(http://www.cinephiliabeyond.

org/)

SACRIFICES OF
ANDREI
TARKOVSKY: A
PRECIOUS INSIGHT
INTO THE LIFE OF
THE MAN TO WHOM
WE OWE SO DAMN
MUCH

ad he lived, Andrei Tarkovsky would have celebrated

his 84th birthday two days ago. One of the greatest
poets of the silver screen and our eternal hero well
continue to worship until he draw our last filmloving
breaths, Tarkovsky died young, in exile, but was turned into
a myth through the love of his art, the mystery of his
character and the intrigue and tragedy of his life. The
filmmaker to whom film scholars often attribute the
invention of a new cinematic language made only seven
feature films through the course of his career, but practically
all of them became classics you simply cant avoid in your
personal quest of exploring the incredible depths and scope

of the world of film. The legacy, influence and sheer power

of his films continue to mesmerize today, more than a half
of century after his feature film debut, Ivans Childhood, was
made. For those of you who want to learn more about the
Russian master, whod like to explore both his work and life
in more detail, the 2012 documentary called Sacrifices of
Andrei Tarkovsky is a legitimate, even highly recommended
option. This 54-minute-long film was made in 2012
specifically for the 80th anniversary of Tarkovskys birth.
The author is Denis Trofimov, and his work is distinguished
by his use of rather unique materials providing a precious
insight into the years Tarkovsky spent in Florence, Italy. The
documentary is further elevated by the personal accounts of
friends and professionals who had the privilege of working
with him, like actor Oleg Yankovsky and screenwriter
Tonino Guerra. Moreover, Sacrifices of Andrei Tarkovsky
allows the viewers access to the shooting locations of
masterpieces such as Stalker, Nostalghia and The Sacrifice,
at the same time examining his relationship with his crew,
the meaning of Solaris and to what degree Mirror reflects
Tarkovskys personal life. There are plenty of treats here that
we simply dont want to spoil in the introduction: the house
in which Nostalgia was made, parts of the cult Time of
Travel documentary, even images of young Tarkovsky on
set The documentary is a must-watch, as it seemingly
effortlessly brings us closer to the man to whom
contemporary filmmaking owes so damn much. As always,
thanks to Charles
M(https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnWhoZnGUmDsE6WHZJOJoCw/videos),
a fantastic YouTube account dedicated to Andrei Tarkovsky
related materials.

Sacrices of Andrei Tarkovsky (2012) /

(#) 00:00 / 00:00

The following interview with Andrei Tarkovsky was

conducted by Aleksandr Lipkov on February 1, 1967. It
originally appeared in Literaturnoe obozrenie 1988: 7480. It
is published at
nostalghia.com(https://people.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghia.com/)
for the first time in English. Translation copyright by Robert
Bird (University of Chicago, Slavic Languages and
Literatures).

THE PASSION ACCORDING TO ANDREI:

AN UNPUBLISHED INTERVIEW WITH
ANDREI TARKOVSKY
When I am asked: How did you approach the historical

theme in your film; what were your ideas of a historical

film; what conception of history did you profess? I become
uncomfortable. I dont want to divide cinema up into genres
for it has so merged with viewer experience that, like this
experience, it cannot be fragmented. The meaning of cinema
and its colossal popularity is based on the fact that the
viewer approaches it in search of his own un-accumulated
experience, so to speak. I am not speaking of inexperience in
life, but of the fact that our age offers one such a large
amount of information and people are so busy that they do
not have time sometimes even to find out what is
surrounding them on a day-to-day basis. Cinemas task is to
substitute for this lacking experience. It stands before the
very serious and profound task of speaking truthfully and
sincerely, never deceiving the viewer. And if this viewer goes
to see even wholly commercial films, this doesnt mean that
he likes them. Perhaps he doesnt even know himself what
draws him to the cinema. I think that he is drawn by the
need for knowledge, the desire to hear questions that arise
for his contemporaries, and the aspiration to participate in
the solving of problems which he has no time for in life.
As far as our film is concerned, as contemporary artist we
naturally made the film about issues that relate to us as
well.
I dont know a single artist, regardless of whether he paints
canvasses or makes films, writes poetry or casts sculpture,
who would aspire only to restore the past and remain within
the limits of historiography. Take Shakespeare, Pushkin, or
Tolstoy. All of them were concerned with wholly
contemporary issues when they wrote about Julius Caesar,
Boris Godunov, or the war of 1812. The same goes for us. Of
course we collected material, read sources and historical and
historiographical works, based ourselves on chronicles, on
the studies of art historians dedicated to Rublev and his
contemporaries, and on everything that we could read about
the epoch. And yet we were concerned with other issues.

(http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/33837_original.jpg?e51333)

The first is the role of the artist in society. We wanted the

viewer to leave the film with the idea that the artist is
societys conscience as its most sensitive organ who is most
perceptive to what occurs around it. A great artist is able to
make masterpieces because he is capable of seeing others
clearer and to perceive the world with joy or exaggerated
pain. For us Rublev was such an artist.
One might think that the scope of his art and its influence
on those around him were quite limited. One might think
that, living in the time he was fated to live in, he could see
nothing but tragedy. This was a tough and blood-drenched
epoch for Rus, which had not yet coalesced as a nation and
was gripped by internecine conflict and suffered annual
raids by the Tatars. One might think that Rublev had
nothing to lean on in his environment in order to create any
radiant images. And yet he did not carry the terrifying
images of his time over onto his boards. As if in protest, in
opposition to what surrounded him and to the reigning
political atmosphere in Rus, in literally all of his works this
artist bore forth the idea of brotherhood, cooperation, and
mutual love. He incarnates the ethical ideal of his time.
I know no great work of art in all of world culture that

would not be linked to an ethical ideal, that is based on

some other motives such as on the dark aspects of life. There
some talented works of such a nature, but no masterpieces.

