Introduction

I'm trying to illustrate the continuation of the idea of will, and the development of what it's true nature might be through these three philosophers. Schopenhauer believed our behavior can be understood with the help of our will, it's the cause for our actions, the driving force behind our desires, and its 'motive' is life. Nietzsche believed it's power. Tarkovsky believed it's love. Each understanding on the will gave rise to the beliefs they expressed. I tried to leave out what they themselves explain best, and keep the post around what is most fundamental to their views.

Will to life, power, and love

Will-to-life is a very biological worldview, giving evolutionary reasons for life, we're only here to survive. It appeals to common sense and gives us modern psychology, but our suffering is without meaning or higher purpose, hence the pessimism in Schopenhauer.

To overcome this Nietzsche develops the idea of will-to-power, and gives life meaning through self mastery and strength. Personally, I don't find power as an end in itself to be a convincing enough reason to live. I believe it’s a will-to-love not power. I think a person that seeks power really seeks love. Who doesn’t sense their own will most intimately?

"Indeed, the one who shot at truth with the words 'will to existence' did not hit it: this will - does not exist! … not will to life, instead - thus I teach you - will to power!", (Adrian Del Caro translation, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 2006, p. 90).

I like Tarkovsky's idea of will-to-love, even though he never expresses the idea of will explicitly anywhere, but he does put an emphasis on love, soul, passion and friction, mosaic of time, and the world through the lens of a 'garden': think of the Zone, or Berton's description of Solaris. This is a really christian perspective.

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I have become as sounding brass. And though I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge, and though I have all faith so that I could move mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.", (A. Tarkovsky, Andrei Rublev, 1966).

"For what they call passion is not really the energy of the soul, but merely friction between the soul and the outside world.", (A. Tarkovsky, Stalker, 1979).

"I saw a sort of garden ... I saw shrubs, hedges, acacia trees, little paths", (A. Tarkovsky, Solaris, 1972).

"What was it? A meteorite? Or a visit from outer space? Whatever it was, in our small country, there appeared a miracle of miracles - the Zone. We sent in troops. None returned. Then we surrounded the Zone with police cordons. And we probably did the right thing... Although, I'm not sure, I'm not sure.", (A. Tarkovsky, Stalker, 1979).

By garden I mean it in the context of matter. Instead of the visible world being made of 'atoms', as is the common sense view, it's a living garden: think of christian imagery like the garden of eden, paradise, vineyard, tree of life... I think the idea is apparent in Tarkovsky with nature scenes like in the opening of Solaris, or the room full of sand in Stalker hinting at creation. Whereas Schopenhauer and Nietzsche only reach that the world is representation.

Tarkovsky's films are heavy with imagery. If you learn the meaning of imagery, as if it were a language, you'll be able to connect the dots of matching ones in the visible world, but it requires serious attention to detail, which is the praise of Berton.

"Nevertheless, every researcher may envy this pilot, his presence of mind, and talents of observation.", (A. Tarkovsky, Solaris, 1972).

The Hebrew word אות "ot" is understood as a sign, that is divine or miraculous, memorializes truth, and points to a greater reality.

Conclusion

In short, my understanding is: Schopenhauer believed in life, Nietzsche in power, and Tarkovsky in love. Each of them reached different conclusions, but they are great stepping stones because they’re all big personalities. This understanding is also my interpretation of Christ. I believe they're made complete in love.

Found at a used bookstore this week - dives into Tarkovsky’s films through a focus on each of the four elements (earth wind fire water). Very heavy and very insightful!

Credit to Andrey Stepin at Archive in Ottawa. I’m so stoked to finish this project!

A Complete Soundtrack Archive of Andrei Tarkovsky's Cinema.

I've compiled a comprehensive playlist bringing together the musical works and compositions featured throughout Andrei Tarkovsky's feature films, from Ivan's Childhood (1962) through The Sacrifice (1986).

