Sick Product of a Sick System

A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

The acting in this movie is really good.

Just at this very moment, that classic Jim Croce song starts playing in my head as I recall my screening of "Ivan's Childhood". Why is it that Tarkovsky, in nearly all of his films, has a wistfulness of the past, in a way that fogs his narratives so uniquely? After seeing "Mirror", I came to the conclusion that Tarkovsky is a cerebral artist, and much less of an actual filmmaker. For in that film, he used memories that nearly disjointed the entire piece, and eliminated the aspect of time and structure of narrative features. I thought of it, kind of like an Eisenstein montage of the recorded memory. So sitting down to "Ivan's Childhood", I fully expected it to be the same, as most filmmakers of his ilk don't stray from their artistic visions. What a surprise it was to know that the film displayed the best of Tarkovsky's creative vision, under the guise of what seemed to be a classic war picture. Ivan is such a wonderful character. He's a brave little boy, fighting for Russia in the midst of the worst times of WWII. The Nazi's were on the warpath, and everyone had to do their part in fighting to protect themselves from the ongoing threat of fascism. We know how hard Ivan can work to support his military, but he really doesn't want to be there. He'd rather go to sleep and dream of his mother, and the place of his childhood. We see visions of him and his mother, staring down upon a wishing well, or frolicking on a sunny beach. It's that longing sense of innocence and ignorance to the problems of the world. You might say that that's what all Europeans and Russians wished they could escape to during the atrocities of WWII. When it is revealed that his parents were taken away from him, thanks to the evils of the Nazi army, it is clear that this is war he has to fight, regardless of how badly he never wanted to be apart of it. WWII has sucked him in. There is no better understanding of this then the opening scene and long take of him emerging himself into a murky lake as he swims to his military base. The river overtakes him completely, as the main titles appear on screen. Tarkovsky is clearly trying to say something here. He's saying that there is no escape from war, and it forces you deep into the grimy depths of it. Even in the many scenes where he stays in the underground room, it seems even more apparent that he's trapped. Foreboding is the writings of German prisoners on the wall that warn of eventual death.The other characters of the film seem to be just as trapped as poor Ivan. For example, we see another Russian in the army, Captain Kholin, who romances a young Russian army nurse, during an assignment in the woods. The way he lifts her off of the ground and kisses her passionately as his legs splay over a short ditch in the ground seems like a silent cry for help. Even the most ardent of soldiers are desperate to escape this terror of a war. For just a fleeting moment, he wanted someone to fall in love with. When tensions are this high, do you blame him? Wouldn't you rather hold on to a beautiful woman, tight, instead of fighting in a world war? The ending of the picture is quite interesting, and many have analyzed its significance. Some have said that it is a flashback, but I have a different take on it. In retrospect, I thought of this final scene as Ivan making it to heaven, which consists of the happy times of his past. There is just something so touching about the final scene, that despite knowing that Ivan has been killed during war, he must have reached the place of his childhood in the end. He always found comfort in remembering the good times of his youth, and perhaps, let's say, he was sent back there to relive those days forever. The shot of the dead tree on the beach might just prove my point. The dead tree might be a symbol of passing on to the other side, in the midst of all the happiness that we see in the final scene. I genuinely feel, for certain, that Ivan went to heaven, and his memories are heaven to him. "Ivan's Childhood" is a sad story, but an excellent film by Tarkovsky, as he uses his exceptional talent of memories to convey loss and rejuvenation. There's a spirit to a Tarkovsky movie, despite having such a grim exterior. His movies are about life and death, and how we all must cope about our balancing act between the two. Sometimes, all we have is our past to help comfort us about our present.

each occasion when I see a film directed by Andrei Tarkovski , I have impression to be in a cathedral. because each is precious and clear and source of silence, attention and respect. because each film is a pray. because his cinema is fundamental different by each others experiences. for the courage to be more than artistic. Ivan's Childhood is not exactly the cathedral. only a church from a small village. the icons are small, the believers - in small number. but the pray is more high because the body itself becomes one. the emotion about this film remains the same after twenty years after the firs view. and the cause could be fascinating, bitter and unique mixture between images and symbols. the lead actor. the simplicity of the story. the music. the feeling to be part of story and not only viewer. a film who is more than great, splendid or magnificent. it remains unique. because it represents one of the first steps of a genius from East. it is not Amdrei Rublev, it is not Stalker or Nostalgia. it is only the short story of Ivan. and it is enough.

