Tarkovsky is my favorite 20th century film director bar none. Here's are some reasons why and why you might also be interested in his films:
(1) He described his art as poetry applied to cinema or "sculpting in time," a fundamentally different conceptual idea of the cinematic art that he went to a great length to clarify (in a book of the same name, highly recommended).
(2) His use of color is incredible. Some films, especially stalker, are near black and white with incredibly vibrant and poignant uses of green. This is a bit like Bergman at his best, but even better.
(3) He was deeply religious in a "mystical" sense, with a lot of respect for past traditions, but not in a dogmatic sense and with appreciation for both Christian and pagan elements (see Andrei Rublev for both aspects)
(4) He knew other European traditions extremely well. Ivan's childhood is a meditation on the war with Germany, including shots of Duehrer's prints. Nostalgia involves his time in Italy traditions including Madonna cults and important artwork. Sacrifice has Shakespearean references, Rembrandt, Japanese samurai, and magical traditions. In general, his films are full of long shots of important pieces of Renaissance art with profound meaning.
(5) He spent a lot of time thinking about the integration of technology and the rest of life. Solaris is the futuristic spaceship version of this. Stalker is the apocalyptic version of this.
I think in a century Tarkovsky will rightly be credited as inventing a whole new type of cinema, his way of approaching it was fundamentally in tune with a "mystical" sense and integrated with other forms of visual art (i.e. the long gaze you have at a painting), and the punctuated, rhythmic reading of poetry.
> (2) His use of color is incredible. Some films, especially stalker, are near black and white with incredibly vibrant and poignant uses of green.
Actually the first part of Stalker was (re)shot in black and white because they damaged some part of the original film reel. After about 40 minutes or so into the movie it switches to color.
While the official story is that the film stock was accidentally damaged during development, it is also known that Tarkovsky was unhappy with how those scenes were originally filmed. He wanted to reshoot them, but the budget committee turned down his request. Shortly afterwards the film was mysteriously ruined. The committee had no choice but to let Tarkovsky film the scenes again. Since they could not afford to buy more color film stock, the reshoot was done in black and white.
I've been a huge Tarkovsky fan for years too. Last year I saw the Chris Marker film on him and I heartily recommend it if you haven't seen it. That also goes for anyone who's read the above and wants to know more about the method of his work.
Apropos of nothing in particular, but just because I love this Akira Kurosawa anecdote --
"Tarkovsky was sitting in the corner of the screening room watching the film with me, but he got up as soon as the film was over, and looked at me with a shy smile. I said to him, ‘It’s very good. It’s a frightening movie.’ He seemed embarrassed, but smiled happily. Then the two of us went to a film union restaurant and toasted with Vodka.
Tarkovsky, who does not usually drink, got completely drunk and cut off the speakers at the restaurant, then began singing the theme of Seven Samurai at the top of his lungs. I joined in, eager to keep up.
At that moment, I was very happy to be on Earth.”
That's wonderful. Stalker changed my life, it's a wonderful film. Do watch it.
Watching Stalker may forever alter your taste in cinematography, it's so beautiful. Solaris is also good (watching it back to back with the Clooney remake is an interesting experience); Lem pretty much hated all three adaptations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_(novel)), an adaptation that reflects the alienness that he wanted to underline would be an interesting movie. You might want to think about what repressed personification would confront you if you had traveled to Solaris.
Both Tarkovsky and Soderbergh have almost completely missed the point of Solaris, the book. The book is about communication, or failure to do so. It's a great book to read, highly recommend.
Tarkovsky made films about what he cared about and what interested him. His Solaris wasn't really meant to be about Lem's book, just as his Stalker isn't about Roadside Picnic. Those books simply offer a setting where he could explore his own ideas.
Exactly. It’s a long time since I have seen Solaris, but I remember it as a film about human deficiencies, and especially the feeling of guilt, greatly amplified by the encounter with some “superior consciousness”. For me that’s a very interesting topic, very good angle, even if very different from what’s in the book.
I don't know, this might be the actual reason... or it's just that he couldn't really put the book into film. It's very difficult to do so, some may say it's just impossible since the mediums are so different. But your answer has been used before by people defending this or that director, and sometimes it just seems like a cop out, "Oh, he didn't really care about the book".
