Ivan's Childhood (1962) User Reviews

a powerful piece of poetic film-making for the disillusionment, and disorientation, surrounding young Ivan

[Quinoa1984 · 9/10 · 23 August 2007]

Ivan's Childhood, Andrei Tarkovsky's first substantial feature as director (he previously made a short of the Killers, and a 45 minute student film), is a near-masterpiece of adolescence shredded to pieces in subjective perception. It's set in world war 2, with 12 year old Ivan's family killed by the Nazis and his alliance with the Russian soldiers as a scout able to sneak past into small spaces more to do with vengeance than real patriotism. By the time we see him he's a torn figure, someone who at 12 looks and acts like he's already come of age, by force, and that this deep down has left him in a disparaging state of mind, pushing it away through temper (he won't go to military school, he tells his superiors), and only with the slightest escape through dreams.

But in these dreams he's also tormented by his past, in fragments that hint to the psychological trauma through abstractions, of a splash of water hitting across the dead body of his mother while Ivan is at the bottom of a well, or in the natural and happy surroundings of a truck carrying fruits. One sees in this the only spots of innocence left in Ivan's life, the pinnacle (and one of Tarkovsky's most breathtaking scenes ever filmed) the final dream on the beach with Ivan and his sister running along the sand. In this nature, smiling faces, the filtering of the background of the forest, Ivan's Childhood is starkly incredible.

The 'real' world as depicted, to be sure, is jagged, torn apart, in dark marshes and forests and with trenches dug for a long while and flares and cannon fire always in the air. It seems almost not to be entirely real, or as real as should be 100% truthful to battlefronts. But it's also, for the most part (sometimes it shifts to the adult soldiers like Kholin and Galtzev), through Ivan's point of view, and so this world around him that is ripped to shreds and bullet-strewn and deadened is amplified a little.

There's a curious, evocative scene where Ivan, left alone in a dark floor of a house with a flashlight, goes around looking at the messages scribbled frantically as final notes from partisans, and it veers in-between dream and reality, where it could go either way depending on Ivan's mental state, as fragile as his physical condition. He finally bursts into tears, exhausted. It's this wild meddling with what Ivan sees or experiences or thinks and secretly fears through his would-be tough exterior that makes him so compelling and heartbreaking, as played by Kolya Burlyayev with a sharp level of bravery- not even Jean-Pierre Leaud was this absorbing, albeit on different dramatic terrain.

It's a given that it was not Tarkovsky's project to start with, and, ala Kubrick and Spartacus, came in after a director had been let go to finish the picture. While it is remarkable to see how Tarkovsky does make it his vision, and quite an ambitious one considering how expansive the production design gets and the technical daring taken with his director of photography Vadim Yusov, and how there's a fresh and often original (eg dream scenes, placement of the camera, the scene in the post-war house looking at the records of the departed) perspective that no one else would have given it, there are small parts of the story that could have been dealt with a little better, edited, or cut out altogether.

The character of Masha (played practically with one expression- practically cause of the moment after she is kissed- on her face) is a little unnecessary, or rather more of a means for Tarkovsky to practice some technical ideas in the forest scene, which really leads nowhere, and how her reemergence later in the film also doesn't serve much of a purpose. Maybe there's a point to be made about women in the army at the time, as she's an object of desire less much of an effective nurse, but when seeing her scenes (which aren't bad exactly) one wants to get back to Ivan and the central plot.

But, as mentioned, one has to know that as a Tarkovsky picture what doesn't work doesn't matter so much as what does, and Ivan's Childhood is often staggering in its depiction of the brutality on the mind and consciousness, not just through Ivan but through his adult counterparts, and about how in a time when life can be taken away in an instant, almost without a sound, clinging to a past, however surreal, is all that can matter. There's truths reached about the devastation of war on the young, and those who care for them, that wouldn't be in a more naturalistic setting, and it's Tarkovsky's triumph that he steers it into the realm of a consistent, poetic nightmare narrative.

For a feature film debut, Ivan's Childhood is incredible

[TheLittleSongbird · 9/10 · 28 December 2014]

And not just as a feature film debut, but Ivan's Childhood is a truly great film in its own right, and perhaps the most accessible of Tarkovsky's films(being his shortest and briskest). Tarkovsky is not at his absolute best here in the sense that his style was still settling and he went on to even better things(Andrei Rublev gets my vote as the greatest Soviet film ever made). This may sound like a knock but it isn't, even when Tarkovsky is not at his finest he is much better than most other directors when not at their best and Ivan's Childhood is still beautifully directed, up there with one of the better feature film directorial debuts.

