User Reviews (92)

Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    Italy is a very attractive place for filmmakers, because of its art, architecture, the lighting, and also film history. Many filmmakers go to Italy and immerse themselves in the people and the culture, the light and the atmosphere. Tarkovsky goes to Italy and he makes it as dank, dark, and unpopulated as he makes Russia. And, while in Italy, he has a few things to say about Italians--to explain Russia.

    "Then you can't understand Italy, because you're not Italian." A poet goes to Italy to research into the biography of a Russian composer who stayed there for two years, and his life parallels that of the composer. Just so, Tarkovsky's life parallels that of the main character, who is also called Andrei: left in Italy surrounded by so much "beauty it's sickening", he becomes haunted by flashbacks of his family in Russia. Trying unsuccessfully to communicate with his translator (get it?) and striking a metaphysical relationship with a local mystic, Andrei the character struggles with the typical Tarkovskian themes of faith, fire, personal loss, and water, among others.

    Tarkovsky is up to some well-rehearsed tricks here. Long takes with an impossibly smooth floating camera dedicate the viewer's eyes to the imagery. The weather is under the same amount of control. A character enters a new space (here it's Italy; in Stalker it's the Zone; in Solyaris it's the space station; in Andrei Rublev it's the society outside the church), and only through intense emotional and philosophical struggle can he prepare himself to return to where he's come from. Thresholds stand tantalizingly around, but don't often get passed (Andrei can walk through a door that leads nowhere with no problem, but can only cross a pool with a candle with immense physical struggle). Spaces are separated by black and white and sepia tones. God is always there but never for you.

    There's some new tricks, too. Tarkovsky plays with light a lot in this one, and frames that seem to sink into pure black suddenly illuminate hidden images and icons. A compelling sonic disturbance is created in flashbacks to Russia that sound like a table-saw grinding away at wood; "The Music" the mystic speaks of is warped and fragmented vinyl.

    Nostalghia, I feel, is not the Tarkovsky movie you want to see first. First see Stalker, or Solyaris, or Mirror. Nostalghia removes the transition from Russia to Italy and so the feeling of transition and change is a lot more dependent on the symbolic and abstract sensibilities, and previous knowledge of Tarkovsky's imagery will help to interpret it. For fans of Tarkovsky, however, Nostalghia is a sweet and personal return into his dense and foggy mind (or house, as Chris Marker calls it), the world that only he was able to fully explore.

    --PolarisDiB
  • It's sometimes true that the most demanding movies can yield the most lasting rewards, and the penultimate film by the late Andrei Tarkovsky certainly puts the theory to the test. This was the first feature he directed outside the Soviet Union, and its protagonist is (like Tarkovsky himself was) a Russian artist exiled in Italy. But don't expect anything remotely plot-driven; like other Tarkovsky films it's a dense, challenging exploration of faith, madness and memory: beautiful, enigmatic, intellectual, and extremely slow moving. Many of the sequences are a labor to sit through, but the final shot, in which the director transplants a Russian cottage (complete with landscape) inside the massive walls of an ruined Gothic cathedral, is by itself compelling enough to erase the aftertaste of even the most tedious passages.
  • ereinion23 February 2005
    Warning: Spoilers
    This wonderball film is the only one of Tarkovsky's works that somehow made me feel cheated for something. The beginning was utterly mystical and strange and attracted me to the film, but halfway through I had a hard time keeping up.

    Of course, there are scenes that were as stunning as anything Tarkovsky has done before, if not even more stunning. The church scene in the beginning of the movie is one. Then the bath place scene and the scene where the Russian talks with THE MAN in Josephson's interpretation. Yet by the end of it, I felt more sad, disturbed and hopeless than with any other of Tarkovsky's movies or any other movies in general. What is the message, the hidden message, behind this film? Why does THE MAN set fire to himself? And did the Russian really manage to "save the human kind"?

    It all left me more depressed than I've ever been, only "Arlington Road" and "Donnie Darko" made me feel the same. And in the end, between the strange dream sequences, Josephson's metaphysic theories and Yankovsky's grim performance, I came out feeling like I was cheated for THE THING. That thing that was there in "Andrei Rublyov", "Solaris" and "Stalker".

    Anyway, this is perhaps the most existentialistic of Tarkovsky's films, which should say something about it's nature and serve as a warning to those who intend to see it. It is a haunting, deeply personal and unreserved journey to redemption and knowing this was the director's last Soviet film, it adds a symbolical value to the film. Still, together with "Zerkalo", this is one of the few Tarkovsky's films which is impossible to enjoy as it is too dark and painful.9/10
  • There are very few people worthy of the accolade of "Genius" but the late Russian film-maker Andrei Tarkovsky was definitely one of them. In his film-making career he is responsible for some of the most beautiful images ever to be put on a cinema screen.

    "Nostalghia" deals with a Russian poet who is in Italy to research the life of a Russian composer, who died there. Accompanied only by his female, Italian, interpretor, who is attracted to him, the poet feels strong feelings of home-sickness for Russia and he strongly misses his wife and child who stayed behind.

    This was Tarkovsky's first film made outside the Soviet Union (and his first in a language other than Russian), but it is still very obviously a Tarkovsky film, complete with many haunting images of water and fire. in fact, instead of the beautiful, sun-drenched Italy we are used to seeing on film, here the country is grey, wet and shrouded in mist. As usual in Tarkovsky's films there are many changes between colour footage and black-and-white (or sepia). Here, the poet's memories of Russia are presented in monochrome.

