Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
_______________________________
A Study of Diegesis and Mimesis
in Andrei Tarkovsky’s Stalker (1979)
– with reference to Time and the Frame.
______________________________________________________________
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the………... Bachelor of Arts (Honours) Degree in ……………., 2014.
“My discovery of Tarkovsky’s first film was like a miracle.
Suddenly I found myself standing at the door of a room, the
keys of which had, until then, never been given to me. It was a
room I had always wanted to enter….” Extract by Ingmar
Bergman (Martin, 2005).1
1 A Quotation from director Ingmar Bergman that is often cited in books on Andrei Tarkovsky.
Acknowledgement:
With special thanks to ………….. and all the librarian staff at
………….. for their help and guidance over the years.
Contents:
Introduction 1
Section ONE
Diegesis Framed:
4
Section TWO
Mimesis:
13
Section THREE
Diegesis and Mimesis:
20
Conclusion 28
References 30
Bibliography
32
List of Illustrations
All Film Stills from Andrei Tarkovsky are screen prints from the films Stalker and Solaris.
Introduction: Figure 1, The protagonist (Stalker) and the men in the opening bar scene,
(1979) (Stalker) Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova.
Page 1.
Figure 2, Framing of bedroom scene at the protagonist’s home, (1979) (Stalker) Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova. Page 2. Figure 3, The architecture frames the protagonist (1979) (Stalker) Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova. Page 2. Figure 4, Framing through the car window (1979) (Stalker) Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova. Page 3. Figure 5, The protagonist regresses into his dream state, Colour lapses to sepia toned imagery (1979) (Stalker) Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova. Page 3.
Section 1 – Diegesis Framed:
Figure 6: The protagonist framed by the bar door, (1979) (Stalker) Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova.
Page 6. Figure 7: The men converse in the bar, (1979) (Stalker) Directed by: Andrei
Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova. Page 7. Figure 8: Architectural framing, (1979) (Stalker) Directed by: Andrei
Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova. Page 7.
Figure 9: Sequence from the opening bedroom scene at the protagonist’s home, (1979) (Stalker) Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova. Page 8.
Figure 10: The tray vibrates in opening bedroom scene at the protagonist’s
home, The objects on the table vibrate in the closing scene with the daughter (1979) (Stalker) Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova.
Page 9. Figure 11: A spatial sense of tightness between the protagonist and the
camera, (1979) (Stalker) Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova.
Page 10. Figure 12: At the threshold to the room, (1979) (Stalker) Directed by: Andrei
Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova. Page 12.
Section 2 – Mimesis: Figure 13: The protagonist framed by the bar door, (1979) (Stalker) Directed
by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova. Page 13.
Figure 14: Tarkovsky use of one point perspective, (1979) (Stalker) Directed
by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova. Page 14.
Figure 15: Framing scenes, (1979) (Stalker) Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky,
[Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova. Page 15. Figure 16: The screen becomes fragmented, (1979) (Stalker) Directed by:
Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova.
Page 15.
Figure 17: Writer speaks to someone off-frame, presumably the protagonist, (1979) (Stalker) Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova.
Page 15. Figure 18: the wife recites her monologue, she looks directly at the camera,
(1979) (Stalker) Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova.
Page 16. Figure 19: The wife positions herself within the window frame, (1979)
(Stalker) Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova.
Page 16. Figure 20: The camera observes the car and its occupants disappear out of
sight, (1979) (Stalker) Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova.
Page 17.
Figure 21: Framing through the car window, (1979) (Stalker) Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova.
Page 18. Section 3 – Diegesis and Mimesis: Figure 22: The wife writhes in agony to the sound of the train, (1979)
(Stalker) Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra demidova. Page 21.
Figure 23: The camera observes the men on the trolley journey to the Zone, (1979) (Stalker) Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova. Page 21. Figure 24, The Tunnel Journey in Solaris (1972) (Solaris) Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Viacheslav Tarasov. Page 22.
Figure 25: The Zone infused with colour, (1979) (Stalker) Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova. Page 23.
Figure 26: Colour lapses to sepia toned imagery as the protagonist (Stalker)
regresses into a dream state, (1979) (Stalker) Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova. Page 23.
Figure 27: Sequence from the film where the protagonist regresses into his
dream state, (1979) (Stalker) Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova. Page 25.
Figure 28: The protagonist’s wife enters the bar, (1979) (Stalker) Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova. Page 26.
Figure 29: The sepia imagery of the bar, the film has come full circle, (1979) (Stalker) Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova.
Page 26. Figure 30: Colour returns in the close up of the daughter, (1979) (Stalker)
Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova.
Page 26. Figure 31: The opening tray scene compared to the final scene of the film
where colour returns, (1979) (Stalker) Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova.
Page 27. Figure 32: The film has come full circle, (1979) (Stalker) Directed by: Andrei
Tarkovsky, [Film still] Soviet Union, Produced by: Aleksandra Demidova. Page 27. Appendix:
Figure 33: Re-Run, (2002) Willie Doherty [Video still, 2 projection, colour, 30 mins ] Northern Ireland. Viewed 18th November 2013. http://www.kerlin.ie/artists/willie-doherty
Abstract
This essay endeavour’s to discuss the formal elements in the filmic
construction of Stalker, a film directed by Andrei Tarkovsky. In
analysing the film aesthetic of Stalker, an attempt is made to
demonstrate the importance of how art is positioned in relation to the
viewer, illustrating Tarkovsky’s relevance to contemporary art practice.
