欧宝娱乐

“Late this evening I looked at the sky and saw the stars. I felt as if it was the first time I had ever looked at them.
I was stunned.
The stars made an extraordinary impression on me”
― Andrei Tarkovsky, Journal 1970-1986

“Perhaps cinema is the most personal art, the most intimate. In cinema only the author's intimate truth will be convincing enough for the audience to accept.”
― Andrei Tarkovsky, Journal 1970-1986

“If a writer, despite his natural gifts, gives up writing because no one will publish him, then he is no writer. The artist is distinguished by his urge to create, which by very definition is a concomitant of talent.”
― Andrei Tarkovsky, Journal 1970-1986

“Of course life has no point. If it had, man would not be free, he'd become a slave to that point and his life would be governed by completely new criteria: the criteria of slavery. Like an animal, the point of whose life is that life itself, the continuation of the species.
An animal carries out its slavish activities because it can feel the point of its life instinctively. Therefore its sphere is restricted. Man, on the other hand, claims to aspire to the absolute.”
― Andrei Tarkovsky, Journal 1970-1986

“One doesn't need a lot to be able to live. The great thing is to be free in your work. Ofcourse it's important to print or exhibit, but if that's not possible you are still left with the most important thing of all -- being able to work without asking anybody's permission.”
― Andrei Tarkovsky, Journal 1970-1986

“Why are they all trying to make me into a saint?
Oh God! Oh God!
I want to do things. Stop turning me into a saint.”
― Andrei Tarkovsky, Journal 1970-1986

“All that I wanted was to tempt into life things that wanted to come out of me.”
― Andrei Tarkovsky, Time within Time: The Diaries, 1970鈥�1986

“Man is made up of opposing characteristics. History demonstrates vividly the fact that it always moves in the worst possible direction. Either man is not capable of directing history, or else he does direct it, but only by pushing it down the most terrible, wrong path there is.
There is not a single example to prove the opposite. People are not capable of governing others. They are only capable of destroying. And materialism鈥攏aked and cynical鈥攊s going to complete the destruction.
Despite the fact that God lives in every soul, that every soul has the capacity to accumulate what is eternal and good, as a mass people can do nothing but destroy. For they have come together not in the name of an ideal, but simply for the sake of a material notion.
Mankind has hurried to protect the body (perhaps on the strength of that natural and unconscious gesture which served as the beginning of what is called progress) and has given no thought to protecting the soul.
The church (as opposed to religion) has not been able to do so. In the course of the history of civilization, the spiritual half of man has been separated further and further from the animal, the material, and now in an infinite expanse of darkness we can just make out, like the lights of a departing train, the other half of our being as it rushes away, irrevocably and for ever.
Spirit and flesh, feeling and reason can never again be made one. It's too late. For the moment we are crippled by the appalling disease of spiritual deficiency; and the disease is fatal. Mankind has done everything possible to annihilate itself, starting with its own moral annihilation鈥攑hysical death is merely the result.
Everyone can be saved only if each saves himself.”
― Andrei Tarkovsky, Journal 1970-1986

“For many years I have been tormented by the certainty that the most extraordinary discoveries await us in the sphere of time . We know less about time than about anything else”
― Andrei Tarkovsky, Journal 1970-1986

“My aim is to place cinema among the other art forms. To put it on a par with music, poetry, prose, etc.”
― Andrei Tarkovsky, Journal 1970-1986

“There was a time when I thought that film, unlike other art forms (being the most democratic of them all) had a total effect, identical of every audience. That it was first and foremost a series of recorded images; that the images are photographic and unequivocal. That being so, because it appears unambiguous, it is going to be perceived in one and the same way by everyone who sees it. (Up to a certain point, obviously)
But I was wrong. One has to work out a principle which allows for film to affect people individually. The 'total' image must become something private. (comparable with the images of literature, painting, poetry, music.)
The basic principle- as it were, the mainspring- is, I think, that as little as possible has actually to be shown, and form that little the audience has to build up an idea of the rest, of the whole. In my view that has to be the basis for constructing the cinematographic image. And if one looks at it from the point of view of symbols, then the symbol in cinema is a symbol of nature, of reality. Off course, it isn't a question of details, but of what is hidden.”
― Andrei Tarkovsky, Journal 1970-1986

“What will our children be like ? A lot depends on us. But it's up to them as well. What must be alive in them is a striving for freedom. That depends on us. People who have been born into slavery find it hard to lose the habit.”
― Andrei Tarkovsky, Journal 1970-1986

“Going through old papers I came across the transcript of a university debate on Rublyov. God, what a level. Abysmal, pathetic. But there is one remarkable contribution by a maths professor called Manin, Lenin Prize winner, who can hardly be more than thirty. I share his views. Not that one should say that about oneself. But it's exactly what I felt when I was making Andrey. And I'm grateful to Manin for that.

