Andrei Tarkovsky

[jorencain]

Sure; I know what you're saying. It depends on the person, so I think there's never a definitive answer for that question.

"Mirror" is so engaging and never drags, though, that despite the personal and somewhat confusing nature of the film, it's not impenetrable. Even if the viewer is slightly confused by the content (as I was, the first time I saw it), it's so intriguing and so typically Tarkovsky-an thematically, visually, and in it's use of dreams and other art forms, that it remains entartaining and fascinating. And I wouldn't suggest going into the film completely cold (with no knowledge of the story or Tarkovsky's work in general); I think that anyone would need some kind of setup for what they're about to see.

Or start from the beginning; I don't know. I just think you get more bang for your buck with "Mirror". "Ivan's Childhood" is alright, but it doesn't really leave you chomping at the bit for more Tarkovsky.

[nyasa]

My first was Andrei Rublev, which was the ideal starting point. Tarkovsky's vision is fully-formed by then, and the movie's threaded through with a compelling - if elliptical - narrative. The final episode, The Bell, is my favourite piece of cinema bar none.

You're right that it depends on the person, of course. But I maintain that Mirror is impenetrable. After all, there are sequences within it that mystified even Tarkovsky. It's a film without a given meaning - and that makes it both challenging and enormously rewarding. For that reason, I'd encourage Tarkovsky virgins to build up to it, otherwise they could bail out halfway through and consequently miss out on a supreme cinematic experience.

[blindside8zao]

i just saw my last tarkovsky, ivan's childhood, which I very much enjoyed, but it's the only one that hasn't left me with the need to watch it again to more fully grasp all the meanings and themes fully. That being said it is also my least favorite, though I still loved it. It was interesting to see some of the same images and themes in Ivan's Childhood that are present in the other movies. For instance, offering the girl an apple in the back of the truck which was so like Steamroller and the Violin, and also the opening scene, rising against the tree, which opens and ends the final film, Sacrifice.

If you are openminded, I say start anywhere. I started with Solaris and was intrigued. I think Nostalghia is one of the most visually appealing to me, and the zooms and pans, while still very slow, did not seem as slow as in Stalker or other films. Though narrative structure is very low in it, it still seems visually busier and intellectually thicker than perhaps Solaris. I actually preferred the slower movements once I got use to them. (Curious if people know what I mean about the movements in Nostalghia, I only watched it once, though I really need to again soon.)

[bunuelian]

I have tried introducing people to Tarkovsky through Mirror and have met with nothing but failure. However, I think anyone who wants to get to know his work, and who is generally open to the possibilities of film, can appreciate it. At some level, every film of Tarkovsky's after Ivan is challenging. If one is afraid of working a bit to understand, one won't like Tarkovsky no matter what film is seen first.

My instinct is always to recommend Stalker first, just because it has an element of excitement that the other films lack. Its length isn't as serious an issue as it is with Solaris or Rublev.

Rublev and Mirror are the two films that give the most back on repeat viewings. I've watched both many times, and never tire of them. It doesn't hurt to start with one of them, see others, then return to these two again. I know others feel this way about Nostalghia as well.

[Greathinker]

Thanks for the feedback guys. I already have Solaris in my blockbuster queue, I'm not afraid of the length since it's hard to bore me usually-- I was going to try and get Mirror but they only have the kino release, which with its transfer doesn't appear to be a good way to see the film.

I'll probably check out Andrei Rublev next, then perhaps Mirror.

[nyasa]

Incidentally, I've submitted a query to the British Board of Film Classification about the rating Mirror has been given on DVD: it's classified 'U' - 'suitable for all'. This is a film that isn't suitable for the majority of adults, let alone children. Not to mention the fact that the movie includes nudity, newsreel footage of dead bodies, and some disturbing imagery. I'm no prude, but I think 'U' should be reserved for fluffy kids' films. Mirror isn't one of those.

For anyone waiting with baited breath on the outcome of the query to the BBFC, this is the reply I received today:

Thank you for your email about Tarkovsky's autobiographical film, 'Mirror'. From examining the old files, I found that this was passed U on film by the Board in 1980 while the video version (also passed U) came out in 1991.
According to BBFC policy, the classification awarded to the video version would have passed automatically onto the DVD version if the two were identical in every other way.
If, on the other hand, the work came in to be reclassified with minor changes, it would be viewed by Examiners using the current Guidelines to assist them in making their decision. Generally, non-identical versions of works which have been classified before are given the same category unless the old category is clearly no longer reasonable or defensible or if a clear harm issue is identified. From what you describe, it is entirely possible that a modern U classification would no longer be appropriate for 'Mirror' but, until a new version is submitted to us, it is a matter we have no jurisdiction over.
I hope this answers your query.
Yours sincerely
Jaishree Misra
Film & Video Examiner

Can't see Artificial Eye submitting the DVD for reclassification - given that after the last recall, to change the sound, they didn't alter the cover to distinguish between the old and new versions. So they're hardly likely to volunteer to a reclassification that would entail having to reprint the cover.

