A dying man in his forties remembers his past. His childhood, his mother, the war, personal moments and things that tell of the recent history of all the Russian nation.A dying man in his forties remembers his past. His childhood, his mother, the war, personal moments and things that tell of the recent history of all the Russian nation.A dying man in his forties remembers his past. His childhood, his mother, the war, personal moments and things that tell of the recent history of all the Russian nation.
- Awards
- 1 nomination
- Father
- (voice)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaTo 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.
- GoofsIn 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.
- Quotes
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...
- ConnectionsEdited into Moskovskaya elegiya (1990)
Predictably, this messy non-story received rave reviews on this site. It's the old "I'll pretend I understood it so as not to appear dumb" movie-viewing phenomenon (coupled with the "I'll gain respect from my peers by showing appreciation for 'deep' movies" inferiority complex). Just how deeply ingrained this fear - this disease - is in the human mind is best illustrated by this: Tarkovsky himself once said that most people leave the theater in silence after they'd finished watching "Zerkalo". Tarkovsky must have said this with a touch of pride, hoping "Zerkalo" affected people deeply, emotionally, on a subconscious level, leaving them speechless and immersed in intellectual musing. However, the reality, as so often, is quite different from wishful thinking. Why did these people leave the theater in silence? Because they didn't DARE complain. Because they were utterly confused. Nearly everyone is afraid of not having understood the "symbolism". Always keep in mind: the vast majority of humanoids have a powerful FEAR of being exposed as morons or cowards in society. One of the many ways this can occur is by saying you didn't understand a movie. If you failed to understand "Bambi", then you truly are a moron. On the other hand, by not admitting you were confused by pretentious European cinema you may think you have succeeded in hiding your supposed lack of intelligence, but all you've achieved is to show that you're a coward - unable to tear apart a movie like this with the frankness that it frankly deserves.
I'm told this film is about a dying man, recouping his life, childhood, divorce... I've never even noticed that the narrator was dying! Where was this mentioned? (Perhaps I just dozed off ) Unfortunately, the narration here is done through poetry, i.e. basic info is convoluted through riddles and other garbage, which basically means that "Zerkalo" becomes a puzzle to solve - like so many dumb European films - instead of a story to enjoy. Who says a movie has to be riddled with puzzles and "symbolism" in order to be "artistically valid"? Just exactly where is this written? I am not saying a film should spell everything out, i.e. require no amount of thought, but going to the other extreme can be just as stupid/pointless. "Zerkalo" means almost nothing. The thin premise of a dying man and his reminiscing not only does not constitute a story, but is very DULL as well. I did not care about his life because his life was not nearly eventful and interesting enough to validate its being put on the big screen.
So what does one get when poetry (i.e. rhythmic/semantic puzzles) is layered on top of a bunch of meaningless, often unrelated scenes? You get a wonderful stew of nonsense, leaving the viewer free to interpret it IN ANY WAY he chooses. Whatever meaning you find in this malarkey is totally individual, and can be easily supported by a plethora of invented arguments. It's like a Picasso "painting": abstract enough crap to elicit any kind of meaning. Picasso and Tarkovsky's "Zerkalo" have that one thing in common: both are feared greatly by people who lack the guts to admit to others (and sometimes even to themselves!) that they do not understand it. (Besides, what's there to understand?)
Whenever a movie requires a road map, you know it has failed - at least in the story department. What does all that documentary footage mean? Tarkovsky pretentiously shoves various newsreels into "Ogledalo", most probably because he likes the way they look. Maybe HE saw a meaning, i.e. a link between those scenes and the story, but I believe that movies can be approached as food in restaurants: the customer is always right. Or at least: the director ISN'T always right. Tarkovsky can talk about how all the scenes here have a purpose until he's blue in the face, and I still won't take him seriously. It isn't difficult to link the unlinkable: all you need is some imagination and an even healthier amount of self-delusion. What Tarkovsky and "Zerkalo"'s fans see in this film will only make sense in their confused, deluded, hallucinatory little minds.
On the other hand, "Ogledalce" has some very good photography, especially the scenes in colour. The documentary footage, if nothing, is a welcome refreshment amidst all the confusing nonsense, some of which is quite dull, as well.
Symbolism? A man holding a bird in his hand, while the narrator emits incomprehensible poetry at the poor viewer? Yeah, the bird symbolizes life, whatever. The stuttering boy from the first scene probably symbolizes the difficulty of communication in society. Whatever. There is a problem with communication amongst humans?? Really??? Why, thank you, Mr.Tarkovsky, for letting us in on that great secret! I never, EVER, would have realized this were it not for "Zerkalo". The point I'm making is that below all these clouds of verbal and visual riddles, there often hides a message (IF there is one) that is banal, anything but deep. Sometimes the message in such movies is merely "life is hard". How veeeery deep
Going back to the stuttering boy scene: the great irony, of course, is that movies such as these don't exactly help in the area of communication, do they? The viewer leaves the theater silent, wondering what the hell he just spend 100 minutes of his life on. Tarkovsky failed to communicate his oh-so deep thoughts even worse than the stutterer...
"The Mirror" is like a magic trick (without the use of mirrors): you're fooled (if you're gullible enough) into believing that what you've just witnessed was something deeply profound. It's a scam.
E-mail me if you want my totally altered subtitles for awful Bergman movies.
- fedor8
- Apr 6, 2008
Details
Box office
- Budget
- RUR 622,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $22,168
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $11,537
- Sep 15, 2002
- Gross worldwide
- $123,864
- Runtime1 hour 47 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.37 : 1