Week 6/2023

This week, history is woven by a mother in Zerkalo [The Mirror] by Andrei Tarkovsky, she passes on the spell of heredity in Paix sur les champs by Jacques Boigelot, and a man becomes possessed by the history he deliriously pyrsues in Werner Herzog’s Aguirre, Zorn Gottes.

Zerkalo is a story of childhood that is intertwined with a collective history. For Tarkovsky, the mother is a figure that is strongly linked to time and history. The filmmaker himself stated: “The Mirror is not a casual title. The storyteller perceives his wife as the continuation of his mother, because wives resemble mothers, and errors repeat themselves – a strange reflection. Repetition is a law, experience does not get transmitted, everyone has to live it.”

The inheritance of spirit is the premise of Boigelot’s Paix sur les champs. In this film, a woman is the bearer of powers which make ‘errors repeat themselves’, but she’s capable to transcend them as well. In the Belgian countryside, the grandson of a presumed witch will find out how much his rural community still believes in the peril of his lineage when he falls in love with the sister of a girl who supposedly died under his grandmother’s influence. 

Set during the expansion of the Spanish Empire in South America, the protagonist of Herzog’s film, Don Lope de Aguirre or ‘the Wrath of God’ as he calls himself, is a child of his times. Just like the Congo River in Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, the Amazon leads him and his band further and further into the phantasm of colonialism. Accompanied by the hypnotic soundtrack by Popol Vuh, Aguirre dreams of becoming the founding father of an empire. 
 

Zerkalo
The Mirror
Zerkalo , Andrei Tarkovsky, 1975, 107’

Zerkalo is an elusive autobiographical film poem in which Tarkovsky implicitly mixes his own childhood memories of the Russian countryside with a collective (Russian) history. This associative collage melts together the thoughts, emotions and memories of Aleksei as a child, adolescent and forty-year-old, and the poetry of Tarkovsky’s father Arseny, fragments of classical music by Bach, Pergolesi and Purcell, and archival material from the Spanish Civil War and the Second World War. He reminisces about his childhood before and during the war, about his relationship with his mother and his father’s sporadic visits. In the present, Aleksei is arguing with his wife over their son. Alternating between colour and black-and-white images, Zerkalo unfolds like a dreamy mosaic moving back and forth in time, chronicling the life of a man throughout the 20th century, in a zone where the past isn’t past but haunts the present. By having the same actress play both Aleksei’s mother and wife, Tarkovsky’s childhood – life with a single mother – is reflected in his own relationships. As Tarkovsky put it: “It’s the story of my mother and therefore a part of my own life... The film contains only true events. It’s a confession.” The film encountered such resistance from the Soviet authorities that Tarkovsky toyed with the idea of giving up filmmaking. However, letters from admirers kept him from doing so. In the introduction to his book Sculpting in Time he quotes one of these letters: “I am grateful to you for Zerkalo. I’ve had the exact same childhood... How could you know?”

 

“The subject of my film is a man who unites women and children. However, he is not accomplished as a son or a husband, and the children lack a man, a father. So, he’s the storyteller, he stays off-screen. We only see him when he is six, and then when he is twelve, during the war. Relationships have been broken and the storyteller has to renew them, in order to find his moral equilibrium, but he is unable to do so. He lives with the hope that he will be able to pay his love debt back, but that debt is one which nobody can get rid of. Women can only destroy everything. No, no, I’m joking. We can understand their role in this way, but we love them, they brought us up, they made us the way we are. They are steadfast, they want to maintain the child in us, whereas we are already old men. The Mirror is not a casual title. The storyteller perceives his wife as the continuation of his mother, because wives resemble mothers, and errors repeat themselves – a strange reflection. Repetition is a law, experience does not get transmitted, everyone has to live it.”

Andrei Tarkovsky1

 

Bérénice Reynaud: Why Mirror?

Olivier Assayas: What interests me in cinema is not cinema itself, but what cinema, as an exploratory tool, catches in its nets. So for me Mirror is not a film, it is something that goes beyond cinema – to delve into issues of memory and remembrance, and relationship between memory and perception. Mirror is a first-person narration about a man who recounts sensations he once experienced and is attempting to “reconstruct” them, as Proust would say. And he does so not as a filmmaker, but a poet: he uses cinema to create correspondences between materials, odours, colours, faces, the way poetry, by putting words together, allows us to reconstruct a particular feeling. Mirror is a sort of dreamlike cinema verite, based on this idea which is crucial in Tarkovsy’s work – that the object of cinema is not to film the real, but to film perception.

