MovieChat Forums > Zerkalo (1975) Discussion > Andrei Tarkovsky - The "Uri Geller" of t...

Andrei Tarkovsky - The "Uri Geller" of the film world.

posted 8 years ago by Percepto
6 replies | jump to latest

This is the most perfect example of "The Emperor's New Clothes" that the cinematic world has ever given us.
I've been reading through posts here and basically you can interpret anything you like into any scene and, as long as you use words like; "emotional", "subtle", "thought-provoking", "staggering", juxtaposing", etc, you will be back-slapped for being a movie savant.

What does the spilt milk mean?
"It doesn't mean anything as Tarkovsky doesn't use symbols, he said so in an interview"
"Yes, but what film directors say and what they do, are usually totally different things"
"It symbolises loss of innocence"
"It means we can't do anything about mistakes so just get on with it"
"It has no symbolic meaning, it evokes an emotion"
"It doesn't have to mean anything, it's just there, in all it's glory"

I am happy to be a thickie, sit on the sidelines, and watch you experts proselytise about this genius film-maker, who is the Uri Geller of his time.

[–] nephihaha 8 years ago

He's a lot more talented than Geller. He's produced things of beauty - I don't think Geller has. His films are overlong - no question though.

[–] ironskeletor 8 years ago

It seems your problem stems from the lack of any clear meaning with regard to specific details. What does the spilled milk mean? Maybe it's just spilled milk, or maybe it's something far more significant. I'm much more interested in the work as a whole, which has a well understood and agreed-upon meaning. Zerkalo is about the collective experiences of the Russian people in the 20th century, as filtered through the dreams and memories of a dying man.

Comparing Tarkovsky to Uri Geller is absurd on the face of it. Geller is a charlatan. Tarkovsky's films might be mystifying, but he never claimed special knowledge. It's not as though he ever said "Here's my baffling and opaque masterwork. It explains the meaning of life, but only if you really, really believe in it.". Tarkovsky was interested in asking difficult questions, but that doesn't mean he presumed to have the answers.

[–] Percepto 8 years ago

Yes, you're right.
It is unfair of me to compare him to Geller who is a man as repellent and odious as he is famous.
I was just being flippant.
I'm sure Tarkovsky is an artist who is just "doing his thing".
I think my comments are more aimed at the fanboys who see much more than is ever really there.

[–] Aloft 8 years ago

As for myself, I have always taken Tarkovsky's plea to not overanalyse his films into symbollic language seriously. We might sit around and speculate endlessly over what the spilled milk "means", or what was to me an even more poignant image, the evaporation of condensed moisture left behind by a removed hand. To me these are, as much of his work is meant to be taken, poetry in form and time; space and thought. I let his films sort of wash around my ankles rather than get down in them and try to drink them, is what I mean to say. My impressions, my own personal memories that are evoked, my own nostalgia, my own fears, these are all things that I must allow myself to bring to the film, and if I allow the film to carry my inner self like this, then I'm in for a demanding and emotional experience, just as I would expect from anything meant to cut deep into what it means to be a mind.

If that sort of participation, the sort you would be expected to bring to written poetry or demanding prose, isn't your cup of tea then yeah, I suppose the whole thing wouldn't resonate. There isn't much to a Tarkovsky film all by itself, I would say, the film needs you to complete the sentence, and without that it's just a tree falling in a forest far away from ears.

[–] musicbymartin 8 years ago

I agree about Tarkovsky's cinema being full of poetry. Whilst he may not have used symbols, his films are bursting with metaphors, and this leaves much for us 'fanboys' to interpret, and much for us to love.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]