the science fiction films of andrei tarkovsky

8/14/2019 The Science Fiction Films of Andrei Tarkovsky

1/14

SF-TH Inc

The Science-Fiction Films of Andrei Tarkovsky (Les films de science-fiction d'AndreiTarkovsky)Author(s): Simonetta Salvestroni and R. M. P.Source: Science Fiction Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3, Science-Fiction Film (Nov., 1987), pp. 294-306Published by: SF-TH IncStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4239838.

Accessed: 15/11/2013 09:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

SF-TH Incis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Science Fiction Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 136.145.171.228 on Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:45:00 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sfthhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4239838?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4239838?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sfth


2/14

294 SCIENCE-FICTION TUDIES,VOLUME14(1987)

SimonettaSalvestroniThe Science-FictionFilmsof AndreiTarkovsky1Translated ndEditedbyRMP

AndreiTarkovsky'sSF films, Solaris (1972) and Stalker (1980), havepreciseandcreativeaffinitieswiththe fantastic trainn Russianand Sovietliterature.The metaphoric nteractions, he bipolarities, he relationshipswith an Otherness t once external o andinsidethecharacters,heanticipa-tionof ambiguousmiracles,and the sense of beingon the threshold, hatwe meet with in Bulgakov, Dostoyevsky,Gogol, andthe StrugatskyswealsoencounternTarkovsky.2here s, however,a difference.The magicalrole assumedby the wordin Gogol's Petersburgales3or in Bulgakov'sTheMasterandMargarita, ay, Tarkovskyransfers o theimage,which heendows with a powernot inferior o thatof the word.It is withinthepowerof the image to surmount patial, emporal,andbiological barriers,materi-alize memories and psychic realities, and bring alien places near andhumanizethem to the point that they come to life and participaten anextra-verbalommunicatoryelationship.InTarkovsky'sSolaris,thedialoguebetweenhumankindndthe planettranspiresxclusively through mages,and so finallydoes thatbetweenthedirectorandhis public, along with the processwherebyHarey-an adultalien but at the startdevoid of consciousness-becomes humanized.TheSoviet director'sfirst film thus exemplifies, in an originaland complexway, the manner n whichthe image communicates ndcontributes o thedevelopment f cognition.4Typifyingall of Tarkovsky'silmsto date,fromTheChildhood f Ivan(1962)toNostalgia(1983),is a binary patialorganization. achsets a quo-tidianworld,grey, monological,andviolent, againstananti-worldwhich isdynamic,malleable,and full of color, the dominionof possibility and ofchoice.Inhis 1962film,the luminousdimensionof thedreamandof mem-ory presentsa starkantithesis o the tragicgreynessof the war, which oneof the characters efinesas the suspensionof the vital flux and of commu-nication.A similarantinomys implicitthroughoutTarkovsky'snext film,Andrei Rublev(1966). This immediatelybecomes evident to the viewertowards heend,when theblack-and-whiteootagereserved or a MedievalRussiadevastatedby pillagings,acts of repression,and massacresgivesway to the colors of the final framesdedicated o the vital force of art andof a natureuncontaminatedy violence andby the obtusemechanicalnesswhich humanbeings, according o Tarkovsky, endto be guilty of. After

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/14

THE SCIENCE-FICTIONILMS OF TARKOVSKY 295the scenes of ruinous incursionsby enemies, of the tortureswhich theauthoritiesnflicton the Russianpeople,and of theblindingandkillingofartistsat the behestof princes o prevent hem frombeautifyinghepalacesof rivals,there inally appear n thescreen magesof anotherworld: hatofRublev's consand then of the living waterof a rainfalland of a greatrivertraversing rassyexpanseswherehorsesmove in natural reedom.Relatingthe two spheresis a matterentrusted o the film's addresseesor, in TheChildhood, implicitly to Ivan, who contemporaneouslyinhabits bothdimensionsand whose point of view the spectatorgathersfrom imagesculledfromhis thoughtsand sense perceptions.While repeating his binarystructure,Solaris introducesa substantialelementof difference.There the dialoguebetween world and anti-worldundergoesa concretematerializationnasmuchas one of the direct,first-person nterlocutors,hanks o its peculiarities,s theplanet tself.It is herethat the originalityof Tarkovsky's spatialtreatmentof Lem's materialsmanifests tself: in the director'smetamorphosingf an animate pace-orrather, he living planet nhabitingt-as one of theprotagonists f the cin-ematic text. The otherpartner o the dialogue is, of course,Kris Kelvin,whohasbeengiventhe assignment f investigating ertain trangehappen-ings at the Solarisspace stationand of decidingon the basis of his findingswhethero destroy he alien entityortryto establishcontactwith it.

