Andrei Tarkovsky: The Life Story Behind Cinema's Poet Director
In this post
Andrei Tarkovsky made films that feel less like movies and more like dreams you remember when you wake up. His films are slow, quiet, and full of water, rain, fire, trees, and long shots that last far longer than other directors would dare. People who love his films say that no one else filmed time itself the way he did. People who do not love them sometimes find them hard, because they ask for patience. But for more than fifty years, film lovers around the world have put his name among the greatest directors who ever lived, and his films are still shown, studied, and argued about today.
He was born in Russia in 1932, the son of a famous poet, and he grew up in a country that was going through war, hardship, and great change. He studied film in Moscow, he made his first feature film when he was thirty, and in only seven feature films he built a body of work that changed cinema. His films include Ivan’s Childhood, Andrei Rublev, Solaris, Mirror, Stalker, Nostalghia, and The Sacrifice. Each one is different, and each one is unmistakably his.
His life was not easy. He fought with the Soviet film authorities over his work, he left Russia in the nineteen eighties and never returned, and he died in Paris in 1986, at only fifty four years old. He left behind a small number of films, a book about cinema, and a reputation that has only grown since his death. This is the story of a director who believed that film could be poetry, and who spent his short life trying to prove it.
A Poet’s Son in a Hard Time
Andrei Arsenyevich Tarkovsky was born on 4 April 1932 in the village of Zavrazhye, in Russia, then part of the Soviet Union. His father was Arseny Tarkovsky, one of the great Russian poets of the twentieth century, and his mother was Maria Vishnyakova. Andrei grew up in a home full of words, books, and poetry, and that love of language stayed with him all his life. His father’s poems later appeared in his films, read aloud in a quiet voice, and they gave his films a depth that came from literature as much as from cinema.
His childhood was shaped by the Second World War. When the war came, his family moved, life became hard, and the young Andrei saw the fear and the loss that war brings. He spent part of his childhood in the town of Yurievets, on the River Volga, a place of water, trees, and wide skies that later appeared again and again in his films. The landscape of his childhood, the river, the rain, the birch trees, and the wooden houses, became the visual language of his cinema. He did not invent those images. He remembered them.
His parents separated when he was young, and his father left the family home. That loss stayed with Andrei, and it later became a central theme in his work. His film Mirror is, in many ways, a film about a mother, a father, and a childhood that cannot be put back together. He did not write about his family in a simple way. He turned memory into images, and he let the audience feel what he felt, without explaining it in words.
As a young man, Andrei was not sure what he wanted to do. He studied Arabic at first, at the Institute of Oriental Studies in Moscow, and he worked for a time on a geological expedition in Siberia, far from home. That time in the wild, open land of Siberia gave him a sense of nature, of space, and of silence. He later said that those years mattered to him, because they taught him to look at the world slowly and carefully. When he finally chose film, he brought that slowness with him, and it became his style.
Film School in Moscow
In 1954, Tarkovsky entered VGIK, the famous film school in Moscow, where he studied under the director Mikhail Romm. Film school in the Soviet Union was serious and strict, and students learned the craft of directing, the history of cinema, and the rules of the Soviet film system. Tarkovsky was a good student, but he was also a difficult one, because he had his own ideas about what film should be. He did not want to make films that simply told a story in a clear and simple way. He wanted to make films that felt like life itself: slow, unclear, and full of mystery.
At VGIK, he made short student films, including The Killers in 1956, based on a story by Ernest Hemingway, and The Steamroller and the Violin in 1960, a short film about a boy and a workman. The Steamroller and the Violin already showed his talent. It is a gentle film, full of music, water, and light, and it won a prize at a film festival. People in the Soviet film world began to notice the young director with the poet’s name.
He also met other young filmmakers at VGIK, and he formed friendships that lasted for years. The film school was a place where young artists argued about cinema late into the night, and Tarkovsky loved those arguments. He believed that film was an art, not just entertainment, and he was willing to fight for that belief. That willingness to fight would shape his whole career, and it would also make his life harder, because the Soviet film system did not always agree with him.
He graduated from VGIK in 1960, ready to make his first feature film. He was twenty eight years old, and he had spent years learning his craft. He was not in a hurry. He wanted his first film to be something real, something that showed what he could do. The chance came soon, and the film he made surprised everyone, in Russia and abroad.
Ivan’s Childhood and the First Triumph
Tarkovsky’s first feature film was Ivan’s Childhood, released in 1962. It tells the story of a twelve year old boy named Ivan, whose family has been killed in the war, and who becomes a scout for the Soviet army. The film is not a simple war film. It is a film about a child who has lost his childhood, and about the dreams he still has, dreams of his mother, of water, of a life before the war. The film won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival, one of the highest honours in world cinema, and it made Tarkovsky famous at thirty years old.
