Customer Reviews

The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual Fugue

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Johnson's and Petrie's work is an absolute essential resource for any student of film and any fan of Tarkovsky's wonderful work. When I bought the book, I was hoping that it would help me better understand the Russian context of Tarkovsky films and to help make some of the "murkier" parts of the films a little more lucid. The work does all this and more. This book offers a great deal of background on Tarkovsky's life, the Soviet film industry in which he worked, the people he worked with, and the cinematic style that made Tarkovsky's works so memorable. This is an absolute treasure of a book. Ignore those people who complain about the poor analysis of the films; they're wrong or stupid or both. The book's main focus is to help make Tarkovsky's work easier to understand and to provide background on Tarkovsky himself.

I also think that this book is too full of academic theory and techniques, and this may be the reason it comes off as so cynical. It works best in providing factual background that would be difficult to find otherwise. But when the book shades into critique, the tone becomes dry and pre-occupied, if not positively dispiriting - particularly when the co-authors subject Tarkovsky to their brand of Freudian analysis. The result is a disjointed collection of facts and vexing speculations, which on balance does a disservice to the poetry of the films. I personally much prefer Maya Turovskaya's book, which doesn't have the encyclopedic range of facts one finds in "Fugue" (a friend of mine described "Fugue's" method as "trainspotting") but is a far more inspired and illuminating combination of intelligent insight and love of its subject.

The authors do a marvelous job of telling the stories of each film project and then anaylizing the results. In particular, it is worth noting that all of the film images included are taken directly from the films themselves, rather than from publicity or on-set photographs, as is usually the case. While you may not agree with every point the authors make, it's interesting reading throughout for Tarkovsky admirers.

The first chapter's title is "A Martyred Artist?" and the question mark hints that some cherished preconceptions are about to be overturned. Tarkovsky seems to have enjoyed thinking of himself as a martyr, and the image has been enthusiastically endorsed by those in the West who believe in Hollywood freedom and Moscow manipulation - four legs good, two legs bad. Johnson and Petrie provide a perspective without slipping into that Charybdis of revisionist critics, the Dreaded Debunker Mode. The director emerges (from extensive interviews with a commendably large number of his collaborators) as a deeply dedicated, troubled artist, charming, impossibly perfectionist, sometimes childishly arbitrary and spiteful, hell to get along with but definitely worth getting to know. After some useful background information on the various hoops to be jumped through in the Soviet film industry and on Tarkovsky's own methods, there are individual critical chapters on all the major works after Ivan's Childhood, and the information they offer is often invaluable for a proper appreciation of the films. Particularly useful is the chapter on the outstanding masterpiece Andrei Rublev, which fills in some of the historical detail behind Tarkovsky's elliptical storyline. At the end are detailed plot summaries, running times and notes on different versions (interestingly, films like Solaris, released intact in the USSR, were horrendously hacked about in the "free" West); and four chapters covering matters of style which are perhaps the least substantial parts of this very satisfying book. The authors are remarkably fair to the Soviet film industry, presenting its bureaucratic meddlers' committees as not so very different from a Western studio or executive producer, and certainly not as monolithically philistine as we've often been led to believe. Tarkovsky was allowed virtually to make Stalker twice over when the original version didn't satisfy him - something Stanley Kubrick might possibly have finagled for himself, but it's hard to imagine anyone else in the West being permitted to do anything of the sort. Quite apart from its very fine critical comment, this book is a much-needed corrective to those myths about the director which have distracted too much attention away from the films themselves - attention which, as the book also shows, they ruthlessly demand and richly deserve.

I agree with points made by some of the various reviewers below. First of all, this book is vital for the general viewer of Tarkovsky's films as a tool for coming to a greater understanding of the director's methods and motivation. They offer synopses of all of the films (with the exception of MIRROR, whose structure is so unusual as to make a synopsis impractical -- it's analysed almost scene-by-scene in the body of the book) as an appendix -- an essential aid, considering that all of them are subtitled in English, and, as the authors point out in several places, those subtitles are of varying accuracy from edition to edition. It's also very difficult for even the most adept subtitle artisan to convey things such as sarcasm and irony -- very often viewers who don't speak the language in which the film was shot are left in the dark where such subtleties are concerned. The knowledge the authors have accumulated of the Russian language and culture are put to good use here in helping the Western viewer of Tarkovsky's incredible films come to a more complete understanding of them -- an understanding that will always, given the unique nature of this director's work, be tempered by the viewer's own soul and spirit. These films speak to me on that deep level, as I know they do to many, many others -- this is part of what Tarkovsky had in mind, I believe, when he stated that he wanted the audience to work as hard as the director in 'creating' the finished product.

Individual films are brought into focus in chapters devoted to them -- Tarkovsky's work-path of creation is followed in detail, outlining conception, planning, struggles with the authorities, critical and public responses, and the director's reflections on the finished works.

Some of the other reviewers take exception to the critiques offered by the authors -- and indeed, it's easy to see where their own opinions enter into the writing process. I believe this is going to be a natural part of any book on film, and has to be taken by the reader with a healthy grain of salt. I didn't agree with everything they wrote -- perhaps some of their speculations as to Tarkovsky's psychological and emotional components are based on more information than they were willing to include in detail in this work. Where the authors and I diverge on our views and opinions in no way tainted my enjoyment and appreciation of their efforts.

I would recommend this volume very highly -- alongside Tarkovsky's own work, SCULPTING IN TIME -- both valuable keys to unlocking the treasure that is the work of this artist.

