Tarkovsky: Symbolism of people's back

I’ve been re-watching Tarkovsky’s films lately, and I could’nt help but notice how much he liked to take shots of the characters backs.
i have my own theories; one is that he was not that interested in the characters identity or personality but in the darker part of the psyche that moved the characters actions. He was taking shots of the character’s subconscious mind.
Being that Tarkovsky was so attracted in Philosophical and existential issues, he was not very interested in the character itself, but in the forces that moved the actions that would eventually affect and construct the story through space and time.
I don’t know if i’m a little bit off on this one, i’ts just an interpretation of one symbolic statement that, after watching 3 or 4 AT’s films, becomes a clear leit motif.
I’d love to read comments and opinions on the subject.

Your interpretation makes sense to me. One could also note that he was strongly influenced by Japanese filmmakers like Kenji Mizoguchi who developed blocking techniques in order to hide the character´s emotions from the viewer, especially in moments of sorrow or shame, in order to keep the camera at a discreet/uninstrusive distance.

Thanks Apursansar, such techniques can also be found in films like WKW’s In the mood for love. Unfortunately, i haven’t seen any of Mizoguchi’s films, is there a particular one you could recommend?

Gaspar Noe does this several times in Irreversible, likely referring back to the scene in the tunnel, which begins with a shot of her from behind, continues with a long, unbroken shot of her face from the front, and of course ends on her face, albeit much different than before.

Perhaps the later scenes shooting her from behind are at once conjuring that scene which brings all kinds of emotions from the audience, and distances us from it (by not showing her face), as if to say, “it’s okay to look now, but don not forget.”

My two cents: In the film Yi Yi (2000) by Edward Yang, a young boy takes photos of people’s backs so that he offers them another perspective of looking at themselves. Thinking about it, we never see how we look from behind and how the world is superimposed before us.

double

I would especially recommend you to watch “The Life of Oharu” in which those techniques are most perfectly elaborated, and “Sansho the Bailiff” is required viewing since it´s most likely his greatest masterpiece. His earlier films like “Story of Late Chrysanthemums” are also worth seeking out.

Thanks for the recommendation, i’ll certainly do my homework….

well said, Apursansar- and there’s the archetypal shot of Anju’s back in the water in Sansho the Bailiff which i posted in the desert island movies thread, and which i’m not alone in rating among the greatest scenes in cinema- it came to mind in The New World (Malick being a great admirer of Sansho) . Of course you’re right to pick out Oharu for his technique conveying emotion from a discreet distance by body posture etc, sometimes blocked or glimpsed. There’s the great sequence- which i presumed you were thinking of when mentioning Oharu before the world cup match- when she receives Katsunosuke’s letter with her mother before running outside among the trees in anguish

And Angelopoulos was influenced by Mizoguchi too.in this respect. Sadly such subtleties often get overlooked for fancy editing or needless swirling camerawork or self-serving mannerisms; David Bordwell is right to argue for Mizoguchi to be studied closely by film students for his mastery of staging. @Ran: i would recommend you read the chapter on Mizoguchi’s staging techniques in Bordwell’s “Figures Traced in Light” if you can.

The OP is looking for symbolism – don’t think there is any “back” symbolism in Tarkovsky, but if we are talking about a visual experience we need to look at a specific example, imo.

thanks kenji…..i’ll try to look into it….

You´re right, Kenji. I was indeed thinking of this sequence when I mentioned it as maybe the most brilliantly filmed ever.

I’m not sure if there’s any particular symbolism with Tarkovsky’s shots from behind characters; he has a mix of angles, and he tended to reject overt symbolism in his work, though obviously it could be said everything has a meaning, whatever the intent. His back shots may be more apparent because of the relative lack in the work of many other directors. Bela Tarr may be influenced by him with this as with other aspects of Tarkovsky, though often with Tarr we will be close up behind people walking. Sometimes Tarkovsky will have a close over shoulder shot and others at a distance…

The trolley sequence in “Stalker” is another striking example. It´s true that Tarkovsky himself would have most likely not considered those shots to be symbolical, but I can imagine that some of the ideas Ran mentioned might have been on his mind.