If one were to break down a life span of a human into distinct phases, childhood would certainly be one of the most prominent phases of one's life. Andrei Tarkovsky has conveyed exactly the same message through his first feature, Ivan's Childhood. This is a beautiful rendition of the protagonist Ivan's childhood, a childhood that cannot be possibly recaptured in all its glory. The story has a non-linear plot and has a surreal and almost dreamlike representation of Ivan's memories and experiences. The traumatic experiences, especially those memories of Ivan's parents and sister murdered by German soldiers have a strong bearing on Ivan's mind, as he is fueled by the desire to take revenge against his perpetrators. The traumatic experiences have such a strong impression on his mind, that he no longer fears the strong possibility of death. He volunteers as a spy for the Russian Army, determined to find the light of the day against the injustices he has faced. Despite much hesitation by the generals at the Russian HQ against his enrollment initially, he manages to persuade the head-honchos at the Russian HQ to finally accept his services as a spy. Every frame in this film tries to weave a story. Tarkovsky's realist approach in terms of portrayal of childhood trauma is evident from his shot-taking. The realist approach juxtaposed with dream sequences and surreal representations of longing are the unique features of this film. Ivan, who is now on the forefront of the Russian platoon, on its mission to vanquish the German Army, finds himself of great help to the Russians due to his small size and agility. The vast barren landscapes and the war-torn areas portrayed in the film are nothing but an overt externalization of the people's memories and trauma in general, and Ivan's memories and trauma in specific. One of the most famous shots of the film is where Ivan is seen in the frame all alone with sharp spikes left behind after a war scene, all pointing towards Ivan, almost as if to indicate that the mind has entangled the poor boy and is trying to consume Ivan in whole. The ramshackle state of Ivan's mind has been beautifully externalized by swampy marshes portrayed in the film. The most interesting aspects of the film though are the initial and final dream sequences. The initial dream sequence shows how the free spirit of mind (in this case, Ivan's mind) can turn into his own adversary, by falsely implanting a happy thought that he might have shared with his mother. But the truth be told, the mind does not comprehend it to be a reality anymore, thereby taking evasive shape as a 'nightmare'. The never-ending possibility of the outcome of memories projected by the mind are portrayed by the long pine tree shown at the beginning of the film as the crane goes up to quite a substantial height to finally reveal the already tiny stature of Ivan. The final dream sequence, however, is on a contemplative note, where Ivan is seen running behind a small girl. It is probably a deliberate ploy adopted by Andrei Tarkovsky as it has the potential to convey many things at the same time. Longing, the desire to recollect one's lost childhood, lost fragments of a mind, a man chasing after his dreams or simply his desires. What is heart-wrenching though is the fact that Ivan dies without ever realizing or experiencing any of life's gifts. Also noteworthy is the inclusion of two other distinct dream sequences which refer to fragments of Ivan's memories, which Ivan particularly yearns for. Tarkovsky's obsession with incessant portrayal of nature is pretty evident, with focus predominantly on the various nuances of nature. Conscious decisions to use different faces on nature to represent different forms of human emotions is the forte of this masterpiece, which puts it in the same league as some of his later works, like Stalker and some of Bergman's and Kurosawa's films. Tarkovsky's portrayal of human emotions has defined a new style of film making, with many filmmakers like Akira Kurosawa and Ingmar Bergman acknowledging his style of contemplative film making. Persistent images of childhood resonate with the need or desire to familiarize with the deepest and darkest recesses of the mind. Hence, the images in this particular film are totally reminiscent of the hidden chambers of the various aspects of the mind which accentuate the need to empathize or sympathize with certain people or their lives' happenings.

