn't hurt the compositions in the film, IMHO).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.110.237 (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this article needs serious cleanup to conform to NPOV. It makes disparaging comments about many interpretations of the film, and encourages a psychoanalytic reading.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.49.82 (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is definitely not NPOV, openly hostile and belittling to any but the "allegory of the psychoanalytist-patient relationship" interpretation, which is clearly the author's. Unless multiple references can be supplied in which Ingmar Bergman states explicitly that the film was intended ONLY as an allegory of psychoanalysis, all references to that reading should be moved to their own section and the other interpretation sections should be rewritten as per NPOV. The article could also use attention from someone knowledgable about the history and impact of the film. A movie this powerful and influential deserves better treatment.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.91.169 (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Edit: Ok, I've removed the most egregious violations of NPOV, but it truncates the article severely, as most of the interpretations section was unsalvageable. Again, very much in need of expert attention to expand the roster of critical readings and general information. Pages like this are the very worst of Wikipedia--one of the most influential films of the latter half of the 20th century, and what should be a clear and illuminating article gets co-opted into some snarky amateur psychoanalyst's Film Studies paper. Shame on you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.91.169 (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The section on interpretations, particularly the Brechtian Alienation Technique section, seems to be largely comprised of original research.  There are very few citations to support the claims it makes.Liquidcow 16:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Persona 001.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the object we see at the beginning of the film a camera or a projector?
Are the many value judgments 202.10.95.253 makes standard film criticism or POV?
Rick Norwood (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a film reel being fed into a projector. The end, too, shows a reel being removed from a projector.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.10.92.121 (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the "Epilogue" from the plot summary because it completely mixed up the order of what happens in the film. The whole plot summary is very very long and takes tons of subjective liberties in the interpretation of the plot, something that really isn't suitable for a such a film or such an article- perhaps someone more eloquent and skilled can clean this up and just give the basic plot instead of a film school interpretation?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.40.97 (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC) 

The guy burning to death on TV is not Thích Quảng Đức. He is sitting alone on the street corner, while Thích Quảng Đức had a large group of monks encircling him to make sure the police couldn't get to him. If I had to guess, I'd say it was one of the monks that followed his example in the months following Thích Quảng Đức's suicide, but there's no way to know for sure.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.170.240 (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC) 

Yes, it is not footage from Thích Quảng Đức's self-immolation on June 11, 1963.  This is clear to anyone who compares the footage in Persona with the famous photograph taken by Malcolm Brown of Thích Quảng Đức's act.  By the way, this photograph is featured prominently both in Wikipedia's article on Thích Quảng Đức and in this Wikipedia article on Persona.
As editors of the Persona article (or any Wikipedia article for that matter), we cannot perform "original research" and are forced to cite external sources.  The problem is that the external source (Carsten Jenson's book I Have Seen the World Begin from 2000) appears to be wrong.  The irony is that equipped with Wikipedia in 2022, we are probably much better positioned to perform the "original research" necessary to identify and correct this mistake than Jenson would have been in 2000.
In any case, this raises an interesting issue.  How can Wikipedia editors wishing to correct a mistake do so if it depends on "original research" that contradicts an unreliable external source? 76.138.175.183 (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Currently there is an image with no proven significance, with this text:

"Persona's shots of overlapping faces have been widely parodied. In this scene, Elisabet mirrors Alma's pose exactly, while never breaking eye contact."
We need a source for this whole idea. I'm going to tag it. Filmfluff (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Would a screenshot or two of other films parodying the depicted picture qualify? I can get screenshots of that scene being parodied in Love & Death and The Simpsons. 203.219.29.254 (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing at all within the film itself to suggest it's broken into three "Acts" as the plot summary states. Even the summary's claim that there's a "Prelude" is a stretch: all there really is is a pre-titles sequence, as there also is in Goldfinger! I strongly suggest deleting this framework completely since there's nothing to justify it in the film - it's personal research driven by a personal point of view. 86.133.169.28 (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Taken from the main article:
David Lynch's surreal noir Mulholland Drive is heavily influenced by Persona; including, but not limited to, an actress character and similar questions concerning identity, as well as a visual nod to Persona's famous merging of women's faces.
Charlotte Gainsbourg was stated as saying Lars von Trier told her and Kirsten Dunst to study the nurse-patient relationship for their roles in his 2011 film "Melancholia".
Unsourced, but could be used later. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi - apologies for the noobish question, but is there a reason why a lot of the information in the infobox (e.g. who wrote the music, who did the sound, etc.) doesn't show up on the actual page? It seems like it would be desirable to have this info visible (I came here looking for the music composer), but I don't know why (or even how) this info was made invisible, or whether there's a protocol or policy that explains it. Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usuallyinoffensive (talk • contribs) 16:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Persona (1966 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ManKnowsInfinity (talk · contribs) 21:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

