“the film cannot be reduced to summary or description but insists upon being experienced, as all great art must.”
Such a key insight that can easily fall by the wayside when talking about art. It feels especially poignant as an artist—the amount of times a song or story have come together for me as a result of being “in the zone” or a happy accident (meaning I didn’t necessarily plan for a certain outcome) are too many to count. Summarizing and theorizing are helpful after the fact to try and understand why an experience might feel so profound (or not), but it’s not always at the forefront (though, of course, the greatest exception to what I’m saying is countered by what could be a lifetime of summarizing and theorizing and learning, all things that result in the circumstances that allow an artist to get in the zone and stumble on a particular decision (the happy accident)).
What’s interesting to me, here, is the case of the viewers analyzing the work on a literal level. Obviously some viewers will have their minds made up before entering a work, but I think an author can disarm or prime a viewer in such a way that the viewer will “let the film work on them”. This, maybe, is one of the advantages of “autofictionalization” and its variations—which, even though its all fiction, presents itself as if the imaginary wall between the work and the viewer has been removed, allowing easier access to the intended experience. Less mental gymnastics, and therefore easier to “let the film work” maybe. All interesting stuff. I haven’t seen any of these films, so I’ll be putting them on my list.
A lot of stuff to comment on here. I think you’re right about the autofictionalization—because the character has limited knowledge and is discovering things about the world as they happen, it’s easy to identify with the character and learn at the same time the character is. That’s part of the “immediacy” people talk about. I have a lot more to say about this in a follow up, but it’s more theoretical so didn’t want to include it here, as it was long enough already.
Also an interesting point I didn’t include—the viewers who were baffled by Tarkovsky were often engineers, whereas the ones who liked the film were referred to as “workers” (factory workers a couple times) and in one case, a teacher (I think grade school). I might be reading too much into it, but I was intrigued that the viewers who probably had lower levels of education were the most receptive to Tarkovsky, who is by all accounts one of the most difficult filmmakers and someone who makes “slow” cinema. The one exception is a group of physicists who wrote to him, impressed by the film, but I’ve always found physicists to be sort of crazy geniuses (I’ve known a couple).
Interesting. I think I'm with the factory workers on this one, you always need a small sense of naivety going in, at least to give it a chance at working on you. Is it worth reading Sculpting in Time? I have to admit, I've never seen any Tarkovsky, but I will ASAP.
Yes, absolutely with the workers. I would say it’s definitely worth reading Sculpting in Time. It’s the sort of book where you can dip in and out of different parts, you don’t need to read it front to back or anything. But it’s really inspiring, and I love the way he talks about art. With anyone else I might say it’s a little cheesy but he has the work to back it up. It’s had a huge influence on me and if you’re ever wondering why bother making music or writing or something, you can read a couple pages and feel instantly reenergized because he is just so passionate about his work.
I remember being flummoxed by "Mirror" the first time I saw it, but I was also enchanted by its images and dreamlike presentation. I was aware that I was missing something, but it didn't really bother me. That said, it really is a film you won't understand on a basic "what's going on" level unless you know some Tarkovsky biographical background and something about life in the USSR during the period being depicted.
I had a similar response to "Andrei Rublev," but then I watched it many times over (this was part of a film class where we focused on Rublev for half the semester) and by the end I appreciated it. Then I saw it again 10 years later and it blew me away, and led to my current interest in Tarkovsky.
My first Tarkovsky was "The Sacrifice" (his last film) and I had a similar reaction as to "Mirror" - it blew me away aesthetically even though I didn't quite know what was going on. His late films are very parsimonious in giving background info that helps you orient yourself. For instance, compare "Stalker" with its source material, "Roadside Picnic" by the Strugatsky Bros., and you'll be amazed at how much the film leaves out.
I still have to see Stalker, actually. I saw Rublev, Nostalghia, and The Sacrifice all at my local cinema because they were doing a sort of Tarkovsky marathon, but that seems to be finished now, so I'll have to watch at home. I feel pretty lucky that I was able to watch those on the big screen, though.
I wonder if Kiarostami's showing of the nine children's faces was his way of exonerating Qassem for the con. By including the faces of the children, he is hinting that Qassem would have provided them with snapshots if he could have. The children's faces contradict the con, but also allow us to see what Qassem saw through the viewfinder, revealing a natural talent for portrait photography.
That's a really interesting interpretation of the scene. I like it because it captures one of the main themes of the film, the idea that Qassem has ability and talent, but lacks the resources and the encouragement to pursue his interests. A camera without film is a pretty good analogy for this, I'm realizing now. Have you seen the movie, Brooks, or is this just based off my explanation?
“the film cannot be reduced to summary or description but insists upon being experienced, as all great art must.”
