Ofcourse,Eugenia’stemptationto‘surrendertotheinertia’ofnaturalflowsisinseparablefromherhystericalresistancetoit;thistensionisattheheartofallofTarkovsky’scharactersandevenhiscam

EachofTarkovsky’spoemspresentsasinglespacewithinwhichthreedetailsaresimultaneouslypresent.Moreover,notallofthelinescommunicatesingleimages;somedescribemotionorevensoundwithinthes

Afterdeclaringon10July1984hisintentiontoremainintheWest,Tarkovskyreceivedaprovocativeletterfromhisfather,promptinghimtoinsist:‘IwasandremainaSovietartist.’Whenchallengedonthe

Tarkovsky gave one of his clearest definitions of atmosphere apropos of Stalker: [The film] does not surprise and does not entertain the spectator with unexpected shifts of action and the plot. This, in my view

The aural accompaniment adds a further level of thickness to these sequences, especially the second, which proceeds to the strains of Eduard Artem’ev’s electronic score and then to Arsenii Tarkovsky’s poem ‘Lif

The bounds of the director’s conception extend far beyond the autobiographical screenplay and shooting script, beyond even the specific memories and associations on which Tarkovsky based Mirror; the conception

One returns to the image of Otto and Alexander speaking through the glass door. It is easy enough to dismiss what Otto says about the mysterious photograph, the mystical terror of Leonardo’s canvas, or the idea

Tarkovskyhassometimesbeensuspectedofpursuingjustsuchanimpassive,alienviewontheworld.Inparticular,thereactionsofcinemaauthoritiestoMirrorsuggestthatthiswaspreciselythewaytheyread

Tarkovsky’smainconcernwastoreplaceBogomolov’smatter-of-factmannerwitha‘poetic’visualstyle.Poeticcinema,atleastforTarkovskyasthistime,meant‘exploding’thelogicalconnectionsbetweeneven

MuchoftheconfusioninthehistoryofMirrorstemsinacardinalshiftofemphasisthatoccurredduringthefilm’spreparation.ConceivedasafilmaboutTarkovsky’smother,iteventuallybecameanautobiogra

Formethereisnodifferencebetweenascience-fiction,anhistoricalandacontemporaryfilm.Ifitisdirectedbyanartist,thentheproblemsthatconcernthedirectorarethelegacyofthecurrentday,wha

TheparticularabilityofcinematoaddresstheimaginaryisevidentinTarkovsky’streatmentofphotographs.Intheprologueonearthweareshowntheblack-and-whitephotographofKelvin’smotherinaframeo

True, Tarkovsky also added references to Russian literature. The characters in Solaris mention both Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, and Pushkin’s death-mask is prominently displayed both on earth and on the orbital, al

The fate of the image in the film is most closely linked to the figure of Otto, the only true outsider in the house (even Maria, an Icelander who lives separately, is part of the household). Only Otto expands A

Tarkovsky, as I understand him, is conscious of Platonov’s admonition. He treasured the security of standing firmly on the earth – in social and professional systems, in aesthetic and spiritual tradition, and i

In his essays, interviews, lectures and (most importantly) films, Tarkovsky consistently held that the artist ‘thinks in images and only thus is able to demonstrate his attitude towards life’ (UR 22). He was ne

Tarkovsky frequently spoke of the inevitable subjectivity of a director’s adaptation of literary works. In literary prose, Tarkovsky wrote, ‘the reader sees what he has been taught to see by his experience, cha

The rigorous method that Tarkovsky developed for executing this rather expansive conception ensured that the material itself would be allowed to dictate its own rhythm and structure. Although the original title

Tarkovsky spoke repeatedly of the footage of the crossing of the Lake Sivash, a marshy region of the Crimea that had also been the site of bloody fighting in the Russian Civil War.I had never seen anything of

The success of Ivan’s Childhood emboldened Tarkovsky to try a radical experiment in poetic storytelling in the screenplay of Andrei Rublëv, co-written with Andron Konchalovsky. Moreover, Tarkovsky unapologetica