# data[].attributes.headline
A message to young people about life and art

# data[].attributes.subject
A message to young people about life and art

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Message to Young People from Andrei Tarkovsky

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A collection of interviews with the Russian filmmaker who directed Andrei Roublev, Solaris, and The Mirror

Andrei Tarkovsky (1932-1986) was one of Russia's most influential and renowned filmmakers, despite an output of only seven feature films in twenty years. Revered by such filmmaking giants as Ingmar Bergman and Akira Kurosawa, Tarkovsky is famous for his use of long takes, languid pacing, dreamlike metaphorical imagery, and meditations on spirituality and the human soul. His Andrei Roublev, Solaris, and The Mirror are considered landmarks of postwar Russian cinema.

Andrei Tarkovsky: Interviews is the first English-language collection of interviews with and profiles of the filmmaker. It includes conversations originally published in French, Italian, Russian, and British periodicals. With pieces from 1962 through 1986, the collection spans the breadth of Tarkovsky's career.

In the volume, Tarkovsky candidly and articulately discusses the difficulties of making films under the censors of the Soviet Union. He explores his aesthetic ideology, filmmakers he admires, and his eventual self-exile from Russia. He talks about recurring images in his movies-water, horses, fire, snow-but adamantly refuses to divulge what they mean, as he feels that would impose his own meaning onto the audience. At times cagey and resistant to interviewers, Tarkovsky nevertheless reveals his vision and his rigorous devotion to his art.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A collection of interviews with the Russian filmmaker who directed Andrei Roublev, Solaris, and The Mirror Andrei Tarkovsky (1932-1986) was one of Russia's most influential and renowned filmmakers, despite an output of only seven feature films in twenty years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Being and Cinema: beyond Time in Poetic Cinema

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cinema, as an artistic discovery emerges as a new and genuine world image. It appears as a revelation, as a passionate desire that irrupts and violent the world laws. The “Poetic cinema” resides fa…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Андрей Тарковский – о признании, фильмах и несбывшихся планах

# data[].attributes.headline
A Multi Question Interview on Life and Art

# data[].attributes.subject
A Multi Question Interview on Life and Art

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Andrei Tarkovsky: A Poet in the Cinema (1984) - IMDb

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Un poeta nel Cinema: Andreij Tarkovskij (1984) Andrei Tarkovsky as Self

# data[].attributes.headline
Article on the philosophy of his filmmaking

# data[].attributes.subject
Article on the philosophy of his filmmaking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
They're often described as poetic works of "pure cinema." Free of symbolism and full of emotion and atmosphere, the films of Andrei Tarkovsky are enigmatic.

Enigmatic though they may be, Lewis Bond dives into the work of the great Russian auteur to help us understand, or rather, appreciate not only his films, but the philosophy upon which those films stand.

Tarkovsky's films are, to say the least, hard to classify, because to him, cinema was an art form that existed to help us answer the many important philosophical questions about life and existence. In fact, it seems futile to study his work without first studying the philosophy with which his creativity was intertwined.

Like director Andrei Konchalovsky says in Bond's video essay, Tarkovsky's work is so rooted in his own personal philosophy that while it's possible to imitate, it's completely impossible to follow. This is evidenced in how some of today's greatest filmmakers utilize his cinematic techniques, even going as far as to replicate shots from his films, but fail to capture the poetry that made Tarkovsky's films what they were.

The techniques are there - the long takes, the slow dollies, the fire and water and rain - but the essence of what makes Tarkovsky's work so unique and important is absent, because these techniques aren't a part of that essence. But what is that essence? If there isn't a specific cinematic style with which to measure it, how can it be determined? Perhaps the answer lies in Tarkovsky's artistic principals - that art exists because the world is broken, maintaining that there was never any intended symbolism in his work, only metaphors, because describing an "infinite world" in finite terms is an impossibility. Distilled, I believe his artistic philosophy is this:

"A book read by a thousand different people is a thousand different books." - Andrei Tarkovsky ( Sculpting in Time, p. 177)