Tarkovsky's films are among the most visually beautiful I've ever seen and Ivan's Childhood is not an exception. The cinematography from Vadim Yusov is gorgeous and evokes chills, there is a dream-like quality to it but also a hard-edged realism. The use of landscapes is wonderfully Expressionistic, making the real-life sequences even more hard-hitting. The music score is haunting and the film is written in a thought-provoking way that wrenches the gut and breaks the heart. It isn't a Tarkovsky film without memorable scenes and images and Ivan's Childhood has those certainly, the dream sequences make the film(i.e. Ivan and his sister on the apple cart in the rain) but standing out too are the magical birch forest scene, the emotionally harrowing scene in the dark house and especially one of the most heart-breakingly powerful endings ever. What's remarkable is that while the story sounds simple, there are several characteristic Tarkovsky themes for so early on his career and when it comes to mood Ivan's Childhood works amazingly.

Furthermore the story of Ivan's Childhood is incredibly touching, the childhood scenes are the epitome of innocence in a heartfelt, sometimes entertaining and charming way and in complete contrast(without feeling like two different films) the effect of the war and combat is both grotesque and poetic. The characters are interesting and vibrantly portrayed, although Masha is a little one-note for my tastes, Ivan is a compellingly real character who is easy to identify with from the get go. The acting is very good, outstanding in fact in the case of Nikolai(Kolya) Burlylaev who gives one of the best child performances I've ever seen on film. Overall, for a directorial/feature film debut Ivan's Childhood is incredible and as an overall film it's near-masterpiece quality. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Skillful, but not Especially Engaging

[benjaminburt · 7/10 · 3 November 2017]

Ivan's Childhood is a pretty masterful example of editing, cinematography, acting, direction, and pretty much everything else that's right about film. Unfortunately, the drama or suspense is not very gripping.

This is as simple as I can put it. Film buffs will probably love this movie. It's crafted like a work of art. The average moviegoer will probably be bored during the film.

This film kind of defies convention and rating. I thought it was well- made, I just thought it wasn't very engaging.

Ivan, a shattered life

[andrabem · 10/10 · 17 May 2007]

"Childhood of Ivan" is not only about Ivan's life but it stands as a symbol for the many Russian lives shattered by the war. This is an elliptical film, that is, it doesn't reveal everything - it suggests.

"Childhood of Ivan" requires the use of your brain and imagination, but it is in no way a difficult film. Once you accept not understanding everything right now, just relax and follow the images and sounds and you are ready for the "Childhood of Ivan".

As I said before the film uses many ellipses to show Ivan's fractured life - he plays in the fields, his mother calls him and smiles; a water well, he stares down at the water and his mother stands beside him and tells a story about the stars; we hear a gun shot, someone lying on the grass; Ivan is wading through a swamp to reach a soviet army unit.

The war is not shown at all - it is suggested. We only see the enemy soldiers once for a brief moment. And two hanged men is all there is to denounce the carnage of the war. The rest is suggested by unfinished speeches, by faces where pain is followed right after by the desire to live and be happy......

Ivan's memories: His mother, his sister and their games, the beach, the sea and the rain, his captivity - his life, a broken life. Nothing remained for him in life but to fight - to fight against the enemy that had taken everything from him.

I repeat that "Childhood of Ivan" is not a partisan film, it doesn't try to demonize the adversaries. I would call it much more an intimist film, somewhat in the vein of "Les Jeux Interdits", but Ivan's childhood was over after the horrors he had to go through; his only way to survive as a human being was to fight the horror that had crippled his life, while the children of "Les Jeux Interdits" went on with their children games in spite of the war. France, because of her fast surrender, was preserved from the butchery inflicted on the Soviet Union.

I recommend this film to everyone who wants to see a paradoxically sad, beautiful, reflexive and passionate film.

A childhood like no other.

[Gary-161 · 2 February 2000]

Tarkovsky appeared dismissive of this, his first feature, saying it was the sort of project dreamed up in film school pool halls. It was not a film he himself instigated, but it cannot for a moment be described as uncommitted or pedestrian. It most closely resembles some of the other 'names' in purely artistic cinema of the day in terms of formal style, Tarkovsky having not at that point worked out his own unique and so far inimitable 'style', if that's the right word. The dream sequence with the apples, though brilliantly done, seems derivative. He never used optical flourishes like that again.

Tarkovsky believed a great deal of editing for the audience was vulgar and inimitable to great art, but this film is quite structured and conventional compared to his later slower and arguably more obscure works. The key performance comes from Ivan himself, a fine effort from one so young, and indeed Tarkovsky used him again in the bell section of Andrei Rublev; although he used rather harsh methods to get the performance he wanted in that case. Obviously influenced by Dreyer, you see the beginnings of Andrei's obsession with water and it's reflective calm around more tempestuous events. His use of black and white stock in terms of lighting is exemplary.