As in TheDiary of a Madmanor The Masterand Margarita, he filmSolaris centers upon a problematiccommunicativerelationship-onewhich,in its context, s perilouslybeyondnormalbounds.No less thanthefictive worldsof Gogol and Bulgakov, he terrestrialociety of the futureasTarkovskyenvisions it-which has similarities o what was actuallyhisown-is characterized inally by its rigid organization.Foundedon thepremisethattruth s univocal,this social orderrefusesto accept diversity,which it proceedsto destroywhenever it becomes too prominent o beignored.This is exactly the parabolicmeaningconnectedwith the Earth nits relationswith Solaris-an import irstinstancedn the dogmaticrefusalof scientists o verifythetestimonyof theastronautBerton,and thenin thewishto bombardhe planetonce thegoingson at thespace stationprovetobe too disquieting.It is significant hatTarkovskydecided o have his film begin on Earth,therebydepartingromLem's fiction,which from its openingpage imme-diately situates the human actors in the vicinity of Solaris. While thusfocussingon the social systemof the future,however,the directoroffersinformation bout t only indirectly. t is up to the viewerto infer ts charac-teristics:romthe inquestconcerningBerton'sdeclarations;rom the unin-terruptedfile of automobiles that appearto whirl by endlessly, thusmetaphorically epresentinghe mechanicalworld whichBurtonreturns oafterhis stayatthe home of Kris'sfather;andfrom heposturings f Sartor-ius, that bureaucrat f science,who holds it a dutyto annihilatewhateverdoes not correspondo its objective aws, which admitof nothingbeyondthemselves.Revealing tselfobliquely, he Earthof thefutureemerges roma singularprocessinvolvingnot only the future expressly imaged in thefilm but alsoTarkovsky's wnpresent,Soviet reality n the 1970s.



4/14

296 SCIENCE-FICTION TUDIES,VOLUME14(1987)His Solaris begins and endswiththe scene of the housewhichKris'sfatherhas built,in opposition o the purelytechnologicaldevelopmentsofhis time, to be in contactwith a living andunmechanized ature.As the

fatherhimselfunderscores, e hasdesigned hebuilding o that ts structurerecreates hat of his grandfather'souse-a projectthatrequired esearchinto his own roots on the land and n his familialpast.Herethe director lsoresortsto other images reinforcing hatmetaphoric ignificance:of a lakewhose living watersexhibita concentricmovementcomplicatedby a rain-fall, and of a horse trotting freely in a mannerreminiscentof the finalframesof AndreiRublev.Old manKelvin,then, ives an anomalous ife withrespect o the rest ofthe world;andby comparisonwith a son profoundly ncapableof under-standinghim,he (alongwithBerton)vindicatesSolaris'srightto exist. (Ashe asserts, t shouldnot be suppressedmerelybecauseit is different.)Thefather'sdimensionaccordinglyaddsa thirdpointof view to the dialoguebetween antinomialopposites which otherwise dominate this work ofTarkovsky'sas they do his precedingfilms. Old Kelvin's point of viewassumes a basically mediatory unction, makingfruitfulon EarthyoungKelvin's experienceof two unknowndimensions:one cosmicallydistantand embodied n the ocean-planet;he other,nearerbut no less accessible,constituted ythedepthsof his psyche.

The anti-world f Solaris s disturbingo terrestrialminds becauseas aliving entity, t invalidateshe fixedlaws andrules o whichthey aremechan-ically accustomed, tandingat once outsideand within hepurviewof such.This doublevalence,whichscientists indlogicallyunacceptable,asitscor-relative n their confrontations ith the planet, n regard o whichthey arebothhosts andguests.Theirspacestationorbitsabovethewatersof Solaris,butthat hinkingmagmaticmass at the same time enters ntothem, nsinuat-ing itself into theirmindsas they sleep.Fromthisposition, he planetcon-ducts ts attemptso communicatewiththem,takingon a roleanalogous o,but morepowerful han,that of the Unconscious. t does not limit itself totransmitting entalmessages;t alsosucceedsnmaterializinghem.At this pointit beginsto becomeclear thatthe truecenterof the anti-worldof limitlesspossibilitywhichthe threescientist-astronautsre explor-ing is not external,but instead lies inside them, in depths that terrestrialexperience,confiningas it is, has never allowed themto reach. The dia-logue with the alienfromhereontransformstself intoan auto-communica-tiverelationship, oublyparlous romthestandpoint f any cultural ode ofearthlyprovenance. ndeed, t compelshumanbeings to come to termswitha Differencewhichcan neitherbe distancednorevaded.Tarkovskyand Lem, no doubt influenced by Freud, have endowedSolariswith a symmetrical ogic, one capableof nullifying patio-temporaldistancesalongwith thedistinctions etween ife and death,partand whole,thinkingandbeing.5A homogeneousmass with thecapacity or envelopingeverything,heplanetgenerateshemonstrousmidgets hatpopulateSartor-ius's Unconscious,orexample,as well as reproducinghe obsessivementalpicture hatKrishas of Harey,down to the markof the injection he took tokillherself enyearsearlier.