(http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/21848_original.jpg?e51333)

What about Picassos Guernica?

I will address that. An artists oeuvre is always composed of
various works, especially for such a tireless seeker as
Picasso, who has painted hundreds or even thousands of
sheets and pages. He never stops at what he has achieved,
although he has always spoken of the same things. Compare
him to Tolstoy, lets say, with his most profound work War
and Peace: here you will see on one hand a furious protest
against everything dark in life, and on the other hand an
affirmation of joy, love for man, faith in him and in the
power of his soul, in the ability of his reason to work out the
most complex problems, and a readiness to stand firm in the
face of severe examination. This is only natural. Life is
varied, it is composed of contrasting planes, and by focusing
on only one of them an artist will illuminate it one-sidedly,
failing to give his word, the screen or the painted canvas a
complete image of the world and to comprehend the true
profundity of phenomena.

Take for example Raphaels Sistine Madonna. She is

beautiful and humane precisely because of the tragic plot
that lies at her base. A plot that is commonly known and is
taken from the Gospels: Mary must sacrifice her son to
people. But the artist humanized the Mother of God;
although from the religious point of view she was not even a
person, in a certain sense, he depicts her precisely as a
person. The power of the works effect is due to the fact that
Mary is afraid and suffers in the face of events which await
her son. She knows that everything is foreordained, that the
infant was born for torments, and that she is obliged to give
him up, but on her face one reads not only fear but also a
question for people and hope that what is foreordained will
not occur. This precise balance between preordination and
hope is what creates that deeply human image, which is
turned towards us and raises the work to the height of a
masterpiece.
One may cite a multitude of other examples. All of Chaplin
is based on the tragic content of plots in which a small and
cowed man, abused by the capitalist city, tries in some way
to preserve himself and to oppose to the oppressive
circumstances: his individuality, some kind of craftiness, or
complexity of character. In a word, the essence of Chaplins
character, borne by the artist through numerous pictures, is
the combination of a profoundly tragic content and comic
form, which is disarmingly humane, full of love for people,
goodness, and sympathy.

(http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/tczNokN.jpg?e51333)

I think that by concealing the shadowy aspects of life it is

impossible to reveal deeply and fully what is beautiful in
life. All the processes occurring in the world are born from
the battle between old and new, between what has died and
what is accumulating strength for life. And the cinema, like
any other art, is mostly interested in this process: life in its
movement. All great works are based on this. Rublev is a
genius because his work is oriented towards the future: in
difficult times, when the nation could only dream of a life
without war, without violence, and of the most elementary
happiness and calm, when it was not allowed even to open
its mouth to cry out in protest, precisely at this time Rublev
created his Trinity, all of which cries out, thirsts goodness,
calm, and harmony in peoples interrelations.
We wanted to show that Andrei Rublevs art was a protest
against the order that reigned at that time, against the
blood, the betrayal, the oppression. Living at a terrifying
time, he eventually arrives at the necessity of creating and
carries through all of his life the idea of brotherhood, love
for peace, a radiant worldview, and the idea of Russ
unification in the face of the Tatar yoke. We found it
extremely important, both from the historical and the
contemporary viewpoints, to express these thoughts.

Unfortunately we succeeded in relating only a portion of

what has been written about the epoch in historical sources.
It was so blood-drenched that literally every page of the
chronicles and of historical studies tells us about betrayal,
desertion, treason, blood, arson, Tatar raids, destruction,
death and so on and so forth. In our picture we were able to
show not even half of that for our story was also about a lot
of other things and it is necessary to preserve a certain
proportion in order to avoid distorting the truth. Our
historical consultants who read the screenplay did not find
any departures from the historiography.

(http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/PAR279283.jpg?e51333)

The recreated epoch interested us not only in our search for

an answer to the question concerning the meaning of true
art. Our Andrei Rublev passes through the narrative not as
the main protagonist. For us he provided the occasion and
ground for speaking about what is most important: the
spiritual and ethical power of the Russian nation which,
even in a state of absolute oppression, proved itself capable
of creating hugely spiritual values. Confirmation of this is
given both by Andrei Rublev and by the architects who are
blinded on the princes order, and the young craftsman
Boriska who casts a bell at the end of our picture. We set
ourselves the task of seeing and revealing the sources of the

Russian nations indestructible creative energy in that

distant epoch, of its strength, and therefore also of our
authorial faith in this strength. And at the same time we
wanted in a way to tell our viewers about themselves, so to
speak, to knock on their door and tell them: Each of you is
capable of a moral labor, to awaken in them the desire to
createin the broadest meaning of this word. It is not
necessary to paint icons or cast bells (after all our film is
historical, and is therefore to some degree a trope), but, for
example, to build homes or do some other necessary work.
We made our picture with the greatest love for the people
whose stories we were telling. It was they who bore on their
shoulders the future of our culture and of all our life.
As an example of a man from the people who incarnates the
principle of creativity we drew the bell-founder Boriska,
played by Nikolai Burliaev. His vivacity, his self-confidence,
his unshakeable desire to work, to create almost to the point
of emaciation, until exhaustion knocks him from his feet and
makes him fall asleep literally right there in the mud and
clay, all of this makes him a kind of harbinger of great
historical events. For us this was practically a young Peter
the Great (naturally on a very limited scale) who will
awaken Russia, shake it to its foundations, and change its
face.
Another important problem of the picture is the so-called
vow of silence which Andrei Rublev gives in response to the
terrifying events of surrounding life.

