The story under analysis called "Interviewing Ingmar Bergman" is an extract from the book "Encountering Directors" written by Ch. Samuels.
The extract is presented in the form of the dialogue of two persons, and in fact, is an interview. One of the characters is an author himself - Ch. Samuels, who asks questions the other character - Ingmar Bergman, a famous Swedish film director, writer and theatre producer. They speak about Ingmar's works and try to come to agreement, 'cause there are things which each of them understands in his own way.
As I see it the main idea of the extract is - one having found his way in this life will be able to use his confidence to resist all troubles and lifetime situations. This we can see in the given extract. Samuels bombards Bergman with questions, exerts every effort to prove him that some of Bergman's creations aren't clear to the audience, but Bergman is sure he has found his way and that's why is unshakable: "for the heaven's sake a day must always come along when finally one succeeds in understanding his profession!".
Bergman tells why he didn't become a writer and explains it with the lack of words: "I never felt that writing was my cup of tea. And I always lacked words". Personally I think that a writer is a scientist working with words, and one and the same thing he can define in many ways, giving a great number of synonyms. And when I hear that a writer lacks words to name a thing correctly - that amazes me! This is an exact reason why I think Bergman would never become a smart writer.
On the other hand we see that his psychological films are well known all over the world and many of them won awards. Bergman created his own special world. I believe such people differ from usual human beings, from the bigger grey mass, they see everything in their own foreshortening. That's why their ability to see things we usually don't notice seems to us a bit unique: "I had great difficulty with fiction and reality; as a small child I mixed them up so much" And that's the reason Bergman speaks with eagerness, not letting Samuels ask him new question - as if he has little time to tell everything he wants:
- Bergman: I played with my puppet theatre.
- Samuels: And -
- Bergman: Excuse me. I had very few contacts
- Samuels: I want to interrupt you for just a moment. This description
What concerns Ch. Samuels's comprehension of films, I guess the impact of films and music on the audience is not comparable, though they work directly on the emotions. In general, people listen to music in order to entertain themselves, just sometimes music raises deep emotions. But after watching a worthy film one gets food for thought, and that may last for a long time. However Bergman doesn't share this idea: "Your approach is wrong. I never asked you to understand, I ask only that you feel."
What matters here is the attitude of Bergman to everything: using less and less music in films, shooting in black and white, predominating dialogues - all this seems rather imprudent. I still believe that good musical accompany makes a better impression on the spectator, that color film is more realistic and that there must be scenes when everything is clear without words.
|
|
|
In a word, Bergman's explanations don't sound convincing and only his awards make me believe he is a genius. Besides, I am of the opinion that experience and skill are of great importance in any field, especially in film making. So, perhaps "by his lips the truth speaks".
In addition, I should mention that Bergman appreciates the critics' words and learns more from them. That seems very wise, 'cause the one learning on one's own mistakes is better taught than the rest. This fact even proves the reason why he got his awards. Here I fully support him.
The Apple tree
On the first of May, after their last year together at college, Frank Ashurst and his friend Robert Garton were on a tramp. They were walking for the whole day, but Ashurst's football knee had given out. They were sitting on a bank beside the road resting the knee and talking.
Robert suggested that they went on and found some farm to put up. In uttering those words he saw a girl coming up to them. Ashurst immediately thought that she was very pretty. He put up his hand in a salute and asked if there was some farm near there. The girl answered that the only farm near was her and agreed to show them the way. They got acquainted.
When they came on the farm they met the girl's aunt. She took them in from head to heel and told her niece to get the spare room ready. The friends asked the aunt where they could bathe. She told them about a shallow stream in the orchard.
There was no room for more than one at a time in the bath, and Ashurst waited his turn, rubbing his knee and gazing at the orchard. He thought of so many things that he seemed to think of nothing; and he felt absolutely happy.
Analysis.
Three Men in a Boat
The author of this text is Jerome K. Jerome. He is a popular English writer. The most famous works are Three Men in a Boat, The Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow, Novel Notes and Three Men on the Bummel which belong to the end of 19th century and the beginning of 20th century. He is famous for his art of story-telling and his humour which is based on misunderstanding. He is good at revealing the weak sides of human nature.
