Since no one has bothered to answer these questions, I feel obliged to throw in some thoughts.
Firstly, I must say that while several of Tarkovsky's other films have gone straight over my head, MIRROR was from the first viewing very clear to me, and whenever I watch it I feel I'm completely in tune with the protagonist's view of the world. It puzzles me that many people consider it T's most difficult work, because I think it's a film about very simple, althought important, things; it's not about abstruse philosophical ideas.
What is the significance of the shots from the Spanish Civil War, The Great Patriotic War (WW2) and the rise of Maoist China? Is Tarkovsky praising Soviet-style communism? Does he condemn war and its degrading effects on humanity? Or has he left these shots completely open to interpretation?
I think one reason why T's films stand out from other Soviet films, and films in general, is that in his art he was not interested in either promoting or condemning communism or any other ideology or system. I think he felt that things like day-to-day politics were too ephemeral and unimportant in the face of those questions that people will have to answer regardless of where and when they live. Therefore his films always shun politics and instead concentrate on the character's attempts to find meaning in their lives and to connect with their loved ones. Considering that T was a Christian, you could invoke here Jesus's words that humans are equal before God whether they be free or slaves -- so even in a slave state like the Soviet Union men are morally responsible for their actions and thoughts and have to face the same issues as anybody.
So I don't think T is praising communism, but neither is he that interested in comdemning it, although the printing works episode clearly portrays Stalin's reign as that of terror. MIRROR is primarily an immersion in one man's subjective reality, his memories, dreams and fantasies. Thus the only thing that connects the different episodes in the film is the fact that they all are, for some reason or another, subjectively so important for the narrator that when he is, perhaps on his deathbed, trying to make sense of his life, those images and sounds surge into his consciousness. I feel that by depicting the great collective experiences of the 20th century like the Second World War -- in addition to the narrator's intimate memories -- the movie becomes more inclusive and universal and manages to say something about T's/Alyosha's generation and 20th century in general.
As to the sequence with the Spaniards, I think it reflects beautifully T's humanism: he recalls to the viewers' minds a forgotten historical event, the "rescuing" of thousands of Spanish chidren from Franco's Spain to the Soviet Union, so that they wouldn't have to grow up in a fascist country. The movie asks us to reflect on the fate of those children, on their rootlessness and the quirks of history that engender such fates. The documentary footage shown here is amazing, I'll never forget that litte girl whose facial expression chances so strangely.
Another thing I can't quite understand is the military academy chapter. Who is the boy with the freckles? I know he can't be the son as his parents didn't die in the siege of Leningrad, much less live there. The only explanation I can come up with is that the boy represents childhood innocence.
The narrator is one of the boys who receive military training, the chapter is a memory of his. The freckled boy represents IMO not that much innocence as the loss of it. His parents have died in the Leningrad siege, he's completely alone in the world, and the instructor's patriotic enthusiasm rings completely hollow to him. This is one of those episodes that I think contribute to the movie's being not just about one man's life but a more universal story.
There are a number of other things that I can't put a finger on:
1: the significance of the encyclopoedia.
Do you mean the da Vinci book? I think it serves as a link between different generations as we see both Aleksei the father and Ignat the son leafing the book, which originally belonged to Aleksei's father. Certainly the conflict between parents and children and the tendency of the new generation to repeat the errors of the old one is one of the themes of the film, but at least these fathers and sons can appreciate the same artist.
2: what the spilled milk stands for.
Beats me. I don't think there's a need to explain every detail. Perhaps it's just something that the narrator remembers from his childhood.
3: why Alyosha's mother is so ill at ease in the wealthy woman's house (btw, is Alyosha the narrator?)
This used to puzzle me, too, and I think it's the only chapter in the film that is not completely successful. It was not until I read a draft of the film's script that I understood what this episode is all about. According to the script, Alyosha and his mother have traveled a very long trip by foot to reach the wealthy woman's house. They are very poor and have not eaten all day, and the objective of the trip is to sell jewelry to get money and food. Alyosha's mother is so nervous, because her future and that of her children depends on whether the wealthy woman agrees to buy the jewelry. I don't think it's possible to conclude all this from the film, without reading the script.
And, yes, Aleksei/Alyosha is the narrator.
Answers or no answers, I'll always like this film for its strikingly beautiful shots and the mood it sets.
Indeed. I don't think it's necessary to understand everything about this film. It's enough to sympathise with the narrator and let the images and sounds wash over you.
reply
share
18 years ago
[deleted]
enbilal
18 years ago
The movie represents memories. There is hardly any symbolic in spilled milk, for example. It's just that, spilled milk.
reply
share
PunkCapitalist
18 years ago
I think that the scenes of comunism, war, etc are more likelly to be about why human's path is away from that of nature, because man acts in a completelly absurd way if compared to any other given animal.
I some times watch this kind of think (example: comunists taking soo far some Ideals, eve to the point of murder)and cant get t o understand what logic it has. it seems ilogic to me.
anyway, i could be wrong, i just saw the movie for the first time a couple of hours ago.
by the way, i did understood that the woman wanted to sell jewelry, allthought i was kind of confused by the "femenin thing" the woman told his son.
please excuse any ortographic mistake (English is not my native langueage)
MY TOP 20: Http://www.ymdb.com/neodarkness/l32978_ukuk.html
reply
share
snook_ocreed
11 years ago
You're spot on with Tarkovsky's disinterest in waxing political in his films; although his intended film after Stalker, The First Day, had scenes critical of the USSR's official atheism, that project was stopped by the Goskino and Tarkovsky destroyed most of the footage he had shot in anger. A pity, too - Natalya Bondarchuk was to be one of the leads!
Anyway, that's why Tarkovsky means more to me than Eisenstein ever could.
reply
share