The Grand Master

[MRS]

I obtained permission from JBW to begin a thread confronting and/or embracing the indelible art of Andrei Tarkovsky with his private message.


<
I am the Tarkovsky fan who thought the driving scene in Solaris was a little long. I take your point that some of the acting was a little wooden also.

I just recently watched Offret with a friend who was convinced that Alexander was completely self centred/selfish. I could not find any of his arguments convincing. I thought one of the main points of the film was that Alexander sacrificed everything to save humanity, but particularly Little Man.

I was curious to know if you thought that Alexander was crazy/dreaming and imagined the "crisis" or the events really happened. The sudden appearance of the ambulance at the end suggests that his family knew he was losing it and had called the ambulance earlier. This idea is also suggested in A Visual Fugue.

I was also bothered by the dual acts. The Sacrifice prayer and the sexual act with Maria to save the world - Which act worked? If it was all a dream, none of this matters.

What do you think?

Cheers, John>>

Well. . .a lot to digest here! As far as the protracted scene in the cab which was filmed in Tokyo--I believe this was to be censored by Moscow as they deemed it unintelligible at the time. It certainly begs many questions. I think sound plays a great part in this scene, as well as the recurrent face of the little boy in the cab. I can certainly see frustration on the part of the viewer.

As far as your comments to 'Offret,' I'm still trying to get some thoughts together to address them with a cohesive argument. The final (and might I add, visually epiphanic) scene involving the ambulance, Josephson and the witch would seem to support your point. I'm going to do some more research and viewing and report back. Thanks again for re-igniting this discussion!

Michael

[john williams]

From the mouth of the master

http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds...Sacrifice.html

Andrei Tarkovsky on The Sacrifice

The original French-language version, A propos du Sacrifice, appeared in Positif, May 1986, p. 3–5. From an interview with Andrei Tarkovsky by Annie Epelboin, in Paris, March 15, 1986. This English translation is taken from the programme booklet The Sacrifice, An Artificial Eye Release, release date Friday 9th January, 1987. A brief excerpt is also found in the Swedish Film Institute programme booklet, pg. 4.


Today the world is developing on a strictly material plane. The evolution of contemporary society is now totally empirical and, in the final analysis it has divested itself of every trace of the spiritual. If one considers reality as a tangible, material order of things, then one has to expect from it only immediate effects, things one can touch with one's hands. Consequently, if man finds himself confronted solely by empirical givens, be it on a social, political or technical plane or on that of his own lived experience, the results can only be dreadful and life itself becomes impossible. For we cannot live without allowing ourselves room for spiritual development: even the most dull-witted brute can understand that - or at least feel it to be so. With his universe shrinking and its harmony destroyed, man has no longer any reason for living.
It was out of such ideas that I decided to make The Sacrifice. The sole means of returning to a normal relationship with life is to restore one's independence vis-a-vis the material things of life and consequently reaffirm one's spiritual essence. In this film I deal with one of the aspects of this struggle for anyone living in society: the Christian concept of self-sacrifice. If one has never known such a feeling, never experienced such a desire, then, as far as I am concerned, one ceased to be a man, one begins to revert to the animal condition and becomes a strange machine, an object to be experimented with by society and the state. On the other hand, if one acquires a moral autonomy, one may discover within oneself a capacity for self-sacrifice.

I realise that such ideas are not very respectable today, as no one has the slightest intention of sacrificing anything in his life, but it isn't possible to do otherwise if one hopes to save onself spiritually.

In this respect, the Soviet Union is already beyond redemption; and even in Western Europe people seem to take a delight in surrendering their own personalities in the belief that something will be gained by creating a so-called `new society.' In the Soviet Union I had already gone my own way, but you can imagine my astonishment when I realised that the same thing was happening here, all the more so that it was happening in an atmosphere of material well-being. That's why the film rather goes against the grain of all the latest intellectual tendencies in the West. The Western infatuation with certain new ideas is a form of moral and spiritual suicide. In the Eastern bloc people are condemned to such an existence. but nothing over here has forced anyone to adopt it.

