Andrei Tarkovsky

[zedz]

There's a really fascinating book of recollections by Tarkovsky's friends and colleagues, but I think it's only been published in Russia.

Finally dug it out. It's called About Andrei Tarkovsky, published by Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1990. The volume includes contributions from any number of key collaborators, including: Vadim Yusov (great on shooting Andrey Rublyov); Nikolai Burlyaev (20 pages of detailed recollections); Nikolai Grinko; Alexei Solonitsyn (brother of Anatoly); Yuri Nazarov (brilliant on Rublyov, plus you find out how they got his skull to pulsate in Mirror); Donatas Banionis (lots of detail about how AT worked with actors); Natalia Bondarchuk (20 pages on the making of Solaris, plus Tarkovsky's encounter with Fellini); Vilgot Sjoman; Margarita Terekhova (on the rooster scene of Mirror); Andrei Mikhalkov-Konchalovsky (on their falling out); Eduard Artemyev (on composing for Solaris and Tarkovsky's changing attitudes to film music); Oleg Yankovsky; Arkady Strugatsky (welcome detail on the processing catastrophe that wiped out the first attempt at Stallker); and Sven Nykvist, Allan Edwall, Erland Josephsson et al. on the making of The Sacrifice.

[spencerw]

Andrei Tarkovsky's Offret (Sacrifice) coming out 2-DVD edition by Arte (R2) on Nov. 23rd, features Chris Marker's "One Day in the Life of Andrei Arsenevitch" & "Directed by Andrei Tarkovsky" by Michal Lesczylowski has no English subtitles.

how about that for shitty news........for those of us who don't speak french

source: the Beaver

Artificial Eye are due to release a DVD containing Chris Marker's One Day in the Life of Andrei Arsenevitch, Alexander Sokurov's Moscow Elegy and Tarkovsky's own Tempo di Viaggio . I guess we are now talking 2006 for this.

As for Sacrifice, the Swedish Film Institute's release of this, with English subtitles, is pretty good.

For DVD recommendations and up-to-date news on matters Tarkovsky, the Nostalghia site is invaluable. For the DVD recommendations, go to http://www.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostal ... tions.html

[blindside8zao]

curious, what is the best bet for my wallet in buying Ivan's Childhood? From nostalghia's advice, it sounds like the MK2 is the best. I've never bought from overseas, how exactly does that work?

[HerrSchreck]

Isn't a CC of Nostalghia pretty much a given?
Getting good elements for Sacrifice, Stalker and Mirror shouldn't be a problem, no? With these films I imagine there are rights issues.

I read an interview with a Criterion employee who I think was Sean Wright Anderson (going back at least two years here), who recounted how he BEGGED AND BEGGED to get them to do a full blown edition of MIRROR, his favorite Tarkovsky, and how there was absolutely no willingness to do it he said. He talked about how conscious the company was about the fact that they struck a mere few hundred discs of RUBLEV-- full well knowing that it would take years for that printing to sell & allow them to break even.

Now however they have a bigger, younger, blind-buying audience than they did back then.

[King of Kong]

I may have already asked this question, but I'm thinking of picking up the Artificial Eye edition of Mirror. Could amazon.co.uk be trusted to send me the newer version with the mono soundtrack?

[porquenegar]

I may have already asked this question, but I'm thinking of picking up the Artificial Eye edition of Mirror. Could amazon.co.uk be trusted to send me the newer version with the mono soundtrack?

I picked up Stalker during the recent sale and it included the mono soundtrack even though it wasn't listed on the descriptions blurb. Apparently the initial Artificial Eye discs of didn't include the mono track but do now. I can't tell you for sure but chances are good that you will get the updated disc.

[bunuelian]

The first release is pretty old by now and probably has been exhausted. If I had the disposable funds, I'd probably pick up the AE edition of Mirror without hesitation.

It's utterly beyond imagination why Mirror would be so untouchable, while some of the films released by Criterion in recent years are so clearly releasable. Is the market for Touchez Pas Au Grisbi really that much bigger than for Mirror? Or for that matter L'Eclisse - is the foreign film dvd market really so obsessed with western European and Japanese cinema? (It's certainly possible - but how far does this obsession go?) The size of market can't possibly be so much larger for these films than for Tarkovsky to justify the kind of inane brushing-off that's suggested by this story. I'm betting the explanation has much more to do with licensing fees and the associated access to good elements than marketing considerations alone.

I don't buy for a moment that the lack of market keeps Mirror from being a CC release. Does anyone seriously want to argue that Mirror would be a greater risk than Brakhage? Or involve as much production cost? If The Phantom of Liberty can justify a release, and anything Bresson ever created is worthy of a commentary, then certainly Mirror can justify itself. This is so obvious it's hardly worth commenting on.