1
Introduction
This essay endeavour’s to discuss the formal elements in the filmic
construction of Stalker, a film directed by Andrei Tarkovsky. In
analysing the film aesthetic of Stalker, an attempt is made to
demonstrate the importance of how art is positioned in relation to the
viewer, illustrating Tarkovsky’s relevance to contemporary art practice.
Fig 1
Section one aims to define the term diegesis in relation to cinema. In
Cinema Studies, Susan Hayward defines diegesis as ‘the fictional world
….. all action as enacted within the screen constitutes the diegesis’
(Hayward, 2000, pp.84-86). The objective of this section is to discuss
the application of diegesis in Stalker through an analysis of the films
construction with reference to time and the frame. The cinematic screen
is a frame, a perimeter that houses the action as it unfolds within its
boundary. The camera that initially recorded the action, as viewed
through the perimeter of its lens, is also a frame. Tarkovsky situates
the camera in such a way that it almost emulates a character, which is
not visible on frame, an example of this can be seen from the intimate
framing of the protagonist’s bedroom that draws the viewer in. (Fig 2).
2
Fig 2.
Section one explores how architectural framing,
and sound collaborate to inform the films
mise-en-scene and develop its diegesis.
Fig 3
Section two aims to discuss mimesis and its application in Stalker with
reference to the frame. As discussed in Philosophical Aesthetics,
mimesis is of Greek origin, dating back to Plato and Aristotle, meaning
‘to imitate’, ‘to mimic, to copy or to represent’ (Hanfling, 1992, p.241).
Mimesis in cinema is a means of representing or mimicking a real
world situation on screen. Cinema has the ability to articulate a true
likeness of the real world, to represent the everyday experience of the
real world. The objective is to discuss the film aesthetic of Tarkovsky
in relation to its mimetic construction. In Stalker, the camera as an
object, possesses a mimetic quality in promoting the ‘act of looking’
(Berinde, 2012). In the traditional sense the viewer sits immobile in
front of a screen and observes the mimetic world depicted on screen.
In the scene depicted below, the action is framed through a ruined car
3
window, as observed by the immobile viewer, camera positioning and
tracking encourage a heightened spectatorial experience (Fig 4).
Fig 4. Tarkovsky has framed the action so that the viewer feels part of the
experience unfolding on screen, irrespective of the viewer’s positioning
as an immobile spectator. The mimetic frame encourages the viewer to
become embraced in the immersive experience of the diegesis.
Section three aims to discuss diegesis and mimesis with reference to
sound and colour in an exploration of the alternative world of the
Zone. In the Zone we are confronted by lapses in colour to
monochromatic imagery, we are encouraged to question the logic behind
these colour shifts. (Fig 5).
Fig 5.
4
Colour is an important indicator in the transition between the city and
the Zone. Sound is an important element in the filmic construction of
Stalker, sound draws our attention to the diegetic space, such as the
noise of the train sounding off-frame. The objective of this section is
to explore how sound collaborates with colour in creating the film
aesthetic of Stalker.
Section ONE: Diegesis Framed:
The objective of this section is to discuss Tarkovsky’s treatment of
diegesis with reference to the frame. In its positioning, the camera
almost emulates the physical presence of the viewer. The cinematic
screen itself can be considered a frame, housing the projected image
within its perimeter. Tarkovsky’s method of framing embraces one
point perspective. Throughout Stalker the visuals are accompanied by
sound that serves to heighten viewer participation and draw attention to
off screen dynamics. Embedded within the filmic construction is
Tarkovsky’s treatment of time, using elements such as sound, to ensure
time flows ‘on beyond the edges of the frame’ (Tarkovsky, 1986, p.118).
5
Karol Berger discusses in the Theory of Art, Plato’s introduction to ‘the
concepts of diegesis and mimesis’. These concepts differ in definition
quite radically to their understanding in contemporary today, ‘depending
on whether the speaker belongs to the world presented’ either as a
character or as a narrator (Berger, 1999, p.167). In this sense Plato
envisioned the narration belonging to the world of diegesis and the
character presented by the mimetic world (Berger, 1999, p.167). In The
Dictionary of Human Geography Mimesis is ‘described in ancient
aesthetics as the “imitation of nature”, and ‘is generally concerned with
how representation in art is related to truth’ (Gregory et al., 2009, p.466).
Mimesis is a means of representing reality on screen. Cinema has the
ability to articulate a true likeness of the real world, to represent the
everyday experience of the real world. There have been many
inconsistent attempts to define the term Diegesis over the years, from
Plato and Aristotle to contemporary usage. Susan Hayward, In Cinema
Studies defines Diegesis as ‘the fictional world..….[and]…… all action
….. enacted within the screen constitutes the diegesis’ (Hayward, 2000,
pp.84-86). Diegesis in cinema allows for the creation of a fictional
world on screen open to viewer interpretation where its various
elements encompass diegetic space, diegetic sound, non-diegetic sound
and intra-diegetic sound.