The success of Ivan’s Childhood was remarkable, because it was so different from other Soviet war films. It did not show heroic soldiers winning battles. It showed a boy, alone, in a ruined landscape, trying to hold on to his humanity. The film is full of quiet moments, of dreams, and of images that stay in the mind long after the film ends. People around the world saw it and understood that a major new director had arrived.
After that success, Tarkovsky began work on his second film, Andrei Rublev, about the great Russian icon painter of the fifteenth century. The film took years to make, and it was a huge and difficult project. It showed the life of Rublev, the violence and the faith of medieval Russia, and the struggle of an artist to create beauty in a cruel world. The Soviet authorities did not like the film. They thought it was too dark, too long, and too critical, and they held it back from release for years. It was finally shown in 1966, and later at the Cannes Film Festival, where it was praised as a masterpiece.
These first two films set the pattern for Tarkovsky’s career. He made films slowly, with great care, and each film was a struggle, not only to make, but to show to the public. He did not make films quickly, and he did not make many. But each film he made was a major event in world cinema, and each one added to his reputation as a director who would not compromise.
Solaris, Mirror, and Stalker
In 1972, Tarkovsky released Solaris, a science fiction film based on the novel by the Polish writer Stanisław Lem. The film is set on a space station above a strange planet, where the crew begin to see people from their past, people they have lost. It is not a film about space battles or special effects. It is a film about memory, guilt, and love, and about the pain of losing someone you love. Solaris won a special prize at Cannes, and it is now regarded as one of the greatest science fiction films ever made, very different from the science fiction of Hollywood.
Three years later, in 1975, he made Mirror, his most personal film. Mirror does not have a simple story. It moves between the past and the present, between dreams and memories, and it shows a man looking back at his childhood, his mother, and his father. Tarkovsky’s own father read his poems in the film, and his own mother played the mother of the main character. The film is hard to follow, but it is deeply moving, and many people call it his greatest work. The Soviet authorities did not like it, and they gave it only a limited release, but film lovers around the world found it and loved it.
In 1979, he made Stalker, based on the novel Roadside Picnic by the Strugatsky brothers. The film tells the story of a guide, called the Stalker, who leads two men into a forbidden place called the Zone, where a room is said to grant wishes. The film is slow, with long shots of water, grass, and ruined buildings, and it is full of talk about faith, hope, and the meaning of life. Stalker was difficult to make, and parts of it had to be filmed again after the first footage was ruined. It is now one of his most loved films, and its images of a strange, quiet, overgrown world have influenced many other films.
These three films, made in the nineteen seventies, are the heart of Tarkovsky’s work. They are slow, they are serious, and they ask the audience to think and to feel, not just to watch. They also show his favourite images: water dripping, rain falling, fire burning, trees moving in the wind, and people walking slowly through a landscape. Those images are now famous, and they are copied by directors around the world. Tarkovsky did not copy anyone. He created a way of filming that was entirely his own.
The Fight With the System
Tarkovsky’s career in the Soviet Union was a long fight with the film authorities. The Soviet system controlled what films could be made, how they could be made, and who could see them. A director had to get permission for a script, for a budget, and for a release, and at each step, officials could say no, or ask for changes. Tarkovsky’s films were long, slow, and full of religious and philosophical ideas, and the officials often did not understand them or did not like them. They delayed his films, they cut them, and they limited their release.
Andrei Rublev was held back for years. Mirror was given only a small release. Stalker was hard to finish. Tarkovsky felt that his work was not respected in his own country, even as it was praised abroad. He won prizes at Venice and Cannes, and film lovers in Europe and America called him a genius, but at home, he struggled to get his films made and shown. That contradiction wore him down, and it made him angry and sad.
He also fought with other parts of the system. He wanted to film in colour and in black and white in his own way, he wanted long takes, and he wanted time to work. The Soviet studios wanted films finished on time and on budget, and they did not always understand why a director would spend a whole day filming a single shot of rain. Tarkovsky believed that time was the material of cinema, and that a film should let time pass slowly, as it does in real life. That belief made him a great artist, and it also made him a difficult person to work with in a system that valued speed and control.
By the early nineteen eighties, Tarkovsky felt that he could no longer work freely in the Soviet Union. He began to think about leaving, about making films in the West, where he hoped he would have more freedom. It was a painful decision, because Russia was his home, his language, and the source of his images. But he believed that an artist must be free to work, and he was willing to pay the price of exile to find that freedom.
