Tarkovsky Advice?

I keep hearing all this stuff about Tarkovsky but I can’t seem to find even one of his films that sounds interesting. I love female-driven dramas; preferably those with twist-turn plots and beautiful cinematography (for examples check my profile). The only genres I tend to steer clear of are action, sci-fi, and sports; and I hate documentaries. Can anyone suggest a Tarkovsky film that I’d like?

Solaris has gorgeous cinematography, and it’s more of an intimate romantic drama than a sci fi. The dramatic, moody, beautiful woman in it would possibly appeal to you. But Tarkovksky’s films are like no one else’s — and they require a certain patience.

if you love beautiful cinematography then there’s a 0% chance you won’t enjoy tarkovsky

who cares about plot

Tarkovsky film festival this week in New York! Are you going to that oopyman?

He has women figuring prominently in “The Mirror”, but none of his films are typical character driven drama. His films are works of art that tend that do so much more that what you typically expect from a movie.

Just get a copy of Andrei Rublev and let it wash over you. It may change the way you look at film all together.

So Nick you must be gay then?

Nick I say expand your horizons. There are plenty of great films in the genres you listed as the ones you avoid.

I have a two replies to make:

to Clovenhoof: How inappropriate!

to User de Faux-Fuyants: I do like films from those genres, its just that I wouldn’t pay criterion prices for them, generally speaking.

And also, I’m glad to hear that about Solaris, I have wondered about it a lot…I just hope it is nothing like 2001 because that about made me tear my hair out (it’s beautiful and all, but I really couldn’t stand everything else, I also hated the book).
But tell me more about The Mirror.

Solaris is very slow moving, perhaps the slowerst of Tarkovsky’s films.

The Mirror is essentially Tarkovsky holding a mirror up to Russia and he tells the story of Russia in the years after the second world war. It has many layers and many characters from different eras. Some of the scenes are rural, some are in the city, some of it is in black and white, some in color. It is a film whose images will stay with you. I’ve seen it twice, and I don’t fully understand it, though I don’t think its meant to be fully understood.

I’ve just seen Mirror again and its depths are as dark and fathomless as ever. What i find hard to believe is that it ended so soon. The present is the past’s future, personal and national history are always with us, but the past is subjective, to be approached from different angles, and it fades and is gone, like a small circle of breath or steam on a shiny surface. Gone. Aren’t memories extraordinary?- as Bergman said of Tarkovsky’s work, “life as a reflection, life as a dream”. In the film there’s a leaf in one of the pages of a Da Vinci book, which we only see later outside. Memories can’t be brought to order. Maybe just enjoy Mirror first time without worrying too much about understanding, let its radiant images wash over you.

Ivan’s Childhood has some of the best cinematography I have ever seen in my life. When I rented it up, I didn’t think the plot sounded up my alley. But after I watched it, I ran out the next day to buy it.

pajamas suck my dick!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Mirror is impenetrable. Not a roaring recommendation for a film. I’d say, Nick, stay away from that one, at least for a time. “Rublev” is a good choice. For beautiful cinematography though, you want to see Guiseppe Lanci’s work on “Nostalghia”. You will also appreciate the ravishing beauty of Domiziana Giordano. She is to fucking die for, trust me on this.

Huh, maybe Tarkovsky ain’t for me. It seems like his films don’t have much plot at all, I can deal with a very non-linear plot, like Last Year at Marienbad, or even a very thin plot, like Climates. But an absence of plot, no thanks.

Nick, start with Ivan’s Childhood. My personal favorite is The Mirror but I won’t recommend it to most people as an introduction to Tarkovsky. You can then move to Andrei Rublev or Solyaris but nobody would use Tarkovsky and female-driven dramas or plot twists in the same sentence. His films do have plenty of gorgeous cinematography…

Ivan’s Childhood is comfortably the most accessible. Mirror is quite confusing as one person Margarita Terekhova plays 2 women (mother and wife), and the mother when older is also played by Tarkovsky’s mother. His father’s poems are spoken too- it’s a personal as well as panoramic film but it does convey a lot. Terekhova gets most screen time in Mirror, she’s great and it is female driven! It’s a cubist film so you can twist away to your heart’s content

I was kind of annoyed by the woman in Nostalghia, honestly. Her existence in the film seemed to reflect a bit of Tarkovsky’s apparent misogyny, to me. I mean, he’s my favorite director, and I don’t really see it in his other films, but I see it in that one.

and Ivan’s Childhood and Andrei Rublev both definitely have plots, albeit slow moving ones.

“But an absence of plot, no thanks.”

Tarkovsky’s films do have plots so don’t worry about the abscence of one, if thats what you are looking for you’ll find it. Tarkovsky’s first film Ivan’s Childhood is a WW II movie and his last is a WW III movie… so the plots are there.