Diegetic sound is sound that naturally occurs on screen such as the
wife’s monologue, the creaking floorboards of the protagonist’s house,
the running water, the dialogue between him and his wife. It gives
6
resonance to characters lives by having a tangible source within the
frame (Hayward, 2000, pp.84-86). Non-diegetic sound is the voice-over
or narration of someone who narrates but is not part of the story
(Hayward, 2000, pp.84-86). It can be argued that the noise of the train
in Stalker sounding off-frame can be deemed non-diegetic sound. Intra-
diegetic sound differs from non-diegetic sound in that it is the sound of
narration or a voice over of someone portrayed in the film (Hayward,
2000, pp.84-86). An example of intra-diegetic sound would be the
sequence of Stalkers dream in the Zone where we hear the voiceover
of his wife whom is not visible on frame but is a character in the
film. This type of sound is advantageous to Tarkovsky in that it allows
the audience to be drawn further into the film and be ‘positioned not
only physically but also psychically as the subject’ (Hayward, 2000,
p.86). Diegetic and non-diegetic sounds are combined in Stalker, in the
trolley scene on route to the Zone, where the noise of the trolley
moving along the tracks is accompanied by an electronic score.
Friedberg discusses in The Virtual Window that the cinematic screen can
be seen as a substitute for the architectural window (Friedberg, 2006).
Like the frame of the architectural window, the cinematic screen is also
a frame, reframing the architectural setting of Stalker. Tarkovsky uses
architecture as a framing device, the bar door frames the character’s as
they enter and exit.
Fig 6.
7
Framing informs the films mise-en-scene and assists in the development
of its diegesis. Berinde references Pallasmaa in her architectural essay,
Entering the Room, discussing that “the act of entering” in ‘cinematic
expression, portrays a lived experience’ (Berinde, 2012). The protagonist
and his companions experience the ‘act of entering’ as they enter the
sepia toned imagery of the bar in the opening scene (Fig 6).
In the bar, the three men converse to the subtle background noise of
the train, the camera moves toward the men and the framing of the
scene becomes more intimate (Fig 7).
Fig 7.
On leaving, the bar doorway frames
Professor, the protagonist follows with
an ominous look back toward the
camera (Fig 8). Pallasmaa in his essay Lived Space in Architecture and
Cinema, argues that ‘the task of architecture’ is to emulate the mental
anguish of the characters (Pallasmaa, 1999-2000, p.16), the ominous
suggestion of the protagonist’s look as he exits the bar is reinforced in
the architectural framing of the scene.
Fig 8.
8
The framing of the protagonist’s home at the film opening encourages a
‘lived experience’ (Fig 9). The screen becomes shrouded in darkness and
in captivating silence the camera slowly reveals a partially opened
doorway, the entrance to the protagonists bedroom.
Figure 9. Tarkovsky frames this scene in such a way as to encourage the
audience to experience this ‘act of entering’, where the camera moving
in silence takes on a physical presence as it slowly enters through the
partially open doorway. Shakov in his chapter Revelations of Stalker
9
discusses the ‘unhurried forward motion’ of the camera as a ‘filming
device’ that ‘draws the viewer into the fabric of Stalker’ (Skakov, 2012,
p.143). This becomes an immersive experience for the spectator, and
they become situated within the diegetic framework of Stalker. Silence
gives way to a train sounding in the distance and the sepia toned
domestic setting of the bedroom is revealed. As the sound of the train
intensifies the objects on a tray vibrate, this action is echoed in the
closing scene of the film where the daughter sits at a table, which
vibrates when the train passes (Fig 10).
Fig 10.
The camera positions itself, panning the bed from right to left, fixes on
the protagonist, then pans back in one long take. The protagonist
moves off-frame then reappears right in front of the camera, we get a
spatial sense of tightness between the protagonist and the camera. It is
as if we the audience in a penetration of the plot stand in front of the
protagonist. The audience becomes part of this immersive experience,
the audience has entered the filmic diegesis (Fig 11).
10
Fig 11. The protagonist slowly backs out of the room and closes the door. The
camera hovers, an unobtrusive observer. The bedroom scene progressed
from silence to sound. The train increases in volume and takes on a
musical rhythm to it. Diegetic and non - diegetic sounds are combined.
Our visual intensifies as the tray shakes in anticipation prior to us
hearing the train. The tray settles, the train sounds in the distance,
beyond the frame, ‘time flows beyond’ the frame (Tarkovsky, 1986,
p.118). Tarkovsky uses the noise of the train to make the viewer aware
of an event happening off screen by ‘faithfully recording on film the
time which flows on beyond the edges of the frame,’ (Tarkovsky, 1986,
p.118). This event happening off screen has expanded the diegetic space
to include the audience. This expansion of diegetic space in relation to
a time that flows is the premise of Henri Bergson’s argument on time.
Greg Singh discusses diegetic and non-diegetic spaces in relation to a
characters interiority and compares the South Korean filmmaker Kar-Wai
to Tarkovsky in that they both:
‘……[reflect] the intuitive simultaneity …..between interior feeling and the actions
of oneself’ (Singh, 2009, p.190).