5/14

THE SCIENCE-FICTIONILMS OF TARKOVSKY 297For this explosionfromthe Unconscious,which the monologicalanddogmaticEarthof the futurewould condemn o non-existence,hescientist-astronautsare quite unprepared; nd that makes their dialoguewith the

Alien difficult,tense,even on the subjective evel. In whatis perhaps hemost tragiccase, the fearand shamethatGibarian iscovers n himselfarestrongenoughto drive him to suicide. On the otherhand,the tendencytowardsviolence thatseizes the bureaucrat artorius eeks (though onlyapparently) n externaloutlet: the single means he determineson for get-ting free of and annihilatinghe most obscure and unsupportable artofhimself is to destroy heplanet.NordoesKelvin,for all his specialist rain-ing in socialpsychology,proveto havebroughtotallyadequatentellectualequipmentrom Earth.His first response, ike that of his fellows, amountsto anact of rejection:he endeavorso do awaywith the new Harey, hedis-quieting material message which the planet has sent him; and he thusaccomplishes he cruel deed for which in the pasthe was only indirectlyresponsible.Even so, troubledas he is in his monologicalcertaintyaboutcontactwith thedimensionhis father nhabits,Kris s the onepersonagen thefilmcapableof anevolutionwhich concludeswith the hard-won ecoveryof hishuman ntegrity.Towards hatend,his alien companion akeson the samefunction hat the anti-worldhas for the viewer: thatof a model interactionwith the primary ield of investigation-in this instance,of the memory-objectwhich was the terrestrialHarey-thereby assistingto bringto con-sciousnessnew realizations,new connections cp. Black).Rendering hisinteraction roductive s the fact thatthemodel,thoughapparentlydenticalto heroriginal, acksknowledgeandmemory-an adult ust come intotheworldandtherefore esembling ninfantof extraordinarylasticity.Traditionalogic alone is of no use for comprehendinghe film andinparticularSolaris'smessages.Here the key to interpretations the sameprincipleof symmetry hat governsthe Unconscious, ncludingdreamsand emotions.Withthat deain view, we canobserve hatHarey,Kris, andSolaris are autonomousbeings,distinct rom one another,and at the sametime elements n which thepart s identical o the whole. ThusKelvinis atemporary isitor to a planet out there which is also his Unconscious,apartof himself.So, too, Harey,somethingexternalwhich he finds in hisroom upon awakening,at the sametime is a partof him, a reproductionftheimagestored n hismind,ratherhana totally ndependentreature.As a resultof the collaboration etweenKelvin andSolaris,Hareycon-stitutesfor them a pointof encounter,of contact,a materializedmessagewhich man and planet alike participate in as senders and intendedaddressees.Thanks o its peculiarities,he text hatthey produce ogethercan inform each of them about the partner.Harey brings together thehuman raitsderived rom Kris'smemoryof his woman andan Othernessshe shares with Solaris (evincedby the fact that her cells are of a typeunknown o Kelvin andhiscolleagues).Oneof the most importantmomentsof Solaris-the moment n whichthepotentialities ndductilityof the languageof imagesreachtheirapex-is whenHarey,a materializedmageandatthe same time a messageresult-



6/14

298 SCIENCE-FICTIONTUDIES,VOLUME14(1987)ing from the iconicexchangebetweenKris andSolaris, n turndevelopsaninteractive rocess,using imagesthatshevisuallyperceives.Typicalof Tarkovsky's ilms is an insistentuse of quotations: erbalones(of thesortwhichwe shallconsidern regardo his nextwork,Stalker),but also-and above all-visual ones. In Solaris thereare the copies offamouspaintings,hangingon the walls of the spacestationandrepeatedlyfocussed on, and three film inserts: the one documentingthe Bertoninquest; he audio-visualmessagewhich Gibarian ecordsbeforehis suicidefor Kelvin'sbenefit;andthe shortof Kris as a child filmedby his father.Theinterpolation f thesethreemakesforanimplicitandsuggestiveparal-lel between hemagicaloperations f Solarisandthepossibilitieswhichthecinemaholdsout for humanbeings.Likethe productsof the Unconsciousmaterialized y the planet,the threefilm sequencesbringthe remotenearand cause thepastand even the deadto returnGibarian,Kris'smother, hedogKrishad as a child).These iconic moments make for the kind of dialectical interactionwhichgoes alongwithintertextuality. hesituation f intertextuality,s JuriLotmanpointsout(p. 10),carrieswithit an awakeningf thetext and asenseof themultiplying f meanings.InTarkovsky'sSolaris,the most important f thesemomentsconcernstheshortdealingwith Kris's childhood theonly sequenceamongthethreementioned ilmed in color).It works on a double evel. As we shallsee, itinitiates n Harey he processby which she movestowardsknowledgeandhumanization.At the same time, it has an indirect effect on Kris, who,thanks o herprogress,modifieshis vision of reality,a visionwhich he dis-coversto bepenurious nddogmatic.Theonlymoving magesthatHareyobserveson the screenas the shortis being shown are the leaping,warm,red flames of a fire aroundwhichKris's family is gathered n a snow-coveredwinterlandscape.It is afterviewing this footage thatshe regards he reproductionf PieterBruegel'sHunters n the Snowwith intenseconcentration.t has hitherto requentlyfigured n theconfinesof the spacestation;but,as sheattends o it now forthefirsttime,it assumes orhera polyvalent ignificance,whichTarkovskyforcefullybringshomethrough synthesisof images.Certain omments hatLudwigWittgensteinmakesaboutvisualpercep-tionsprove obe especiallyhelpful nexplaining hispeculiar,ndeedunique,operationwhichtakes place in Tarkovsky'silm.Thepeculiarityies in thefactthat heauthor f theoperations anextraterrestrialossessing henatu-ral anguage ndcognitivecapacities f anadult,butdevoidof worldly xpe-riences.TheAustrian hilosopherwrites: Icontemplate faceandsuddenlynotice tslikeness o another. see that t hasnotchanged; ndyetI see it dif-ferently. call thisexperiencenoticinganaspect ' Philosophicalnvestiga-tions,p. 193e[II. xi]). Andagain: ImeetsomeonewhomI havenotseeninyears.I see himclearly;butfailto knowhim.Suddenly knowhim, I see theold face in the alteredone. I believethatI shoulddo a differentportrait fhimnow if I couldpaint ibid.,p. 197e[II.xi]).Thisprocessexactlyapplies o Harey'scase in regard o Hunters n theSnow.Shenoticestheelementwhichthepaintinghas in commonwith the



