Tarkovsky's least favourite

[The Ferret]

Andrei Tarkovsky:

"Solaris turned out the least successful of my films beacuse I was unable to avoid elements of science fiction. Stanislaw Lem read the screenplay, found in it my attempt to elliminate the science fiction factor and was distressed by it. He threatened to withdraw his permission for screen adaptation. We prepared a new screenplay from which we could quietly deviate during filming as I intended to do. But this intent was never fully realised."

I'm extremely disappointed that Tarkovsky didn't like his brilliant and creepy rendition of the "SOLARIS" novel. I hate when the authors don't like their best works, it's a kind of betrayal towards those who loved them to death.

Have you some Tarkovsky's "quote" to report that - somehow - manages to reveal that in the end he gave "Solaris" a good second thought?

[Pauk]

I don't, but I would like to comfort you by suggesting to use some of the (post)modern text analyzing methods, that is, getting the meaning of the text ONLY from what is within the borders of the text itself and/or text's interaction with the receiver (you). Roland Barthes announced 'the death of the author', that is, the author creates a text and then leaves it, no longer having any rights to it. Though it's also possible to add intertextuality - treating author's statements as another text (which has no supremacy and can be dismissed), that could possibly influence your reading of the text (film is also a text), just like such texts as your knowledge of text's place in the cinematographic history, other films you know, the signs in the text that you have solved, etc., etc.

Donatas Banionis from Solaris is Lithuanian (that's one more intertext..).

[jan]

admin said:

Andrei Tarkovsky:

Have you some Tarkovsky's "quote" to report that - somehow - manages to reveal that in the end he gave "Solaris" a good second thought?

Not that I know of (which is not saying much, given the fact that ever-more complete editions of his diaries continue to appear). From about the same time frame here are two more quotes along these lines:

I watched "Solaris" in the afternoon (at 4pm) for the Taormina show. A very odd
impression. The actors play badly, especially Grinko. Badly edited. It would be good to
make some cuts. If the film belonged to me (the distribution rights) I would still re-edit it.
Inexact cuts. Lagging cuts. But never mind... I thought "Solaris" was worse. Still, there is
something in it. Some portions aren’t too bad. [15 July 1980]

I watched "Rublyov" yesterday. It’s all very bad. "Solaris," "Rublyov"... My only excuse is
that others make films that are even worse... [21 July 1980]

Jan Bielawski
Nostalghia.com

[The Ferret]

TOO MUCH SELF-CRITICISM, Andrei...

'SOLARIS' was pure genius, so I really don't 'grasp' why Tarkovsky didn't get his own movie, somewhat. It's sad, really.

[jan]

admin said:

TOO MUCH SELF-CRITICISM, Andrei...

It gets even better :-) according to the new French edition of his diaries. I've just leafed through it today and he seems quite disappointed with MIRROR even. I think it's probably because of the depression over his family situation in 1982.

So regarding MIRROR he says that actors are "actually" not bad, that the scene with the chicken wasn't bad (surprise! he doesn't like it in "Sculpting in Time") and finally... "Le reste est exécrable". [pardon my French]

- Jan

[The Ferret]

At this point it's almost legit to think he just appreciated what he did on 'Stalker' and stop. keep in mind he deliberately shot the movie TWO times --- some reported the 'Kodak development' affair was just an excuse, he re-shot the movie just for the sake of it. True or un-true? It seems to me all the greats ---- Fellini, Tarkovsky, Leone, Kubrick --- were compulsive perfectionist to the point the filming their movies was a massacre of some sort.

[jan]

admin said:

keep in mind he deliberately shot the movie TWO times --- some reported the 'Kodak development' affair was just an excuse, he re-shot the movie just for the sake of it. True or un-true?

I think he wanted to redo it just because he wanted that film to be made and really had no choice (other than abandoning the project entirely). Everyone connected to this production says how difficult that decision was and how much work was needed. The funding made it harder still — the film was reshot for the money set aside just for Part II of the film...

The break in the shooting gave him an opportunity to think the screenplay over again and that's when he made that change from Stalker-the-smuggler to Stalker-the-holy-fool.

[Pauk]

Tarkovsky found out how he could get money for re-shooting of Stalker. He announced to the committee the film was going to be of 2 parts after the original film was lost.

And Jan is right, after the loss he told Strugacky to delete 'that villain of theirs' and write a new version.

Jan, do you know anything about the remains of the original version? The woman who edited the film and preserved the pieces, has perished. Is it known what happened to the materials?

[The Ferret]

I've read that the 'original STALKER movie' or whatever you chose to name it is tinted in green, since the specific KODAK film couldn't have been developed properly. True?

Too rumours surrounding this point. I don't understand if Tarkovsky did it deliberately or it was an accident, but fortunately it went this way ---> I doubt the original is better than our final STALKER version.

[Pauk]

The 3rd of December was 10 years after Sasha Kaidanovski's too early death. Today I saw a documentary about him called "A Stalker's tragedy". There was told that after the accidental disaster with the first Stalker film, the prospects of shooting it again had made Sasha very depressed and he was about to quit. It was a miracle that Tarkovsky managed to make Sasha change his mind. They made the film, but in the end of the project there had developed an extremely chilly atmosphere among the participants. However, the film came to be the peak of Sasha's career.