Critics and scholars have extensively studied Tarkovsky's films, but I've found that learning about his work doesn't necessarily lead to understanding it, but rather appreciating it for what it is - whatever it is - to you.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Artistic Philosophy of Andrei Tarkovsky's Poetic Filmmaking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
They're often described as poetic works of "pure cinema." Free of symbolism and full of emotion and atmosphere, the films of Andrei Tarkovsky are enigmatic. Enigmatic though they may be, Lewis Bond dives into the work of the great Russian auteur to help us understand, or rather, appreciate not only his films, but the philosophy upon which those films stand.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sculpting In Time (Book written by Tarkovsky)

# data[].attributes.subject
Sculpting In Time (Book written by Tarkovsky)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tarkovskiĭ, Andreĭ Arsen'evich, 1932-1986

Andrey Tarkovsky, the genius of modern Russian cinema-hailed by Ingmar Bergman as "the most important director of our time"-died an exile in Paris in December 1986. In Sculpting in Time, he has left his artistic testament, a remarkable revelation of both his life and work. Since Ivan's Childhood won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival in 1962, the visionary quality and totally original and haunting imagery of Tarkovsky's films have captivated serious movie audiences all over the world, who see in his work a continuation of the great literary traditions of nineteenth-century Russia. Many critics have tried to interpret his intensely personal vision, but he himself always remained inaccessible. In Sculpting in Time, Tarkovsky sets down his thoughts and his memories, revealing for the first time the original inspirations for his extraordinary films-Ivan's Childhood, Andrey Rublyov, Solaris, The Mirror, Stalker, Nostalgia, and The Sacrifice. He discusses their history and his methods of work, he explores the many problems of visual creativity, and he sets forth the deeply autobiographical content of part of his oeuvre-most fascinatingly in The Mirror and Nostalgia. The closing chapter on The Sacrifice, dictated in the last weeks of Tarkovsky's life, makes the book essential reading for those who already know or who are just discovering his magnificent work

Published Austin: University of Texas Press, c1987

Available on the shelf at St Peters House.

Details

Statement of responsibility: Andrey Tarkovsky ; translated from the Russian by Kitty Hunter-Blair

Note: Bibliography: p.243-244.

Note: This translation originally published in a slightly different form, London: Bodley Head, 1986.

Language note: Translated from the Russian.

Physical Description: 254 p. : ill. ; 21 cm.

Subject: Motion pictures Russia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sculpting in time: reflections on the cinema

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tarkovskiĭ, Andreĭ Arsen'evich, 1932-1986 Andrey Tarkovsky, the genius of modern Russian cinema-hailed by Ingmar Bergman as "the most important director of our time"-died an exile in Paris in December 1986. In Sculpting in Time, he has left his artistic testament, a remarkable revelation of both his life and work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Andrei Tarkovsky's Advice to Young Filmmakers/Directors

# data[].attributes.headline
Interview on Andrei's views of Life, Art and Cinema

# data[].attributes.subject
Interview on Andrei's views of Life, Art and Cinema

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Andrei Tarkovsky | Interview About Life, Art & Cinema | ENG Subtitles

# data[].attributes.body
His First Short Film.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For a class project in a cinema program this isn't bad at all, more of a reenactment of Hemingways's killer short story than a feature film. It takes about as long to watch it as it does to read the original story, with which I assume most of us are familiar.

The images are rather crude, the sets spare, and some of the acting is amateurish, although Aleksandr Gordon as George, the manager, is pretty good. He has the pock-marked sullen face that seems suitable to the role of the ordinary man in a frightening one-down position. The other notable performance is by Vasili Shukshin as Ole Anderson, the resigned victim awaiting his fate in a dumpy rooming house.

The movie follows the written story closely. In print, when Ole is visited by Nick Adams and, halfway through the conversation, rolls over and faces the wall, he does the same on film. We don't see much of Ole's room. I suppose the budget didn't allow for much display. But when Ole stubs out his cigarette on the wall next to his bed, we see that numerous other butts have been stubbed out in the same place and that tells us most of what we need to know.

The directors have made a few changes that don't interfere with the narrative in any way -- bits of business in which one of the killers flicks a few tiny objects off the counter top with his fingertip, that sort of thing.

The only jarring change is the virtual elimination of the role of Sam the black cook. It's too bad because this is in no way a funny story and Sam provides the few light-hearted moments.

