Creative Inspiration: Andrei Tarkovsky’s Poetic Harmony
One of the masters of cinema, Andrei Tarkovsky was on the quest to answer what cinema as an art form could achieve. His films urge us to see the artistic nature of cinema. The opening of Poetic Harmony by Channel Criswell asks and elaborates, What words would best describe a Tarkovsky film. Haunting? Ethereal? Hypnotic? Serene? Tarkovsky was a one of a kind artist whose works have become instantly recognizable through their masterful spellbinding imagery and the atmosphere oozing from their pause. If I were asked who makes pure cinema, one of the first names that would spring to mind is Andrei Tarkovsky. Cinema possesses its own language, believed Tarkovsky, and it is through the creative use of that language that a filmmaker can create a distinct cinematic style. Through Poetic Harmony, we explore Andrei Tarkovsky’s cinematic style and arrive closer to what qualities make his images stand out, the meaning behind his works, and more. As Lewis Bond narrates in the video essay, If there’s one thing I want to achieve with this video, it’s to give people a greater understanding and appreciation of Tarkovsky’s approach.
If you ask me what influence I have received from names like, for example, Bresson, Antonioni, Bergman, Kurosawa, Mizoguchi…I must say none. I have no desire to imitate them. Because it would be impossible to do so, And more, if my goal was the imitation of great directors, I would be distancing myself from the true goal of cinema, since the main goal of any kind of art is to find a personal means of expression, a language with which to express what’s inside of you.
When we think of pure cinema we think of a stylistic approach to film that emphasizes film’s unique devices like visual composition and motion, the relationship between sound and image, and rhythmic editing in order to engage the audience in an experience that only films can give you: a cinematic experience. Visual means over dialogue to create impact. Tarkovsky’s approach to filmmaking was to utilize techniques that are uniquely cinematic in order to communicate emotions, to do with cinema and its film language what can not be done in other art forms, and it is through this method that he too directs himself towards an important quality of his filmmaking philosophy.
By focusing on the language of film throughout his filmmaking career, Tarkovsky gave rise to a specific signature, a cinematic style all his own, and we realize how important this was to him when he says, despite his admiration for great filmmakers: If during my work I find that a shot or a take might resemble what has already been done by another great director, I modify the scene to prevent that it may happen. An inspiration to artists and filmmakers, Tarkovsky believed that artists and filmmakers give to their respective art forms and pioneer them by establishing and maintaining their individuality and personal visions.
Let’s explore Andrei Tarkovsky’s cinematic style.
On the Elements of Tarkovsky’s Film Language
Tarkovsky’s visual language was consistent across his career. Recurring elements in his images were frequent. Composition was often one of Tarkovsky’s most captivating trademarks, possibly due to his background as a photographer. But the first thing I notice about the Tarkovsky look is an element in composition that is referenced less than framing, staging, or balance: texture. Sometimes images are most effective when they draw you into their world, and if I can visually feel something, that world instantly becomes tactile. Tarkovsky likes to project the real world, so many of his textures are made through naturalistic components–the embers of a coal fire, a water log home, the elements. Textures add great visual interest to a scene. Something as simple as dust floating through the air can make what was a basic shot more dynamic.
But not only do rusted walls and marshland gain our attention, they intensify the emotions inside the image. The settings that Tarkovsky shoots include some kind of rhythmic pattern, like a rugged backdrop or an even ground. He utilizes some sort of alien material that surrounds the character, and when you include an element encapsulating the subject that contains a certain grit, subconsciously all emotion feels heightened. That’s why we see moments of high drama take place in the rain. Or if you want to give a particular item a sense of gravitas, crinkled pages and jagged bombs will remain in the mind of the viewer. Any subject in the frame has this effect. Making it feel real makes it feel relevant. Tarkovsky uses textures in a way that they develop these associations to the viewer. Rising smoke and tattered fabric may look good but the emotional intensity that an intangible ingredient can bring is far greater.
Most of Tarkovsky’s methods above else were used to create atmosphere, and his moods can not only be seen, they can be heard. One thing about Tarkovsky films is that they’re some of the quietest films you’ll ever see. Silence is a great way to build anticipation for something, and a contrast of silence with noise is a terrific juxtaposing technique, but Tarkovsky typically settles on a middleground between the two. When creating a scene, Tarkovsky isolates one sound and enhances it. It could be the dripping of water or the crackling of fire…He chooses the elements that have great significance to his subject at that time. The character may not remember everything about a single event, but they may remember the sound of their heartbeat.
On the Meanings of His Films
Tarkovsky’s films are mostly assembled through intuition. The notion of order in life is an abstract one, and this is reflected in his cinematic streams of consciousness. His films don’t come with prepackaged deductions. In there lies truth but one that must remain unknown to audience and artist alike.
Tarkovsky’s aim was to have the audience discover meaning for themselves, and when the methods of a director remain a mystery to the audience, they’re inclined to find significance in that reality. We think further on that which we don’t understand.
It’s the way Tarkovsky brings the real world into the film to garner an immediate emotional response from the viewer. We’ve been taught to search for answers but sometimes a scene is what it is. The question isn’t why does something happen but what does it mean to the character. Tarkovsky isn’t asking us to find a definite answer in his work. He asks that we embrace the emotions that the subject feels. Rain doesn’t mean anything, but it might to the character.
Tarkovsky tells his stories by having the emotion of cinema manifest itself to us directly and did this by building character through action. Without a word spoken, what makes us understand helplessness better than a woman sitting on a well watching her livelihood burn in front of her eyes. Once it’s understood that Tarkovskian cinema is instinctive rather than logical, whose events simply show us what resonates with the characters, his techniques become much clearer. In the words of David Lynch, “I don’t know why people expect art to make sense when they accept the fact that life doesn’t make sense.”
On Camera-Work and Editing
Tarkovsky rejected the theory of montage put forth by Eisenstein. It focused too much on the intellectual and interferes with cinema’s emotional side…All the events we see are merely what the character deems significant to oneself…This is why the past, the present, dreams, and reality all coagulate into one another in Tarkovsky’s work. They’re all scenes that don’t have immediate relevancy. They’re simply a mist, a collection of significant moments that were vital in shaping our character.
Most of Tarkovsky’s techniques demonstrate the importance of showing what is significant to the character. This can even be seen in his camera-work. In many scenes, the camera takes on a subjective role whose movements practically mimic the viewers. In moments that peak our interest, the camera will slowly begin to track inwards, as though it’s leaning in due to interest. It is as though the camera is the physical form of our character’s train of thought.
But perhaps the most notable aspect of Tarkovsky’s visual style is his use of long takes…Tarkovsky was adamant in making the audience feel the importance of each passing moment–give a shot enough time and meaning will be formed of its own accord but editing can disrupt this.
Tarkovsky edits individual scenes based on what he referred to as the pressure of time within a scene. Different to shot length, think of pressure as the atmosphere within a scene. As more time passes, the atmosphere builds, and once the atmosphere as reached its zenith then you cut. But if lingering on a subject longer will continue to build pressure within a scene, then do so…Through forcing the audience to be aware of the fabric of time itself, Tarkovsky elevates his powerful atmospheres.
Tarkovsky asks that we embrace a style of storytelling that reflects a state of mind, a refractive layer of consciousness, to conjure an emotion and let the camera do the talking.
snowghoul
tangentwithtanner
romaincrisis
jacobvanloon
2087
origamiaround
