Mirror (1975)

This a structured pondering and review I wrote after seeing Mirror during the summer between my freshman and sophomore years of college. My overall rating for the film was 3.5 stars out of a possible 4. On my scale, 3.5 stars qualifies as "very good."

Dare I say it, this film is a tremendous work of art. Next, I say, this time without a necessity to be daring, that this is one of the most evident and brilliant examples of art house cinema. Reverting to the first part, just so that no one will question my declaration for not having proof, here are all the reasons why this film is tremendous. The score is one of the most well put together and powerful cinematic backgrounds I have ever heard. The acting, particularly that of Margarita Terekhova in her dual roles of Maria and Natalia, are absolutely incredible through and through for each actor and actress. The poetic voiceovers are some of the most beautiful and incredible series of words that I have ever heard or read anywhere. Mirror is terrifically filmed and, dare I say it, the directing is ungodly. The cinematography is stunning and each edit seems to be the absolutely perfect decision between one shot and the next.

With all this praise, it must seem pretty bizarre that this film has a mere (and this word is used in the most ironic sense possible) 3.5 star rating. Here is the issue that this film has that bars it from being one of the greatest presences in film history: it’s the nonlinear pattern of the film. This is not taking a dig or a jab at the decision to have the film in nonlinear form nor is it a dig or a jab at the fact that there is no clear or existent plot in the film. There are three reasons the nonlinear decision tarnish the film and prevents it from reaching my coveted 4-star rating. The first is the difficulty of knowing which storyline the film is showing at any given time. This is probably more at the fault of director Andrei Tarkovsky for having the female leads of the two stories portrayed by the same actress (Terekhova, as mentioned above), which understandably would lead to some confusion. However, this is also aided by the occurrences of black and white being used for both the earlier life of Alexei and the later life of Alexei and for color being used for both showings of his life. The second should really be treated jointly with the third section, as it deals with the usage of newsreel footage of a few different conflicts at random times during the film. Although these reels are period appropriate, meaning events that occurred during the life of Alexei, the character that is not focused on the most and should still be called the central character due to him being the only character who appears in person in both storylines. Yet, the newsreels' inclusion in the film is appalling because they don’t seem to have any real benefit to the plot. My best guess is that Tarkovsky included the footage to establish a sense of the most important conflicts that occurred at this time. I would also venture that these events all had significant impacts on the life and career of Alexei, but this is more of a blind-theory because there is no evidence at all of any of the immediate conflicts displayed to have directly affected Alexei. The third and final reason is a broader look at the issue mentioned in the second reason: the struggle to follow the film and eventually make any sense of it. This issue admittedly references the first section, too. Now in order to understand this, there will be a mentioning of a few films that do not achieve the latter of these broader issues. Mirror is difficult because there is no obvious reason for why any of the scenes and scenarios were used in the film. Maybe the one with Alexei on his deathbed, but that would be the only exception. Due to this, I reluctantly declare the verdict that it was impossible to follow the film, less so for the lack of plot and more so for the difficulty of understanding where you were and why you were there. It is here where I will take advantage of other films with similar issues to help better explain and allow others to comprehend why I docked this film half a star.

The Matrix, the 1999 sci-fi adventure, has a story that at least makes it easy enough for you to follow, less so for understanding the film (although I found the concept of this film fairly simple to understand and talk about). Many people have spent extended time looking at the film in-depth and dissecting it, trying to understand the story and the dystopian feel of the film. Now I gave The Matrix the same rating as Mirror, but I do hold Tarkovsky’s film in higher regard to the Wachowskis’ film. The faults for The Matrix, which are for another time, rest mainly in a few plot faults – something that a film without a plot can’t suffer from – and confounding dilemma of a plot being too simple and easy to follow for such a complex concept.

On to the other two cinematic works that I will discuss, both of which received the coveted 4-star rating. The first is Christopher Nolan’s sci-fi thriller Inception, released in 2010. This movie has a story that, although it is indecipherable at times, can still be followed with some great attention paid to the characters and their mission. Unlike The Matrix, this movie is difficult to make any sense about, which is one of the many reasons why I hold it in a higher regard than the film explicitly aforementioned in this sentence. Anywho, Inception does still make some bit of sense, which is good for the film and its rating.

The third and final film is Stanley Kubrick’s revolutionary sci-fi philosophical masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey. Released in 1968, I have seen this film many times and also read the book by acclaimed sci-fi author Arthur C. Clarke that the majority of the film is based off of. I find this film impossible of making sense of itself. I have tried numerous times and looked at several different possibilities for the film and its message and purpose, and always find a flaw or unexplained extension before I complete an analysis. Difficulty to understand the story put aside, Kubrick’s film is still able to be followed (for the majority of the story anyway) and it is with this capability that Kubrick’s masterpiece has a place on my greatest films list rather than in company with this film, whose distinction I would dub in reference to Rock Hudson’s famed words after seeing 2001, “what the hell was that all about?!”

I used these three films in this long-winded dissection of the problems with The Mirror because they are three critically acclaimed films that critics and audiences alike have noted for their complex storylines and difficulty to understand the final product (I am only referring to the first of The Matrix trilogy, partly because it is the only one that I have seen to this point and partly because, as I am led to believe, the concept gets simplified as the trilogy continues). The distinction for them is that they have varying levels of ultimate comprehensiveness, but each of them are capable of being followed at least to a certain point in the plot. And this is ultimately why I have critiqued Mirror and decided that it is undeserving of a 4-star branding: it is not possible to understand, which is not detrimental to the film as there are many cinematic works out there that cannot be understood in one respect or the other, and it is not possible to follow the film even without a plot, which is detrimental to the film as a film needs to be followed for there to be comprehension and most films that are difficult to follow cannot recover from this mistake.

And yet, this review will end on a note of appraisal because unlike those other movies that are impossible to follow, this film has so much going for it in every other aspect of its filmmaking, production, and presentation, that its difficulty to discern any kind of story or leading path does not harm it nearly as much as it should.