No sign of directorial self display. It opens with a POV shot and there are one or two other slight surprises but it's not a Fourth of July fireworks by any means. It's functionally presented.

The English names of the characters is retained and on the café window we see that coffee costs "5 centes." I call it admirable fealty to the source, mistake and all.

What must it have been like, living in a nation in which Ernest Hemingway's work wasn't allowed to be published until 1956? But never mind literature -- can you imagine American movies without ten versions of "Crime and Punishment"? I'm waiting for a Hollywood blockbuster called "The Master and Margarita" starring Jude Law and Angelina Jolie.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For a class project in a cinema program this isn't bad at all, more of a reenactment of Hemingways's killer short story than a feature film. It takes about as long to watch it as it does to read the original story, with which I assume most of us are familiar.

# data[].attributes.body
His first Short Written and Directed by himself.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Roots are sometimes dirty.

This student film from Russia's greatest film genius does a lot with it's short running time. This should mostly be seen for no other reason than it is the roots of genius. There is no epic story telling just a well told two story of two Russians from different worlds who for one day are able to be the friends they are looking for.

The camera work is interesting...albeit sometimes overly arty. However in a short student film that is kinda the point huh? I was lucky to get this at the library and I would say this is worth a rental not purchase unless you're a diehard fan.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Steamroller and the Violin (1961) - IMDb

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Steamroller and the Violin: Directed by Andrei Tarkovsky. With Igor Fomchenko, Vladimir Zamanskiy, Natalya Arkhangelskaya, Marina Adzhubei. Seven-year-old Sasha practices violin every day to satisfy the ambition of his parents. Already withdrawn as a result of his routines, Sasha quickly regains confidence when he accidentally meets and befriends worker Sergei, who works on a steamroller in their upscale Moscow neighborhood.

# data[].attributes.body
This was Tarkovsky's First Feature Film

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Original title: Ivanovo detstvo

During WWII, Soviet orphan Ivan Bondarev strikes up a friendship with three sympathetic Soviet officers while working as a scout behind the German lines. During WWII, Soviet orphan Ivan Bondarev strikes up a friendship with three sympathetic Soviet officers while working as a scout behind the German lines. During WWII, Soviet orphan Ivan Bondarev strikes up a friendship with three sympathetic Soviet officers while working as a scout behind the German lines.

Review

The first full-length feature film by the great Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky caused a sensation when it was released and shown at Venice Film Festival in 1962 where it won the Golden Lion. The world had not seen such a powerful motion picture about war and what it does to the youngest and weakest - the children. It is a bleak, haunting and horrifying portrait of lost innocence and the childhood that was interrupted the very day the boy's family was murdered. Although Ivan survived physically, he was changed forever, not a boy but a man who looked in the eye of triumphant death and horror. The film introduces young Nikolai (Kolya) Burlyaev in the fascinating performance as Ivan. "Ivan's Childhood" is a screen adaptation of the story by a Russian writer Vladimir Bogomolov "Ivan" which is a fiction story but it is based on the real facts. Millions young boys and girls perished during the endless days, months, and years of the worst war of the last century. Bogomolov fought as a soldier during the WWII. He was only 15 years old but he had forged his papers - added two years, dropped from his school and joined the Army. He had been seriously wounded three times but survived and finished the war in Berlin - the 19 year old soldier with six medals for courage and heroism. He was a very good writer and I love his books "Moment of Truth" ("In the August of 1944"), and "Zosya" that were also adapted to very good movies in Russia.

Contribute to this page

Suggest an edit or add missing content

By what name was Ivan's Childhood (1962) officially released in Canada in French?

Answer

Back to top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ivan's Childhood: Directed by Andrei Tarkovsky, Eduard Abalov. With Nikolay Burlyaev, Valentin Zubkov, Evgeniy Zharikov, Stepan Krylov. During WWII, Soviet orphan Ivan Bondarev strikes up a friendship with three sympathetic Soviet officers while working as a scout behind the German lines.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Andrei Rublev: Directed by Andrei Tarkovsky. With Anatoliy Solonitsyn, Ivan Lapikov, Nikolay Grinko, Nikolay Sergeev. The life, times and afflictions of the fifteenth-century Russian iconographer St. Andrei Rublev.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This has to be one of the best science fiction movies ever produced. Not because it's filled with gee-whiz gizmos or creepy aliens (it isn't) but because it actually gives you something to think about besides "I wonder how much they spent on *that* shot". When I was a kid, I used to love reading sci-fi because it stimulated my imagination, but as I grew up (especially once "Star Wars" came out), I found that it was harder and harder to find anything remotely resembling imagination or mystery in the genre.