There you have it, then: Mirror is officially a kids' film.

[King of Kong]

There you have it, then: Mirror is officially a kids' film.

I can't see it trumping The Polar Express in this household (unfortunately) - then again, any Tarkovsky film is useful if you want to get the kids (or any other disinterested family members) to bed.

[zedz]

There you have it, then: Mirror is officially a kids' film.

I can't see it trumping The Polar Express in this household (unfortunately) - then again, any Tarkovsky film is useful if you want to get the kids (or any other disinterested family members) to bed.

If you want to see a really creative use of Tarkovsky's films in a domestic context, look at what Ceylan does with Stalker in Uzak: cinema's best (only?) Tarkovsky joke to date.

[ben d banana]

Or, for another opinion (I'll refrain from posting dvdane's entire original post).

[spencerw]

If you want to see a really creative use of Tarkovsky's films in a domestic context, look at what Ceylan does with Stalker in Uzak: cinema's best (only?) Tarkovsky joke to date.

There are also some wry nods to Tarkovsky in Carlos Reygadas' Japon, perhaps most entertainingly at the end, when a shot of Ascen travelling on a tractor to her fatal encounter with a train is accompanied by music strongly resembling the electronics by Edward Artemiev that play in the background when Tarkovsky's Stalker and company venture into The Zone. The way Ascen is shot also resembles that scene from Stalker.

[nyasa]

There are also some wry nods to Tarkovsky in Carlos Reygadas' Japon, perhaps most entertainingly at the end, when a shot of Ascen travelling on a tractor to her fatal encounter with a train is accompanied by music strongly resembling the electronics by Edward Artemiev that play in the background when Tarkovsky's Stalker and company venture into The Zone. The way Ascen is shot also resembles that scene from Stalker.

Japon is practically a compendium of Tarkosvky moments. As well as the Stalker references, there are also moments heavily reminiscent of Andrei Rublev (especially a sequence - not the sex scene - between 'The Man' and Ascen, which reminded me of the long dreamlike dialogue between Andrei and Theophanes the Greek) and The Steamroller and the Violin (a wall is demolished, revealing a view).

[King of Kong]

The term "cinematic poem" gets bandied about alot these days, but Mirror is one of the few films (Bergman's Persona being another) worthy of the term. I finished watching it last night, and it'll get repeat viewings in the upcoming weeks.

Just a query re: the soundtrack. The AE disc comes with both audio options - for some reason, the mono sounds clearer than the 5.1, which sounds almost muffled - should this be?

[King of Kong]

And I've just finished watching the extras on the AE Mirror disc - the best by far is the 30-min "introduction" by co-scriptwriter Aleksandr Mišarin - a nice, succint overview of the creative process behind Mirror and his working relationship with Tarkovsky. The interview with Grigory Javlinsky comes next. The rest of the extras are rather mediocre...

[HerrSchreck]

Or, for another opinion (I'll refrain from posting dvdane's entire original post).

For those serious Tarkovsky heads out there (and my brain is indeed hopelessly & irretrievably so-infected): how often, versus the rest of his canon, do you revisit SOLARIS? Whereas I revisit, aside from screenings, everything from IVAN to SACRIFICE from 2-3 times a year from my DVD collection, I'd say SOLARIS gets a look maybe once a year. I just don't get the sense from watching this that A.T. processed this material on so personal a level as the rest of his oevre. Although it has it's moments, this film, in my opinion, is the least 'miraculous' of Tarkovsky films... miraculous in the sense of capturing those sparkling moments of absolute on-set perfection this director had an amazing ability to conjure up almost at will, where truly sublime interplay between grip/camera-operator coincides with epiphanaeous performances by his actors coincides with some remarkably perfect circumstatial incident like unexpectedly ideal animal behavior occuring perfectly within frame, etc...

[jorencain]

For those serious Tarkovsky heads out there (and my brain is indeed hopelessly & irretrievably so-infected): how often, versus the rest of his canon, do you revisit SOLARIS? Whereas I revisit, aside from screenings, everything from IVAN to SACRIFICE from 2-3 times a year from my DVD collection, I'd say SOLARIS gets a look maybe once a year. I just don't get the sense from watching this that A.T. processed this material on so personal a level as the rest of his oevre. Although it has it's moments, this film, in my opinion, is the least 'miraculous' of Tarkovsky films... miraculous in the sense of capturing those sparkling moments of absolute on-set perfection this director had an amazing ability to conjure up almost at will, where truly sublime interplay between grip/camera-operator coincides with epiphanaeous performances by his actors coincides with some remarkably perfect circumstatial incident like unexpectedly ideal animal behavior occuring perfectly within frame, etc...