This extract is about three men who decided to cook an Irish stew. They began cooking from peeling the potatoes. They threw another products which they wished to get rid of and mixed all carefully. At the end Montmorency bought fresh caught water-rat. After some discussions these three men decided to try something new and added the rat. Eventually, they were very happy by their cook masterpiece.
By this text the author wanted to tell us that it had better to try something new than to be indifferent and do everything as usual. People ought to develop in this case world progress would go ahead.
Jerome presents his story as 1st-person narration with descriptive passages. This extract may be divided into the following parts. The first one is a description of Sonning. The second is decision of cooking an Irish stew. The third is Montmorencys contribution to the dinner. The last one is about great success of Irish stew. This text is written with the cheerful, humorous, emotional and optimistic prevailing mod.
|
|
|
The author used in this text a lot of lexical and stylistic devices which helped to create the needful atmosphere. In the description of Sonning Jerome used metaphor: they (roses) were bursting forth in clouds of dainty splendour; simile: it is more like a stage village than one built of bricks and mortar; epithets: veritable picture, quaint rooms, winding passages, splendid opportunity, a slap-up supper, sweet Sonning. The author underlines his own attitude towards the village, he conveys his positive emotions to the reader.
Moreover, Jerome used polysyndeton with help of connectives: with low quaint rooms and latticed windows and awkward stairs and winding passages; with the vegetables and the remains of the cold beef and general odds and ends; all bumps and warts and hollows and so on. He used these enumerations to increase the comic effect.
The author added also asyndeton. It is the sentence which is equal a paragraph in the text. The author described the climax when Montmorency brought a dead water-rat. The author kept the reader in suspense using the sentence where the connectives are deliberately omitted.
In addition, Jerome used hyperbole: the potato-scrapings in which Harris and I stood, half-smothered, could have come off four potatoes. He used a deliberate overstatement to reveal the humour of situation.
Moreover, he also used irony: Its men such as you the hamper the worlds progress. Ones palate gets so tired of the old hackneyed things; similes: Montmorency evidently wished to present as his contribution to the dinner; a taste like nothing else on earth; gravy was a poem;
All these language means reveal the authors manner, his style of writing. He renders his feeling and thoughts with epithets, similes, metaphors and so on.
In conclusion, it is worth adding that the author shows us the weak sides of people in such humorous manner.
Analysis.
Art for hearts sake.
The Art for Hearts sake was written by Reuben Lucius Goldberg (1883-1970). He was an American cartoonist, sculptor, author, engineer, and inventor, was born in San Francisco. Goldberg is best known for a series of popular cartoons he created depicting complex devices that perform simple tasks in indirect way. Rube Goldberg began practicing his art skills at the age of four when he traced illustrations from the humorous book History of the United States.
Among his best works are Is There a Doctor in the House? (1929), Rube Goldbergs Guide to Europe (1954) and I made My Bed (1960).
Art for Hearts sake is about the old man Collis P. Ellsworth who has troubles with his health. Doctor Caswell offers him to take up painting, for a chance. In some time Ellsworth painted an awful picture which was no a work of art at all. To bewilderment of the doctor this painting was not only accepted for the Show at the Lathrop Gallery, but took the First Prize. The old man just explained that he had bought this gallery last month.
The idea of this text is everything can be bought for money. Value of art will vanish if everyone foists his god-awful smudge as an eternal work of art.
The text is written as a 3rd person narration with dialogues of the personages. This text can be divided into the following parts. The first is doctors suggestion to take up art. The second is Swains lessons. The third is about the Trees Dressed in White. The forth is the culminating point of the text. Ellsworth was awarded with the First Prize for his painting. The last one is Ellsworths confession. That he had bought the gallery, thats all.
The prevailing mood of the text is humorous. The author underlines the old man behaves like a child (he replied Nope on the male nurse suggestion many times. He colored the open spaces blue like a child playing with a picture book. He proudly displayed the variegated smears of paint on his heavy silk dressing gown. He requested someone to read his envelope because his eyes were tired from painting. It was done specially to archive strong effect). At the end the author used the effect of defeated expectancy. When the old man confessed that he just bought that gallery.
|
|
|
A lot of lexical and stylistical devices were used in this text. The author managed to depict all his characters with genuine skills. Koppel, doctor Caswell, Swain and Ellsworth were described not direct but through their behaviour, speech and dialogues.
