Writing Plan.
Andrei Tarkovsky Solaris.
Biography:
- Father-Poet
- Intelligence
- Influenced by paintings and classic music
Historical situation:
- Russian Government
- Communism
- Soviet utopia and propaganda
Genre:
- Science – Fiction, cliché
- Lem’s Novell – (authority)
- Poetic School ( mesa en scene, camera, sound track )
- Denial of Sci – Fi genre
- Symbolism, False Symbol
Christianity:
- Orthodox Church – (Icons )
- Gospel – (Prodigal son )
- Morality
Individual:
- Psychoanalysis – (Freud )
- Interior – (dreams, fears, sins, guilt, moral…)
- Exterior – (homeland, the Earth, nature, circumstances…)
- Philosophy – (questions of existence )
Study Diary.
From all the subjects for our research I have chosen Tarkovsky’s Solaris because I wanted to understand him till the end and inside out.
I picked up the Carry-on advert first, but then a realised that being maximalist I would need to watch all the series of the English Cary-on films, but it was impossible to do in three weeks, because I didn’t have any knowledge about this very national British comedies. So with pleasure I started research on Solaris and Tarkovsky’s cinematography.
I remember watching Solaris when I was 15 with my parents, so I remember the seriousness about this film. So the first thing I did, – I watched all film in one go. Then I stopped on some scenes, which I thought were important and listen very carefully to the dialogs and a specially monologs. I did the brainstorm and wrote some keywords on A3 paper and stick that on the wall.
I like to know what other people think about particular piece of art. In my life I have couple of people, who sometimes know and see more then I do. So the next day I phone them and asked to watch Solaris again. There were sharing with me the forgotten experience from watching Solaris. I highlighted some themes and decided to watch another two or three films of Tarkovsky, it was Nostalgia and Sacrifice. Now, looking back, I shore that I had to watch Stalker to (it’s the second Sci-Fi film of Torkovsky).
I have noticed that I can’t start research from the books and internet straight away, I need a base, and I need to think about the film first after watching it. I need my own feeling and understanding. I can’t be blind and just run to the library and look for some books. I had my Moleskine notepad and the pencil all the time with me, because it’s a process, I can’t stop it even on the train. Because I am working on weekends, I didn’t have much time. I was searching for information anytime when I was free. I am a night person, so almost all the work I did at late evening and at night. Discipline helped me to do it, even if I was tired. If I say to myself that I have to do it, then I have no excuse.
When I’ve started my research from the internet and the books, I looked at Tarkovsky’s biography and realised that there was a lot of things to start research from. For example, the Russian History at that time, his father – poet and Russian cinematography and VGIK gave the base of his philosophy and the style.
Video interviews with Tarkovsky were very helpful and interesting. I enjoyed more reading articles from the Russian web sites. I felt that these were more truthful and wider. It was luck that I could understand the language because I am Russian.
I wish I had more books about Tarkovsky. Next time I will go to the library earlier, because this time all the books were out or requested. But I looked at books which are not necessarily about Tarkovsky, but they open the subjects relative to Tarkovskys cinematography.
I had to spend some time on blog template and lay out. I’ve used blogs before, but they were a bit different. Another difficulty was to put all information together in to the posts. I’ve tried to follow chronology of my thoughts and findings, but sometimes I found these chaotic.
I didn’t have a plan of my research that’s why sometimes I was jumping from one theme to another. Next time I will try to have files on my desktop named by the theme. That would be easier to find the information which I need at that minute.
I should’ve spent more time in the library and use more academic books and articles.
It was tempting to write my own opinion and my own understanding of Solaris. Sometimes I had thoughts which I could not reference.
Thanks to research about Tarkovsky, I am more and more interested in Japanese animation and films. One of my discoveries was the animation by Mamoru Oshii Angel’s Egg, I have seen this work before, but without research I wouldn’t be able to connect it to the Solaris.
It was interesting journey and valuable discoveries. I am glad that I become confident about Tarkovskys. I is no doubt, this project was useful and important for me.
Bibliography.
