Dec 2, 2013

Talk before screening of "Solaris" (February 19, 2012)part 3

 In his life, there were cases in which, some projects had not been approved for a long time, but only when they were approved, he became ready for them at last. The case of "Stalker" was even worse. I mean, he's retaken it all, because he didn't like. The reason for retake was neither a disturbance of authorities, nor the studio's mistake in developing film, it was his will to retake because he did not like. It cannot be allowed in the conditions of today's film production.
 In his life, such luxury, or rather a quirk of fate, there were many lucky cases for him when he could not do as he wanted.
 So I think, his life is surely that of a genius, but of a very special genius. His creative period lasted only 25 years. Counting from "Ivan's childhood", it was only 25 years. And he made seven films, seven feature-length films. It's a special life, and that very special life coincided with a very special period,  by chance. That special period is the golden age of the Soviet cinema, of its film industry.

 As I said earlier, more than 10 million audience saw "Solaris". Among films of Tarkovsky more than 10 million audience had only " Ivan's childhood" and "Solaris". It's understandable that " Ivan's childhood" had so much an audience, because it was released less than 20 years after the war, it dealt with very popular theme at that time, it had an easy-to-understand story and of course, it won Grand Prix at Venice.
 Though, in the case of "Solaris", it was seen by 10 million people  because it was a Sci-Fi film, namely, because it was a genre film. Tarkovsky actually did not like Sci-Fi. That was testified by Misharin who wrote with him the scenario for "Mirror" - he was a drama writer originally -  he testified that. Tarkovsky had rather disgust at Sci-Fi. Then why did he get inclined to make "Solaris? based on Stanislaw Lem's novel?
 The reason is written in my book though it's a presumption, I think it fairly reliable one. That concerns the number of the audience I mentioned earlier, and the fact that the number of its prints was much greater than that of "Andrei Rublyov".
 Well, State Cinema Committee, the Soviet censorship institution, not only engaged in censorship, but also calculated the numbers of film copies so that Soviet film industry would normally, i.e. effectively function. It decided all; in which theaters this or that film should be released, or in first-class theater, or second-rate theater, etc. After Philip Ermash came to its top, that sort of thing was also considered. In fact, "Solaris" could obtain such a large audience because it's a genre film. In other words, because I was a Sci-Fi film. That's because it was made in a spectacular genre, commonly regarded as entertaining. Did Tarkovsky calculate it? He did calculate it, in my opinion.
 The evidence can be found in his diary. It is described in detail in this book. In fact, in the same year when "Ivan's childhood" was released, another film made not in Mosfilm, but in Lenfilm - second biggest studio of Soviet, located now in St.Petersburg, - recorded the top of the box office, of the attendance in Soviet history. Over the next few years, that work kept its position at the top. I'll explain what kind of film it was. It was based on a novel of Alexander Belyayev, the founder or a pioneer of Sci-Fi in the Soviet Union, That novel of A. Belyaev was titled "Amphibian man", a Sci- Fi with a touch of fantasy. Because Belyaev died in 1940s, if his novel was adapted to film, at that time the film would become only a fantasy.  I saw "Amphibian man"a little, it's that kind of film, but there is an interesting fact.
 When he was just trying to make "Solaris", it was around 1970, Tarkovsky wrote in his diary that he wanted to make a film adaptation of "a story of a man who flies in the sky" by A. Belyaev. "A story of a man who flies in the sky" is "Ariel". And he worte a scenario based on it. He even had Vadim Yusov, the director of photography of  "Solaris", read that scenario, so he seriously intended to make it. There is another interesting detail, that we can find also in his diary.
 With Friedrich Gorenshtein he wrote one scenario for the experimental film studio to earn money. He wrote that in his diary. What was that experimental film studio? It's one of the creative units in Mosfilm, there were several, as I said. They are named: the first creative unit, the second, the third, the experimental creative unit and so forth. It had such a variety. Names of the creative units differed by the studios, Some has only the first, the second etc., In general, there were several in a large studios, and each unit had its own specialized genre. In other words, it was also a part of the film policy of the Soviet Union that I've mentioned, and one of the strategies to meet the audience's needs by diversified genres.
 And Tarkovsky to some extent was drawn into that strategy, or rather, tried to gain more career as a director by using it. Otherwise there was no income. It was not so easy that one's state of belonging to the studio meant a constant salary in the Soviet Union. A director might become so poor to have debt without working for long. It can be seen from his diary. He did part-time jobs, too. He helped writing a screenplay for a studio in Central Asia, wrote with Alexander Gordon, his former classmate of film school, the scenario which Gordon must have directed, and he played a role in that film. Then with Arkady Strugatsky, who wrote the scenario for "Stalker", wrote a scenario not for a Sci-Fi, but for a detective, crime drama, like a quick-and-dirty work, and got the reward for that. The title is "Attention, snake!" Well, it is a normal film. I mean it's mediocre, the level is that of TV drama.

 Talking too much may give a bad impression to the film you see now, so I'll quit now. Tarkovsky was also a man of flesh and blood. Just like me, Tarkovsky was also a man of flesh and blood. Soviet Union was no heaven for the filmmakers, these facts can be checked more and more  by further research. But the fact that film industry was in the Golden Age was lucky for him . In other words, as I said, there was a demand for his films.
 If in other countries only thousands, tens of thousands of people would see such films. but hundreds of thousands people rushed. Or millions of people. Thus when the entire film industry or entire film culture is thriving,- it's not the matter matter of capitalism or socialism - for making films of such authors like him, considerable budgets will be available. In any country, in Japan for example, this was true. For example, Akira Kurosawa's taken the "Throne of Blood" is 1957, when the Japanese film industry was at the zenith. In other era, no one will allow Kurosawa-san, make such a film. That's because Ran" was a co-production with France. "Kagemusha" was realized only after G. Lucas and F.F.Coppola had persuaded 20th Century Fox to become a co-producer on the condition that the Fox would be given world distribution rights.
 Although it's the same things in any country, when the film culture and film industry is in decline, it's impossible to make author's films with huge budgets. So old films looks better compared to films today, it's natural, but to expect it from today's filmmakers is wrong, there is no choice but to expect it from the film industry of U. S . Or from France, at best. Namely, the countries that support Film Art and film culture. That is why. About how France had supported film culture and film industry about its system, I wrote not in this, but in another, my next book "Cinema: Rebirth or collapse"(Japanese), with latest data included.