P.S. Sorry if I sound a bit harsh. Not my intention.
Can I attempt to clarify the perceived intention of Tarkovsky with his novel adaptation? I wouldn't frame the films as evidence that he didn't care about the source material or what it attempted to say. Rather, it seems to me that these films are his responses to the novels, or at least meditations on what the novels said to Tarkovsky.
Another factor is that film and literature are very different languages, and aiming for a 1:1 translation can often result in a work that is missing pieces that were only communicable in the original.
If we acknowledge that any given novel will have aspects of it that are un-filmable (interior monologue, relative time dilation, for simple examples), then it is the job of the director to re-create the spirit of those aspects while making them work for his media. As a result, the director cannot help but inject his own views and thoughts into the work.
Nobody embodies this more strongly to me than Tarkovsky, with Kubrick as a close second. In fact, King's own attempt (shudder) at filming The Shining may prove this point all by itself; it's apparent that King doesn't understand the medium he was attempting to use.
I disagree with you on that. While I haven't seen Soderbergh's version (I am too much in love with T's) I think the idea of communication is deeply embedded: he's saying, we can't communicate with ourselves - how could we possibly communicate with an alien non-humanoid entity? I think he makes that really clear.
For anyone who hasn't watched his films: take an afternoon you have nothing to do and slow down. It's not a passive experience and you need to relax to take it all in. Amazing stuff that I can't imagine not having in my life, plus all the great directors he influenced. Him and Bergman == life of film.
I watched Stalker years after reading the novel it was based on. It was the first Tarkovsky film I watched and I didn't even know who Tarkovsky was at the time. My thoughts immediately after watching it were "wow, this is bad, the book is so much better", and then I found out that this is actually a critically acclaimed movie. I don't get it.
That's a common reaction among people who see a Kubrick film for the first time as well. The best (only) advice is to watch it again, in context with other films from the same era.
Bad translation. Some phrases in subtitles have opposite meaning; or another character starts speaking, but subtitles join his words to the sentence said by the previous speaker.
E.g. stalker says "идите" (go away), translation says "come with me"
The funny thing is "идите" can mean both "go away" and "come with me" depending on the context and intonation. They should've simply translated it as "go!".
I recommend reading Roadside Picnic[1] if you’ve watched Stalker (movie is based on the book).
There is also the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. video game series[2] that’s loosely-based on both. Also recommended if you’re into post-apoc and want a different perspective on it than western video games.
Roadside Picnic is one of my favorites. I've been wanting to watch the Tartovsky film (Stalker) but had been waiting for a Blu-ray version. This works, too!
(Never touched the game, but the reviews look good. Unfortunately I'm terrible at FPS games, so I doubt I'll ever play this.)
I have only watched "Solyaris", but I believe I can say that Tarkovsky is one of the greatest directors who ever lived. I read the novel after watching the film, and while the film missed a few of the core themes of Lem's masterful piece of sci-fi, it still was able to capture the essence of the planetary being that is Solaris.
Stalker has been on my watch-list for quite some time now, but I haven't got around to watching it. Maybe tonight?
Give The Mirror a try. It is highly autobiographical so it is probably not his most well known or well liked film but its cinematic techniques are some of the best. Poetry in motion is how I can best describe it as well.
Watching a Tarkovsky movie is a very interesting experience. People that never did are in for a treat. All you need are good subtitles.
One might say that a movie is a movie, a sequence of images, and it can't be that much different.
Yet, there is that feeling, that unmistakable sensory discovery that you make, when watching a movie like Stalker, or Mirror. You will find yourself in an unusual, novel, state of mind, and will witness your thoughts wandering on new territory.
I have, as many others here, difficulty putting these things into words. But that is for the better, as you should see for yourself.
You'll have more luck keeping an eye out for 35mm screenings near you. I saw it on 35mm a few weeks ago, the picture and color was stunning. Much better than any bluray release would be :) I wonder why there's no bluray, it might be caught up in some licensing hell. There's not even a good US domestic DVD.
