The Mirror (1975) - Magic of Foreign Cinema
First of all, I’ll start off this review blatantly by saying this film is not for everyone. If you’re someone who is used to a lot of action in movies, who needs to be stimulated with scene changes, new characters and plot twists every few minutes- basically an overall aesthetic that is equivalent to that of a rollercoaster ride you probably won’t get much enjoyment out of this film. If you are not familiar with Tarkovsky’s work, the magic in his creations lies not with exciting action or glamour but with long drawn out shots with no cuts or interruptions, with scenes that say more with lengthy periods of little-to-no dialogue and imagery then they do with narration and obvious visual cues. This is a film which instead of spoon-feeding the audience a story tries to get them to really understand what the director is trying to convey and even makes them think about their own life in turn. The latter is actually executed by a brilliant decision on the director’s behalf of almost never showing the main character on screen, in fact the present-day version of him is never seen and all the scenes filmed in that time frame are either from his point of view or obscure him from the shot, a rarely used technique since it takes away the convenience of being able to portray all of the characters emotions by seeing their face however this greatly adds to the viewer’s immersion and makes them much more engaged by having to think for themselves.
If maybe instead of action you were expecting a riveting or at least somewhat decent story this doesn’t really have that either. The plot, if it can even be called that, is pretty much non-existent, what is seen on the screen is just a stream of memories, dreams and perhaps even thoughts of a man, but the story is not the focal point anyway. Tarkovsky himself has said that he compares making a film to writing a piece of music where greater emphasis is placed on the flow of the piece rather than the plot or logic behind it. I should probably mention if you watch this with subtitles you will be at a slight disadvantage as this film features some Russian poetry (written and read by the father of the director) which along with a lot of the dialogue in this film sadly looses some of the impact when translated into another language, I mean just imagine reading Shakespeare in Hungarian. Also, as this is all about the life and memories of a man it features some historic events mainly surrounding the second World War, so depending on when and where you grew up it will resonate differently with you. Despite all of this I still think that any person should be able take something away from this film as long as they watch it in the right mindset and put aside all of their expectations on what a film should be.
To expand on watching this film in the right mindset and understanding it, there’s a story that illustrates this better than I could. When this film first came out it was shown in private screenings to different critics and movie analysts and after one such event an argument broke out at the end of the film. All the critics started arguing about what the film was meant to represent, what certain scenes or objects symbolised, what hidden meanings there were and the basic question of what it was about. The cleaning lady that was there asked how long they were going to take as she had to tidy up after they left. They told her they were discussing a very complicated movie and that it could take a very long time. The lady was surprised and told them she saw it as a very simple film about a dying man who is struggling to make amends with his loved ones. Nothing more, nothing less. The critics of course were stunned with such a simple explanation, but it makes perfect sense and proves true a famous Bukowski quote- “An intellectual says a simple thing in a hard way. An artist says a hard thing in a simple way.” and Tarkovsky, well, he is both.
When it comes to watching ‘The Mirror’ I recommend you be that cleaner lady, put all your expectations aside, don’t even try to analyse what’s happening, there is a good chance if you’re watching this for the first time you won’t understand anything that is happening anyway, from the unpredictable time structure to the same actors in different roles this movie was made to be confusing, so don’t look too deep into it and just try to absorb everything like a fly on the wall. We even get a clue to this in one of the first scenes when a doctor is talking about plants and how unlike people they don’t move or rush about, always hurrying somewhere, always looking ahead for that next big thing. Nature stays still, the silent guardian it observes, it feels and mourns just like we do, and it understands, and this is the headspace that the director is trying to put the audience in when watching this film.
Now to disregard everything that has just been said, I’m going to try and analyse some of the scenes and maybe try to explain what my understanding of them is, all for your reading pleasure, but in the end none of what I say here really matters, if you care enough to- go watch it for yourself and make up your own mind on what it means to you as I believe this film, indeed like a mirror, is not as much about what you see on the screen but rather what it makes you see in yourself.