Exile, Nostalghia, and The Sacrifice
In the early nineteen eighties, Tarkovsky left the Soviet Union to work in Italy, and he did not return. He made Nostalghia in Italy in 1983, a film about a Russian writer in Italy who longs for home. The film is full of his familiar images: water, rain, fog, and a man walking slowly through a beautiful but foreign landscape. It won a prize at Cannes, but it was also a sad film, because it was about the pain of being far from home, and Tarkovsky was living that pain himself.
He then moved to Sweden, where he worked with the great cinematographer Sven Nykvist, who had worked with Ingmar Bergman. Together, they made The Sacrifice in 1986, Tarkovsky’s last film. The Sacrifice tells the story of a man who, on the night of a possible nuclear war, promises God that he will give up everything he loves if the world is saved. The film is slow, serious, and deeply religious, and it ends with a famous long shot of a house burning. It won prizes at Cannes, and it is regarded as a fitting end to his work.
While he was making The Sacrifice, Tarkovsky became ill. He had cancer, and his health was failing. He finished the film, but he knew that he was dying. He died in Paris on 29 December 1986, at the age of fifty four. He was buried in Paris, far from Russia, and his death was mourned by film lovers around the world. He had made only seven feature films, but those seven films had changed cinema, and his name was already among the greatest.
His exile was a sad end to a difficult life, but it also showed his courage. He left his home, his language, and his country, because he believed that art must be free. He made two more films in exile, and they are among his best. He did not give up, even when he was ill, even when he was far from home. He worked until the end, and his last film is a prayer, a promise, and a farewell.
A Small Body of Work That Changed Cinema
Andrei Tarkovsky made only seven feature films in twenty four years. That is a small number, but each film is a major work, and together they form one of the most important bodies of work in the history of cinema. Directors around the world, from Europe to America to Asia, have said that Tarkovsky changed the way they think about film. His use of long takes, his love of nature, his patience with time, and his belief that film can be poetry have influenced generations of filmmakers.
He also wrote a book, Sculpting in Time, in which he explained his ideas about cinema. In the book, he wrote that film is the art of time, and that a director sculpts time as a sculptor sculpts stone. That idea is now famous, and it is taught in film schools around the world. His book, like his films, is slow, serious, and full of thought, and it shows a mind that thought deeply about what cinema could be.
His films are still shown today, in cinemas, at festivals, and in film schools. New audiences discover them every year, and they find in them something that is missing from most modern films: silence, patience, and a sense of wonder. His films do not tell you what to think. They show you images, and they let you think for yourself. That is why they last. A film that tells you everything is forgotten quickly. A film that asks you to think stays with you for a lifetime.
Tarkovsky’s life was short, and his career was hard, but his work has outlived him. He is now remembered as one of the great poets of cinema, a director who believed that film could touch the soul, and who spent his life trying to make films that did just that. His father’s poems, his childhood by the Volga, his long shots of rain and water, and his belief in the power of time have become part of the language of cinema itself.
The Book, the Films, and the Long Silence
Tarkovsky also wrote about his ideas, and his book Sculpting in Time, published in the nineteen eighties, is one of the most important books ever written about cinema. In it, he explains that film is not about telling a story in a fast and clear way. It is about time, about memory, and about the feeling of a moment. He wrote that a director does not invent time. He sculpts it, like a sculptor sculpts stone, and he gives the audience a piece of time that they can feel. That idea is now taught in film schools, and it has changed the way many directors think about their work.
His films were also famous for the way they were made. He worked slowly, he filmed many takes, and he waited for the right light, the right rain, and the right moment. His cinematographers, including Vadim Yusov and Sven Nykvist, were among the best in the world, and they helped him create images that are still studied today. A shot of water dripping in Stalker, a field of grass in Mirror, a house burning in The Sacrifice: these are images that took days to film, and they show a director who believed that an image was worth waiting for.
The long silences in his films were also part of his art. He did not fill his films with music or with talk. He let the sounds of nature, of rain, of wind, and of footsteps, fill the silence, and he let the audience listen. That silence is hard for modern audiences, who are used to films that are full of noise, but it is also beautiful. It gives the viewer time to think, to feel, and to be alone with the film, and that is a rare gift in cinema.
My Take:
When I think about Andrei Tarkovsky, I feel both wonder and sadness. The wonder comes from his films. I have watched Stalker and Solaris, and I have felt something that I do not feel with most films. His films do not rush me. They let me sit, look, and breathe, and they show me the world as if I am seeing it for the first time. A drop of water falling, rain on a roof, a field of grass moving in the wind: these are small things, and Tarkovsky films them as if they are holy. I admire that, because it teaches me to look at my own life more slowly, and to see that small things can be beautiful if I pay attention to them.