This article has had a good amount of effort put into it and the subject of article is of high importance to cinema studies. The article in general appears that it may be near to a good assessment. This is a list of the items I have marked for attention:
(1) Plot section uses the word "willpower" which should perhaps use the word "willfulness" as more tailored to the film's psychological themes.

I'm not sure there's much distinction. Alma also emphasizes the strength Elisabet exhibits when considering declining the case, which kind of leans toward willpower Ribbet32 (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
(2) Development section comments that "Bergman wrote persona in nine weeks". Some comment should be made of Bergman as a prolific author of scripts for film and stage. This time period was not unusual for him.

I looked and don't see much commentary on the average length of time Bergman spent writing a screenplay. Do you have a reference for this? I'm not sure it's vital to the production of Persona specifically. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
(3) Post-production section might be improved be separating the last paragraph and blockquote into a Music section or a Soundtrack section. Later in your article you mention the use of the Violin Concerto which might be useful to see in such a Music section here as an improved place for it.

Seems like that would be mixing Production and subjective scholarly analysis. A music subsection as a standalone in Production would be very stubby, but writing the subsection is part of Post-production. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
(4) Themes section uses (a) the phrase "interpreted in a variety of interpretations" which should be changed to either "analyzed in a" or "studied in a" format to avoid duplicated wording. (b) The last paragraph of this section should at least mention another example of Bergman and theology, for example, The Seventh Seal which deals with theology. (c) It is difficult to see that you do not cover the debate between between right-to-life and free-choice further in this section which was debated during the production and distribution of this film.

Good find. That wasn't in there before the copyedit. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
(5) Identity and duality section could mention Autumn Sonata as another example of an unwanted or inconvenient child which might be mentioned here. The use of the word 'duality' in this section looks overly philosophical when psychological themes usually deal with identity issues as either having 'dependent' inclinations or 'autonomous' inclinations. Utilizing the conventional identity language terminology might be useful in this section.

Added a note and reference on family stuff. I think Psychology can stick with psychology while other sections can deal with less scientific, more symbolic stuff. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
(6) Gender and sexuality section uses the phrase "resistance to language" which might look more accurate as "resistance to speak," or, "resistance to verbalize".

I think I can see your point. Changed. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
(7) Art and theatre section must make plain if Bergman was well-versed in Greek tragedy or not. This section starts with useful comments on Bergman's use of the word persona (character), which do not seem to compare well with your quote of RWood at the end of your section on Electra above. It is difficult not to think of Bergman as knowledgeable of Greek tragedy while your article states "Bergman did not explore Greek tragedy". These sections of the article needs to be consistent.

Psychology states "Bergman did not explore Greek tragedy extensively" Ribbet32 (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
(8) Style section could make some reference to The Seventh Seal as a further consistent example of Bergman's use of the "personification of Death". Later in this section, the use of the phrase "story's small scale" reads differently than referring to it as a "scale of introversion" or something like that since the themes of this film have an internalized and psychological orientation which many might not call "small". 

@ManKnowsInfinity: Added a note and reference. It's a fair point that many readers' minds will be drawn in that direction. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
(9) Reception section is well-written though the sequence of paragraphs is unexpected. As a suggestion, the third paragraph here is your stand out paragraph "Persona is considered one of the", and you might consider moving it to the top of this section as your strongest words about the critical reception. The very last paragraph "The film was included" might be moved to the head of the section directly under the section title "Reception" and directly before you start your Critical reception section. This seems to be conventional Wikipedia format now to include the aggregator numbers for reception before getting into the critical reception material. My suggestion separately in this section is that you drop the sentence about the 1972 BFI rating as being old and dated, and keep the 2012 Sight and Sound rating as being up to date. Keep the recent one and archive the old one as outdated.