Such a key insight that can easily fall by the wayside when talking about art. It feels especially poignant as an artist—the amount of times a song or story have come together for me as a result of being “in the zone” or a happy accident (meaning I didn’t necessarily plan for a certain outcome) are too many to count. Summarizing and theorizing are helpful after the fact to try and understand why an experience might feel so profound (or not), but it’s not always at the forefront (though, of course, the greatest exception to what I’m saying is countered by what could be a lifetime of summarizing and theorizing and learning, all things that result in the circumstances that allow an artist to get in the zone and stumble on a particular decision (the happy accident)).
What’s interesting to me, here, is the case of the viewers analyzing the work on a literal level. Obviously some viewers will have their minds made up before entering a work, but I think an author can disarm or prime a viewer in such a way that the viewer will “let the film work on them”. This, maybe, is one of the advantages of “autofictionalization” and its variations—which, even though its all fiction, presents itself as if the imaginary wall between the work and the viewer has been removed, allowing easier access to the intended experience. Less mental gymnastics, and therefore easier to “let the film work” maybe. All interesting stuff. I haven’t seen any of these films, so I’ll be putting them on my list.
A lot of stuff to comment on here. I think you’re right about the autofictionalization—because the character has limited knowledge and is discovering things about the world as they happen, it’s easy to identify with the character and learn at the same time the character is. That’s part of the “immediacy” people talk about. I have a lot more to say about this in a follow up, but it’s more theoretical so didn’t want to include it here, as it was long enough already.
Also an interesting point I didn’t include—the viewers who were baffled by Tarkovsky were often engineers, whereas the ones who liked the film were referred to as “workers” (factory workers a couple times) and in one case, a teacher (I think grade school). I might be reading too much into it, but I was intrigued that the viewers who probably had lower levels of education were the most receptive to Tarkovsky, who is by all accounts one of the most difficult filmmakers and someone who makes “slow” cinema. The one exception is a group of physicists who wrote to him, impressed by the film, but I’ve always found physicists to be sort of crazy geniuses (I’ve known a couple).
Interesting. I think I'm with the factory workers on this one, you always need a small sense of naivety going in, at least to give it a chance at working on you. Is it worth reading Sculpting in Time? I have to admit, I've never seen any Tarkovsky, but I will ASAP.
Yes, absolutely with the workers. I would say it’s definitely worth reading Sculpting in Time. It’s the sort of book where you can dip in and out of different parts, you don’t need to read it front to back or anything. But it’s really inspiring, and I love the way he talks about art. With anyone else I might say it’s a little cheesy but he has the work to back it up. It’s had a huge influence on me and if you’re ever wondering why bother making music or writing or something, you can read a couple pages and feel instantly reenergized because he is just so passionate about his work.
I remember being flummoxed by "Mirror" the first time I saw it, but I was also enchanted by its images and dreamlike presentation. I was aware that I was missing something, but it didn't really bother me. That said, it really is a film you won't understand on a basic "what's going on" level unless you know some Tarkovsky biographical background and something about life in the USSR during the period being depicted.
I had a similar response to "Andrei Rublev," but then I watched it many times over (this was part of a film class where we focused on Rublev for half the semester) and by the end I appreciated it. Then I saw it again 10 years later and it blew me away, and led to my current interest in Tarkovsky.
My first Tarkovsky was "The Sacrifice" (his last film) and I had a similar reaction as to "Mirror" - it blew me away aesthetically even though I didn't quite know what was going on. His late films are very parsimonious in giving background info that helps you orient yourself. For instance, compare "Stalker" with its source material, "Roadside Picnic" by the Strugatsky Bros., and you'll be amazed at how much the film leaves out.
I still have to see Stalker, actually. I saw Rublev, Nostalghia, and The Sacrifice all at my local cinema because they were doing a sort of Tarkovsky marathon, but that seems to be finished now, so I'll have to watch at home. I feel pretty lucky that I was able to watch those on the big screen, though.
I wonder if Kiarostami's showing of the nine children's faces was his way of exonerating Qassem for the con. By including the faces of the children, he is hinting that Qassem would have provided them with snapshots if he could have. The children's faces contradict the con, but also allow us to see what Qassem saw through the viewfinder, revealing a natural talent for portrait photography.
That's a really interesting interpretation of the scene. I like it because it captures one of the main themes of the film, the idea that Qassem has ability and talent, but lacks the resources and the encouragement to pursue his interests. A camera without film is a pretty good analogy for this, I'm realizing now. Have you seen the movie, Brooks, or is this just based off my explanation?
I wish I had seen the movie, but your description is so precise and evocative, that those thoughts immediately came to mind.
Thank you, Brooks, and your comment is helping me understand the film better, even though you haven't seen it!