Bérénice Reynaud in conversation with Olivier Assayas2

 

“A woman wrote from Gorky: “Thank you for Mirror. My childhood was like that... Only how did you know about it? There was that wind, and the thunderstorm... “Galka, put the cat out,” cried my Grandmother... It was dark in the room... And the paraffin lamp went out, too, and the feeling of waiting for my mother to come back filled my entire soul... And how beautifully your film shows the awakening of a child's consciousness, of this thought!... And Lord, how true... we really don't know our mothers’ faces. And how simple;.. You know, in that dark cinema, looking at a piece of canvas lit up by your talent, I felt for the first time in my life that I was not alone...” I spent so many years being told that nobody wanted or understood my films, that a response like that warmed my very soul; it gave meaning to what I was doing and strengthened my conviction that I was right and that there was nothing accidental about the path I had chosen.

Andrei Tarkovsky3

 

“When film is not a document, it is dream. That is why Tarkovsky is the greatest of them all. He moves with such naturalness in the room of dreams. He doesn’t explain. What should he explain anyhow? He is a spectator, capable of staging his visions in the most unwieldy but, in a way, the most willing of media. All my life I have hammered on the doors of the rooms in which he moves so naturally. Only a few times have I managed to creep inside.”

Ingmar Bergman4

 

“lf you look for a meaning, you will miss everything that happens... there’s no way [a work of art] can be analyzed without destroying it.”

“I am seeking a principle of montage that will allow me to expose the subjective logic – the thought, the dream, the memory – instead of the logic of the subject.”

“I’ve noticed, from my experience, if the external, emotional construction of images in a film are based on the filmmaker’s own memory, on the kinship of one’s personal experience with the fabric of the film, then the film will have the power to affect those who see it.”

Andrei Tarkovsky

 

“Even after all these years, the reminiscences of Marsha in Tarkovsky’s film remain unforgettable for me. Under the rules of the Chinese Communist Party, every single one of our actions was political. Our lives were bound by politics, with no way out. Our emotions and our spirits were alienated. We could not give free rein to happiness and love.”

Wang Bing

 

“For the first time," he resolved, "I would use the means of cinema to talk of all that was most precious to me, and do so directly, without playing any kind of tricks." Tarkovsky needed twenty rough cuts before arriving at the film’s intricately interflowing system of flashbacks and archival footage, often interpreted as unfolding in a dying artist’s final rays of consciousness. While Mirror, like all Tarkovsky’s films, pays homage to painting, music, and poetry, it also makes plain that the Russian director understood Mnemosyne to be the mother of the muses. Being a poet, he sought not only to retrieve the past but to reveal its essence – and in so doing to redeem an inherently flawed present. "The story not of the filmmaker’s life," observes Tarkovsky scholar Robert Bird, "but of his visual imagination.”

Harvard Film Archive

 

Tonino Guerra: What images do you think you’ve “stolen” from someone else, even though you’ve obviously transformed them into your own style?

Andrei Tarkovsky: I’m generally very wary of this and I try to avoid it. I don't like the suggestion that I may not have acted in such or such a situation with complete independence. Yet, lately, these references begin to interest me. In The Mirror for instance, there are two or three shots that are very clearly inspired by Brueghel: the boy, the small silhouettes of men, the snow, the bare trees, and the river in the distance. I created these shots very consciously and deliberately, not with the idea of copying or to show culture but to bear witness to my love for Brueghel, of my dependence on him, of the deep impression that he has made on my life.

Tonino Guerra in conversation with Andrei Tarkovsky5

  • 1Andrei Tarkovsky, ‘The Artist Lives Off His Childhood like a Parasite: An Interview with the Author of The Mirror,’ interview by Claire Devarrieux, Le Monde, 20 January 1978. Reprinted and translated in Andrei Tarkovsky. Interviews, ed. by John Gianvito (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2006).
  • 2Bérénice Reynaud, ‘Tarkovsky. Seeing is Believing,’ Sight & Sound, January 1997, vol. 7, issue 1.
  • 3Andrei Tarkovsky, Sculpting in Time. Reflections on the Cinema (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1989).
  • 4Ingmar Bergman, The Magic Lantern: An Autobiography (Penguin Books: New York, 1988).
  • 5Andrei Tarkovsky, ‘Stalker, Smuggler of Happiness,’ interview by Tonino Guerra, Télérama, no. 1535, 13 June 1979. Reprinted and translated in Andrei Tarkovsky. Interviews, ed. by John Gianvito (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2006).
screening
De Cinema, Antwerp
Paix sur les champs
Paix sur les champs , Jacques Boigelot, 1970, 91’

Johanna Verryck knows, deep in her heart, that Stanne Vanashe, son of a witch and unfortunate heir to her evil powers, killed her daughter with a knife twenty years ago for love. To relieve her pain and the unpunished crime, Johanna lives secluded with her second daughter. When the assassin's son, Louis, meets the gaze of the beautiful young girl, destinies intertwine again.

