It's difficult to say. I don't think Bergman commented much about this movie, except to distance himself from it a bit, later on after he'd rejected religion. But I want to take slight exception (though only slight) to what you say about an artist's intent. Certainly there is an overly broad way to interpret a work. ("For you Through A Glass Darkly is about isolation from God and each other, but for
me it's about how a pretty girl is like a melody!"); but there is also an overly narrow approach.
I vaguely remember J.R.R. Tolkien complaining, in one preface or another, about all the people who wanted him to admit that the One Ring was really the hydrogen bomb. No, no, he told them, that was not his intent, although some may find an applicability. That seems to me to be an excellent and valid distinction in the appreciation of art (which you, as a Berkelean, must see as subjective in any case). In that case, it matters less whether the screenwriter, or director, or actress understood every nuance of the film in the same way that you or I do (or that you or I understand them in exactly the same way, for that matter). That doesn't mean, of course, that Through a Glass Darkly is about bunnies and flowers. It is not. But it does mean that maybe Karin seduced Minus or maybe she rebuffed him--whatever Bergman thought.
