1

Ambivalence and Ambiguity:
Motherhood/Femininity and Fatherhood/Masculinity in Mirror

Akiko Nakata

Introduction
Mirror (1975), Andrei Tarkovsky’s fifth film, is full of ambivalent feelings, caught
between release and restraint. Tarkovsky confesses that he felt released from his childhood
memories when he finished making the film (Tarkovsky, 128-29). We can also experience
his relief from the nostalgia, which probably has tortured him as a burden. Liberation
emerges from this free-flowing narrative, in which he publicly reveals private scenes fromhis childhood and memorializes them on film forever.
The film begins with a story that evokes a strong feeling of relief. We see a boy, later
known as Ignat, watching a TV documentary. In the program, a young man, who looks
slightly like both Alexei and Ignat, and perhaps Tarkovsky himself, is hypnotized and curedof stuttering. A middle-aged female doctor, probably his mother’s age, confidently
announces, “You will speak loudly and clearly, freely and easily, unafraid of your voice andyour speech,”to her patient, who has just been brought to consciousness. Then he repeats
after her powerful pronouncement “I can speak”rather feebly, but without stuttering.
According to Johnson and Petrie, a Russian audience would not miss the need for
unfettered expression in her instruction (116). Even if we, as alien audience, do not discover
the explicitly hidden message, we do catch the strong feeling of liberation in the scene. It isa kind of miracle that the youth could speak freely just after stuttering so painfully.
Following this introductory scene, the film begins to narrate its story “clearly, freely and—it
looks—easily,”so freely as to make Yermash say, “We have freedom of creativity incinema, but not to this degree€35(Johnson and Petrie, 114). The film so freely flies among the1

2plural time-frames and generations or the narrator’s memories and the real-time incidents
that it would be impossible to grasp the situation completely in one viewing. We are
immediately involved in and overwhelmed by the sequence of Bachelardian elemental
imagery of light, wind, fire, water—they are what come first when we recollect the film.
This usually happens to us after watching any Tarkovsky film, but Mirror is especiallyenchanting in this way, mainly during Alexei’s dreams and memories. The semi-deserted
dacha with white-curtained windows through which the high wind blows, the young motherwith her dripping hair standing before the falling plasters of the ceiling, a girl holding her
hand over the fire with her blood brightly shown framing her fingers—these unforgettablescenes feel always bright in spite of the somewhat uncanny feelings they evoke.
Then we come to notice that the story of the film is rather depressing. It is about twogenerations of a family, similar to each other, as reflected in a mirror.

It focuses on amother and a child/children, who are abandoned by the husband and father. The boy in therecollected scenes and protagonist-narrator in the narrative time, Alexei, who was brought
up by his mother, who was left by her husband, later leaves his wife and son, and almost
loses his relationship with his mother. At the end of the film, he is exhausted by guilty
feelings and loses the will to live, and probably dies. He seems to be beaten by his motherand wife—they are played by the same actress and are actually to some degree the same
person, as are the pair of boys and the pair of husbands/fathers.

Eternal motherhood
In the scene where a bird, set free by Alexei just before his death, symbolizing his desire
for freedom, freely flies into the rural sky, we see below Alexei’s father and mother as ayoung couple. His father-to-be asks his wife, Masha, who is perhaps already pregnant, “Do
you want a boy or a girl?”but she does not say anything, but shows a perplexed expression.
She smiles with embarrassment and looks over towards the wood beyond which is herself in
her sixties or seventies with her small children, and then looks at the camera, then at her
husband with an ambiguous expression with tears. It is as if she were expecting her baby

23

with pleasure, but she can foresee her future as that of an abandoned wife and then aforsaken mother--or an eternal painful motherhood from which she will never be free.
We next see the picture of the “
eternal motherhood”: five-year-old Alexei and his
younger sister, who both must be images from the present Alexei’s memory, and their oldmother who must be at her real age. The old mother seems tired and puzzled. It must anightmarish situation to find herself very old, with her small children as they were years
before. Though it is a strange and funny situation, we could say that her dream comes true,
for Alexei’s ex-wife, Natalia, has told him that his mother wanted him to be a child again sothat she could take care of and protect him. Eternal motherhood, though beautiful as an
idea--and not a few mothers may remain mothers mentally to their children as long as they
live--is actually an exhausting and grotesque situation, if you have to take care of yoursmall children in the last days of your life, although they have actually grown up more thantwenty years before. The old mother bravely and decisively leads her two children acrossthe field, but she does not look happy.
The final scene seems to show both Alexei’s doom and a kind of revenge or punishment
for his repressing mother, because of whom and for whom he seems to die. Only briefly
does the bird fly over the space-time into the field of non-time being or eternal childhood,
revealing the feeling of relief as the narrative of the film does. But Alexei—even in a shapeof a bird--cannot but return to the scene of his childhood.
Even the free-framed narrative itself seems to have ironically emerged from the female
doctor€31
s order in the first scene. She is curing the young man by manipulating him. Her loud,pushy voice almost overwhelms her patient’s feeble