Books:
- Matilde Battistini, Symbols and Allegories in Art, Los Angeles, 2002
- Bible, Gospel of Luke (15. 11 – 24)
- Terry Eagleton, Ideology an Introduction, London-New York, 1991
- Louis Harris Cohen, The Cultural - Political Traditions and Developments of the Soviet Cinema 1917-1972,New York, 1974
- Anna Lawton, Kinoglasnost Soviet Cinema In Our Time, Cambridge, 1992
- Mark Le Fanu, The Cinema of Andrei Tarkovsky, London, 1987
- Mark Le Fanu, Christianity, Sacrifice and Submission: The Social and Philosophical Though of A.Tarkovsky, The Independent, 1986
- Andrey Tarkovsky, Sculpting in Time: Reflections on the Cinema, London, 1986
- Andrei Tarkovsky, from English press brochure to The Sacrifice, 1986
- Maya Turovskaya, Tarkovsky: Cinema as Poetry, London, 1989
- Maya Turovskaja, 7 and 1/2 of Andrei Torkovsky’s films, Moscow 1990
- Lionello Venturi, Biographical and Critical Study, Chagall, Paris 1956
Web:
- www.andreitarkovski.org
- www.biographybase.com
- www.evgeny-parfenov.blogspot.com
- www.criterion.com
- www.criterionforum.org
- www.germslav.byu.edu
- www.institut.veolia.org
- www.imdb.com
- www.kinozapiski.ru
- www.liveinternet.ru
- www.midnighteye.com
- www.physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com
- www.samstar.ucoz.ru
- www.senseofcinema.com
- www.sibetrans.com
- www.situation.ru
- www.thinkexist.com
- www.utexas.edu
- www.youtube.com
Mise-en-Scene.
- There were many instances of incredible cinematic mise-en-scene.
“In a style similar to Hitchcock’s Rope, Tarkovsky limits his cutting and splicing of many scenes. This is done in opposition to his Soviet film-making comrades who wanted to force perspective through their editing. Instead, Tarkovsky leaves us hanging inside the space of the character in near realtime and forces the camera to follow. Truth is thus unveiled through question, not propaganda. Combined with a very minimalistic soundtrack, this stretches out the moments of the film and causes the audience to enter into the self-awareness and meditative ambiance of its characters. “http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/239
- He was a staunch opponent of the theory of Eisenstein’s editing and believed that the main point in the art cinema (art film) – is an internal rhythm of the frame.
- Tarkovsky’s idea concerning Sculpture of the time (sculpting in time) Presents the film as the interaction of the distinctive flows or waves of time, expressed in frames of their internal rhythm.
Rhythm – the core of poetic film. But the idea of Tarkovsky concerning rhythm, in contrast to Eisenstein, this is a cinematic rhythm as a movement within the structure of the film, but not the temporal sequence of frames.this poetic expression of the material world can go beyond the intentions of the artist and perceived differently by each viewer. The school filmmaker Tarkovsky expresses his philosophy of life, as opposed to the creation of a new version of the perception of reality.
“Tarkovsky achieves a temporary sense of unity through the mixing of different layers of events here-and-now with there-and-thenWhich we perceive as happening in the present. Cinemascope he achieves this effect of “mystical realism”, using images in slow motion (slowly falling vase), showing fine details of sound, displaying the events that exist in nature. These purely optical and sound situations create an avalanche of virtual memory, images of time, including the sound images that vary slightly in the indivisible interweaving of time. They form the driving force of time, which organizes the flow of events in all Tarkovsky’s films. “http://www.situation.ru/app/j_art_1010.htm
Individual.
Tarkovsky presents the viewer with the genuine possibility of entertaining a new notion of what we regard as understanding. His method is striking: we are not introduced to beings from another world who will enlighten us with some new truth. Tarkovsky does not care to entertain us with aliens and the fright that comes from another dimension. It is our relationship to ourselves, individually and spiritually, that Tarkovsky explores. What if, he seems to suggest, the understanding of human existence that we possess is not only limited but also lacking in some fundamental clarity? What seems to be at stake on the Solaris station is an imprinting of our memories in a universal, cosmic mind that we only realize exists when we arrive at that point in our development. Fanciful? Perhaps.