More concretely, if you live in/near NYC, follow http://screenslate.com - we get a wealth of repertory film screenings all the time. I've managed to see Andrei Rublev, The Mirror, Nostalgia (twice!), and Stalker all in 35mm over the past couple years.
There are also blurays of OFFRET, ZERKALO, RUBLEV, IVAN, SOLYARIS. Wow, only just realized STALKER is the only one missing.
Oh, and the fantastic VOYAGE IN TIME! This one is often overlooked, but it's in fact directed by Tarkovsky and has some beautiful shots. It's a documentary of some of the processes in making NOSTALGHIA.
Good list. Yeah, I really like Shepitko's "The Ascent".
Kalatozov is really good. The Cranes Are Flying (Russian: Летят журавли) has really beautiful cinematography.
Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Cuba is outstanding for cinematography. You will probably not enjoy its propaganda message, and Cubans didn't like, but cinematography wise it is a beautiful film.
Thanks for suggesting to watch "I Am Cuba", I definitely will.
"The Cranes Are Flying" is an amazing movie, I totally agree. I think it is a great illustration of an idea that morally-strong and courageous people are the first ones to die in hard times.
If you like "The Ascent", I wonder if you'd also be fond of her other movies, first of all, "Ty i ya" (1971) [1] (The film has it's fair share of problems but I find the main idea behind it really powerful). I'd also recommend you to watch movies made by her husband, Elem Klimov, at least, "Come and See" [2] and "Rasputin" [3].
As about "Come and See", for me it has a somewhat personal theme: when Nazis were exterminating the people of his village near Ula, the grandfather of my ex has survived only by chance. His mother, while holding him, has jumped into the ravine before the bullets hit them.
I just watched German's MY FRIEND, IVAN LAPSHIN a few days ago, it was excellent. Highly anticipating his final one, HARD TO BE A GOD..! I'll have to watch MY CAR soon.
Sokurov (mentored by Tarkovsky) can be good, though he's quite mainstream as well.
There's actually a STALKER parody by some other Russian, I forget the name.
Aleksey German is a true genius. IMO, one of the greatest directors ever lived. I've watched all of his works. "Khrustalyov, My Car!" is a true masterpiece, a film that is of great depth. But, unlike his other works, with "Khrustalyov, My Car!" you need to know quite a bit about Stalin era to feel it's completeness and integrity. There is nothing random in it.
I recommend you to watch "Public enemy - Bukharin" by Leonid Maryagin. It is an amazing film, about the rise of the Stalin's terror. Sadly, it is not widely known. You might want to check out the list of historical personalities mentioned there before watching. There are some truly kafkaesque moments in it.
Larisa Shepitko is also a genius.
One of my greatest passions is the trilogy by Sergei Gerasimov ("The Journalist"[1], "U ozera"[2], "To Love a Person"[3] ), the ones that he has not only directed, but wrote scripts for. However, I feel that these films might appear cryptic for people that haven't lived in Soviet Union.
Anything in particular I can read / read up on to familiarize myself before watching MY CAR?
Let's see, I have THE ASCENT but haven't watched it yet.
Another promising director is Mikhail Kalatozov, I've been meaning to watch SOY CUBA for ages... Even though I already have an original screenprint poster of it :V
Can't find anything available by Maryagin unfortunately. Wonder if there's a different spelling I should use maybe.
"The Ascent" is one of the greatest movies I've ever watched, the one with which I even began to somewhat identify myself with. By the way, it is based on a groundbreaking novella "Sotnikov" by Vasily Bykov [0] which is interesting to read in it's own sense.
Leonid Maryagin is "Леонид Марягин" in Russian. Here's his Wikipedia page [1] and here are the torrent links to the "Public enemy - Bukharin" [2] [3].
Well, I have thought about it and I'm really sorry that I'm unable to recommend you good English sources!
As about the ones in Russian, I'd read "Russia: What Happened to it During XX Century" [1] by Yuri Semenov, which is a theoretical text about the structure of the Soviet society. Sadly, it is not available in English. Someday I will probably translate it myself. I've heard that is was translated to Chinese, but I don't know Chinese, so I can't really tell.
