Filmmaking as a space of philosophy: A. Tarkovsky as a philosopher. The first article

Annotation

Both in Soviet and modern Russian cinema, the “author’s” film (and A. Tarkovsky created his films in this format) has always been highly appreciated, although often more by critics than by the public. The attendance of the “author’s” or, as it is called today, arthouse film made much to be desired. However, despite the high status of the “author’s” film, the theory of cinema has not been able to fully understand its nature until today. In this article, the author tries to show that the elimination of this lacuna in film studies was hindered by the lack of understanding about art and, in particular, about cinema as a philosophical phenomenon, as a kind of philosophical thinking. Russian Russian art, meanwhile, has long been a tradition of such representation, as evidenced, for example, by Russian literature. A convincing example here can be the work of Tarkovsky’s favorite author, Dostoevsky. The peculiarities of philosophizing in Russia are largely related to that. that it often appears here in artistic forms. Therefore, it does not seem strange to pose in this article the question of whether film directors can also be philosophers. In Western philosophy, this question was raised, for example, by J. Deleuze. In Russia, it was staged in connection with the work of K. Muratova by M. Yampolsky, arguing that K. Muratova is the only philosopher in Russian cinema, which, of course, is incorrect. I. Evlampiev and D. Salinsky have already stated that philosophical thinking is also inherent and even primarily in Tarkovsky. M. is trying to give his answer to this question, referring to the authority of M. Mamardashvili, who tried to understand the psychology of philosophical thinking, and the author of this article. It focuses on the psychology of philosophical thinking, and also attempts to understand Tarkovsky’s involvement in existing philosophical systems, for example, existentialism. The proposed article does not yet express all the arguments on this issue, since it is, in fact, an introduction to several texts by the author about Tarkovsky, which will be published in subsequent issues of our journal.

Keywords

Russian philosophy, cinema as a kind of philosophizing, Tarkovsky as a philosopher, author’s cinema, existentialism, thaw, new wave, sentimentalism, poetic cinema, J. Deleuze, M. Mamardashvili, I. Evlampiev, D. Salinsky.