This simultaneity discussed by Sing is the basis of Bergson’s Theory of
Duration where the dancer in successive movements demonstrates how
11
the past, the present and the future are entwined and at the same time
reflects the psychological state (Bergson, 2008). Bergson argues that time
is time that flows, time experienced, using the example of a dancer to
reinforce his ‘Theory of Duration’ to illustrate how the past is
preserved in the present and the future is anticipated through the
movements of a dancer (Bergson, 2008). Tarkovsky’s treatment of time
in Stalker can be compared to Bergson’s philosophy where ‘time flows
beyond the edges of the frame’ similar to the simultaneous movements
of the dancer in Bergson’s example. In his article Time and the Film
Aesthetics of Andrei Tarkovsky, Totaro argues that Tarkovsky ‘expresses
time as lived experience’ and in doing so echoes the philosophy of
Bergson where ‘time and memory merge into each other……..interpreted
cinematically as a long take style that records time as simultaneous’
(Totaro, 1992, p.25). Tarkovsky has quoted that ‘Time itself, running
through the shots, had met and linked together’ similar to the
movements of Bergson’s dancer (Tarkovsky, 1986, p.117).
At the journey end, the men gather at the threshold to the mysterious
room in the zone. The Zone is depicted in colour. The men long to
enter the room but refrain from entering. Pallasmaa states that
‘Tarkovsky’s rooms convey feelings of longing’ the men loiter on the
verge of the room without entering (Pallasmaa, 1999-2000, p.16). The
camera has positioned itself within the room and begins to move further
into the space allowing the viewer to experience the room. It is the
12
camera accompanied by the viewer that enters the room embracing
Tarkovsky’s diegesis (Fig 12).
Fig 12.
In my analysis, it has been established that through one point
perspective, the camera has taken on a physical presence, as if
emulating the viewer’s presence. The noise of the train, heard off-frame
serves to expand the diegetic space beyond the screen. The spatial
boundaries that exist between the viewer and the screen break down
allowing the viewer to become immersed in the diegetic framework.
The traditional immobility of the viewer becomes into conflict as
Tarkovsky’s diegesis envelops the viewer. It is the viewer along with
the camera that enters the room at the journey end. The angle and
positioning of the camera has in effect expanded the diegetic space in
that the viewer feels almost like a part of the filmic construction.
13
Section TWO:
Mimesis:
The objective of this section is to define mimesis in relation to cinema
and discuss the mimetic quality of the camera in its ability to frame
scenes in such away as to encourage ‘the act of looking’. Tarkovsky
uses the camera as a framing device, combined with the architectural
window, the car window, framing through something, to encourage the
spectator to observe the action on screen (Fig 13).
Figure 13. In Framing Film, Allen and Hubner discuss Eric Auerbach’s research
on mimesis. Auerbach claimed that the definition of mimesis could be
traced back to Aristotle. Mimesis for Aristotle could be defined as the
‘fictional representation of actions, with actions being logical sequences
of words or deeds normally undertaken by human agents’ (Allen &
Hubner, 2012, p.174). Barasch in Theories of Art discussed Aristotle’s
concept of imitation, quoting Aristotle by saying that “the object of
imitation……is in the action of men, [therefor] …we must [represent]
14
men better than in real life ” (Barasch, 1985). In Stalker the ‘act of
looking’ through something, to observe the represented world, as seen
through the mimetic quality of a window, is emphasized through camera
framing. The camera as an object, possesses a mimetic quality, it
observes a world through its lens, and records that world, that then,
becomes a world observed on screen. In Narration and the Fiction
Film, David Bordwell, opens with a discussion on how “Aristotle
distinguishes .……… between the object of imitation and the mode of
imitation” (Bordwell, 1985, p.3). In cinema the “object of imitation” can
be interpreted as the world represented on screen, the “mode of
imitation” can be taken as the camera that recorded the world
represented (Bordwell, 1985, p.3). The world on screen is perceived by
the viewer through the ‘act of looking’, looking within the mimetic
frame of the screen to observe this represented world. Bordwell argues
that ‘mimetic theories [of narration] take as their model, the act of
vision: an object of perception is presented to the eye of the beholder’
(Bordwell, 1985, p.4). Tarkovsky through one point perspective
challenges the viewer to partake in this ‘act of looking’, in that it
observes a scene, in a similar way to how the human eye does (Fig 14).
Fig 14.
15
Tarkovsky’s frames scenes using the mimetic quality of the camera lens
to promote the ‘act of looking’ in the viewer (Fig 15).
Fig 15.
The camera moves out to reveal its framing
and the screen becomes fragmented as a thick
black line separates it into two (Fig 16).
Fig 16.
Both the window, and the camera lens, possess a mimetic quality and
we question who is looking through this window. Writer speaks to
someone off-frame (presumably Stalker) placing emphasis on the
diegesis instead of the mimesis (Fig 17).
Fig 17.
In this way, Tarkovsky creates a
contradiction in Stalker where the
films construction extends beyond
mimetic representation to ensure the viewer becomes part of the
diegesis. Sing discusses how this technique is also used by Kar-Wai in
his films where ‘the characters in the film are often framed in
doorways, hallways or shot through windows…...the frame bisected by
an obstruction or physical divide of some sort’ (Singh, 2009, p.189).
16
Traditionally the viewer sits immobile in front of a screen and observes
the mimetic world depicted on screen. In Stalker the ‘act of looking’
through something, to observe the represented world is captured by the
camera lens. At the film end, the protagonist returns home, and the
imagery lapses to sepia tone. The protagonist’s wife looks directly into
the camera and recites a monologue, as she recites, she repositions
herself within the window frame (Fig 18).
Fig 18.
Fig 19.