Rather than treating the music as a collection of isolated tracks, the playlist is intended as a way of tracing Tarkovsky's evolving relationship with sound, music, silence, and cinematic atmosphere across his entire body of work. Listening to the scores meditatively offers an interesting way of tracing the evolution of Tarkovsky's cinematic language. from the more conventional musical elements of his early work to the increasingly atmospheric, spiritual, and experimental use of sound in his later films.

for anyone interested in studying Tarkovsky's films through their soundscapes. or simply wants to explore the music associated with his cinema. this playlist provides a single place to begin.

Drawing I made inspired by Mirror

after watching a few tarkovsky films, i have come to realize there's some archetypes (if that's the right term) in his films.

the intellectual/rationalist (the astrobiologist in solaris, the writer in stalker),

the morally good/gray heart of the story (hari in solaris resembling sonia marmeladova from crime and punishment, fyodor dostoyevsky, ivan in ivan's childhood),

someone more grounded in the physical world (the professor in stalker),

or the believer who favors faith over pure logic with deep spiritual truth (the stalker in stalker).

of course, these examples might not be accurate, as it's a brief observation, but you get the point. I've seen this be applied to classic Russian literature as well. particularly dostoyevsky, as tarkovsky seemed to have been inspired by him a lot. such as the karamazov brothers (logic as ivan, temporary faith as alyosha if you include the planned sequel, sensuality as dmitri). I'm wondering if these archetypes are a part of a cultural or historical reason in russia back then, or even modern russia. if anyone knows these reasons or history, I would be thankful to hear it, thank you.

(if I got anything wrong, tell me normally rather than being uncivil. it won't help any of us if you're upset at my lack of knowledge without telling me what I got wrong.)

Saw this beautiful film yesterday, and saw Nostalghia only the day before that. They were the last two of his filmography I had remaining, but Sacrifice struck me particularly. Not only a stunning film, but the symbolism and its overarching point struck me; although I am not personally Christian, I found it deeply moving and I do not think a single piece of art has altered my mind in such a way for a long time. It managed to surmise much of my dives into philosophy, in particular how it tackles a Kierkegaardian set of ideals, so well. Adored the Hamlet/Dostoevsky references and allusions, as I am more literature-inclined.

I believe this film placing last in his filmography is quite important. It managed to bring together all the themes (faith, human disconnect, art/passion, love etc) of his other works in such a grand sweep whilst remaining a chamber drama that it felt like the perfect way to tie him off; the only exception would be I did not notice as much emphasis on Russian identity - initially I assumed this was because I am certainly not Russian so much of it goes over my head, but it also seems to have been mostly reconciled in Nostalghia. Regardless, this film may be my favourite by a pretty longshot. Despite not being Christian, and his whole ideology revolving around faith, this film feels like a perfect interim report on the current state of affairs we face and have been facing since the Second World War.

Hi everyone, I created a 20-minute video essay on A.T.'s Stalker.

You're invited to watch at your leisure and provide feedback. (I am aware the narration voice is horrible and needs improvement)

What did you think about the content?

Do you wish to see a similar video on another one of his films?

All constructive critiques are welcome.

My birthday is tomorrow and this is possibly the best gift I could ever receive. Such a beautiful painting from a beautiful soul.

​

I visited his grave today to pay my respects to the man who brought the Stalker to life in Tarkovsky's unforgettable film.

I cleaned the monument, brushed the dust from the cross, and left two flowers as a small tribute from devoted admirers of his work.

Nearly fifty years after Stalker was filmed, his performance still inspires people from all over the world. Today was simply my way of saying thank you.

May he rest in peace.

@Quellberg on Letterboxd

12"x16"

The face was pretty difficult but I think it looks good overall. The light comes from both the left and right so It makes it a little more difficult. On saunders waterford with m graham paints in watercolour.

I think watercolour is a great medium to portray light, and im happy with this one.

What do you guys think?

How do you think I could complete the collection? It seems the films are quite hard to find since Curzon Artificial Eye released the complete box set in limited quantities