Titbits on Tarkovsky

[Thanh Dang Nguyen <Nguyen.Dang.Thanh@Eng.Auburn.EDU>]

Dear Tien,

> Sau ddo' to^i ddi xem la.i 1 la^`n nu+~a, va` 1 la^`n xem
> tre^n TV. Nhu+ng sau ddo' to^i la.i tha^'y "Solaris" co`n de^~ "ca?m thu."
> ho+n ca'c phim kha'c cu?a Tarkovxkii nhu+ "The Mirror", "Nostalghia" ...

You're right! "Solaris" is the more popular one for the general public.
I think lost of people still see it (as well as "Stalker") a sci-fi
movie, rather than something with philosophical themes. In fact, Western
critics tend to praise it as the Russian (or Eastern) version of the
first-ever sci-fi classic by Stanley Kubrick titled "2001: The Space 
Odyssey" made in 1968.

I think there is a huge difference between them. In "2001", Kubrick was 
eager to sketch out the possibility of making contact with other 
(possibly illogical) beings in our gigantic universe (see how people were 
so enthusiastic at that time, just before the American Apollo project 
launched the first human to the Moon in 1969 -- they were totally convinced
that by 2001 we human beings all will be taking long space journeys into
the outer mysterious world which is probably beyond our logical knowledge).
"Solaris", on the other hand, is emphatic in describing how lovely and
wonderful our Earth is (using the chaotic setting of a space station with
mad scientists as a counterpoint), and more important, what a home, a family, 
an old father, a horse, a summer rain, a house ...  mean for a helpless
Earthling who tries "to stay human in an inhuman environment". The film's
main theme, although obscured by its sci-fi plot, is the question: who is a
human, what characterize us, and where is our home in this universe.

As far as Tarkovsky is concerned, this was the most disappointing film for 
him, since he felt that the audience failed to reach the point. On the
other side, due to its sci-fi categorization, this was the only movie 
that made its way pretty easily to the wide public. His other films,
more or less, suffered from the Soviet censorship and bureaucracy, although
none was banned (he was lucky in this). The "poetic logic" introduced in
his movies (slow shots, subjective reasonings, metaphors, dream sequences
etc.) was considered not suitable for the "healthy" socialist workers :)
But seriously, he was the first filmmaker who attempted to place cinema in
the same place with other highly regarded  art forms like literature or
painting. I guess that's why you felt something "special" after watching
his movies -- you may not understand completely (there is usually no
coherent plot), but what you felt deep inside is more than words can say.

> To^i kho^ng ro~ la('m cuo^.c ddo+`i cu?a Tarkovxkii, chi? bie^'t o^ng lu+u
> vong o+? phu+o+ng Ta^y\. Nhu+ng phim cu?a o^ng co' phong ca'ch dda(.c bie^.t
> ma` to^i chu+a tha^'y o+? ai kha'c\.

He defected to the West in early 80's, making two movies afterwards:
"Nostalghia" in Italy, and "Sacrifice" in Sweden. He died of cancer
shortly after the second one was made in '86. He was such a controversial
figure in the Soviet Union that while his talents were widely recognized
even in his life, the authorities were reluctant in making him a
pioneer figure of the Soviet film industry. He was rewarded the Lenin
Prize posthumously in 1990, as a result of perestroika, and this was 
considered the final move in paying tribute to his creative life and works.

For his complete filmography, check the Internet Movie Database. I think
you're right, he made only about 7-8 movies in his life. I haven't seen
"Ivan's Childhood", and "Andrey Rublev".

Cheers,

-Thanh

PS. For a good essay on "Solaris" and "2001", check the following
pointer:

	http://www.peg.apc.org/~pjv/solaris.html