These reflections were at the origin of my wish to make The Sacrifice. As for the formal dimension which I wanted it to have, it's perhaps closest to the elegy, the parable, insofar as it functions on several different levels. Each of its episodes not only carries the weight of reality but offers more than one layer of meaning. By contrast with my earlier film, it retains a certain poetic style but treats each episode in a more dramatic fashion. In Nostalghia for instance, apart from two or three sequences, what happened was naturalistic, Corresponding to the sort of thing one might find in life. Here it's the contrary: though the episodes are filmed as if they were realistic, they are conceived as parables.

I am, I confess a religious man. For me. man is not in himself the end result of Creation. Before claiming to contribute to the development of humanity, he must realise that he is dependent on God. We ask ourselves why we are also faced with a spiritual crisis in the cultural domain, in the arts and, in particular, the cinema. The latter is in a fearful condition. Ten or twelve years ago, there were still films being made with a moral, human dimension. Today. all that has come to an end. The only thing that preoccupies filmmakers is the fabrication of a product that can be sold on the marketplace. There are really very few - and the situation is even worse in television - who are prepared to finance personal films. Films d'auteur.

What interested me in this film was showing a man who was capable of self-sacrifice. Sometimes that can become distressing, even for his own family and friends. This is a man who has understood that, to redeem himself, it has become indispensable to efface himself. Even on a physical level one has to rise to another level of existence. When one is hungry, one goes to a shop and buys something to eat; but when one is truly depressed, in a kind of spiritual crisis. there Is nowhere to go, except to sexologists and psychoanalysts who have no understanding of what is going on inside one. They are voyeurs and chatterboxes, who console you, soothe you and cost you the earth. They are charlatans, but terribly fashionable charlatans. My protagonist can no longer go on living as he had done before and he commits an act that may have been born out of despair but which demonstrates to him that he is still free. Any such act is likely to appear absurd on the material plane, but on the spiritual plane they are magnificent as they create the possibility of a rebirth.

If I believe that our civilisation will die of its material progress, it is not because of the physical consequences but rather because of what will happen to our spiritual beings. Even in the event of a war the havoc wreaked on earth or in space is not necessarily serious since it would only be a question of material destruction. Mankind can survive that, but not generalised socialism. Look at Sweden. for instance, no spiritual life, no interest in anything. They have everything they could ever want, and yet they are empty. This notion that everyone is equal: the baker. the publican, the film-maker, all of them equal in the sight of the tax collector, etc.... That's why Baergman left. In France it's different. but sooner or later it will come to the same thing. The French have a more artistic temperament. but it's only a question of time... It is only in the sight of God that we are equal, not in that of our fellow men.

In my films one often finds the theme of language, whether present or absent. The fact is that the power of speech which has been given us has an absolutely extraordinary influence. It can inspire us to great or evil actions. And yet, these days, it has lost its value. The world is jam packed with empty chatter. All that information of which we pretend to have such need - consider radio and television - all those permanent infinite debates to be found in newspapers, all that is empty and meaningless. We imagine that, to survive, man has to know all kinds of things which in fact he does not need in the slightest; it's a strictly useless kind of knowledge. We shall all die beneath the weight of this garrulous information. In reality, it is better to act than to speak. As for the words, the phrases, with which we communicate - and this applies to art - they ought to be divested of all trace of passion. It is in the nostalgia that we feel for the Olympian principle, for its coldness, its classical sobriety, that resides the magic, the secret, of the great metaphysical masterpieces.

Obviously, the artist himself is a creature of passion, but he dilutes that passion in the forms that he creates. In any case, inserting one's own emotions in a work of art is always vulgar. That's why I am so attracted to Oriental art; or else Bach, who is an ideal representative of art, or Leonardo da Vinci. Though each man most be Capable of expressing himself that he must channel his self-expression does not imply having publicly to produce a book or a film. It is this human vanity which is so typical of the West and which is not to be found in the Orient whose philosophy demands that man withdraw into himself, that he be introverted rather than the reverse. All that is required, to express oneself, is the sense that one is a creature fashioned by the hands of the Creator; whereas the man who regards himself as the ultimate stage of Creation feels obliged to express himself publicly. It isn't surprising, then, that he should feel trapped. He will never find the solution to his problems along such a path. It's a form of contemporary hysteria. The central idea of my film The Mirror was to expose the hysteria which consists in wishing, at whatever the cost, to speak out and to express oneself. It's madness. Everyone desires fame simply as a source of comfort.