Generally went in chronological order. The bit of how Persona is considered is what the lede is for. Rotten Tomatoes obviously didn't exist in 1966, and while numerous film articles do start off with aggregators, many of those films are post-Internet, and in other cases I've seen RT stuff moved to the end. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
(10) In the lead section, it would make sense for you to temper the claims of greatness for this film if only because it is considered by so many as being exceptional. Being number 17 on the 2012 Sight and Sound poll is a top twenty rating and the wording in the lead section could state this more plainly. Citizen Kane is still ahead of it in this poll as I recall.

Huh? Sight and Sound isn't the only determiner for this. And if "so many" consider it exceptional, why temper it? Ribbet32 (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
It already deserves some credit that you did such a dedicated effort to improve this article. If I need to restate any of my comments you can tell me which ones need to be expanded. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


### Day Two
Thanks for your overnight edits. Responses are below and 1-12 correspond to the sequence yesterday:
(1) In the plot summary, "Willpower" sounds like something out of Nietzsche and should be replaced by a phrase more psychological in orientation such as "intentional willfulness" in the plot section. Nietzsche is not mentioned as an authority in this article at all.

Nietzche does not own the English word "willpower", though I have added a little about him. It is also not true the word is alien to psychology. [1] Ribbet32 (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(2) The BFI monograph on The Seventh Seal summarizes Bergman's productivity as follows on page 46: "The Seventh Seal was the seventeenth film he had directed. He had scripted six other films which were directed by others and worked on many other scripts with other writers. His stage production, if one includes amateur productions, are too numerous to list, but he managed about three or four major productions a year from 1944 to 1056. He also wrote 23 stage plays, as we have said, and worked on dozens of radio plays." You need to explain why you are placing an emphasis on the amount of time Bergman spent on writing Persona. Was he being deft or was he being laborious, etc. Bergman's general writing skills were seen as being fast, so why are you emphasizing the exact amount of time he spent on writing Persona?

Added a bit on this and reference. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(3) My comment was to merge the Violin Concerto paragraph at the end of this paper with the post-production paragraph about music so that together, as a combined section, they could then stand alone as a worthwhile and useful Music section. They should be combined into a small new Music section in Production. The inclusion of the Violin Concerto is objectively a part of the film, and including reliable sources giving an opinion about it is not being obscurely subjective.

Added the piece and ref to Production, but scholarly analysis of the tone the music sets does not belong in Production. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(4) The theme of Bergman and Theology still remains relatively unexplored in this article. If you feel that Bergman was being entirely secular in this film then you can say this if you have reliable sources. Separately, there remains very little on the theme of free-choice and right-to-life, which at the time of this film was illegal in the U.S.A. while being viewed differently in Sweden.

Fair point and added more with references. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(5) "Dualism", as you use it in this article, is a philosophical terms as opposed to a psychological term. Since your article is strongly Jungian in its orientation, then the language should be consistent and address identity theory from the standpoint of personal autonomy and personal dependency, and not philosophical dualism. Shift the language to its psychological format for consistency within your article.
(6) Done.
(7) Your emphasis on the word "extensively" is not clear, and if you have the passage from RWood then you can add it here to clarify. It is virtually impossible to think of Bergman as not being completely familiar with Greek Theatre, theatre was an extensive part of Bergman life and anyone who claims otherwise must be quoted at length as going against the grain. See the BFI quote I typed above, and tell me that you believe that Bergman had only a superficial knowledge of Greek theatre which was not extensive. Show me the full quote which supports your point.

"A puzzling choice at first sight: Bergman has shown little interest in Greek tragedy, either as a filmmaker or a theatrical producer." Ribbet32 (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(8) Personification of death is extensively explored in many places in Bergman's career. The more you give on this the better. One important aspect of this film are the ambiguous interpretations of the use of the mask or persona of silence as it appears in this film, that is, was it also a mask of the personification of thanatos.

Added a bit more on death, but remember this has to be focused on Persona: Wikipedia:Good article criteria 3a: The 'broad in its coverage' criterion is significantly weaker than the 'comprehensiveness' required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics" and 3b: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." Ribbet32 (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(9) Your "aggregator" paragraph at the end of that section included more than just the Rotten Tomatoes score. Could you pull that bottom paragraph to the top of your Critical reception section so that we all can see what it looks like there at the top of this section?