Dec 1, 2013

Talk before screening of "Solaris" (February 19, 2012)part 2

 There were such cases, so the system in fact,paradoxically, was functioning effectively. There was a tension for film culture, The system of effective function was created. independent of authorities' intention.
 In this situation, Tarkovsky experienced personally variety of conversions in life and in thought, but very important was the fact that "Rublyov" was not released for so long time. It can be said that there was no choice. Because the first scenario was too long.
  The first - I mean the first version of the film entitled "The Passion of Andrei", but it was... say, it is incredible though, that is a poor piece. Material is the same. Material that was edited is that same material shot at the time of shooting, but compared with "Andrei Rublyov" it is too much to ssay "great difference", but still... he didn't cut where it should be, editing was different and so on. The use of music and of voice-over- narration is different, and in comparison, - you can now compare them, because "Criterion", a DVD label in the United States has released the first version - but I previously watched it in Moscow. I wondered, "Why "Andrei Rublyov", which impressed me to such an extent has such a poor impression", and even the first watching it made me think "this is needless" on quite many scenes.
  That is why, the longer first version, actually might be not acceptable for the director himself. I do not know for sure, but concerning "Andrei Rublyov", he neverl complained to Soviet authorities. When he was teaching in the 2 year higher course for screenwriters and directors, he said to students that there had been a scene in "Andrei Rublyov" that he couldn't shoot because of the authorities and so forth, but even having complained so, in the West he have never said as if "Andrei Rublyov" was incomplete work. In fact , what I.Bergman regarded a work of genius, the best film he had seen so far, the film he praised so much, wasn't "Passion of Andrei", but "Andrei Rublyov ", in other words, the re-edited version.

 In such a way, that kind of strange, mischief of fate in the creation of Tarkovsky constantly existed, also after that. But "Solaris" is a works where its assignment was small. It was made comparatively smoothly. That was partly because the screenplay passed smoothly, but why did it pass smoothly? That smoothly accepted plan Romanov didn't want to accept as a film, so he was considerably disliked film art. Instead of him, Ermash with a talent of producer came to the top of the censorship organ. It was lucky for him, namelyy, for his career after that. "Solaris" was made when he reached a turning point in his life.
  That is, he broke with Irma Raush, who was his first wife, and married a new wife, the second wife, Larisa Pavlovna. It was just during the production period of this film. How did such a thing happen? While shooting "Andrei Rublyov", Larisa Pavlovna, formerly called Kirzina, she was an assistant director. She had a favor to Andre, to Tarkovsky from that time, and made such a situation which is likely to cause a scandal. There is something fantastic in Irma, who was herself a director of children's film, I think she was optimistic person with good nature, judging from what she wrote. At first she didn't notice that such a situation was made there. Tarkovsky was once hospitalized due to nourvous breakdown as a result of overwork and of "Andrei Rublyov"'s not being released so long. Then Irma, as she was also an actress, rushed from the location of film shooting to Moscow, to the hospital. And she was said that visiting hours were over. She begged for meeting him, saying that she was his wife, but was said at the reception of the hospital, "Everybody comes to see him, insisting to be his wife". It seems that she didn't notice again that time, It was probably Larisa Pavlovna who visited him. There was such an incident. I don't know when and in what way Larisa got interrelated with Tarkovsky. But, in 1970 when the production of "Solaris" had started, Larisa was already pregnant with his child. In the year of divorce, when he officially got a divorce from Irma, the child -his second child was born. It's Andrusha, his second son, to whom "Sacrifice" was devoted.

 There is a considerable gap between his personal life and his thought reflected on his creation and his art. A gap or rather twist of fate, which is also a part of his fate, anyway he tried to rummage and to read Dostoevsky's writings, philosophers' works written about Dostoevsky in the 19th century Russia. That was when he was making "Solaris", It was so because after "Rublyov" he wanted to make "Adolescent" based on Dostoevsky. And he told about it to Nikolai Burlyaev, the actor who played a bell making boy called Boriska in "Andrei Rublyov", asking him to play in "Adolescent" he'll make. Though he said so, after all, he began to think that it would be more interesting to make a film about Dostoevsky, and he wanted to read everything written about Dostoevsky. And, he wanted to read rather unofficial at that time books on Dostoevsky, for example, of Nikolai Berdyaev. N.Berdyaev was a religious philosopher who wrote his works in the first half of 20th century. Along with Berdyaev, he wanted to read Konstantin Leontiev, Vladimir Soloviev, etc. books of such religious philosophers. And among them Nikolai Berdyaev continued to influence on him until the last moment. Among Berdyaev's books "The meaning of History" and others has been translated in Japan, but the most important - which had an influence on him - book has not yet translated. As far as I researched there's no Japanese translation of it. The book is titled "Meaning of Creation". This book, in my view, is very likely the source of the text written at the end of "Sculpting in Time" - I mean the Japanese version, the one translated into Japanese was retouched after English version, i.e.the final one - the text at the end of it, written like epigraph, seems to me having borrowed whole idea from Berdyaev's "Meaning of Creation". Summing up that idea, well... the power of human to create, the power to create work of art, is the evidence that human is the likeness of God. That's the thought. This thought was told by "Writer" in in "Stalker". "For what human was born?" "For creation, of works of art", he says to "Professor" of physics. Then he replies with despise, "There are still starving people on Earth" and the scene turns into a conflict.
  In fact from this point of 1970 Tarkovsky began to have such an idea. Having such a thought, he had already, at that point, written with Misharin the scenario for "Mirror". And the scenario was quite different from the film "Mirror". There also were, well , as I said earlier, as in the case of "Rublyov", many parts that would be better to be changed, the screenplay in its original version could not be made into a film.

