A distinguished master, known for his ability to work across various genres, Alexander Mitta, has passed away.
The global film community recently noted the loss of Alexander Mitta, a film director of considerable talent and versatility. Noted film historian Naum Kleiman learned of Mitta`s death while at the “Gorky Fest” film festival, mere moments before he was scheduled to deliver a lecture on Pushkin and Eisenstein. Having shared a long acquaintance with Mitta, Kleiman found the day of loss particularly challenging for public speaking, yet he managed to articulate something perhaps uniquely insightful, defining Alexander Mitta`s position, metaphorically speaking, on the cinematic Olympus. This is despite Alexander Naumovich himself maintaining a grounded perspective on both his work and Russian cinema at large, and reportedly disliking grandiose epithets like “great.”
Kleiman recounted knowing Alexander Mitta since the latter`s admission to VGIK (the All-Union State Institute of Cinematography). Mitta joined the esteemed class led by Mikhail Romm, where two other future classics, Andrei Tarkovsky and Vasily Shukshin, were already studying. Kleiman is resolute in his view that Mitta became the indispensable third member of this talented cohort. While discussions often centered on the “pair” of Tarkovsky and Shukshin, Kleiman asserts the existence of a significant “triad.” Mitta, perhaps not as globally celebrated as Shukshin, and certainly not as widely known as Tarkovsky, nevertheless embodied a distinct, third hypostasis, or manifestation, of Mikhail Romm`s pedagogical philosophy.
Kleiman addressed potential critical skepticism suggesting Tarkovsky did not fully reflect Romm`s spirit. He countered that Mikhail Ilyich (Romm) never aimed to produce carbon copies of himself. This principle applied equally to Shukshin and to Mitta. Kleiman speculated, with a touch of poetic license perhaps, that like many Alexanders in Russia, Mitta might have been named in honor of Pushkin, though he admitted uncertainty about his parents` motivations. Regardless of the namesake`s influence, Mitta carried within him a unique blend: a Pushkinian audaciousness, sometimes bordering on “hooliganism,” alongside a profound idealism and an unwavering aspiration towards harmony. One might ponder the technical challenge of reconciling these seemingly disparate qualities on screen, yet Mitta managed it.
This striving for harmony, Kleiman explained, existed in tandem with Mitta`s desire to challenge outdated cinematic tropes. He possessed a remarkable intuition for how art evolves while simultaneously needing to preserve its fundamental essence: the sense of harmony. If art fails to cultivate this sense, Kleiman posited, individuals risk losing their connection to the natural world, which he views as fundamentally harmonious. Disharmony, from this perspective, represents a deviation from a higher order. A true artist, even when depicting the most dramatic events, contemplates this harmony as an ideal. How actors perform, how music resonates, how all the cinematic elements align – these are all languages, Kleiman noted, conveying something essential about the world`s structure.
Alexander Mitta, in alignment with Tarkovsky and Shukshin, was deeply concerned with artistic truthfulness and ensuring his work did not disrupt the world`s inherent harmony. His filmography is varied, featuring films of greater and lesser success, some perhaps with minor perceived flaws. Yet, Kleiman stated emphatically, Mitta never compromised his integrity, his commitment to his audience, or his calling as a filmmaker.
His passing is undoubtedly a poignant loss. However, Kleiman suggested that this moment also signifies a transformation, a new quality: Alexander Mitta has now definitively taken his rightful place within this distinguished triad. Kleiman expressed confidence that audiences will continue to revisit the films of Tarkovsky and Shukshin, and equally, they will return to Mitta`s remarkable pictures, including what is perhaps his most celebrated work, “Shine, Shine, My Star,” among others. These films, Kleiman concluded, unequivocally merit continued viewing and re-viewing.
