Cinematography as a Metalanguage of the Director's Inner World (Based on the Films of Andrei Tarkovsky)

Introduction. The article is devoted to the problem of art as a metalanguage of the inner world of the artist, director. The issue of the metalanguage of art in relation to cinema is becoming quite relevant today, while the work of the Soviet film director Andrei Tarkovsky serves as a representative example for such a study. The question of metalanguage affirms the existence of a certain structure, levels, positions, layers of perception of the master's work.

Methodology and sources. It is methodologically significant to consider the problem of metalanguage not only within the framework of cultural philosophy (O. Spengler, F. Nietzsche, M. Bakhtin, G. Pomerants, etc.), but also in related fields: analytical philosophy, logical semantics, semiotics. Within the framework of semiotic methodology, the problem of metalanguage is posed most clearly. Certain significant steps in the development of semiotic concepts of metalanguage in culture were taken by R. Barthes, T. Todorov, Y. Lotman, Y. Tsivian, M. Mamardashvili, A. Pyatigorsky. Among the many works that directly reveal the problem of metalanguage in the works of A. Tarkovsky, the works of R. Bird, I. Evlampiev, S. Salvestroni, D. Salinsky stand out.

Results and discussion. It is revealed that the structure of the artistic metalanguage of a filmmaker can be made up of symbols, signs, meanings and angles, individual editing trajectories, representation of the passage of time and natural elements. It has been established that two dominant elements of the director's metalanguage are important in Tarkovsky's work: the metaphysics of the inner world and the metaphysics of the elements (for example, the metaphors of fire, water, earth, and the flow of life). Time, as the state of the director's inner world, embodies the intertwining of these two sides of Andrei Tarkovsky's work.

Conclusion. The language of film narration becomes a metalanguage, being divided into subjective and objective components. The metalanguage of cinema is the language of action and process. The film's character is immersed in the action unfolding in the frame. The issue of metalanguage results in the differentiation of the observer and the observed. To do this, it is necessary to identify certain levels and positions within the film. The component that is directly related to the individuality of the director, their inner world, is the deep foundation of the metalanguage of cinema.

1. Tarkovskii, A.A. (2024), Zapechatlennoe vremya: razmyshleniya o kino [Captured Time: Reflections on Cinema], Mezhdunarodnyi institut imeni Andreya Tarkovskogo, Moscow, RUS.

2. Wittgenstein, L. (2011), Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung, Transl. by Dobronravov, I.S. and Lakhuti, D.G., Kanon+, Moscow, RUS.

3. Hilbert, D. (1948), Grundlagen der Geometrie, Transl. by Gradshtein, I.S., OGIZ, Rostekhizdat, Moscow, Leningrad, USSR.

4. Karnap, R. (1959), Meaning and Necessity. A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic, Izd-vo inostr. litry, Moscow, USSR.

5. Barthes, R. (1989), Izbrannye raboty: Semiotika. Poehtika [Selected works: Semiotics. Poetics], Transl., Progress, Moscow, USSR.

6. Mamardashvili, M.K. and Pyatigorskii, A.M. (1997), Simvol i soznanie [Symbol and consciousness], Yazyki russkoi kul'tury, Moscow, RUS.

7. Spengler, O. (2000), Der Untergang des Abendlandes, Transl., Kharvest, AST, Minsk; Moscow, RUS.

8. Pomerants, G.S. (2013), Otkrytost' bezdne. Vstrechi s Dostoevskim [Openness to the abyss. Meetings with Dostoevsky], 2nd ed., Tsentr gumanitarnykh initsiativ, Moscow; SPb., RUS.

9. Silvestroni, S. (2007), Il Cinema di Tarkovskij e la Tradizione Russa, Transl. by T. Shishkova, Bibl.- bogoslov. in-t sv. apostola Andreya, Moscow, RUS.

10. Berd, R. (2023), Andrei Tarkovskii: stikhii kino [Andrey Tarkovsky: Elements of Cinema], Muzei sovremennogo iskusstva “Garazh”, Moscow, RUS.

11. Salynskii, D.L. (2009), Kinogermenevtika Tarkovskogo [Tarkovsky's Kinogermeneutics], Prodyuserskii tsentr “Kvadriga”, Moscow, RUS.

12. Evlampiev, I.I. (2012), Hudozhestvennaya filosofiya Andreya Tarkovskogo [The artistic philosophy of Andrei Tarkovsky], 2nd ed., ARC, Ufa, RUS.

13. Turovskaya, M.I. (1991), 7 1/2, ili fil'my Andreya Tarkovskogo [7 1/2, or the films of Andrei Tarkovsky], Iskusstvo, Moscow, RUS.

14. Borzova, E.P. (2007), Triadologiya [Triadology], SPGUKI, SPb., RUS.

15. Ehizenshtein, S.M. (1998), “Even–Odd. The Bifurcation of the One”, Vostok – Zapad. Issledovaniya. Perevody. Publikatsii [East – West. Researches. Translations. Publications], Nauka, Moscow, RUS, pp. 234–279.

16. Melchior-Bonnet, S. (2024), Histoire du Miroir, Transl. by Rozenberg, Yu.M., NLO, Moscow, RUS.

17. Eko, U. (2020), Sugli specchi e altri saggi, Transl. by Golubtsova, A. and Kats, L., Slovo, Moscow, RUS.

18. Florenskii, P.A. (1996), Sochineniya [Essay], in 4 vols., vol. 2, Mysl', Moscow, RUS.

19. Lotman, Yu.M. (2002), Stat'i po semiotike kul'tury i iskusstva [Articles on the semiotics of culture and art], Akademicheskii proekt, SPb., RUS.