Yes, and that may well be the sort of sequence influencing Tarr, even if one on rails, the other known for sequences on foot, both the long take, as with Mizoguchi (e.g Story of the Late Chrysanthemums embankment walk)

2 from Mizo

exactly kenji…..and i know that details like this could mean absolutely nothing in tarkovsky’s films, that it is probably a way of breaking conventional form. Now, in tarr’s specific case, it could be more a consequence of his style (using as less editing as possible) than an intentional resource, although he claims that nothing in his films is there by chance. But still, when it comes to Tarkovsky, i’ve always felt that he uses “form”, to underline and accent meaning. And i keep feeling that the use of this kind of angles (rather excesive one could say) is meant to have a certain meaning. And we all have to agree that scenes like the one on the frame recently posted are included all over Tarkovsky’s work.

Oh yes, i could have come up with plenty of examples, in Mirror there’s another beautiful scene where the small family group are watching the fire similarly to the mother looking across the field in the image above. And each time for sure the shot and distance will not have been done as some shallow stylistic device, but to suit the moment and situation. In a back shot we can identify with what the character is observing while still observing them. I would need to give the various instances a lot more thought over specific meanings

What is the symbolism?
How do you put the person in the frame and show what they are looking at?
Ok, so now tell us what the back of the gal on the fence tells us? She’s having a smoke and watching the guy walking up the road…

YiYi was good example because they tell you about it. Wasn’t the protagonist evaluating the situation and giving “them ( his cohorts) another perspective of looking at themselves”?
The kids photos were telling the viewer about an allegory in the film.

Hiroshige

have my own theories; one is that he was not that interested in the characters identity or personality but in the darker part of the psyche that moved the characters actions. He was taking shots of the character’s subconscious mind

Is that all one has to do? So Kenji’s two Miso woman are having dark thoughts?
The gal from The Mirror : there is nothing subconscious about it- the action takes place in front of her.

Next !

dp

qp

tp

The two Mizo women are having dark thoughts, Robert. One of them is even attempting to kill herself. The women sitting on the bench is unavailingly waiting for her husband to return. The boy in “Mirror” has to cope with the abscence of his father, mysterious happenings (the burning barn) and even brutality (the killing of the chicken) which connects him with the protagonist´s son. So yes, we can also assume that he is having dark thoughts.

Next ! ;)

But you can’t get that from the shot can you?

A dog symbolizes fidelity – I don’t have to know anything about the context – if you tell me the dog is a symbol then it is fidelity

Thanks for the curtain call !

You can get that from the film as a whole, and those shots can only be regarded in the context since neither Mizoguchi nor Tarkovsky developed them as still photographies but as single frames in a motion picture. I agree with you that there might be no symbolism, but those shots definitely serve in order to gain insight into their psyche.

A shot, alone without context, tells one nothing except what one supposes. Of course you can’t get “dark thoughts” from a shot (how could you? is this merely contrariety or an emphasis on the obvious?), but you can reinforce the condition of the characters by how you shoot them. Shooting them from the back is automatically seen by most viewers as unorthodox (since we are used to seeing the faces of the main characters) and perhaps gives a brooding tone to the whole affair.

As far as back shots having some kind of symbolism, I’d say “sure, why not.” Everything and anything can be symbolic. Perhaps Tarkovsky intended it or not. It’s a completely subjective opinion, not a factual debate, seems valid to me though.

Might be a bit unrelated but if I remember well, there’s a whole sequence in Vivre sa Vie where we only see the back of Anna Karina and the guy she’s talking to. In that particular example, it’s just going against the formula and not any kind of symbolism IMO.

developed blocking techniques in order to hide the character´s emotions from the viewer, especially in moments of sorrow or shame,

it is probably a dramatic device