Chris’ rebuttal is essentially the main point of the film: “Questioning means a desire to know. But to preserve basic truth, we need mysteries. The mysteries of happiness … death … love.”http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/08/49/tarkovsky-ortega-y-gasset.html
“The tone of Solaris is particularly significant. Solaris ought to be a tragedy, a dramatic retelling of the story of Orpheus and Eurydice. Le Fanu finds that the most substantial difference between Lem’s novel and the film is that Tarkovsky foregrounds “human sorrow, which has only a minor place in the book.” But where do we see such sorrow in the film? In moments like this: “What profound melancholy and suffering is implied in Hari’s inexpressive subtle gaze.” Although this is a dramatic situation, to say the least, Tarkovsky has deliberately avoided theatrical forms of drama. “Inexpressiveness,” indeed, becomes a keynote.
What Solaris gives us as a model is a different way of understanding and feeling the relationship of cinematic absence and presence. Instead of psychoanalytic identification, Solaris emphasizes existential solitude. Instead of tragic loss, Solaris emphasizes “” and waiting.” http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/exdilsol.html
- Chris Kelvin working on him self through all the film. Tarkovsky mixing conscious and unconscious mind of the main character.
- Being professional psychologist, Chris can’t ignore Freud and his psychoanalysis theory.
- Tarkovsky working around the person and relationship between interior world (dreams, fears, memories, guilt) and exterior (homeland, parents house, wife) of human life. This is Chris and his monologue with him self, but also with God.
- Viewer sees the individuals through the other dimension, from inside out, and them dealing with the situation and making decisions.
- It is dramatic scenes, but Tarkovsky making it silent and not theatrical.
- Perhaps Solaris exist in every human mind, but appears to our understanding only when we are spiritually grown enough to realise this.
- Solaris is metaphorical symbol of our shame and spirit, our judge,- our conscience.
“Solaris” & “Angel’s Egg”.
- “Feci quod potui, – Faciant meliore potentes” – “I did everything i could,- if someone could do more, he should… ” (latin.)
“…I try to get closer to the plastic solution of the problem of life itself, think in images, which can be to capture on film. All this, of course, due to the drama of the material, character and personality of the hero. For me, contemporary cinema – a sculpture in time.” ( Interview 1967 . http://www.kinozapiski.ru/article/716/
- Contemporary artists show in there own visual way the meaning and philosophy of existence.
- One of them is Japanese animator Mamoru Oshii. His philosophical Sci-Fi animation “Angel’s Egg” (2002) opens the questions and themes not just similar, but the same to Andrei Tarkovsky in his Solaris.
- Interview with Mamoru Oshii by Nicholas Ruchka (2004) :
Ecology.
- Tarkovsky loves Kurosawa for his love to the land. Simple feelings, uneducated person – the most expensive, especially since the purpose of Kurosawa – the story of the intellectualization of man. He love him for his ability to connect people with nature.
“… I have one problem – overcoming. I find it hard to talk about what my theme, but the main, which would continuously develop, is the ability to overcome oneself, not to enter into conflict with nature, harmony. But all this only if the person is in constant disharmony with its environment. Overcome this lack of harmony, we can come to a meaningful life not through contemplation, and through suffering…” ( http://www.kinozapiski.ru/article/716/ )
- Underwater long grasses. Autumnal leaves on the slow smoothness of water, the running track of the orange shell, which swiftly left on the bottom. Legs of man among the enormous damp burdocks. Distant voice of cuckoo. Unsaddled horse, with the clicking rushed past by. Rain, which was noisily attacked the open terrace of dacha…(M Turkovskaja 7 and 1/2 of Andrei Torkovsky’s films, Moscow 1990 pp 81)
- Noise of rain, the morning voice of bird, the fluid dark depth of water, the damp humidity of garden, the scattered crown of oak, the living fire of bonfire, the stooped posture of paternal back and yellowish gray hair on its temples, the house, complete of recollections, family photographs. All that which is not noted, when it there is, and it becomes agonizingly necessary and important, when it does not exist.
- The ecology.