The mimetic quality of the window frame is highlighted as the wife
positions herself within its mimetic threshold (Fig 19). This looking
directly at the camera reverses the role between the audience and the
character. The wife looks out from the screen as she recites her interior
anxieties. The physical space of the immobile viewer remains the same,
but their mental space changes with the audience’s interpretation of
what is happening on the screen. Friedberg discusses in The Virtual
17
Window how ‘as cinema “spectators” we sit immobile in front of
moving images; our bodies do not move but our “point of view” may
change’ (Friedberg, 2006, p.5). On this occasion the boundaries between
the mimetic frame and the diegesis break down. Skakov states that this
‘direct address to the camera puts the space of the viewer and that of
the character into immediate contact’ (Skakov, 2012, p.162). Tarkovsky
has succeeded in expanding the space beyond the screen.
The three men set off on their journey through the militarized boundary
of the Zone. The camera having physical presence observes the car and
its occupants disappear out of sight. The camera hovers momentarily,
then rotates to witness the opening of the gate where the train passes,
followed quickly by the car and its frantic occupants (Fig 20).
Fig 20. This scene, has a soundtrack composed of everyday sounds from
footsteps to gates closing. Skakov discusses how ‘Stalker is dominated’
by the camera’s presence that turns it ‘into an invisible…..observer…..its
18
haunting presence dominates the film…..and stalks the characters’
(Skakov, 2012, pp.143,144).
The men begin their exploration through the lush landscape of the
Zone, the camera observes the scene as framed through the ruined car
window (Fig 21).
Fig 21 In the traditional sense the immobile spectator observes the action on
screen in a mimetic act of looking. Tarkovsky has used camera
positioning to frame the scene in such a way, that the viewer feels part
of the experience unfolding on screen, even though the viewer remains
immobile. This scene in particular heightens the effect on the audience
as its successfully positions the viewer psychically within the frame thus
breaking with cinematic tradition where a reliance on an ‘immobile
spectator’ was anticipated (Friedberg, 2006, p.5). The ominous
expressions on Professor and Writer’s faces, is notable as they look
back toward the camera as if anticipating the viewer’s presence.
19
Totaro, in his essay Time and the Film Aesthetics of Andrei Tarkovsky
references Tarkovsky’s film aesthetic that ‘challenges viewer
perception……by shifting between or simultaneously representing inner
and outer states of reality’ (Totaro, 1992, p.22). Within Tarkovskian
works events occur that challenges rationale. Donato Tonaro discusses
in Tarkovsky’s work that:
‘objects, people, ….. events are represented with mimetic accuracy …. yet
something remains askew……… (Totaro, 1992, p.27).
Tarkovsky’s treatment of mise-en-scene combined with the initial silence
allows the audience to experience place as ‘the passage of time in
‘Stalker’ reveals itself through the space of the zone,’ (Skakov, 2012,
p.144). The film’s mise-en-scene plays an important part in the mimetic
construction, to represent a world on screen.
To conclude, this section has analysed the films formal construction
through this mimetic ‘act of looking’. When the camera frames a scene
through a window, both the camera lens and the window hold a
mimetic quality. In Stalker the filmic diegesis is juxtaposed through
mimetic reality and the conflict between the two is key focus. As the
men explore the lush landscape of the Zone, Tarkovsky has used
camera positioning to frame the scene through the ruined car window,
ensuring that the immobile viewer feels part of the experience unfolding
on screen. The viewer becomes immersed in the diegesis. Tarkovsky
blurs the boundaries between mimetic representation and the fictional
diegesis promoted by the Zone. Technical considerations and camera
20
movements promote the viewer to experience beyond the frame through
the creation of a diegetic world that draws the viewer in. This
becomes evident in the scene where the wife recites her monologue, the
psychological reading of the scene is mirrored in the emotion it draws
from the audience.
Section THREE:
Diegesis and Mimesis:
The aim of this section is to discuss the diegesis and mimesis with
reference to sound and colour in an exploration of the alternative world
of the Zone. The men have arrived in the Zone accompanied by
silence. Silence serves as a temporal gap between the City and the
Zone. Tarkovsky’s use of quotidian sound in Stalker ensures an
expansion of the diegetic space, the train is the one constant in Stalker
linking the City and the Zone. We hear the train sound off frame, this
enhances Tarkovsky’s use of diegesis as time flows off frame. Sound
assists the transition from the City to the Zone. Colour confirms our
arrival in the Zone.
In Stalker poetic visuals that convey human experience are heightened
by Tarkovsky’s use of experimental sound made possible by his
collaboration with Eduard Artemiev (Martin, 2005, p.33).
21
A tormented Stalker leaves to begin his journey to the Zone as his
anguished wife writhes in agony on the floor (Fig 22).
Fig 22. Tarkovsky quoted in ‘Sculpting in Time’ ‘that the notes had to
reproduce precise states of mind, the sounds of the person’s interior
world’ (Tarkovsky, 1986, p.162). The noise of the train accompanied by
electronic music signifies the commencement of the journey to the
Zone. The men travel by trolley to the zone, the noise of the trolley
moving along the tracks forms a unique rhythm, it beats in time, and is
accompanied by electronic music composed by Artemiev. Diegetic and
non-diegetic sounds are combined. The camera in a mimetic act of
looking, observes the men survey the Industrial landscape on the
journey to the Zone (Fig 23).
Fig 23.
22
Totaro discusses how the trolley journey in Stalker ‘is a pivotal
moment’ in the transition between the city and the Zone (Totaro, 2007).
