Andrei Tarkovsky’s Poetics of Cinema

by Thomas Redwood

If you look for a meaning, you'll miss everything that happens. Almost twenty-five years after the death of Andrei Tarkovsky, the mystery of his films remains alive and well. Recent years have witnessed an ever-increasing number of film theorists, critics and philosophers taking up the challenge to decipher what these films actually mean. But what do these films actually show us? In this study Thomas Redwood undertakes a close formal analysis of Tarkovsky's later films. Charting the stylistic and narrative innovations in Mirror, Stalker, Nostalghia and The Sacrifice, Redwood succeeds in shedding new light on these celebrated but often misunderstood masterpieces of narrative film. Tarkovsky is revealed here both as a cinematic thinker and as an artistic practitioner, a filmmaker of immense poetic significance for the history of cinema.

Genres: Film

280 pages, Hardcover

First published July 1, 2010

Reviews

[Luke Anderson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Didn’t agree with everything. But a fascinating deep dive.

[YeastOfEden · Rating 2 out of 5]

An incredibly long-winded study. I came here in search of answers, because I was having trouble making any sense whatsoever out of Tarkovsky's films. The good news is, he mentions a lot of other scholars and critics who have written about him, like Slavoj Zizek, Maya Turovskaya, Vida T. Johnson, and Graham Petrie, and I think I will be reading their work instead. But in his study, Thomas Redwood isn't interested in analyzing or interpreting Tarkovsky's late films so much as pointing out what he calls "narrational cues" and "compositional motifs". For instance, he'll tell you to look at a vase that appears in the background of one scene and then point out how it appears in the background of another scene, and will show you pictures of both scenes. He'll do the same for trees, lamps, flowers, cups, even background noises like insects or leaves rustling, combing through all the visual and auditory techniques because he believes they impact Tarkovsky's storytelling. Okay, fair enough. But then, when it comes time to explain what the cups of water and rustling leaves actually signify, when it's time to analyze what the film is trying to say with all those visual cues...the chapter ends, and he moves on to the next one! He says in the first chapter that he disagrees with Tarkovsky that his films don't have a meaning, and that the mission of his book is to find meaning in his films...so why doesn't he even try? I also didn't appreciate that almost every time he brings up another scholar's work, he can't help but insert some kind of subtle jab at them. Like really emphasizing their flaws, or what he sees as "contradictions" in their thinking, or saying they don't "get" Tarkovsky. At least they were able to come up with actual theories and academic contributions, unlike Redwood. All he does is shoot down other people's work and hide behind mountains of boring prose, too afraid to come up with anything bold, creative, or original. He's the exact kind of armchair critic Tarkovsky detested. As a non-film student and non-scholar, I'm surprised I was able to finish this book. I'll admit there were a few points where he completely lost me, but I was able to understand it okay. I don't know who else is going to read it, maybe just film students and professors. If you were assigned this for class, be prepared to skim.