    As with all Tarkovsky films, "Nostalghia" demands a great deal from the viewer. It is very slow moving and requires a great deal of patience and concentration. Also, be warned that Tarkovsky did not see cinema as "entertainment" but as an art form. I would advise anyone to make the effort and stick with it, though. It is a great work of art.
  • Preston-1021 September 2001
    The nostalgia, in the film's title, isn't just the physical longing for something in the past, it's the spiritual longing that so many people strive for. This shouldn't surprise an student of Tarkovsky's work since no director, possibly with the exception of Ingmar Bergman, analyzed spirituality as Tarkovsky did.

    NOSTALGHIA follows the trekking of a Russian traveling through Italy along with his beautiful interpreter. His purpose for being there does not come to the viewer easily. Most of the scenes in the movie are filled with a lot of silence, and even the action that does take place, is minimal. Eventually, we come to understand that he is there to find some cultural reinforcement for his Russian background. As the film progresses, we seem to take on the role of the main character in the story, as an observer to events. Throughout his travels he becomes a witness to religious processions, theological discussions, and the rituals of a God-fearing lunatic. The lunatic, played masterfully by Erland Josephson, is looked down upon by a lot of local citizens. Apparently, in the past, he locked his family in his house for a long time, anticipating the end of the World. The movie documents his effect on the Russian traveler, and the traveler's longing to recapture his spirituality.

    A lot has been said of the ten-minute unbroken sequence where the lead protagonist attempts to carry a lighted candle from one end of a pool to the other. Some see it as utterly boring. Personally, I was fascinated. In it, we see how the protagonist finally attempts to do something in order to recapture his spirituality. For the entire length of the movie he has been an observer, now he is an active participant. To be fair, his action does take the form of a ritual, not the building of a church, or water immersion, but then again, so much of spirituality is ritual. Tarkovsky correctly identifies how it's the continuity that helps us get through life, knowing that some things will never change our strong religious convictions. That's when the protagonist finally comes to realize that action must take place. It's no coincidence that this scene takes place after a demonstration given by the Erland Josephson character. It's an amazing scene. In it he gives an intelligent speech about the desolation of art. It also imparts an important question to the viewer about those who truly make a difference in the world: the observers, or the "insane", who try to take positive action on the behalf of others.

    No praise of any Tarkovsky film is complete without talking about the technical angle of his work. In NOSTALGHIA Tarkovsky is proven again to be a master of beauty, carving out beautiful images into the Italian landscape. Even the indoor scenes are beautiful. NOSTALGIA is further evidence of Tarkovsky's desire to elevate film as an art. He paints well...
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Words cannot describe Nostalghia, or, indeed, any Tarkovsky film. He is an artist who is completely unique - I can't think of any other auteur like him. I can't even think of any film that I've seen which tries to copy his style. It is inimitable. No one else is as patient. Tarkovsky's pans and zooms can take minutes. The penultimate sequence, where a man has to carry a candle for a certain distance without it going out, should be horribly boring. Any other director would have used a lot of cutting to produce suspense. Yet, with Tarkovsky's brilliant direction, without a single cut for nearly an entire reel, it becomes one of the most suspenseful and, yes, one of the very best scenes ever captured on film.

    In fact, the direction's almost too good. This isn't minimalist like some of his previous films such as Solaris and Stalker. It is more like Andrei Rublev: not a second goes by that is not stuffed to the brim, almost flowing over, with brilliant and poetic images. In a way, although in a good way, this distracts the viewer. I was so bowled over by the images of Nostalghia that I had to watch it twice to understand it (it was nearly as difficult the second time around not to be bowled over!). And I totally appreciate that. I was more than happy to explore this film more deeply on a second journey. Thank you Mr. Tarkovsky for making the films that you did. When you sought to fulfill your audiences' lives with your art, you came closer to succeeding than any artist could have. Of course, you couldn't have made life perfect, nor would you have wanted to. For, as you said, if life were perfect, art would be pointless. May my life always be imperfect.
  • zclark819 August 2002
    Warning: Spoilers
    There is a strange feeling that comes over me when I watch a Tarkovsky flick, like I'm seeing a puzzle come together to for a full picture, yet it is of something I cannot fully comprehend. I'm sure this has happened to numerous others while they watch a David Lynch film, or even one of the various mind-bogglers released this past year. But Tarkovsky comes to us with a different approach-an approach that I have not seen from any other director. It is an approach that reminds me of reading a poem. You read it once-you don't comprehend it. You read it again-it seems clearer. It may not be until that third reading that it finally clicks. Tarkovsky's images are not there to keep you puzzled, they all have a meaning and a purpose-you just need to find what that meaning is. It may seem like there is much work involved, and sometimes I would rather work for a film than be bowled over by its tepid scripting and mediocre direction. The one thing you would need, above all, would be patience, because it is not the kind of film to watch half-asleep.

    The story, at times, is hard to grasp, number one because it is in subtitles. It follows a Russian poet who is on a research mission in Italy with an Italian interpreter. There, he is haunted by his past: memories of his wife and children. One of the most amazing things I picked up was the subtle use of symbolism. You have to pick the film apart if you wanted to fully understand it, and that is something that I enjoy doing. Tarkovsky leaves much to the mind. Such as the dialogue which is subtle as well, and attention must be paid or you'll miss small but important details. It merely is there to move the story along softly scraping the surface. Otherwise, the images must be analyzed.