7/14

THE SCIENCE-FICTIONILMS OF TARKOVSKY 299shortshe has viewed-snow-and this triggersan associativeprocessthatpermitsher to see theBruegel n a differentaspect.Here she is in the samepositionas the viewerof Solarisconfrontedwith thephenomenononstitut-ed by the planet'smagmaticmass: faced with an imagenovel to her, sheisolatescertainof its properties, ssociates hemwith other mages,andatthe same timesynthetizesheirshareddetailsso that hey clarifyand llumi-nate one another.Through he eye of the camera,which follows Harey'sline of vision,the viewer sees on the screensegmentedmagesof Bruegel'spaintingandfootagefromthe shortaboutKris'schildhood.Unlikethe latter's conic message,the Bruegel,with its greytonalitiesand its icy greens and whites, transmitsa sense of cold, of solitude,ofincommunicability.We see on the screenhunters andtheirdogs),lugubri-ous anddark,men forwhomthe violentimpulsewhichkillingpresupposeshasnothing o do witha will to live, is notdictatedby thenecessityfor sur-vival;rather, heyseem enclosedin an armorof ice whichprevents ontactwith or comprehension f the Other.This centralsubjectof the paintingthus has a connection o Harey'sown case: it relates o herimpendingdis-solution in Sartorius's annihilatoras victim of a cold ferocity that sheobscurely enses but does not understand.It is in this way that he quotation f Bruegelbringshometo theviewercertain econdarymeaningsnot evident n thepaintingby itself. Evenmoreimportant, owever, s thefunction hat hepaintinghas forHarey.Notonlydoes it offer her a means(as the shortdoesas well) of approaching worldand a past not herown. The use of a model,in thiscase the shorton Kris'schildhood,also allows her to connect hepainting'smessagewithher situa-tion as victim andprey.At the sametime,it permitsher to organizea seriesof impressionsand intuitionshitherto eft withouta unifyingcenter(e.g.,Kris's enderattitude ndSartorius'sixed destructiveesolve).The resultof thisprocess-silent only in the sense that t is not verbal-ized-is the resolutionexpressed n herexplosiveattackon the bureaucratSartorius.This is the desperateprotestof a beingwho senses thatday byday she is becomingmore andmorehuman,but, like the planetthat senther,sees herrightto live aboutto be abrogatedn the name of the kind ofsciencewhichupholds tsdogmatic tasisby destroying heAlien.The birthand deathof Hareyformpartof the message that the planettransmits or theexclusive benefitof Kelvin. She is the livingmodel whichcauseshimto become awareof theobtuseandmechanical rueltydominantin theworldfromwhich he originates.Yet the cruelmiracle he passivelyawaitsafter osinga beingwhomhe loveddespiteherDifference s not herresurrection, ossiblethough hat wouldbe in thisdimension. nstead, t isthe unexpectedmaterializationf anothermental mage,equivalent o theUnconsciousbecause transmitting, hroughdisplacement,an analogousmessage.This second, andagainimperfect,model whichthe planetsends-andwhichKris is able to deciphermmediately-bringsthe viewerback to theinitialscene of the film. As we look at what seems to be the water of thelake of theopening rames(it exhibitsthe sameconcentricmovement), hecamera lowlydrawsdistant o thatwe perceivethatwhat we arenow see-