(to be continued)

Nov 29, 2013

Talk before screening of "Solaris" (February 19, 2012) part 1

(At Fukaya Cinema, Feburary19, 2012, Saitama pref, Japan )

 Good Evening, ladies and gentlemen, I'm Nishi. As just having been introduced, I have engaged in study of Russia cinema, mainly of contemporary Russian cinema . If you ask what I mean by "contemporary", I would say it's the time after so-called studio system has collapsed. That's my view. It is since the 1950s. It is from around the late 1950s. However I say so, studio system of the Soviet Union did not disintegrate after that time. On the contrary, just around the 1950s when Tarkovsky entered Film school, created diploma film, then began to be recognized internationally, from late 1950s to the early 1960s, it was the first period of Soviet film industry's rebirth and subsequent its golden age. Though in the first half of 1960s when Tarkovsky had just gained international fame, then he met his co-creators  - Alexander Misharin with whom he lately wrote the screenplay for "Mirror" and was eight years younger than him, or wrote with Andrei Koncharovsky who was even younger than him, the scenario for "Andrei Rublyov". That period of "thaw" came to its end after the first half of 1960s. The General Secretary, N. Khrushchev, who had criticised Stalin was dismissed, and the Soviet Union again entered the cold era. That was the beginning of so-called "era of stagnation".

 And, from the end of the 1960s through the 1970s, the time is called the "era of stagnation". But, in fact, this "era of stagnation" was a golden age for the Soviet film industry. It is paradoxical, but at the beginning of the 1960s a system was made, That system of the film industry worked pretty well. In 1972, when the "era of stagnation" has just begun, the top of censorship institution State Cinema Committee(Goskino) Alexei Romanov was dismissed, and he was replaced by a man who was a little more sensitive to cinema than Romanov, the man named Philip Ermash. In fact, Ermash was in a strange position,as he had a talent of a producer and at the same time was the top of the censorship organ.
 Tarkovsky was a difficult person, who often did not know what he finally wanted to do himself. On the other hand, because his international fame had already been established, so-called artistic authority of his among creative intellectuals was quite high. Bureaucrats of the Soviet Union that time was afraid of such people. In other words, in Russia from the 19th century- since the time of Pushkin, - there had been officials or tyrants who were afraid of  creative intellectuals and people like them. There is such a tradition in Russia. Actually Pushkin and Tolstoy had a considerable authority among people, especially among emerging bourgeois, or people with a certain degree of education. Dostoevsky also had an authority. Their behavior might have led to such things as revolution or rebellion.
 There was always such fear. So, such filmmakers as Tarkovsky,who had a fame as well as people's expectation for the next works were feared . So Ermash once warned abou that situation to the center of the Party. And, how Tarkovsky's own personal thought and his personal life had changed then is also a very interesting theme. In the Era of "thaw", as i already mentioned, he found collaborators and wrote together with Konchalovsky the scenario for "Andrei Rublyov" etc., he felt himself quite bright, well, - or rather bright. Having a fame, there was also a variety of ideas, and because the time was relatively liberal, there was hope in the days of "Thaw".
 However, after the writing of scenario for "Andrei Rublyov", criticism to him became much stronger. But, it also because of the fact that there was a problem with the scenario which he wrote with Koncharovsky. The problem was that it was too long. From a standard of that time the film would be of 4 hours, or 5 hours, may be longer. It was not "War and Peace", so it couldn't be so long.

 I must explain a little about the system of the state-owned film production in the Soviet Union that time. Actually by the end of the 1950s because of too strict censorship film audience  had become lesser, so the film industry was adversely affected. And audience had gotten used to foreign films. In fact, foreign films also were shown to some extent, they were shown also as a trophy brought from War, they earned money, but domestic films didn't earn. In order to improve this situation, they must have made what would meet the needs of the audience to some extent. That is why, aside from freedom of expression, diversifying genres was needed, in order to do that, they had to give film studios a certain degree of autonomy, it means that they had to give studios discretion to the repertoire,
 Then, the process of censorship also had to be simplified. For that reason, a new system was made in the early 1960s. Well, rather to say that a new system was completed at that time. Then, the top of the censorship organ, Alexei Romanov whom I've mentioned, he was the first top of censorship agency called State Cinema Committee. In fact, this censorship organ - Goskino- was made in the era of "Thaw", in 1963. And just at that time  most of main organizations, the system which continued to exist until the Perestroika period were made. at that time. For example, besides State Cinema Committee, they made such organization, as All- Soviet filmmakers' Union, an organization for professionals. It is a guild, in short. Filmmakers, namely film directors, scenario writers, and directors of photography, such people belonged to it. A large professional organization, was created.
 Then All-Soviet filmmakers Union came to edit a magazine called "Film Art" in cooperation with Goskino. The "Film Art" magazine had existed from 1930s, but with a co-editors of Filmmakers' Union, as a results, the discourse developed there became a little more professional. In other words, not very political topics had become much on Film Art - exactly on "Film Art". Level of discourse on cinema became even higher in that. Then a magazine for fans came to be a periodical. It is "Soviet screen". "Sovetskii Ekran"magazine came to be published on a regular basis. This went to meet the needs of movie fans in general. A thing like so-called "Star system" was formed through the magazine.  In short, since the beginning of the 1960s film industry became "commercial". It continued until the time when Perestroika began in mid-1980s followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union.

