- Do you never stop asking questions?
- No. Never.
- Yet you get no answers.

When your were little you belived in Santa Claus, now you belive in God.

Smultronstället (1957)

Cries and Whispers // dir. Ingmar Bergman


I write scripts to serve as skeletons awaiting the flesh and sinew of images.
- Ingmar Bergman

I write scripts to serve as skeletons awaiting the flesh and sinew of images.

- Ingmar Bergman

ingmarbergman-rare:

Ingmar Bergman at the Malmo Theatre in the 1960s


Ingmar Bergman on other filmmakers.
JEAN-LUC GODARDI’ve never been able to appreciate any of his films, nor even understand them. I find his films affected, intellectual, self-obsessed and, as cinema, without interest and frankly dull. I’ve always thought that he made films for critics.

ANDREI TARKOVSKY When film is not a document, it is dream. That is why Tarkovsky is the greatest of them all. He moves with such naturalness in the room of dreams. He doesn’t explain. What should he explain anyhow? He is a spectator, capable of staging his visions in the most unwieldy but, in a way, the most willing of media. All my life I have hammered on the doors of the rooms in which he moves so naturally.

ALFRED HITCHCOCK I think he’s a very good technician. And he has something in Psycho, he had some moments. Psycho is one of his most interesting pictures because he had to make the picture very fast, with very primitive means. He had little money, and this picture tells very much about him. Not very good things. He is completely infantile, and I would like to know more–no, I don’t want to know–about his behaviour with, or, rather, against women. But this picture is very interesting.

MICHELANGELO ANTONIONI Antonioni has never properly learnt his craft. He’s an aesthete. If, for example, he needs a certain kind of road for The Red Desert, then he gets the houses repainted on the damned street. That is the attitude of an aesthete. He took great care over a single shot, but didn’t understand that a film is a rhythmic stream of images, a living, moving process; for him, on the contrary, it was such a shot, then another shot, then yet another. So, sure, there are some brilliant bits in his films… [but] I can’t understand why Antonioni is held in such high esteem.

Ingmar Bergman on other filmmakers.

JEAN-LUC GODARD
I’ve never been able to appreciate any of his films, nor even understand them. I find his films affected, intellectual, self-obsessed and, as cinema, without interest and frankly dull. I’ve always thought that he made films for critics.
ANDREI TARKOVSKY
When film is not a document, it is dream. That is why Tarkovsky is the greatest of them all. He moves with such naturalness in the room of dreams. He doesn’t explain. What should he explain anyhow? He is a spectator, capable of staging his visions in the most unwieldy but, in a way, the most willing of media. All my life I have hammered on the doors of the rooms in which he moves so naturally.
ALFRED HITCHCOCK
I think he’s a very good technician. And he has something in Psycho, he had some moments. Psycho is one of his most interesting pictures because he had to make the picture very fast, with very primitive means. He had little money, and this picture tells very much about him. Not very good things. He is completely infantile, and I would like to know more–no, I don’t want to know–about his behaviour with, or, rather, against women. But this picture is very interesting.
MICHELANGELO ANTONIONI
Antonioni has never properly learnt his craft. He’s an aesthete. If, for example, he needs a certain kind of road for The Red Desert, then he gets the houses repainted on the damned street. That is the attitude of an aesthete. He took great care over a single shot, but didn’t understand that a film is a rhythmic stream of images, a living, moving process; for him, on the contrary, it was such a shot, then another shot, then yet another. So, sure, there are some brilliant bits in his films… [but] I can’t understand why Antonioni is held in such high esteem.

Fanny och Alexander (1982) - dir. Ingmar Bergman