Andrei Tarkovsky
I believe if one tells the truth, some kind of inner truth, one will always be understood. — for the creator the fundamental problem will always be honestyFor me
Reality is in general much greater than what I can find in it, much deeper and more sacred than I'm able to perceive.
I wanted to say something else — that what is important is not what one accomplished after all but that one entered the path to accomplish it in the first place. Why doesn't it matter where he arrived? Because the path is infinite. And the journey has no end. Because of that it is of absolutely no consequence whether you are standing near the beginning or near the end already — before you there is a journey that will never end. And if you didn't enter the path — the most important thing is to enter it. Here lies the problem. That's why for me what's important is not so much the path but the moment at which a man enters it, enters any path.
When we talk about freedom, we have in mind... I don't know — if you want to be free you are always free. We know that people even in prison can be free. One should also never link freedom with progress, this absolutely cannot be done. Since the beginning of human consciousness and individuality man could either be free or not free — in the inner sense of the word. That's why when we talk about freedom we shouldn't confuse the topics of rights and freedom, inner, spiritual freedom.
And it so happens sometimes that the nation, people and the society, do not even accept this artist, sometimes they chase him away, sometimes they do not understand, and they comprehend him only many, many years later. But this isn't important, it means only one thing: that they do not know themselves, they do not know their own problems. And because of that an artist can never oppose his own culture, his own people, by no means he can oppose it; even when he expresses concepts containing ideas unacceptable to the contemporary society it doesn't mean these ideas did not originate inside, within that society. The society hadn't yet enough time to become aware of these problems and the artist as a rule is not consciously aware of them either — he just expresses them, he can feel them. Precisely because he expresses them. Because he is not necessarily wiser beyond his times but he can sense more. He frequently does not understand what he is saying. He repeats words after the adults as a child, repeats without understanding and then the adults say: "Oh my, what is he saying? Did you hear that? Go stand in the corner! Get lost!" Or they give him a thrashing. And they beat him up for repeating the words he heard at home. And he merely grew up in this environment. In brief, I'd like to say this: an artist's role is to be a voice of his people — not even "to be," one cannot "be," one cannot tell oneself to "be" a nation's voice — one simply is.
Naturally, there is a problem here: if you are the people's voice then say only what people demand of you. But here lies the problem, people demand of you nothing. People demand nothing of nobody. It is the artist who behaves as if something was demanded of him, expected of him. Naturally, people do expect, but unconsciously. And exactly in the name of this duty to the public, the people, the times he lives in, he ought to always remember that he does not create for himself. But — although he does not create for himself — he should express only what he feels intimate. Here it may turn out that ideas close to your heart, some aspects of your creative work are not needed by anybody. But in this case you have no right... here you are powerless, you can at most just wait hundred years until it becomes clear whether people needed you at all in the first place.
An artist has no right, that is not that he has no right, he has no instrument which would make him any closer to his people's needs than he already is. He can only believe that God will grant him the possibility of eventually being needed by the nation. Whether he succeeds or not — this is something he does not know and cannot know at this moment.
From this vantage point cinema is a very dangerous art because it is expected to be immediately successful.
Just life itself, somehow more elegant but most of the time frightening, difficult.
I am constantly being asked what this or that means in my films. It's unbearable! An artist does not have to be accountable for his intentions. I did not do any deep thinking about my work. I don't know what my symbols mean. I only desire to induce feelings, any feelings, in viewers. People always try to find "hidden" meanings in my films. But wouldn't it be strange to make a film while striving to hide one's thoughts? My images do not signify anything beyond what they are... We do not know ourselves that well: sometimes we express forces which cannot be grasped by any ordinary measure.
"During preparations for making a new film it is quite clear to me that I am not allowed to consider it to be some form of independent art, a free creation, but rather an implementation of what is perhaps pressing forth from within, where it is not a matter of enjoyment but rather of a painful, perhaps burdening, duty...
"I have never been able to understand how an artist can be in a state of happiness during the creation process. Man does not exist for the purpose of being happy. There is a much, much higher purpose to life than merely being in a state of happiness."
