Talk before screening of "Solaris" (February 19, 2012)part 2
There were such cases, so the system in fact,paradoxically, was functioning effectively. There was a tension for film culture, The system of effective function was created. independent of authorities' intention. In this situation, Tarkovsky experienced personally variety of conversions in life and in thought, but very important was the fact that "Rublyov" was not released for so long time. It can be said that there was no choice. Because the first scenario was too long. The first - I mean the first version of the film entitled "The Passion of Andrei", but it was... say, it is incredible though, that is a poor piece. Material is the same. Material that was edited is that same material shot at the time of shooting, but compared with "Andrei Rublyov" it is too much to ssay "great difference", but still... he didn't cut where it should be, editing was different and so on. The use of music and of voice-over- narration is different, and in comparison, - you can now compare them, because "Criterion", a DVD label in the United States has released the first version - but I previously watched it in Moscow. I wondered , "Why "Andrei Rublyov", which impressed me to such an extent has such a poor impression", and even the first watching it made me think "this is needless" on quite many scenes. That is why, the longer first version, actually might be not acceptable for the director himself. I do not know for sure, but concerning "Andrei Rublyov", he neverl complained to Soviet authorities. When he was teaching in the 2 year higher course for screenwriters and directors, he said to students that there had been a scene in "Andrei Rublyov" that he couldn't shoot because of authorities and so forth, but even having complained so, in the West he have never said as if "Andrei Rublyov" was incomplete work. In fact , what I.Bergman regarded a work of genius, the best film he had seen so far, the film he praised so much, wasn't "Passion of Andrei", but "Andrei Rublyov ", in other words, the re-edited version.
In such a way, that kind of strange, mischief of fate in the creation of Tarkovsky constantly existed, also after that. But "Solaris" is a works where its assignment was small. It was made comparatively smoothly. That was partly because the screenplay passed smoothly, but why did it pass smoothly? That smoothly accepted plan Romanov didn't want to accept as a film, so he was considerably disliked film art. Instead of him, Ermash with a talent of producer came to the top of the censorship organ. It was lucky for him, namelyy, for his career after that. "Solaris" was made when he reached a turning point in his life. That is, he broke with Irma Roush, who was his first wife, and married a new wife, the second wife, Larisa Pavlovna. It was just during the production period of this film. How did such a thing happen? While shooting "Andrei Rublyov", Larisa Pavlovna, formerly called Kirzina, she was an assistant director. She had a favor to Andre, to Tarkovsky from that time, and made such a situation which is likely to cause a scandal. There is something fantastic in Irma, who was herself a director of children's film, I think she was optimistic person with good nature, judging from what she wrote. At first she didn't notice that such a situation was made there. Tarkovsky was once hospitalized due to nourvous breakdown as a result of overwork and of "Andrei Rublyov"'s not being released so long. Then Irma, as she was also an actress, rushed from the location of film shooting to Moscow, to the hospital. And she was said that visiting hours were over. She begged for meeting him, saying that she was his wife, but was said at the reception of the hospital, "everybody comes to see him, insisting to be his wife". It seems that she didn't notice again that time, It was probably Larisa Pavlovna who visited him. There was such an incident. I don't know when and in what way Larisa got interrelated with Tarkovsky. But, in 1970 when the production of "Solaris" had started, Larisa was already pregnant with his child. In the year of divorce, when he officially got a divorce from Irma, the child -his second child was born. It's Andrusha, his second son, to whom "Sacrifice" was devoted.
There is a considerable gap between his personal life and his thought reflected on his creation and his art. A gap or rather twist of fate, which is also a part of his fate, anyway he tried to rummage and to read Dostoevsky's writings, philosophers' works written about Dostoevsky in the 19th century Russia. That was when he was making "Solaris", It was so because after "Rublyov" he wanted to make "Adolescent" based on Dostoevsky. And he told about it to Nikolai Burlyaev, the actor who played a bell making boy called Boriska in "Andrei Rublyov", asking him to play in "Adolescent" he'll make. Though he said so, after all, he began to think that it would be more interesting to make a film about Dostoevsky, and he wanted to read everything written about Dostoevsky. And, he wanted to read rather unofficial at that time books on Dostoevsky, for example, of Nikolai Berdyaev. N.Berdyaev was a religious philosopher who wrote his works in the first half of 20th century. Along with Berdyaev, he wanted to read Konstantin Leontiev, Vladimir Soloviev, etc. books of such religious philosophers. And among them Nikolai Berdyaev continued to influence on him until the last moment. Among Berdyaev's books "The meaning of History" and others has been translated in Japan, but the most important - which had an influence on him - book has not yet translated. As far as I researched there's no Japanese translation of it. The book is titled "Meaning of Creation". This book, in my view, is very likely the source of the text written at the end of "Sculpting in Time" - I mean the Japanese version, the one translated into Japanese was retouched after English version, i.e.the final one - the text at the end of it, written like epigraph, seems to me having borrowed whole idea from Berdyaev's "Meaning of Creation". Summing up that idea, well... the power of human to create, the power to create work of art, is the evidence that human is the likeness of God. That's the thought. This thought was told by "Writer" in in "Stalker". "For what human was born?" "For creation, of works of art", he says to "Professor" of physics. Then he replies with despise, "There are still starving people on Earth" and the scene turns into a conflict. In fact from this point of 1970 Tarkovsky began to have such an idea. Having such a thought, he had already, at that point, written with Misharin the scenario for "Mirror". And the scenario was quite different from the film "Mirror". There also were, well , as I said earlier, as in the case of "Rublyov", many parts that would be better to be changed, the screenplay in its original version could not be made into a film.