Andrei Tarkovsky

[jsteffe]

I think Zedz characterizes the situation pretty well.

The Russian researchers Miroslava Segida and Sergei Zemlianukhin have included box office statistics in their published and online film encyclopedias. Here's a summary of what they have for Tarkovsky:

Ivan's Childhood (1962): 16.7 million admissions. Top-grossing film: Amphibian Man (65.5 million admissions)

Andrei Rublev (1966): 2.9 million (when it was released).

Solaris (1972): 10.5 million. Top-grossing film of 1972, Gentlemen of Fortune (65 million admissions)

The Mirror (1974): none listed by them, probably a very low number. Top-grossing film of 1974: couldn't track this down. 1973's was The Headless Horseman (65 million).

Stalker (1979): 4.3 million. Top-grossing film of 1979: The Woman Who Sings (Alla Pugacheva vehicle), 54.9 million.

On the other hand, Tarkovsky's films did win prizes at international festivals and probably did fairly well in foreign distribution, which brought in much-needed hard currency. Alla Pugacheva musicals would appeal only to Soviet viewers.

The thing to keep in mind about Soviet film distribution is that they had three categories which indicated how many prints to strike and how wide to release the film, how many prints in color versus black-and-white, etc. (Yes, they often made cheap black-and-white prints of color films!) This seems fairly obvious to state, but if they wanted to push a film for ideological reasons or thought it would be popular with audiences, they would assign it "first category." Second category was for more middle-range films, and "third category" was for films they disliked or didn't think would attract a wide audience. In the republics, the lower category films were often not dubbed into Russian for Soviet-wide release and were restricted to the republic of origin. I would suspect a film like The Mirror received 2nd or 3rd category.

[MichaelB]

Has anyone seen Igor Majboroda's documentary Rerberg and Tarkovsky: The Reverse Side of Stalker? It's screening here in Wrocław, and I'm very tempted, but 140 mins is a hefty chunk out of what's already shaping up to be a packed schedule of compulsory events.

UPDATE: I saw it, and it was absolutely superb - often very poignant and hugely informative about a subject I thought I was pretty well up on (i.e. Tarkovsky's mid-to-late 70s career). He doesn't come out of it particularly well, but his wife Larissa appears to have been a veritable Lady Macbeth - always assuming you accept the film's thesis that Georgi Rerberg was an underappreciated genius whose talent was never properly recognised, except on Mirror. But the film makes a pretty persuasive case for that film as Tarkovsky's supreme masterpiece, and on Rerberg's contribution being absolutely essential - certainly, it's unlikely that any of the other cinematographers Tarkovsky worked with, with the possible exception of Sven Nykvist, could have pulled off anything similar.

[Camera Obscura]

I think Zedz characterizes the situation pretty well.

The Russian researchers Miroslava Segida and Sergei Zemlianukhin have included box office statistics in their published and online film encyclopedias. Here's a summary of what they have for Tarkovsky:

Ivan's Childhood (1962): 16.7 million admissions. Top-grossing film: Amphibian Man (65.5 million admissions)

Andrei Rublev (1966): 2.9 million (when it was released).

Solaris (1972): 10.5 million. Top-grossing film of 1972, Gentlemen of Fortune (65 million admissions)

The Mirror (1974): none listed by them, probably a very low number. Top-grossing film of 1974: couldn't track this down. 1973's was The Headless Horseman (65 million).

Stalker (1979): 4.3 million. Top-grossing film of 1979: The Woman Who Sings (Alla Pugacheva vehicle), 54.9 million.

On the other hand, Tarkovsky's films did win prizes at international festivals and probably did fairly well in foreign distribution, which brought in much-needed hard currency. Alla Pugacheva musicals would appeal only to Soviet viewers.

The thing to keep in mind about Soviet film distribution is that they had three categories which indicated how many prints to strike and how wide to release the film, how many prints in color versus black-and-white, etc. (Yes, they often made cheap black-and-white prints of color films!) This seems fairly obvious to state, but if they wanted to push a film for ideological reasons or thought it would be popular with audiences, they would assign it "first category." Second category was for more middle-range films, and "third category" was for films they disliked or didn't think would attract a wide audience. In the republics, the lower category films were often not dubbed into Russian for Soviet-wide release and were restricted to the republic of origin. I would suspect a film like The Mirror received 2nd or 3rd category.

It s not about Tarkovsky, but you (or anyone else) wouldn't happen to know why there were so many films produced in the Soviet Union in 1990 and 1991?

I'll explain: In the Encyclopedia of European Cinema (ed. Ginette Vincendeau, 1995), they have added some film production figures. For the Soviet Union they have no data for 1981-84, but these are the figures I found for 1985-1993.