8/14

300 SCIENCE-FICTIONTUDIES,VOLUME14(1987)ing is an aquatic sland,enveloped n its turnby the watersof Solaris,andon the island, old Kelvin'shouse drenched nside andout. The subsequentembracebetweenmen fromtwo generationss an eventoccurringar fromEarth,on the space station,as the materialization f Kris's mental mage;and this signals his acceptanceof anOthernessess fantastic hanHareyorthe planet, though one that would have been incomprehensible o Krisbeforehis extraordinaryoubleexperience.This syntheticand polysemous inal image has not been understood ythose who claimthat t representsasubmissiono authorityndto tradition-al social institutions r thearchetype f power, hefather igure, adourentitywrapped p in his logicof conservatism. 6nstead,heimage'smean-ingis twofold,oscillatingbetween henecessityof entrustingneselfto reas-suringsuperior ntitiescapableof performingmiraclesand theopeningof anew vision of the world,a visionwhichdiscovershe richnessof areality ullof possibilities.This ambivalence,entral o the workof Gogol, Dostoyev-sky, Bulgakov,and the Strugatskys,7s whatTarkovsky ecapturesn hisfilm. TheSoviet director pparentlyecoversbothpoles, utilizingone to theadvantage f theother.Hisprotagonist,hroughheplanet's cruelmiraclesandthetemporary scape ntoa symmetrical ayof seeingwhichreleaseshim from his too confiningexistential ondition,projectshimselftowardsadynamicuture nwhichthereareno staticandabsolute erities.Thanks o the film's artisticmultidimensionality,hevoyage embracingat oncethecosmos andpsychicreality s opento differentnterpretations.fSolaris s both a thinkingplanetand Kelvin'sUnconscious,andif his dia-loguewith it is thus also a self-communication,henhe is atonce the intend-ed addressee f a miracleandthe activeprotagonistf a searchbeginningnthedepthsof his beingbutfinally,oncethedialoguegetsunderway, leadingalso to theOther. n thisregard,t is significanthatKelvin is able to attainthe infiniteand creativepotentialhidden n himselfonly withthehelpof afantasticand miraculous ntitybeyondhim whichcompelshim to establishwith t acontactwhichhe was notpreparedor inadvance.Comparedo Solaris, Tarkovsky'snext film, freely adapted romtheStrugatskys'RoadsidePicnic, appearsdecidedlypessimistic.Absent fromit is the kindof autonomousdevelopmentwhich the preceding ilm repre-sents as difficult,but not impossible-witness, for example,the indepen-dence thatKris'sfatherattains.Fundamentalo the 1980filmis a complex nteractionwhichamounts owhatmightbe called the Solaris-ation f Picnic, and whose operationbeginsat the level of the scenario omposedby aTarkovskywhois theactiveandcreative ecipient f bothbooks(i.e.,Lem's andtheStrugatskys'). talk-er resembles he Soviet director's ersionof Solarisin proposinga voyageinto an animatespaceat once externaland internal o the protagonist ndmodifiable ccordingo his stateof mind.8Thatenterprisen this instance snot, however, imposed uponthe characters,orcedwilly-nilly to come totermswiththemselves; ather,t is anadventure esperately ought,yet use-less; for no contact s establishedwiththe Alien and the world remains aprison overned y iron aws which cannot eviolated. 9



9/14

THE SCIENCE-FICTIONILMS OF TARKOVSKY 301In consideringStalker,we can distinguish ariousphasesof the film'sconception. In the first, the director has utilized Lem's Solaris as asubsidiaryubject r as a filterthroughwhich to see his mainsubject:he

Strugatskys'ovelservingas hispointof departure.hanks o theprocessofintertextual connection that Tarkovskyas Lem's and the Strugatskys'addressee erforms,hetechnologicalreasureswhich n Picnicwere retriev-ed fromthe Zonedo notfigure n thefilm's scenario.Nor do the blackmar-ket,Red'sweightof guilt,ortheepisodewhereinPilmanexplainshis visionof the worldalongwith the extraterrestrialysteries.Furthermore,heeightyearsof the novelTarkovsky ompressesnto a single day,one whichhasadoubleandantinomialalence:as the briefanddecisivemomentof the mira-cle which is simultaneouslyne of dailymechanical outine.The 24 hourslived by the Stalkerare not fundamentally ifferent romcountlessothersrepeatedly pent waiting-searchingor somethingwhichneverwill happen.Then, too, the film deviatesfrom Picnic (andalso from Lem's Solaris)inregard o the statusof the Alien;for as Tarkovsky imself stresses pp.48-51), it cannot ertainly e concludedromStalkerhatsomething ctually anhappenn theZone-i.e., that heprotagonistoes notimagine verything.Forall its departuresrom the Strugatskys' ook,the film neverthelesscenters upon and reorganizes he last episodeof Picnic, the one whereinRed, desperateover his daughter's llness, goes in searchof the legendaryGoldenBall,whichaccordingo rumor angranteveryone'sdeepestwish-es. The Zone conceived by the Strugatskysmpels introspection, ust asSolarisdoes; and it is on this pointwhich the Polish and Russian storieshave in commonthatTarkovsky oncentratesStalker(after abandoningversion more aithful o Picnic becausehe found t unsatisfying).'OIn thesecondphaseof thefilm'sconception,Tarkovsky rawsnotonlyupon Lem and the Strugatskysbut also on passages from Dostoyevsky,Tjutchev,LaoTze, the Gospels,and the Book of Revelation,all of whichact as filtersor magnifying enses capableof bringingout new meaningsand discoveries.With reference o Max Black's suggestivemetaphorseehisp. 41), we cansaythat n Stalker t is as if thenightsky, orthe field ofreality,were observedby Tarkovsky-and throughhim by viewersof hisfilm-not with the naked eye directly but througha piece of heavilysmokedglass on which certain lines have been left clear. Therebyoneshallsee only thestars hatcan be made to lie on the lines previouslypre-pareduponthe screen,andthe stars...[one]do[es] see will be seen as orga-nizedby the screen's tructure. verything lse is immediately liminated.TheStalkerof the film, thanks o an interactive rocesswithinthefilmitself, is transformedrom the simple and weak characterwhom the Stru-gatskysportray s attractedo adventure ndlucre intoa ridiculousman.In his desire to escape from his existentialprison,he is akin to Gogol'sPoprishchin, o certain of Dostoyevsky's male personages, and in someways to Bulgakov'sMaster.As his wife, addressingherself to the cameraandthence o thespectators,aysof theStalker:

Probably you have already understoodthat he is not normal. Everybodylaughedat him andhe was so lost, the poor thing....Butwhatcould I do? I wassureI would have been okay with him. I knew there would be some bitter



