Анализ на английском с цитатами этого текста Samuels: Mr. Bergman, I'd like to start with a rather general question: If I were asked to cite a single reason for your pre-emi­nence among film directors, I would point to your creation of a spe­cial world. You are, in fact, very much like a writer. Why didn't you become one?
Bergman: When I was a child, I suffered from an almost com­plete lack of words. My education was very rigid; my father was a priest. As a result, I lived in a private world of my own dreams. I played with my puppet theatre.
S.: And —
B.: Excuse me. I had very few contacts with reality or channels to it. I was afraid of my father, my mother, my elder brother — eve­rything. Playing with this puppet theatre and a projection device I had was my only form of self-expression. I had great difficulty with fiction and reality; as a small child I mixed them up so much that my family always said I was a liar.
S.: I want to interrupt you for just a moment. This description of your childhood resembles one classic description of the genesis of a writer. Was it only the acqident of the puppet theatre that sent you the way of theatre rather than of books?
B.: No. When I began writing I liked it very much. But I never felt that writing was my cup of tea. And I always lacked words; it has always been very difficult for me to find the word I want. I have always felt suspicious both of what I say and what others say to me. I always feel something has been left out. When I read a book, I read very slowly. It takes me a lot of time to read a play.
S.: Do you direct it in your head?
B.: In a way. I have to translate the words into speeches, flesh and blood. I have an enormous need for contact with an audience, with other people. For me, words are not satisfying.
S.: With a book, the reader is elsewhere.
B.: When you read, words have to pass through your conscious mind to reach your emotions and your soul. In film and theatre, things go directly to the emotions. What I need is to come in con­tact with others.
S.: I see that, but it raises a problem I'm sure you've often dis­cussed. Your films have emotional impact, but since they are also the most intellectually difficult of contemporary films, isn't there sometimes a contradiction between the two effects? How do you react when I say that while I watched "The Rite", my feelings were interfered with by my baffled effort at comprehension?



B.: Your approach is wrong. I never asked you to understand, I ask only that you feel.
S.: And the film asks me to understand. The film continuously makes us wonder what the spectacle means.
B.: But that's you.
S.: It's not the film?
B.: No. "The Rite" merely expresses my resentment against the critics, audience, and government, with which I was in constant battle while I ran the theatre. A year after my resignation from the post, I sat down and wrote the script in five days. The picture is just a game.
S.: To puzzle the audience?
B.: Exactly. I liked writing it very much and even more making it. We had a lot of fun while we were shooting. My purpose was just to amuse myself and the audience. Do you understand what I mean?
S.: I understand, but certain members of the audience can't re­sist pointing out that Bergman is sending messages, he thinks, but what are they and why?

B.: You must realize — this is very important! — I never ask people to understand what I have made. Stravinsky once said, "I have never understood a piece of music in my life. I always only feel."
S.: But Stravinsky was a composer. By its nature, music is non- discursive; we don't have to understand it. Films, plays, poems, novels all make propositions or observations, embody ideas or be­liefs, and we go to these forms —
B.: But you must understand that your view is distorted. You be­long to a small minority that tries to understand. I never try to un­derstand. Music, films, plays always work directly on the emotions.

S.: I must disagree. I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear —
B.