Un homme mourant d'une quarantaine d'années se remémore son passé. Son enfance, sa mère, la guerre, des moments et des choses intimes qui racontent l'histoire récente de toute la nation russ... Tout lireUn homme mourant d'une quarantaine d'années se remémore son passé. Son enfance, sa mère, la guerre, des moments et des choses intimes qui racontent l'histoire récente de toute la nation russe.Un homme mourant d'une quarantaine d'années se remémore son passé. Son enfance, sa mère, la guerre, des moments et des choses intimes qui racontent l'histoire récente de toute la nation russe.
- Récompenses
- 1 nomination au total
- Father
- (voix)
Histoire
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesTo create the effect of the wind making waves through the crops in the field outside the cabin in the woods, Tarkovsky had two helicopters land behind the camera and switch on the rotors when he wanted the wind to start.
- GaffesIn the first scene, in which stutterer Yuri Zhary is being hypnotized, a shadow of the boom mic is prominently visible on the wall behind him. However, because this is clearly supposed to be a recreation of a TV broadcast, it appears to be a intentional error.
- Citations
Father: It seems to make me return to the place, poignantly dear to my heart, where my grandfather's house used to be in which I was born 40 years ago right on the dinner table. Each time I try to enter it, something prevents me from doing that. I see this dream again and again. And when I see those walls made of logs and the dark entrance, even in my dream I become aware that I'm only dreaming it. And the overwhelming joy is clouded by anticipation of awakening. At times something happens and I stop dreaming of the house and the pine trees of my childhood around it. Then I get depressed. And I can't wait to see this dream in which I'l be a child again and feel happy again because everything will still be ahead, everything will be possible...
- ConnexionsEdited into Moskovskaya elegiya (1990)
Many films allow one immediate response; you know while watching how effective it is and at the end are geared for talking or writing about what you have just seen.
Others, you need to spend time with. This -- I am guessing here -- is because the truly great so lead our imagination that we need to heal or grow after the experience and only then assess what has happened. Surely when you are in this film, you know something special is going on: there are some true transcendences of the eye; very dimensional, surprising. Just as you have established the field of vision and registered the one thing you expect to see, the camera moves in an unexpected manner to reveal either a completely extra or contradictory reality.
Those moments thrill, but confuse at the same time because in lesser hands, this would be an excuse for noodling about with the 'story' in a superficially artsy-fartsy manner. Only after some time can you evaluate how effectively this might have slipped between the sheets of your minds. It is a matter of some interest to me how this happens when it does. Is it a matter of the artist knowing us better than we do ourselves and slipping into our dreams unawares? Or is a matter of creating an attractive castle that we are drawn to and inhabit?
Generally, when an artist is called 'personal,' it is thought to be the latter. But in this case, I think most of what he has done is find that universal manner of overlapping and merging that underlies the visual memory of us all. What confuses is the Soviet environment: the intensely uncoordinated industrial environment and the once fine but now dilapidated urban residences. They transport us to a different place: the unfamiliar described in a familiar way.
Surely this is not what he intended: he didn't make this for a comfortable American/European. And if not made just for himself it was for people who shared the same world. So at least as far as the content, we are attracted to an unfamiliar castle. But so far as the 'personal' form, I think he has found something strangely cosmic. This may be the best film (with Rublev) of one of the three most important filmmakers in history.
Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 4: Every visually literate person should experience this.
Meilleurs choix
Détails
Box-office
- Budget
- 622 000 RUR (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 22 168 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 11 537 $US
- 15 sept. 2002
- Montant brut mondial
- 124 367 $US
- Durée1 heure 47 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.37 : 1