10/14

302 SCIENCE-FICTIONTUDIES,VOLUME14(1987)moments,but a bitterhappiness s better than...agrey, boringlife....And ifthereweren'tanysufferingn ourlife, it wouldn'tbe better;t wouldbe worse.Because then therewouldn'tbe any happinesseither,and there wouldn'tbehopeeven....(Stalker,p. 53)WhatStalker's protagonist as in commonwith theRussian radition fthefantasticn itsGogol-Dostoyevskiantrain s his locationat themargin fa rigidandossifiedsystem, n a no man's andsusceptibleo centrifugalio-lent forces.Herea strongpressure gainstautomatizationxerts tself on theStalker,also in the personof his wife. By her reflectionson suffering, hearticulates hat impulseof a dialectic of oppositestowardsbreaking hemonotonyof a mechanical ndgrey existence,an impulsepreviouslygivenvoice by the devilwhois IvanKaramazov'slterego and henby Bulgakov'sWoland.The apparent ltemative hatpresents tself in the face of the Stalker'sdespairis between an escape into a thaumaturgic imension wherein toawaitanunforeseen esolutiveevent and an actof faithin thehumanpossi-bilities hidden n the depthsof one's being.InStalker, however, heweightof everyday ife is so crushingas to preclude hatalternative.Thethresholdof the room wherethe protagonistbelieves the most secret desirescan befulfilled will notbe crossed,and will not becauseno one daresconfront hedoublerisk thatcrossing t involves.If the miracledoes nottranspire,herewill be nothing o believe in or hope for any longer.If, on the otherhand,entering he room meansacceding o the darkestpartof oneself,theperilisof notbeingableto bear he shameof whatonediscovers.Incontrast o theStalker'sattitude,hereactionsof the two intellectualsfor whomhe is supposed o act as guide-uncreativebureaucratsf scienceand literature-recapitulatehe behaviorof certaincharacters n Tarkov-sky's Solaris. Like the Sartorius f thatfilm, the scientist n Stalker wantsto bomb out of existence an Othernesswhichdoes not fit the laws of his

system.The writer, nstead-who is closer to Gibarian-drawsback so as''notto pouron anyone's head the loathinghe has within, whereuponhewould have toputhishead n a noose (Stalker,p. 50).The Stalker,meanwhile,deprivedof the possibilities allowed KrisKelvin,restricts imself o dreaming f theApocalypse ndof a regenerationforwhichhe wouldbe notthe architect ut theChrist-likemediator;1Iethecannot indwithinhimself hecourageo believe nthis dream ompletely.Still,one possibilityremainsopenin thefilm.Its indicator s a passagefrom Lao Tze on the plasticity and flexibility of children.As Tarkovskycites it in theStalker filmscriptp. 37), thatquotation unsas follows:People are born weak andflexible; they die strongandobdurate.A growingtree is delicate andflexible;it perishesdryandstrong.Rigidity andstrengtharethe companionsof death;weaknessandelasticityexpressthe freshnessofbeing;what s unrigidwill not be vanquished.

Thatidea, occupying n Stalkera place similarto the thoughtof Pil-man's inserted n the middle of Picnic and thenpicked up at the end fromRed'spointof view, is likewisesimilarlycrucial o understanding-inthiscase,particularlyf thefinal framesof thefilm.



11/14

THE SCIENCE-FICTION ILMS OF TARKOVSKY 303There, n a movementwhosecircularity,houghonly apparent,s none-theless reminiscent f TheChildhoodof Ivan andSolaris,Tarkovsky ndsthe film where t began.From he luminousandcolorfulworldof theZone,

we are returnedo the squalorof an everydayexistence rendered n black-and-white footage shading into tones of brown. Yet if the filthy andbemiredvillage,thestagnantwatersof the lake,and the house of theStalk-er areessentially he same we see at theoutset,theyare notexactlyso. Fornow the colorfootagewhichTarkovskysignificantly nough)reserves orthe sequences akingplacewithinthe Zone,withexceptionmade(equallysignificantly) nly forthose momentswhen thepointof view switches romthe adultsto the Stalker'sdaughter,Martys'ka, gain briefly comes intoplay. As the muteand mutantMartyska, eprivedof theuse of herlegs, iscarriedhome on her father'sshoulders rom the bar where she had beentakento wait for him,we aresuddenlyandtemporarily llowed to see thequotidianworldcompletely ransformedhroughhereyes. Thehithertopol-luted anddead surfaceof the lake,shot from above andas the girl sees it,suddenlyappearsbrightandcolorful, ike the Zone.Theconnectionmadehere betweenMartyska ndthe lake ties Stalkerin withTarkovsky'sprevious ilms. It instancesonce againthe intratextu-al associationrecurrentn the Soviet director'sceuvrebetween magesofwaterandchildhood.His conjoiningof the two, moreover,has an analogi-cal basis-as he himself hints in his quotationof Lao Tze-which alsopointsto theprivileged tatusof childhoodas a sanctuaryromthemechan-ical rigidityof adult ife. Hencetheexpansesof waterso insistentlypresentin TheChildhoodof Ivan andAndreiRublevandtransforminghemselvesintoan entire ivingplanet nSolarishave a metaphoricmeaning.They magethe elasticness, the inarrestibility,he dynamismwhich humanbeings arebornwith-the potential,also for apprehendinghe new, whichfiguresinStalker'sastscene.Following the intervention of black-and-white, the color stockTarkovskyhas employedto shoot the lake fromMartyska'spointof viewreappears.By thatmedium,we finallywitness the long-awaitedmiracle.Ittakesplacenot within the Zone butoutsideit, in the realizationof a wishcapableof subduing he iron aws thatnoneof theadultshasbeen abletoviolate. What makes the miraclepossibleis not a material ransferenceoforbiddenterritory viz., the Zone), but the momentaryescape into theworldof artachievedby Martyska,whothoughshe is, like Harey,analien,is alsoa childandhencepossesses a child's elasticity.