Well, this movie has restored my faith in what is possible to achieve under the guise of "sci-fi" (obviously, it's older than "Star Wars", but I didn't see it until years later, when I had basically written off the whole idea of science fiction movies). I saw it 10-15 years ago when it was re-released in the USA and liked it then, but seeing it again recently has convinced me that this is an all-time classic. As I said, it actually stimulates thought (rare enough in most sci-fi movies), but on top of that, it has a real and profound emotional impact that's far beyond what you find in most "dramas", let alone "kid stuff" like sci-fi. If this movie is intended to be an "answer" to "2001" (I'm not convinced that it is), the main contrast is that "Solaris" concerns itself with real human emotions, whereas the most interesting character in "2001" is the computer.

For those who complain that it's boring, just go see something else. You'll obviously never get it. If the opening shot of water and plant life didn't tip you off to the fact that this movie is intentionally paced a little bit more deliberately than, say, "Buckaroo Banzai", then you should go out and try to get some sort of clue before watching this movie. It's not boring... it's SLOW. It's *meant* to be slow. Some of the scenes exist solely to set a mood, not to advance the plot. If you can't handle that, then this isn't the movie or you. But if you're able to sit still for 3 hours without squirming, and if you're able to enjoy a movie without having every idea spelled out in giant neon letters, then you just might like "Solaris", and find that it haunts you for years to come.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This has to be one of the best science fiction movies ever produced. Not because it's filled with gee-whiz gizmos or creepy aliens (it isn't) but because it actually gives you something to think about besides "I wonder how much they spent on *that* shot".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I just finished watching it. It's been several years since I saw it last time. I worried that I may not like it as much as I used to...

I should not have worried - I love it even more now if that is at all possible. I've seen it at different times of my life - first, as a college student many years ago in Moscow; I keep returning to it all my life.

When Tarkovsky's Zerkalo (The Mirror) was first released, it divided the audience completely. I remember how my friends were passionately discussing it. One girl was complaining that she did not understand anything; the movie was confusing for her, dark, disturbing, the children characters - sad, pale, poorly dressed. I remember her asking, "Why did they show a boy in the opening scene that had an awful stutter, and they never showed that boy again? What did it mean when the dying man in bed was setting a bird free? How did he get the bird on the first place?" Another friend of mine, a guy, tried to explain the things to her. He suggested that she thought about the times Zerkalo was showing, he tried to explain to her Tarkovsky's symbolism where the bird could be representing life and soul of the main character and the boy with the stutter could mean that it was most difficult for people to communicate and understand each other.

I only listened to their argument and did not participate because I had not seen the film yet. When it finally happened, Andrei Arsenievich Tarkovsky was presented at the screening and he talked to the audience before the show. I remember him repeating over and over that there were no tricks, no puzzles, and no tongue-in-cheeks in the film; that every symbol, image, dialog, and sound was there because they belonged there. He asked us if we had questions. Someone from the audience suggested that we saw the film first, and then, asked questions. Tarkovsky replied that from his experience, not many viewers would sit through the film and who ever would, usually leave in silence, not asking anything. And then he told us a story. After Zerkalo was completed, it was first shown to the group of the famous critics. After watching it, critics started to argue about it, trying to find the hidden meaning and make sense of what they just saw. It went on and on until the cleaning lady who came to the screening room and had been waiting for the end of discussion to do her job, asked them for how long they would stay? Someone said to her that they were discussing a very complicated film, and they needed time to understand it. Cleaning lady asked, "What is that you do not understand in this film? I saw it also, and I understood everything." Critics were silenced for a moment, and then, one of them asked the woman to share her thoughts on Zerkalo. She answered, "It is about a man who had caused too much pain to the ones whom he loved and who loved him. Now he is dying and he is trying to ask them for forgiveness but he does not know how." After the pause Tarkovsky said that he had nothing else to add about his film to what the cleaning lady had to say.