"Good God, how tired I am of all the talk! 'Words, words, words!' Only now do I understand what Hamlet meant: ...he simply could not stand windbags! And now myself, why am I chattering? If only someone would stop talking and do something instead. At least try to!" Alexander's monologue

[john williams]

Some images may encourage discussion - in no particular order.

[john williams]

[john williams]

[john williams]

[john williams]

[john williams]

[Dr Dave]

Originally posted by JBW
From the mouth of the master

Consequently, if man finds himself confronted solely by empirical givens, be it on a social, political or technical plane or on that of his own lived experience, the results can only be dreadful and life itself becomes impossible. For we cannot live without allowing ourselves room for spiritual development: even the most dull-witted brute can understand that - or at least feel it to be so. With his universe shrinking and its harmony destroyed, man has no longer any reason for living.
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds...rs/a198608.jpg[/IMG]

I'm managing O.K., thanks for asking. I don't need spiritual anything to realize that love comes from deciding another's existence is as important, or even more important, than your own.

The images are beautiful, I want to see these movies.

[MRS]

Doc I'll be nice being that we are talking about Him in this thread. The top image in JBW's post #6 may be part of the greatest shot of all time. It is indeed in color. It's from Zerkalo or "Mirror." Volumes could be composed on this sequence unfolding in a single take. . .from the resonant and sonically antipodal water droplet sounds pitted 'gainst the conflagration in the background to the bottle which falls onto the floor on its own before the camera moves toward the fire.

JBW. . .I forgot did we discuss the importance of her hair in 'Zerkalo' yet? When it's "up" in a bun of sorts as we see her shot from behind so often in this film, in Russian custom it signifies a woman in "waiting." Ponder that against the scenes in the newspaper factory or when she pulls her hair out of the urn--now THAT is just scary.

Sidebar: anyone know the history or customary signifigance of those HUGE milk vessels seen in 'Zerkalo,' or for that matter in a number of His films? They strike me as just plain odd.

[Brian Olewnick]

Since being given a DVD player for xmas, I still haven't gotten around to buying a disc but I'd already figured to start with Tarkovsky. If available, I'll try to pick up one (probably 'Stalker' or 'Andrei Rublev'--the first film of his I ever saw) on the way home.

[MRS]

Be prepared to drop an arm and a leg, Brian. 'Stalker' and the Criterion 'Rublyev' (my third different DVD version--somebody commit me) each cost me $50. I say go with 'Mirror.' Just to throw you a bone. . .I've been slowly getting into later AMM and there are ethereal connections. Enjoy Brian and Dr. Dave--let us know what you think!

[john williams]

Originally posted by Michael Schaumann
Be prepared to drop an arm and a leg, Brian. 'Stalker' and the Criterion 'Rublyev' (my third different DVD version--somebody commit me) each cost me $50. I say go with 'Mirror.

I would have been happy to pay as little as that for Tarkovsky DVDs. I live in Australia and there is no distributer for any of Tarkovsky's films, so I had to order them all from overseas which cost me both arms and legs. However, there is no other director that I wanted the complete ouvre - so insanely I ordered the lot in one hit - They cost me about AU$800. (Andrei Rublev (Criterion), Mirror & Sacrifice (Kino), Nostalghia (Fox-Lorber) from the US & Ivan's Childhood, Solaris & Stalker (Artificial Eye from the UK) Oh and yes to me they are worth every penny. The only disapointment is the poor picture quality of Nostalghia and Mirror in particular. Artificial Eye/Russico have released these recently. Does anyone have them - coments? Michael do you have the AE/Russico version of Andrei Rublev and if you do, is it worth getting. It is a completely different edit of the film, the sound and picture quality are supposed to be excellent.

I am not sure whether Mirror is the best place to start, I would say Andrei Rublev or Stalker. However Mirror is certainly one of the best Tarkovsky films, if not the best. My girlfriend loves Tarkovsky's films but the first one she saw was Mirror and in hindsight it would have been much better to save that one until later.