(http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/30053_original.jpg?e51333)

We, the authors of the film, make Andrei fall silent. But that
doesnt mean that we share his position. On the contrary,
the subsequent episodes were intended to persuade the
viewer that Rublevs vow of silence was ridiculous and
insignificant in the face of impending events, which Andrei
as an artist is no longer able to respond to in any way, in
which he is incapable of interfering in. For us this silence is
filled with the broadest, most abstract, and even symbolic
meaning. The very episode during which he is silent sees the
main events connected to the denouement.
The film has a character of the village idiot girl, the blessed
girl [blazhennaia], who suddenly departs with the Tatars.
She simply takes a liking to one of them and takes off with
him. Only a madman at that time could see something
radiant and joyful in these conquerors. And the fact that she
is retarded was intended to underscore the ridiculous nature
of the situation: no normal man could have acted in this
fashion. And Andrei should have interfered and prevented
his ward from being harmed (after all in Rus the blessed
were revered as saints: harming a blessed one or holy fool
[iurodivyi] was at that time horribly sinful), but he doesnt
interfere; he gave his vow and cannot say a word. Andrei

not only fails to step in for his neighbor, but is even

incapable of standing up for himself. The jester
[skomorokh], played by Rolan Bykov, thinks that Andrei
was the one who denounced him to the guards because he
noticed Andrei among the spectators for whom he danced
and sang those rather frivolous but socially risqu songs
about a boyar. And much later, after returning from exile,
beaten and having suffered many torments, the buffoon
accuses Rublev of betrayal amongst a crowd of people, and
he cant defend himself and explain his innocence; he is
mute. People come to him and call him to paint the walls of
the Trinity Cathedral, but again he is silent. He is shut up in
himself, has buried his talent in the ground, and behaves
like a madman. Everything is upside-down. Rublev not only
acts in a manner unbecoming to a normal man, but also in a
manner unbecoming to an honest man who loves his nation,
to a citizen. And it is only Boriska who, with the force of his
conviction, with his faith, the obsession with which he puts
all of himself into the casting of the bell, wakes Andrei from
his silence. The strength, the visible strength of human
creativity, resilience, and faith in ones calling makes Rublev
break his sinful vow.
In this manner we wanted to express the human ideas that
our own day needs. We tried never to depart from facts in
our depiction of Russia as she was in that epoch, but at the
same time to illuminate what we depicted with a new
ideological attitude. Naturally we understand that the reality
was somewhat different, that we do not command sufficient
knowledge to reconstruct everything as it actually was in
history, and that if we suddenly got such an opportunity
then the ideas which emerge from our story would not be
the same. But as contemporary artists we consider ourselves
empowered to express our own view of Rublev and his time
and to tell of our own issues. We wanted the protagonists
character and the atmosphere of his epoch to express our
demands from contemporary artists, our faith in the Russian
nation, and our belief in its creative power. It seemed
extremely important to speak of this today.

(http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/35410_original.jpg?e51333)

In your view, how is it possible to reconcile the historical

truth with the tendentiousness of contemporary artists?
There is no need to reconcile them. It will work out in any
case, even if you only set yourself the task of reconstructing
reality on the basis of historical materials. Artists are
tendentious and are obliged to be so. Whether they want to
be so or not, they are tendentious. If they speak up on
something they are already expressing some kind of opinion,
some kind of attitude.
In the film we are speaking about Andreis character, about
the meaning of his art, and about his perception of his
surroundings. And no historiographer can tell us that things
were different. After all nothing is known about this.
Violence against the material is not only admissible, but
even necessary. Any events which the artist describes will
always be deformed according to the ideas he professes.
To what extent did you concern yourself with the precise
reconstruction of everyday objects and cultural monuments?
We shot our film in Vladimir, Suzdal, on the Nerl river, in

Pskov, Izborsk, Pechery, and among architectural

monuments from that era of the fourteenth-fifteenth
centuries. But at the same time we always tried to avoid a
museum-like attitude towards history. That is to say we did
not seek to present these architectural monuments in any
special way, we treated them in the manner in which, if we
were shooting a film about modern life, we would treat
regular buildings like those on the street. It was the same
way with everyday objects; we wanted to avoid treating
them as props or something exotic; we wanted the objects of
material culture to be perceived from the screen just as the
things that surround us in daily life are perceived. In this
respect everything in the film is absolutely precise. The main
thing for us was always the events themselves, the people
that acted in them, and the characters of these people.

(http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/twitter/offer?
(http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org/wp
(http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/facebook/offer?
url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cinephiliabeyond.org%2Fsacrifices

content/uploads/2016/04/30605_original.jpg?e51333)

(http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/reddit/offer?
url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cinephiliabeyond.org%2Fsacrifices

andrei
One could probably say the same about the language of the

(http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/pinterest/offer?
url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cinephiliabeyond.org%2Fsacrifices
andrei
tarkovsky film?