1985: 158
1986: 142
1987: 158
1988: 153
1989: 160
1990: 300
1991: 400
1992: 65
1993: 137

Now, with the advent of glasnost and perestroika , following the government of Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985, the Fifth Congress of the Union voted a new and radical board headed by Elem Klimov, which apparently did aim to protect the interests of film-makers against political and other forms of interference. The Conflict Commission that the Union then established in 1986 unshelved many banned films from the Brezhnev period and, when released, attracted vast audiences, the best example being being Abuladze's Monanieba/Repentance, which was also widely distributed in the West. (I'm roughly citing from The Encyclopedia of European Cinema, p. 400).

From this I can't make much sense of the sudden rise in production figures in 1990 and 1991 (and not in 1986 or 1987, if these numbers would include previously unreleased films), which seems all the more miraculous considering these years were a time of great political instability. The numbers might not be correct at all, but perhaps there's another obvious explanation for the very high production figures of 300 and 400 films in respectively 1990 and 1991?

By the way, according to the figures in the same book, the audience figure for the Soviet Union in 1990 was still standing at a whopping 3500 million admissions in 1990, one of the highest (if not the highest) per capita in the world.

[Nothing]

Dodgy accountancy, films that weren't really getting made? Just a guess.

[jsteffe]

Dodgy accountancy, films that weren't really getting made? Just a guess.

Somehow the figures look like estimates to me. You could always ask the scholars who wrote that entry where they obtained their data--I'm sure they'd be happy to oblige. It's possible that the reforms in the last couple years of the Soviet Union resulted in a sudden glut of low-budget, independent film production. For most of the Soviet Union's history, feature film production was entirely controlled by the state through centralized committees, which meant that independent feature film production was essentially impossible.

I also wouldn't rule out the possibility, as you suggest, that at least some films on the list were dummy productions to pad the books. It happened in other areas of the Soviet economy.

[jsteffe]

Has anyone seen Igor Majboroda's documentary Rerberg and Tarkovsky: The Reverse Side of Stalker? It's screening here in Wrocław, and I'm very tempted, but 140 mins is a hefty chunk out of what's already shaping up to be a packed schedule of compulsory events.

UPDATE: I saw it, and it was absolutely superb - often very poignant and hugely informative about a subject I thought I was pretty well up on (i.e. Tarkovsky's mid-to-late 70s career). He doesn't come out of it particularly well, but his wife Larissa appears to have been a veritable Lady Macbeth - always assuming you accept the film's thesis that Georgi Rerberg was an underappreciated genius whose talent was never properly recognised, except on Mirror. But the film makes a pretty persuasive case for that film as Tarkovsky's supreme masterpiece, and on Rerberg's contribution being absolutely essential - certainly, it's unlikely that any of the other cinematographers Tarkovsky worked with, with the possible exception of Sven Nykvist, could have pulled off anything similar.

Thanks for the report--I'd love to see this one! In fact I do view The Mirror as "Tarkovsky's supreme masterpiece." I had forgotten that Rerberg had also worked with Konchalovsky in the Sixties and early Seventies, and his work on those films is also very fine.

[MichaelB]

I had forgotten that Rerberg had also worked with Konchalovsky in the Sixties and early Seventies, and his work on those films is also very fine.

As you can probably imagine from that running time, the film goes into a fair amount of detail on those collaborations too. Rerberg was a fascinating man - he came from this amazingly distinguished family (painters, musicians, architects), one of whose tree-branches included Mstislav Rostropovich, whom Rerberg filmed playing all the Bach Cello Suites (Rostropovich is one of the talking heads in the documentary). But the problem, according to the film's main thesis, was that he was an unusually complex man for a cinematographer - fascinated by art, literature, music, philosophy, you name it - and would constantly get into arguments with his directors.

When it worked, as on Mirror, the results were astounding (at least one of the film's contributors claims that Rerberg had an almost uncanny ability to convey the history and inner life of objects and rooms purely through judicious lighting and camerawork), but when it didn't, as on the first version of Stalker, it could be disastrous - though the reason Rerberg was fired had more to do with a lab fuckup and Larissa Tarkovsky blaming him for Tarkovsky's decision not to cast her as the female lead than any lack of talent on his part (given that it was impossible to judge the quality of his footage anyway). And Stalker essentially ruined his career - he already had a reputation as a cinematographer who took too many technical risks (possibly unwise given the unpredictability of Soviet cameras and film stocks), and the myth that Stalker had to be reshot because Rerberg's work was unsuitable gained far too much traction.

There are some very poignant moments later on, not least footage from a joint masterclass with Sven Nykvist comparing their experiences of working with Tarkovsky - interestingly, Rerberg had much more freedom on Mirror while Nykvist had to put up with Tarkovsky himself looking through the camera throughout the early period of shooting The Sacrifice. Which is probably a side-effect of the Rerberg experience - he basically distrusted his cinematographers from then on, even if they were of Nykvist's calibre.