repetition—he is only repeating her

words—but nonetheless the youth can speak without a stutter. She can be contrasted to themale doctor at Alexei’s deathbed. The doctor is helpless against his patient’s symptoms, andhe can only declare that Alexei cannot live anymore: he cannot save his patient or doanything for him.1 The female doctor is the first of the leading mothers in the film and also
belongs to the healing mothers in Tarkovsky’s films; the male doctor is one of the helplessfathers in the film and he also reminds us of those more problematic fathers in his other3

4

films. Mirror is unique among them because of its central image of motherhood/femininity
and absence of fatherhood/masculinity, and its perpetual ambivalence between them andstrange ambiguity in each of them.

Killing a cockerel to protect and/or castrate the son
We have referred to the central theme of motherhood in the film, but there is something
extraordinary about it.

Masha seems strangely aloof because she will not show affection

to her child explicitly, though she is certainly a caring and loving mother. Both Masha andNatalia raise their child(ren) in solitude, and even in hardship and poverty in the case of
Masha. Natalia seems more understanding both to Alexei and Ignat and more
understandable to the audience than Masha, because she explains her thoughts. Masha ismore silent and she remains mysterious: she never says anything about herself and nevertouches her small children.
Only once does Masha directly show her protecting attitude to young Alexei.

She cuts

a cockerel’s head off for him and looks terribly disgusted and exhausted by the act ofslaughter. The scene explains how Masha could be a protective mother, who reluctantly
kills a creature lest her son should symbolically lose his innocence in the task. This sceneshows us Masha as such a sacrificing and devoted mother that she has made herself
miserable and guilty.

She already looked sickened after watching the doctor’s lovely baby

in a luxurious situation and listening to his mother speak to him in babytalk. Then comes
the slaughter scene, in which we are convinced that she is more devoted than the superficial
and ostentatious mother.
On the other hand, cutting off the head of a cockerel suggests the act of castration.
Ironically, Masha who does the violent task in order to protect her son looks a phallic
mother for her behavior. When she is asked to do the task, she hesitates until the doctor’swife says, “Maybe ask Alyosha. He’s a man, after all.”She replies, “No, not Alyosha,”and
then agrees to do it for herself. Her reply sounds like either she hates to force her son to doit or she denies her son’s masculinity. We can see that her attitude moves Alexei towards

4

5

the depression leading to his death, which secondly follows after the cockerel episode,though we cannot blame her for it.

Protection of water
Motherhood is often related to water, as is by Bachelard, in Tarkovsky’s films(Bachelard, 170-71). The earliest occasion is the repeated image of Ivan’s mother in My
Name is Ivan (1962), who brings a pail of water and wipes sweat from her forehead, and
who watches the stars in the well with her son. The mother in Solaris (1972) washes Kris’shands with water from a jug in his dream and then he recovers from a fever and his fatal
attachment to Hari.

Maria in The Sacrifice (1986) also washes Alexander’s hands,

consoles him like his true mother and makes him drink something—some secret remedy or
perhaps her mother’s milk. They could be all “
healing”mothers2 who could be comparedwith the hysteric and childish wives in The Sacrifice, or the independent but unhappy
woman in Nostalgia (1983) or the completely helpless wife of Domenico who cannot saveher child and herself in the same film.