Literature

1. A. A. Tarkovsky in the context of world cinema: Proceedings of the International Conference on November 22, 2002. Moscow. VGIK named after S. A. Gerasimov. — M.: VGIK, 2003. — 191 p.
2. Andrey Tarkovsky. The martyrology. The diaries. 1970–1986. Andrey Tarkovsky International Institute. 2008. — 623 p.
3. Anninsky L. The Apocalypse according to “Andrei” // The world and films of Andrei Tarkovsky. — M.: Iskusstvo, 1991. — Pp. 75–87. — 398 p.
4. Batkin L. Not afraid of his own voice // The world and films of Andrei Tarkovsky. — M.: Iskusstvo, 1991. — Pp. 98–14. Pp. 108. — 398 p.
5. Bergman and Tarkovsky // Session. — 1996. — No 13. — C. 70–71. — 70 p.
6. Bozhovich V. At the last line. The image of man in Bergman, Visconti, Tarkovsky //
On the verge of millennia. The world and man in the art of the twentieth century. — M.: Nauka, 1994. — 271 p.
7. Deleuze J. Cinema. — M.: Ad Marginem Press, 2016. — P. 552. — 560 p.
8. Evlampiev I. I. Andrey Tarkovsky and the new philosophy of man // Questions of
philosophy. 1996. — No 12. — P. 48–61.
9. Evlampiev I. I. The artistic philosophy of Andrei Tarkovsky — M.: Alethea. 2001. — 349 p.
10. Zorkaya N. Andrey Tarkovsky — “The Russian European” // Proceedings of the International Conference on November 22, 2002. Moscow. VGIK named after S. A. Gerasimov. — M.: VGIK, 2003. — Pp. 22–31.
11. Zorkaya N. Andrey Tarkovsky // People and destinies. XX century. — M.: 2002. — Pp. 239–253.
12. Zorkaya N. How I became a film critic. — M.: Agraf, 2011. — Pp. 318. — 448 p.
13. Cinematic experience. History — theory — Practice. A collective monograph. — St. Petersburg: Word order, 2020. — 360 p.
14. Kurosawa A. “Solaris”. Longing for the nature of the Earth // About Tarkovsky. Memories in 2 books. Book 1. — M.: Dedalus. 2002. — Pp. 424–426.
15. Mamardashvili M. How I understand philosophy. — M.: “Progress”. “Culture”, 1992. — P. 17. — 416 p.
16. The world and films of Andrei Tarkovsky. — M.: Iskusstvo, 1991. — No 2. — Pp. 75– 87. — Pp. 95–100. — 398 p.
17. Mikhalkov-Konchalovsky A. Low truths. Seven years later — Moscow: Eksmo, 2006. — 544 p.
18. Misharin A., Tarkovsky A. Mirror. Screenplay // Screenplays. 1988. — No 12. — Pp. 122–154.
19. About Tarkovsky. — M.: Progress, 1989. — 400 p.
20. Salinsky D. Tarkovsky’s Kinogermeneutics // Kinovedcheskie zapiski. — 1996. — No 31. — Pp. 188–198.
21. Salinsky D. Tarkovsky’s film hermeneutics. — M.: Production Center “Quadriga”, 2009. —P. 5. —576 p.
22. Symbolism and modernity: A. Tarkovsky as a follower of Russian theurgic philosophy and symbolism // Discussions about symbolism in the mansion of Russian modernity. — M.: Historical and cultural complex “Mansion of merchant Nosov” RGBM. Interinstitutional scientific group “European Symbolism and Modernity”, 2024. — Pp. 94–103.
23. Surkova O. Tarkovsky v. Tarkovsky. Diary of a pioneer. — M.: Canon+, 2020. — 456 p.
24. Tarkovsky A. Imprinted time // Questions of cinematography. Issue 10. — Moscow: Nauka, 1967. Pp. 79–102.
25. Tarkovsky A. Lectures on film directing // The art of cinema. 1990. — No 7. — Pp. 105–112; No 8. — Pp. 103–113; No 9. — Pp. 101–108; No 10. — Pp. 83–91.
26. Tarkovsky A. Martyrology. The diaries. 1970–1986. — Andrey Tarkovsky International Institute, 2008. — C. 28. — 623 p.
27. Tarkovsky A. The word about the Apocalypse // The art of cinema. — 1989. — No 2. — Pp. 95–100.
28. Tarkovsky A. The twentieth century and the artist // The art of cinema. — 1989. — No 4. — Pp. 88–106.
29. Tarkovsky A., Konchalovsky A. Andrey Rublev (Screenplay) // The art of cinema. — 1964. — No 4. — Pp. 139–200; No 5. — Pp. 126–160.
30. Trubetskoy E. Speculation in colors. Studies on Russian icon painting. — Publishing House of the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church. — M., 2012. — 152 p.
31. Freilich S. Theory of cinema: from Eisenstein to Tarkovsky — M.: Academic Project, 2002. — 509 p.
32. Khrenov N. A. “Death” or “birth” of the Author in spectacular discourse: A. Tarkovsky against the background of rehabilitation of the culture of the Silver Age // Entelechy. — Kostroma State University named after N. A. Nekrasov. — Kostroma, 2007. — Vol. 13. — Ser. “Cultural studies”. — No 16. — Pp. 106–118.
54
33. Khrenov N. A. Genius and culture (Traditions of the cultural Renaissance of the early twentieth century in the work of Andrei Tarkovsky) // Theory of artistic culture. — M.: State Institute of Art Studies. — Issue 6. — 2003.
34. Khrenov N. A. Chapter 10. The change of the aesthetic paradigm in Russian culture of the second half of the twentieth century: the phenomenon of A. Tarkovsky // Khrenov N. A. Cinema: rehabilitation of archetypal reality. — M.: Agraf. 2006 (Series “The Cabinet of Visual Anthropology”). — Pp. 591–640. — 704 p.