The ecology – the word, which we did not hear before, becomes not simply fashionable, but is expressed some vital need of humanity. Water, air, grass and leaves, about which we before to think did not think, as does not think passer-by about the plantain somewhere on the path, they revealed suddenly dangerous brittleness, lack of defense, and entire our the Earth, for the first time seen outside, from space, it decreased from this, as it decreases [otchiy] house for the grown person, and was obtained right to that troubling heart love, which Tarkovsky named “rescue bitterness of nostalgia”… (M Turkovskaja 7 and 1/2 of Andrei Torkovsky’s films, Moscow 1990 pp 81)
Let us note to itself: before they spoke – “experience”, now they establish – “injury”, earlier they wrote – “the pangs of conscience”, now are determined – “stress”. Not that so that the word would be shortened or people of steel by others. It changed something in the relations with the environment. Men also indeed the part of “ecological problem”. (M Turkovskaja 7 and 1/2 of Andrei Torkovsky’s films, Moscow 1990 pp 82- 85)
Hidden Hero. Hari.
- What is Hari’s role in the Kelvin’s spiritual rebirth and revival?
- Who is the real hero in this story?
It is not possible to find contact with the Lining Ocean. But people aboard the ship are isolated by incomprehension not only from the planet Solaris – they are fatally separated by their shameful thoughts and secret sins. And the dear woman, dead person on the Earth and returned to Chris Kelvin by the strange game of nature, occurs literally it is made from other material – from the neutrino. The materialization of metaphor, which in many subjects of the beginning of the sixtieth existed as collision psychological. (M Turkovskaja 7 and 1/2 of Andrei Torkovsky’s films, Moscow 1990 pp 85)
Tarkovsky it disturbed neither before nor now. And if for the author, from face of whom was written the book, was protagonist Chris Kelvin, then for the author of the film – without any special accents, however – true, the heroine it proved to be Hari. She tries to understand Chris, to fill tabula of rasa of its “terrestrial experience”, to glance outside, from space,however, that such of men. Hari materializes first only as the outer shell – at the neglected, but settled station, made human as, as this succeeded for its inhabitants. And the rustle of paper strips, which resembles to cosmonauts about the rustle of leaves, similar shorthand record resembles living speech. (M Turkovskaja 7 and 1/2 of Andrei Torkovsky’s films, Moscow 1990 pp 85)
The film avoids a specifically religious symbolism. Again, a small difference: it is not Kelvin’s faith which brings Hari back from the dead, but rather, in terms of the story, her own unrequited longing for him.The circumstances are such that the supreme test of faith belongs to the victim; and one doesn’t really think of this as being ” Christian” . (Mark Le Fanu The Cinema of Andrei Tarkovsky London 1987, pp 65)
Tarkovsky presents the viewer with the genuine possibility of entertaining a new notion of what we regard as understanding. His method is striking: we are not introduced to beings from another world who will enlighten us with some new truth. Tarkovsky does not care to entertain us with aliens and the fright that comes from another dimension. It is our relationship to ourselves, individually and spiritually, that Tarkovsky explores. What if, he seems to suggest, the understanding of human existence that we possess is not only limited but also lacking in some fundamental clarity? What seems to be at stake on the Solaris station is an imprinting of our memories in a universal, cosmic mind that we only realize exists when we arrive at that point in our development. Fanciful? Perhaps.
- This is easily evidenced when Hari cannot remember or make sense of her self, or her past, because she does not exist for herself, but only for Chris.
- She wants to know why the real Hari poisoned herself. Chris replies, “I suppose she felt that I didn’t really love her.”
- Hari’s love to Chris brings her back to life. It’s a metaphor of the opposite act :Living Ocean knows now that Chris truly loves Hari, through this love, Kelvin find the answers and the truth of existence.
- Even though the genre of the film is the Sci-Fi, Tarkovsky did not try by special means to present the people of the future, but the simply people and as two drops of water resemble them with the viewer.
Humanism and Ideology.