 Though it rattled quite on the way, it continued to function until 1986 or 1987. So until that time the film industry was in a golden age. And if telling about the extent of that golden age, for example, putting aside films of Tarkovsky, the huge hit, big hits really was seen by tens of millions of people. Population of the Soviet Union of those days  was 200 million 50 million, I think it was so, on average, in one year, for example, in Russian Republic alone how many times people went to movie theaters? There were some people who didn't see at all, but roughly on average, 20 times when they went most often. Ten or more, for example, 12 times,  even in the middle of 1980's. They went to the cinema so often. So demand for movies was really huge. Number of produced films in fact was not so much. It was around 150 per year in the Soviet Union as a whole. Though the number of audience and that of cinema were really huge, so the works of... well, those who made so-called "difficult films" like Tarkovsky, also had a certain degree of demand. So, It is, for example, "Color of Pomegranate" by Paradjanov was released with more than 100 prints, more than 1 million saw it in Soviet Union, such a story is unbelievable from the standards today in Japan. "Solaris", which you see now, in fact, had more than 10 million audience. More than 10 million among the population of 250 million, it means one person of 20 people saw it.

 There was such an attendance of audience. Though Tarkovsky became afraid of, -after the mid of 1970s- the risk of being "shelved", in short, the risk of his films' not being released, still even "Mirror" was screened with 70 or more prints. It means, the film can be screened in more than 70 theaters at the same time in the whole country. Such a situation can never happen to Japanese "art house" films today. There is Ioseliani, Otar Ioseliani from Georgia. This person is also an art house filmmaker who had come to make movie in France, his work was seen 2 million people. There was so many audience.
 That means the level of film culture of the Soviet Union in the 1970s was extremely high.
Or rather, its layer was thick. So the passion for cinema and its understanding of already mentioned creative intellectuals was significantly high. Moreover, since the level of  "Film Art" magazine was also high, there were many spectators very sincere to cinema. Further there was an interesting phenomenon. The films with small number of prints, the works unadvertised in the city, were favorite objects to watch for creative intellectuals. Because they thought: they were treated so because they must have been suppressed. Films of Tarkovsky, Ioseliani, Paradjanov, they had watched before. For example, there was "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors". Then came "Color of pomegranate". In the case of Tarkovsky, "Andrei Rublyov" hadn't been released for a long time, after that "Solaris" appeared. So the degree of expectation was very high among creative intellectuals.

 (to be continued)

Sep 16, 2013

Jul 12, 2013

Crash of Systems/Столкновение Систем

Now I'm making a "montage film" on rather difficult theme.
How can we get out of outdated thinking, which may be said as curse of Systems.
Below is a trailer of the work. I hope it will be on the net no later than the end of August.  

Jun 24, 2013

Formation of 'Post-Cold War' type film culture in USSR

Below is a playlist of Youtube video with optional English subtitles(use CC function).
My report in the international workshop"Cultural imagination of post-Stalin period" held in Tokyo University of Foreign Studies on 22 February 2010. (part 1 and 2)

Jun 9, 2013

The Archaeology of War

As I wrote before, some archaeologists argue that there is no evidence that war is inevitable for mankind. At the stage of food gathering mankind rarely killed each other.
War occurred only after the beginning of agriculture, settled lifestyle and the necessity of protecting the assets of one group against other groups.
So it is not "installed"within human being as a species, but it had begun with the socially-originated vice called "greed"-- the engine of  modern capitalism.

Below is a very short "montage film" inspired by the words of an archaeologist Makoto Sahara, who devoted his later years for "archaeology of war".

May 27, 2013

Kurosawa and Tarkovsky

 They say that F.F.Coppola insisted that Akira Kurosawa should receive Nobel Prize for his filmmaking. Many american masters share such a high estimation of Kurosawa's art and it had helped this master in making "Kagemusha"and "Dreams".

 Perhaps, Kurosawa was one of few directors who had been officially and publicly praised on both side of "Iron Curtain" in Cold War period. Like other masters of cinema, he suffered very much after the decline of  film industry and of  "studio system". It's not coincidence that he made most of his classical works with highly humanistic theme and excellent portrayal of social reality from late 1940 s to the beginning of 1960 s. "Heven and Hell"(63) and "Akahige(Red Beard)"(65) was the last two pieces in his filmography characterized by all merits of prosperous industrial "system" of cinema. But then, the system had collapsed everywhere in the world with such rare exception as Soviet and Indian cinema.

It's natural that Kurosawa was impressed by large studio set for Tarkovsky's "Solaris"(72) when he visited Moscow. On the other hand, still young Tarkovsky complained that the film's premier was held not in the "first-rate" theater, comparing it with the official rating of the film of veteran S.Gerasimov. Tarkovsky' s self-image as a filmmaker seems taint by arrogance, when compared with Kurosawa's words that he is not at all a genius, he only try very hard because he doesn't want to lose.
Tarkovsky had extremely strong intuition in filmmaking, but he was not so strategic and logical as to be expected by readers of his book "Sculpting in Time". For example, his indisputable masterpiece "Andrei Rublyov" was completed as a result of double rewrite of screenplay and numerous re-editing. Its screenplay translated into English(Faber and Faber) is not at all ideal form of screenplay, and frankly speaking, not for cinema, because of the lack of dramatic tension and too loose composition.