[MRS]

As far as image quality I see maybe a hint of difference, but not enough to warrant the Ruscico. The Criterion features the devastating 205 minutes, so I'd stick with that. Perhaps your girlfriend is right about "Zerkalo" though it just seems like a complete, personal statement from beginning to end. "yAAAA moGUUU GOVORI!!!"

As I stated on the old board, a professor of mine was a Dickens scholar on the side and was so emotionally attached to the author that he could not finish one of his works, and hasn't to this day (deepest apologies but I forgot which). Under the circumstances I've only seen "Stalker" once, very late at night with a substantial brick under my hat back in Lawrence about three years ago. This was when I really started getting into Him. I'm kind of 'holding off.' Fate, moreover, is 'holding me off.' For some reason I have been unccessful in finding it, anyway.

Sidebar: That still of the Kaidonovsky "resting on the journey" is exquisite. So much so as I left college in Kansas, a friend of mine and a few others visited said friend's father's land and recreated the shot in photograph to send to my mentor poetry professor as a parting gift. Turns out we weren't on my friend's father's land. I'm resting atop a large stone in the midst of an ebbing creek and these three guys walk up with rifles. We ran as fast as leopards. We got the picture though!

[john williams]

Originally posted by Michael Schaumann
JBW. . .I forgot did we discuss the importance of her hair in 'Zerkalo' yet? When it's "up" in a bun of sorts as we see her shot from behind so often in this film, in Russian custom it signifies a woman in "waiting." Ponder that against the scenes in the newspaper factory or when she pulls her hair out of the urn--now THAT is just scary.


Sidebar: anyone know the history or customary signifigance of those HUGE milk vessels seen in 'Zerkalo,' or for that matter in a number of His films? They strike me as just plain odd.

Watched Zerkalo again with a good buddy o' mine and enjoyed more than ever before, not surprising considering the greatness of this particular work.

Tarkovsky was often accused of being a mysogynist. I think "A Visual Fugue" may suggest this also. With regards to the hair, "Tarkovsky's women" all have long luxuriant hair and perhaps your idea about "lady in waiting" is right on.

As for the milk vessels, they are also treated in "A Visual Fugue". I will get back to you.

meanwhile check this -
"Tarkovsky’s films each have their own dreamlike inner coherence, but there are a number of images which remain constant from film to film, providing unifying links which provide clues to the cinematic language Tarkovsky has created. In several films, at moments of crisis, a jug of milk will spill onto the floor and shatter, underscoring the splintering of heretofore comfortable domestic relationships. Characters will, without warning, suddenly be lifted off or struck to the ground by an invisible hand. For example, in a dream sequence at the beginning of Ivan’s Childhood, Ivan, to his delight and astonishment, is raised through the trees and begins to fly over the Russian landscape. In Tarkovsky’s final film, Sacrifice, after Otto, the postman has fallen, he gets up and declares, "An evil angel touched me." When characters are at the threshold of some great moment of self-discovery or spiritual illumination, they will inexplicably fall to the ground, as if humbled by the hand of God. In several films lovers will, without warning, suddenly rise into the air, levitating in the act of lovemaking. "

http://skywalking.com/tarkovsky/master.html

and this

"Study Guide: The Mirror (1974; dir. A. Tarkovsky; 106 min.)

This is the most difficult Soviet film we will watch this semester. What Tarkovsky has done is not given us a mirror, but merely shattered fragments barely pieced together. The director rejects the conventional use of time7, switching randomly from the late 1960s, to the mid-1930s, to the wartime period. It is often difficult to understand where and when you are unless you pay close attention. Clues are often as subtle as whether the actress, who plays both the narrator's mother Maria in the 1930s and 1940s and his wife in the 1960s (how's that for Oedipal) has her hair in a bun (then she's Maria) or down (then she's the wife, Natalia)"

http://www.uiowa.edu/~c16e175/mirror.htm

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nos...ndt_Essay.html





"Tarkovsky for me is the greatest, the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream. "

[MRS]

Thanks for the selections, JBW. I find 'Zerkalo' at its most pellucid when its shifts and ebbs before the audience so starkly. Think of the scene of the Spanish gentleman mimicking the great bullfighter Paolo (?), vivified by the music--then viciously slapping his daughters as they evidently weren't dncing well enough. Then we head to stock footage in a lovely sepia of wartime. . .the sounds of marching through thick mud. . .the shot of that little girl at the conclusion of the caprice. As opposed to, say, the quiet insistence of 'Nostalghia' at times, which I don't necessarily mind, 'Zerkalo' is made up of stark shards of mirror--definitely somnambulant when looked at temporally.