All other items in that paragraph came well after the initial reception. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(10) Lead paragraph should mention somewhere the current ranking of the 2012 BFI rating in whatever language you wish to use. It is not a sin to be in the top twenty of this list, even if you think it should have been higher. Include the 2012 BFI rating in the lead section.

Seems WP:UNDUE for 2012 BFI. The fact that it's in the top 20 doesn't make the lede inaccurate ("one of the greatest films ever made"), it would just serve to reinforce it. Also, what makes you think I personally object so much about how the BFI ranks its own list, comparing it to sin? Comment on the content and not the contributor. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(11) Your reference to Woody Allen is anecdotal and your wording there should use the word "anecdotal" explicitly in reference to Allen's use of Bergman.

Tweaked Ribbet32 (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(12) Your cast section incorrectly uses the word "entitled" instead of the phrase "large project titled The Cannibals". Please correct this.

"Entitled: to call by a particular title or name" Ribbet32 (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(13) Some of the images are quite good and some less on point. Sontag appears in one of them though the article is virtually devoid of anything about her, and the article references list one of her books for some reason. If she is not directly relevant to this article then the image should be changed to some else or removed.

It doesn't list one of her books "for some reason", it lists one of her books because it is cited in the article. Please see Wikipedia:Good article criteria  2a: "it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline".  Ribbet32 (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(14) Similarly for the last image used in article which features 4 non-Bergman actors in a non-Bergman film; the image should either be replaced or removed.

Removed per relevance. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Your article seems quite near to completion and possibly you can add the material and quotes stated above to move forward. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


### Day three
Thanks for your edits from yesterday. My comments are below matched by number to the "Day two" list:
(1) Please hyphenate will-power. It is a poor word choice for the plot section and deflects from the ambiguity of plot which Bergman presents here for his character either being mentally disturbed or adopting a mask for personal reasons. I will look at it again after you hyphenate it.

It's a stronger and better word than "willfulness", and the word has no hyphen. We've spent enough time on this. Even material on Nietsche has been added. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(2) Your emphasis on 9 weeks in the writing is still unexplained. Are you implying that because he was ill it took him extra time to write it, and that therefor this was an excessively laborious task for him? Or are you emphasizing the opposite, that he was so deft in spite of his illness that only a mere 9 weeks were needed for the writing of such an ingenious script? Your section does not clarify this and you have made no comment on the relevant citation and quote which I provided yesterday.

Unreasonable. It was already noted he did not write a comprehensive screenplay (not "laborious"). The info you provided is not relevant, as it deals with the 1940s-1950s. Please review Wikipedia:Good article criteria 3b: "it stays focused on the topic". It is usual to include details about length of production in film articles; no one else will get hung up on this and there is no unusual emphasis on it. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(3) In the absence of a full soundtrack article for this film, including comments on the music track in post-production is the preferable way to go rather than fragment comment about the music in separate sections of the article as you have done. Your approach of separating the soundtrack material around different sections of the article misses the point that taking the music comment fragments and putting them in one place would make them more useful to readers than fragmenting them to different sections. I'm not quite sure what to make of your minimalist approach to starting a music section for the soundtrack for this film article.

That "fragment comment" is your doing- you insisted it was objectively part of the film. The rest does not deal with production. In fact, that paragraph of Style goes beyond music and talks about the general soundtrack. Either you want the Production section to mention Bach, or you don't. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(4) The secular approach of Bergman in many of his films is important to many of his reviewers. You should state plainly if you feel the reliable sources read this film as being religious or secular in content.

This was already done. There is no plain answer to whether the film is 100% religious or 100% secular when the film is anything to anyone, and to state there is one is POV and OR. The most that can be said is it's post-Silence of God era and is "not God-centred". Ribbet32 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(5) Your text on dualism as presented in your section appears to be WP:NOR since you give no reliable source which quotes the word "dualism" or "duality". Without your quoting a reliable source which uses this word "duality", it looks like original research. It looks like you are not familiar which the discussion of polarity in literature and the arts which is generally taken as a separate subject from philosophical dualism. For example see this example from Coleridge:[2]. Can you give me a quote from a reliable source for your use of the word "duality"?