The sadness comes from his life. He was a genius, and his own country made his work so hard. He had to fight for every film, he had to wait years to show them, and in the end he had to leave Russia to work freely. That is a painful story, and it makes me think about how many artists in the world are held back, not by a lack of talent, but by a system that does not understand them. Tarkovsky did not give up. He kept making films, even when it was hard, even when he was ill, even when he was far from home. That stubbornness is part of why I respect him so much.
I admire his belief that film is poetry. Most films today are made to entertain, to move fast, to keep you watching with action and jokes. Tarkovsky believed that film could do something else. It could be slow, it could be quiet, and it could touch the soul. I think he was right, and I think we have lost something by forgetting his lesson. When I watch a modern film that is all noise and speed, I sometimes wish it would slow down, let me look at a face, let me hear the rain, let me think. Tarkovsky’s films give me that space, and I am grateful for it.
What I find most moving is Mirror. It is a film about memory, about a mother, about a childhood that is gone, and about a father who is absent. It does not explain itself. It moves like a dream, from one memory to another, and it asks you to feel your way through it. I think about my own childhood when I watch it, and about the people I have lost, and about the moments I wish I could live again. That is the power of his work. He does not tell you his story. He makes you feel your own story, through his images, and that is a rare and precious thing.
I also think about his father, Arseny Tarkovsky, whose poems are read in his films. There is something beautiful about a son carrying his father’s words into his art. The father was a poet, the son was a filmmaker, and together they made something that neither could have made alone. The poems give the films a depth of language, and the films give the poems a depth of image. I think about the love between a father and a son, even when the father has left, even when the family is broken, and I see that love in Mirror. It is not a simple love. It is a complicated, painful love, and that makes it feel true.
If I have a criticism, it is not really a criticism of Tarkovsky. It is a sadness that his films are hard for many people to watch. They are long, they are slow, and they do not give you a simple story to follow. I understand why some people find them difficult, and I do not blame them. But I also think that difficulty is part of their value. A film that is easy to watch is easy to forget. A film that asks you to work, to be patient, to think, stays with you. I wish more people would give his films a chance, and I wish more filmmakers would learn from him, not to copy him, but to remember that slowness can be a strength.
Another thing I notice is how little he made, and how much it matters. Seven films in twenty four years is not many. Many directors make seven films in seven years. But Tarkovsky’s seven films have influenced cinema more than the dozens of films made by many other directors. That teaches me something about quality and quantity. It is better to make one true thing slowly than to make many things quickly that no one remembers. I think about that in my own life, too. We are always told to do more, to be faster, to produce more. Tarkovsky did the opposite. He did less, but he did it with all his heart, and it lasted.
I think about his exile, and it breaks my heart a little. He left Russia, and he never went back. He made films in Italy and Sweden, in languages that were not his own, and he longed for home. Nostalghia is a film about that longing, and it is almost too sad to watch, because you know that the director himself is living it. I respect his choice, because he chose freedom over comfort, and art over safety. But I also feel sad that a man who loved Russia so much had to die in Paris, far from the river and the birch trees of his childhood. That is the price of being an artist in a hard time, and he paid it.
I also think about his book, Sculpting in Time, because it shows how seriously he thought about his art. He did not just make films. He thought about what film is, about time, about memory, and about the soul. He believed that a film should be like a piece of time, preserved, so that people in the future can feel what it was like to live in that moment. That is a beautiful idea, and it is true. When I watch his films today, I feel the time of the nineteen seventies, the Russia of his childhood, and the silence of a world that is gone. His films are time machines, and they work because he understood time so well.
In the end, what I take from Tarkovsky is a lesson about patience and attention. His films teach me to slow down, to look, to listen, and to let a moment last. They teach me that water, rain, fire, and trees are not just background. They are part of life, and they deserve to be filmed with love. They teach me that memory is not a straight line, but a dream, and that a film can be a dream too. I will not pretend that his films are easy. They are not. But they are worth the effort, and they have changed the way I see cinema, and the way I see the world.
One more thought stays with me. Tarkovsky died at fifty four, which is young for a great artist. He had so much more to give, and his death feels unfair. But he left behind seven films, a book, and a way of seeing that has inspired thousands of filmmakers. That is a lot for one short life. I think he would be glad to know that his films are still watched, still studied, and still loved, and that new audiences find them every year. His time was short, but his films have given him a kind of time that does not end, and that is the best legacy any artist can hope for.