[MRS]

[Brian Olewnick]

Just ordered 'Andrei Rublev' (couldn't locate any dvd's around town). It was the first Tarkovsky film I saw, so figured it was a good place to restart. This is the Criterion 205-minute version.

[moneyp]

Pictures promoting discussion? So far I'm seeing very little actual discussion of Tarkovski's work that hasn't been forwarded. His work is tough to summarise unless you're up to writing a dissertation (which I did, for RUBLEV, many moons ago). There's much critical division of his post-RUBLEV work, especially SOLARIS and THE SACRIFICE. His movies requires faith, not necessarily religious (although I imagine it doesn't hurt), but in the power of symbolic imagery, and of course in the filmmaker himself.

I admire Tarkovsky and with the exception of SOLARIS, I can watch his films over and over, but I'm not necessarily along for the metaphysical ride. I find his philosophy rather woolly, and I'm not much for symbolic imagery, at least not in the manner that Tarkovsky used it. His later films are beautiful, no question, but without that leap of faith they can seem empty as well.

I'll add RUBLEV to my Netflix queue. I'm bummed to see that IVAN'S CHILDHOOD isn't available. Has it been released on DVD yet? If not, is there a set date for it?

[Jon Abbey]

Ivan's Childhood was listed as an upcoming Criterion last year, but seems to have been dropped from the queue temporarily.

do you hardcore Tarkovskyites know that the recently released Criterion version of Solaris has some extra, deleted scenes? I haven't seen them myself, but I thought you'd want to know...

[MRS]

Anything but empty, Mone. . .and I am a member of the faith. It's very awkward of you to lump "post-Rublyev" Tarkovsky together as not one of these so limned works remotely coincides to another.

Yes Mr. Abbey. . .unfortunately I don't get around to looking at 'Solaris' as much as the others. Banionis leaves me a little cold, so Solyinitsin is as indelible as ever, if his appearances are brief. I don't have the version in question (I merely have the Ruscico 'Solaris') but have seen the supplemental scenes and they are worth digging for the initiated.

And too bad it seems only a few of us seem prepared for discussion whilst so many follow the off-putting advice of Mr. Peterson. I wouldn't classify His work as difficult inasmuch as Rilke is 'difficult.'

Please keep posting quotes of Tarkovsky and stills, JBW--they are truly appreciated by many who don't post on this bbs!

[moneyp]

Originally posted by Michael Schaumann
Anything but empty, Mone. . .and I am a member of the faith. It's very awkward of you to lump "post-Rublyev" Tarkovsky together as not one of these so limned works remotely coincides to another.

Michael, I wasn't "lumping them together" in any thematic way. I just said that there is critical division among all of his post-RUBLEV films.

And too bad it seems only a few of us seem prepared for discussion whilst so many follow the off-putting advice of Mr. Peterson.

What advice was that? I merely gave my own opinion of the man's work, and even stated that I admire it and can watch his films over and over again, for my own reasons.

And again, aside from forwarded quotes and pictures, WHAT discussion? Honestly, Michael, I'm all ears. Give us some insight into your adoration of Him.

[Sergio Zamora]

I dunno. I just think the movies are purty.

[moneyp]

Well, that's much better if a bit overly expository. I'm not sure that WEEKEND (or any of Godard's work) is an apt film to bring in for comparison, but clearly it was Godard at his most rhetorical, but then again, I'm discussing rhetoric with someone who refers to Tarkovsky as "The Master" and capitalises every pronoun reference to Him. :-)

Although I'd never call it "pretentious," I'll also allay criticism of THE SACRIFICE, as frankly "the bitter end" is something I try to stay far away from.

