Jeeves' Diary

So, what about if all in our life is not happen, but a kind of destiny. What of all we do, speak, think, love, imagine, dislike etc. is not spontaneous or due to our wish to do, but a driver-like program to balance pendulum-like to all system that we live in? What if space-time singularity is absolutely hypothetic, and a subject could come in and come out through the point no return like Alice's journey through mirror. We can see things that may be happpened with us, but completely unaware of the reasons why it may be happened. Therefore, the basic incongruence between our sense and sensibility is one of our interpretation of duality as a phenomenon both for speculative and empiric cognizers. It, in its turn, automatically implies the system of sings and symbols for each of sizes of this duality that should be marked to be read and understood. In general sense, it is a language problem.





Gilles Deleuze in 'The Logic of Sense' said about duality-for-us and duality-as-it-is on Alice's example: coming trough looking glass means coming from denotation to non stop, without manifestation and signification ( i.e. speech, emotional reaction, any action) that are meant as 'spans', or else it is the reaching an area where language relates to not what it designates, but to what it expresses ( or else, to its meaning). In this respect 'duality', seems, moving inward.

When I watched Mirror first, I failed divesting myself of an idea about the duality I see is not subjective, fantastic, but objective + IS an organic part of the protagonist life. It was seen from outside by an observer, unlike mystification or kind of far-fetched sci-fi overthought approach, but as a reality as much plausible as it'd be seem your own…Many years later, after reading Deleuze and his approch of interpretation Carroll's allegoric language, I thought exactly about the context of ' duality of reality' and about the image of 'mirror' used by Andrey Tarkovski as a perfect kind of all-fixing, all-observing + registering tool, so to speak, to 'expose you to yourself as present, past and future'.
I thought by then about myself: it is, probably, only me who think like that about the movie + remembering Deleuze's phrases…
Just recently while surfing Net, I encountered a curious article by an author named Kierran Horner who echoed + develops Tarkovsky anti-profane hidden meaning of the movie + exactly reffering it rihgt to Deleuze's thoughts.

'‘Not that the cinematic image can be divided and segmented against its time-nature, current time cannot be removed from it. The image becomes authentically cinematic when (amongst other things) not only does it live within time, but time also lives within it, even within each separate frame.’ (Tarkovsky 1988: 68)

'It is time itself which arises in the crystal, and which is constantly recommending its dividing in two without completing it, since the indiscernible exchange is always renewed and reproduced. The ‘direct time-image’ or the transcendental form of time is what we see in the crystal;…(they) should therefore be called mirrors or seeds of time.’ (Deleuze 2005b: 262-263)

Tarkovsky intrinsically fuses the Maroussia of the past and present, using the mirror surface as the point at which they meet; suggesting that there is no dichotomy of these two aspects of time. This assertion is most apparent in the final scenes of Mirror. The narrator/Alexei is, throughout, a disembodied voice, he is not even in possession of a present image; his past has failed to create one for him. His conspicuous physical absence is reflected in that of his father’s absence from many of the childhood scenes and that of Tarkovsky’s own father’s prominent yet ethereal voice reciting his poetry throughout. The men/fathers of Mirror have limited, or entirely lacking, physical manifestations, in opposition to those of the women/mothers. This recurring lack suggests that the problems of the past are repeated in the present, borne out in scenes between the father/Alexei and Natalya, such as the one preceding the matador anecdote. This scene begins, tellingly, with Natalya looking in a mirror and noticing with horror how Ignat is becoming like Alexei, and, after more dialogue, Alexei suggesting that the reason that he (Alexei) is so demanding is that he was brought up by women, and advises that Natalya should remarry if she does not want their son to turn out the same. The past, again, influences the present, from generation to generation.
The coda of Mirror begins with what is ostensibly the narrator’s death or, at least, it is the ‘perception-image’ from which the final scenes are realised. In it, the audience are shown the narrator/Alexei in a physical manifestation, for the first and only time, although only from the shoulders down, as he lies on a bed. He grasps a small bird from the mattress beside him and, with a sigh, releases the bird into the air, signifying his passing: only at the moment of his death can he have a present image. After this scene the conventional boundaries of time that Tarkovsky has persistently and consistently flaunted are finally violated thoroughly, ‘a merging of time frames…’ as Johnson and Petrie suggest (129). http://filmint.nu/?p=1787