[ePub] Ermengarda (Italian Edition) by Roberto Denti in Arts-Photography

Review

9 of 9 people found the following review helpful. Mandatory Read for Time Space in Art TheoryBy CustomerJust finished a new book written by Nariman Skakov in 2012 on Tarkovsky that I really liked "The Cinema of Tarkovsky: Labyrinths of Space and Time". It reviews each of Karkovskys major movies (Ivans Childhood; Andrei Rublev; Solaris; mirror; stalker; nostalghia; sacrifice) ... and goes through how time is experienced in each movie. Intro is also a great introduction for those not familiar with the film theory of long cuts vs short cuts that was developed in Russia. From a film editors viewpoint; theres a lot of very interesting food for thought.The book is also is a nice introduction to each movie for those that havent seen them. You see the techniques used in todays movies a lot; but is interesting to see them in their more raw form. Most of Tarkovskys movies are not available in blue-ray; and the dvd quality is normally marginal - so Ive noticed a lot of people havent watched them ... but these movies are a gold mine of ideas.I would probably read this book while i watched the movies; then read Tarkovskys books that have been translated; if i was not familiar with him. The highest quality movie out on blue ray is "Sacrifice"; i love the long bicycle shot ... that might be a good movie to watch/read first (though The Mirror is my favorite ... but the DVD quality of that is marginal).3 of 6 people found the following review helpful. Skewed; insupportable reading of TarkovskyBy Peter HenneAs an abiding admirer of Andrei Tarkovskys work for 29 years; and after having read glowing reviews of Nariman Skakovs book; I feel compelled to speak out and say how disappointed I am in what I regard as the authors shoddy scholarship and a contrived outlook imposed on Tarkovskys films. Throughout Skakovs book; the author seeks parallels to and justifications in Christian theology for Tarkovskys themes and images. Skakovs design to claim Tarkovskys films for Christianity comes across rather clear-cut. The author doesnt investigate connections between the artists work and any other religion or sacred tradition; although evidence which I supply in this book review demonstrate Tarkovsky had very broad interests in the belief systems and art of the world.No one could doubt that there are bountiful and rich Christian references; and resonances; in the directors seven feature films. But it is a gross oversight to impose an exclusively Christian perspective on them; which the author more than tacitly does. Just to cite three (among many) glaring counter-examples in the films: Off-camera Chinese music heard in NOSTALGHIA is lauded in an exchange by two characters: ldquo;Wonderful music! Beats Verdi anytime;rdquo; ldquo;Hands off Verdi. This is Chinese stuff; a different civilization with no sentimental wails. Voice of God; of nature.rdquo; In the same films climax; a character mounts an equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius to deliver a powerful speech about civilizations need to return to fundamental; life-giving sources; but he never breathes a hint of Scripture. Instead; the symbolism is quite clear: Marcus Aurelius is known both as the last of the Roman ldquo;Good Emperorsrdquo; and as a stoic philosopher; the films character has climbed his statue for a reason; to beckon society to return to its senses and live well together and with the earth. Skakov would have us believe the very title of Tarkovskys last film; THE SACRIFICE; ldquo;unambiguously stands for a sacrificial offering in the Christian senserdquo; (p. 194). This pronouncement stunningly neglects the principle ldquo;to sacrifice for the greater goodrdquo; that is universally valued; and which has been from pre-Christian times.Tarkovskys two books; SCULPTING IN TIME and his collection of diaries TIME WITHIN TIME; only make Skakovs case even thinner. Culling from citations in the former; Tarkovskys favorite directors appear to be Kurosawa; Mizoguchi; Bergman (particularly in his 1960s period; when he was assiduously jettisoning Christian theology) and Bresson. The first two are Japanese and neither director professed Christian faith. Bergmans famous early 1960s trilogy ends with what the Swedish director called ldquo;Gods silence ndash; the negative imprint.rdquo; Only the last name; Robert Bresson; can honestly be said to embrace Christianity; although modern scholarship lately has been seeking some alternative interpretations (still; I think it is impossible not to connect Bresson with Catholic faith).After two fellow Russians; Alexander Pushkin and the directors father; poet Arseny Tarkovsky; the author that Andrei Tarkovsky quotes most often (and always sympathetically) in the magnitude of references contained in SCULPTING is Marcel Proust ndash; not your poster child for Christian devotion. Again and again in that book; the director emphasizes the nurturing power of art and repeatedly draws examples from Western AND Eastern cultures. His published diaries reveal a sustained interest in Buddhism; and even the occult. Tarkovsky was a voracious reader; highly cultured person and poet with images; who saw horses as symbols of life; believed masterpieces give life purpose; and was well-versed in the history of Japanese art and literature; which he found a sustaining force in his life. The evidence points more to an idiosyncratic; but widely resonant syncretic belief system than anything close to dogmatic; institutional or otherwise sanctioned Christianity.The final blows to Skakov are his suppression of important evidence which run contrary to his leanings. Ill cite two cases. In his chapter on ANDREI RUBLEV; he twice mentions a ldquo;205-minute versionrdquo; of the film; but doesnt let the reader know about any other version (readers may well wonder what he is talking about). In fact; a 205-minute version was released in the U.S. by the Criterion Collection; but previously the film was circulated in a 185-minute version (some time it at 186 minutes). In a 1969 interview with the highly-regarded film historian Michel Ciment; Tarkovsky went to pains to say that no one had edited RUBLEV but himself; and explained clearly and precisely what he had decided to excise; why; and the length of the version he considered to be HIS film (185 minutes). In Skakovs bibliography; he lists 17 interviews but rather conveniently excludes Ciments - which is nonetheless broadly known among Tarkovsky enthusiasts and easily available!Second; in Skakovs chapter on NOSTALGHIA; the author describes that one character ldquo;dies easilyrdquo; (p. 184). Without making any spoilers; Ill leave readers of this book review with a question: does screaming in your last breaths in agonizing pain for your most beloved companion on earth sound like dying easily to you?