The first character who was introduced to the reader was the male nurse Koppel. He was the helper of doctor Caswell to treat the old man. The author described how hard it was. He used gradation to reveal the male nurses despair (He wont take his pineapple juice. He doesnt want me to read to him. He hates the radio. He doesnt like anything!). Koppel couldnt do a thing with the old man. Despite he tried to prevent him from exhibiting the Trees Dressed in White as the old man could become a laughing-stock.
To the contrary to anxious and uneasy Koppel calm and gentle Doctor Caswell introduced in front of us. He is a professional and thinks a lot about his patients (He had done some constructive thinking since his last visit. Making proposition to the old man he took his stethoscope ready in case the abruptness of the suggestion proved too mush for the patients heart. In spite of rude and vigorous Ellsworths answers like Rot and Bosh Caswell managed to persuade him to take up art with his professional calm). He understood Ellsworth was no ordinary case. Further unintentionally the old mans diagnosis was described. The author used zeugma for the irony (All his purchases of recent years had to be liquidated at a great sacrifice both to his health and his pocketbook).
The doctor preferred not to interfere when Ellsworth decided to exhibit his painting at the gallery. Doctor Caswell was the only man who managed with a supreme effort to congratulate the old man on the First Prize while Swain and Koppel uttered a series of inarticulate gurgles. One mistake the doctor made is he thought it safe to allow Ellsworth to visit museums and galleries.
The next personage is Frank Swain. He is 18 years old and a promising student. He has some simile with the doctor. Swain was also patient. The author used such simile (there was a drawing on the table which had a slight resemblance to the vase) to underline the Swains reaction (Not bad, sir. Its a bit lopsided). Swain is professional too. As his visits grew more frequent he brought a box of water-colors and some tubes of oils. He was no indifferent to the Ellsworth and worried about the picture Trees Dressed in White. He was forced to sneak into the Gallery and see the picture his own eyes.
At least the most inconsistent personage is Ellsworth. As it was mentioned before he behaved like a child. The author used many slang words (rot, bosh, by gum, poppycock) to display that the old mans attitude to the Koppel, Swain and Doctor, to emphasize such trait of the character as foolishness, confidence, independence. Originally the old man was not sure to take up art. He looked appraisingly at Swain and drew the scrawls expecting the Swains critic (the wrinkles deepened at the corners of the old mans eyes as he asked elfishly what he thought of it). In some time he asked Swain to come three times a week. It tells about his progress in painting. The author used personification (I want to ask you something before old pineapple juice comes back). It reveals the old mans attitude to the male nurse. Then represented speech of the old man was used (How were the galleries run? Who selected the canvases for the exhibition?). Ellsworth displayed his insatiable curiosity about the galleries but in fact being a person who couldnt help from buying anything he formed an artful plan in his brain.
|
|
|
Ellsworth executed the painting. The author used epithets (a god-awful smudge; a loud, raucous splash on the wall) and simile (which resembled a gob of salad dressing thrown violently up against the side of a house) to give a real appraisal of the painting and show the absurd accepting this picture to the gallery. The author used epithet (a lifetime dream of every mature artist was a Lathrop prize) and inversion (upon this distinguished group Ellsworth was going to foist his painting) to emphasize the importance of this exhibition, its scale and prestigious.
Ellsworth organized everything before. This fact that Koppel, Swain and the doctor were in the room when the envelope was brought was not a chance. He anticipated this result (He was unusually cheerful during the exhibition). He proved them that art is nothing and everything can be bought for money. All treatment and the good work, that the doctor has accomplished, were spoilt. Ellsworth managed to wind everybody round his finger. Why it has happened?
From the point of view of syntax the text includes a lot of short and elliptical sentences (Not bad). All these language means reveal the authors manner, his style of writing. He renders his feeling and thoughts such way and therefore reaches his desired effect.
It is worth adding that the author was a great cartoonist. It impacts on his style of writing. He paid attention on details and traits of characters.
Analysis.
To sir, with love.