The film's title is ironic as Ivan does not have a childhood, but the films majestic and moving final shot suggests that Ivan does receive a kind of immortality beyond the bleak finality of his discovered photo in Berlin, that the Russian spirit itself cannot be stifled and will ultimately run free.

A memorable film.

[Member · 10/10 · 28 October 2000]

This film by Tarkovsky depicts the story of Ivan, a child partisan in the eastern front during the second world war. The strength and immersion of the film are quite amazing, although it was made almost forty years ago it has not lost any of it's power and is still absolutely gripping. The dream sequences are especially powerful in the way they show the history and state of mind of the young Ivan.

The acting is very good and so are all the other aspects such as editing and cinematography that is exceptionally good. Overall the film is an example of directorial excellence, from a very simple story Tarkovsky is able to build a larger history with obvious references to christianity. Questions about humanity and the nature of humankind are in the center of this film and there are many reasons why this is one of the best war films that exist.

Maximum Chiaroscuro

[valis1949 · 10/10 · 3 March 2009]

IVAN'S CHILDHOOD is a masterful black and white work in which Andrei Tarkovsky demonstrates a complete command of stylistic improvisation, visual experimentation and complex use of symbolism. It is no less than astonishing that this is his first film. The story is a fairly simple tale of a young boy who wants to continue as a dangerous scout on the Russian front during the last days of WWII much to the dismay of the Soviet staff. The director employs an elliptical narrative which oscillates between an inner, dream-like vision, and actual events. Segments of the film are often introduced with extreme closeups which, at first, are difficult to recognize or understand. However, each scene is composed with the utmost attention to detail, and I don't think many paintings are created with this degree of clinical precision. Compositions begin stark and finely etched, and then seem to explode with meaning after the introduction of light and shadow. Although the film is set within the War Genre, the movie examines how war destroys the innocence of childhood. This masterwork contrasts the difference between an idyllic past where childhood should exist, and the brutal, warlike landscape of the front-lines. IVAN'S CHILDHOOD is a triumph of complex mood and nuanced style, and is truly one of the greats.

Childhood Interrupted

[Galina_movie_fan · 10/10 · 6 December 2006]

The first full-length feature film by the great Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky caused a sensation when it was released and shown at Venice Film Festival in 1962 where it won the Golden Lion. The world had not seen such a powerful motion picture about war and what it does to the youngest and weakest - the children. It is a bleak, haunting and horrifying portrait of lost innocence and the childhood that was interrupted the very day the boy's family was murdered. Although Ivan survived physically, he was changed forever, not a boy but a man who looked in the eye of triumphant death and horror. The film introduces young Nikolai (Kolya) Burlyaev in the fascinating performance as Ivan. "Ivan's Childhood" is a screen adaptation of the story by a Russian writer Vladimir Bogomolov "Ivan" which is a fiction story but it is based on the real facts. Millions young boys and girls perished during the endless days, months, and years of the worst war of the last century. Bogomolov fought as a soldier during the WWII. He was only 15 years old but he had forged his papers - added two years, dropped from his school and joined the Army. He had been seriously wounded three times but survived and finished the war in Berlin - the 19 year old soldier with six medals for courage and heroism. He was a very good writer and I love his books "Moment of Truth" ("In the August of 1944"), and "Zosya" that were also adapted to very good movies in Russia.

Alas, the pattern sets in early: a great director whose own theories prevent him from making a great film

[Spleen · 6/10 · 2 March 2002]

Tarkovsky's book about cinema ("Sculpting in Time") reveals its author's theoretical ability to be purely negative. He's good at coming up with telling objections to opposing theories; but when it comes time to make positive assertions of his own, he doesn't do so and he doesn't candidly confess that he cannot do so; instead, he waffles.

He argues persuasively that cutting doesn't have the importance others attach to it, and that no amount or style of editing can turn limp footage into exciting footage. All very true. So what IS cutting good for? It's hard to tell, but I think Tarkovsky's short answer is "nothing much". The only positive assertion he can make is that every shot (EVERY shot!) should be complete in itself.

Many shots in "Ivan's Childhood" are, and are consequently hard to forget: the falling-in-a-dream shot at the beginning, the bomb in the well, all those images of the marshy forest (especially the shot of the flare travelling in a distant arc above it), that incomprehensible bit with the horse and the apples. These images are hard to forget, but Tarkovsky's refusal to do anything - anything at all - with them, renders them pointless. There's less point or internal unity to this film than there is to "Fantasia", which consists of seven semi-autonomous productions glued together, or "Andrei Rublyov", Tarkovsky's masterful second feature, in which (as with "Fantasia") the unit of meaning is the episode, not the individual image.

