The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual Fugue

Last updated
The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky
A Visual Fugue
The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky - A Visual Fugue (1994) front cover.jpg
Front cover
AuthorVida T. Johnson
Graham Petrie
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
Genre Biography, film theory
Publisher Indiana University Press
Publication date
December 22, 1994
Pages352
ISBN 0253208874

The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual Fugue is a 1994 book about Russian filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky's life and work, written by film scholars Vida T. Johnson and Graham Petrie. The authors discuss Tarkovsky's time in the Soviet film industry; closely summarize and interpret each individual film made by him; and discuss formal and thematic patterns across his works.

Contents

While some film scholars took issue with the authors’ evaluation of Tarkovsky's film writings or with certain claims they make about Tarkovsky himself, the book was widely acclaimed for its detail and was described by multiple writers as the best English-language study of the filmmaker up to that point.

Summary

The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky consists of three parts, [1] followed by an appendix, notes, filmography, bibliography, and index. [2] Johnson and Petrie are critical of previous views on Tarkovsky, and the book is a corrective work. [3] Reviewer Donato Totaro places it in the movement of "new auteurism" for the scholars' approach of biographical, cultural, and historical contextualization, comparing it to Chris Faulkner’s The Social Cinema of Jean Renoir . [4]

The first part is devoted to biographical material and information on the state of the Soviet film industry during Tarkovsky's career. In the first chapter (called "A Martyred Artist?" [4] ), Johnson and Petrie argue that the idea of Tarkovsky as a "martyred artist" is a myth constructed largely by the filmmaker himself; they note that various other Soviet directors were treated much worse (such as Sergei Parajanov, Andrei Konchalovsky, and Kira Muratova). [3] They also point out that although he had enemies who felt that he was drawing too heavily on European cinema, he also had various defenders within Goskino. [1] The following chapter, "Shaping an Aesthetics of Cinema", is about Tarkovsky's film writings. [4]

The second part is devoted to discussion of his films, from The Steamroller and the Violin onward. With the exception of the chapter on both the aforementioned work (in which Ivan's Childhood is also discussed), each chapter centers on one individual work. It includes information on the scripting, [3] production history, release, [5] and critical reception of the film, followed by the authors' analysis of the film. [1] They aim to avoid overly speculative interpretations of his works, and criticize other writers as forming these. [3]

Among the assumptions debunked is the view of Western critics that political differences caused Tarkovsky's bureaucratic problems. Johnson and Petrie claim that his unconventional storytelling and cinematic style caused them. For example, Andrei Rublev was negatively received in Russia because it was unlike a Socialist Realist historical-epic, not because it was feared as a subversive statement on the plight of the artist in the Soviet Union. [4]

In the third part, Johnson and Petrie discuss formal, iconographic, and thematic patterns (such as his specific use of time [6] ) across Tarkovsky's films, as well as his relationship to other art forms like painting and literature. [1] In chapter 13, they express agreement with Bàlint Andràs Kovàcs and Akos Szilàgyi (the authors of the 1987 work Les mondes d’Andreï Tarkovski [7] ) that Tarkovsky's films are structured around an opposition "between the outer world and personal consciousness, with a few individuals providing the only remaining link between the brutalised [...] present and the spiritual values of a largely forgotten communal past". [3]

According to one reviewer, the scholars view Tarkovsky as an artist who, over the course of his career, increasingly suppresses or sublimates his feelings "into an austere and rigid spirituality"; they also consider his importance as a filmmaker to lie largely in his successful creation of "dream films". [6]

The appendix features detailed synopses of all films besides Mirror (which is already discussed in part two for longer than any other work). [6]

Reception

Positive

Donato Totaro of Concordia University described The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky as "by far the most exhaustively researched and critically rigorous" of the four English-language books on the director up to that point. While saying that Johnson and Petrie excessively attack others' interpretations, and have an interpretation of The Sacrifice that is too based on the original script, the reviewer said that the book's writers avoid jargon, avoid dogmatic Christian interpretation, and discuss Mirror in a way that is "exhaustive [...] their descriptive and cultural-historical analysis operating at its finest". Totaro claimed that the overall book contains "a wealth of new research and critical insight [...] Johnson and Petrie have written what is, and will likely remain for some time, the definitive book on Tarkovsky." [4]

