Final Thoughts... (2010)

After spending much time within Tarkovsky's works, we found that we may be typical Western viewers, as Tarkovsky may have considered us, and struggled in fully comprehending all that he was striving to portray. Johnson explains why this may be so. "His films, in addition, have routinely been considered 'obscure', 'baffling', and 'impenetrable', especially be American critics who have compounded the often very real difficultites by inadequate knowledge of the historical and cultural contexts that shaped them and by descriptions of their contents that are often woefully inaccurate. The tone for American criticism has generally been set by reviewers, writing about these long and complex films after only one viewing, and often seeing them in shortened and mutilated versions and with inadequate or misleading subtitling" (Johnson & Petrie, 1994).



However, we found that Tarkovsky was adament of portraying realism and his perception of life, and he did so. While we appreciate his realistic use of the camera and his stories, we felt the plots in many of his films lacked a rich foundation. Although Tarkovsky claims that his use of the camera is not unique or creative, we found many instances where the way the camera was used was unlike anything we had seen before. Tarkovsky's cinematography was artistic in a sense that he would use objects such as smoke, water, and coins in a way to give a visual experience within scenes that audiences may not have experienced before. Therefore, we as an audience, often times missed such aspects. Tarkovsky's visual tropes were impressive and unique, while his narrative patterns were also unique, but strategic in depicting real life. A reason for why Tarkovsky may have so heavily focused on realism can be found within a book called "Before the Wall Came Down". "For Tarkovsky, home is not only one's native land, not only Russia, but it is the lost world of noble human beliefs, illusions, abandoned beauty, and longing for impossible happiness" (Makolkina, 1990, p. 216).

We enjoyed viewing Tarkovsky's art, and found his ways within film to be complex but also at times captivating. Within Tarkovsky's book, "Scultping in Time", a book about film theory, we find Tarkovsky describing his disdain for more modern film methods such as rapid cut-editing and believes that they take away from the true artistic nature of film. (Tarkovsky, 1986) As you can see, Tarkovsky was determined to be real and natural within his films, and was opposed to change. While more time was needed for us to explore and understand him and his works, we were challenged in analyzing film that we would otherwise never come in contact with.

Works Cited

Johnson, V. T., & Petrie, G. (1994). The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual Fugue. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. (Found on Google Scholar)

Makolkina, A. (1990). Before the Wall Came Down: Soviet and East European Filmmakes Working in the West. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. (Found on Google Books)

Tarkovsky, A. (1986). Scultping in Time: The Great Russian Film Maker Discusses His Art. Eighth University of Texas Press. (Found on Google Books)

Voyage In Time (1983)

Voyage In Time (Tempo di Viaggio if you’re Italian) is an hour-long documentary about Andrei Tarkovsky’s traveling through Italy, in order to prepare for the making of his film, Nostalghia. This movie displays many long shots of Italy’s landscapes and architecture as well as questions, processes, and insights into Tarkovsky’s artistic know-how.

The film at time feels very slow, in fact there is a still scene that focuses on a landscape of soil. There is no score. There is no dialogue. Simply the sound of crickets chirping. This scene goes on for approximately 1:40 seconds and it feels pretty awkward. Yet this style is precisely what Tarkovsky seems to be striving for.
In the film, Tarkovsky and his cohort, Tonino Guerra, discuss different ways in which to film Nostalghia. Guerra wants to focus on the Italian architecture and its beauty, while Tarkovsky seems to struggle with this notion. He would prefer to do a movie with plain, realistic scenes. Often times throughout his tour of Italy, Tarkovsky says, “I feel as if I am a tourist on holiday,” which conflicts with his notion of realism and reflecting his human experience through his films.

One of the film’s most interesting qualities is Tarkovsky’s introspection regarding his opinions on directing films. For example, he dislikes commercial movies and movies based around genres. When he goes into the filmmaking process, he likes to think that the movie “does not have a particular genre” because a movie that portrays life realistically does not follow any set rules, but only reflects the human experience. He also declares that he has a disdain for the fiction genre, and that all movies should be filmed in the documentary style.

While The Mirror was filmed partially in color and partially in black and white, Voyage in Time was filmed entirely in color. This is somewhat interesting considering his preference of black and white films. Maybe since this film is a documentary, it does not have to necessarily follow that rule?

Overall, Voyage in Time gave us an accurate depiction of Andrei Tarkovsky in his original element. He’s a filmmaker, and he has a massive attention span. We were able to see him relaxing and discussing poetry and film ideas with a cohort, which is what he specializes in. We got his inside take on how to make films and how he perceives the art of directing. He has great bell-bottom jeans and facial hair




Work Cited: http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/3598/year/1995.html

Stalker-1979

After viewing Tarkovsky's "Stalker", the members of our group feel as if our movie viewing experience has been enriched in a new way. The movie was filmed in a unique and interesting way from beginning to end. The film was shot in black and white, but also had sequences of color. This made viewers feel as if they were entering into a dream. Also, Tarkovsky's strategical use of smoke helped transition scenes effectively.



According to Strugatsky, who worked for Tarkovsky, "The Stalker script was unbelievably difficult. The main problem was that Tarkovsky, being a film director, saw the world differently from us, constructed his imaginary future world in the film differently from us, and usually was unable to make us understand his own unique, fundamentally individual view." Fully comprehending "Stalker" is difficult considering Tarkovsky's unique individualism. However, from the outside looking in, the visual effects and film panning are truly unique and effective. The characters Tarkovsky represents in "Stalker" are emotionally detached and sorrowful in our eyes. This may be how Tarkovsky wants us to view the characters just as well as it may be a cultural barrier. According to Reed Johnson, LA Times writer, "What sets Tarkovsky apart from Western filmmakers is his Russian Orthodox belief in self sacrifice as the ultimate expression of spirituality, a conviction that links him directly to such Russian proto-modernists as Fyodor Dostoevsky."