Those healing mothers are clearly expressed

without ambiguity, though they are not in the central position.
In contrast to the other films, the water imagery surrounding Masha ispersistent andcentral in Mirror. Masha exclusively and repeatedly appears with water, most commonly inimages of tears and rain. Also unlike other films, water imagery is almost always connectedwith healing for Masha herself, not for her children; the healing or the cleansing function ofwater is not always complete as it is in the other films.
We will now examine a scene in which rain, tears and the water from the tap are relatedwith Masha’s femininity and motherhood. The scene begins with Masha, who is runningfrom the pouring rain into the large building of a printing house. This must be Masha’srecollection—for she is the only person who knows the episode—but it also looks like ascene from Alexei’s dreams.

The scene is in sepia like Alexei’s other dreams and it isrealistically shown, yet something about it is dreamlike. As the scene progresses, we learn
that Masha works as a proofreader and is going to make sure that she has corrected a certain5

6

misprint, which, if not corrected, must doom her to a labor camp or something equallyterrible. Assisted by Liza, her colleague and probably close friend, Masha finds that theword has been already corrected (or there was no misprint originally).
Relieved from the terror, with tears and laughter, she is going to take a shower to warm
herself. Liza suddenly begins to criticize Masha’s attitude to others, comparing her to Maria
Timofeyevna, who does not understand her own situation but always expects that anyone
will help her with pleasure, probably because Masha has not appreciated other people’s helpor care, especially hers.

Masha looks astonished by the sudden criticism from the very

person who seems to have realized an ideal sisterhood with Masha. It is also strange to us
that she abruptly becomes so harsh on Masha. Liza also says that Masha has failed in
marriage and will make her children miserable because she never admits her faults andalways tries to make others be like her. Masha listens to her sudden assault with anunbelieving expression and pouring tears, then without replying, she goes to the shower
room. Liza seems apologetic when she follows Masha, but is only rejected by her. Then
Liza returns with triumphant and comical dancing steps to the office.
Liza’s harshness seems to emerge from her relationship with Masha, which she intends
to be not superficial but authentic. Additionally, she tries to show a kind offatherhood/masculinity which is missing from the printing house. Since the misprint issomething obscene which insults Stalin, who must actualize Fatherhood for all the Soviet
people, Masha is considered about to do some dangerous mischief and abandons it just intime. Liza is an accessory, sharing the secret with her. When she accuses Masha, Liza
herself is in tears, but on the other hand she smokes. Thus she alludes to fire and smoke forthe fatherhood,which should be there, but actually is missing. It is understandable if we

remember that Liza begins to blame Masha just after a man, who seems to be their boss or
the responsible colleague, offers Masha a bottle of vodka—water again, even though it isimaginatively eau de vie [water of life], “
mixed fire and water, which can almost be lit”
(Bachelard, 96). According to Turovskaya, Grinko, who played the man in the scene, is theactor whose image is linked for Tarkovsky with the idea of fatherhood, but he does not67seem to embody it enough in the scene (Turovskaya, 83).
Masha looks more vulnerable than Natalia, who is modern and independent.

However,when we remember that Natalia wishes desperately that an angel will appear to her as amessenger bearing Father’s orders—we recognize Masha’s obstinate independence. Masha
does not argue with Liza, whose blame is somehow from the side of fatherhood, nor does
she accept defeat. She only retreats into the shower room, which should be the place ofmotherhood with plenty of water, warmth, cleansing and consolement.3 Her obstinacy is noteasy to break.
But Masha cannot be consoled by the element to which she belongs. She tries to cleanse
the sadness and vexation as well as warm herself in the shower room, but the warm water
does not come from the tap as sufficiently as she, and we, expected. It may be ordinary inthose days, but the lack of water seems important. Masha, who has been wet enough withrain and tears—needs another kind of fluidity. The shower could warm and console her hurt
ego and restore herself—her motherhood, sexuality and femininity, as when she rinses herhair in Alexei’s dream.4 But that is denied to her, and she can only have a little waterflowing down her body. This scene is one of the sequences of despair and delusion in thefilm and shows that healing motherhood, which the mother herself most badly needs, isinsufficient. Nevertheless, Masha seems to be consoled in proportion to the quantity ofwater, which is not sufficient, but not absent, either.

Smoking suggesting fatherhood
Though the male colleague reproves Liza, saying “stop nonsense [sic],”her accusation
proves to be true. We do not know why her husband and her son left Masha, but Alexei
actually becomes “miserable”as Liza has prophesied, and the reason seems to be mostly his
relationship with his mother.
Alexei points out to Natalia that Ignat will be like him if he is raised by his mother as hewas. In fact, the lack of fatherhood is explicit throughout the film.