Totaro continues to state that ‘an aural balance has been established
between the diegetic and non-diegetic sound’ (Totaro, 2007). The trolley
journey has similarities to the tunnel journey in ‘Solaris’ and is an
analogy for a journey into the recess of the protagonist’s mind (Solaris,
1972) (Fig 24).
Fig 24. Tarkovsky discusses in ‘Sculpting in Time’, electronic music’s ability to
hold the ‘capacity for being absorbed into the sound’ of nature, ‘hidden
beneath’ natural noises (Tarkovsky, 1986, p.163). Totaro acknowledges
that the ‘physical space’ transversed by the men is “short” when
compared with the ‘psychological time as experienced by the characters’
achieved through Tarkovsky’s ‘use of sound’ (Totaro, 2007).
23
The trolley journey ends and they reach the Zone with an infusion of
colour confirming their arrival (Fig 25). The landscape is surveyed in
silence, as Bachelard suggests in the following quote:
‘There is nothing like silence to suggest a sense of unlimited space. Sounds
lend color to space,……… (Bachelard, 1994, p.43).
Fig 25. Stalker was filmed using ‘sepia-tinted black and white for the world
outside the Zone and muted colour for the world within’ (Martin, 2005,
p.46). Tarkovsky is aware of the psychological readings that colour
endorses. Tarkovsky is careful with his use of colour, he does not
want to promote emotional readings from visuals through colour, ‘the
perception of colour is a physiological and psychological phenomenon’
(Tarkovsky, 1986, p.138). In the Zone Stalker regresses into a dream
state, the colour lapses to washed out sepia imagery as the mimetic
quality of the camera surveys the waterlogged landscape (Fig 26).
Fig 26.
24
We hear the intra-diegetic voiceover of Stalker’s wife reciting a
monologue that gives way to a melancholic composition as the camera
continues to track the wet landscape until it reaches Stalker’s hand
immersed in water, the scene returns to colour as Stalker wakes (Fig
27). In Stalker, the city is depicted in sepia toned images, the Zone is
depicted in colour. Bachelard argues that ‘Indeed, every great image
has an unfathomable oneiric depth to which the personal past adds
special colour’ (Bachelard, 1994, p.33). Stalker declares ‘What is the
Zone’……but it is what we’ve made it with our condition……’
(Stalker, 1979). This narrative by the stalker makes reference to the
zone being a product of modernity’s growing Industrialization at the
expense of our natural resources and inevitably the human condition
itself. The Zone, an alternative world created to allow one to come to
terms with life and its hardships. Dreams serve as a coping mechanism
for the subconscious. Bachelard argues in ‘The Poetics of Space’ that
‘we must lose our earthly Paradise in order actually to live in it, to
experience it in the reality of its images’ (Bachelard, 1994, p.33). ‘To
experience it in the reality of its images’ (Bachelard, 1994, p.33), could
be interpreted in Stalker, as the experience of the filmic diegesis in a
reality constructed through mimesis.
25
Fig 27.
26
The sound of the train announces our entry back to the city where
Stalker’s wife is framed by the bar door in an ‘act of entering’.
The colour of the Zone has lapsed and the wife enters the sepia toned
interior of the bar observed by the camera (Fig 28).
Fig 28.
The three men are seated inside, in an image repetitive of the earlier
opening bar scene. The film has come full circle (Fig 29).
Fig 29.
The family leave the bar, the colour of the zone returns in the image
of the daughter walking, the camera moves out to reveal the daughter
on Stalkers shoulders (Fig 30).
Fig 30.
Up to now, we have associated colour to the landscape of the Zone,
but here back in the city we are confronted with colour. We are
27
encouraged to question the logic behind these colour shifts. Colour
returns in the final scene where the daughter is depicted reading, she
‘puts the book down and looks off-screen as we hear her recite,’ an
intra-diegetic ‘voice-over’ of a poem (Johnson, 1994, p.143). The train
passes causing vibrations of the table and the objects on it, echoing that
of the tray vibrating in the opening scene (Fig 31).
Fig 31.
The repetition of the film content reveals the films structure as circular.
Skakov discusses the film’s ‘circular composition’, in where the men
return to their ‘point of departure’ at the bar ‘which gives the viewer
an impression that “the whole film has been made in a single shot”
(Skakov, 2012, p.166) (Fig 32
Fig 32.
28
To conclude, colour and sound play an important role in developing the
diegesis. Colour suggests an alternative reality. Quotidian sound is
combined with the electronic compositions of Artemiev. The intra-
diegetic voiceover of the wife heard as Stalker sleeps, and the noise of
the train sounding off-frame, draws attention to the off screen space. In
a breakdown of boundaries between mimetic representation and the
fictional diegesis, a collision has occurred on screen, and this collision
has expanded beyond the filmic space to envelop the viewer.
Conclusion
Tarkovsky is an advocate for the imitation of life within art rejoicing in
the medium that lends itself to mimetic capability. Tarkovsky reflected
in Sculpting in Time that ‘the cinema image, then, is basically
observation of life’s facts within time’ (Tarkovsky, 1986, p.68).