In this sense, Kurosawa's "Akahige" is  a pure contrast to "Andrei Rublyov". Based on the novel of Shugoro Yamamoto, his scenario (as his following 3 films) is characterized by economy and logic of dramaturgy for cinema. Namely, there is no superfluous episode or scene, no inconsistency of "point of view"(focalisation, if using the term of narratology). The composition of the film is made so that the audience would go through the whole process of a young man's becoming a true doctor, his realization of the mission of the profession, growing up into an adult.

"Akahige" is a kind of Buldungsroman. And Kurosawa made it in such a way from the beginning. He had a very logical thinking, though maybe it worked on subconscious level. Sometimes his dramaturgy was even too logical that the wealth of his imagination which appeared in 40 s, 50 s
and after 80 s seems suppressed in 60 s and 70 s.
 On the contrary, screenplay "Andrei Rublyov" was free from dramaturgy. It's partly a poem in prose and at first it contained even an allegorical episode, such that Tarkovsky himself criticized in his later years. His intuition was superb in terms of imagery, including the selection of actors, locations and physical details. But in terms of dramaturgy his intuition often didn't compensate the lack of strategy.

Interesting is that these two masters publicly (not in personal diaries ) praised each other, Tarkovsky added Kurosawa in the list of a few cinematic geniuses, where was no place even for D.W.Griffith. Kurosawa said that he loves all of Tarkovsky's films. Apparently, they understood each other's works better than ordinary "cinephiles"did.  

May 16, 2013

The Bankruptcy of Modern Empire(short montage film)

Another montage film built up from Public Domain films, including "The house of Rothschild", "Battleship Potemkin", "Berlin; Symphony of a great city", "War comes to America" and official propaganda films of US in cold war days.


May 15, 2013

Who is to be blamed for tragedy of Tarkovsky?

After the research for writing "Tarkovsky and His Time" 2 years ago, I still can't help but questioning myself.

Did Soviet Union really so abuse him so that he couldn't work in his profession?
Did he decide to emigrate to West by himself?
Why did he buy so many things for new life in Italy that his bank deposit became almost empty?
Why did his second wife Larisa so hate first crews of "Stalker"?
Finally why do so many people accuse Larisa, especially in doc.film "Rerberg and Tarkovsky"?

All of these facts and situation suggest me the following.
Tarkovsky decided to emigrate to West because of Larisa.

Firstly, for filmmakers, it's fatal for his living to lose their comrades, creative crews for no reason(it's what Larisa's behavior caused to them).
Secondly, Tarkovsky knew how to communicate with Soviet cinema bureaucrats and how to earn by doing "part-time job"(for example, script writing for others) even in late 1970 s in Soviet Union.    
Thirdly, he was disappointed in West before he declared emigration, as clearly written in his diaries.

Tarkovsky was a Soviet director, but had a sense of efficiency in his work. But Larisa, his ex-assistant director in "Andrei Rublev"didn't. Or precisely, she wanted the domination over him and his crews after "Mirror", where she was denied by her husband the role of hero's wife and mother.
For Tarkovsky, the situation must have been very difficult. Though cinema was the first thing for him, he couldn't behave so severe to Larisa as he could to other people. And she knew it.
Woman's pride grew up in her and it became destructive to his official status and his work in filmmaking, because his irritation affected to his attitude to bureaucrats and the crews.

Men are more "social" than women in some societies. Creative intelligentsia in USSR apparently made such society, especially in 1960 s.  Friendship was a very important element of their life, making creative atmosphere. In making "Stalker", such an atmosphere was replaced by suspicious attitude to each other. Relations with bureaucrats was already worsened, though he was allowed to behave more bravely than before.
He felt alone in shooting, especially after his mother's death.

It was a tragedy of Tarkovsky as a talented Soviet creator and Soviet citizen.
In USSR he was a "cult" figure among educated people, and a qualified director of the largest film studio. He HAD a decent social status.

In West he was a "genius" oppressed by totalitarian Soviet regime, which could have allow him more freedom of creation if he remained untill the beginning of Perestoroika. That time none of us knew how he suffered from complicated private life and from desolate solitude.
  

May 11, 2013

"Montage film" as a film genre


 In Russian film study and criticism there is a film genre called "montage film(montazhnoe kino)".
The genre was a sub-genre of author's cinema, picked up by Soviet and Russian filmmakers with aesthetic and/or ideological purposes from 1960 s to 1990 s.
Such filmmakers were A. Peleshyan(in some documentaries), A. Sokurov(in some documentaries), O.Kovalov("Scorpion's garden") and S. Seliyanov(in "Russian Idea"with Kovalov as a scripwriter).

 The following video, "The chronicle of Cold War" is my attempt to make such a film using Public Domain films and footage made in USA.

 It may be called a kind of comparative film study in the form experimental film. The theme of this work is; how a same "cliche" style (sometimes mentioned as "Hollywood classical cinema" ) was used in various film genres (newsreels, fiction genre film, instruction film, etc.) from late 1930 to early 1950 in USA. In addition, the editing of this montage film shows the flexibility of the style, which had been influenced by and had influenced on non-US films(for example "soviet montage school").

 The main materials are from the following films;

"Capitalism"(1948) Coronet Instructional Films
"Ghost Patrol"(1936) directed by Samuel Neufeld
"Communism"(1952) Coronet Instructional Films
"From Dawn to Sunset"(1937) The Jam Handy Organization
"Survival Under Atomic Attack (1951)" U.S. Office of Civil Defense
"A is for Atom"(1953) John Sutherland Productions
"Work of the Stock Exchange" (1941) Coronet Instructional Films

Note: This film doesn't imply any concrete ideology and criticism towards any real or fictional person and any organization.