We could say

fatherhood is shown only as its absence, compared with overly present motherhood. Though78Alexei’s father (the same actor) sometimes appears in his dreams, he is actually seen withhis children only once, when he returns from the war. When Alexei asks about the year
when their father left them, his mother replies that it is 1935, the year when the barn had
burned down. Here, missing fatherhood is connected with the first fire scene in the film. In
his memory, his mother goes out to see the fire and the children follow. Having been crying
until then, she washes her face and hands with the water from a well and sits on its fence.
Of course, she actually does it in order to wash out her tears, but she looks as if she hopes toresist the power of fire with that of water. Her behavior is contrasted with that of the small
boy who seems enchanted by the fire.
We find her, in the first scene, sitting on the fence smoking, and a few years later, on
the way home from the doctor’s house, where she has just beheaded the cockerel, smoking,not ostentatiously, but pensively and moderately in either scene. Then her smoking figuretransforms into herself in her sixties, when she is also smoking. We do not know why
Alexei has lost a good relationship with his mother—as far as we know, their relationship is
not apparently bad until then—but we can assume after this evening, after Masha
symbolically castrates him, that the negative aspect of their relationship will be coming out.
It is ironic that Masha has sacrificed herself to protect him only to destroy their relationship.
Alexei’s enchantment with fire will be inherited by Ignat—played by the same boy andactually the same person as are the other pairs of characters in the film, and much more so
because they seem to share some recollections.

Watching Ignat make a small fire, Natalia

admits that no angel will appear to him, though she wishes that an angel would appear as
one did to Moses at the burning bush. She does not resist the fire and the fatherhood, which
the fire symbolizes, but is sorry for its absence. Natalia is, as the mirrors surrounding her
reveal, the double of Masha, and is more helpless and desperate than Masha, though she
looks rather tough at first glance. That is in part because Natalia is never protected by water
as her original is.

Looking for positive fatherhood

89Alexei recalls an incident concerning a shooting instructor and a hand grenade during
the war and relates the episode to Ignat. A boy, who is an orphan from Leningrad Blockade,tries the instructor’s courage and patience, and finally throws a dummy hand grenade to theground between them. The instructor covers the grenade with his body and waits for
explosion. When he recognizes the truth, he says nothing accusing to the boy for it. He isdeprivedofthechance

to

show

his

courageasrepresentativeof

positivemasculinity/fatherhood and remains a fooled hero because of the dummy grenade—absenceof fire. Throughout the film, though, the strongest image of positive fatherhood is explicitly
shown in this scene: fearless courage as he sacrifices himself in order to save the boys;
patience and generosity in forgiving the boy’s challenge. We understand that these qualities
are what the true heroes require as shown in the following scene, in which the Russian
soldiers march painfully dragging a tank in the deep mud. Simultaneously, the scene seems
that of the heroic fathers who would willingly devote themselves to their land and that of
the tragedy of the fathers who have been deprived of a chance to show positive heroism.
Following this scene, some newsreel films of the war are inserted: the scenes of bomb
explosions and victims, ending with the mushroom cloud of an atomic bomb. They are theimages of the most evil fire that human beings, especially masculinity, is supposed to have
made—at least in Tarkovsky’s films. Then we see the Red Guards of China under the
Cultural Revolution fanatically applauding Mao while waving the Red Book in their hands,
and Russian guards trying to prevent a wave of people from crossing the border. This scene
reminds us of what Ignat is asked to read from Pushkin’s letter about Russian’s uniquehistory and future—instead of the Tartar, they have China with its only great Father Mao.
The unbelievably huge crowd seems not only threatening, but even uncanny, as though it
were a negative result of a too strong Fatherhood or rather wrong patriarchy.
Just after a series of newsreel films of the war and revolution, Alexei’s father returns to
his family. Here again, fatherhood is shown in its imperfect form.

Hearing his call, Alexei

and his sister begin to run toward their father. Father hugs them both to his bosom, which iscovered by a military uniform. They do not look at each other. All of them have strangely

9

10

nervous expressions in a silence that does not seem to come from too strong a feeling of
having missed each other, or from happiness at reunion.5 Masha watches them with aslightly sarcastic smile, and the portrait of “
A Young Lady with a Juniper”by Leonardo isshown, as if to show the negative side of motherhood/femininity. 6 The scene is rather
strange, for this is the only scene in which Alexei’s father appears in person, but he says
nothing to his children and he does not even call his son’s name. He calls only his
daughter’s name, and she gets to him first, because Alexei, who has been leading, falls
down on the way. A direct and straightforward relationship between a father and a son or
heritage from a father to a son seems prohibited to them. Although Masha does not disturb
them intentionally, it is as if her “negative”motherhood/femininity is too strong for them.

