Synopsis
Poetic journey through the shards and shadows of one boy's war-ravaged youth.
Director
Cast
More
Dmytro Milyutenko
Old Man
Vakentina Malyavina
Masha
Irma Raush
Ivan's Mother
Nikolay Burlyaev
Ivan
Valentin Zubkov
Captain Kholin
Mykola Hrynko
Lieutnant Colonel Gryaznov
Stepan Krylov
Corporal Katasonov
Yevgeni Zharikov
Lieutnant Galtsev
Other Reviews
see all
Back to Tar! I was expecting something different. I've watched 'Stalker,' 'Solaris' and 'Mirror' from Andrei's filmography, so I know him only through those films. Tarkovsky owns a rich and authentic style as few filmmakers do. You can tell you're watching one of his films a few minutes into the movie. That's how strong his technical and visual prowess is. In this film, though, that's more difficult to perceive. Here Tarkovsky is not doing his auteur, a bit self-indulgent, extremely personal cinema. Watching the movie, you get that sense of discipline every Soviet war film has. You can tell this is his debut film in the way of how conventional he is here. But that's not to say that this is a bad film because it's not, not by a long shot. It's just, again, different. Andrei hadn't fully developed his unique style here, yet he displays an impressive amount of control over his craft. If someone not familiar with Tar's style were to watch this film, he would think this is the work of a master several movies in - it's that good. 'Ivan's Childhood' is carefully constructed and beautifully shot, and even though it's not Tarkovsky's most "Tarkovsky" film, if you're paying close attention, you can't mistake it with anything else. It's his!
The thing that struck me the most here was the challenging cinematography. I think that Andrei was heavily influenced by Kalatozov when making this. Tar did try to invent some ingenious camera maneuvers here and succeeded in creating at least one head-scratching shot (the shot of the well). But the film has a refreshing camera-work throughout. And, when you think of the Russian movies that came out during that period and put them alongside what American filmmakers brought out, you think: "what the hell were these Americans doing at the time" because there is no comparison, at least camera-wise. The Russians were mad camera-buffs, producing some of the most extraordinary images ever put to film. But let's get back to Tar because even though he might have drawn a bit from Kalatozov here, he was also quietly evolving his unique visual style, as he uses water elements to evoke so many different emotions. There are a few beautiful shots with water motifs here, but the one that stands out the most is at the end when Ivan runs through the water. That was like Tarkovsky was choosing his "path" in film and choosing water because water will be one of the most abundant ingredients in his later work. Back to the cinematography, I got to mention Tar's mastery of constructing jaw-dropping tracing shots. The transition of images without cuts just natural, fluent extends of the camera are so well choreographed. It's so satisfying being guided by the camera, seeing where it gets you. Tar fully embraces one of his most distinguishing characteristics here; the crazy long takes. Another thing I want to point out is the highly captivating performance of the actor playing Ivan. There is an intense scene here, in which Andrei uses a close-up and fills the screen with his face, and this kid nails that moment. Powerful!
I don't want to overdo it with superlatives here, but I think, from a directorial standpoint, with the choices he made in structuring and editing the movie, this might be Tar's best film. In his later work, he's unique and incredible for sure, but he's often repetitive in his touch on tone and symbolism. It's like he flexed his muscles big time with this one, showed what he's made off, and then thought: "Oh fuck it, Imma do my most personal stuff from here on out, I don't care." Anyway, a technical masterpiece this one!
afagabbasova
Soviet cinema was wonderful. And his "forbidden" was even cooler)
104249972426525754443
balasch91
No friends added this movie to ‘To Watch’ yet
shaban
Back to Tar! I was expecting something different. I've watched 'Stalker,' 'Solaris' and 'Mirror' from Andrei's filmography, so I know him only through those films. Tarkovsky owns a rich and authentic style as few filmmakers do. You can tell you're watching one of his films a few minutes into the movie. That's how strong his technical and visual prowess is. In this film, though, that's more difficult to perceive. Here Tarkovsky is not doing his auteur, a bit self-indulgent, extremely personal cinema. Watching the movie, you get that sense of discipline every Soviet war film has. You can tell this is his debut film in the way of how conventional he is here. But that's not to say that this is a bad film because it's not, not by a long shot. It's just, again, different. Andrei hadn't fully developed his unique style here, yet he displays an impressive amount of control over his craft. If someone not familiar with Tar's style were to watch this film, he would think this is the work of a master several movies in - it's that good. 'Ivan's Childhood' is carefully constructed and beautifully shot, and even though it's not Tarkovsky's most "Tarkovsky" film, if you're paying close attention, you can't mistake it with anything else. It's his!
The thing that struck me the most here was the challenging cinematography. I think that Andrei was heavily influenced by Kalatozov when making this. Tar did try to invent some ingenious camera maneuvers here and succeeded in creating at least one head-scratching shot (the shot of the well). But the film has a refreshing camera-work throughout. And, when you think of the Russian movies that came out during that period and put them alongside what American filmmakers brought out, you think: "what the hell were these Americans doing at the time" because there is no comparison, at least camera-wise. The Russians were mad camera-buffs, producing some of the most extraordinary images ever put to film. But let's get back to Tar because even though he might have drawn a bit from Kalatozov here, he was also quietly evolving his unique visual style, as he uses water elements to evoke so many different emotions. There are a few beautiful shots with water motifs here, but the one that stands out the most is at the end when Ivan runs through the water. That was like Tarkovsky was choosing his "path" in film and choosing water because water will be one of the most abundant ingredients in his later work. Back to the cinematography, I got to mention Tar's mastery of constructing jaw-dropping tracing shots. The transition of images without cuts just natural, fluent extends of the camera are so well choreographed. It's so satisfying being guided by the camera, seeing where it gets you. Tar fully embraces one of his most distinguishing characteristics here; the crazy long takes. Another thing I want to point out is the highly captivating performance of the actor playing Ivan. There is an intense scene here, in which Andrei uses a close-up and fills the screen with his face, and this kid nails that moment. Powerful!
I don't want to overdo it with superlatives here, but I think, from a directorial standpoint, with the choices he made in structuring and editing the movie, this might be Tar's best film. In his later work, he's unique and incredible for sure, but he's often repetitive in his touch on tone and symbolism. It's like he flexed his muscles big time with this one, showed what he's made off, and then thought: "Oh fuck it, Imma do my most personal stuff from here on out, I don't care." Anyway, a technical masterpiece this one!
afagabbasova
Soviet cinema was wonderful. And his "forbidden" was even cooler)
104249972426525754443
balasch91
ad1422y4
filmfilmfilm
royalwhitehorse78
sevdagezginci
mahir.rzayev.2020
timbag
No Discussions
shaban
4 y