Anothing "Sculpting in Time" says is that art's purpose (its only purpose) is to improve our souls and prepare them for the afterlife. On these terms, is "Ivan's Childhood" successful? Since Tarkovsky means his criteria to be taken literally, the answer is no; take them metaphorically, and it's hard to see what he's talking about. But by sensible standards the film is a failure. We have wonderful material (in a sense, the film is ALL wonderful material) sitting there waiting for someone to turn it into a film.

The youth is out there

[bako101 · 9/10 · 9 December 2002]

Tarkovsky's monochrome delight deals with the tragedy of youth lost in war. Its main theme is of childhood innocence lost (becoming accessible to Ivan only in dreams) however the young officers are also vastly aged by the conflict they find themselves in.

The backdrop is nature itself - woodpeckers and cuckoos emulate (or become replaced by) the sounds of machine gun fire and the hoots of the falling flares. It pervades most scenes: the seemingly endless channel of water between the opposing sides, the huge birch trees stretching out as high and as far as the eye can see while also providing bunkers for the Russian forces. But nature's power is continually challenged by the great war going on around it and is ultimately defiled and devastated (like Ivan's, and the other young officers' innocence) - turning from green grasslands to mud and ashen trees.

Reminded me of 'The Thin Red Line' in its use of the natural world war tries to ignore. The shots are honestly stunning. The leads are all fantastic. Enjoy the desolation.

Beautifully bleak

[rooee · 7/10 · 26 April 2010]

Ivan (Nikolay Burlyaev) may be a tad less naive, but there's undeniably something of Come and See's Florya in his anger and his resourcefulness. Like Elem Klimov's devastating classic, there's a mouldy, naturalistic bleakness about Ivan's Childhood that does nothing to brighten the horror of World War II. Using a fractured narrative structure, Andrei Tarkovsky's first feature film concerns the titular orphan and his experiences as a scout on the Soviet Eastern Front.

The film sidesteps the potential sentimentality of its premise (a definite risk given the presence of prominent father and brother figures) by using the situation to ask greater questions about the nature of war. When Ivan throws a tantrum when he's told by his commander that he's going to military school instead of the Front, we naturally question the boy's moral maturity, and his limited understanding of the hypocrisies and complexities of why men fight. And yet, by observing events unfold from Ivan's perspective, aren't we being made to ask such questions of ourselves? Do we really know better than him? With his family gone, and with his youthful eagerness and wanderlust, and his simple smallness, Ivan is more than qualified for his desired role. Hasn't he earned it?

Fans of Solaris will instantly recognise Tarkovsky's ability to find the image that best depicts his characters' psychological state, without recourse to melodrama. "Actors" need not apply. Tarkovsky's eye is so exacting, so demanding, that it's like we're looking through some kind of x-ray vision, trained on the soul. And what soul there is to Tarkovsky: the last frames are the equal of those which close his elegiac science-fiction masterpiece.

If ever one needs convincing of the difference between film as art and film as entertainment, perhaps Tarkovsky should be the first port of call. Not simply because a film like Ivan's Childhood (a perfect title, by the way) is so multi-layered, metaphorical, psychologically complex, eerie, strange and moving – but because all those ARTISTIC elements combine to form a highly ENTERTAINING film, thus making a nonsense of the notion that European "art" film exists to be admired but not enjoyed. Few film-makers can claim to have exploded such distinctions.

Totally different, but great point of view

[taranchic · 10/10 · 3 January 2014]

This film is a story about a 12 year old boy Ivan, who happened to spend his childhood within the world of Great Patriotic War. He wasn't supposed to be a part of such a cruel occurrence as war, but having lost parents, chose to help his companions-in-arms in risky and crucial way.

In my opinion, Andrei Tarkovsky has made more an art house film than just a typical soviet military drama. We don't see cruel battles, we don't see divided by war love, we don't see a war itself after all. All we see is the consequences of the war in theirs different appearances. The objective of this movie is common - to show what gore and sorrow the war is holding. But Tarkovsky shows us this gore and sorrow in an interesting, unusual way, through the eyes of little boy, through his mind and dreams also. A black-and-white sharp and high-contrast shot adds definition and dramatic atmosphere to the picture. There are a lot of really frightening and inappropriate for children scenes in the movie shown by Tarkovsky in order to achieve necessary level of horror that war provides.

So I think Andrei Tarkovsky made a great and strong film showing all horror and gore of war in a different style. A am sure, you won't see any familiar to this one military drama, it's totally unique.

A beauty to watch, but not Tarkovsky's greatest work

[JakobKarboe · 6/10 · 7 December 2017]

Yeah its nice to look at, but I need a films to be more than a hot beast. Yeah, the kid actor is superb, and the most of the others actors are OK, still, its' structure i flawed. I miss a driving conflict. Tarkovsky did not build up enough tension for us to wonder if the kid will make it. Another grand problem is the phasing towards post middle and end, especially the end. I know a film necessarily doesn't need a climax, but this films really clumsy cuts to the victory of the bolsheviks.