May 2, 2013

Technology as a new religion

 I don't have any prejudice toward applied sciences and I.T. industry, and I don't deny the significance of technological progress and scientific discoveries that have made our daily life far more effective and comfortable than that of centuries ago.

 But I don't share that enthusiastic belief in the technological progress which some people showed to the public after the beginning of global economic crisis. In my opinion, no technological progress can resolve the increasing unemployment rate in USA and EU, of disappearance of middle class consumers, of ecologic crisis caused by global factory farming and GMO etc.

 I am often surprised to see some scientists, economists and entrepreneurs talking about coming technological breakthrough as a promise of human's prosperity. For example, such conversation as in the following session.


How can people believe in their words knowing recent examples of social injustice by inhabitants of Wall Street, White House, or of the greediness of such global companies as Monsant...

What Mr. Kaku is talking here seems to me some kind of fairy tale or Sci-Fi story (in other video interview, he described some future technology really reminded me of "Genocide Organ" by Project Ito ) I like some kind of Sci-Fi novels and films, if they don't ignore the weakness of human being, especially, the vices depicted in classic literature and drama. Technology can't correct them. Only socially awaken people can, by supporting and contacting each other. And the social awareness, common sense is formed not by technology, but by decent education and decent teachers whose living condition must not be on the edge of poverty level.  And college or university students must not pay loans for their learning for more than a decade. The internet can't replace real schools, if they still have to exist.

 US government and medias often accuse "Islamic fundamentalism". But they often forget their own "fundamentalism" attitude towards other nations. Namely, it's Free Market fundamentalism, which is often called "Globalization". And science and technology fundamentalism. Instead of God they seem to believe in "Capitalism", "Globalization"and "Technology"

No one knows for sure whether super-computer can really simulate the work of human brain using MRI image. Such an article was published in English a few years ago. But I wrote exactly such an story in the form of Sci Fi novel 9 yeas ago, that is "Re-Minder". It's only one example of how some US people love seemingly fantastic science and technology. One question occurs.
For what purpose do they simulate human brain using IBM super computer? Maybe hoping for the invention of virtual reality online game (as in my novel)?
  

Apr 27, 2013

"Acceptable" and "unacceptable" social/political criticism in art

 If the regime is so undemocratic and oppressive that it wouldn't allow any social/political satire or even allegorical form of narrative which may imply criticism to the regime, then art may have a right to revolt against accepted "norms"of that society.

 But  if the regime is legally allowing  its criticism in art, essays and journalism etc., then the artist or activists who behave too "radically" (namely, too aggressively breaking norms of social behaviors) in the name of democracy or the freedom of expression, will lose their moral bases. Such a behavior can't be accepted by that society which has affirmed the current regime and whose existence and development is dependent on that regime.

  The performance of "Pussy Riot" in famous Cathedral in Moscow, which took place more than one year ago, seems to me too"radical" in that sense. It can't be interpreted in the context of art (because it's too primitive to be artistic not only in their skills but also in the strategy, if it had any). It can't be perceived as a form of political protest, because the cathedral is not at all the place for such an act in contemporary Russia. The Orthodox Church is still an important element for many people in Russia and they knew it well. They must have known well  also that the Cathedral was once destroyed by Communist Party in 1930s and rebuilt during 1990s with the effort of artists from all over the country, as a symbol of the resurrection of spiritual values in the corrupted society.

 Of course, they have a right to hold any kind of belief, criticize any concrete policy, politicians. But they can express their thought only respecting accepted social minimum norms, in other words, within the frameworks of such accepted institutions as "art", "social sciences", "journalism", "blogging"etc.
 Such institutions are really accepted in contemporary Russia with democratic tolerance, and it's the fact that can be easily confirmed by simple internet surfing.. Political satire in art is legally allowed.

 Any society has its particular laws to sustain minimum of social norms.
2 year sentence may seem too severe. But the combination of place and action they had chosen was such that brought an unnecessary conflict in the society. If they wanted to make such a little chaos (and such an result could be easily predicted with their educational level), then the sentence seems, personally for me, appropriate.
 If related laws seem to be too stern, then it's not a problem of the current regime itself, but the problem of social norms sustained by them. But if the norms are based on the history of people and now are supported by them, then foreign journalism and protesters have no right to judge them.  

Apr 13, 2013

The new era may come soon

 Looking back the human history, 20th century seems to have been the unprecedented era of mass consumerism. In other words, it was the era of global devaluation of noble spiritual values.
 Also, it was undeniably the unprecedented era of mass destruction of Life on Earth, the era of insane producing, using and accumulating of toxic gas, nuclear weapons, chemical and radioactive wastes, causing mutation and extinction of numberless species.

 These two tendencies made human being more and more close to "civilized barbarians" during the last century. Moreover, from the end of the last century, the economic-growth engine of modern society finally stopped its function. Currencies began to circulate in far more large numbers than they should be in normal demand and supply relations.The system was characterized by loans, credit cards, "derivertives"and recently it almost ended up with global economic crisis and disappearance of  Middle Class as the main cluster of demography.

 The resolution of this situation must not be easy. Human being can't go forward without giving up many, many things, mainly in developed countries (including some comfort in everyday life, unnecessary luxuries, goods for entertainment ). But, there are two fields which can be demolished without suffering almost all the people.

Military industry and current financial system (including rending money with "interest").

Some historians and archaeologists insist that War as a constant element of human life appeared only recently, after the beginning of agriculture. And even after that in middle ages Byzantine Empire tended to avoid war in contrast to Western feudal kingdoms of its time.
As to current bank system, it is 400 years old at most. Capitalism, as it is considered in economics , probably, is the same age. Before that time human being lived more naturally, sometimes with developed civilizations and cultures

Military industry and current financial system are not even inevitable elements of  Capitalism. So they can be more easily demolished than Capitalism itself. If only enough number of people would really want so. 

