Tarkovsky expressed a lot of thoughts and emotions in this film. It is not enough to sum up with "anti-war consciousness" alone, so this topic is actually not accurate enough. But I know that with my current ability, I can't manage the interpretation of "Ivan's Childhood" well, even though this is Tarkovsky's debut work. A golden lion has proved its outstanding picture and thought.
When I saw it for the first time, I was afraid that I would fall asleep, but I did fall asleep. It was about 12 o'clock in the middle of the night. I was lying on the bed and watching the happy life of Ivan and my mother in the computer. It was a kind of quiet happiness, restrained and deep, without any surprises, so I didn’t Block drowsiness. Later, when I watched it again, I deliberately got enough sleep, but after watching it, I was full of unspeakable depression. It just still feels very quiet, very quiet. Look at the picture, it is so empty that it is almost cold, making the happiness that happened in this vast land seem so ethereal, but the sadness is so heavy. There is no noise in the movie, and the dialogue between people is also very quiet. The occasional explosion in the air only accentuates its quietness and the desolation that cannot be concealed. The development of the story is also very quiet, like that river, flowing slowly, even if it encounters some surprising things, it is just a cruel understatement. So quiet, so deep, so introverted, hiding his emotions, just like Ivan. After reading it, people can only continue to bury their sadness and sorrow in their hearts, showing only a trace of depression, and just sighing.
Compared with the domestic children's films that promote the bravery and patriotism of little heroes of the War of Resistance Against Japan, "Ivan's Childhood" examines that period of history from a completely different perspective. I don't want to have to score a good or bad, but it is undeniable that the depth of thinking in the tower style and the respect for human nature are what we need and what we should have. Ivan is the kind of fighting hero we often see, but there is no endless praise for him in the film. On the contrary, it is the exploration and reflection of his heart, as well as pity and regret. A child's normal childhood is ruined, his normal emotions are ruined. It is too premature, so premature that it makes the spine feel cold. But when he was in his dream, he was so innocent and cute, playing with family and friends carefree and laughing. That should be the childhood that a child should have, but it is a pity that the war broke all of this. There is also a young and beautiful girl in the film, a girl who is afraid of spider webs. She is a military doctor. The war continued, but she fell into love uncontrollably; the love continued, but the war separated her from her sweetheart indiscriminately. In the blooming age when we should feel and reap love, in the romantic birch forest, there is still the haze of war.
There are also those dreams, the blend of reality and dreams that are both true and false, which makes people have to sigh his superb. Especially the two paragraphs of Suijing's dream and Ivan's imagination in the shelter camp are really breathtaking. From the match to the basin, and then turning the lens to the top to lead to the well in the dream with the sound of dripping water, the transition of this long shot is really great. It simply connects the two worlds, and there is no sense of rigidity. What's even more powerful is that the sound is also used as an element of the movie here in Tower, and it is used to promote the development and assist the transition, making the whole process more natural and amazing. And the section where Ivan was in the shelter was the most intense section in the whole series, in which the use of light and shadow, the arrangement of the scene structure, and the use of montage were amazing. The big shaking clock, flashing flashlight lights, wooden railings, this is the passage between reality and dream, it can also be said that Ivan on the surface communicates with the subconscious Ivan, and he walks through it. Those scary images, the deep but tragic bells, are the fear and pain in Ivan's heart. The sound of overthrowing tables and chairs, the sound of Ivan’s own imaginary war, is a way for Ivan to escape from his heart. With the flashing of lights, the impact of bells, and the switching of montages, Tarkovsky showed Ivan’s inner struggle here, showing the blend of virtual and real, so shocking that people can only hold back the heartache, otherwise It will fall into the mud, and it will be difficult to get rid of this worry.
After watching the movie, it was probably these feelings and thoughts, and my chest was very tight. In this way, the cruelty of war was manifested, and the ruthlessness of history was discovered to our amazement and reluctantly accepted. Later, I searched for some reviews and articles about this film, and unexpectedly found that Sartre had also commented on it, or more precisely, he had just defended it. After reading it, I naturally have a deeper understanding.