Tarkovsky’s cinema goes beyond the mimetic representation of reality
where the viewer simply witnesses an image on screen. Tarkovsky
wants to imitate life itself by extending time beyond the frame allowing
the viewer to become immersed in the diegesis. Tarkovsky promotes
viewer involvement through architectural framing, camera positioning,
and sound. Tarkovsky in Sculpting in Time discusses that ‘a film is an
emotional reality, and that is how the audience receives it ….as a
second reality’ (Tarkovsky, 1986, p.176)
In Stalker, framing, colour and sound collaborate to inform the films
mise-en-scene and develop its diegesis. Tarkovsky explores alternative
29
realities through filmic means and investigates the boundaries that exist
within perceived space. Today it is relevant to reference the changes
that take place in the way art is viewed. The positioning of the viewer
in relation to the artwork is changing, it is no longer reasonable to
accept that art is viewed from a fixed position. Art has to be
considered in relation to the architecture it is positioned in. Art today
expands beyond the frame where the viewer can move around an
installation, interact with a piece of work encouraging a ‘lived
experience’ thus expanding the diegetic space. Artist, Willie Doherty
explores off-screen space in his film Re-Run (Appendix, pp.55,56). This
type of space serves to encourage emotional readings, allowing the
artwork to extend beyond its architectural framework and pierce the
interiority of the viewer. The physical space of the viewer is retained
but their psychological readings of the piece changes.
Tarkovsky relied on poetic visuals combined with sound to expand the
diegetic space. Contemporary artist Janet Cardiff constructs sound
works, where she relies on the viewer’s presence to complete the work
(Appendix, p.55).
30
References
• Allen, S. & Hubner, L., 2012. Framing Film: Cinema and the Visual
Arts. Bristol: Intellect Ltd.
• Bachelard, G., 1994. The Poetics of Space. Translated by M. Jolas.
Boston: Beacon Press.
• Barasch, M., 1985. Theories of Art: From Plato to Winckelmann.
New York: New York university Press.
• Berger, K., 1999. Poetics 1: Diegesis and Mimesis. The Poetic
Modes and the Matter of Artistic Presentation. In Berger, K. A
Theory of Art. Cary, N.C.: Oxford University Press. pp.165-‐88.
• Bergson, H., 2008. Time and Free Will: An essay on the Immediate
Data. Translated by P.F. L. New York: Cosimo Inc.
• Berinde, R., 2012. Academia.edu. [Online] Available at:
http:/www.academia.edu/.Entering [Accessed 5 October 2013].
• Bordwell, D., 1985. Narration in the Fiction Film. Winsconsin: The
University of Winsconscin Press.
• Connolly, M., 2009. The Place of Artists Cinema: Space, Site and
Screen. Bristol: Intellect Books.
• Deleuze, G., 2005. Cinema 2; The Time -‐Image. 4th ed. Translated by
H. Tomlinson & R. Galeta. Great Britain: The Athlone Press.
• Friedberg, A., 2006. The Virtual Window. Cambridge: The MIT
Press.
31
• Gregory, D. et al., eds., 2009. The Dictionary of Human Geography.
5th ed. Antrim: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
• Hayward, S., 2000. Cinema Studies The key Concepts. 2nd ed.
London: Routledge.
• Hanfling, O., ed., 1992. Plilosophical Aesthetics. Milton Keynes:
blackwell Publishers Ltd.
• Johnson, V.T..P.G., 1994. Andrei Tarkovsky A Visual Fugue.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Martin, S., 2005. The pocket essential, Andrei Tarkovsky. Herts:
Pocket esentials.
• Pallasmaa, J., 1999-‐2000. Lived Space in Architecture and Cinema.
In Situ, 2, pp.11-‐21.
• Singh, G., 2009. Film After Jung: Post Jungian approaches to film
theory. East Sussex: Routledge.
• Skakov, N., 2012. KINO -‐ The Cinema of Tarkovsky; Labrinths of
Space & Time. London: I.B. Tauris.
• Solaris. 1972. [Film] Directed by Andrei Tarkovsky. Soviet Union.
• Stalker. 1979. [Film] Directed by Andrei Tarkovsky. Soviet Union.
• Tarkovsky, A., 1986. Sculpting in Time: Reflections on Cinema.
Translated by K. Hunter-‐Blair. Texas: University of Texas Press.
• Totaro, D., 1992. Time and the Film Aesthics of Andrei Tarkocsky.
Canadian Journal of Film Studies, II(27).
• Totaro, D., 2007. Favourite Moments of Film sound; Into The Zone.
Offscreen, 11(8-‐9).
32
Bibliography
• Allen, S. & Hubner, L., 2012. Framing Film: Cinema and the Visual
Arts. Bristol: Intellect Ltd.
• Bachelard, G., 1994. The Poetics of Space. Translated by M. Jolas.
Boston: Beacon Press.
• Barasch, M., 1985. Theories of Art: From Plato to Winckelmann.
New York: New York university Press.
• Benjamin, W., 2004. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical
Reproduction. In l. Braudy & M. Cohen, eds. Film Theory and
Criticism, Introductory Readings. 6th ed. New York: Oxford
University Press. pp.791-‐811.
• Berger, K., 1999. Poetics 1: Diegesis and Mimesis. The Poetic
Modes and the Matter of Artistic Presentation. In Berger, K. A
Theory of Art. Cary, N.C.: Oxford University Press. pp.165-‐88.
• Bergson, H., 2004. Matter and Memory. Translated by N.M. Paul.
New York: Dover Publications Inc.