It's absolutely not OR since the theme is thoroughly discussed in the sources. I've added more to make this clear to you. Please don't comment about your assumptions of what I have or don't have knowledge in. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(6) Done.
(7) The definitive source on this in not RWood but ETornqvist in his book The Serious Game where he states the exceptional importance of Euripides to Bergman in chapter 12 of his book: "12. Euripides, The Bacchae
12. Euripides, The Bacchae (pp. 171-182)
Although B always kept away from classical Greek drama, there is one exception: Euripides’The Bacchae. His interest in this play, of all the ancient plays the one closest to the roots of drama, can be traced back to the 1950s. Two planned productions of it, one in 1954, the other in 1987, were cancelled. But in 1991 B finally staged it as music drama at the Royal Opera in Stockholm, with a score by Swedish composer Daniel Börtz. Two years later a TV version of this production was broadcast in Sweden." Please use the primary source in this article.

Tweaked to "focus" since you feel "extensively" is too subtle, but your source only reinforces the article- he "always kept away from classical Greek drama". This article is about Persona, not a Stockholm opera. Please review Wikipedia:Good article criteria 3a: The 'broad in its coverage' criterion is significantly weaker than the 'comprehensiveness' required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics" and 3b: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." Ribbet32 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(8) Making a list of the various possible persona adopted in a film called Persona is not considered to be excessive detail. If you can list the various 'masks' which Bergman's character may be enacting in her persona then you will help this article. For example, there is the sphinx-like mask, there is the thanatos mask, there is the general Greek tragedy mask, there is the mask-of-judgment, etc. You do not have to get into the details of each mask, but listing them would be helpful in a GA article and not excessive in detail.

Added material on Thanatos and references, but we must avoid OR. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(9) You are avoiding the issue of the film slipping considerably over the years in its popular reception. The film was in the top 5 when it came out according to BFI in their 1972 survey, but slipped to a top 20 film in their 2012 review. If you do not state this plainly it will look like you a creating a bias in this article to cherry pick a favorable presentation which is against Wikipedia policy. The film is exceptional and recognizing that it may have slipped in popular perception over the years is not a sin. Include that section's closing paragraph as an introduction at the start of the critical reception section with any word adjustment you think are useful.

It is original research to infer going to the top 20 in one poll is a significant devaluation across the board. With all the films in human history the top 20 is extremely high praise, actually. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(10) Lead section is WP:PUFFERY and WP:PEACOCK if you continue to oppose adding the result of the 2012 BFI listing of the film as a top 20 film. Your reference to it being one of the 'greatest films' of all time looks like a mis-statement of its current rank as #17 in the list.

That's untrue per above, but I've worked in a brief mention. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(11) Done.
(12) I'm not sure what you hope to gain by citing secondary definitions for a word here. People are entitled to certain rights. Books receive titles and are titled either one way or another. This is the plain usage and you can fix it in the article.

Dictionary definitions may be numbered, but there is no "primary" or "secondary" hierarchy. This has been debated ad nauseam on Wikipedia re the Marriage article. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(13) Please add the year 2002 to the Sontag image.

The photo was not taken in 2002 and the film did not come out in 2002. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(14) Done.
Please add these edits to your article and I'll try to check it later today or tomorrow to see if it is ready for GA level. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


### Closing comments
Under FA guidelines for featured articles, this article could be failed under the terms of WP:NOR, WP:PUFFERY, and WP:PEACOCK. The nominating editor has selective biases for his preferred sources and presses these biases with possibly an excess of passion. For example, the nominator's preference for Gervais as an authority over and against Tornqvist is plainly evident. An unbiased approach, especially after I have provided the quote from Tornqvist's book that Bergman felt that Euripides was quite important, should be added to remove the appearance of bias from this article. The article in its current condition has not been submitted for FA review, however, and in truth it does have a fairly well developed and fully formatted reference section and bibliography. In the anticipation that other editors can make good use of the well developed reference section in the future and possibly develop it further towards the FA-level, this article can be passed as a GA-article at this time with note of the discussion points addressed in the review comments above. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I added 100% correct information with links (as proof) from renowned websites. AlsoWukai why did you remove it? Bergmanfan123 (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

what do you guys think about adding the review of Liv ullmann's performance from entertainment weekly? As she got praised too and that should be added. Premiere magazine ranked her at 49th best performance of all time amd entertainment weekly ranked her at 28th best performance that deserved to win an Oscar. Bergmanfan123 (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)