I love this book and it represents a huge undertaking on the parts of Johnson and Petrie. They've done a great service to the film community with this volume and I give it an enthusiastic recommendation - with minor reservations. Buy this book, but realize that the authors most likely had to apply a degree of 'academic prudence,' meaning that there are echoes and whispers of a sober cynicism. It seems the authors, as academicians, felt obligated to question the aesthetic integrity of the Tarkovskian world, and one certainly cannot blame them for attempting objectivity. But do not let that spoil it and do not feel inclined to agree with everything expressed within just because this is such a fine work. It's a great research tool and an enjoyable read, but it might disrupt your views of Tarkovsky to an extent (which could be bad for romantics). I don't find "A Visual Fugue" flawed for this reason, but rather because at times it merely serves as a forum of opinions and arguments while making no argument of its own. It still gets five stars, though, because it really stands tall in the ranks.

This is not my favorite book on Tarkovsky, but I find myself referring to it often because the authors have arranged a wealth of behind the scenes information about the great filmmaker's working process which is simply indispensable. Moreover, the release dates, plot synopsis, cast and crew lists are also very, very useful since most of Tarkovsky's films have multiple release dates (because of his troubles with Soviet authorities). It is strange I'll admit that this is not my favorite book on Tarkovsky because the scholarship is impeccable and the research on the actual films is thorough, but my main reason for not wholeheartedly recommending this book is because the authors have taken it upon themselves to constantly "hint" at Tarkovsky's alleged bisexuality. Their hinting around at this actually detracts from the beauty and the depth of their scholarship and their work, since they never actually prove that Tarkovsky was bisexual. It is really a red herring- perhaps an attempt to modernize Tarkovsky or throw a little dirt on the legend of an artist so committed to the spiritual health of mankind. I mean really who cares if Tarkovsky was bisexual, that in an of itself does nothing to the experience of his works, nor to help us understand the impetus of their creation. But begrudgingly, even though this is not my favorite book on Tarkovsky, if you are looking to find out more about this genius his working methods, his reoccurring motifs, the reception of his work in the US and abroad you absolutely have to have this book on your shelf. BUT KNOW THIS: the most important book on Tarkovsky is the book Andrei Tarkovsky wrote himself, SCULPTING IN TIME. There simply is no other testament that can compete with what he wrote about his work and the cinema as an artform. A Visual Fugue simply fills in some of the gaps of Sculpting In Time since Tarkovsky did not write about each and every one of his films in his own book. Screenwriting into Film

This book contains an excellent, clear and well written overview of Andrei Tarkovsky's films and style as a director. It is very detailed and full of information, all you need to get a guide to these "difficult" films. I also like that even while the authors admire Tarkovsky as a great director, they don't hesitate to point out less flattering sides and flaws in his films.

The first part gives some interesting details about the Soviet film industry in the 1960s and 70s, when Tarkovsky produced his first five major films: Ivan's Childhood, Andrei Rublev, Solaris, Mirror and Stalker. It also nuances the storys about how the Soviet system worked against Tarkovsky. Of course, the film bureaucracy was hard to deal with and made several crazy demands that could have ruined T:s films. But then again: he actually managed to make five films and get them through the socialist-realist censorship. For example: all 30 demands for cuts and so on on Solaris were somehow avoided. Maybe this says something about Tarkovskys status as a director, his first film (Ivan's Childhood) was an immediate international success. Also, there were other directors shose careers were halted by the system when they were only allowed to make one film.

The first part also contains biographical information and discussions on Tarkovsky's working method and aesthetics. Tarkovsky wanted films to be a "poetic" art form, and an art that captured "time", like a sculpture of time. Here we can think about the long takes in his films, they got longer over the years and in The Sacrifice, his last film, the opening take is over 9 minutes.

The second part is an overview of his seven films, one chapter for each. I find the analyses very clear and interesting. One thing I find fascinating is the ambiguity about what is real and what is dream or fantasy. Does the zone in Stalker really exist? Is Hari in Solaris human? What in Nostalghia is dream and what is reality? And does the protagonist in The Sacrifice delude himself, or is he more clear than the others? And so on. This is one aspect that makes the films so interesting and open to different interpretations. Also, the authors discuss the use of different themes lika fire, rain, milk, horses and so on. They suggest they have no fixed symbolic meaning, but should be seen as poetic themes that recur through the films: the levitation scene in Solaris has counterparts in Mirror and Sacrifice, the hotel room in Nostalghia looks similar to the room where Stalker lives, the "holy fool" appears as both Stalker and Domenico and Alexander, the close ups of medieval paintings, the vegetation under water, the rain and so on... This is why the book is called "A Visual Fugue".

The third part deepens the analysis of the themes of Tarkovskys films.

All in all I can really recommend this book to anyone who, like me, want an enlightening and clear introduction.

Also, the authors (Vida Johnson and Graham Petrie) comments on the Criterion DVD of Solaris (my favourite Tarkovsky film). This commentary is recommended listening to (and the DVD is splendid).

This book purports to be the definitive work on Tarkovsky's films, yet at closer inspection this is perhaps one of the worst books on him. Why? The authors are conceited, smug academics who never miss an opportunity to take a swipe at Tarkovsky personally, who is obviously in no position to answer back. Furthermore, their interpretations of his films are somewhat narrow and overly literary (one of the hazards I suppose of spending your life on campus and not in the real world). Finally, the authors also never miss a chance to criticize other writers on Tarkovsky over what they perceive to be mistakes which are, more often than not, merely cases of Johnson and Petrie being overly critical when their own work is far from perfect, or simply wrong. Having got all that off my chest, this book does some good stuff in it, but it has to be weeded out. It's just a pity about the authors and their attitude. Caveat emptor.

I bought this because I love Sculpting in Time but there are far better books. The authors analysis is out dated and is difficult to follow. They also describe a lot of material that doesn't help understand the films. I gave up reading it and I'm a film student so I don't recommend. There are definitely beter books.