Didn't like it

[jessespeer · 2/10 · 11 May 2009]

I did not like this movie. I actually found it pretty awful. The overall story is not worth the time. And it's just strange watching all these cute/pretty actors in a war film. It doesn't make any sense. They all have perfect faces and haircuts. Seriously every character looks like a fashion model, it's kind of creepy. The kid's character was not very believable. Much of the film was spent on flashbacks of the kid's past, and by the end I still didn't get why/how he became a soldier at such a young age. They say because he's small but I don't really buy it...None of the characters were very interesting. A lot of the shots dragged on way too long. The ending was predictable and was cued by typical dramatic music. I was not impressed.

Probably the best Russian World War II drama you will ever see.

[simonapro · 22 August 2002]

(***** out of *****)

Ivan's Childhood is Tarkovsky's debut feature film about a 12 year old boy who volunteers to fight in the front lines against the German invasion because his family where murdered by Nazis. His size and height make him the perfect spy for the Russians as he slides his way across muck and swamp to bring back vital information about the German offence that no other man can achieve. At the same time his commanding officers object to this boy being used as a tool of war but have no control over the matter because of Ivan's convictions to bring down those that killed his parents.

Shot in beautiful monochrome the camera never ceases to capture nature, religion, dreams and love - all of which are major elements in any Tarkovsky film. This motion picture is one of the most stunning independent movies you will ever see.

Sometimes Ivan cries like the child he is but this is not because of the burden of war but because he can not do what he wants most - to avenge the death of his family. Other times he is like a General in the making - standing up to his commanders, spitting orders back at them, making other soldiers look pale in comparison and walking into the fray without any fear attached. The dichotomy of his fractured personality is evident the most when he is alone. One moment he is dreaming of his mother, the next he is stalking the ghost of a Nazi murderer in the room where he sleeps (which is one of the most disturbing scenes in this film).

The final sequence in the ruins of Berlin fully brings home the impact of the film's premise. This is a story about Ivan's Childhood and that is exactly what you get. Heart wrenching from the first frame to the last and never equalled. To think this was all made in 1962! Shocking cinema at its very best.

Sheer poetry

[gbill-74877 · 9/10 · 24 July 2019]

A war film that is gritty and yet sheer poetry on the screen. There are so many visually stunning shots in Ivan's Childhood that I was often simply awestruck. The film delivers a message of national pride for the Soviets having defeated the Germans, but does it in such an unconventional way stylistically, and highlights the brutal human cost of the war in one of the simplest yet heart-wrenching ways possible, via an orphan (Nikolay Burlyaev in the titular role). He's not just any orphan, he's a tough 12 year old bent on revenge because his family has been killed, and he's taken up top-secret scouting missions for the army. Tarkovsky makes fantastic use of the contrast between dream/fantasy sequences and harsh reality, and even the latter is highly stylized, giving the film a lyrical, haunting feeling to it. He also did a great job in casting Burlyaev, who shows the range of innocence and joy in his dreams and surprises us with how hardnosed he is in reality. Valentina Malyavina is also quite striking as the young medical assistant, with her big, soulful eyes.

Despite what is a fairly straightforward plot, the film can be a little disorienting at times, as Tarkovsky challenges us to fill in little gaps or interpret what we see, but it's never onerously so. He tells the story as a poet would, and gives us so many extraordinary images ... the dream sequence involving the well, with camera pointing upwards from beneath the water ... the birch forest with its endless trees, and that kissing scene (wow!) ... Ivan walking into a spiky circular phalanx of war ruins ... the sequence on the beach, with the game in which the children tellingly all fall down, and then Ivan running along the water with the little girl. He experiments with effects, camera angles, and even a couple of wonderful moments where the camera suddenly takes the dizzying point of view of a character. All of that makes the film dreamlike, but we also see devastation, and actual footage of some of the Nazi leaders and their families found after having committed suicide at the end of the war. There is such sadness here, and poignancy in the question "will this be the last war on earth?" Highly recommended, especially if you're new to Tarkovsky, since at 95 minutes the film has a concision and pace to it that many of his other films don't.

Very sad....yet, in an odd way, quite beautiful.

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 12 January 2013]

I have seen several very remarkable Russian films about World War II. Considering how badly the nation was decimated, it's not surprising that their films have a strong sense of sadness and sentiment. My favorite of these is "Ballad of a Soldier", but "The Cranes are Flying" and "Ivan's Childhood" are also amazingly good.