(http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org/contact/)
url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cinephiliabeyond.org%2Fsacrifices
Yes, about the language, about the montage, and about our
andrei
tarkovsky
precious
working method with actors: everything was in this way. We
(http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org/)
andrei
tarkovsky
wanted to make a picture that would be comprehensible to
precious
insight
the modern viewer without departing from the truth,
tarkovsky
precious
insight
life
without resorting to some special plastic expressivity that
precious
insight
life
man

insight
life
man
underscores the themes historicism and raises the story onto
insight
life
the buskins of eternity, which removes the protagonists
man
owe
from the real earth. In this respect Eisensteins historical
life
man
owe
films, for example, demonstrate the opposite tendency. In
damn
his films if he shows a chair, for example, then it looks like a
man
owe
damn
much%2F&title=%26%238216%3BSacrifices+of+Andrei+Tarkovsky%26%238217%3B%3A+A+Prec
palace. He plays on it as if it was the most unique relic from
owe
the Kremlin Armoury. We thought that such an attitude
damn
much%2F&title=%26%238216%3BSacrifices+of+Andrei+Tarkovsky%26%238217%3B%3A+A+Prec
56525b789710ba85)
distracts viewers and obscures his perception of what is
damn
much%2F&title=%26%238216%3BSacrifices+of+Andrei+Tarkovsky%26%238217%3B%3A+A+Prec
most important, while we tried to concentrate all attention
56525b789710ba85)

on the problems, on the psychology of actions, and on

much%2F&title=%26%238216%3BSacrifices+of+Andrei+Tarkovsky%26%238217%3B%3A+A+Prec
56525b789710ba85)
human characters. We wanted the screen to provide, so to
56525b789710ba85)
speak, a chronicle of the fifteenth century, to make the
distance in time as unnoticeable and as shortened as
possible. We tried not to shock and not to surprise, but to
make the viewer feel all of it as flesh of the flesh, blood of
the blood of Russia.

But the cruelty in the film is shown precisely to shock and

stun the viewers. And this may even repel them.
No, I dont agree. This does not hinder viewer perception.
Moreover we did all this quite sensitively. I can name films
that show much more cruel things, compared to which ours
looks quite modest. True, we showed this aspect of life in
concentrated fashion, but at the same time with reserve.
Moreover, as I have said, the time was so cruel that in this
manner, increasing the tension in individual parts, we were
able to preserve the necessary balance between the dark and
light aspects of the time, a balance that was required by our
fidelity to historical truth.
God, look at the chronicles. At that very same time in the
fifteenth century Dmitrii, the prince of Smolensk, started
eying the wife of one of his neighboring princes. Note that
there were no social reasons for hostility, he simply coveted
his neighbors wife. So what did he do? He attacked his
neighbor, killed him, burnt his lands, sacked the city, killed
a mass of people, and captured the princes wife. However,
despite her reputation as a somewhat frivolous woman, she
refused to go to him. Then he ordered her quartered on the
square and thrown into the river Tver. And our chronicles
are filled with such events. One cant simply be silent about

it. Otherwise we would violate the truth of history.

(http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/456.jpg?e51333)

I know why you mention this. Its all because of those

rumors We didnt burn the cow: she was covered in
asbestos. And we took the horse from the slaughterhouse. If
we didnt kill her that day, she would have been killed the
next day in the same way. We did not think up any special
torments, so to speak, for the horse.
When The Battleship Potemkin was released Eisenstein was
accused of all manner of things. They couldnt forgive him
the maggots in the meat, the womans runny eye, or the
invalid who jumps around on his stumps, nor the famous
pram that rolls down the staircase. Its easy to say now: Oh,
Potemkin! But what didnt the director have to put up with
at the time? Talk to people who witnessed all of this. They
can tell you more. Its always the same, this isnt the first
time. We are judged not by what we did or wanted to do,
but we are judged by people who dont want to understand
the work as a whole or even to look at it. Instead they
isolate individual fragments and details, clutching to them
and trying to prove that there is some special, main point in
them. This is delirium, its metaphysics that has nothing to
do with an analysis of the work. And this occurs not only

with respect to my picture. You see the same thing left and
right. I want you to keep that in the interview.
Compare it to a mosaic. You can stick your nose into some
fragment, beat it with your fist, and yell: Why is it black
here? It shouldnt be black here! I dont like looking at
black! But you have to look at a mosaic from afar and on
the whole, and if you change one color the whole thing falls
apart.