In Cinéaste, Louis Menashe praised the book as "a welcome addition, easily the best in English, to the literature" on Tarkovsky, and a “lucid, level-headed guide”. He found their reflections on his work much more helpful than those of the filmmaker himself, and said the writers overly excuse his inaccessibility but offer appropriately measured praise of his cinematic style. Menashe also praised the book for avoiding jargon and declared, "For Tarkovsky lovers as well as haters, this is an essential book. It might make even the haters reconsider." [8] Christopher Sharrett, Professor of Film Studies at Seton Hall University, wrote, "Of the many books on Tarkovsky (some merely picture books or treatises bent on proving an obvious or eccentric theory), this seems to me the most useful". [9]

Peter Kenez at UC Santa Cruz said that Johnson and Petrie understand the director's intentions, as well as the cultural and political context in which he worked. He also stated that "they help the reader to make sense of obscure references [and] manage to deal with their difficult subject matter without ever resorting to jargon [...] Anyone who wants to make sense of Tarkovsky's films—a very difficult task in any case—must read it." [10] Richard Taylor at Swansea University referred to the book as "a model of contextual and textual analysis" that reveals the thematic structure and coherence of his work. The reviewer also argued that in the discussions of individual films in part two, myths created and sustained by a number of earlier Western writers "are politely but effectively demolished." Taylor called the book "a major contribution, not merely to the study of Soviet cinema, but to cinema scholarship more generally. It deserves not only to be widely read, but in its approach and format to be widely emulated." [2]

Russell Campbell reported that Johnson and Petrie bring "industrious and rigorous scholarship" to the task of establishing the facts of Tarkovsky's career and recording his works' details; however, he argued that "the book's reluctance to move beyond basic description tends to leave a void, and the attacks on other critics [...] at times verge on the pedantic." He claimed that Mark Le Fanu and Ian Christie had already demonstrated Tarkovsky wasn't a true martyr, and said the agreement of Johnson and Petrie with Kovàcs and Szilàgy is the "closest the authors come to a general interpretive framework". Ultimately, he said The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky is not "the new work of critical insight and analysis that this most poetic of directors so richly merits", but still an "indispensable prolegomena" due to its factual data. [3]

Mixed or unfavorable

Dina Iordanova wrote that Tarkovsky’s view of himself as a martyr was more justified than Johnson and Petrie imply, saying that his difficulties at home were more serious than the ones he had when working for Western producers. Iordanova also argued that there is sometimes an excess of detail creating an unclear point, and some failures to recognize certain symbols as having multiple interpretations. While reporting that in many ways "attention to detail is a major characteristic of the study", the reviewer said that Tarkovsky's political views and the Christian elements in his work weren't discussed enough, and criticized the scholars for evaluating Tarkovsky's "ideological credo" from Western standpoint. [5]

Natasha Synessios at the University of London wrote that The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky contains a "more detailed and richer analysis of his films" than previous studies. She also claimed that "many prevalent mistakes are set right". However, she argued that some of their biographical readings of film scenes are unconvincing because the book's general scope precludes the thorough sort of biographical criticism needed to prove that the relevant life details explain the art. She argued that Johnson and Petrie overly read Tarkovsky's later work as spiritual rather than place it "within a social, cultural, personal and [...] political context". Synessios also regarded a term used to characterize the filmmaker's work as both an ill-defined term and a mischaracterization. [6]

David Pratt criticized the book. He said some points of "significant nuance" are made successfully, and that the interviews with people connected to Tarkovsky illuminate his aesthetic intentions well. However, Pratt deemed Tarkovsky more influenced by others than Johnson and Petrie imply, and criticized the authors' Western lens of death of the author throughout their evaluation of Tarkovsky's film writings (stating they should be viewed in the context of Marxist-Soviet aesthetic criticism instead). He also said they overly assume that a detail from his life has the same role in a film as in his life, criticizing the guess about Tarkovsky's sexuality that results. [1]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Andrei Tarkovsky</span> Russian filmmaker (1932–1986)

Andrei Arsenyevich Tarkovsky was a Russian filmmaker. Widely considered one of the greatest and most influential filmmakers of all time, his films explore spiritual and metaphysical themes, and are noted for their slow pacing and long takes, dreamlike visual imagery, and preoccupation with nature and memory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert Bresson</span> French film director

Robert Bresson was a French film director.

<i>Stalker</i> (1979 film) 1979 film by Andrei Tarkovsky

Stalker is a 1979 Soviet science fiction art film directed by Andrei Tarkovsky with a screenplay written by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, loosely based on their 1972 novel Roadside Picnic. The film combines elements of science fiction with dramatic philosophical, psychological and theological themes.