    The camera shots consist of many slow zooms, slow pans, numerous still shots, and semi-slow motion. Many instances, the camera reveals some amazing imagery that is so perfect, so beautiful that not only the most devout romanticist could appreciate. Actually, the entire film is a series of gorgeous cinematography, I couldn't tell you one shot I didn't like.

    The final shot of the film is incredible. Constructed both metaphorically and physically, it shows the poet lying sideways on the ground with the top half of his body propped up with an arm. His dog lies next to him with his head on the ground. The camera pulls back steadily slowly. A house is revealed in the background. The shot pulls out further and the house seems smaller than the poet. When the zoom stops is shows everyone surrounded by tall pillars, like the ruins of a temple. Then it begins to snow, just a little; that image holds for an entire minute, before `To the memory of my mother,' appears on the screen. Puzzling, exhausting, yet beautiful and exhilarating. The film, at many points touches religion and life, mostly without answers. Attempting to find those answers is a task well worth the trouble.

    ****1/2 out of *****
  • This is probably Andrei Tarkovsky's most autobiographical film, which is saying something because Mirror is about his own childhood. Mirror was really about the environment that led to the creation of Tarkovsky himself, in a way, but Nostalghia seems to be much more about Tarkovsky in the moment. His main character (also named Andrei) is a Russian national in Italy on a project, yearning for home, and the making of this film was when Tarkovsky decided to enter exile away from his motherland, the catalyst being Mosfilm pulling funding for the film right before production while he was in Italy after years and years of dealing with the Soviet bureaucracy. All of Tarkovsky's films were personal to him, but this one just has that extra something there.

    Considered a minor work in a filmography of seven movies, Nostalghia tells the story of Andrei Gorchakov (Oleg Yankovsky) who is in Italy researching for a book about the Russian composer Pavel Sosnovsky with his attractive and young Italian translator Eugenia (Domiziana Giordano). They head to Bologna where Sosnovsky stayed for a time. They go to a remote church where a procession of women carry a statue of the Virgin in a ritual designed to pray to her for fertility, something Andrei made them go out of their way to see but doesn't even bother to go in to witness.

    Outside their hotel are some famous baths, mainly a large outdoor pool that a handful of people float in for restoration. Along this pool often walks the local crazy, Domenico (Erland Josephson). He locked his family up in his house for seven years, preparing for the Apocalypse which, of course, never came. His family fled after being rescued, and Domenico has quietly led a small life in Bologna ever since. This personality fascinates Andrei, and he wants to get to know him better despite Domenico having nothing to do with his research.

    There's an interesting moment before Andrei actually meets Domenico when he asks Eugenia the meaning of the Italian word "fede". It means "faith", but the way it's asked and answered implies Andrei's mental state rather perfectly. He has no faith behind the physical to the point where he doesn't even know what it is. Of course, he literally does know what it is (Eugenia just offers up the Russian word instead of a definition), but the implication is strong.

    Andrei meets Domenico at Domenico's home, a remote building that's falling apart with open sections in the roof that allow rain to fall down generously (a repeated image of The Room from Stalker), and Domenico reveals the depth of his faith that the world is in the process of ending. He also reveals that, in order to avert the Apocalypse, he must traverse the baths with a lighted candle, but he is constantly removed from the baths every time he tries. This is crazy talk on a literal level, but that's kind of the point. It doesn't take great faith to believe in something easy to digest. It takes great faith to believe in something outlandish.

    The center of Tarkovsky's films are always very small, the trials and tribulations of an individual against a larger context (Russian history in Andrei Rublev and Mirror, a thinking planet in Solaris, a room that grants innermost desires in Stalker, the Second World War in Ivan's Childhood). How much can one person affect the larger context? How can one maintain faith in the face of so much allayed against them? From a man who lived his life in the Soviet Union, it's an understandable point of view.

    The main focus of the film ties into the film's title. Nostalgia is rampant in the film as everyone yearns for a different time. Domenico rails against the modern world, the source of his Apocalyptic concerns. These words mean something to Andrei, who also yearns for his wife and children back home while feeling lost in the modern world at the same time. Even Eugenia thinks back to her time in Moscow and the other men she met there who might have made her happier than Andrei (she's frustrated that he won't sleep with her). How can everyone go back to the happier times of their memories?

    These ideas, faith in a time of crisis and yearning for a happier time in the past, coalesce in Andrei. Lost in Italy with little belief, he latches onto Domenico slightly. When he returns to Rome to wait for his flight back to Moscow, he discovers that Domenico has gone to Rome as well, standing atop the statue in the Piazza Vittorio Emmanuelle II and delivering long speeches (like Castro, Eugenia describes) about the evils of the modern world. It's obvious, though, that Domenico is being manipulated, and when he self-immolates the man who handed him the gas can mocks his pain.

    Faith must manifest in some way for the soul to find any kind of hope, it seems. Without faith, all that there remains is the material, and Andrei can't seem to accept that, so he takes the candle Domenico gave him, goes back to Bologna, and walks across the now empty pool. This scene, all shot in one take as Andrei tries three times before successfully making it across, is the kind of thing that Tarkovsky understood. Hitchcock proved that editing is key to tension in film, but Tarkovsky found a way to pull it off without editing. The single shot is the kind of moment where the audience ends up holding its breath as we see wind knock the tiny flame back and forth as Andrei tries to shield it with his hand, arm, and even his coat.