Another interesting aspect of Tarkovsky's films include the repetitive use of visual tropes. According to Robert Bird, author of Andrei Tarkovsky and Contemporary Art: Medium and Mediation, "Coins play an analogous role in Solaris (1972), Stalker (1979) and Sacrifice (1986). In Stalker pre-war Estonian coins feature amidst the submerged detritus of civilisation that the camera surveys in a sweeping dolly-shot over the waterlogged landscape, while the titular character lies asleep on a patch of mud." The coins "mark the borderline between waking reality and the world of dream."



Works Cited:

Bird, R. (2008, August 1). Andrei tarkovsky and contemporary art: medium and mediation. Retrieved April 21, 2010

Strugatsky, B. N. (2004). Working for tarkovsky. Retrieved April 21, 2010

Johnson, R. (2010, January 22). Andrei tarkovsky reconsidered in lacma retrospective. Los Angeles Times, 2.

The Mirror - 1975

This film is considered to be an autobiography of Tarkovsky, including some of his childhood memories, as well as poems written by his father. While this is considered to be one of Tarkovsky's best pieces, as well as his most personal piece, we struggled follow along with the plot of this story. However, it was a relief to us that through our research we found there to be no apparent plot within this film. When discussing this film, Tarkovsky states:
"It is an autobiographical film. The things that happen are real things that happened to people close to me. That is true of all the episodes in the film. But why do people complain that they cannot understand it? The facts are so simple, they can be taken by everyone as similar to the experience of their own lives. But here we come up against something that is peculiar to cinema: the further a viewer is from the content of a film, the closer he is; what people are looking for in cinema is a continuation of their lives, not a repetition" (Tarkovsky, 1993, p. 367).

Ironically, we found it interesting that parts of this film were in color, because after viewing and researching "Ivan's Childhood", Tarkovsky was very adamant about using only black and white within his films. He stated, "On the screen colour imposes itself on you, whereas in real life that only happens at odd moments, so its not right for the audience to be constantly aware of colour" (Tarkovsky, 1993, p. 356). Maybe Tarkovsky was using color within this film to help his audience catch of glimpse the real life they were striving to capture within his autobiography.

By using his father's old films, and the distinction between black and white and color, we found these to be the most prominent visual tropes that stood out to us. A narrative pattern that worked for us within this film was the use of Tarkovsky's father's poetry, which tied the story together. Also, Tarkovsky used a sequence of "oneiric images" which are considered "dream-like images" within a film to exhibit dream-like states throughout a story. A scene where this can be found is seen in the images below.





Due to the challenges this film presents for viewers, many asked questions of Tarkovsky and why he director and filmed the movie in this way. Tarkovsky's responds with, "I should like to ask you all not to be so demanding, and not to think of 'Mirror' as a difficult film. It is no more than a straightforward, simple story. It doesn't have to be made anymore understandable" (Tarkovsky, 1993, p. 370).

Ivan's Childhood - 1962

After viewing Tarkovsky's first feature film, "Ivan's Childhood", we found his use of the camera be to creative and unique. This film won the "Golden Lion" at the Venice Film Festival in 1962, as well as "The Golden Gate Award" at the San Francisco International Film Festival of 1962. Tarkovsky used a variety of close-ups, as well as many visual tropes which we felt enhanced our viewing experience. For example, some of the visual tropes he used was when Masha ran through the woods, we, the audience, were her eyes. The camera was manually fixed from the person, giving us a glimmer of her perspective. Another visual trope used was the repeated pattern of scanning a wooded area, which consisted of a vivid white consistency of trees throughout. Through researching Tarkovsky, he states "a black-and-white film immediately creates the impression that your attention is concentrated on what is most important. On the screen colour imposes itself on you, whereas in real life that only happens at odd moments, so its not right for the audience to be constantly aware of colour" (Tarkovsky, 1993, p. 356). In fact, thus far, all of the films of Tarkovsky's which we have viewed have been in black and white. Furthermore, another visual trope used which we found unique and impressive was how he used the camera with water effects. One scene, we find Ivan working at the well with his mother. However, the camera angle is looking up from the well, seeming to be beneath the water, as a ripple effect goes across the screen. This is a rather surreal effect, making us the audience question the way in which he created this image.



When asked about his aesthetic principles regarding "Ivan's Childhood", he responds with, "Above all, I try to achieve maximum truthfulness in all that happens on screen, in terms of photography... I never construct a shot, and I always maintain that cinema can only exist by being totally identified with the images of life itself... If you start to sketch shots, to compose them intellectually, it will mean adulterating the principles of art" (Tarkovsky, 1993, p. 355). However, in "Ivan's Childhood" constructed shots are shown, and when asked about these shots, he states, "Yes, of course. But 'Ivan's Childhood' is a typical VGIK work of the kind that get dreamt up in the halls of residence" (Tarkovsky, 1993, p. 355). He continues to state that he was not fully invested in VGIK other than earning a degree, and this is evident when he states, "It is vital to break down the wall that separates VGIK from film production" (Tarkovsky, 1993, p. 360). This shows that while Tarkovsky wanted to learn, understand, and do film effectively, he had his own idea of what the art of film looked like.

While we understand that this is a foreign film, we did struggle in following the storyline of the film. We found it to be choppy, with a scene or two seeming random and misplaced, maybe even misleading. Although the film did not seem totally cohesive to us, we enjoyed Tarkovsky's ability to use the camera; the film was uniquely shot and very crisp.

Tarkovsky, A. (1993). Time Within Time: The Diaries 1970-1986. London: Seagull Books.