From fiction I'd read "The Gospel of an Executioner" (Russian: "Евангелие от палача") [2] by Georgi and Arkadi Vainers [0] (Russian: Георгий Вайнер и Аркадий Вайнер). I'm not sure if it was translated, but I would certainly search for German and English translations.
Before watching the movie you surely must know something about the Doctors' plot [3], the fact that the rooms and the atmosphere of the main hero's apartment was made after the apartment of Alexey German's father and, probably, that an episode when an old family friend from a foreign country get's punched in a face has had a basis in Alexey German's life. (The idea is that half of his family has fought in the Civil War on one side, and another half on the other. Delivering news from the other half living outside of the Soviet Union could have meant a death sentence for Alexey German's father and misery for all of his family. Even though an Alexey German's pro-monarchism uncle living in exile has urged his old pro-communist Western friend not to visit his brother (and, consequently, an Alexey German's father) during his stay in Moscow, he got drunk and visited him).
I could make some more comments, but I'm not sure if they would do you any good and not spoil anything.
To better understand the Stalin's era overall, I'd read Varlam Shalamov [4], just everything that you can lay your hands on. Tons of his books are translated to German and one to English.
I don't usually read Western literature about the Stalin era because even better books are so full of bullshit. Not that I don't think that Stalin was an evil person, or that the Stalin era and Soviet Union are so mysterious that they are unfathomable to the people in the Western world. It's just that the ideological differences are still huge and the Cold War propaganda in the West IS a form of reality through which, as if it was some sort of glasses, Western people view the stuff that was going on here in USSR. The Soviet lies died when the Union fell, but the Western ones are living and well. Haha, didn't mean to make a rhyme...
Just as a side note: there are some truly great and deep fiction writers that wrote about Stalin's atrocities, such as Varlam Shalamov [4], Yury Dombrovsky [5], Georgy Demidov [6], Yevgenia Ginzburg [7], etc. etc. But the most famous in the West is a mediocre, albeit convenient Alexander Solzhenitsyn that has suited the propaganda needs, hated the Soviet Union and was willing to pull various "facts" out of his ass. As a famous exiled Russian writer and a fierce anti-communist, Sergei Dovlatov [8] once said: "Communists I hate the most, but the ones that I hate even more are the anti-communists".
>It's just that the ideological differences are still huge and the Cold War
>propaganda in the West IS a form of reality through which, as if it was
>some sort of glasses, Western people view the stuff that was going on here
>in USSR. The Soviet lies died when the Union fell, but the Western ones
>are living and well. Haha, didn't mean to make a rhyme...
It's not that I consider myself or Russians or any other group of people to be in a position to think of everyone else as being in an ivory tower. But there are certainly some Cold-War era myths and concepts that are still alive and kicking. Maybe because today's Russia is culturally really not a very significant country and there is not much interest in what was going on here in XX century...
(1) He described his art as poetry applied to cinema or "sculpting in time," a fundamentally different conceptual idea of the cinematic art that he went to a great length to clarify (in a book of the same name, highly recommended).
(2) His use of color is incredible. Some films, especially stalker, are near black and white with incredibly vibrant and poignant uses of green. This is a bit like Bergman at his best, but even better.
(3) He was deeply religious in a "mystical" sense, with a lot of respect for past traditions, but not in a dogmatic sense and with appreciation for both Christian and pagan elements (see Andrei Rublev for both aspects)
(4) He knew other European traditions extremely well. Ivan's childhood is a meditation on the war with Germany, including shots of Duehrer's prints. Nostalgia involves his time in Italy traditions including Madonna cults and important artwork. Sacrifice has Shakespearean references, Rembrandt, Japanese samurai, and magical traditions. In general, his films are full of long shots of important pieces of Renaissance art with profound meaning.
(5) He spent a lot of time thinking about the integration of technology and the rest of life. Solaris is the futuristic spaceship version of this. Stalker is the apocalyptic version of this.
I think in a century Tarkovsky will rightly be credited as inventing a whole new type of cinema, his way of approaching it was fundamentally in tune with a "mystical" sense and integrated with other forms of visual art (i.e. the long gaze you have at a painting), and the punctuated, rhythmic reading of poetry.