(http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/0cRQhGk.jpg?e51333)

Too often we judge things by the details. We criticize a

work, taking some detail out of it, not wanting to
understand the function it performs in the whole. If we
didnt say anything about the cruelty of the epoch I am sure
that the novella about the bell would never have attained
such power, and the music and Rublevs painting that is shot
in color would not sound the same. Only here, together with
the last shot, perhaps, does the general idea of the film
develop. Unless we take pains about the separate details
without contemplating the functional significance they have
for the whole, we are not artists. And critics who judge us in
this way are not critics. As far as the general idea of the film

is concerned, I do not doubt it for an instant and am totally

convinced that I am right, as is everyone else in fact. But we
are pecked at for trifles
How do you view other directors who have worked in the
genre of historical films? Eisenstein in particular.
It is difficult for me to speak about him because I am afraid
of being misunderstood. Beyond a doubt, I consider
Eisenstein a great director and regard him highly. I really
love Strike, The Battleship Potemkin, and The Old and the
New, but I cannot accept his historical pictures. I think they
are unusually theatrical. Incidentally, Dovzhenko spoke
exhaustively about this; perhaps they had some kind of
problem with each other. Major artists often have sharp
conflicts amongst themselves, but in any case his words A
daytime opera seem correct. Because everything is flimsy.
Cinema should capture life in the forms in which it exists
and use images of life itself. It is the most realistic art form
in terms of form. The form in which the cinematic shot
exists should be a reflection of the forms of real life. The
director has only to choose the moments he will capture and
to construct a whole out of them.
In other words, cinema cannot adopt the degree of
convention that Eisenstein used in Ivan the Terrible?
It should not, in my view. Moreover I have information that
in the last days of his life Eisenstein himself arrived at
completely different positions on this matter, which he
mentions in one of his letters. The point is that the mis-enscene, which up to that point had been conventional in his
films and expressed some general idea, was supposed to
stop being like this. It was supposed to be a finished slice of
life, and not to be subordinated to some exterior dramaturgy
that always shows the viewer the ceiling against which he
keeps hitting his head, and in the best case the viewer sees
no further than the idea he is assigned. He feels as if hes in
a good theatre, but doesnt see life in what is shown to him
on the screen.

(http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/L7RlC7E.jpg?e51333)

Lets take Alexander Nevsky for example. There is the scene

of the battle on ice, which is edited perfectly like the entire
film. But Eisenstein ignored the truth of the instant and the
truth of the very life he was filming. The characters wave
their swords in a fake and forced manner, slowly and
ridiculously. You can see it is staged, and staged badly. And
all of it is edited in a particular rhythm to create the rhythm
of the battle which the director needs. This lack of
correspondence fragments the episode into disconnected
parts. Moreover there are these wooden ice-floes which
break up in a swimming pool according to an obviously
intentional pattern. Its impossible to watch. Cinema is an
absolute art that cannot bear falsity in its movement.
Therefore the film falls apart. The inner rhythm of its shots
does not agree with the principle of montage. No matter
how wonderful Prokofievs music is, no matter how
masterfully Eisenstein edited it, it doesnt save the picture.
In the artistic sense I consider it a failure.
Did you use anything from Eisensteins work on historical
film?

No, nothing. Moreover, we wanted to do everything

differently. If the action of Eisensteins films occurs in a kind
of sterile, museum-like, almost artificial environment, we
wanted the characters in our film to breathe the same air as
todays viewers, so that the events of the film were life itself,
so that all of it was not spectacle, but human experience. Of
course, Eisenstein uttered profound ideas in his pictures. But
we would like to work in a totally different manner than
Eisenstein with respect to plastics. Thats just natural. No
self-respecting artist would adopt an alien creative
conception. One should have ones own.
And how do you feel about historical costume thrillers such
as Cleopatra?
What can I say about that? Thats a commercial spectacle
intended to impress the imagination of simple people. And
even then Cleopatra, I understand, was a fiasco. Viewers are
no longer interested in such pictures.Historical pictures
must not be staged as costume dramas. Thats a mistake.
Take, for example, The Tale of Tsar Sultan, although thats a
somewhat different genre, a fairy-tale [1]. Everything there
is fake, bad theatre, tasteless. Its so monstrous that its not
even worth talking about this film. But one could make such
a grandiose film of it!

(http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org/wp-

content/uploads/2016/04/bnJqatN.jpg?e51333)

Which other directors in the area of historical film appears

most significant to you?
I love Kurosawa, although I dont like his Throne of Blood,
for example. I think he copied Shakespeares plot in a
superficial manner and transferred it to Japanese history,
without really succeeding. Shakespeares Macbeth is much
more profound, both in the character of its protagonist and
in the tragedy that penetrates the action. I love The Seven
Samurai and Sanjuro. Remarkable pictures. Remarkable
director. One of the best in the world, what can I say.
Your opinion of Throne of Blood surprises me.
It has some remarkable scenes. For instance the beginning,
where the protagonists are lost in the fog, is shot incredibly.
But the finale didnt impress me at all. The arrow that
penetrates his throat is badly done. You can see its glued on
from both sides. It ruins the impression. Cinema doesnt
permit any such faults. But I still love Kurosawa a lot: in the
historical genre he has achieved more than anyone.
What in your opinion is Kurosawas greatest achievement?
The main thing is his modern characters, modern problems,
and the modern method of studying life. Thats self-evident.
He never set himself the task of copying the life of samurai
of a certain historical period. One perceives his Middle Ages
without any exoticism. He is such a profound artist, he
shows such psychological connections, such a development
of characters and plot-lines, such a vision of the world, that
his narrative about the Middle Ages constantly makes you
think about todays world. You feel that you somehow
already know all of this. Its the principle of recognition.
Thats the greatest quality of art according to Aristotle.
When you recognize something personal in the work,
something sacred, you experience joy. Kurosawa is also
interesting for his social analysis of history. If you compare
The Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven, which share
the same plot, it is especially visible. Kurosawas historicism
is based on characters. Moreover these are not conventional
characters, but ones which issue from the circumstances of

the protagonists life. Each samurai has his own individual

fate, although each possesses nothing except the ability to
use a sword; and, not wanting to do anything else because
of his pride, each finds himself serving peasants to defend
them from the enemy. There is a text of pure genius at the
end of the film, remember, over the grave, when they plant
rice: samurai come and go, but the nation remains. Thats
the idea. They are like the wind, blown this way and that.
Only the peasants remain on the earth.