35. Khrenov N. A. A. Tarkovsky’s discourse from a cultural point of view: Russian Messianism without the imperial complex// / Yaroslavl pedagogical bulletin: Railway of the Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University. K. D. Ushinsky University. — Yaroslavl, 2018. — No 2. — Pp. 169–178.
36. Khrenov N. A. The Messianic complex in Russian cinema // Entelechy. — Kostroma State University named after N. A. Nekrasov. — Kostroma, 2008. — No 18. — Pp. 97–118.
37. Khrenov N. A. A new project of philosophical research of cinema. Review of the collective monograph “Cinematic experience: history — theory — Practice”. — St. Petersburg: 2020 // Terra aestheticae. Theoretical Journal of the Russian Aesthetic Society. — St. Petersburg: 2020. — No 1. — Pp. 192–210.
38. Khrenov N. A. The founders of discursivity in Russian filmmaking: from A. Tarkovsky to A. Zvyagintsev. Article two // Culture of culture. — 2019. — No 2. — [Electronic resource] // URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/osnovateli-diskursivnosti-v-otechestvennoy-kinorezhissure- i-ih-posledovateli-ot-a-tarkovskogo-k-a-zvyagintsevu/viewer (accessed: 30.03.2024)
39. Khrenov N. A. The founders of discursivity in Russian filmmaking: from A. Tarkovsky to A. Zvyagintsev. Article One // The electronic journal of the Scientific Association of Cultural Researchers “Culture of Culture”. 2019. — No 1. — [Electronic resource] // URL: https:// cyberleninka.ru/article/n/osnovateli-diskursivnosti-v-otechestvennoy-kinorezhissure-i-ih- posledovateli-ot-a-tarkovskogo-k-a-zvyagintsevu/viewer (date of reference: 30.03.2024)
40. Khrenov N. A. The discovery of the “cosmic sense” (Andrei Tarkovsky puts “Solaris” by S. Lem) // Art and exact Sciences. — M.: Nauka, 1978. — Pp. 222–245. — 296 p.
41. Khrenov N. A. Followers of A. Tarkovsky’s discourse in modern Russian film direction: A. Zvyagintsev // / Yaroslavsky pedagogical bulletin: Zh-l Yaroslavl State Pedagogical Institute. K. D. Ushinsky University. — Yaroslavl, 2018. — No 3. — Pp. 264–276.
42. Khrenov N. A. Sacralization of private life in A. Tarkovsky and A. Zvyagintsev: a statement through demonstration of the opposite in the film “Dislike” // Yaroslavsky pedagogical bulletin: Zh-l Yaroslavl State Pedagogical Institute. K. D. Ushinsky University. — Yaroslavl, 2018. — No . 4. — Pp. 265–269.
43. Khrenov N. A. The change of the aesthetic paradigm in the Russian culture of the twentieth century: the phenomenon of A. Tarkovsky // Entelechy. — Kostroma State University named after N. A. Nekrasov. — Kostroma, 2003. — No 6. — Pp. 108–131.
44. Khrenov N. A. Creative personalities and cultural models: the problem of continuity in Russian filmmaking. The view of a culturologist // Yaroslavsky pedagogical bulletin: Railway of the Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University. K. D. Ushinsky University. — Yaroslavl, 2018. — No 1. — Pp. 182–188.
45. Khrenov N. A. A. Tarkovsky’s creativity in the context of cultural transition processes of the second half of the twentieth century // Russian Art Culture. The contours of spiritual experience. — St. Petersburg, 2003. — Pp. 122–163.
46. Khrenov N. A. Philosophy and art: Tarkovsky as the founder of a new discursivity // Scientific and practical online publication “Industry of impressions. Technologies of socio- cultural research”. — Novgorod State University named after Yaroslav the Wise. — Veliky Novgorod, 2023. — No 4. — Pp. 49–88.
47. Khrenov N. A., Khrenov A. N. Is the philosophy of cinema possible and what aspects of cinema can become its subject? // Bulletin of VGIK. — M., 2021. — No 2. — Pp. 102–118; — No 3. —Pp. 96–114; —No 4. —Pp. 94–106; 2022. —No 1. Pp. 58–74.
48. Khrenov N. A. The artistic world of Andrei Tarkovsky. Spiritual and philosophical aspects // Art of the Soviet time. In search of a new understanding. — M.: Alethea. 1993. — 254 p.
49. Khrenov N. A. The Sixties and their followers: A. Tarkovsky’s discourse and its significance for Russian cinema of the second half of the twentieth century and the first decades of the twentieth century // The dialogue of arts and art paradigms. Articles. Essays. materials. Volume 40. Saratov State Conservatory named after L. V. Sobinov. — Saratov, 2022. — Pp. 250–307.
50. Khrenov N. A. Tworczosc Andrieja Tarkowskiego w kontekscie idei rossyiskiego odrodzenia religijnego i kulturalnego poczatku XX wieku // Strefa filmu kino Andrieja Tarkowskiego. — Redakcja naukova Iwona Anna NDiaye. Marek Sokolowski. Torun: Widawnictwo Adam Marszalek, 2013. — S. 227–257.
51. Shemyakin A. Konchalovsky and Tarkovsky together and apart // Cinematography of the thaw. Book 2. — M.: 2002. — Pp. 228–300.

This study was supported by grant No. 24–28–01588 from the Russian Science Foundation, https://rscf.ru/project/24–28–01588/; the Dostoevsky Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy