I wasn’t lying when I said these Friday reviews were going to be all over the place in what I wrote about. This is the second time I am doing the first piece of what may or may not turn into a series of reviews. Who knows? Not me. So here is the first in the possible ‘My First Time With…’ series, and yes that title is purposefully suggestive for the laughs. And to start with I thought why not go for a director who is critically revered and heralded as one of the great masters of cinema, but whose work I had never got around to, Andrei Tarkovsky. And to kick off my journey of his filmography I decided to watch his most personal film in Mirror (1975).
To attempt to explain the narrative of this film would be foolish of me, as the film's structure does not allow for a coherent or cohesive narrative experience. That is not a slight by the way, it is just an observation that is worth bringing up. The film is structured in a way where it jumps between three different time periods of a character’s life, using the same actors to represent the different characters. This structure and use of actors does it mean the film feels complex and I would be lying if I said I completely understood exactly what was happening or who was meant to be who at given points. The film is also methodically paced and very slow. Its runtime is around 101 minutes, and it does feel everyone on those minutes. It is also very quiet. It is not afraid to keep the audio side of the film sparse, even going into silent moments at times. And I understand that these all sound like negative aspects of the film, and because of these elements of the film I can totally understand people not enjoying this film. But I do love arty films from time to time and this very much falls into that category. Despite the film feeling long because of the pacing and structure, I was never bored, and I was properly engaged from start to finish. Yes, I may not have completely grasped exactly what was going on, but the fact it kept my attention, and my eye, means I do want to go back to it as I am sure there is so much more to unpack. Plus, it is so visually astounding that watching it again for that reason alone would be enough.
I knew very little about this film going into it, but what I was expecting from the little I knew was a film that was visually impressive. That feels like a slight understatement for how beautiful this film is. It is truly a masterpiece of art cinema for the visuals alone. I was pretty smitten by the look of the film from start to finish. Am I gushing? Maybe I am gushing. But I don’t really know how else to get across just how much of a visual joy this film is. Nothing feels lazy or basic. It never feels like Tarkovsky just points and shoots throughout the film. Every frame, every shot is crafted to perfection. And it is not just in what you see in the frame throughout the film, but the way the camera moves between shots, it is magical. The film also shifts between black and white and colour shooting seamlessly, while making the most of each. Black and white and colour shooting both have different pros to them when it comes to visuals, and Tarkovsky manages to capitalise on this brilliantly. For pure cinematography and visual prowess, it is hard to think of many films that have been as impressive. And it is this aspect of the film that is the real draw here. There are so many singular shots that I would happily frame and hang on my wall. And with that, I think I have gushed enough.
In terms of this being a good introduction to the work of Andrei Tarkovsky, I cannot say. This film is extremely personal and semi-autobiographical and so I don’t have any real idea how this would go up against the other films from the director. But if the rest of his films are even half as visually impressive as this one was then I will be more than happy, and you can bet it won’t be long until I am finding out if this is the case or not.
Commentaires