(http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/a3.jpg?e51333)

But The Magnificent Seven is a typical western with

everything that issues therefrom. The director remained
totally within the framework of the genre. Why is Kurosawa
so good? Because he doesnt belong to any genre. The
historical genre? No, this is more likely resurrected history,
convincingly true, not bearing any relation to the canons of
the historical genre. On the contrary, in The Magnificent
Seven everything is based on the canons which it is
impossible to break. Everything is known ahead of time. The
viewer knows ahead of time what is supposed to happen,
but he watches because it is all performed so brilliantly
according to the generic and stylistic canons of the western.
This isnt art. This is a commercial enterprise. No matter
what good ideas are placed therein, its all fake, false,
ridiculous. It seems sort of the same thing: the same
peasants, just as kind, the want to bury the Indian, etc. But
what a sense of discomfort! Its all a stretch, accidental, its a
laugh.
What do you think about the relationship between the
individual personality and history in a historical film?
That was a very important question for us. We want the
main protagonist of our film to be the events and the
people, the nation in its mass. We didnt even want to
separate out Rublev as an individual on whom the course of
events depends. Usually in historical pictures there is always
some active character: a tsar, a general, etc., whose will
determines the course of events, who introduces some
reforms, in other words, who makes history. I think this is
the coattails of a tradition that was formed under Stalin. I
cant explain it any other way. Of course the role of the
individual in history cannot be denied. The influence it
exerts on the destiny of the epoch is very significant. But to
explain everything by the actions of tsars and supermen is,
in my view, an anti-historical approach. In any case, Im glad
that we were able to make do without any such moralizer,
without a character with a raised index finger, without the
creator of fates who makes history according to his whim.
Even great people are led by events, by history.
In this light what do you think of a film like Peter the Great?

I dont remember it very well. It was some kind of

gigantomania, there some something inhuman in the
character. On the contrary, the figure of Chapaev was
resolved in a manner of genius. Just think, a man who
doesnt even know what the International is, who conflicts
with his commissar, who declares that a commander
shouldnt ride ahead on a warrior horse but should remain
behind his detachment and should die fighting only in his
underwear! Everything seems backwards compared to the
ideal cinema protagonist. And only because of this do we see
him as a normal, everyday man; he becomes immortal in
our eyes. Chapaev, as played by Babochkin, was a totally
unique phenomenon. Of course, all praise is due to the
Vasiliev brothers who edited down the material of an
enormous two-part film into a normal-length film, but the
result is like a diamond where every facet contrasts with
another, giving birth to a character.

(http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/yOC3ZbW.jpg?e51333)

Its so grandiose! Thats what a real historical picture is!

And, by the way, remember how many obstacles Chapaev
had to overcome, how much discussion there was: how is
that possible? why show that?. [It was necessary to show
this] precisely because its hero is a man and therefore
immortal.For some reason it is thought that historical

personages should be placed onto buskins. I dont know

why. We, in any case, tried to make our characters
understandable to our viewers, to make them as close as
possible to the current day, not in the content of events, not
in their actions, but in their psychology, in their
interrelations. They even speak the contemporary language.
That thundering sound during the finale with shots of icons:
is that a jet plane? Is that also a way of making the story
more modern?
No, youre wrong. Its just thunder, normal thunder. You
may have felt that, but we did not try for that. In general I
cant bear any interpretations, any fingers hidden the
pocket; thats the worst thing possible. Thats not art. I
reject that out of hand, I swear! But if it seems similar, then
what can you do? It really is similar. But theres no finger
here. In this respect we cleansed the screenplay with all
possible diligence, and if we found anything that could be
interpreted as a hint at some contemporary situations we
purged it mercilessly. The only thing that was important to
us was to express our idea, our view of the nation, of the
era, of people, of art. We didnt want any deviation from the
historiography. Even without that the limits were sufficiently
broad to express everything we needed to.
Are you planning to continue your work in the realm of
historical film?
Right now I dont have any such desire. Not now, but after a
couple of pictures, I would like to shoot the Life of
Archpriest Avvakum. Hes a colossal figure. Fascinating.
Moreover you dont have to write any screenplay. Its
enough to take the Life and make the picture according to it.
Hes a remarkable character, deeply Russian, the character
of an indestructible man. A story where man triumphs. A
tragedy equal in strength to Aeschylus. The death of the
protagonist engenders within us the feeling, we understand
how great this figure was, how grandiose the power of the
human spirit can be. This concerns me. I would like to do
this.

(http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/25250_original.jpg?e51333)

What are the two films you would like to do first?

One plan I am keeping in secret, but the other is Solaris
based on Stanislaw Lem.
A science-fiction film; thats also a kind of historical film,
only oriented towards the future, not the past.
Yes, and we know as little about the future as we do about
the past.
But we try to guess ahead of time.
Just the same as when we try to reconstruct in historical
films the way things were, and we have just as little chance
of success as with predicting the future. But thats not
important, thats of secondary importance, the main thing is
the ideas which we express. If a fifteenth-century man
watched Rublev he would probably be terribly confused and
wouldnt recognize anything. It could not be otherwise.
After all we are speaking of art. Thats what distinguishes it
from science.