"Ivan's Childhood" is about a boy who was left orphaned during the German invasion of his country. He is eventually found by the Russian army and he becomes a spy for them. Soon, he becomes a top spy--able to sneak back and forth across the lines and report back about the German movements--hardly noticed since he's a very small boy. But the Russian officers are adamant--no matter how valuable he's become, the boy MUST have a chance at a normal childhood. So they try repeatedly to send him to safety--and again and again he escapes and continues working for the war effort. Where all this goes is profoundly sad--but also, in an odd way, exceptionally artistic and lyrical. Andrey Tarkovskiy did an amazing job here--directing his first, and perhaps best, film. A few of the great film techniques is the way they showed Ivan's Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the nice use of flashbacks and the emotions in the film. Well worth seeing--but certainly NOT a feel-good film--which makes sense because the war was so wasteful and brutal.

By the way, an odd thing about the translation of the film with English subtitles. Instead of the word 'sir', soldiers address their superiors as 'your majesty'!

Point of No Return

[ilpohirvonen · 10/10 · 20 December 2010]

Born in Soviet Union, Andrei Tarkovsky was a master of world cinema. His production is compact but the range is vast: from historical epics to futuristic visions and movements of the human mind. Ivanovo detstvo or Ivan's Childhood was his first feature length film, which was based on a short story 'Ivan' by Vladimir Bogolomov, published a few years earlier. The portrayal of war from a child's perspective instantly proved the master's talent and his unique personality.

The plot is quite difficult to summarize without getting into the details: the film builds on a series of episodes from the WWII. The protagonist is a 12-year-old boy, whose family has been killed by Germans. A group of Russian soldiers pick him up but when the boy refuses to leave and wants to take part in military actions; they're forced to keep him. The character of Ivan is built marginally: he is serious and smiles rather rarely, he lives a life which sadly has become quite normal for him - the concept of what is right and what is normal is totally twisted for him. At times he gets sudden aggressive bursts of hatred and moments of juvenile joy, when he forgets that he is a soldier.

The poetic narrative of Ivan's Childhood is both classic and modern, Tarkovsky's style is strong, classical but on the other hand he modernizes cinematic poetry and creates something completely new and original. The film builds on many poetic contrasts: reality and fantasy, life and delusions, deserted dark areas and beautiful light birch forests. Dreams, fantasies and returning memories form pictures of the past, which are shown to us as the story goes on. As Tarkovsky realistically portrays the horrors of war, he paradoxically finds something poetic and beautiful in its all cruelty.

Ivan's Childhood is a cruel and honest film. Does it portray the world where the point of no return has not yet been passed or one where there is no turning back. With regards to Tarkovsky's pessimism, obviously the latter. The story could've easily been juvenile and conventional but not in this case where Tarkovsky created an extremely original film about war in the eyes of a 12-year-old. Ivan's Childhood grows out to be a film, not just against war but against everything which turns us into something cruel, against everything which allows children to be exploited and let's them lose their innocence and childhood.

Not perfect, but still a great film

[zetes · 9/10 · 22 January 2002]

With this, I have now seen all seven of Andrei Tarkovsky's features. I still have to see Steamroller and Violin, his student film. From a directorial standpoint, Ivan's Childhood is Tarkovsky's weakest film. It does not contain the kinds of things we associate with Tarkosky the auteur. If I had seen this when it first appeared, I would have definitely been impressed with it. But with Andrei Rublev, Tarkovsky created one of the best films ever made, a label that Ivan's Childhood is not likely to ever receive. Still, it is a great film with several great scenes. The problem is that Tarkovsky took this film over from another director. He didn't plan it. His major contributions were the several dream sequences, which are the best parts of the film (especially the one where Ivan and his sister are riding in the back of an apple truck when it is raining). Besides these dream sequences, there are several other good sequences and at least one other great one (the scene I refer to here is the one in the birch forest with Masha). The final sequence is beautiful and it brought me to tears. 9/10.

What Childhood?

[sol- · 7/10 · 12 June 2017]

Somewhat ironically titled, this Andrei Tarkovsky war drama is about the protagonist's lack of a real childhood; orphaned during World War II, he spends his days running errands for Soviet soldiers to avoid being sent to school, however, dreams and nightmares of his prewar life frequently haunt him. Nikolay Burlyaev is very effective in the lead role and the film is as sumptuously filmed as Tarkovsky's better known colour films. Right from the opening shot that magnificent pans up a tall tree, to spinning and angular shots as Ivan remembers what is to like to roam free, it is evident from early on that the film will be quite a visual ride - and indeed it is. Tarkovsky evens puts negative (inverted colours) stock to good use. Impressive as all this may be, 'Ivan's Childhood' is a bit of a bumpy ride. Valentina Malyavina is quite alluring as a character called Masha, however, all dramatic tension comes to a stand-still when the film randomly stops to concentrate on her walking in the woods for minutes on end. In fact, pretty much all the scenes without Burlyaev (give or take the final ending) feel very cut and dry. There are a lot of dialogue exchanges between the soldiers without Ivan in the room, which feels like a misstep since the film truly comes to life in both the moments when Ivan tries to act like a soldier himself and when Ivan remembers back to what life once was.