<i>The Sacrifice</i> (1986 film) 1986 film by Andrei Tarkovsky

The Sacrifice is a 1986 drama film written and directed by Andrei Tarkovsky. Starring Erland Josephson, the film was produced by the Swedish Film Institute. Many of the crew were alumni of Ingmar Bergman's films.

<i>Ivans Childhood</i> 1962 film by Andrei Tarkovsky

Ivan's Childhood, sometimes released as My Name Is Ivan in the US, is a 1962 Soviet war drama film directed by Andrei Tarkovsky. Co-written by Mikhail Papava, Andrei Konchalovsky and an uncredited Tarkovsky, it is based on Vladimir Bogomolov's 1957 short story "Ivan". The film features child actor Nikolai Burlyayev along with Valentin Zubkov, Evgeny Zharikov, Stepan Krylov, Nikolai Grinko, and Tarkovsky's wife Irma Raush.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sergei Parajanov</span> Armenian filmmaker (1924–1990)

Sergei Parajanov was an Armenian filmmaker. Parajanov is regarded by film critics, film historians and filmmakers to be one of the greatest and most influential filmmakers in cinema history.

<i>Andrei Rublev</i> (film) 1966 film by Andrei Tarkovsky

Andrei Rublev is a 1966 Soviet arthouse biographical historical drama film directed by Andrei Tarkovsky and co-written with Andrei Konchalovsky. The film was re-edited from the 1966 film titled The Passion According to Andrei by Tarkovsky which was censored during the first decade of the Brezhnev era in the Soviet Union. The film is loosely based on the life of Andrei Rublev, the 15th-century Russian icon painter. The film features Anatoly Solonitsyn, Nikolai Grinko, Ivan Lapikov, Nikolai Sergeyev, Nikolai Burlyayev and Tarkovsky's wife Irma Raush. Savva Yamshchikov, a famous Russian restorer and art historian, was a scientific consultant of the film.

<i>Nostalghia</i> 1983 film by Andrei Tarkovsky

Nostalghia is a 1983 Soviet-Italian drama film directed by Andrei Tarkovsky and starring Oleg Yankovsky, Domiziana Giordano, and Erland Josephson. Tarkovsky co-wrote the screenplay with Tonino Guerra.

<i>Mirror</i> (film) 1975 Soviet art film by Andrei Tarkovsky

Mirror is a 1975 Russian drama film directed by Andrei Tarkovsky. It is loosely autobiographical, unconventionally structured, and incorporates poems composed and read by the director's father, Arseny Tarkovsky. The film features Margarita Terekhova, Ignat Daniltsev, Alla Demidova, Anatoly Solonitsyn, Tarkovsky's wife Larisa Tarkovskaya and his mother Maria Vishnyakova. Innokenty Smoktunovsky provides voiceover and Eduard Artemyev the incidental music and sound effects.

<i>There Will Be No Leave Today</i> 1959 film

There Will be No Leave Today is a 1959 student film by the Russian film directors Andrei Tarkovsky and Aleksandr Gordon. Based on a real postwar incident, the film is about an army unit trying to dispose unexploded bombs to save a small town. It was Tarkovsky's and Gordon's second film, produced while being students at the State Institute of Cinematography (VGIK). The film was aired on Soviet Central Television in 1959 and consecutive years on Victory Day. For a long time it was thought to be lost, but was rediscovered in the mid-1990s.

<i>Solaris</i> (2002 film) American science fiction drama

Solaris is a 2002 American science fiction drama film written and directed by Steven Soderbergh, produced by James Cameron and Jon Landau, and starring George Clooney and Natascha McElhone. It is based on the 1961 science fiction novel of the same name by Polish writer Stanisław Lem.

<i>Sculpting in Time</i> 1985 book by Andrei Tarkovsky

Sculpting in Time is a book by Russian filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky about art and cinema in general, and his own films in particular. It was originally published in 1985 in German shortly before the author's death, and published in English in 1987, translated by Kitty Hunter-Blair. The title refers to Tarkovsky's own name for his style of filmmaking.

<i>Moscow Elegy</i> 1988 film

Moscow Elegy is a 1988 documentary film directed by Alexander Sokurov, about the later life and death of Soviet Russian filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky. The film was originally intended to mark the 50th birthday of Tarkovsky in 1982, which would have been before his death. Controversy with Soviet authorities about the film's style and content led to significant delays in the production.