You put it so well, that all I can say is "I agree". It's also my least favorite of Tarkovsky, although it's certainly a good film. Those "miraculous" moments that you describe are exactly what make his films so special to me, and that is what's lacking in "Solaris." I'll stop before I repeat everything you said in your post.

[Panda]

Some Tarkovsky films will be playing in Cambridge, MA at the Harvard Film Archive.

3/6 "The Mirror"
3/13 "Stalker"
3/20 "The Sacrifice"
5/14 & 5/16 "The Steamroller and The Violin" and "Ivan's Childhood"
5/21 "Andrei Rublev" 185 minute version

From posted discussion on this thread, I am very interested in seeing
"The Mirror." Since Bergman's "Persona" is one of my very favorite films,
perhaps, as King of Kong notes, I'll find "Mirror" to be every bit as satisfying.

Right now I only own Criterion's "Solaris" which I like to watch once or twice a year. While "Solaris" is certainly not the most personal of Tarkovsky's films, I find it quite compelling in Hari's need to become human and then to subsequently destroy herself when she evolves enough to feel guilt and inadequacy. Perhaps memory, or rather the ability to live within memory, is what makes us human. For the same reason, I also love Marker's "La Jetee." Criterion, where are you on this?

I will pick up "Andrei Rublev" when Criterion re-visits the transfer. The only Tarkovsky features I haven't seen are "The Mirror", "Nostalghia", and "The Sacrifice."

Any comments or guidelines on the last two?

[blindside8zao]

If I were you, I'd go every night of the festival. But I'm a Tarkovsky freak. Nostalghia and Sacrifice are wonderful. I don't know what else you want to know. They are just darn good.

[solaris72]

If I were you, I'd go every night of the festival. But I'm a Tarkovsky freak. Nostalghia and Sacrifice are wonderful. I don't know what else you want to know. They are just darn good.

Seconded. Tarkovsky in 35mm is a much different thing than Tarkovsky on TV, especially considering that so few of the DVD releases of his work are particularly good. If I could, I'd go to all of the screenings at Harvard, but it looks like I'm only going to make it to Stalker, Ivan's Childhood and Andrei Rublev.

[chaddoli]

I will pick up "Andrei Rublev" when Criterion re-visits the transfer.

Is this happening for sure?

[Cinéslob]

Just wishful thinking, for the moment. I think all of us will agree however that a Criterion Andrei Rublev remaster deserves nothing less than treatment on a par with Mr. Arkadin.

[bunuelian]

Other than being non-anamorphic, what's wrong with the current Rublev? It's certainly not so bad that it makes sense to put off seeing it to wait for a totally hypothetical remaster. This is especially the case with a film of this length and "difficulty" - IMO, it's better to have the opportunity to see it when the urge strikes you. After all, it's not like it costs $10,000 . . .

[Cinéslob]

Other than being non-anamorphic, what's wrong with the current Rublev? It's certainly not so bad that it makes sense to put off seeing it to wait for a totally hypothetical remaster. This is especially the case with a film of this length and "difficulty" - IMO, it's better to have the opportunity to see it when the urge strikes you. After all, it's not like it costs $10,000 . . .

Oh, don't get me wrong, the current Criterion disc for Rublev is perfectly adequate (and a damn sight better than any of the Ruscico ports), but I certainly wouldn't turn down the prospect of having a DVD set which gathers all the extant versions of Rublev together, and sooner rather than later considering the film's original editors are getting on.

Anyway, I've helped to derail this thread for long enough - on with the Tarkovsky!

[Anonymous]

For anyone that's seen the r1 version of Mirror and Stalker (I know they're inferior to r2/pal versions) are they at least good enough to convey the proper experience of the film or am I better off waiting for either better r1 releases or untill I get a region free player.

[Oedipax]

I was under the impression that the R1 Stalker was acceptable, but don't quote me on that... And from what I recall you want to stay away from the R1 Mirror.

[bunuelian]

The R1 Stalker isn't ideal because it's split on 2 discs and its picture quality could be better. It's also expensive. But it's also the only thing we'll get for a while in R1 land.

Based on the DVD Beaver reviews, the color balance on the Kino Mirror disc is badly flawed. But that didn't stop me from counting it among my top 10 greatest films. I don't think a DVDs flaws can take away from a great film unless they are P&S or cut versions of the film - in which case, you aren't seeing the film at all. Kino's disc is hideously flawed, but it shows the film in its entirety, and is "good enough." I've held off buying the AE version based on reviews which have indicated that it's not the definitive edition, in large part because the Kino disc is acceptable despite its limited quality.