অন্য চলচ্চিত্রকারদের সম্পর্কে ইংমার বারিমান

চলচ্চিত্র থেকে

সুইডিশ ওতার ইংমার বারিমান সবচেয়ে প্রশংসা করেছেন আন্দ্রেই তারকোভস্কি-কে, আর সিনেমা বানানোর সিদ্ধান্ত নিয়েছেন মার্সেল কার্নের সিনেমা দেখে। পাসোলিনি, আন্তোনিওনি, গদার কে দেখতে পারতেন না, আর হিচকক-কে কেবলই টেকনিশিয়ান ভাবতেন, আর বুনুয়েলের কিছু আছে বলে মনে করতেন না।

মিকেলাঞ্জেলো আন্তোনিওনি

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.[১]

মার্সেল কার্নেজুলিয়্যাঁ দুভিভিয়ে

Carné and Duvivier were decisive influences in my wanting to become a filmmaker. It was between 1936 and 1939 when seeing Carné's Quai des brumes, Hôtel du Nord and Le jour se lève, and Duvivier's Pépé le Moko and Un carnet de bal had a huge impact on me. I told myself that, if I ever managed to become a director, that was how I wanted to make films, like Carné! Those films affected me enormously.

জঁ-লুক গদার

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.

আন্দ্রেই তারকোভস্কি

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. Only a few times have I managed to creep inside. Most of my conscious efforts have ended in embarrassing failure–The Serpent's Egg, The Touch, Face to Face and so on.

ফ্রঁসোয়া ত্রুফো

I liked Truffaut enormously, I admired him. His way of relating with an audience, of telling a story, is both fascinating and tremendously appealing. It's not my style of storytelling, but it works wonderfully well in relation to the film medium.

ফেদেরিকো ফেলিনি

He is enormously intuitive. He is intuitive; he is creative; he is an enormous force. He is burning inside with such heat. Collapsing. Do you understand what I mean? The heat from his creative mind, it melts him. He suffers from it; he suffers physically from it. One day when he can manage this heat and can set it free, I think he will make pictures you have never seen in your life. He is rich. As every real artist, he will go back to his sources one day. He will find his way back.

লুইস বুনুয়েল

A French critic cleverly wrote that "with Autumn Sonata Bergman does Bergman." It is witty but unfortunate. For me, that is. I think it is only too true that Bergman (Ingmar, that is) did a Bergman.... I love and admire the filmmaker Tarkovsky and believe him to be one of the greatest of all time. My admiration for Fellini is limitless. But I also feel that Tarkovsky began to make Tarkovsky films and that Fellini began to make Fellini films. Yet Kurosawa has never made a Kurosawa film. I have never been able to appreciate Buñuel. He discovered at an early stage that it is possible to fabricate ingenious tricks, which he elevated to a special kind of genius, particular to Buñuel, and then he repeated and varied his tricks. He always received applause. Buñuel nearly always made Buñuel films.

ফ্রিডরিশ ভিলহেল্ম মুর্নাউ

I suppose I must have a particular weakness for silent films from the second half of the twenties, before the cinema was taken over by sound. At that time, the cinema was in the process of creating its own language. There was Murnau and The Last Laugh, with Jannings, a film told solely in images with a fantastic suppleness; then his Faust, and finally his masterpiece, Sunrise. Three astonishing works that tell us that Murnau, at the same time as Stroheim in Hollywood, was well on the way to creating a magnificently original and distinct language. I have many favourites among the German films of this period.

আলফ্রেড হিচকক

মার্কিন সমালোচক জন সায়মনের সাথে বারিমানের একটি কথোপকথনে হিচকক সম্পর্কে বারিমানের মনোভাব বোঝা যায়। তিনি হিচকককে কেবল একজন উঁচু মানের টেকনিশিয়ান মনে করতেন, তিনি মনে করতেন হিচকক কিভাবে একটি গল্প নিখুঁতভাবে বলতে হয় তা খুব ভাল জানে, কিন্তু তাকে উৎকৃষ্ট শিল্পী বলা যায় না। নিচের কথোপকথন দ্রষ্টব্য:[২]

Simon
How about Hitchcock? Is he someone you learned from?
Bergman
Yes, of course.
S
Technically, I suppose. But isn’t there a great intellectual emptiness in his work?
B
Completely, but 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 the 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 behavior with, or rather against, women. But the picture is very interesting. I learned a lot from all those Americans who knew their profession.
S
I find it’s a terrible notion in modern film criticism that these people were artists, when they were really technicians. We must distinguish between an artist and a technician.
B
Yes, that’s important.
S
Modern film criticism tends not to distinguish. People like Raoul Walsh or Howard Hawks don’t know what art is. They merely have marvelous techniques, some of them.
B
They have told their stories and they have made their films in a good, effective way. That is a duty: effectiveness in telling a story.
S
Yes, that’s a very good minimum, but it’s only a minimum.
B
But it’s difficult.

তথ্যসূত্র