(http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/aaaaa.jpg?e51333)

And what if people will watch Rublev in the year 2200. How
will the viewer approach the film then?
Well. We tried in 1966 to make a picture as close as possible
to history, as accurate as possible in terms of costumes and
other such accessories of the age, with the sole exception of
the dialogue. What year did you say? 2200? I hope that
intelligent and educated people will live then, they will
understand that this is a work of art, and will not make the
kind of demands that we are subjected to today.
Historical films often rest on some literary source. In this
case the director faces the task of double interpretation: of
the literary work, and of the historical event.
I think our task in making our film on Rublev was simplified
precisely due to the lack of any firm information about our
protagonist. His character, his personality are so mysterious,
obscure, and encoded, that we were able to construct our
story freely, to imagine Rublevs biography without fear of
complicating our relationships with historians and art

historians. They cant prove to us their objections to our

depiction of Andrei. And, by contrast, if the facts of his life
were known in detail, no one would forgive us the violation
of historical truth.
To what degree, in your view, does the artist have a right to
make things up?
The artist has a right to any fiction; thats why hes an artist.
He does not misrepresent his depiction as the truth of life.
He battles only for the truth of the problem and the truth of
the conclusions which he presents. And the fact that art is
based on fiction is proven loudly by its entire history, from
its very sources

(http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/X7s5395-1050x1077.jpg?e51333)

Its easy to make things up with regard to Rublevs epoch.

But what about the events, for example, of the Second

World War?
Its still the same. Perhaps the artist even has it slightly
easier here. In order to make things up, you have to know
what you are rejecting. You absolutely must know this. You
cant say: Well, Im going to shoot a film about the
Archpriest Avvakum, although I know nothing about him or
his time. Nothing will come of this. The more we know, the
more are our opportunities. But the artist has the right to
reject something and change something. He has the right to
his own interpretation of events in the name of the task he
has set himself.
What do you think about Pasolinis Gospel according to
Matthew? Thats also a kind of historical film.
Of course. I like the picture. I like it precisely because its
director did not succumb to the temptation of interpreting
the Bible. The Bible has been interpreted for two thousand
years and no one can reach unanimous agreement. So
Pasolini did not set himself this task, he just left the thing in
the form in which it was born. Many feel that the image of a
militant cruel Christ was made up by the author of the film.
Not true! Read the Gospels and you will see that this was a
cruel, cantankerous, irreconcilable man. Moreover with
what genius was it written! On the one hand hes God and
the Church has been relying on him for two thousand years,
but he succumbs to doubt in the garden of Gethsemane.
What could be simpler than to call for help from his father
and avoid dying on the cross, but he doesnt do this. He is all
back-to-front
Would it be possible to film Hamlet in the same way,
avoiding the temptation of interpreting the source?
This is a more serious matter. I have long dreamed of doing
a production of Hamlet and I hope to stage it someday in
the theatre and maybe in the cinema. The thing is that
Hamlet does not need interpretation. It is necessary, I think,
simply to read what Shakespeare said. And insofar as he
spoke of absolutely eternal problems which are always of
principal importance, Hamlet can be staged according to
Shakespeares design, in any age. Such miracles sometimes
occur with works. The artist sometimes achieves such a

profound insight into events, characters and human

conflicts, that even centuries later what he wrote has
enormous significance. Only no one knows how to read
Hamlet properly.

(http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/rSKZzv6.jpg?e51333)

What about Kozintsevs?

I dont like it.
Olivier?
No again. They both try to modernize Hamlet in some way.
Peter Brook? I mean the theatrical staging.
No, I dont like his either.
You mean there has never been a Hamlet that
Yes, in my view, there never has been the Hamlet that
Shakespeare wrote. Perhaps there was in the Elizabethan
age, when he personally participated in the Globe theatre.
MaybeHamlet shouldnt be interpreted; it shouldnt be
stretched onto some contemporary problems like a shirt
which rips at the seams, and even if it doesnt rip it hangs as
if on a clothes hanger, absolutely formlessly. There are
enough ideas there which remain immortal to this day. One
only has to learn to read them All of this is really

complicated when you deal with such canonical figures

You see, there are two kinds of screen adaptation. The first
is when you use classical works, masterpieces, which are so
saturated with meaning for millions of years ahead, for ever,
unto the ages and ages, so that its necessary only to
communicate them. By the means which exist. Cinema
exists, so you can do it by means of cinema as well. And if
no one has succeeded in filming Shakespeare as he wrote, it
is still necessary to do it.

(http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/NpPUu8s.jpg?e51333)

But then there are pieces which merely give the director or
screenwriter an impulse, material which they can use to
speak with their own voice and express their own ideas.
Incidentally Shakespeare himself, for example, wrote about
Julius Caesar something different than what corresponds to
history, to the works of Plutarch and Suetonius. He wrote as
he saw fit. He said whatever he thought about this issue.
And this path is not so bad, by the way. If a book is merely
material to help you express your ideas, then you cant avoid
using contemporary issues, otherwise you are not an artist,
otherwise your film will be popular science, historiography,
without artistic merit. And if you are adapting an immortal
work you need a completely different approach.

