What the Ground Gave Way To
Introduction:
A horse stands in a field, refusing to eat. The shot holds. Nothing happens for what feels like a very long time, and then nothing continues to happen, and the refusal itself becomes the event. No cut arrives to tell you what it means. No music swells to direct your feeling. The camera simply waits, the way a person might wait beside someone who has stopped speaking, and the waiting is the whole of the argument.
Get Dymphna's Archive’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
That patience is not a stylistic tic. It is a position — one taken, independently and for entirely different reasons, by five directors working across five collapsed certainties, from the rubble of the 1940s to the uncertain turn of the new millennium: Andrei Tarkovsky in the Soviet Union, Béla Tarr in Hungary, Ingmar Bergman in Sweden, Federico Fellini in Italy, Akira Kurosawa in Japan. None of them set out to belong to a movement. None of them would have recognised the others as travelling companions. What connects them is not a school, an influence, or even a shared aesthetic — Fellini’s crowded, cascading frames have almost nothing visually in common with Tarr’s bare, exhausted plains. What connects them is a problem, and the problem is this: what do you do, formally, once the story you were told about the world no longer holds?
Each of the five inherited a rupture that was not of their own making, and none of them chose the terms of it. Tarkovsky worked inside a state that had made materialism doctrine, an apparatus with no official use for the soul, and spent his career smuggling faith back into a cinema that was never supposed to need it. Tarr watched a slow-motion collapse — the exhausted stagnation of late Kádár-era Hungary curdling, over years rather than months, into the uncertain scramble after 1989 — and refused to dramatise it as either tragedy or liberation, because it was neither, not from where he was standing. Bergman carried his own inheritance, a clergyman’s household and the Lutheran God who came with it, into a cinema where that God does not so much vanish as go quiet, which is a crueller condition than his absence would have been. Fellini watched Italian neorealism, the documentary claim that a camera could simply show you the truth of postwar life, run out of road — the rubble had been filmed, the poverty had been filmed, and the films had not, in the end, changed very much — and answered not with more truth but with more spectacle. Kurosawa made films in a defeated, occupied Japan where the old feudal certainties and the anxious new postwar ones sat uneasily side by side, sometimes within the same film, and where even honest testimony about a single afternoon could fracture into four irreconcilable accounts, none of them a lie.
Five ruptures. Five entirely different answers. What they share is a refusal of the easiest tool available to any storyteller: the cut that explains, the resolution that settles, the ending that tells you what to feel about everything that came before. In its place, each reaches for duration — the shot held past the point of comfort, the image returned to again and again until it stops being a symbol and starts being simply itself. Tarkovsky’s water is not a metaphor for anything so much as it is water, insisted upon, again and again, until insistence becomes a kind of argument. Tarr’s mud is not despair rendered visually; it is mud, and the fact that nobody in his films can get out of it is the whole of what he has to say. This is the family resemblance across the five: not a technique borrowed from one another, but a shared conviction that meaning, after the ground has gone, cannot be assembled the way a plot assembles it. It has to be endured into.
This series takes that conviction as its spine, and then deliberately breaks from it wherever the individual director demands it. Kurosawa is included last, and avowedly for the pleasure of the collision — his rain-soaked judgments and his rare, hard-won faith in collective action sit at an angle to the other four that is worth feeling rather than smoothing over. Fellini’s answer to exhausted certainty is not withholding at all, but accumulation — more circus, more procession, more excess, precisely when a quieter director would have gone silent. The five pieces that follow will each stay close to one director and one body of work, tracing the specific, concrete images each returns to — water, mud, faces, carnival, rain — and the particular argument each is making with them. Where a comparison earns its place, it will surface briefly, in service of the director under discussion, and go no further than that.
What follows, then, is not a claim that these five belong to a single tradition, and it resists tidying them into one. It is an account of five people, working alone, in different languages and under different pressures, who arrived at the same intuition without ever comparing notes: that after the old answers fail, you do not replace them with new ones. You do not rush to fill the space where certainty used to sit. You build something out of what is left standing — a face, a field, a fall of rain — and you let it take as long as it needs to.