Sartre said: "Ivan is mad, a monster, and a little hero. In the real world, he is the most innocent and poorest victim of war. This child, who can’t help being loved, has long been internalized by violence. Forging. While the villagers were being slaughtered, the Nazis killed Ivan’s mother while strangling him. However, he was alive. At that cruel moment, he witnessed the collapse of his compatriots around him. I have seen some of them myself. Young Algerians often have hallucinations because they cannot bear the torture of the Holocaust. For them, the nightmare in the waking state is no different from the nightmare in the night. When they are killed, they have to get up and kill and begin to get used to it. Slaughter. Their only courageous decision is to choose hatred and escape in the face of this uncomfortable suffering. They fight, and escape this fear in the battle. Once the night removes their guard, once they fall asleep, they are again. The child’s immaturity was restored. At this time, fear reappeared, and they regained the memory they wanted to forget. "Ivan is a monster! When I first saw this statement, I was a little surprised. Yes, I admit that many of Ivan’s words show a weird yearning for violence, but bluntly saying that he is a monster still makes me a little frightened. Later, I saw similar statements in many discourses and articles in Western reviews of "Ivan". Only then did I realize that I was as alienated as Ivan. Yes, Ivan is a monster, a child who pursues violence and longs for war, isn't this a monster of murder? Although he killed the evil Nazis, for a child, this is far from the life and ideas he should have. We were blinded by too many speeches and films praising the little heroes of the War of Resistance against Japan, and we forgot to look at themselves and the war from the perspective of children. But Tarkovsky showed the product of monster-like war through the film. Regardless of the so-called overall situation, it only explores and judges Ivan. Ivan is unfortunate and is for everyone to pity. Sympathizing for his tragic experience, and even more distressed and even blamed himself for being shaped like this by the war. "He no longer needs the company of his parents; what's more profound (than the loss of his parents) is that the insurmountable fear brought about by the massacre made him fall into loneliness and isolation."
Sartre also said: "To understand the exact meaning of the film's theme, it is necessary to dig deeper into the director's intention: even if it survives in the end, the war will kill those who made it. At the same time, there is a deeper meaning: every In a movement, history needs (these) heroes. It creates them and destroys them by allowing them to suffer in the society that it has shaped." This is indeed something I never thought of, so I am here. Trying to understand this sentence under the guidance of the words. Perhaps, we can think from the death certificate of Ivan at the end of the movie. Death is inevitable in war. Their death may be tragic or sudden, but it is precisely because of their efforts that the war finally comes to an end. But when the war is over, how many people who are immersed in joy will think of the lives that have passed away. History is so cruel. When he needs you, you are a hero that everyone looks at; when his wheels roll forward, you are also destined to be forgotten in the past. What about the soldiers who survived? They should have a happy life, right? With history, go forward together. Maybe, but who knows? Imagine if Ivan survived, can he really live normally? Can he choose to face the inner anxiety and the pain of memories? No, for little monsters and heroes like Ivan who fight for war, surviving and continuing to live is the greatest misfortune. Because he will be completely incompatible with life, and can only sink deeper and deeper in the lonely swamp. "This boy is neither good nor evil. He is an extreme product created by history. He was involuntarily thrown into this war and was born for it. To say that he caused panic among the surrounding soldiers, it is only because he no longer Habits to live peacefully. Violence derived from pain and fear stayed in him and took root. He lived on it, so he involuntarily accepted those dangerous reconnaissance missions. But what will happen to him after the war? Even if he survives, the hot magma in his body will not let him live."
Yes, Ivan, a hero like a little monster, makes us feel the hairs rising, and the cruel chill in the shadow of history that is always in a state of progress. But Ivan in the dream made us feel warm and unbearable. Compared with the dark tones and spectrum of reality in the film, Ivan's dreams are always bright and soft. Ivan felt relaxed when he returned to the past, and we as the audience also felt comfortable. In this country, Ivan is just a little boy laughing with his mother and watching his sister laugh. Everything is peaceful and beautiful. No matter how surly and distrustful Ivan is now, he used to be as innocent as all children. Such beautiful pictures are often interrupted by sudden fears. When I woke up from the dream, I felt the sadness in Ivan's heart. What changed Ivan? war!
Films express emotions and create atmosphere through tone and composition are also very powerful. I saw an article posted by a netizen, which contained half and half of the quotations of others and half of my own feelings, but it was written very intuitively, and it also expressed some of my hazy feelings. He said that in this film, the display part is always very gloomy, and it often happens in crowded or low houses, which is depressing. But in Ivan’s dream, it was bright, a broad world, which made people so relaxed and happy.
It's a pity that my abilities are not strong enough. Even if there are many things I want to express, I can't express my meaning. I can only pick up the wisdom of others to vent my emotions. But now it's probably time to deduct the title-the anti-war consciousness between light and dark. I would like to say that Tarkovsky uses the change of light and shade to express dreams and reality. In both states, it is an expression of the cruelty of war. Perhaps the anti-war consciousness is not accurate enough, but it is undeniable that he has made a deep thinking and exploration of the impact of war on people. The changes in human nature and the coldness of history. The tower looks at war and history from different angles. Pay attention to those little people. There are two scenes that I want to mention the most. One is the scene of the birch forest, which is the only bright and cheerful tone in the real world in the whole film. Brightly white birch trees, quiet woods, faint sky, two people in love, kissing and separating. The most heart-wrenching and heart-ache is actually in the same place. The other is a dream of Ivan. On an empty beach, under the bright sun, naked children chased and laughed, ran into the distance, full of hope.
View more about Ivan's Childhood reviews
