If truth and beauty, at the end of the day, are all we need to know, to coin John Keats’ immortal words, how exactly am I to do that when producing a film? On the eve of making my next short video, even with everything in place – actor, location, script, even a rough idea of the editing format afterwards – how am I to capture that metaphysical, even spiritual, quality that I am so desperate to represent, whilst maintaining my artistic integrity and without, more importantly, the whole exercise turning into something cheesy and sentimental.
Again, the only way to learn is to draw inspiration from the masters of their craft so I have been working my way through the complete films of Andrei Tarkovsky, as well as reading Andrei Tarkovsky: Sculpting in Time, in which the director himself talks about his art.
Not having come from an artistic background – my life having been spent predominantly in the literary and philosophical worlds – I now shamefully appreciate what wealth of wisdom I have been missing all these years. Maybe I am lost in some sort of aesthetic honeymoon period, but it seems to me that the way of the visual artist can reach depths of understanding and insight with which left-brain thinking can perhaps barely empathise.
For example, here is Tarkovsky talking about ‘Art – a yearning for the ideal’:
‘Before going on to the particular problems of the nature of cinematic art, I feel it is important to define my understanding of the ultimate aim of art as such. Why does art exist? Who needs it? Indeed, does anybody need it? These are questions asked not only by the poet, but also by anyone who appreciates art – or, in that current expression all too sympathetic of the twentieth-century relationship between art and its audience – the "consumer" …
‘In any case it is perfectly clear that the goal of all art – unless of course it is aimed at the "consumer", like a saleable commodity – is to explain to the artist himself and to those around him what man lives for, what is the meaning of his existence. To explain to people the reason for their appearance on this planet; or if not to explain, at least to pose the question…
‘In a very real sense every individual experiences this process for himself as he comes to know life, himself, his aims. Of course, each person uses the sum of knowledge accumulated by humanity but all the same the experience of ethical, moral self-knowledge is the only aim in life for each person, and subjectively, it is experienced each time as something new. Again and again man correlates himself with the world, racked with longing to acquire, and become one with, the ideal which lies outside himself, which he apprehends as some kind of intuitively sensed first principle. The unattainability of that becoming one, the inadequacy of his own "I", is the perpetual source of man’s dissatisfaction and pain.
‘And so art, like science, is a means of assimilating the world, an instrument for knowing it in the course of man’s journey towards what is called “absolute truth”…
‘Art is born and takes hold wherever there is a timeless and insatiable longing for the spiritual, for the ideal: that longing which draws people to art. Modern art has taken a wrong turn in abandoning the search for the meaning of existence in order to affirm the value of the individual for its own sake. What purports to be art begins to look like an eccentric occupation for suspect characters who maintain that any personalised action is of intrinsic value simply as a display of self-will. But in artistic creation the personality does not assert itself, it serves another, higher and communal idea. The artist is always a servant, and is perpetually trying to pay for the gift that has been given to him as if by a miracle.’
(pp. 36–8)
Rather than watching his films in chronological order, my first taste of Tarkovsky’s genius was Stalker [Сталкер] (1979), loosely based on the novel, Roadside Picnic by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, who also wrote the screenplay for the film.
On the surface, the plot is fairly straightforward: a meteorite has decimated a provincial Russian town twenty years previously, the area of which is now dubbed The Zone. There is an inner chamber within The Zone called The Room, which once entered will fulfil one’s deepest desire. The Zone is fiercely guarded by the local army; however, the desperate and suffering make the journey to The Zone, despite the fact that many have disappeared in their attempts.
A successful Writer (looking for inspiration?) and a Scientist (looking for scientific explanations?) enlist the help of an experienced Stalker or guide to help them reach The Room in order to realise their innermost dreams. Paradoxically, on the threshold of entering The Room, their anxiety over the manifestation of their most precious prayers leads them to a spiritual crisis and to question the very nature of their existence. They both falter, crippled with feelings of worthlessness and self-doubt.
Interestingly, it is Stalker who is forever wrestling with his spiritual conscience throughout their journey, never even wanting to venture into The Room himself to actualise his worldly ambitions (he no longer has any). In a poignantly solitary moment, Stalker laments the state of his own life, pondering upon the fact that there has to be something far greater and noble way beyond the phenomenal world for everything to make any sense. At this point in the film, Tarkovsky makes Stalker recite a poem, written by his father, Arseniy Tarkovsky, and added to the screenplay:
Now summer is gone
And might never have been.
In the sunshine it's warm.
But there has to be more.
It all came to pass,
All fell into my hands
Like a five-petalled leaf,
But there has to be more.
Nothing evil was lost,
Nothing good was in vain,
All ablaze with clear light
But there has to be more.
Life gathered me up
Safe under its wing,
My luck always held,
But there has to be more.
Not a leaf was burnt up
Not a twig ever snapped...
Clean as glass is the day,
But there has to be more.
Arseniy Tarkovsky
And what is ‘more’? Back at the café from whence they all originally departed, the arrival of Stalker’s wife confounds the Writer and Scientist, for here is a woman who has suffered interminably for her husband, bearing him a disabled child, and yet who still continues to love him with the same selfless devotion of her youth. It is her unconditional love and human dignity that triumph in a world polluted by greed, secularism and self-interest, a world in which the Writer and the Scientist are both victims and fall foul.
Tarkovsky again:
‘I see it as my duty to stimulate reflection on what is essentially human and eternal in each individual soul, and which all too often a person will pass by, even though his fate lies in his hands. He is too busy chasing after phantoms and bowing down to idols. In the end everything can be reduced to the one simple element, which is all a person can count upon in his existence: the capacity to love. That element can grow within the soul to become the supreme factor, which determines the meaning of a person’s life. My function is to make whoever sees my films aware of his need to love and to give his love, and aware that beauty is summoning him.'
(p.200)
I have to say, watching Stalker has made all films I have seen in the past pale into complete insignificance. I cannot think of any director who manages to encompass such a profound spiritual vision into his work, where in fact the spiritual vision IS his work. Indeed, it is said that when Tarkovsky moved to the West, he read the complete works of George Ivanovich Gurdjieff, which greatly influenced his cinematic art.
The film is beautifully shot, with chromatic shifts - monochrome, sepia and colour sequences - symbolic of both the geographical locations of the outside world and The Zone, as well as the conscious and subconscious states of mind of the characters. In addition, with the haunting soundtrack, composed by Eduard Artemyev using a synthesizer together with traditional Russian instruments, including the flute and tar (iranian lute), the overall aesthetic effect is utterly devastating.
In the final scene, Monkey, the daughter, sits quietly at a table, surrounded by glasses. In a mesmerising sequence, by an act of telekinesis, she moves the glasses along the table, one of which falls off and breaks. A train then passes by, rattling the entire house in its wake. What does it mean? Individual divinity? Faith triumphing over suffering? Who knows? But it is a fitting end to an exquisite film.