    Tarkovsky's later films really rely on their endings to wrap everything up. Drawing from the Aristotelian ideal of classical unity, in particular its concept of unity of action, everything in the films was designed to come down to a single idea. Every action, character, and location was meant to further the idea at the core, and endings can end up very important to that concept as they wrap up the action and provide the resolution to everything that had come before it. So it's interesting to watch the film with this in mind, certain that it will all come together, and it does. Andrei's walk across the pool is open to some level of interpretation (Andrei succumbing to madness, finding faith, or perhaps just simply desperate for some meaning in the world), but it gives meaning to the preceding two hours. That effort on his part gives explanation to his early meanderings, solace and completion of Domenico's own madness and faith, while also helping him come to terms with the absence of his own family.

    Tarkovsky movies aren't exactly what one would call fun, but they are engrossing if you let them. Nostalghia reminds me a bit of Terrence Malick's To the Wonder, a seemingly smaller film coming after something so much larger (Stalker for Tarkovsky and The Tree of Life for Malick), a supposed letdown of sorts from the previous work. However, I think both are really underappreciated considering their actual artistic merits. Nostlaghia represents a further refinement of Tarkovsky's style after the chaos of the previous production, completely freed from the constraints of the Soviet bureaucracy, and still yearning for meaning.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Before making an art house film check the following ingredients:

    • A lot of camera movements behind pillars, columns and walls


    • Add a lot of fog and smoke to create a mystic mood


    • During dialogue film the person speaking on his back or don't show people at all


    • Don't forget a little bit of nudity from the leading female character but not too much to avoid vulgarity


    • Make sure there is a plot but don't use it during the film


    • And of course the madman who turns out to be the wisest man on earth


    Nostalghia is the kind of film that uses this and other clichés of art house in such a way that the movie is boring as hell. The plot is about a Russian poet looking for traces of a Russian composer who lived in Italy some centuries before. We learn nothing specific about the poet and the composer except that they both suffer from homesickness. And of course the director projects his own longing for Russia on his protagonist and the object of his study.

    The only thing that saves the film is the talent of Tarkovsky to shoot beautiful scenes. There is a camera movement from an arcade to a healing pool that is absolutely breathtaking. The scene where the poet is in the house of the madman and the rain is pouring through the roof is gorgeously filmed. And I never will forget the scene where the madman is standing on the statue of a Roman emperor and his horse (sorry, I'm too lazy to look up the name of the emperor) and shouting his thoughts to an apathetic crowd. Those scenes are worth it to watch over and over again but you have to suffer all the other endless scenes with static camera where absolutely nothing happens or nothing interesting is said.

    One of the strangest incidents taking place is the suicide of the madman. I missed the clue why this should be in the script completely. Except for that Tarkovsky would show us how people are manipulated and used for other people's agenda. But it has nothing to do with the main theme which is the longing for your home ground.

    The final scenes where the poet is fulfilling a promise to the madman and finally collapse because of a failing heart are beautiful. A lot had been said about the final scenes were the poet is shown in front of his house in Russia which is placed in the ruin of an Italian cathedral. His love for both worlds are united here as he reached his heaven.

    Tarkovsky showed us a lot of things in this film what made him a unique director. For its screenplay (also by Tarkovsky) this movie is much less successful. I was left with the feeling that a chance of a masterpiece was missed here.
  • At one in the morning, I threw in Nostalghia and let myself become inundated with sparseness and visual poetry. People describe this film as poetic; I 'd go further and say its like music too. I sometimes put it on and just do my things, and come back to it. It's a work of immense beauty and transcends normal movie viewing practices. Try it one day and put it on late at night, with a glass of beer. You'll see what I mean.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Every scene is a painting, but as can often be the case, adding them together does not make make a satisfying film. I would recommend seeing it just for the visual artistry, but I don't claim that you'll feel like it was time well spent if you watch the whole thing. Regarding the almost non-existent story, I wanted to slap the main character and say, "Hey, do you know what's a better thing to do than walking a lit candle across a thermal bath? ANYTHING!!!" Circumstances may not be what he would wish, but you have to put on your big boy pants and move forward. You can't just sit around wallowing in your misery and trying to find meaning in the ramblings of a mentally disabled person. And don't expect me to think you're wise or insightful for doing so. When you've reached the other side of the bath with the candle, what have you gained other than muddy shoes? Go do something that matters.
  • While I do rank Andrei Rublev(the greatest Soviet film ever made from personal view), Mirror(Tarkovsky's most personal) and Stalker above it, Nostalgia doesn't disappoint in any way; coming from a director who was one of the few who did not make a bad film, even my least favourite Ivan's Childhood was great and contains one of the best child performances ever.

    Nostalgia is not for everybody, despite being one of his shortest it is one of Tarkovsky's least accessible along with Solaris. People will be captivated by the photography, the symbolism and direction amongst other things while others will find the slow pacing too much for them, mightn't completely understand what's going on or maybe find it repetitive. As said already, this viewer is one of those people who considers it another Tarkovsky masterpiece. It's not a Tarkovsky film without beautiful visuals and imagery and great directing and Nostalgia absolutely has both. The mix of black and white and colour are truly striking while the photography(the most interesting being the lengthy but hypnotic lighted candle sequence) like all Tarkovsky films is some of the most stunning and arresting seen for any film. Tarkovsky's direction as ever is exemplary even late in his career, despite being his first Non-Soviet film Tarkovsky's unique style is unmistakable. The symbolism is fairly straightforward and still powerful.

