An undeniable fact about the film industry and its media coverage is the overlooking of non-Western films, and the Western biases that arise as a consequence. Since the inception of cinematography, the West has firmly been the base of commercial cinema, barring perhaps the specific niche found in Bollywood. If one were to look at various people’s lists of favourite films and directors, one would notice a distinct surplus of Western filmmakers. To me, this is a great shame - for decades, the rest of the world has been at the forefront of innovation and avant-garde films, and nobody encapsulates this combination of neglect and talent more than Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky.
For a bit of historical background, one must first note that when Tarkovsky was crafting his masterpieces, the USSR, where he primarily resided and filmed, was locked in a cold war with the USA, meaning that it was difficult for anybody outside of the Soviet Union to access and view his work. It would have been considered especially taboo for an average American to be watching and appreciating a “red film”, such as those of Tarkovsky. His films were in Russian and were often long and difficult to decipher, containing long, beautiful shots of esoteric characters walking, gazing, or performing simple tasks. Most lacked a standard plot structure; his masterwork, Andrei Rublev, a four-hour epic about the eponymous religious icon painter, is divided into nine parts, each taking place in a different location and time period of Andrei’s life. Mirror, one of his later films, has a non-linear narrative structure that jumps around between different stages of the characters’ lives. Even in the USSR itself, his films were subject to intense censorship, branded as “third category” films by Soviet authorities, resulting in the majority of their screenings being in working class men's clubs and third-class cinemas.
So, you’re now familiar with the reasons why Tarkovsky has been overlooked, but the question remains: why does he deserve to be put on the same tier as Scorsese, Coppola, Lumet, and other universally acclaimed and adored directors? One huge reason, for me, is the flawless nature of his filmography - every film that Tarkovsky released, before his untimely death in 1986, is a true filmmaking marvel. His effortless movement between genres, from the historical drama of Rublev, to the sci-fi prototypes of Solaris and Stalker, show his immense range, and the philosophical questions that arise from his work are fascinating. One viewing of his masterpiece, Stalker, will leave you with questions about the nature of faith, consciousness, and desire, and its visuals remind the viewer of life in the Soviet Union, as put by Geoff Dyer: "while the film may not be about the gulag, it is haunted by memories of the camps, from the overlap of vocabulary ("Zona”, "the meat grinder") to the Stalker's Zek-style shaved head.”
Tarkovsky’s genius was understated and subtle, choosing to express his politics and philosophies buried beneath metaphors and allegories, showing his disdain for war through its effects on individuals, as opposed to society as a whole. His focus on the individual is what makes his films so captivating to me; an ability to make a four-hour biopic about a religious icon painter so engaging and enjoyable would be a testament to any filmmaker. The individual, and the desire and nature of the individual, is arguably the running theme throughout every Tarkovsky film, and his exploration of the nature of the self is firmly unparalleled by any other director.
In essence, Tarkovsky’s status as an under-appreciated genius remains today; his name is only really mentioned by cinema critics, or Russians, but I would strongly recommend exploring his works. His stark imagery, difficult dialogues, and strong Soviet influence in his films will stick with you for a significant time after you have watched them. Moreover, I hope this article inspires you to branch out from just Western filmmaking - the greatest gems are often found outside of Hollywood.