• Bergson, H., 2008. Time and Free Will: An essay on the Immediate
Data. Translated by P.F. L. New York: Cosimo Inc.
• Berinde, R., 2012. Academia.edu. [Online] Available at:
HYPERLINK "http:/www.academia.edu/....Entering"
http:/www.academia.edu/.Entering [Accessed 5 October 2013].
• Bollnow, O.F., 2011. Human Space. Translated by C. Shuttleworth.
London: Hyphen Press.
33
• Bordwell, D., 1985. Narration in the Fiction Film. Winsconsin: The
University of Winsconscin Press.
• Bunia, R., 2010. Diegesis and Representation: Beyond the Fictional
World, on the Margins of Story and Narrative. Poetics Today, 31(4),
pp.679-‐720.
• Braudy, L.C.M., ed., 2004. Film Theory and Criticism. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
• Connolly, M., 2009. The Place of Artists Cinema: Space, Site and
Screen. Bristol: Intellect Books.
• Deleuze, G., 2005. Cinema 2; The Time -‐Image. 4th ed. Translated by
H. Tomlinson & R. Galeta. Great Britain: The Athlone Press.
• Friedberg, A., 2006. The Virtual Window. Cambridge: The MIT
Press.
• Gregory, D. et al., eds., 2009. The Dictionary of Human Geography.
5th ed. Antrim: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
• Griffin, M.J..W.D., 2007. Across Time and Space: The Utopian
Impulses of Andrei Tarkovsky's Stalker. In M.J..M.T. Griffen, ed.
Exploring the Utopian Impulse; Essays on Utopian Thought and
Practice. Bern: Peter Lang AG, International Academic Publishers.
pp.257-‐72.
• Hayward, S., 2000. Cinema Studies The key Concepts. 2nd ed.
London: Routledge.
• Hanfling, O., ed., 1992. Plilosophical Aesthetics. Milton Keynes:
blackwell Publishers Ltd.
34
• Johnson, V.T..P.G., 1994. Andrei Tarkovsky A Visual Fugue.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Kerins, M., 2007. Constructing the Diegesis in a Multi-‐Channel
World. Offscreen, 11(8-‐9), pp.1-‐5.
• Levitas, R., 2007. The Archive of the Feet: Memory, Place, and
Utopia. In M.J..M.T. Griffin, ed. Exploring the Utopian Impulse;
Essays on Utopian thought and Practice. Bern: Peter Lang AG,
International Academic Publishers. pp.19-‐42.
• Manolas, C. & Pauletto, S., 2009. Enlarging the Diegetic Space: Uses
of the Multi-‐channel Soundtrack in Cinematic Narrative. II(1),
pp.39-‐55.
• Martin, S., 2005. The pocket essential, Andrei Tarkovsky. Herts:
Pocket esentials.
• McManus, S., 2007. Truth, Temporality, and Theorizing Resistance.
In M.J..M.T. Griffin, ed. Exploring the Utopian Impulse; Essays on
Utopian Thought and Practice. Bern: Peter Lang AG, International
Academic Publishers. pp.57-‐81.
• Pallasmaa, J., 1999-‐2000. Lived Space in Architecture and Cinema.
In Situ, 2, pp.11-‐21
• Press, O.U., 2014. Oxford Dictionaries. [Online] Available at:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definitions/english/mimesis
[Accessed 20 January 2014].
• Singh, G., 2009. Film After Jung: Post Jungian approaches to film
theory. East Sussex: Routledge.
35
• Skakov, N., 2012. KINO -‐ The Cinema of Tarkovsky; Labrinths of
Space & Time. London: I.B. Tauris.
• Solaris. 1972. [Film] Directed by Andrei Tarkovsky. Soviet Union.
• Stalker. 1979. [Film] Directed by Andrei Tarkovsky. Soviet Union.
• Tarkovsky, A., 1986. Sculpting in Time: Reflections on Cinema.
Translated by K. Hunter-‐Blair. Texas: University of Texas Press.
• The Wizard of Oz. 1939. [Film] Directed by Victor Fleming. United
States of America.
• Totaro, D., 1992. Time and the Film Aesthics of Andrei Tarkocsky.
Canadian Journal of Film Studies, II(27).
• Totaro, D., 2007. Favourite Moments of Film sound; Into The Zone.
Offscreen, 11(8-‐9).
APPENDIX
Willie Doherty: Other artists have employed this technique of off-frame space. Willie
Doherty is a prominent Northern Ireland artist whose two-channel video
Re-Run is discussed in The Place in Artists Cinema (Figure 36). Re-
Run is a two screen projection that is an ‘exploration of in-frame and
out-of-frame dynamics’ where a man runs toward the viewer on one
screen and away on the other screen (Connolly, 2009, p.80).
Janet Cardiff:
Contemporary artist, Janet Cardiff has employed sound as an emotive
trigger in works that rely on the physical participation of the viewer to
complete the work. Cardiff uses visuals of a pre-recorded place with
the addition of a sound recording of herself, giving directions to the
participant that is re-experiencing the route previously travelled by
Cardiff. In doing so these participants in Cardiff’s work engage in a
full ‘lived experience’.
Figure 33, Re-Run, (2002) Willie Doherty [Video still, 2 projection, colour,
30 mins ] Northern Ireland. Viewed 18th November 2013.
http://www.kerlin.ie/artists/willie-doherty