    Nostalgia's music score is hauntingly melancholic and the dialogue is thoughtful and subtle, the desolation of art speech contains some of the most thought-provoking dialogue of any Tarkovsky film. With the story, the slow pacing did not bother me at all. Quite the opposite, because a lot of parts were so dream-like and mystical it was so easy to be captivated by it. The story itself is one of Tarkovsky's most personal(second only to Mirror) and has its fair share of emotional power, if not as much as Andrei Rublev and Solaris. The characters carry the film well and the performances are fine, Oleg Yankovsky is a compelling lead and Erland Josephson is appropriately distinguished and better than he is given credit for here. Overall, not one of Tarkovsky's best but doesn't disappoint at all. 10/10 Bethany Cox
  • Everybody who has seen some Tarkovsky movies knows that a thrilling plot is not to be expected. However with "Nostalgia" Tarkovsky seems to outperform himself in this respect. Maybe this is the reason that "Nostalgia" is the least viewed and least reviewed film of the Tarkovsky oeuvre. I saw some clips with an interpretation of the movie that had a longer running time than the film itself!

    The only thing that is petty clear is that "Nostalgia" is a film about homesickness. The film presents this in three layers. The main character Andrei (played by Oleg Yankovsky) is a Russian writer who does research in Italy about the 18th century Russian composer Pavel Sosnovksy (framed after the real composer Maksim Berezovsky) who was studying opera in Italy. Sosnovsky was homesick, as is Andrei a couple of century's later. The third layer is Tarkovsky himself. "Nostalgia" was his first film shot outside Russia, and he would not return to his home country. In this respect "Nostalgia" has a strong autobiographical element.

    The film has two other main characters, the translater Eugenia (Domiziana Giordana) and the eccentric Domenico (Erland Josephson). The clips I refered to above had al sorts of profound thoughts about their meaning, but for me it was not obvious at all. At one point in the dreams of Andrei Eugenia met with his Russian wife. This reminded me very much of "Persona" (1966, Ingmar Bergman). Domenico is the fool of the village, but is he real a fool? His character has some resemblance with the character of Johannes Borgen in "Ordet" (1955, Carl Theodor Dreyer). In general the function of the character of Johannes was more clear to me than that of Domenico. Nevertheless there is one wonderful scene with Domenico. Domenico has kept his family inside his house for seven years because he is expecting the end of the World. After they are freed by local police his young son runs away and Domenico runs after him. In the beginning of the scene it is obvious that Domenico is trying to catch the boy. After a while this hunt gradually evolves in accompanying the boy in his voyage of discovery. A very beautiful scene indeed.

    The way to appreciate "Nostalgia" may be to give up explaining and to start enjoying the beauty of the images. Images often with a lot of fog and certainly not the images you would find in a tourist travel guide of Tuscany, but beautiful all the same. Perhaps the most well known image is the one at the end of the film in which a wooden house Russian style turns out te be enclosed by the ruins of an Italian cathedral. An image also summing up the main theme of the film.
  • It is beautifully photographed, and further established Tarkovsky as a genius with natural landscapes and settings. Aside from Orson Welles, Tarkovsky must be the king of atmosphere.

    Atmosphere alone does not make a great movie. This movie is unbearably pretentious and slow beyond words. In comparison to Tarkovsky, Ingmar Bergman is an MTV director.

    By this stage in his life, Tarkovsky was an acknowledged genius, and apparently nobody on this team ever dared to question his artistic decisions. He simply has no clue of when his point has been made and it's time to move on.

    Is he a fine poet? Yes, as great as his father in many ways. I also think he has a marvelous photographer's eye for images. But he really had a complete disdain for communication with the audience, and that aloofness makes this film so hard to watch. Of course, the fact that much of the movie exists in dim remembrances and dreams makes it even less accessible. I don't even know if this film had a script. Some of the actor's dialogue, especially Giordano's, seems unrelated to the scenes they are performing. The actors performed admirably.

    I watched it a second time with my fast-forward, and it was much better. He has a way of holding the camera on a still or barely-panning image for many, many seconds - with no sound either, except for his overused running or dripping water cliche. If you fast-forward all of those to the next scene, the movie flows much better.

    I consider this movie a disappointment. I always thought Tarkovsky would make a great movie when given Western budgets and technology, but he pretty much just remade his earlier movies on better film stock.

    He has a beautiful vision. I wish he had become a photographer instead of a filmmaker.
  • Gary-1612 February 2000
    Apparently even Tarkovsky described this film as 'tedious', so you can imagine what it's like to be on the receiving end. But for some reason I don't find it so, although there is the occasional longuer. It's one of the great films of cinema, although certainly rather odd. Once again it has an impossibly glamourous Russian wandering about looking moody, engrossed in the big issues. In fact, the female lead falls for him and is exasperated by his absurd interest in a local derelict. She flashes a tit in erotic frustration which is unusual for Tarkovsky, he seems unwilling to really engage in issues of sexuality, preferring them to be chaste in an almost victorian manner. Certainly there was some accusations of a reactionary attitude to women, for at the start of the film a priest tells the guide that she should sacrifice herself for the sake of raising children. She is made to look rather absurd in the film, but in truth, so do the male characters. Perhaps it was due to cultural traditions in Tarkovsky's background rather than deliberate misogyny.