For all we know, Kino has the inside track on the next edition of Mirror by virtue of some obscure, corrupt relationship with the Russian syndicate that controls the best elements. At bottom, it probably comes down to a back alley exchange of unmarked bills and a swift anonymous handjob. Meantime I'll enjoy the flawed edition I have, because the point of the film isn't its colors and bitrate, but its idea, one of the highest ever achieved in cinema.

[HerrSchreck]

You're right of course about the audience for Mirror... plus the DVD market for these kinds of films has blown up quite a bit since CC first came out w Rublev & Wright Anderson was still at the co. I think what it is is that Kino & Janus go back quite a ways in arthouse distribution, and try not to step on one another's toes too much with major-prestige releases. You'd see Janus/CC overriding just about everybody in the market with superior editions... everyone except Kino. They appeased David Kalat's little Mabuse All-Day Ent DVD franchise (and his "corrected" TESTAMENT) by giving him commentary rights and letting him write the insert for Franju's EYES. They'll simulatneously release with studios everywhere. But not Kino. They've actually got these weird areas of overlapping, i e Pandoras Box. Buy the HVe/Janus VHS-- it's got "a kino international release" as a screen, then the old "Janus Films" coin/logo screen... on a VHS placed in an HVe box. In the arthouse circuit, Kino still has 16's & 35's of PANDORA for rent in their reel catalog.

So who knows what's going on w MIRROR. I'd bet Becker told Anderson no on the project those years ago because of "marketability" and the then-slow sales on RUBLEV... but really said no to not fuck with Krim.

I also agree with you about the fact that the film is still the film despite the edition. I'm a stickler for quality myself-- but that's just smart shopping for best-quality product. Some of the complaints I hear nowadays-- remember what it was like, by any chance, when you had rabbit ear antennas or had an antenna on the roof that fucked your picture every time the wind blew? I don't know if people today can imagine the difference-- and we're just talking 20 yrs ago. Hell, in some houses around 15.

[nyasa]

I may have already asked this question, but I'm thinking of picking up the Artificial Eye edition of Mirror. Could amazon.co.uk be trusted to send me the newer version with the mono soundtrack?

I bought the AE Mirror from amazon.co.uk last week - it had both the mono and 5.1 soundtracks, and was a steal at £7.97.

That said, I'm hoping that the AE/Ruscico Tarkovskys are merely stop-gaps until better versions come along. None of the prints are especially brilliant, and the extras on each of the discs are something of a mixed bag. But I'll say this for the talking heads interviews: they don't half put up a persuasive argument against smoking. What a wheezy bunch of people them Russkies are.

Incidentally, I've submitted a query to the British Board of Film Classification about the rating Mirror has been given on DVD: it's classified 'U' - 'suitable for all'. This is a film that isn't suitable for the majority of adults, let alone children. Not to mention the fact that the movie includes nudity, newsreel footage of dead bodies, and some disturbing imagery. I'm no prude, but I think 'U' should be reserved for fluffy kids' films. Mirror isn't one of those.

[numediaman2]

I find that 95% of films produced in this country (US) are unfit for adults. Oh well.

[Greathinker]

I have yet to see anything by Tarkovsky, what's a good film to introduce me?

[marty]

I have yet to see anything by Tarkovsky, what's a good film to introduce me?

I would recommend the following in order of preference:

Ivan's Childhood - start with this one
Andrei Rublev
Solaris
The Mirror
Stalker
Nostalgia
The Sacrifice

[Michael]

Just watch Mirror. That's it. You're all set.

[HerrSchreck]

Just watch Mirror. That's it. You're all set.

?

That's like saying "Skip Taxi Driver because you've seen Raging Bull," or "Skip rest of Lang after seeing METROPOLIS," or any of a zillion other similar examples.

See (& keep seeing) all of Tarkovsky. One of the best filmmakers to own his whole library as the films keep giving back to you after years of viewing. The films are all very different and are especially fascinating via the tracing of pictorial elements from picture to picture. RUBLEV (and IVAN) is very different from MIRROR which is very different from NOSTALGHIA which couldn't be more different from STALKER which is only vaguely similar to SOLARIS (despite the sf element)... and SACRIFICE is different from them all. And STEAMROLLER is very charming...

[devlinnn]

Michael is just responding to the question on where to start. In his opinion once you've seen Mirror, then you're all set to buckle up and go to town on the others. Couldn't agree more.

[HerrSchreck]

Michael is just responding to the question on where to start. In his opinion once you've seen Mirror, then you're all set to buckle up and go to town on the others. Couldn't agree more.

