I completely disagree with GT that Bergman's films are anything but cinematic. I don't think it should be judged on how populated the frame is, nor by how much the camera moves; Bergman uses the camera to compose shots- with light, with blocking, with color- in a completely singular way that demands at least to be called photographic (which I would definitely say is also cinematic), much more so than any theater piece could ever be.
We may have different ideas of "cinematic"
Maybe you also are seeing me on the wrong terms. I'm not saying Bergman is simply trying to replicate theatre on film, but convey the effect of theatre on film. This allows for his films to be very photogenic, which they are.
An example is The Magic Flute where a Mozart Opera takes place in what seems to be Bergman filming just a play. What Bergman did was made an exact replication of the theatre in which the play originally debuted in and his difference is that the effects are of a film studio. Bergman is trying to heighten the effects of the play with new film studio effects while still keeping it as a filming of a play. Aesthetic reasons for this is the pure artificiality of opera and the innocence of the story as Bergman demonstrates when he has a child continually shown through out the film to get her reaction - a child that was Bergman's own.
Now to connect my point, when Bergman makes Cries and Whispers, he is making a film, but he is applying many of the techniques of theatre into his films. The camera movement is mininumalist because his films are for the actors. Theatre is also for the actors. The films stay in very close quarters so to give the location a sense of presence and also make the actors more personal to the audience. Same is with theatre. The exception is, and I will agree you and say I did mispeak a bit, is that theatre does not have the production values shown in his films. The Magic Flute, which was a play, didn't either. But, this also lends truth to what I did say Bergman's purpose was:
His main purpose is conveying the effect of theatre on film.
I also could have said it as conveying the
intended effect of theatre on film. Bergman does heighten effects, but maybe to acquire the closer personal feeling that film brings when it utilizes all its power. So, in a way, I do re-allign my original position but also keep firm in Bergman acting through his medium of film by trying to heighten the effect of theatre. That just could be seen as cinematic, as well. I was figuring more Kurosawa when thinking "cinematic".