THE DEVIL’S IN THE DETAILS

Amazingly The Mirror doesn’t have a forum thread – amazing because people seem so mystified by this film.

This can be all things “mirror-ed”, but I have a specific question.
The disc sleeve said the film might require multiple viewings.
I want to know:
What did you specifically gain by multiple viewings?
Also:
If you gained additional insights from multiple viewings, what were they?
Was the mystery of the film cleared up or not?

I think one would gain nothing from multiple viewings if it cleared up the mystery of the film, but it´s nevertheless essential in order to understand the harmony and appreciate the visual beauty as well as Tarkovsky´s ideas of subjective memory. Since the viewer is generally used to a more straight forward narrative is it almost impossible to capture the stream-of-consciousness like structure of “Mirror” by viewing it only once, but what seems to be confuse and obscure at the first viewing can be understood as a wonderful depiction of the inner thoughts of the protagonist who goes back and forth in time, and mixes actual experiences with imaginative happenings almost like if he were asleep. There´s absolutely no need to completely understand what is going on in each scene and we can assume that the protagonist himself isn´t aware of the meaning of all those images. One can certainly understand certain scenes in the context when reading biographical notes on Tarkovsky, but it isn´t necessary, and one should rather try to loose oneself in the cinematic space of “Mirror” which perfectly reflects the incomprehensibility and mysterious beauty of life itself.

The way you explain it one would have no problem getting it on one pass.
People get tripped up in complexity, but it may be, as you seem to suggest, unfamiliarity with the form.

I would say that it´s both the unfamiliarity with the film´s form/structure as well as the often unnecessary need for interpretation. I don´t think that “Mirror” should be analyzed like one does in school or university since it´s a pure work of art that only looses its fascination by clearing everything up. I would nevertheless recommend anyone to watch “Mirror” repeated times since it´s one of the most visual beautiful films ever made. In cases like this should viewers rather learn to appreciate and enjoy beauty instead of searching for clear answers as if this would be what art is all about.

If one approaches Tarkovsky’s films open to their simplicity, the order will be revealed.

^ Well said. I think what a lot of people struggle with (myself as well upon first viewing) is the unconventionality of the film. Tarkovsky doesn’t pander to his audience, explaining every detail with pristine exposition, he allows us the freedom to consider the film on it’s own ground and not cheapen it with overt explanation. I think it would be inaccurate to call The Mirror a mystery, sure it is “mysterious” in a way, but it’s more of a film presented in its natural form, unadulterated and unblemished by conventional footnotes – which makes it seem a mystery. As Apursansar rightly said, perhaps the “unfamiliarity with the film’s form/structure” is more the cause for this “mystery”.

explaining every detail
I watched something recently, Greenaway maybe, where the character explained motivations or action.
Yeah Apursansar was not the fish I am trying to catch here, I had to throw him back. But you achieved the order on additional viewing.- do you remember specifically what it was in The Mirror ?
There was a single scene towards the end that got me what I desired.

I might not be the fish (or bird) you´re trying to catch here, but I will give you what I think is the key in order to solve the essential “mystery” of the film, and the only one Tarkovsky himself wants people to solve (after repeated viewings). You might remember that there is one previous scene in the film which is flawed since they didn´t get the shot right after repeated intents, but it was so important to Tarkovsky that he nevertheless kept it in, I´m talking about the scene where a bird lands on the child´s head. I would therefore call this shot in one of the final scenes “reverse shot” or “mirror shot”. There are obviously many examples of mirroring in the film, which can be found after viewing the film multiple times, but that would rather be like Greenaway´s counting by numbers. This one is the shot that I consider the most important one:

That was a memorable scene.
The one I referenced was him swimming in a pool with his mother doing something on the shore – lots of stuff regarding women

Of course, he himself grew up amongst women after his father had left the family in order to join the army, and the longing for his father might also be a reason why he doesn´t consider women such a fascinating subject in his often masculine centered films (especially “Andrei Rublev” and “Stalker” feature women as marginary characters and without understanding for the men´s spiritual search). While “Solaris” features the idealized woman and “The Sacrifice” the woman as witch might “Mirror” be the most realistic and loving homage to women he made during his lifetime, especially due to the performance of Margarita Terekhova in her wonderful double-role as mother and wife. But I would nevertheless point out that “Mirror” is in particular autobiographical, and it´s important that even the women´s faces change in the protagonist´s memory since everything is centered around himself and his imagination. Tarkovsky himself said about the film: “The facts are so simple; they can be taken by everyone as similar to the experience of their own lives”

I have my on perspective on these films which may be radically different – the various POV’s are what makes the films great.
The most important scene in Stalker, one skipped and dismissed by many, was the wife’s addressing the camera. How many films does he use that device?