They say that great works like Hamlet need a new reading
for each generation.
With respect to Hamlet that is not correct.
But history shows thats the way it has been.
Yes, thus it has been, unfortunately. But Shakespeare wrote
a significantly more profound work than the performances
which we have seen, which we know. For how many years,
for how many decades was Hamlet portrayed as a languid
youth with long hair and a black tunic with puff sleeves, in a
camisole with a golden chain! But it is known for sure that
Shakespeare envisioned a completely different, thirty-yearold man suffering from shortness of breath. To think that
era was closer to Shakespeare than our own. But they acted
the role as they liked. It was a fashion. As soon as Hamlet
becomes such a languid prince, everything is lost.
Shakespeares Hamlet is dead I would do it completely
differently, and the scenery would be different. But thats
not important. Its my decision as a director how to shoot it.
But the characters and the idea of the piece should be
preserved by all means because they are absolutely
immortal. The idea of Hamlet is the conflict of a man of the
future with the present. He overtook his era intellectually
but was obliged to live amongst his physical contemporaries.

(http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/34126_original.jpg?e51333)

He continually reflects. Why? Whats the problem? Whats

the main issue?
The main issue is his inability to act. Perhaps he is unsure of
everything or he thinks hes weak? Nothing of the sort.
Hamlet understands perfectly well that the conflict is
insoluble. This is why he says, To be or not to be? The
conflict is insoluble, whether he interferes in it or not.
Hamlet sees the pointlessness of conflict in advance. He is
fated. And as soon as he begins to act he perishes for himself
as well. Imagine by what means he has to fight in this
world! What a mousetrap this must be! What a duel! In
other words he adopts the position of his enemy. He should
fight with their weapons in the same base manner as they
do. And the result is inevitable death. Because it is
impossible to change anything. Hamlet has overtaken his
own time by many years. He understands the world he lives
in and that only the future times, to which he belongs
spiritually, will be capable of changing anything.
How can man act upon time? Or is he helpless?
No, he is obliged to act. Hamlet decides correctly. He must
act even though he understands he will perish. He will
perish like Giordano Bruno, like many revolutionaries and
defenders of ideas. After all Hamlet fights for an idea. He
cant become a vulgar townsman and accept everything that
surrounds him, although he knows that he is doomed.
Hence the greatness of his spirit and his genius.Hamlet
hesitates because he cannot triumph. How should he be?
What can he do? He cant do anything. This will always be
the way. But he must still say his word And the result is a
pile of corpses. And four captains carry him out. This is the
meaning of Hamlet, not to be or not to be, to live or die.
Nonsense! It has nothing to do with life and death. It has to
do with the life of the human spirit, about the ability or
inability to become acclimatized, about the responsibility of
a great man and intellect before society.

(http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/PAR279091.jpg?e51333)

Man must still act! Hamlet acts although he knows he is

incapable of breaking this world, this castle. In the best case
he will himself become its king. It could be done in this way!
And then the piece would be understandable for all ages.
Progress exists. But there is a man who has overtaken
progress. He has come from afar, has studied for a long
time, and has not participated in all the internecine
conflicts. He is a member of the intelligentsia, of the highest
class. Only Russians can understand what that means. Do
you know what is said about the intelligentsia in the famous
Britannica Encyclopedia? There are two sections: the
intelligentsia, and the Russian intelligentsia. And we have
already forgotten about that.
How do you understand that?

The Russian intelligentsia was always extremely active and

independent. It was never in the service of the princes of
this world, it defended truth, sought, moved forward.
Intelligentsia is a Russian word. The members of the
intelligentsia suffered privations in the name of its ideas,
underwent repressions, and were considered idealists. Recall
the social-democrats: Belinsky, Dobroliubov, Pisarev, all of
them stood for an idea and were outcasts. But no matter
how hostile reality was to them they believed in truth and
fought for it. And what is the intelligentsia in the West? A
private person, uninterested in contact with the masses.
In other words to be a member of the intelligentsia is a
profession
Yes, it is a social calling. Lenin, after all, was also
intelligentsia.

(http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/B6GFWoIIQAASPWS.jpg-large.jpg?e51333)

Get Cinephilia & Beyond in your inbox by signing in

Email
SU BSC R IBE

0Comments
Recommend

Cinephilia&Beyond

Share

Login

SortbyBest

Startthediscussion

Bethefirsttocomment.

ALSOONCINEPHILIA&BEYOND

TheManWhoWasntThere:A
Lovely,ArtisticExhibitionof
theCoensFilmmaking
3comments4monthsago
EvanE.RichardsMany

luckygmailMotherlodeis

thanks!Iloveyoursiteaswell.
It'sonmyshortlistofmost
visitedbookmarks.

right!

JeanPierreMelville:Lifeand
WorkofaGroundbreaking
FilmmakingPoet
1comment5monthsago

PointBlank:JohnBoormans
HardboiledClassicElevatedby
StylishEuropeanTouch
1comment2monthsago

CloseEncountersoftheThird
Kind:StevenSpielbergs
GambleThatPaidOff
1comment2monthsago

BabylonSlim OhHELLYes!I

TommyGilleyYoumisseda

discoveredyoursitesometime
agobutforgot.Withallthis
Daeshcrap,Iseekthesweet

keypartoftheClose
Encountersstory.When
Spielbergwasfilmingtheclimax

Subscribe

AddDisqustoyoursiteAddDisqusAdd