Poetry reading as the father’s message
The Soviet soldiers who painfully drag a tank through a marsh would look miserable
rather than brave, without the poetry reading which accompanies the scene. Mirror ischaracterized for its voice-over poetry recitation by Arseny Tarkovsky, the filmmaker’sfather. Arseny, who actually left his family as Alexei’s father does in the film, is naturally
considered to bring an image of the lost fatherhood through his poetry into the film. His
reading has an important role throughout the film. In the soldiers scene, the poem is abouthuman sacrifice and dignity, which results in the immortality of the soul over generations. It
strengthens the honored and even triumphant aspect of the scene, which would be missed
without it. The following scenes from the newsreel films which go on without the reading
tend to look weird or grotesque.
We firstly hear his poem in voice-over in the scene of Masha, who cries before thescene of the burning barn. She seems to be desperate thinking of her abandonment by herhusband, although still charming as a young woman enough for a stranger to try to flirt withher. On the surface of the scene, she is a poor wife abandoned with her two small children
to bring up, but our impression changes when we hear the poem. The poem, which is on
their first encounters, entitled even “
Epiphany,”is a homage to Masha, to her beauty and

10

11

unique spirit. It dignifies her solitude and sacrifice, as the reading of a poem over the lastscene of Stalker (1979) glorifies the stalker’s handicapped daughter and redeems her ordeal.
The poetry reading which offers Masha what she should have counteracts the misery of thescene.
The reading voice is considered the only positive voice and message from the absent
fatherhood. It is generous, brave and affectionate both privately and publicly.

An angel appears to Ignat
Ignat’s parents are wrong when they agree that no angel will come to him.

A

mysterious lady who has appeared to Ignat and asked him to read from Pushkin’s letter
could be considered an angel bringing a message to Ignat. He is told something about his
people, just as Moses was. The lady looks strangely androgynous or somewhat masculine,
as an angel is supposed to be.
Instead of the silent (grand)father, the mysterious lady appears to Ignat.

Her existence

is strange enough, and it is more strange that when the lady and her old maidservant are in
the house, Ignat and his grandmother fail to identify each other, as if their privacy does notexist while the “
public”figures are in the house. These mysterious figures also wait atAlexei’s deathbed in place of his mother and his ex-wife. We do not understand why his
family does not stay with him or why the mysterious women know about his conscience. It
is also strange that the women seem to admit that Alexei will give up his life for his failed
relationship with his mother.
They seem to have come in order to restore to young Ignat the lost atherhood, ordering
him to find the fatherhood required by Russia—another kind of fatherhood than that which
could be actualized by Mao or Stalin. The Genesis episode of the angel at the burning bushis paternalistic, and it is ironic that Ignat is told something important by the lady, not his
father or any other man. The androgynous-looking lady could be a suggestion ofcompromised femininity/masculinity and may be the counterpart of the controlling female
doctor in the first scene. She does not heal Alexei, but allows him to retreat into death or

11

12

stay in eternal childhood. Something eerie surrounds her existence and we cannot say
whether her presence is positive or negative.
The mysterious lady disappears leaving a trace of a teacup on the table. Ignat watches
the trace rapidly disappear evaporating into the air. This Ariel-like image suggests anotherconnection with an angel and also with water.