In Nostalghia and Sacrifice there are woman playing important roles. The dynamic with the interpreter was wild in Nostalghia. And yes the witch will save the world in the Sacrifice..
“The facts are so simple; they can be taken by everyone as similar to the experience of their own lives”
Mirror is about his life – he is an artist – my simple takeaway was this:

child is mother to the artist

Our opinion on this matter might not be radically different, I think that the woman appears as a preserver in many of his films, and while the men are willing to sacrifice everything in search for a higher meaning are the women those trying to keep the status quo. The wife in “Stalker” adressing the camera tries to talk some common sense and convince the protagonist to stay with his family, but of course is the film itself rather about the attempt to leave the ordinary behind although it may bear the danger to loose everything. The protagonist´s obsession with the witch in “The Sacrifice” is an attempt to return to normality at a time when men´s nuclear warface and technological achievements begin to endanger the status quo and lead to the destruction of the world. It´s always the women in his films who are meant to stop the adventurous men from risiking everything, but his films are nevertheless about the spiritual and metaphysical adventure.

Yes, the wife in Stalker is saying something very basic about everyday existence.
The Stalker is also searching for something very basic between men: fidelity; hence the dog

I would say that as simple as it may sound when people talk about memories, dreams, thoughts, feelings etc. depicting them on screen using is a tough task. Tarkovsky’s use of the stream-of-consciousness structure for his autobiography is one of a kind, yielding content that dense, complex, baffling and at the same time deeply touching.

Apursansar, have you seen another film that flows with such narrative. I have not seen any with similar structure that I can use to quote/compare with The Mirror.

Tarkovsky’s “stream-of-consciousness” technique was pioneered by Deren, Brakhage, MacClaine, and others.

Cría Cuervos (1976) Carlos Saura

I was supposed to watch Cría Cuervos as a part of AWC, its still in my queue.
Wow thanks RWP III

While I prefer Cria Cuervos to The Mirror, and both are about memories of a mother, Cria Cuervos does not utilize a stream of consciousness technique or structure.

Stream of consciousness suggests a stronger narrative structure (CRIA) vs a dream (Mirror)
The difference is an interior monologue, which the Mirror has and Cria doesn’t have

The most striking examples of stream-of-consciousness on film are Fellini´s “8 1/2” which was in fact not influenced by James Joyce but by Carl Gustav Jung, and Strick´s “Ulysses” which makes an effort to translate Joyce´s narrative into film language. An interior monologue in literature obviously needs to be expressed in words, but film can make use of the stream-of-consciousness technique by using images, and is therefore a more immediate approach to the human psyche.

I’m not sure the Mirror qualifies because the narrative is less than linear

Why do you think that stream-of-consciousness narrative should be linear? The narrative mode of “Ulysses” isn´t linear either but consists of associations, memories and obsessions of the protagonist in the form of an interior monologue which is in fact defined by not being linear. Maybe your definition of stream-of-consciousness is wrong, so here´s the right one:

“Stream-of-consciousness is a narrative technique in which a writer presents directly the uninterrupted flow of a character’s thoughts, impressions, and feelings, without the conventional devices of dialogue and description.”

directly the uninterrupted flow

Like a stream -
The Mirror is interrupted by time past, there is no flow
I don’t see anywhere that The Mirror is described as SoC, just a dream.

The film is definitely not a dream, but “a non-narrative, stream of consciousness autobiographical film-poem that blends scenes of childhood memory with newsreel footage and contemporary scenes” (Senses of Cinema). The protagonist is always awake in the scenes situated in the present and recollects his past in an unsystematic and casual way, his memories are washed out and sometimes mystified, he even confuses the face of his mother with that of his wife stating that this is how he reminds it, and especially the war footage and authentic depiction of his childhood home as well as his own death at the end make it clear that it is a personal memoir based on streams of thoughts of a dying man and not a dream.
.

I just watched Mirror very recently, and to me, along with other themes, forms, and ideas mentioned on this thread, there’s a strong sense of Primal Scene in it (Tarkovsky looking into his own conception with mingled fascination and horror), and in doing so, involving himself in some way with the process.

—PolarisDiB

I didn’t mean he was having a dream but it was in the form of a dream
Good luck to filmy

I watched Cria Cuervos last night and liked it instantly.

I thought Mirror was deeper, more complex and used more scenarios that pertain to the concept of SoC than Cria Cuervos. The most striking similarity between the two is use of one actor to portray two roles and usage of dreams, delusions to depict Ana’s inner turmoil.

and oh, 81/2 , how could I forget that? Thanks Apursansar.

I haven’t seen any Deren or Brakhage. I will start with Maya Deren: Experimental Films

I feel like trying to dissect The Mirror is a bit counterproductive. I see it as a completely tactile, sense-driven film. It’s not a movie to be viewed with the brain. I wouldn’t explain its lack of structure by calling it stream-of-consciousness, but instead just Tarkovsky’s collage of memories and images from his life that are very dear to him. And when we witness them, our minds automatically connect them to moments in our lives or memories or people who are significant to us, without even knowing it. That’s why we like the film. Your subconscious and your past with dissect the film for you.

Even though it’s been described as esoteric, it’s really not. No movie is. when a person enjoys a movie, they connect with it, and The Mirror provokes this much better than most movie’s I’ve seen.

Zerkalo, how you changed everything for me. impeccable vacuum coating, a reflection of yourself.

I just finished watching this film. I feel like it’s a part of me, like I absorbed it more than I viewed it. Very few films have the effect his films do—it’s something amazing that only film can do (and as suggested by others, so closely approximates a dream).

I feel like crying, and I feel absolutely elated. THIS is what film as art can do. I am so happy it exists.