I can see why some would find Nostalgia a bit misogynist, Tarkovsky saw women as more inclined to spirituality than men, but also has pride before a fall, and he seems to admire their adopting traditional gender roles here. Mirror on the other hand has a generally positive portrayal of the women; there is the incident with the press worker who does a little skip down the corridor after upsetting Terekhova, and the self-confessed female weakness over killing a chicken (to my mind no weakness) but these are small fry. Terekhova is more likeable than Giordano- even if Giordano is physically striking! In The Sacrifice there’s the hysterical wife, but Ivan’s Childhood has a likeable female soldier, there’s a mix overall.

I didn’t find that female soldier particularly likable, Kenji, but I understood why she was there and why she acted like she did. And I empathize with the sort of helplessness of the projection of Kris’s wife in Solaris and the wife in the Sacrifice. The woman in Nostalghia, though, just seemed a bit psycho, and the main character half the time is reacting to her with a sort of “what the hell are you talking about, you crazy woman?” look. There’s also the mute in Andrei Rublev, who Andrei has to kill a man to save…but then she’s more of a child than an adult woman. I think it’s safe to say that a lot of Tarkovsky’s issues with women come from his mother, and the fact that he was raised by women (his mother and his sister).

Then again, his characters are never the most important part of his films.

I recently discovered Tarkovsky and I can say that I feel an affinity to his work only because of this:

I can’t say anything about it. I feel stupid discussing his films. I find myself amazed by everything he puts on the screen and just let it take over me. I feel overwhelmed and underwhelmed at the same time. I am just so thankful.

Same thing when it comes to Nabokov and talking about his books. Damn these Russians! They get it! They know what it’s all about.

In terms of the advice—start with Ivan’s Childhood. It’s very accessible. I doubt you’ll be disappointed.

Liz—I disagree about the statement that his characters aren’t the most important part. They are the film.

If you’re looking for plot twists and turns, I don’t think you’ll like much of Tarkovsky’s work. He tends to make long, moderately paced films that slowly draw you in. If you hated 2001: A Spcae Oddessey then I honestly don’t think you’ll dig Solaris too much.

One approach anyone can take to appreciate Tarkovsky’s films (at least in their first viewings) is to view each scene as a short film. For example, consider the scene where the woman meets a stranger in the beginning of The Mirror. It could be viewed as a short film where a man meets a woman then they go their separate ways. We don’t have to know anything about the their past. We don’t have to know anything about their future. Still the scene itself is intriguing. A moment and a fragment of memory that stands on its own and can be viewed again and again…

Liz, Tarkovsky does have a skewed view of woman. I don’t think his portrayal of woman in his movies is downright insulting or anything like that but in his interviews he does seem to be the most misogynist prick one could imagine. These are taken from an interview in “Andrei Tarkovsky interviews”

Q: You yourself would never dissolve into a woman, if I understand correctly?
A: No, I don’t dissolve. I don’t need that. I am a man.
Q: But you need a woman who dissolves into you?
A:Naturally. If a woman tries to keep her self, then the relationship is cold.
Q:But you preserve yourself in this love?
A:I am a man. I am of a different nature.

Later on women’s rights

“The meaning of feminism, to me, is not only to secure social rights for women. (…) Strange, very strange, these women who, speaking about this, insist on their similarities with men and don’t understand their uniqueness as women.(…) I believe that the woman can’t exist independently from the man because of her specialness. If she exists independently from the man, she is no longer natural, organic. She certainly is able to hold a position in society; she can do a man’s work, but does that make her a woman? No, never. (…) I don’t deny the fact that women have largely been excluded from the events of the world. Undoubtedly, this is unjustified. But I don’t know yet what will happen to the woman when she will be completely integrated into public life.”

Besides this nonsense I strongly recommend this book. He is very candid regarding what his intentions were on his movies.

It was that very crap which was such an impediment to me getting through that book. I’m not the greatest admirer of Tarkovsky, but in the end the book is useful.

What amazed me most in the book is that he gets bitter and bitter as time goes by. In his interviews post USSR he essentially portrays himself as the last beacon of hope for human salvation. It completely killed my drive to see Sacrifice or Nostalghia.

Okay, so he’s a misogynist. That I can’t deal with. I can sacrifice some plot for cinematography, I will even delve into the genres I don’t care for. But I won’t watch something made by someone who doesn’t understand the fact that women are just as whole as men and cen be out on thier own in the world with no consequences. I’m sorry for wasting every one’s time, but I think I’ll pass on Tarkovsky and stick with Bergman, Almodovar, and Altman for the time being.