The rest deserve more comment than I have time for at the moment. No hockey games tonight, so I'll try to give 'em a go later on. You're right, Ozzie. His films are durn purty. Gorgeous, in fact, as those stills attest, but I'd like to separate thematic significance from the quality of the imagery for the moment.

[MRS]

Mone I presume my lashing back at you has something to do with the Redbirds' current skid. . .ergo my sincerest apologies. And I can very well see your point as to acrid hints of pretentiousness within 'Offret' (maybe, I don't think so really though

. . .maybe more acutely in 'Nostalghia' I see what you mean--especially with the scene in the town square and the fiery matyr. I never quite dug that and have always found it terrifically. . .whatever an appropriate antonym of anachronistic is--very 80s--very much of its time, which as I belaboured earlier is not incident of His films.

I bring up 'Weekend' because I have fielded arguments from in fact very assiduous Tarkovsky scholars per His heavy-handed pontification. Yet there is a distance and a quietude to His offerings which I find digestible; as opposed to those within the Godard film, which frankly become embarassing. As I further digress, Mone, let's get el birdos back on track. Woody tomorrow, Schlippenbach plays Monk on Friday and the trio on Saturday. If it's any consolation my favorite American director is Ford.


Tonight I'm about to put on an old Vincent Price film 'Dragonwyck.'


Michael

[moneyp]

Originally posted by Michael Schaumann
Mone I presume my lashing back at you has something to do with the Redbirds' current skid. . .ergo my sincerest apologies. And I can very well see your point as to acrid hints of pretentiousness within 'Offret' (maybe, I don't think so really though:)

Neither do I! And I didn't take anything you said personally. I'd definitely like to address some of the things that you brought up when my mind is a bit less burdened. As far as Godard goes, it's my opinion that both men were pessimistic (or pragmatic, depending on your outlook) about the times in which they lived. Tarkovsky looked for... redemption? release? salvation? from the turmoil (nowhere more so than OFFRET) while Godard delineated (and occasionally wallowed in) it's darkest excesses. I'm amazed he's still alive today, quite honestly.

And John Ford, huh? Hm.

As for the Redbirds, don't worry. We'll drift around .500 til' the end of May, and then when the weather heats up, so will are bats. Who's ahead of us, the Cubs? Not worrying.

[john williams]

Originally posted by mone peterson
I'll add RUBLEV to my Netflix queue. I'm bummed to see that IVAN'S CHILDHOOD isn't available. Has it been released on DVD yet? If not, is there a set date for it?

Ivan's Childhood is availble from Artificial Eye or Russico - I know because I own it.



http://www.artificial-eye.com/dvd/ART031dvd/main.html

It is region2 do you will need a multi region player if you are in US.

[moneyp]

Originally posted by JBW
Ivan's Childhood is availble from Artificial Eye or Russico.

http://www.artificial-eye.com/dvd/ART031dvd/main.html

It is region2 do you will need a multi region player if you are in US.

Thanks, JBW... I do have a region-free player (half my collection is something other than region 1!) but I'll hold out for the (potential) Criterion.

[john williams]

...and I'm not much for symbolic imagery, at least not in the manner that Tarkovsky used it.

I think calling Tarkovsky's imagery symbolic is a mistake - In fact American critics have fallen in this hole too often. French critics only have to see a telegraph pole and it automatically becomes a "symbol"of the crucifixion - Catholic guilt probably :-). I would excercise extreme caution in trying to interpret or even see symbolism in Tarkovsky's films. Metaphor, maybe symbolism, I think not. One should also keep in mind, Tarkovsky may take us to rather lofty places in his films but they often return to simple everyday human resolutions. Although Tarkovsky does explore 'higher realms', it is the simpler human elements that are more important.

eg. The selling of the earings scene/sequence in Mirror moves me beyond words. As does the moment when the husband asks Masha if she wants a boy or girl in the final sequence. The success in the bell sequence of Andrei Rublev with the whole community involved and the boy's emotional exhaustion, followed by Andrei breaking his vow of silence whilst comforting the boy. These moments and the stunning images/music are what make Tarkovsky's films exceptional IMHO. There are stacks of other examples of this.

The "miracle" in Stalker is the survival of the family unit against extreme odds.