Apr 9, 2013

Changing worldview and the twilight of Sci-Fi

 Russian famous historian Andrei Fursov points out (in some of his lecture and television talks ) an interesting tendency in the contemporary popular culture.
 In his youth, he says, Science Fiction was a very popular genre. But after 1980s, instead of  Sci-Fi fantasy has become more and more popular (he also draws examples of recent Hollywood films based on the fantasy novels that must have been waiting for their time for decades).

 Though being much younger than Fursov, I also belong  to the generation when Sci-Fi was a popular genre in fiction and cinema. In my childhood the genre easily draw my attention with its inherent belief in rational thinking of human being and in the unlimited achievement of natural sciences in the future.
 Even then, the future on Earth and in Space was depicted not always "futuristic", as in "Soylent Green", "The planet of apes"and "Rollerball". But in those films the technologies were supposed to be far more developed than today.The reality is that today, almost none of those technologies (space travel to another solar system, totally artificial-looking food made from unknown materials, A.I. with the ability to do real conversation with individual human  etc.) has not been realized yet. These future technologies will, if being realized, serve to the intellectual development and widening the cognitive overlook of human being as species.

 Instead,technological developments for these 20-30 years have achieved to the contrary purpose: ENTERTAINMENT and BUSINESS. To make human being more dull, more active consumers of goods, having lesser interest in history, philosophy, and works of arts.

 Recently I walk around in a rental DVD shop to see which genres of movies are now popular (the numbers of stock DVDs and percentage of empty cases among them approximately show the popularity of each genre). For my surprise, "Harry Potter"series are far more popular than any kind of Sci-Fi series( not to mention classic Sci- Fi films of 1980s and before).

 What kind of intellectual labor is needed to see such fantastic tales, totally alien to the social reality of any historical period?  And what kind of anxiety or philosophical thought will they stimulate in the viewer?
 Nothing. Such films are not so different from amusement parks, the only difference is the existence of strong mythological, or irrational elements. In these films only the mythological, irrational elements have their roots in human history.

 I don't insist that fantasy is a "bad"genre, that they are secret propaganda of irrationality. But if remember such films of 70s and 80s as "Solaris", "Andromeda" , "West World", and "Blade Runner" and the "zeitgeist"of the time of their release,  the prevalence  of fantasy on screen today seems something unhealthy. Do people really want only such fairy tales with "initiation"of kids?

 Strangely enough, recently made Japanese anime film "Mardock Scrumble" based on the Sci Fi novel of the same title, also has strong irrational elements and "initiation"-like development of the plot. In mid 90s, we saw  also "Evangelion"and "Serial experiments Lain". In all these anime films and TV series, dominant tone is made from irrational, uncontrollable things in human (basic instinct, unconsciousness,  dream and fear of death, passions). They are total contrast to the Japanese classical Sci-Fi anime series made from late 70s to early 80s with clear human drama and hi-tech machines as tools.

  Fictional technology has become to be depicted  as some kind of "magic" on the one hand, the human physical body --as a hi-tech machine with inner "ghost" at its best ("Ghost in the shell" and "Innocence"),  mutated or mutilated flesh at its worst--on the other ("Evangelion"and "Mardock Scrumble") .
Technology as "black magic" wipes out the border between the reality and nightmare, as it happens in Cronenberg's "Videodrome" and in later works of Ph.K.Dick.

As we know, Dick hadn't (and Cronengerg in "Videodrome" neither, I think) been indulged in the depiction of such "black magic" technologies. He rather feared it.

Something has changed, really.

Mar 27, 2013

Now on Amazon Instant Video...

 This online Video(Amazon Instant Video) contains my 2 short films.
 Both films were mainly shot in 2002, but some parts of them were shot/made in 2003( "Ritual of White Night") or even more later ("Lithuania: the twilight of the Gods").
 There are some interviews in them, which may seem to be "ideological" or "nationalistic". But if one watch them more carefully, it will be clear that I didn't have any ideological position when making them.
  


These documentaries are about "art " & "culture". Only those who can't discern them from "entertainment"and the products of "cultural industry" may think  that they are based on some kind of ideology.  I don't recommend them to the people who are eager to think and behave according to "global standards",  because the concepts of such "standards"doesn't match any kind of cultural and artistic activity of human being. 

Mar 10, 2013

Rhythm of theater NO and Japanese cinema

I think that few people has thought about the importance of rhythm in film art.
Western tradition of drama, starting from the time of Aristotle, has been developed mainly around such concepts as "story", "character" , "catalysis" and so on.

The structure of drama in this tradition was based on the development of "story", which is played by actors, imitating fictional, historical or legendary people. They are called "characters"and have their own personalities and backgrounds.
In the "story"in Western drama the climax must be led by the conflict (even if not so clear and distinctive) between them or the growing contradiction of the main character's situation among other characters.

On the other hand, in Japanese most ancient form of drama, theater NO, "story"and "character" are not exclusive constructing elements. As Zeami wrote, "Story"in theater NO must be divided into 3 parts according to the principle "Jo-Ha-Kyu".  This principle is utterly different from famous division of Aristotle; "Beginning, Middle and End".

The parts "Jo","Ha" and "Kyu" must have, according to Zeami, predetermined duration( in the play and its performance ) and each of them must have different tempo.
By Zeami's formula it is called "Jo-Ha-Kyu Go-Dan"(dan means "step").
It is a rhythmic principle, combined with rather fixed contents for each parts of the drama.
The structure of the drama looks very simple from Western view to the theater, but very complex from musicological or semantic point of view.