I never understood complains that Zerkalo is a very confusing, difficult, and dark film. No, it is clear and deep as a mirror. Tarkovsky said so himself, and I believe him. Every time you look at the mirror, it will show you new depth and reflections. Past, presence, future, memory, love, guilt, forgiveness, beauty, sadness, nostalgia, and sacrifice - the mirror reflects it all -just watch closely. This is the film about his family, his country, and his times. Childhood memory and the memory of the past generations glued together. The film is a look back in time and sad realization that children reflect destiny of fathers, as in a mirror. Destinies reflected one in another.

Zerkalo is not just good cinema, it is pure cinema. Like architecture is music in stone, Zerkalo is poetry on screen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mirror: Directed by Andrei Tarkovsky. With Margarita Terekhova, Oleg Yankovskiy, Filipp Yankovskiy, Ignat Daniltsev. A dying man in his forties remembers his past. His childhood, his mother, the war, personal moments and things that tell of the recent history of all the Russian nation.

# data[].attributes.body
His most succesful work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Stalker: Directed by Andrei Tarkovsky. With Alisa Freyndlikh, Aleksandr Kaydanovskiy, Anatoliy Solonitsyn, Nikolay Grinko. A guide leads two men through an area known as the Zone to find a room that grants wishes.

# data[].attributes.body
His last Film before his untimely death the same year (1986)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Sacrifice: Directed by Andrei Tarkovsky. With Erland Josephson, Susan Fleetwood, Allan Edwall, Guðrún Gísladóttir. At the dawn of World War III, a man searches for a way to restore peace to the world and finds he must give something in return.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Russian poet and his interpreter travel to Italy researching the life of an 18th-century composer, and instead meet a ruminative madman who tells the poet how the world may be saved. A Russian poet and his interpreter travel to Italy researching the life of an 18th-century composer, and instead meet a ruminative madman who tells the poet how the world may be saved. A Russian poet and his interpreter travel to Italy researching the life of an 18th-century composer, and instead meet a ruminative madman who tells the poet how the world may be saved.

Review

1+1=1 : or even a thousand raindrops makes ONE big pool, even inside the house

Tarkovsky keeps the emphasis on nostalghia and not on sentiment or melancholia. Giuseppe Lanci's (Kaos '84, Caro Diario '94) beautiful colorful cinematography alternated with b/w footage, is reminiscent of Traffic (Soderbergh, 2000), although the content and the pace of that film is very different. The point is, that different filming materials can emphasize different perspectives from different people or different periods in the life of the same person. Luminous or dark. Even a long and slow shot can tell a complete story in this film, as the actors seem to duplicate themselves or substitute others. Miniature landscapes to create surprising visual perspectives are discovered at the ride-in and ride-out of the camera. All those details couldn't be appreciated if the shots were any shorter or the pace any faster. Nevertheless, there are instances where Tarkovsky doesn't seem to know what he wanted exactly and motives stay implicit unfortunately. But that's poetry. See the film again and discover new perspectives. Anyway, there is a strong taste of longing for association of people in the present, in the future and even in the past throughout the film.

Nostalghia is almost entirely (as far the dialogue part of the film goes) in Italian language and the music consists exclusively from legendary composers with some experimental touches here and there. It is on the verge of being arthouse with its sometimes subtle and sometimes experimental light and sound FX. Even the dog seems to have had acting classes. Also I feel that what Godard tried so many times (le Mepris? Week End?) but utterly failed most consistently, Tarkovsky achieves gloriously, although the film shouldn't be much longer.

10 points out of 10 :-)

Contribute to this page

Suggest an edit or add missing content

By what name was Nostalghia (1983) officially released in India in English?

Answer

Back to top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nostalghia: Directed by Andrei Tarkovsky. With Oleg Yankovskiy, Erland Josephson, Domiziana Giordano, Patrizia Terreno. A Russian poet and his interpreter travel to Italy researching the life of an 18th-century composer, and instead meet a ruminative madman who tells the poet how the world may be saved.