Hope in despair
In Tarkovsky’s later films, especially the trilogy—Stalker, Nostalgia, The Sacrifice, theprotagonists—they are all men—try to accomplish something for the people around them or
the world which they leave behind. It often seems absurd, desperate or funny to the otherpeople, but it is very important from each man’s own viewpoint, and through their efforts
they can leave something hopeful in the world. In Stalker, the protagonist becomes
desperate because he cannot help anybody as the guide to the Zone. Only his wife believes
him and supports him against the whole world. But in the final scene, we know theirhandicapped daughter, who is supposed to be cursed by nature for her father’s occupation,is truly blessed, through which we also know that the stalker himself and his sterile efforts
could be also blessed. In Nostalgia, the protagonist dies in a muddy puddle from a heart
attack after carrying a candle to the opposite wall—the flame of the candle seems to be from
Domenico, who has committed a burning suicide in despair for the world under the peril of
nuclear war. In The Sacrifice, the theme of father and son is connected with theprotagonist’s“
great achievement.”Alexander burns his house—probably with the fire that
he gets from the two men in the previous film—as if to make a sacrifice in order to cancel
the nuclear war which he believes has begun. The war is not real, and he is carried to themental asylum, but on the way, he sees his small son water a barren tree, keeping his will.
The last three films show the explicit connection of hope in despair, fire and a father—twoof the three major characters are fathers.
We cannot find any character actually preceding them in Mirror. There is no “
father”
who tries to leave “hope”in the film. Alexei confesses, as if it were his will, that he “
just

12

13

wanted to be happy”and that if he dies “
everything’ll be all right”for his mother, and begs
to be left alone. Does he tries to redeem his guilt or only offer excuses for his weakness andselfishness? By his death, is he liberated and taken back to his innocent childhood or is it
just an escape? As for these questions, Mirror is ambiguous again. But the ambiguity is
considered to be a source of the power of Mirror. In the last scene in Solaris—in which theSolaris Sea is going to overwhelm the small land where Kris’s house sits, we can still feelsomething illogically positive in the desperate ending. Similarly, Mirror has a richambiguity between despair and hope. The film ends with small Alexei’s battle cry, whichadds something to the film’s ambiguity—does it belong to a happy and fulfilled childhood
or does it come from a repressed and frustrated boy? We cannot decide. The logicalsequence of Mirror, following the contrasting imagery of fire and water, which reflects theconflict between fatherhood/masculinity and motherhood/femininity, has brought us to arather depressing place. Nevertheless, the feeling of hope remains and the film itself isbright, too bright still, as it was originally entitled.

＊I would like to express my gratitude to P. A. Sitney of Princeton University for his
encouragement and generous comments on the original text.

Notes
1

Male doctors in the film cannot cure or satisfy the people around them. The first

doctor appears as a tourist, a visitor from another world. He tries to seduce Masha invain, and leaves never to return. He comes to their place by mistake only to
discourage the family who knows the only one that intentionally comes to them istheir father. The second doctor does not appear in person. He has not come in timeso that Masha abandons getting money for her earrings. He could be the same person
as the first doctor.

13

14

2

There are some differences among them: the most obvious healing mother isKris’s mother, and Maria’s behavior is considered her parody. Ivan’s repeated dreamof his mother and her death strengthens his loss and restlessness rather than his
mother’s healing.
3

The fact that Liza compared her to Maria Timofeyevna of The Devils, who was

killed in a fire, may be an additional force driving Masha to retreat to water.
4

Bachelard refers to the strong imaginary connection between hair and waterespecially as “
floating tresses, tresses loosened by the floods”(83).

As theundine’s hair is the instrument of her misdeeds, Masha’s dripping hair appears as animage of her sexuality before infant Alexei.
5Alexei in the scene reminds us of Ignat, who is asked if he wants to live with hisfather: Ignat immediately declines his father’s offer, perhaps his answer coming too
soon, which reveals his concern for his mother. He behaves to his father not as helikes but as he thinks his mother likes.
6

Tarkovsky describes the “charm with a negative sign.”“
In Mirror we needed theportrait in order [ ...] to juxtapose the portrait with the heroine, to emphasize in her
and in the actress, Margarita Terekhova, the same capacity at once to enchant and torepel....（Sculpting in Time 108）.

Works Cited
Bachelard, Gaston. Water and Dreams: An Essay on the Imagination of Matter.
Trans. Edith R. Farrell. Dallas: Dallas Institute Publications, 1983.
Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Devils (The Possessed). Trans. David Magarshack.
Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971.
Johnson, Vida T., and Graham Petrie. The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual
Fugue. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1994.
Tarkovsky, Andrei. Sculpting in Time. Trans. Kitty Hunter-Blair. Austin: U

14

15

of Texas P, 1996.
Turovskaya, Maya. Tarovsky: Cinema as Poetry. Trans. Natasha Ward.
London: Faber, 1989.

Published in Journal of Nanzan Junior College 26, 1998, 33-49.

15