From semantic point of view, theater NO is a realization of true "informational polyphony"(the word used by R.Barthes for theater in general). From musicological point of view, it has a very complex set of canons for rhythmic structure and by them it embodies, in my opinion, "poly-rhythmic"structure.
Theses two aspects of theater NO will obtain much more complexity in the case of "Fukushiki Mugen No"(doubled dream play for theater NO). The genre most eloquently represents the aesthetic completion of this unique stage art.In addition, in this genre will be very interesting from narratological point of view.

Akira Kurosawa's "Kagemusha" was made on Zeami's tought "Jo-Ha-Kyu Go-Dan"  and its story is similar to those of  "Fukushiki Mugen No". Almost all of the fascinating effects of this film's dramaturgy came from that principle.
Kurosawa's next masterpiece "Ran" also owes a lot to dramaturgy of theater NO.
In each case, contrast and change of tempo, rhythmic structure is combined with growing instability of giegesis and gradual erasing of subjective-objective border in the way that Kurosawa interpreted the aesthetics of theater NO.

If turning our eyes to other classics of Japanese cinema, we will find "poly rhythmic"parts in some films of Kenji Mizoguch, too.

About this theme I have written 2 academic works in Japanese, 2 in Russian, 1 critical work for special edition for the journal Kinema junpo. They have not lost their value, but
I've never tried to translate them into English, as I have little time so far and I'm so "bad English" writer.



Mar 7, 2013

Paradox of Cultural policy

After the mid 2000s, something strange is happening in cultural policy in Japan.
Starting from late 1990s, Japanese government has kept supporting audio visual cultural industry with a hope of exporting "Cool Japan"cultural products. At first they gathered scholars, famous Manga-artists and some other people to make a general concept of "Media Geijutsu"(Media arts). This concept was the starting point with which, in their opinion, Japanese popular culture(with its related industries) could grow into the global-scale  source of income of the country.
It's natural that they thought the concept doesn't need any historical and academic accuracy in its definition. The concept included; Video-art, computer games, ANIME, MANGA, installation, and among  the others, cinema(practically ignored now)

To some extent their initial intention  was realized. But only in the limited fields.
The reality of cultural industry is not defined by abstract concepts, "promotion" and  "marketing" by advertising companies and donations by the government.
One graduate school intended to bring up "producers" has recently gone bankrupt and ended its very short life because of the absence of the demand(its foundation was approved by the government in the mid 2000s).  Specialists of "marketing", "financial engineering" , "accounting",  producers of TV and films could do nothing to improve the financial situation of the school. Now it's clear that it was dead-born child from the start.
Why did it happen?
First, any movement of culture and art can't be controlled, be predicted by mere  economic theory or collected works of interdisciplinary researches. In addition, the starting point, the concept  "Media arts" had not gone through the check of experienced historian and theorist of cinema, popular culture and others academic fields. The dominance of economics has misled the cultural policy of Japan for these 10-15 years.  
As financial "derivatives" that caused world economic crisis in these years, economic-centered cultural policy and its "derivatives", like the concept of "Media  arts" will lead the human races to the soulless dead-end.

Feb 21, 2013

Economic globalization and deformation of languages

Recently I received an E-mail from one reader of my book in English(translation).
The person accused me for translating my own book from Japanese into English because I have made mistakes in grammar and diction of English. And the person advised me not to translate any other books by
myself, saying that I need an editor who knows English(Who? Is there any volunteer?).

But  I rather wonder why other readers have never complained with my bad English if it is really so bad.

The book criticized  is "Tarkovsky and His Time"(revised Edition, paperback) .
There had been many books on Andrei Tarkovsky in English. But I think there is no other book concentrating on his own life, trying to be as objective as possible, with the natural sense of respect to him as a physical human having noble ideal.
In addition,  the information I have explored from the Russian books and Russian websites must have certain value for English native speakers who can't read Russian and have never been in Russia.

Every national culture is bound to its language and the land where it was born and brought up.
More than 20 years ago I bought a book written in English but published in Moscow. Its translators were, apparently, Russians. The book is titled "About Tarkovsky". And it was sold in Tokyo, namely they exported the book for foreigners.
I think, there must be mistakes of  English in that book, but its value for young researches and fans of great master's works is not there.The "information" contained in that book( originally written by those who knew Tarkovsky in his lifetime, of course, in Russian) is undeniably true.  

I would rather say that today's horrible situation of economic globalization and apparent decline of culture-art value system formed from 18th to 19th centuries, are inevitable outcome of Western modern civilization. Namely it is self-destructing in its cultural aspect.
And the  deformation of the dominating language actively used  there in business and  popular culture, academies and politics, is also inevitable.
Who has enough time to care about the elegance of the words in translation if one or two countries are dominating in the large part of cultural industry of his or her homeland? Publication of  a decent book in Japan, especially a book on so-called arthouse cinema, now brings the publisher only Deficit.

Our situation will become better if Hollywood and MacDonalds stop exporting their "culture" to the countries whose languages and cultures the leading global companies know only superficially.

In short, we don't want to see another Mr.Beans, another "G.I Joes" and destructing "derivatives"(totally worthless papers which our mega-bank and leading insurance companies had bought from USA ).  Main effort of our generation for these 2 decades has been made for struggling against consumerism of the masses who smack their lips over degradaded popular culture made in USA.
   

Feb 16, 2013

"Lithuania.The Twilight of the Gods"(subtitled) was release from CreateSpace


Now available on CreateSpace stroe https://www.createspace.com/360246
This disk contains also another short documentary about Moon Far Away, "Ritual of White Night".
This DVD will be soon released on Amazon.usa and Amazon Video on demand, too.