"Almost every speaker has asked why they have to be made to suffer all through the three hours of the film. I'll try to reply to that question.
It is because the twentieth century has seen the rise of a kind of emotional inflation. When we read in a newspaper that two million people have been butchered in Indonesia, it makes as much impression on us as an account of our hockey team winning a match. The same degree of impression! We fail to notice the monstrous discrpancy between these two events. The channels of our perception have been smoothed out to the point where we are no longer aware. However, I don't want to preach about this. It may be that without it life would be impossible. Only the point is that there are some artists who do make us feel the true measure of things. It is a burden which they carry throughout their lives, and we must be thankful to them.”
― Andrei Tarkovsky, Journal 1970-1986

“A child doesn't have to be a prodigy. The only thing that matters is that he should't become 'stuck' in childishness”
― Andrei Tarkovsky, Journal 1970-1986

“An artistic image is one that ensures its own development, its historical viability. An image is a grain, a self-evolving retroactive organism. It is a symbol of actual life, as opposed to life itself. Life contains death. An image of life, by contrast, excludes it, or else sees in it a unique potential for the affirmation of life.
Whatever it expresses鈥攅ven destruction and ruin鈥攖he artistic image is by definition an embodiment of hope, it is inspired by faith.
Artistic creation is by definition a denial of death. Therefore it is
optimistic, even if in an ultimate sense the artist is tragic.
And so there can never be optimistic artists and pessimistic artists. There can only be talent and mediocrity.”
― Andrei Tarkovsky, Journal 1970-1986

“Our fraught way of life gives each of us a narrowly defined role, creating conditions conducive to developing only those elements in our psyche which allow us to grow within the confines of that role. The other areas of our psyche waste away. Hence lack of contact. Here psychological and social factors combine, and produce fear, distrust, moral baseness and the death of hope.”
― Andrei Tarkovsky, Journal 1970-1986

“Off course, life has no point. If it had, man would not be free. He'd become a slave to that point and his life would be governed by completely new criteria: the criteria of slavery. Like an animal, the point of whose life is that life itself, the continuation of the species.
An animal carries out his slavish activities because it can feel the point of its life instinctively. Therefore its sphere is restricted. Man, on the other hand claims to aspire to the absolute.”
― Andrei Tarkovsky, Journal 1970-1986

“A film in cinema is what in theatre would be realism鈥攁nd vice versa.
In cinema鈥攁s in life鈥攖he text, the words, are refracted in everything
apart from the words themselves. The words mean nothing鈥�
words are water.”
― Andrei Tarkovsky, Journal 1970-1986

“Little plots and stories, acted out and screened, can't possibly be called cinema. They have nothing whatever to do with cinema. A cinematographic work is above all a work which would not be possible in any other art form. In other words. it can be created by means of cinema, and cinema alone”
― Andrei Tarkovsky, Journal 1970-1986

“螚 味蠅萎 蟺蔚蟻喂魏位蔚委蔚喂 魏伪喂 蟿慰 胃维谓伪蟿慰. 韦慰 慰渭慰委蠅渭伪 蟿畏蟼 味蠅萎蟼 蟿慰谓 伪蟺慰魏位蔚委蔚喂 萎 蟿慰谓 伪谓蟿喂渭蔚蟿蠅蟺委味蔚喂 蠅蟼 蟿畏 渭蠈谓畏 未蠀谓伪蟿蠈蟿畏蟿伪 纬喂伪 蟿畏谓 蔚蟺喂魏蠉蟻蠅蟽萎 蟿畏蟼.
螚 委未喂伪 畏 魏伪位位喂蟿蔚蠂谓喂魏萎 蔚喂魏蠈谓伪 蔚魏蠁蟻维味蔚喂 蔚位蟺委未伪, 蟺维胃慰蟼, 蟺委蟽蟿畏 魏伪喂 未喂维蠁慰蟻伪 维位位伪, 渭蔚蟿伪尉蠉 蟿蠅谓 慰蟺慰委蠅谓 魏伪喂 蟿慰 胃维谓伪蟿慰 蟿慰蠀 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺慰蠀.
螚 未畏渭喂慰蠀蟻纬喂魏蠈蟿畏蟿伪 蔚委谓伪喂 畏 维蟻谓畏蟽畏 蟿慰蠀 胃伪谓维蟿慰蠀, 维蟻伪 蔚委谓伪喂 伪喂蟽喂蠈未慰尉畏, 伪魏蠈渭伪 魏喂 蠈蟿伪谓 畏 味蠅萎 蟿慰蠀 魏伪位位喂蟿苇蠂谓畏 蔚委谓伪喂 蟿蟻伪纬喂魏萎. 螕喂' 伪蠀蟿蠈 未蔚谓 蟺蟻苇蟺蔚喂 谓伪 蠂蠅蟻委味慰蠀渭蔚 蟿慰蠀蟼 魏伪位位喂蟿苇蠂谓蔚蟼 蟽蔚 伪喂蟽喂蠈未慰尉慰蠀蟼 魏伪喂 伪蟺伪喂蟽喂蠈未慰尉慰蠀蟼. 危蔚 纬蔚谓喂魏苇蟼 纬蟻伪渭渭苇蟼 蠀蟺维蟻蠂慰蠀谓 渭蠈谓慰 蠂伪蟻喂蟽渭伪蟿喂魏慰委 魏伪喂 渭畏 蠂伪蟻喂蟽渭伪蟿喂魏慰委 魏伪位位喂蟿苇蠂谓蔚蟼.”
― Andrei Tarkovsky, 螠伪蟻蟿蠀蟻慰位蠈纬喂慰 螚渭蔚蟻慰位蠈纬喂伪 1970-1986

“A child doesn't have to be a prodigy. He has to be a child. The only thing that matters is that he shouldn't become 'stuck' in childishness.”
― Andrei Tarkovsky, Journal 1970-1986

“The rhythm of editing, the length of a frame- these are not merely dictated by the professional need to establish a link with the audience (as they are thought to be). They express the character and the originality of the author of the film. At the present time cineastes use editing rhythm to gild the pill that has to be swallowed by the unfortunate audience. According to me, entirely in order to make money.”
― Andrei Tarkovsky, Journal 1970-1986

“I somehow think that it's better to screen inferior literature, which nonetheless contains the seed of something real- which can be developed in the film and grow into something wonderful as a result of going through your hands”
― Andrei Tarkovsky, Journal 1970-1986