Inthesequence mmediately recedingher escape -one of the lastinthefilm-she appears ilentlyabsorbed n a bookwhile on thesoundtrackvoice, objectivizing her interiormonologue,recites a lyric (untitled)byTyutchev pp.59-60):I love youreyes, my love,Theirwonderful,passionateplayWhensuddenlyyouraisethemAndboldlycastyourglance,Likeskybom ightning,aboutyou.



12/14

304 SCIENCE-FICTIONTUDIES,VOLUME14(1987)Butthere s a mightiermagic:Ofeyes to earthcast downAll through ferventkiss,Andthrough he lowered ashesThesullen faintflame of desire.

The miracle performedby Martyska'sglance, her eyes turneddownwardlike the woman's n the poem, was the realization,hrougha processof dis-placement,of a desire which this alien,deprivedof the use of her legs, isneverable to fulfill otherwise.What she accomplishesby the exertionofmentalenergyis alone,from the standpoint f the deadmechanicalworldin whichshe lives, a prodigious eat, even if the result s equivalent o theeffect producedon a glass by the noisy vibrationsof a train n anopeningsceneof the film.The small miracle thatMartyskaperformssolely for her own benefitmakes it clear to the viewerthat the Zoneis not some magicalterritory obe physicallyattainedby passingthroughbarbed-wirearriers.Rather,t issomethingexistingeverywhere,outsideus andwithin,thoughthis is lostsightof by the adults n Stalker,who areprisoners f a shabbilyandrigidlyone-dimensionalworld.The Strugatskys'novel andTarkovsky's ilm, thoughtheydiffer fromone another n languageandpointof view, share the samenucleus. Bothproblematically ddress he need to breakout of the rigidityandautoma-tism producedby all-encompassingdogmaticcertaintiesand by modelspretending o fit all situations.While pointing n somewhatdifferentdirec-tions, the two worksarethusinstructively omplementary. icnic projectsits search outwardsvia the indicationsof a scientist(Pilman)who, ratherthanseekingunshakableertitudes,wantsto constructdynamichypotheses,ones which can be extendedandmodifiedto explainevernew phenomena.Tarkovsky, nstead,directshis investigationstowardsthe interiorof theindividualabove all, seekingto discover those uncontainable nd infinitepossibilitiesof a symmetrical eingwithoutwhich scientificandartisticcreativity,andcognitiveadvancesgenerally, ould not occur.

NOTES1. The foregoingessay represents translation f a partof the sixth chapterofS. Salvestroni'sSemioticadell'immaginazione.Dalla letteratureantastica russa

allafantascienzasovietica(Venezia:Marsilio,1984)-RMP.2. For a discussionof therelationships mongthese artists, ee my book.3. Petersburgales (or stories ) s a term (whichGogol apparently id notapproveof) collectively designating TheOvercoat, TheDiary of a Madman,TheNose, TheNevsky Prospect, nd ThePortrait -RMP.4. Thisandother heoretical roblems treatat somelength nchapter6 of mybookon the semioticsof theimagination.5. Here and subsequentlyI use the termsymmetrical or symmetry) n thesensedevelopedby psychologist gnacioMatteBlanco.Forhimit namesthe prin-cipleon which theUnconscious's ogic is based-the principleaccordingo which



13/14

THE SCIENCE-FICTIONILMS OF TARKOVSKY 305asymmetrical elationships ehaveas if theyweresymmetrical. By logico-mathe-maticaldefinition,symmetrical elationships re those which hold even whenthephenomenaor terms relatedarereversed,whereasasymmetrical elationshipsdonot. Thus, for example, John s the brotherof Paul formulatesa symmetricalrelation, The arm is partof the body an asymmetrical ne.) By consequenceofthe principleof symmetry,MatteBlancoemphasizes,all the elementsof a classcometo be considered s identical n a waywhich annihilatesuch traditionalogi-cal distinctionsas that betweensubjectand object, partand whole, thoughtandaction,andpast,present,andfuture.What meanto suggest, hen, s thatSolaris neffect operateson thatprincipleandhence is explicable n its terms.6. See Frezzato,pp. 65-70. Sovietcriticswho discuss Solarisdo not seemanymore open than he to the comprehension f the richmeaningsof the film. Theyaffirm hatTarkovsky didnot follow thelogic and thespiritof such a goodbookas Lem's (quoted from a round-tablediscussion in VoprosyLiteratury,no. 1[1973]).7. For a furtherdiscussionof this bipolarity/ambivalence,ee Salvestroni,The AmbiguousMiracle n Three Novels by the StrugatskyBrothers, SFS, 11(1984):291 303.8. The Zone, the Stalkeraffirms, mightseem capricious,but it is at anygiven momentexactlywhat our stateof mind makes it... Some have died on thethresholdof the room.However,everything hathappensheredependsnot on theZone but on ourselves : talker,p. 36.