[MichaelB]

For most of the Soviet Union's history, feature film production was entirely controlled by the state through centralized committees, which meant that independent feature film production was essentially impossible.

This story is from Poland rather than the USSR, but they operated a very similar bureaucratised system which ended up officially declaring Polanski's short Mammals (1962) as a non-film because he couldn't produce receipts for the film stock - he'd done what was and is extremely common in the West and filmed it entirely using short ends from other productions.

Obviously, the film exists (for clinching proof, you can watch it here), but the upshot of official denial of its existence was that it was ineligible to compete in film festivals - a big deal for a director with a growing international reputation but still not much of a track record.

[Matt]

I'd say nyet. Start with Ivan's Childhood. It's 70 minutes shorter and more accessible.

[Sloper]

Matt's suggestion is probably the most sensible, but I found Ivan's Childhood rather irritating - it's my least favourite. It depends on what you're into really, but I'd recommend Andrei Rublev. If you're going to like Tarkovsky at all, you'll probably like that one. (Although if you're an animal lover, brace yourself a bit.)

[aox]

Stalker or Solaris is the best place to start. Easy to follow, but also doesn't hide his style.

[GringoTex]

Stalker or Solaris is the best place to start. Easy to follow, but also doesn't hide his style.

Not Stalker. They showed this in my freshman film appreciation class of 200 students, and it had the most disastrous reception of any screening of the semester. Years later, the prof told me he got much better reception in subsequent semesters with Ivan and Rublev.

[aox]

I dragged my hipster g/f to see Stalker at the Tark retrospective here in NYC a few months back. She was almost in tears by the end.

She doesn't understand how I have watched it 10 times over the years (I watch it about once a year). One of my top 5 films!

[swo17]

I just recently got my younger brother hooked on Tarkovsky, starting with Stalker. He was instantly in love.

[Mr Sausage]

I just recently got my younger brother hooked on Tarkovsky, starting with Stalker. He was instantly in love.

My introduction to Tarkovsky was also through Stalker, when I was in Highschool, and I fell in love with it on the spot.

I suppose it comes down to whether you want to ease your way in, or whether you want to dive in immediately and see what happens. From my own personal experience, I favour the latter approach: you're either going to become hypnotized by his style and fall in love or you're going to hate it. I don't know that preparing yourself with Ivan's Childhood is necessarily going to change that when you get to his major films (although Ivan is a brilliant movie no doubt). And even if you have mixed feelings afterwards, with Tarkovsky it's likely going to haunt you and you'll come back to it later. So, yeah, Stalker, Solaris, Rublev, just dive in.

[Murdoch]

No love for Mirror? Still, by far my favorite Tarkovsky, although I didn't care for Solaris or Ivan so maybe my opinion is a bit contrary to the consensus here.

[swo17]

Depending on the day, Mirror may very well be my favorite Tarkovsky as well, but I would think it is the one major film of his that you should definitely not start with.

[aox]

yeah, the Mirror might be his best film, but hardly his most accessible.

[Murdoch]

Well, I suppose the accessibility is largely dependent on the viewer, Mirror was my first Tarkovsky way back when I had little experience with world cinema in general and I was bowled over.

[Robin Davies]

Just for the hell of it I'm tempted to suggest Nostalghia or The Sacrifice. Then you'll have had a recommendation for every one of them!
Seriously, Solaris was the first I saw and I think it's a good place to start. The SF elements make it accessible but the slow contemplative approach to the visuals is pure Tarkovsky.

[aox]

Nostalghia is the only film I have yet to see from my favorite director. I have seen the other six at least 3-15 times.

I jokingly say that I will save Nostalghia for my 50th birthday so I can wake up every day until then knowing there is more Tarkovsky out in the world waiting for me. This is, for those that don't know, in reference to a movie I can't remember where the lead character did this exact same thing with Charles Dickens literature.

[Murdoch]

This is, for those that don't know, in reference to a movie I can't remember where the lead character did this exact same thing with Charles Dickens literature.

OT: I don't know about a film, but in the tv show Lost the character of Desmond does that.

[aox]

This is, for those that don't know, in reference to a movie I can't remember where the lead character did this exact same thing with Charles Dickens literature.

OT: I don't know about a film, but in the tv show Lost the character of Desmond does that.

haha... maybe that is what I am thinking of. Love, LOST.

thanks. that has been driving me crazy for a while now.

sorry for the OT.

[Dadapass]

Can anyone tell me the name of the song that is playing when the Spanish girl is dancing and is interrupted by a slap the face and starts again during some footage of the Spanish Civil War in Mirror?
Thanks in advance.

Note:Its found towards the end of this clip