    The Italians didn't take to this film as it did not film Italy in a vibrant manner, preferring to evocate the alienation and melancholia of it's Russian lead. Tarkovsky's brilliance as a director is well illustrated in the film where the Russian and the old man talk in a room. The camera seems to turn a full 360 degrees although you don't notice it. The way his characters and objects seem to float in and out of frame is amazing. It's strange, but nature seems to perform for Tarkovsky. Even the animals seem willing to be directed, a dog staring straight into the camera with an almost unearthly and uncanny presence and stillness. The scene where the Russian lies on his hotel bed and his nostalgia conjurs up his dog in a dream like but also tangibly real manner is powerful and haunting.

    The problem with this film is that the lead character was not really in exile and could go home anytime, unlike Tarkovsky himself, so why was he in so much pain? Is it mere homesickness as opposed to the real longing for one's homeland rightly belonging to the truly disenfranchised? But perhaps that is not the issue, more that when man finds himself and true wisdom, is it too late in the day for him to use what he has learned? The self sacrifice of the old man is a return to an old theme of Tarkovsky's that perhaps only shame can save mankind.

    There are many eccentric aspects to this film, for instance the Russian wandering around up to his waist in water. Also there is a brief and bizarre shot of an angel stomping around outside a house. As it's Tarkovsky you don't burst out laughing. Perhaps he reaches the parts other directors cannot reach.

    But there are also some vividly beautiful moments. The doves being released in the church, and the light filtering through a stream of water in a gutted house. Towards the end of his career, Tarkovsky began to question the rigid criteria he used in shooting a film in a way he felt won purity and aschewed the vulgar and trivial, but I think he got it right here. A marvelous film.
  • Nostalghia, a film Andrei Tarkovsky directed while he was out of Russia and in Italy, is almost as personal, if not more-so, than his film the Mirror. The main character's first name is Andrei; there's mention of a poet named Tarkovsky (possibly Andrei's own father, if I'm not mistaken); the main character, while trying to do something else with his time (write a biography on a musician) is distracted by his personal turmoil over his family, who are back in his homeland, as was Tarkovsky to a degree (he might have been in exile, I'm not sure). And on top of this, we're given a substantial amount of black and white scenes, often either in slow-motion speed or directed by Tarkovsky to seem like such, from dreams and memories that call for a time and place that is specific but also ethereal, strange and probably symbolic.

    So why then does the film not work if the creator's soul was poured entirely into it? I think, perhaps, there is almost *too* much of a reliance on creating a mood of meditation, for there to be total concentration upon the atmosphere that Tarkovsky has created- as he has in all of his movies- upon which is a sort of world unto itself, seen through its filmmaker in a way no other can see it. This may be expected for one already familiar with the director's methods, but even still there's so many silent moments, so many long takes with the most slight of camera movements, so much contemplation in place of dialog (there's only a few scenes where we see characters communicate in that manner), that it takes a lot out of the viewer to stay with the ideal of spiritual redemption that Tarkovsky is after.

    Or is it redemption? Is it just simply a quest into oneself? Why does Andrei follow Domenico (brilliantly played in subtle/not-so-subtle form by Erland Josephsson), who cannot be really relied upon as a source of redemption or actual thought provocation? This is a man, after all, who yells out his speeches to bewildered crowds in a town square and then proceeds to go through a very severe act on himself (to Beethoven's 9th no less!) There's a lot of mystery to this character Andrei, and the actor portraying him, Oleg Jankovsky, is so subdued and detached at times that his female translator counterpart (possibly mad as well) can barely get a rise out of him save for the bloody nose. This strange sensation to seek in to a character that Tarkovsky leaves open to much interpretation, plus the procession of shots that seem to last for about as long as imaginable, makes it an uneasy viewing experience.

    But at the same time that there's this uneasiness, there's also a wonderment that is going on as well. I couldn't pull myself away even if a part of my mind screamed out "where's the plot?" There's such a strong sense of direction going on, the moods created in certain places (i.e. the fog over the hot springs at the Spa, the darkness in the bedrooms, the chilling sensibility to the flashbacks/dreams), almost in spite of the lack of a really solid story, as it becomes less about what happens than about what is in this character, the nature of this exile in Italy as it makes Andrei pull into his own existential finale of sorts. That finale, as some may have read, is extraordinary, maybe the whole reason, as with Sacrifice's fire finale, that Tarkovsky made the movie in the first place: the poet carries a candle, as suggested by Domenico, across a sacred pool, and when it goes out he goes back, and does this again, and again, until finally he makes it across. Never a cutaway, always intuitively shot by Tarkovsky's cameraman, and it brings on a whole other quality that crosses paths between what is fiction in the film and reality in front of the camera.

    While I praise the film, and recommend it, it's not the kind of work that someone who isn't familiar at all with Tarkovsky should see as an introduction. On the contrary, this might be more worthwhile as the final work in his (saddeningly) small body of work, as its pace and modus operandi can be further appreciated. Grade: A-
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Andrei Tarkovsky's Nostalghia (1983) is as great an example of Fine Art as I have ever seen in any medium, cinema or otherwise.