9. The world, he Stalker s told by the Writer, is infinitely monotonous,and thereforeneithertelepathy,nor fantoms,nor flying saucers have a place init....Noneof that; he world s govemed by iron laws, and hence is unbearably or-ing.And thoselaws, alas,arenotviolated,cannotbe violated : talker,p. 26.10. According o Tarkovsky, he remaking f the film was not wholly a matterof design.After halfof the first versionhad been shot,it was ruined n the lab. Icouldn't do the same thing over again. So, togetherwith the authors,I startedrewriting he scenario....The ccident ookplace just when the film in its originalconceptionwas in dangerof becoming insufficientlyprofound : Interview, p.48-5 1.11. It is here,in connectionwith the Stalker'sApocalypticdream, hatquota-tions fromtheBook of RevelationandtheGospelsfigure.

WORKSCITEDBlack, Max. Models and Metaphors. Ithaca, NY: 1962.Frezzato,A. Tarkovskij. irenze,1977.Lotman,Juri. Mozg-tekst-kul'tura-iskusstvennijntellekt, rans.by S. Salvestronias Il cervello-il testo-la cultura-l'intellectto rtificiale, ntersezioni,no. 1(Apr. 1982), pp.5-16.Matte Blanco, Ignacio. The Unconscious as Infinite Sets. An Essay in Bi-Logic.London,1975.Tarkovsky,Andrei. Interview by L. Capo),Scena, 5 (1980):47-51.

_ . Stalker (Directorial Filmscript), in Rassegna sovietica, Nov.-Dec.1980, pp.24-53.Tyutchev, F.I. Poems and Political Letters of..., trans. Jesse Zeldin. Knoxville:TennesseeUP, 1973.



14/14

306 SCIENCE-FICTIONTUDIES,VOLUME14(1987)Wittgenstein,Ludwig.Philosophical Investigations,trans. G.E.M. Anscombe.Oxford,1953.

RESUMESimonetta Salvestroni. Les films de science-fiction d'Andrei Tarkovsky.-Tarkovsky est le metteur n scenesovie'tiquee deuxchefs-d'oeuvre e science-fiction: Solaris(1972) tire du livre du me'menompar StanislawLem,et Stalker(1980), adapte du livredesfreres Strougatsky, ique-nique u bord e la route.Ense servant surtout de l'image, Tarkovskyorganise ces films (commeses filmspre'cedent)autour d'une bipolarite': ntre Solaris et l'URSS contemporain ou,peut-on dire, le monde technologise')dans l'un; et entre le monde quotidienmonochrome,et la Zone merveilleuse et coloree dans l'autre. En meime empscependantqu'il utiliselespoles d'unelogique binaire,sesfilms nient cettelogiqueantinomique ar leurs images inales suggerentun tertiumdatur,celui qu'onvoitdans la maison dupere de Kelvin,objetde ce mondequi, ne'anmoins,rempe' epluies, rappelleSolariset s'y dissoutensuite.Defacon encoreplus e'mouvante,equi transpireau momentou le mondeme'caniqueoiret blanc de Stalkerapparaitsoudain, miraculeusement,omme l est vu par les yeux de la jeune paralytique,Martys'ka,n couleursvives, rompant insi la division ogiqueentre e mondequo-tidien et la Zone,et ce quechacund'euxsigniflait.C'est a' ces egardssurtoutquelesfilms de Tarkovsky nt des affinite's reatricesavec les visions de Boulgakov,Dostoievsky,Gogol, et desfreresStrougatsky.RMP)

Abstract.-Tarkovsky is the Soviet director responsible or two masterpiecesofSFfilm: Solaris(1972), basedon the bookof the same title by Lem,and Stalker(1980), adapted rom the Strugatsky rothers'RoadsidePicnic.Working rimarilyin termsof images,Tarkovsky rganizes hese ilms (likehispreviousones) arounda bipolarity:betweenSolaris and the contemporaryUSSR(or, morebroadly, hetechnologizedworld) n the onefilm; between he monochromaticuotidianworldand the colorful,marvelousZonein the other.But whiletakingthepolarities of abinary ogic as his startingpoint,hisfilms finally negatethat antinomial ogic astheir concluding images indicate a tertium datur: thatfigured in the house ofKelvin'sfather, an object of this world which nevertheless,drenchedby rains,recalls (and then dissolves into) Solaris; and perhaps most movingly, hat whichtranspiresat the momentwhen the black-and-whitemechanicalworld of Stalker,suddenly,miraculously,appears,as seen through the eyes of the paralytic girlMarty.wka,n vividcolor, thusbreakingdownthe neat logical divisionbetween heeverydayworldand theZone and what each of themhad stoodfor. It is in theserespectsespeciallythatTarkovsky'silms have creativeaffinitieswith the antasticstrain in RussianandSoviet literature,with the visionsof Bulgakov,Dostoyevsky,Gogol,andtheStrugatskys.RMP)

the science fiction films of andrei tarkovsky

Documents