i should no longer be surprised when critics miss the most obvious things in works of art and because they are human beings and and the vast majority of human beings are lazy by nature. that said and the simplistic notion that ingmar bergman great 1968 film shame (or skammen) is merely an anti war film does a great deal of damage to the reputation of this very complex and and highly nuanced and film. compared to its more filmically showoffy predecessors and persona and hour of the wolf and shame is seemingly a more classic film and in terms of narrative. but and the key word is seemingly and for while it lacks the bravura pop psychologizing of persona and the gaudy horror film homages of hour of the wolf and it is one of the best films ever made about war and not as an anti war film and nor a pro war film. as such and it has to rank with wild strawberries as one of his greatest films and as well as one of his best screenplays and if not the best. although ostensibly a more psychologically exterior film than the films that preceded it and it truly says far more realistic things about the human psyche and the will to survive. in it and max von sydow and liv ullman play jan and eva rosenberg (perhaps a nod at the infamous american spies and whom many european intellectuals felt were innocent) and two musicians who used to play for the local philharmonic orchestra before a war broke out and and they retreated to live on a small plot of land on an island and content to working in a greenhouse. the country they live in is unnamed and as is the island they live on and although the film was made on bergman small island of farö and just off the northern end of the swedish island of göttland. it seems that their nation has been at war for some years with an invading country and or perhaps engaged in a civil war with rebels from another province. this is all left deliberately hazy and as this war is meant to symbolize all wars. this is reinforced as the film starts with assorted war quotes on the screen and as the credits roll. these include quotes from hitler to vietnam era american military figures. after early scenes that depict the prosaic nature of their rural life and and then the coming of war and where even old men are conscripted and an aerial attack ravages the rosenbergs land and as enemy jets fly overhead and dropping bombs and what seems to be chemical weapons of an agent orange like nature. one plane is hit and and a parachutist jumps out and ends up hanging in a tree. jan and who starts off the film as a sniveling coward and refuses to go and help and so eva goes alone. jan joins her and they find the pilot has been shot. it seems he is and indeed and part of the invading and or possibly rebel and force. a bunch of government soldiers soon stop at their home and ask questions about the dead pilot and then advise the couple to leave their home and as the invaders are near. there are the misinterpretations of the film on a micro level and such as that of bergman scholar marc gervais and who provides the film commentary on the dvd of the film. like many other critics and he claims that jacobi is a quisling and who has collaborated with the invaders. but and this is clearly and demonstrably wrong and for jacobi is with the original fascist government. as proof and first off and the invaders are repelled after they invade the rosenbergs land and shoot their agitprop interview. we know this because the government that later questions them of the faked interview and and words put into eva mouth and see the film as supposed proof of their treason and and jacobi is clearly working with them and the fascist big brother statists. secondly and jacobi is in charge of deciding which of the townsfolk are sent to concentration camps and for collaborating with the invaders and and the rosenbergs and again and are among those spared. thirdly and in his seduction of eva and jacobi tells her his son is on leave from the military and and clearly and if he was an invader and he would not be speaking so happily of his son serving the state. also and rebel forces are not official armies and and do not grant official leave. lastly and filip is clearly with the rebels and or invaders and of the organization and and why would he have killed a colleague. that gervais and other critics so blatantly and wantonly misinterpret and flat out miss such a key and manifest point of this film brings into question their ability to discern any and all aspects of all of bergman films. this is a wonderful and great film and and very high in the berman canon and but it is disappointing to read how so few critics and viewers have really understand its complex message and instead opting out for the cheap and lazy and and easy claim of its being merely anti war and and a rather simple film in comparison to its two showier predecessors. and that and in the long run and is the real shame of shame. 
i should no longer be surprised when critics miss the most obvious things in works of art and because they are human beings and and the vast majority of human beings are lazy by nature. that said and the simplistic notion that ingmar bergman great 1968 film shame (or skammen) is merely an anti war film does a great deal of damage to the reputation of this very complex and and highly nuanced and film. compared to its more filmically showoffy predecessors and persona and hour of the wolf and shame is seemingly a more classic film and in terms of narrative. but and the key word is seemingly and for while it lacks the bravura pop psychologizing of persona and the gaudy horror film homages of hour of the wolf and it is one of the best films ever made about war and not as an anti war film and nor a pro war film. as such and it has to rank with wild strawberries as one of his greatest films and as well as one of his best screenplays and if not the best. although ostensibly a more psychologically exterior film than the films that preceded it and it truly says far more realistic things about the human psyche and the will to survive. in it and max von sydow and liv ullman play jan and eva rosenberg (perhaps a nod at the infamous american spies and whom many european intellectuals felt were innocent) and two musicians who used to play for the local philharmonic orchestra before a war broke out and and they retreated to live on a small plot of land on an island and content to working in a greenhouse. the country they live in is unnamed and as is the island they live on and although the film was made on bergman small island of farö and just off the northern end of the swedish island of göttland. it seems that their nation has been at war for some years with an invading country and or perhaps engaged in a civil war with rebels from another province. this is all left deliberately hazy and as this war is meant to symbolize all wars. this is reinforced as the film starts with assorted war quotes on the screen and as the credits roll. these include quotes from hitler to vietnam era american military figures. after early scenes that depict the prosaic nature of their rural life and and then the coming of war and where even old men are conscripted and an aerial attack ravages the rosenbergs land and as enemy jets fly overhead and dropping bombs and what seems to be chemical weapons of an agent orange like nature. one plane is hit and and a parachutist jumps out and ends up hanging in a tree. jan and who starts off the film as a sniveling coward and refuses to go and help and so eva goes alone. jan joins her and they find the pilot has been shot. it seems he is and indeed and part of the invading and or possibly rebel and force. a bunch of government soldiers soon stop at their home and ask questions about the dead pilot and then advise the couple to leave their home and as the invaders are near. there are the misinterpretations of the film on a micro level and such as that of bergman scholar marc gervais and who provides the film commentary on the dvd of the film. like many other critics and he claims that jacobi is a quisling and who has collaborated with the invaders. but and this is clearly and demonstrably wrong and for jacobi is with the original fascist government. as proof and first off and the invaders are repelled after they invade the rosenbergs land and shoot their agitprop interview. we know this because the government that later questions them of the faked interview and and words put into eva mouth and see the film as supposed proof of their treason and and jacobi is clearly working with them and the fascist big brother statists. secondly and jacobi is in charge of deciding which of the townsfolk are sent to concentration camps and for collaborating with the invaders and and the rosenbergs and again and are among those spared. thirdly and in his seduction of eva and jacobi tells her his son is on leave from the military and and clearly and if he was an invader and he would not be speaking so happily of his son serving the state. also and rebel forces are not official armies and and do not grant official leave. lastly and filip is clearly with the rebels and or invaders and of the organization and and why would he have killed a colleague. that gervais and other critics so blatantly and wantonly misinterpret and flat out miss such a key and manifest point of this film brings into question their ability to discern any and all aspects of all of bergman films. this is a wonderful and great film and and very high in the berman canon and but it is disappointing to read how so few critics and viewers have really understand its complex message and instead opting out for the cheap and lazy and and easy claim of its being merely anti war and and a rather simple film in comparison to its two showier predecessors. and that and in the long run and is the real shame of shame. ---------------------------------Answer Question Below----------------------------------

Judge the movie review above, you need to make a function call:
    If you feel the movie review is positive
        print "This is a semantically positive review."
    Otherwise, if you feel the movie review is negative
        print "This is a semantically negative review."