“For a man so that he could not live without torturing others,there must be ideal. Ideal is a spiritual, moral concept of the law. Morality – is inside the man. Moral is outside, and invented as a substitute for morality. Where there is no morality, morality prevails- a poor and insignificant. Where it is,- morality has nothing to do…” ( Fragments from the book Martirology ) http://russart.com/actor-interview-5297-Andrey-Tarkovsky-Fragmenty-Iz-Knigi-Martirolog
- According to the early Marx and his secret of all ideology:
“Man are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc- real, active man, as they are conditioned by a definite development of their productive forces and of the intercourse corresponding to these, up to its furthest forms. Consciousness can never be anything else than conscious existence, and the existence of man is their actual life process. If in all ideology man and their circumstances appear upside-down as in a camera obscura, this phenomenon arises just as much from their historical life process as inversion of objects on the retina does from their physical life-process.” (Terry Eagleton Ideology an Introduction London-New York, 1991, pp 71)
- What is the main theme of the film?
- Did Tarkovsky believed in human being and happiness on Earth?
- Can a man truly reconcile with his irretrievable past, or is he inexorably bound to the guilt and regret of his spiritual longing?
- Why Chris Kelvin had to go so far to understand what is valuable and important for him?
Tarkovsky’s films from Solaris onwards are as full as Bergman’s and Antonioni’s are of scenes dramatizing the “impossibility” of our ever living together in the harmony that we could say we deserve. Still, whichever way one looks at the matter, it’s clear enough that Tarkovsky as much as Bergman and Antonioni- was also an “admirer” of women, and that this admiration goes far beyond the artist’s legitimate appreciation of form, line and beauty. The truth surely is that, deep in Tarkovsky’s value system, lies the conviction that women’s eyes look further. ( Mark Le Fanu. Christianity, Sacrifice and Submission: The Social and Philosophical Though of A.Tarkovsky. The Independent, 1986) http://www.andreitarkovski.org/articulos/lefanu2.html
- Chris and Hari.
Arriving at the station, Chris unexpectedly meets his former wife Hari ,who died many years ago, having failed to survive the treachery of her husband. Gradually it becomes clear that Harry, as “guests” of other crew members – is a kind of matrix, neutrino model: she read a “thinker” of the oceans of the human unconscious and is the materialization of remorse, generated by the sins committed.
- Is Hari Kelvin’s biggest sin and grief ?
Solaris giving the chance for Chris to start relationship with his wife. Solaris testing Chris and waiting for his respond. But Chris behaving weak and horrible again.Being dismantled in a matter of fact, Chris is trying to send Harry back into space. However, the mechanical action does not work and the pseudo-Hari is back again.
- Hari’s appearance from the past is the key for the future.
In atonement for his mortal sin, he decides to remain permanently at the station and love double Hari as a real woman. In his closing monologue, Chris cries: “ …Maybe we are here in space only to realise that people are the reason for love. Gibaryan died not from fear, he died of shame. Shame – that’s what will save mankind…”
Example from life. When kid did something bad and made upset his parents, he feel shame and knows if he will say sorry from the bottom of his heart,- parents will forgive him everything. Because love forgive everything. That what Bible says, that what parents and grandparents teaching their kids. Why don’t they listen?
- Why people have to do mistakes?
Tarkovsky in his interview “Tarkovsky on Art” opens this subject. He sad that …” Only through personal experience we understand life…People often say: use your father’s experience. Too easy, each of us must get its own. But once we’ve got it, we no longer have time to use it, we die. This is the low of life, its real meaning…” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V27XlEDLdtE&feature=related
The scientist become hostile to Hari’s presence, believing that the developing relationship impedes their primary task of making contact with the planet. She says that suffering like a normal human being.( Mark Le Fanu The Cinema of Andrei Tarkovsky. 1987 , pp 56)
Deep repentance Chris converts Hari, a woman-matrix. “I love , that means I am – human ,” – says Hari, expressing one of the key ideas of the film. In a moment of weightlessness, Chris and Harry, holding hands, slowly floating in the air to the sounds of organ music. This image uplifting and transforming love.
Crucial to the nobility of the film is the fact that not only Kelvin loves Hari but she,with an even stronger woman’s passion, still loves him. Her forgiveness matches – cancels out – his guilt and desertion. ( Mark Le Fanu The Cinema of Andrei Tarkovsky. 1987 , pp 58)
leave a comment