Nostalgia Reviews

Tarkovsky novices beware

Andrei Tarkovsky was a great director, loved by most high-brow film critics: think Bergman crossed with Kubrick, but Russian and not as accessible! He made only seven feature films and they gradually became lighter on plot and heavier on symbolism (running water, horses, dogs, fire, mist) – from Ivan’s Childhood through to The Sacrifice, via Andrei Rublev (an astonishing historical epic, my favourite) and Solaris (his most famous work). The other three (Nostalgia, Mirror and Stalker) are beautiful to look at, very personal, but often incomprehensible. So if you have never seen a Tarkovsky film do not, under any circumstances, start with this one! My advice is to try them in the order he made them, as his films do require a while to get the feel of, but are well worth the effort. Two other things to note: Nostalgia is his least well-regarded film (even Tarkovsky buffs don’t like it) and there is an inherent problem that his films really are better suited to the cinema rather than DVD – they somehow feel diminished on the small screen . . .

Excruciating

I saw this film 20 years ago at the Tyneside Cinema in Newcastle. It is quite the most stupendously, unbelievably, gob-smackingly boring film I have seen in my life. It seems to last for six or seven hours and achieves an unprecidented level of self-indulgent tedium. Quite remarkable, really.

There's a scene where a man carries a lighted candle across an extremely wide and shallow paddling pool. He does this so slowly it almost appears in slow motion. Just before he reaches the other side the candle blows out, so he returns, lights the candle and starts the process over again.

To illustrate how long this scene lasts I will tell you that half way through I went to the cinema cafe and had a leisurely coffee. When I returned the guy was still trying to get the candle across the pool.

If you're thinking of committing suicide and can't work up the courage, rent this film. After sitting through an hour of it you will gladly embrace death.

Lost in translation????

I tried so hard with this .... persevered for an eternity but still could not fully grasp this renowned masterpiece which I had so desperately hoped to enjoy... Maybe the fault was mine ... would it have been easier in its original without resorting to subtitles ... or have I just totally lost the plot? Answers on a postcard please...

From Russia

Tarkovsky a brilliant and sadly missed director who has not been bettered since his untimely departure from this mortal coil. All his films have an air that gives the viewer a stillness not usually found on film,rather more often found in the mystical places around the world where peace is not disturbed. Sadly becoming scarcer each sun up. Please rent this beautiful work.

[Highly rated reviewer]

Tarkovsky's least successful film

Another poster has suggested that even Tarkovsky fans don't rate this one, and, as a huge Tarkovsky fan, I would like to say there's a good reason why not. His exile from Russia separated him from his natural material, and in trying to recapture that in Tuscany and Rome, even in making a film about exile and longing for a homeland (both real and spiritual), he constantly comes up empty.

The beautiful, lush imagery is still present - there are moments even here, in his worst picture, which will leave you gasping - but it's in the service of so very little. A Russian scholar searches in an increasingly desultory fashion for information on an obscure Russian composer who once passed through this part of Italy while suffering increasing intimations of his mortality; an Italian translator becomes increasingly frustrated at his dis-association from lived experience; and the local madman (played by a poorly dubbed Swede) tries to persuade everyone that the world is coming to an end. It's the director's bleakest vision (the crucifix - always Tarkovsky's central image - is glimpsed only through a haze on a distant dome above the Roman city-scape that suddenly, surprisingly intrudes at exactly the three-quarter point), culminating in one death and one self-immolation (played out as tourist attraction). In all of Tarkovsky's other films, there is redemption of some kind (even in 'Ivan's childhood', you know that the Russians eventually won the war); here, there is nothing except the memory of joy once attained, in the past, in another country.

Nostalgia

Although this was a very beautifully filmed & directed film, I found it hard to follow at times & a little bit too long. A nice story though & quite moving.

looks so wonderful but ...

Oh dear, this is the kind of film that makes the viewer think he/she isn't deep enough to understand it. In fact, it is utterly beautiful to look at but completely vacuous. The pseudo-intellectual ramblings which the protagonist voices Tarkovsky's sense of alienation are risibly banal. Lost in translation possibly ... but maybe not much there in the original either. Andrej Rublev was a great film, this is a truly self-indulgent one.

[Highly rated reviewer]

I don't agree

I'm not qualified to argue my corner with any authority here, but personally I do not agree with the general consensus that this is Tarkovsky's least successful film. I came to this great director fairly late in my life as an art-house fan, and so far have seen Mirror, Andrei Rublev, Solaris, and Nostalgia. Of these four Solaris, his most popular film, was for me by far the least enjoyable, to the extent that I found it silly and almost painfully boring. With Nostalgia I discovered once more the beautiful cinematic poetry I so admired in Mirror. It's in ordinary situations; a hotel lobby; a half remembered childhood garden; a sightseeing trip to a rural church; not on spaceships, that Tarkovsky creates sudden magic. It's well worth watching too for the brilliant cast, and especially for Oleg Yankovsky who gives a truly great performance in the lead role. The ending is genuinely startling. I found this film to be beautiful, grand, and memorable.

lost in italy

I hadn't seen this for ages. Whilst it is much clunkier than I remember, it is still a fantastic meditation on the meaning of life. I had forgotten the long, stagey, actorly monologues to camera, which I enjoyed immensely. The images I had remembered; the miniature landscape, the ruined church and snow, the Russian sepia memories are all still haunting. The apocalyptic 'madman's' ranting were also great fun, as is him burning himself. Sometimes, Tarkovksy lovers can be a little precious, he is probably earthier than they would like, and attempts a certain bawdy comedy, which is I think a little self conscious. A brooding quality comes naturally to him and whilst this has its limitations its is also, in relation to the general dross around quite refreshing. I personally wouldn't have chosen that woman, she is awflul and reminds me of terrible earnest Italian experimental theatre. The other main characters however are suberb. Lets keep that candle moving softly across the waters...

Possibly

Possibly the best film ever made