'Ivan's Childhood' is also known as 'My Name is Ivan' in the United States. It was the first feature film of the famed Soviet director, Andrei Tarkovsky, who took over the project from another young director after it was rejected for "poor quality." Tarkovsky based the film on a short story by Vladimir Bogomolov, a very successful writer during the Soviet era. Supposedly, Bogomolov drew upon his experiences as a soldier in World War II but according to Wikipedia, some journalists believe that he never fought in the war and all his writings constitute a hoax!Tarkovsky immediately established a big reputation when he won awards at the Venice Film Festival as well as the San Francisco International Film Festival in 1962. Even Ingmar Bergman was quoted as saying that "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 and where he was moving freely and fully at ease." Not everyone was completely effusive about 'Ivan'. The NY Times critic at the time, Bosley Crowther stated, "The one exception I take to this picture, which is based on a short story by Vladimir Bogpmolov, is that its structure is a bit too frail. Its emotional communication is too dependent on its impressionistic details."Indeed, it's the assorted palate of individual visual scenes that have drawn viewers to this film time and again. A good number stick in your mind (here are just a few): flashbacks of Ivan's mother and her subsequent demise; the dead soldiers on the other side of the river with the sign 'welcome'; Ivan being carried to bed by one of his soldier-protectors; the horses eating the apples; the soldier holding the nurse over the ravine; the graffiti of doomed partisans urging future viewers to "take revenge"; and the striking cinematography filmed on location in the marshlands near Kaniv at the Dnieper River.Despite all these great visuals, the film still doesn't work very well due to the weak script. Since the carnage of war is only suggested (which was obviously intentional on Tarkovsky's part not to show any overt clashes between Germans and Russians), he was forced to fall back on the conflict between the Soviet soldiers and their 12 year old charge, the jaded Ivan. Tarkovsky relies on the main conflict in which Ivan insists on continuing his activities as a scout as opposed to the Russian commanders, who insist that he be taken from the front lines and placed in military school. This tedious battle goes on for much too long until two soldiers, Kholin and Galtsev, who have befriended Ivan, decide to ferry him across the river and allow him safe passage into the forest, where he'll continue acting as a child soldier (Kholin and Galtsev meanwhile retrieve their two dead comrades under the tree).There's also a sub-plot that seems to go nowhere. Captain Kholin makes some aggressive moves on the Army Nurse Masha in the forest; you would figure that this might end up as some kind of sexual assault but nothing like that happens. The scene is probably there because simply focusing exclusively on the inert conflict between Ivan and the soldiers, cannot carry the entire narrative.The Ivan denouement is interesting because Tarkovsky uses archival footage from the Fall of Berlin. There are some disturbing images, particularly shots of the Goebbels' children, who were poisoned by their parents in Hitler's bunker days before Germany's official surrender. He uses this footage to work in a scene where one of Ivan's soldier friend discovers the boy's ultimate fate (executed by the Nazis, by beheading!).Ultimately, the message of a poor 12 year old orphan caught up in the horrors of war fails to have the shattering impact that most critics insist that it does. I can only surmise that many of these critics were so impressed by the dazzling virtuosity of a first time feature director's extraordinary visual competency, that any objective observations concerning plot, were lost. But there's simply not enough compelling conflict to keep this anti-war vehicle completely afloat. What's more, I understand the whole idea that Ivan's misguided thirst for revenge illustrates how war can affect an innocent child, in such a deleterious way. And of course his ultimate fate, is supposed to be quite tragic. But somehow I felt emotionally detached from Ivan probably because of the child's own detachment from reality. Tarkovsky's impressive impressionistic techniques at the same time leads to an emotional distancing. We see the dreamlike shot of Ivan's mother after she's killed but we never get to know who she is. Likewise her executioners. All we're left with is the emotionally detached Ivan and his enablers—again not a big enough canvas for compelling drama.You might be interested in the fate of the actor who played Ivan-- Nikolay Burlyaev. Actually he's done quite well for himself: Since 1991, the founder and director of the Moscow Film Festival of Slavic and Orthodox Peoples and since 1996, founder and chairman of the International Association of Cinematographers of Slavic and Orthodox Peoples. One disturbing caveat according to Wikipedia: "In March 2014 he signed a letter in support of the position of the President of Russia Vladimir Putin on Russia's military intervention in Ukraine."