This book was written by E.R. Braithwaite. He was born in 1912 in British Guiana. Eustace Braithwaite is well-known as a novelist, writer, teacher, and diplomatist. During World War II, he joined the Royal Air Force as a pilot - he would later describe this experience as one where he had felt no discrimination based on his skin colour or ethnicity. After the war, like many other ethnic minorities, he could not find work in his field and eventually took up a job as a schoolteacher in the East End of London. The book To Sir, With Love (1959) was based on his experiences there. The other famous works are A Kind of Homecoming, Paid Servant, A Choice of Straws, Reluctant Neighbours. His numerous writings have dealt with the difficulties of being an educated black man, a black social worker and a black teacher.
Braithwaite continued to write novels and short stories throughout his long international career as an educational consultant and lecturer for UNESCO. He is an academic, a permanent representative to the United Nations for Guyana and a Guyana's ambassador to Venezuela.
This text is about the schoolteachers experience. The author described himself. It is a 1st-person narration with descriptive passages. The main character came in the class as a new teacher. He tried to make a good impression on them. But he had difficulty in coping with the class. At the end of the story the class interrupted his lessons by knocking the lid of the desk, began to swear and misbehave. Eventually he was in despair, lost his temper and thought over what to do next sitting in the school library. The final is open in the text. The reader can only guess whether or not he found the approach to the class.
In my opinion, this text can be conventionally divided into the following parts. The first was about the description and advantages of the principals pet schemes. The second tells about his acquaintance with the class and beginning of the teaching process. The third was the climax of this extract. Everything lost the control. The pupils deliberately interrupted the lessons and swear on any silly pretext. The last was the denouement of this text. The teacher sat in the library, felling sick at heart and utter disrespect for him.
The main idea and the authors intention consist in that teaching is a very long and difficult process. And it is up to the teacher to find the way to the pupils. The class behaves such way as it is allowed. There are no books, prescriptions or algorithm of actions how to behave with class. Because it needs an individual approach to each particular one. Something that can be appropriate to the one class can be inadmissible to another.
So, the prevailing mood of the text isnt cheerful or ironical at all. The actions happen in tense atmosphere. The author keeps the readers attention in suspense. He forces the reader to sympathise to the teacher.
|
|
|
To achieve this result the author used a lot of lexical and stylistic devices. Describing the Weekly Review the author used epithet (pet schemes) to underline the directors positive attitude. Moreover, he added (which director would brook no interference). It shows the reader how importance the Review is. Braithwaite used repetition (in his own words, in his own way) and synonyms (to comment, to criticise, to agree or disagree) to express that this Review is rather objective as a lot of opinions create objectivity. The author emphasised that children were free to express their opinion (no one and nothing was sacred; the child was safe from any form of reprisal).
Moreover, he used direct speech of the principal. There are also phraseological units (to take some pains), antithesis (careful careless; individual collective), opposites (mixture of a relief and disappointment). It makes the story more vivid, solid and comprehensive.
Describing the teaching process the author used epithet (a painful procession), simile (he was as transient as his many predecessors), metaphor (he were trying to reach the children through a thick pane of glass). Thus, Braithwaite shows us how hard the process of teaching was. The teacher wanted to be a successful, he tried to interest his pupils and was anxious what impression he made on them.
The author introduced the terms of phases of his relationship with class (the silent treatment, the noisy treatment). It tells about that the teacher was well-educated, seriously attitude to his job and plan his work accordingly.
There are also epithets describing the children (remote, uninterested), metaphor (a conspiracy of indifference), simile (children stared with attention a birdwatcher). It means that the teacher is not indifferent to his pupils, he wants to inveigle them into active interest so he observes them.
The author used the epithet (burning anger) to display the feeling of the teacher that he was going to lose his temper. Phraseological unit (to play right into their hands) was used to end the climax.
At the end of the story a lot of words with negative connotations were used (disrespect; no sense of decency; ugly viciousness; minds were rooting after filth). These words reveal that the narrator in despair. He did all his best to interest his pupils. He was very disappointed that all his efforts didnt meet the pupils respond. And such cliche (to fell sick at heart) improves it.
At the end rhetorical question was used (Why did they behave like that? What was wrong with them?). The author makes the final open and gives opportunity to the reader to suppose what would be further.
From the point of view of syntax the text includes a lot of long and complicated sentences. It tells that the narrator is well-educated person. All these language means reveal the authors manner, his style of writing. He renders his feeling and thoughts such way and therefore reaches his desired effect.
It is worth saying that this story is autobiographical. It seems to me, it can be a very good book for future teacher. Because such story is rather plausible in our days.
