Psychoanalysis and Marxism
In Freud’s psychoanalysis, the father is the quintessential cultural bastion, for he is the one who introduces his children into the cultural world, by allowing his son to have any woman he desires, except for his own mother. This is the simplest formulation, but more kin is introduced in more complex societies and one cannot have sisters or cousins.
It is hard to dissolve Freud’s theories from its own cultural background: raised in a victorian era, the Judeo-Christian thought pervades him in ways he could not even see. His attempt is a proto-scientific, but it ultimately fails.
And yet, this theory inspired a lot of the social sciences and a lot of artists into portraying such ideas in their work. After all, if we live in a society with Judeo-Christian values, then we might as well make use of this fact.
And the Judeo-Christian idea of a Father or Fatherly figure is imprinted on his theory. It is the Father, the one who is responsible of introducing the children into cultural world after the mother introduced them into the physical one.
Marx suggests that it is human labour that creates economic value and since the capitalist is not paying a fair share, they are being exploited. This is the foundation of capitalism and, continuing with his thought, the economic structure determines the cultural and ethical systems of a given society.
This deteriorates up to the point where every relationship is a mere transaction, a value of exchange instead of the value in use. A world of people who talk to each other not based on their preferences or kinship, but trying to optimise a function to be in touch with the people who will benefit me the most (economically).
Through a Glass Darkly
The viewer is introduced to a family that at first appears to have a good vacation, but is suddenly shown the hardships that they are facing. A father who is having a writer’s block is then shown to be corrupt, to not have his intentions to God, or to eternity, or even to an everlasting work that will have them to be an author.
This has a clear impact on his son, for he claims from the very start that he cannot talk to him. And his daughter has befallen into a case of schizophrenia. What matters about the schizophrenia is that it is a symptom, but not of her in particular, but rather a more serious one, one that permeates society.
The Father has failed in his task. The son could not talk to his Father so that the latter taught cultural norms to the former, the most important being incestous limitations (since that is what starts culture, according to Freud). His relationship is not that of Father-son, but a mere acquaintance.
And the Father also failed his daughter. By using her and her illness, he is effectively sacrificing her, as Martin so boldly claims. Another relationship that degenerated into a mere exchange, a fact that will help the father advance his career.
This same father asks Martin why is he holding on to her. She is incurable, he ought to let her go and let her die. This is a fundamental moment of the movie: if she is not right (i.e., sane and pure), then she should be discarded. She is a mere object of pleasure or a reproductive one.
The centre of the movie Karin, since her schizophrenia is encouraging to look for and listen to God. But Bergman’s trilogy has precisely been named “The Silence of God”. We are not going to listen from him directly, and that is the leap of faith that Kierkegaard is mostly associated with.
Yet in our modern world, it is increasingly harder to take that leap, and following Freud, by disobeying our Father (or him being absent) critically dissolves the cultural framework that we need to live by.
Nietzsche claimed that God was dead, and it is us who killed him. In this movie, God being killed and human relationships between the same kin are two sides of the same coin: the decline of a society because its cultural norms are no longer close to us.