    The film as a whole can be considered to be a montage of scenes and images that are only very loosely, and at times not at all, connected to each other in a "straight", literal sense. True enough, there is an overarching general temporal sequence in the scenes of the film, but this temporal sequence does little to aid the viewer in a strictly rational answer to the seemingly simple query: "What Is This Film All About?"

    As a work of Fine Art, I would liken Nostalghia to the work of Impressionist painters such as Monet, Renoir, Degas, and Cezanne. The artistic motivation of these painters was not in any way to portray reality in photographic accuracy, as did painters of bygone eras. Indeed, the invention of the camera made such an artistic motivation superfluous for painters. What the Impressionist painters tried to do, with varying degrees of success, was to portray reality with less than photographic, literal accuracy in favor of a portrayal that has more of a non-rational "impact" on the viewer, on the intellectual and/or emotional and/or visceral levels of experience. As such, the Truth of Impressionist paintings as it is conveyed to the viewer is not an "absolute truth" but, instead, a contextual, even an interpretive truth.

    So too, the portrayal of reality, and the subsequent Truth of that portrayal in the viewer's experience of Tarkovsky's Nostalghia is on a non-rational, purely subjective, contextual, interpretive, and perhaps even intuitive level. This film offers a non-obvious mixture of sometimes disjointed dramatic scenes, sometimes deep philosophical dialogue, isolated imagery, sometimes admittedly strange symbolism, innovative cinematography, & sometimes radical editing in an attempt to deliver an "impact", an "Impression" on the viewer on the intellectual, emotional, and visceral planes of his viewing experience.

    The exact "meaning" or "truth" of that impact is decidedly intended by Tarkovsky to be unique to the individual viewer of the film, and is incumbent on the individual viewer to decide for himself.
  • dcant21 May 2000
    Tarkovski's Nostalghia is the most stunning film, visually, emotionally, and intellectually that I have seen in recent years. If you care about films as art, then it is a must see. Exploring faith, alienation, and exile, the film is a meditation on the state of modern man. Nostalghia transcends the barriers of cinema and projects itself into our own consciousness and world, in a way that film should, in order for viewers to weigh their actions and relate with the human community.
  • johncorry26 November 2001
    Tarkovsky breaks new ground in the cinema, using cinematography, sound, and temporal space to transport the viewer to his dream-like state. The result is meted out in stunning cinematography and an aural soundscape that reflects the inner turmoil of the protagonist - Tarkovsky's own persona, more or less, according to his diaries - struggling to integrate a past long gone with a present unfulfilled.

    A masterpiece (if you can get through it without falling into your own dream state!)
  • You know what you're getting with a Tarkovsky movie and this is no exception: an aesthetic experience which really gives the time to just feel the moment and get lost in its hypnotic power as still (as often as cogent) as a painting.

    I would be lying if I said I really get this movie. A cursory glance at wikipedia tells me that the untranslatabillity of culture is an aspect though was more inclined to say it was about the desperate search for meaning in an ostensibly (and probably) meaningless world. Though that is a much easier interpretation...

    I don't the mainstream, quite the opposite. But it is often to brilliant to find a movie that really embraces the freedom film can give to an artist. What some people would call an "art film" but I don't like to say this because all movies are art. The carefully composed images, the apparently inconsequential conversations, the switch from color to black and white (I'm a real sucker for that when done well; Schindler's List handled poorly in my opinion), and the stangely stylised vision of the world where people just stand around posing as if for a painting. I also admire the use of long takes. Bare in mind I did watch this is several sittings.

    So as is usually the case with this writer-director, what we have is a slow, austere, strange, not particularly cogent but very satisfying experience that Chris Stuckman will probably never talk about.
  • Very hard movie to watch but it is worth it. Cinematography is so gorgeous like in every film he made. You need to be fully concentrated to watch it and to understand what is all of that supossed to mean. Dialogue is so deep and meaningful. His movies are pure art.
  • One of the most difficult movies of all time. Although there is a poetic expression and a philosophical dimension in the story, it was extremely hard to grasp what it tells exactly. I give it 7 because it was very impressive in terms of cinematography.
  • pgeary600127 April 2021
    As puzzling as one has come to expect from Tarkovsky, the film still delivers with its deeply moving scenario eliciting subconscious emotional responses in the viewer. As in The Mirror, the film is deeply invested in the significance of the mother-son relationship (Tarkovsky dedicates the film to his mother) and the motherland-son relationship (reflecting Tarkovsky's fraught relationship with his beloved Russia).

    Many of the scenes are framed as beautifully as any classical Italian painting, and the usual Tarkovsky motifs are interwoven throughout the screenplay, particularly water, which again cascades through interior setting and in which the players are frequently immersed.

    If you find Tarkovsky's indirect approach irritating, the film will not please you. But if you appreciate his artistry and subtlety, you will be mesmerized by Nostalgia.
  • Poetic and philosophical, but ponderous.

    The theme of the transplanted Russian longing to return home was obviously deeply personal to Tarkovsky, and there is a great heaviness to this film, shot in drab surroundings and craggy ruins. It's also the work of a man at a certain age in life when parents and friends are beginning to pass away, looking at life nostalgically but also with somber perspective. Throughout the film there are many doors and gateways, seeming to symbolize transitions in life, and there are also several mirrors, with the main characters sometimes surprised at the image they see reflected. Many of these shots are beautifully composed, which is not a surprise given the filmmaker's immense talent.

    Spoilers from here on.