Thanks uh that was great. I hadn't seen "My Bodyguard" in a dogs age.

That's it.

[nyasa]

Michael is just responding to the question on where to start. In his opinion once you've seen Mirror, then you're all set to buckle up and go to town on the others. Couldn't agree more.

On the other hand, you might find it so impenetrable that you'll give up on Tarkovsky entirely.

I'd split his oeuvre into two. There are four films that you can enjoy without any previous Tarkovsky experience (Ivan's Childhood, Andrei Rublev, Solaris, and Stalker), and three for which previous exposure to his work is, if not essential, then certainly of enormous benefit (Mirror, Nostalgia, and The Sacrifice).

[marty]

Just watch Mirror. That's it. You're all set.

One film doth not make a filmmaker of note.

[HerrSchreck]

Michael is just responding to the question on where to start. In his opinion once you've seen Mirror, then you're all set to buckle up and go to town on the others. Couldn't agree more.

On the other hand, you might find it so impenetrable that you'll give up on Tarkovsky entirely.

I'd split his oeuvre into two. There are four films that you can enjoy without any previous Tarkovsky experience (Ivan's Childhood, Andrei Rublev, Solaris, and Stalker), and three for which previous exposure to his work is, if not essential, then certainly of enormous benefit (Mirror, Nostalgia, and The Sacrifice).

Very good advice, I'd have to say.

[devlinnn]

Just watch Mirror. That's it. You're all set.

One film doth not make a filmmaker of note.

Charles Laughton and Albert Finney may disagree there Marty.

[marty]

I agree with Charles Laughton re: Night of the Hunter but Albert Finney? I think Charles Laughton is that rare case of making one great movie with his first and last effort. Very rare, though!

[HerrSchreck]

Just watch Mirror. That's it. You're all set.

One film doth not make a filmmaker of note.

Charles Laughton and Albert Finney may disagree there Marty.

from IMDB-- ALBERT FINNEY, "as director":

The Biko Inquest (1984) (TV)

Charlie Bubbles (1967)

Uh, Bubbles is the "real" movie of these two powerhouses since it went into actual, um cinemas. IMDB had one review:

Title-named character, a rich writer who lives in plushy comfort, can't get over the guilt of having money. When he visits his Northern haunts, where the streets are filled with potholes and the buildings match the sky--all in gray--we wonder "Why is he so obsessed with his early poverty?" and "Why can't he get on with his life?" Director-star Albert Finney doesn't give us much to go on (or maybe you have to be British to understand the symbols inherent in British society) and most of his film is unmoving. Liza Minnelli has a small part as an American secretary, and in her early scenes she pushes her kooky "Americanisms" too far; however, even though the role isn't much, Minnelli has a strange, slightly zonked/slightly exotic presence, and when she performs in a low-key she's very appealing. Billie Whitelaw got most of the acclaim, but it's Liza we remember. As for the much-talked about finale, I thought it profound in its fantastic way, but, like the rest of "Charlie Bubbles", it exists to please and understand itself, leaving the rest of us outside looking in.

We went from ANDRE RUBLEV to THE BIKO INQUEST TV MOVIE in linked posts. I nominate this Albert Finney=Filmmaker-of-note post as Best of the Year. #-o

[Michael]

Of course I'm not dismissing the rest of Tarkovsky's oeuvre. Mirror was my first Tarkovsky experience and after that, I have to say that it was very difficult to absorb other Tarkovsky films the same way as Mirror.

[jorencain]

I agree (as usual) with Michael that "Mirror" is probably the best entry point into Tarkovsky's work. Otherwise, I'd say check out "Andrei Rublev."

I'd say stay away from "Stalker", "The Sacrifice", "Nostalgia" and "Solaris" at first. While I enjoy them all, to varying degrees, these are the ones with the highest probability of boring the uninitiated. I know others will disagree, but it's just one man's opinion.

[nyasa]

"Mirror" is probably the best entry point into Tarkovsky's work.

For whom? Anyone who's used to at least some semblance of narrative will struggle with Mirror if they come to it cold. As I said in my previous post, if you approach Mirror (or Nostalgia or The Sacrifice) with some Tarkovsky already under your belt, you'll gain a much deeper understanding of their peculiarly Tarkovskian sensibilities.

As for Stalker and Solaris, although they are quite ponderous, they both have coherent narrative drive, whereas the three mentioned above are much more dreamlike, and pay little heed to the conventions of story or traditional cinematic logic. That's why they're so good, but also why they should be approached with caution. Direct people to them too soon and there's a chance you'll put them off Tarkovsky for good.