I also think about the way Tarkovsky filmed nature, because it is so different from the way other directors film it. For most directors, nature is a background, a pretty place where the story happens. For Tarkovsky, nature is the story. Rain, water, fire, trees, and grass are not decorations. They are characters, with their own moods, their own time, and their own meaning. When I watch his films, I feel that nature is alive, and that it is watching the people in the film, just as the people are watching it. That is a beautiful way to see the world, and it has changed the way I look at rain, at water, and at trees in my own life.
Another thing I notice is his courage in the face of the Soviet system. He could have made easier films, films that pleased the officials, films that were fast and simple and safe. He did not do that. He made the films he believed in, even when they were delayed, even when they were cut, even when they were given only a small release. That stubbornness cost him a lot, and it made his life harder, but it also made his films what they are. I respect an artist who refuses to compromise, even when compromise would make life easier, because that refusal is what makes great art possible.
I think about the people who watch his films for the first time today, young people who are used to fast films, to phones, to constant noise. Tarkovsky’s films ask them to slow down, to put the phone away, and to watch a shot of water for a long time. That is a hard ask, and many young people will find it difficult. But I hope some of them will try, and that they will discover what I discovered: that slowness can be beautiful, that silence can be powerful, and that a film can be a place to think, not just a place to be entertained. If even a few young people discover that, Tarkovsky’s work will keep living.
There is something else I keep returning to, and it is the idea of time. Tarkovsky believed that film is the art of time, and that a director sculpts time. I think about that idea in my own life, too. Time passes, moments come and go, and we cannot hold them. But a film can hold a moment, can keep it alive, so that people in the future can feel what it was like to be there. Tarkovsky’s films do that. They hold the time of his childhood, the time of Russia in the nineteen seventies, and the time of a man dying far from home, and they give those times to us, so that we can feel them. That is a wonderful gift.
In the end, I believe Tarkovsky teaches us to pay attention. Pay attention to water, to rain, to fire, to a face, to a silence, to a memory. Pay attention to the people you love, to the place you come from, and to the time you have, because time is short, and it does not come back. He had only fifty four years, and only seven films, but he used them well, and he left behind a way of seeing that will last as long as people watch films. I am grateful to him for that, and I will keep watching his films, slowly, quietly, and with all my attention.
I think about the young filmmakers who discover Tarkovsky today, and about what they learn from him. They learn that a film can be slow, that a shot can last, and that silence can be powerful. They learn that nature matters, that time matters, and that a film can be a poem. Those lessons are important, because modern cinema often forgets them, and Tarkovsky’s films remind us of what cinema can be when it is made with patience and with love. I hope those young filmmakers carry his lessons forward, and make films that are slow, beautiful, and true.
I also think about his father, and about the poems that run through his films like a quiet river. A son who carries his father’s words into his art is doing something beautiful, and Tarkovsky did it with love. The poems give his films a depth of language, and the films give the poems a depth of image, and together they make something that neither could make alone. That is a family story, and an art story, at the same time, and it is one of the most moving parts of his life.
In the end, I believe Tarkovsky’s seven films are enough. Seven films, made slowly, with care, over twenty four years, have changed cinema more than the dozens of films made by many other directors. That teaches me that quality matters more than quantity, and that one true work is worth more than many careless ones. I will keep watching his films, slowly and quietly, and I will keep learning from them, for as long as I love cinema.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many feature films did Andrei Tarkovsky make?
He made seven feature films: Ivan’s Childhood, Andrei Rublev, Solaris, Mirror, Stalker, Nostalghia, and The Sacrifice. He worked slowly, and each film took years to make and to release.
What is Andrei Tarkovsky’s most famous film?
Many people name Stalker or Solaris as his most famous films, while others call Mirror his greatest work. Stalker is widely loved for its images of the Zone, and Solaris is regarded as one of the greatest science fiction films ever made.
When and where did Andrei Tarkovsky die?
He died in Paris on 29 December 1986, at the age of fifty four, after an illness. He had left the Soviet Union in the early nineteen eighties and made his last two films in Italy and Sweden.
Who was Andrei Tarkovsky’s father?
His father was Arseny Tarkovsky, a famous Russian poet. Arseny’s poems are read aloud in Andrei’s films, especially in Mirror, and his poetry deeply shaped his son’s work.
Why did Tarkovsky leave Russia?
He left because he felt he could not work freely in the Soviet Union, where officials delayed and limited his films. He made Nostalghia in Italy and The Sacrifice in Sweden, and he never returned to Russia.
What is the book Sculpting in Time about?
Sculpting in Time is Tarkovsky’s book about cinema, in which he explains his idea that film is the art of time. He wrote that a director sculpts time, and the book is still read in film schools around the world.