Beautiful and touching.

[chris.rodda · 10/10 · 6 September 2001]

A superb film, by turns lyrical, harsh and tense, with a deep sympathy for ordinary people caught up in inexplicable events overwhelming their lives. The uneasy state of the Russian army, facing the German front across wetlands, is reflected in the characters - the boy and the men are getting 'jittery' - and the destruction waged on the landscape reflects the damage done to the people themselves: the old man with his cockerel and, especially, Ivan, who slips between the dreams of sleep and the nightmare of living. Nature and innocence are linked, and the scene in the birch forest is especially effective. A life-enhancing film, both poetic and poignant.

Tarkovsky's first

[frankde-jong · 7/10 · 5 October 2019]

"Ivan's childhood" was Tarkovsky's debut. It may be a rather conventional movie in his whole oeuvre, but the beginning of typical Tarkovsky feautures are already visible. There is stil a difference between dreamsequences and reality, but the dreamsequences are already there. The interpretation of these dreamsequences is rather subjective but some of them are stunningly beautiful. I think above all about the scene where a carriage full of apples keep losing them on the beach and horses are eating the fallen apples.

In the Soviet Union films about the Second World War were popular. Initially the films were about Soviet heroes against Nazi monsters. In the Chroetrsjov period, war films became somewhat more nuanced and varied. The most famous exemple of this is without any doubt "The cranes are flying" (1957, Mikhail Kalatozov). "Ivan's childhood" is a (somewhat lesser known) example of this period of relative creative freedom in Soviet filmmaking. In this film the main character is not an adult Soviet soldier but a boy scout penetrating in enemy territory. In this respect it resembles "Come and see" (1985, Elem Klimov), also about the influence of war on a child. In comparison with this film "Ivan's childhood" has less violence and is a lot more philosophical.

Another typical Tarkovsky element already visible in "Ivan's childhood" is the importance of the landscape for the mood of the film. The swamp seems to anticipate on the zone in "Stalker" (1979, Andrei Tarkovsky). The birch forrest on the other hand may be well inspired by "Letter never sent" (1960, Mikhail Kalatozov). In fact Tarkovsky tried to hire the cinematographer of this film (Sergey Urusevsky) for "Ivan's childhood". He dit not succeed, but the performance of Vadim Yusov (the cinematographer who did shoot the film) is worth of the highest praise.

a word from a genius

[mario-rad · 10/10 · 17 January 2003]

This is the movie that APOCALYPSE NOW tried to be with all of its grand visuals. Tarkovski did something in hour and a half that Coppola tried in three. How beautiful, important and brilliant this movie is, can´t be explained. You have to see it and sense it through your every pore. True master-piece from the greatest director in the world (apologies to Bergman and Kubrick).

Tarkovsky's first feature film is a memorable one, but immature compared to his later ones

[crculver · 6/10 · 1 September 2018]

IVAN'S CHILDHOOD, released in 1962, was Soviet director's Andrei Tarkovsky first feature film. An adaptation of a short story by Vladimir Bogomolov set in World War II, its protagonist is a 12 year-old orphan (Nikolai Burlyaev) on the Eastern Front whose small size allows him to scout German positions undetected. Ivan's missions have been useful to the army, but officers Lt. Col. Gryaznov (Nikolai Grinko), Capt. Kholin (Valentin Zubkov) and Lt. Galtsev (Evgeny Zharikov) would like very much to send him to a military academy to get him away from the front, especially as the final offensive against the Germans is imminent.

The action in the film plays out between two of Ivan's ventures across the river Dniepr into German-held territory. It depicts the difficult life of the soldiers at the front and the destruction that war brought to the Soviet village whose damaged buildings now host the army. Ivan's back story is revealed elliptically through comments among the soldiers, dream sequences or flashbacks. A subplot involves Kholin's disturbing attempts to seduce Nurse Masha (Valentina Malyavina) and, in stark contrast to earlier Soviet treatments of the war, suggest that in wartime one's own fellow soldiers can just as dangerous as the enemy.

As far as Tarkovsky films go, IVAN'S CHILDHOOD is still an immature work. You'll find nothing of the slow, almost ritualistic pacing that marks his later films, and this comes in at a compact 90 minutes. Still, a few shots (tracking shots of a wall, Ivan flipping through a book of religious art) seem like mature Tarkovsky in embryo, and the prominent use of religious iconography (crosses, fresco) is already here. Vadim Yusov's cinematography is memorable, with its several "layers" of view in certain shots, and the prominent framing of shots with broken timber beams that seem to hinder the characters. I was however very disappointed that at the end, the film segues into basically a Soviet anti-German propaganda film, complete with archival footage of the Soviet capture of Berlin. It is like some completely different filmmaker took over.