Second Scene: The Doctor
Now this is technically the first scene of the film after the opening credits, however there is a scene which plays before that, that has no real relation to the film or any of the other scenes in it. The intro scene which simply features a boy who is cured of his stutter might be a foreshadow, giving a nod to one of the main themes of this film which is our difficulty communicating with other people, however the boy does not appear again in the movie, so it is left up to the audience to decide what this mysterious intro means.
Getting back to the second scene, which is probably one of my favourites in this film or any film for that matter. Its so stunningly simple and it is the viewers first glimpse of Tarkovsky’s brilliance, in the way he was able to make this scene portray so much by doing so little. First of all, the landscape and all the shots are visually stunning (no doubt aided by the beautiful actress), and for a film that was made in the 70’s to hold up so well today says quite a lot by itself. The dialogue and script in the scene are fairly simple, it is just a conversation between two people where nothing too deep or thought provoking by itself really occurs apart from the nature quote I mentioned earlier and the famous “Give me your hand- I’m a doctor” line.
Overall this might seem like a very common perhaps even boring scene. Although a first-time viewer might not know this while watching, the whole film is all about memories of a man, who in this scene would have been 4 or 5 years old and is only seen here briefly, which when looking back at after finishing the film perfectly explains why this seemingly unimportant or even meaningless scene was here. All the footage shot are memories (or dreams) of the man and this is obviously a clear and therefore important memory he had from when he was a child as he fondly remembers his mother, their countryside house, a strange doctor who passed by their house and the way things used to be back then. This is what I personally got out of it, other people might have totally different interpretations. Think of your own memories as a child- are they important things that happened or are most of them random moments of your life that nobody would really care about, yet they are so precious to you and only you? This is exactly what Tarkovsky has captured in this scene, those priceless childhood memories of the main character, which may even be based on his own memories as a lot of this film is autobiographical.
The Bird Symbolism:
In many stories with different plots or timeframes writers often like to have some kind of small symbolic object to represent a of connection between all of them and this film is no different. Tarkovsky loves to use animals in all his films to serve as a link between humans and nature, incompatible as two are, the animals act as guardians or gate-keepers between the two. In this film a bird appears in each time period and may represent different things. The most noticeable appearance is at the end of the movie during the present time where the main character is on his deathbed and perhaps with his last breath of life manages to save the dying bird that lay next to him. This can symbolise life and death, how it passed from the main character to the bird or perhaps his guilt and sorrow which weighed him down throughout the film and was eventually the cause for his illness yet hopefully at the end he accepts the way things are and does not blame himself needlessly, releasing the bird and his spirit to be free.
Ending Scene:
The ending scene is set in the same place and a similar time period as the first scene which not only conveys the feeling of nostalgia in the characters but may even invoke some in the audience. Like much of the film this scene did not make a lot of sense to me on the first viewing but after a few more repeats it was perfectly clear. After jumping between different time frames throughout the whole movie the director actually ties in two of them together.
We see the main character’s mother lying on the grass with her husband talking about their unborn child, which happens to be the main character, and the mother looks ahead into the distance and sees herself as an old woman with grandchildren of her own. This becomes quite an emotional scene as we see the different time periods in this movie collide and witness the young version of the mother realising the inevitability of passing of time and growing old and the cycle of life which cannot be stopped. With the help of the incredible performance of the actress, we can see how she is both joyful yet saddened at this realization of how her life will turn out, perhaps for the first time truly understanding what it means to be human. As she looks longingly at herself and the children and smiles with tears in her eyes, this melancholy look is mirrored by her older version as the camera pans to her and slowly fades into the forest as the movie comes to an end.
Although this film was initially met with a lot of criticism for its seemingly incomprehensible structure and its lacklustre plot it now features in many ‘Greatest Movies’ lists and has become Tarkovsky’s most beloved work to many people. I believe this work was very much ahead of its time as it broke many rules that were set in stone back when it was released, but now with time I’m glad it has finally got the appreciation it deserves. I like to believe that the director made this film so confusing and non-catering to audience as this was just as much a therapeutic sort of autobiography, almost like a diary entry, as it was something intended to be viewed by other people. Still, I think over time people have realised this, appreciated it for what it was and managed to relate it to their own life, in many ways making this transcend the cinema realm and into something much more.