In Solaris it is the prodigal son.



Tarkovsky-

On Mirror - "A very important, most important experience I gained with this film was that it turned out to be as important to the audience as it was to me. And it didn't matter that it was a story only about our family and nothing else. Thanks to this experience I saw and I understood many things. This film proved there was a bond between me as a director, as an artist if you will, and the people for whom I worked. That's why this film turned out to be so important to me because when I understood that, nobody could complain to me that I did not make films for people. Although everybody complained about it later anyway. But I couldn't make this complaint to myself anymore. "


On Solaris "The film ends with what is most precious for a person, and at the same time the simplest thing of all, and the most available to everybody: ordinary human relationships, which are the starting-point of man's endless journey. After all, that journey began for the sake of preserving intact, and protecting, feelings which every person experiences: love of your own earth, love of those close to you, of those who brought you into the world, love of your past, of what has always been, and still is, dear to you."

On symbolism

"I am an enemy of symbols. Symbol is too narrow a concept for me in the sense that symbols exist in order to be deciphered. An artistic image on the other hand is not to be deciphered, it is an equivalent of the world around us. Rain in Solaris is not a symbol, it is only rain which at certain moment has particular significance to the hero. But it does not symbolise anything. It only expresses. This rain is an artistic image. Symbol for me is something too complicated. "

Interview Ein Feind der Symbolik with Irena Brezna in "tip" 1984 (3), pp. 197–205 [Pol. trans. Adam Sewen].


"We can express our feelings regarding the world around us either by poetic or by descriptive means. I prefer to express myself metaphorically. Let me stress: metaphorically, not symbolically. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning, certain intellectual formula, while metaphor is an image. An image possessing the same distinguishing features as the world it represents. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite. We can analyse the formula that constitutes a symbol, while metaphor is a being-within-itself, it is a monomial. It falls apart at any attempt of touching it. "

Interview Le noir coloris de la nostalgie with Hervé Guibert in "Le Monde", 12 May 1983 [Pol. trans. Malgorzata Sporek-Czyzewska].

[moneyp]

I think calling Tarkovsky's imagery symbolic is a mistake - In fact American critics have fallen in this hole too often. French critics only have to see a telegraph pole and it automatically becomes a "symbol"of the crucifixion - Catholic guilt probably :-). I would excercise extreme caution in trying to interpret or even see symbolism in Tarkovsky's films. Metaphor, maybe symbolism, I think not.

See below...

(AT) On Solaris "The film ends with what is most precious for a person, and at the same time the simplest thing of all, and the most available to everybody: ordinary human relationships, which are the starting-point of man's endless journey. After all, that journey began for the sake of preserving intact, and protecting, feelings which every person experiences: love of your own earth, love of those close to you, of those who brought you into the world, love of your past, of what has always been, and still is, dear to you."

As good a summary as any why I find SOLARIS such a huge disappointment. The main character journeys into space as a METAPHOR :-) for his journey inward and ends up no further than the lap of his father. Your mileage may vary (and probably does!)

"We can express our feelings regarding the world around us either by poetic or by descriptive means. I prefer to express myself metaphorically. Let me stress: metaphorically, not symbolically. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning, certain intellectual formula, while metaphor is an image. An image possessing the same distinguishing features as the world it represents. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite. We can analyse the formula that constitutes a symbol, while metaphor is a being-within-itself, it is a monomial. It falls apart at any attempt of touching it. "

Ah, okay, so if I'm following correctly, Tarkovski never inserted anything that could be interpreted as anything other than what's on screen in his work? That contain no external meaning? (Which contradicts his and your use of the word "metaphor.") I would respectfully disagree. Okay, vehemently disagree. I think that there are numerous aspects in his work that lend themselves to interpretation and external meaning, sometimes obviously so. Does your opinion coincide with Andrei's? If so, I'll need your definition of the distinction between metaphor and something that is open to interpretation. I mean, cripes, WHAT ABOUT THE FACIAL HAIR?!? If Mike's earlier comments are correct, that's symbolism, isn't it? :-)

You guys are making me reconsider changing from RUBLEV to MIRROR to give it another look.

*edited for coherency*