First time feature director's dazzling visual competency subsumed by weak script

[Turfseer · 5/10 · 24 May 2014]

'Ivan's Childhood' is also known as 'My Name is Ivan' in the United States. It was the first feature film of the famed Soviet director, Andrei Tarkovsky, who took over the project from another young director after it was rejected for "poor quality." Tarkovsky based the film on a short story by Vladimir Bogomolov, a very successful writer during the Soviet era. Supposedly, Bogomolov drew upon his experiences as a soldier in World War II but according to Wikipedia, some journalists believe that he never fought in the war and all his writings constitute a hoax!

Tarkovsky immediately established a big reputation when he won awards at the Venice Film Festival as well as the San Francisco International Film Festival in 1962. Even Ingmar Bergman was quoted as saying that "My discovery of Tarkovsky's first film was like a miracle. Suddenly, I found myself standing at the door of a room the keys of which had, until then, never been given to me. It was a room I had always wanted to enter and where he was moving freely and fully at ease." Not everyone was completely effusive about 'Ivan'. The NY Times critic at the time, Bosley Crowther stated, "The one exception I take to this picture, which is based on a short story by Vladimir Bogpmolov, is that its structure is a bit too frail. Its emotional communication is too dependent on its impressionistic details."

Indeed, it's the assorted palate of individual visual scenes that have drawn viewers to this film time and again. A good number stick in your mind (here are just a few): flashbacks of Ivan's mother and her subsequent demise; the dead soldiers on the other side of the river with the sign 'welcome'; Ivan being carried to bed by one of his soldier-protectors; the horses eating the apples; the soldier holding the nurse over the ravine; the graffiti of doomed partisans urging future viewers to "take revenge"; and the striking cinematography filmed on location in the marshlands near Kaniv at the Dnieper River.

Despite all these great visuals, the film still doesn't work very well due to the weak script. Since the carnage of war is only suggested (which was obviously intentional on Tarkovsky's part not to show any overt clashes between Germans and Russians), he was forced to fall back on the conflict between the Soviet soldiers and their 12 year old charge, the jaded Ivan. Tarkovsky relies on the main conflict in which Ivan insists on continuing his activities as a scout as opposed to the Russian commanders, who insist that he be taken from the front lines and placed in military school. This tedious battle goes on for much too long until two soldiers, Kholin and Galtsev, who have befriended Ivan, decide to ferry him across the river and allow him safe passage into the forest, where he'll continue acting as a child soldier (Kholin and Galtsev meanwhile retrieve their two dead comrades under the tree).

There's also a sub-plot that seems to go nowhere. Captain Kholin makes some aggressive moves on the Army Nurse Masha in the forest; you would figure that this might end up as some kind of sexual assault but nothing like that happens. The scene is probably there because simply focusing exclusively on the inert conflict between Ivan and the soldiers, cannot carry the entire narrative.

The Ivan denouement is interesting because Tarkovsky uses archival footage from the Fall of Berlin. There are some disturbing images, particularly shots of the Goebbels' children, who were poisoned by their parents in Hitler's bunker days before Germany's official surrender. He uses this footage to work in a scene where one of Ivan's soldier friend discovers the boy's ultimate fate (executed by the Nazis, by beheading!).

Ultimately, the message of a poor 12 year old orphan caught up in the horrors of war fails to have the shattering impact that most critics insist that it does. I can only surmise that many of these critics were so impressed by the dazzling virtuosity of a first time feature director's extraordinary visual competency, that any objective observations concerning plot, were lost. But there's simply not enough compelling conflict to keep this anti-war vehicle completely afloat. What's more, I understand the whole idea that Ivan's misguided thirst for revenge illustrates how war can affect an innocent child, in such a deleterious way. And of course his ultimate fate, is supposed to be quite tragic. But somehow I felt emotionally detached from Ivan probably because of the child's own detachment from reality. Tarkovsky's impressive impressionistic techniques at the same time leads to an emotional distancing. We see the dreamlike shot of Ivan's mother after she's killed but we never get to know who she is. Likewise her executioners. All we're left with is the emotionally detached Ivan and his enablers—again not a big enough canvas for compelling drama.

You might be interested in the fate of the actor who played Ivan-- Nikolay Burlyaev. Actually he's done quite well for himself: Since 1991, the founder and director of the Moscow Film Festival of Slavic and Orthodox Peoples and since 1996, founder and chairman of the International Association of Cinematographers of Slavic and Orthodox Peoples. One disturbing caveat according to Wikipedia: "In March 2014 he signed a letter in support of the position of the President of Russia Vladimir Putin on Russia's military intervention in Ukraine."