<i>Time Within Time: The Diaries 1970–1986</i>

Time Within Time: The Diaries 1970–1986 are the diaries of the Russian filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky. They cover his life and work in the Soviet Union and the time of his exile in Western Europe. After the 1991 coup several memos surfaced that alleged that the KGB had at times access to the diaries. Although Tarkovsky did not openly oppose the Soviet system, his work heavily emphasized spiritual themes, that were at conflict with the official anti-religious atheist ideology, prompting the KGB to open a file on him.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Works by Andrei Tarkovsky</span> List article of films by Andrei Tarkovsky

Andrei Tarkovsky (1932–1986) was a Soviet filmmaker who is widely regarded as one of the greatest directors of all time. His films are Romanticist and are often described as "slow cinema", with the average shot-length in his final three films being over a minute. In his thirty-year career, Tarkovsky directed several student films, seven feature films, co-directed a documentary, and was the author of numerous screenplays. He also directed one stage play and wrote a book.

One Day in the Life of Andrei Arsenevich is a 2000 French documentary film directed by Chris Marker, about and an homage to the Russian filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky. The film was an episode of the French documentary film series Cinéastes de notre temps, which in over ninety episodes since 1966 concentrates on individual film directors, film people and film movements. The title of the film is a play on the title of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's novella One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.

<i>Solaris</i> (1972 film) 1972 science fiction film directed by Andrei Tarkovsky

Solaris is a 1972 Soviet science fiction drama film based on Stanisław Lem's 1961 novel of the same title. The film was co-written and directed by Andrei Tarkovsky, and stars Donatas Banionis and Natalya Bondarchuk. The electronic music score was performed by Eduard Artemyev and features a composition by J.S. Bach as its main theme. The plot centers on a space station orbiting the fictional planet Solaris, where a scientific mission has stalled because the skeleton crew of three scientists have fallen into emotional crises. Psychologist Kris Kelvin (Banionis) travels to the station to evaluate the situation, only to encounter the same mysterious phenomena as the others.

<i>Gambling, Gods and LSD</i> 2002 documentary film by Peter Mettler

Gambling, Gods and LSD is a 2002 Canadian/Swiss experimental documentary film by Canadian film director Peter Mettler. It was shot between 1997 and 1999 in Canada, the United States, Switzerland and India, and is a "fragmented narrative" that shows what people do to discover themselves and find happiness.

A list of books and essays about Andrei Tarkovsky :

Graham Petrie is a retired Scottish-Canadian academic and writer, most notably a literature and film studies professor at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Pratt, David (1996). "Review of The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual Fugue". Film Quarterly. 50 (1): 49–51. doi:10.2307/1213337. ISSN   0015-1386 – via JSTOR.
  2. 1 2 Taylor, Richard (1996). "Review of The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky. A Visual Fugue". Europe-Asia Studies. 48 (1): 165–166. ISSN   0966-8136.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Campbell, Russell (1995). "Review of The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual Fugue". New Zealand Slavonic Journal: 240–243. ISSN   0028-8683 – via JSTOR.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 Totaro, Donato (1995). "Review of The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual Fugue". Revue Canadienne d'Études cinématographiques / Canadian Journal of Film Studies. 4 (2): 51–59. ISSN   0847-5911 – via JSTOR.
  5. 1 2 Iordanova, Dina (1995). "Review of The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual Fugue". Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes. 37 (1/2): 249–250. ISSN   0008-5006.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Synessios, Natasha (1996). "Review of The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual Fugue". The Slavonic and East European Review. 74 (2): 295–297. ISSN   0037-6795.
  7. ↑ Zachurski, Emma Zofia. "„ Я [не] могу говорить": The affirmative aphasia of Tarkovsky's Mirror" (PDF). Harvard University. Retrieved 2021-08-10.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  8. ↑ Menashe, Louis (1997). "Review of The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual Fugue". Cinéaste. 22 (4): 64. ISSN   0009-7004 – via JSTOR.
  9. ↑ Sharrett, Christopher (2018-06-20). "Tarkovsky's The Sacrifice: Against All Doctrine". FilmInt.nu. Retrieved 2021-08-10.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  10. ↑ Kenez, Peter (1996). "Review of The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual Fugue". The Russian Review. 55 (1): 117–118. doi:10.2307/131923. ISSN   0036-0341.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.