    In the moments that stirred me most in the film, it seemed to ask, what can we do with this fragile life of ours, and symbolized it with fire. The man deemed insane has great insight when he says humanity must come together ("We must listen to the voices that seem useless"), chastises those who are well off ("It is the healthy who have brought the world to the verge of ruin"), and advocates for a simpler life ("Just look at nature and you'll see that life is simple. We must go back to where we were, to the point where you took the wrong turn"). He says all that, but then out of despair or perhaps as a way of trying to wake people up from their disinterest, incinerates himself.

    Meanwhile, the poet tries to keep his capering candlelight alive while crossing the water in the ruins of the old baths. You can see both great perseverance and ultimately great futility in this small task, attempted again and again, and there is something both triumphant and sad about it (something I also felt in the film's final image). Earlier on the poetry of Tarkovsky's father is quoted and we hear:

    "I am a candle. I burned at the feast. Gather my wax when morning arrives so that this page will remind you how to be proud and how to weep, how to give away the last third of happiness, and how to die with ease - and beneath a temporary roof to burn posthumously, like a word."

    There is some really profound stuff here, and it's a film that oozes melancholy at a time that struck an emotional chord with me. It's interesting though - as in other Tarkovsky films, Pushkin is mentioned, and I only wish the director had some of that poet's talent for concision. Several scenes go on interminably, and while they're meant to increase the emotional weight, for me it had the opposite effect. I'm not sure about the translator character either; maybe she was meant to provide momentary lightness to offset all of the other heaviness, but I thought she could have been more effectively incorporated. It's a film that I'm glad I watched, but it's not one I would reach for again.
  • julibufa19 June 2018
    1/10
    No
    Warning: Spoilers
    Okay, here's the thing. And before judging me I encourage anyone to look at my profile to see wether my taste is poor or not.

    Andrei Tarkovsky made seven films, and I took the liberty to watch them all. I liked Solaris. I understood Ivan's Childhood. I was fairly bored by The Mirror and severely bored by Stalker. But they all had something this movie didn't.

    Nostalghia, his sixth feature film and the only one in Italy, is one of the worst films I've ever seen. Because it lacks the only thing that every other movie has: something. Nostalghia has nothing. It has no characters, it has no setting, it has no plot.

    It does "have" them in a technical sense. You can go on Wikipedia and read a summary, sure. Yet, the problem is Tarkovsky doesn't take notice of any of them. It's alledegly about a writer that tries to study a composer. It isn't about that. Not that it should, but it isn't about anything else, really. Tarkovsky just SHOWS you some images he likes and you're supposed to do all the thinking. I'm fine with some thinking, but after the first 20 minutes of nothing I started to suspect maybe it's not my fault, maybe I'm not dumb, maybe I'm not the problem.

    Because a film has to be balanced. It has to have some excuse, some distraction, to take you along its emotional or moral ride, it can't just be a speech about morality and a bunch of unrelated images. Nostalghia is that. Is the other end.

    The characters have no lines. I swear they don't. They have only monologues, only poetry. But it's not good poetry. It's that sketchy, meaningless poetry that you find on a depressed 80-year old's dusty unpublished diary. You could interchange any of the character's lines between them and you wouldn't notice the difference. In fact, you could put the whole movie backwards and it wouldn't matter either.

    Maybe is the fact that you could have some character interactions that are worth glancing act; maybe is the fact that you could have a sequence with multiple things happening at once to speed up the process. We are mistaking lazy with genius, and with enough steady camera anyone'll believe it. But no, the movie stuffs all of its characters with all the baggage of explaining the meaning of life every time they open their mouth, and then they stare at things for fifteen minutes. That is not what a good movie is made of.

    The scene with Domenico's speech is terrible, because it's again poetry, that could've been put anywhere else in the movie, or viceversa, and nobody would've noticed. The constant shots of the protagonist's wife, again, they serve no purpose, they just kind of exist, like everything in this film. They only represent a vague sense of sadness that doesn't move anything forward; it doesn't go anywhere. The scene of the candle. By God, how frustratingly unimportant that scene is, it is not an experience, it is torture, because the so-called "build-up" to it isn't a build-up, it's just random rambling about it as a concept, there isn't any purpose to it.

    He is trying too hard to depress you, make you feel like if he accomplishes it and taking credit for it as if that equals making a masterpiece.

    The word "pretentious" is thrown around a lot when it comes to a certain type of cinema. I've seen Fellini and Bergman films and they have their touches of pretention. It doesn't ruin their movies, mostly, as it coincides with their goals, how they manage to tell their stories. But there's an air of pretention to Nostalghia that I've never seen in full display quite like it. And that's the prolem with it. It is only that: every conventional cliché about avant-garde movies rolled into one.

    I don't care where you're from and how much of a mental disorder you might have, nobody talks or walks that slow. Life is not that slow. A good movie has to have both fast and slow moments to achieve a momentum that it can then submit to reflection. Tarkosvky films are generally pure reflection with none of the things that make storytelling interesting. A good script, a fleshed-out character, a mystery to be solved.

    I've seen it before, and many of his movies do this. But here, it is disrespectful to the viewer, I feel, to a point to which I cannot cut any slack. It is one of the most disrespectful movies I've ever seen. Because under this vail of slow-moving, big-brain lies, it shames the viewer into thinking there is something to it, when there absolutely isn't. It is an impossibly boring movie, with nothing to offer, that stretches out to two hours in length.
An error has occured. Please try again.