Tarkovsky: Symbolism of people's back
Filmbot’s right (and Robert). In the case of Godard’s Vivre Sa Vie, I think there could be symbolism applied, but I doubt that that was the intention of the filmmaker himself. It very much seemed like a stylistic choice by Godard (as does the majority of his work), more a rebellion against conventionalism than a symbolic visual interpretation of the characters.
I think the OP meant “technique of shooting” rather than “symbolism of.”
Am I wrong? It certainly makes for a more useful discussion.
yet and still, godard includes that symbolic story about the “outside/inside/soul” of an animal during the sequence. thats probably the key to understanding his choice of shooting angles in this instance.
well, of course it’s a technique of shooting because it’s used constantly, not even in one film but in a whole filming career (Tarkovsky’s case), and of course this might be a very subjective thing, although, it seems to me that a filmmaker that worried so much about the details in his art must’ve had a reason to do it. Or maybe not, but the fact is, this “technique of shooting” works for me in the sense that it helps to accentuate more what the other conventional techniques accomplish.
Here’s my two cents on the subject…
What is Rückenfigur?
“Literally meaning “back figure”, the term rückenfigur is usually associated with German romantic painters, such as Caspar David Friedrich, to describe a viewpoint that includes another person seen from behind, viewing a scene spread out before the viewer.
Absolute MUSTS:
1- Photo, shot, image, clearly shows a subject from a rear point-of-view in contemplation of another scene that may or may not be visible to us as a viewer.
2- Rear figure subject must be the main human subject of the photo… and not just a random body part – picture must at least have a head.
3- Main subject must not have a visible face (for a definitive rule: oblique rear profile Ok, but no visible eyes).
4- No other faces should appear in the composition unless they are being directly viewed by the “rear figure” (if they’re in the indistinct background of the shot, that’s Ok)"
There is an aura of intrigue and mystique to the Rückenfigur – it is often beguiling, unusually cinematic and, where the background is heavily “bokehed” (blurred by a large aperture), it can create very surreal moods. Not only do you see the scene that the main subject is staring upon, but you are left to wonder about the impact of that scene on that person – since you are unable to see any face directly, it is always left to the imagination.
Caspar David Caspar David Friedrich::
Der Wanderer über dem Nebelmeer
Caspar David Friedrich:
Woman before the Rising Sun
Edvard Munch was greatly influenced by Caspar David Friedrich
It has a name: Rückenfigur
Great addition Daniella
The great thing about memorizing German words is that you can use almost any one as a swear word:
YOU Rückenfigur !!!
HAHA!!! Awesome contribution to the thread, Daniella.
Rückenfigur. I like this.
Well my dear Robert, I’m reall glad you got a kick out of it!
@Daniella :I will use the concept in an image someday
Hey Josh, go rückenfigur yourself !
thanks for the theoretical concept. given the information, plus the painting examples you provided, it seems to me that the figure represents the viewer. the lack of expression means that it is up to us to provide it, based on our own reactions.
godard is a different story, because he flattens space in “vivre sa vie”. theres no expansion. only a blockage.
That is a really helpful contribution daniella….. it’s always nice to read opinions that show a little more than pure assumption, and actually are tools based on research for everybody to learn a little more…. or maybe i should just say…. what an excellent “contributing technique”?
THANKS A LOT!!
Yes, great work Daniella- and interesting to note that Sokurov was influenced by both Tarkovsky and Friedrich in Mother and Son
Well guys as one of my art history teachers used to say “Don’t expect to discover hot water, because probably someone already did”. I’m a complete amateur compared to all of you “gurus of cinema” so I’m more of a researcher. I have a passion for paintings and for art in general so I usually find myself comparing painters and film directors. Velazquez, Ingres and later on the Impressionists painted the rückenfigur but there take on it was more vouyeristic than insightful as Friedrichs was. With Bela Tarr and Tarkovsky you get that haunting, surreal sensation you get from Friedrich and later Munch. Enough said. I’ll leave this thread to the experts. Thanks for the kudos!
The Lonely Ones
Edvard Munch
etching and drypoint on cream wove paper, 1895
apursansar
Mizoguchi certainly used those shots as dramatic as well as anti-dramatic devices, the still from “Sansho the Bailiff” which Kenji posted has a huger impact being shot from behind and not letting the spectator see Anju´s facial expression while other sequences especially in his earlier films are trying to avoid overly dramatic or emotional situations while hiding the protagonist´s face. But it´s important to note that those stylistic devices are also cultural and can generally be found in Japanese arts, like for instance in the novels by Kawabata and Soseki. Tarkovsky on the other hand transported those devices into another culture and obviously gave it another notion. It´s nearby that he added a psychological remark when thinking about the importance of psychology in Russian Realist literature which influenced him.