EN

“According to the online World Catalog, you'll have to go to the Bibliothèque Nationale de France in Paris if you want to see Paix sur les Champs, Belgium’s 1971 Oscar entry. That’s how rare it is. [...] Based on a 1941 book by Marie Gevers and directed by Jacques Boigelot, Peace in the Fields has touches reminiscent of Crime and Punishment and Romeo and Juliet, but is rooted in the beautiful Flemish rural landscape of the mid 1920s.”

Michael S. Barrett1

  • 1Michael S. Barrett, Foreign Language Films and the Oscar, Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, 2018.

FR

« Paix sur les champs, avant d’être un film réalisé en 1971, est un livre publié en 1941 par l’auteur belge Marie Gevers, première femme élue à l'Académie Royale de Langue et de Littérature françaises de Belgique. Son talent d’écrivain n’étant plus à démontrer, il est évident que Jacques Boigelot, en choisissant d’adapter ce roman, se trouvait déjà en présence d’un excellent scénario. Si bon livre n’est pas toujours (et même rarement) synonyme de bon film, il convient ici de saluer l’adaptation faite avec la collaboration de René Wheeler (adaptateur, entre autres, de Jour de fête de Jacques Tati) qui n’évince en rien l’univers et la profondeur de l’œuvre littéraire. L’écrivain, venue assister, trente ans après la parution de son roman, à la projection du film fut d’ailleurs fort touchée par sa transposition à l’écran. »

Sarah Pialeprat1

  • 1Sarah Pialeprat, « Paix sur les champs de Jacques Boigelot », Cinergie, Juin 2008.
screening
Flagey, Brussels
Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes
Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes , Werner Herzog, 1972, 95’

It’s 1560; the Spanish Empire’s reach has come across South America. Now leading an expedition on the Amazon River, a group of Conquistadors are now looking for the legendary city of gold: El Dorado. Descending into madness in the depths of the South American jungle, the Conquistadors will soon find a fearless and unforgiving leader in Lope de Aguirre; and from him they will suffer the Wrath of God.

EN

“In 1560, not quite twenty years after the death of Francisco Pizarro, who had conquered Peru for Spain, an elaborately provisioned party of conquistadores set out from Quito to find the land of El Dorado. It was a fearful journey first to cross the Andes but even worse on the other side. Those who didn’t starve, drown, or die of fever in the Amazon jungles were in constant danger of being killed by Indians.

When it became apparent the entire expedition could not go on, a small task force was commissioned to continue down the Amazon for a week. In command were Pedro de Ursua and his aide, Lope de Aguirre, sometimes referred to in history books as Aguirre the Madman or Aguirre the Traitor. They never returned.

Exactly what happened afterward is unclear but it seems that Aguirre murdered Ursua, declared the little band’s independence from Spain, and crowned a man named Fernando de Guzman, the ranking nobleman among them, ‘Emperor of El Dorado’. He eventually murdered Guzman and was himself murdered by his own men when they at last reached South America’s northeast coast. 

[...]

There’s an eerie moment in the middle of the film when the Emperor, sitting in rags under an improvised shade on the makeshift raft that is carrying the party down the Amazon, picks at his fish dinner (the other men are starving) and thinks with satisfaction that his “empire” is now six times as large as Spain’s. No matter that he too may never eat again, nor that his empire is jungle swamp, the sense of power is so intoxicating that it overwhelms all other considerations.

It's as if Mr. Herzog were saying that civilization – our assumption that we have conquered nature or even come to some accommodation with it – is as ridiculous as the Emperor’s pleasure.

Vincent Canby1

 

“Kinski brought with him a whole set of associations, behaviours and resources not only from the B-films, but also – more importantly, perhaps – from the recitations. As Herzog’s film unfolds, the speaking role of Aguirre expands from a few short lines of dialogue to a succession of monologues, so that the film itself increasingly relies on Kinski’s physical presence, his literal and figurative command of an audience by means of voice. In some sence, Aguirre follows a trajectory similar to that of Kinski’s stage career, from working with troupes, where he is surrounded by other actors, to going solo, where he may be surrounded by the crew (or a pack of monkeys) but his character is seen as increasingly isolated. In the end – and I am not giving anything away here – he speaks only to himself and to ‘us’ as witnesses. In terms of the cast, the entire film can be seen as one long process of elimination, until Kinski is the last one standing.”

Eric Ames2

  • 1Vincent Canby, “Aguirre, the Wrath of God,” The New York Times, 1977
  • 2Eric Ames “Aguirre, the Wrath of God,” BFI Film Classics, 2016
screening
-
CINEMATEK, Brussels
This Week
-

index