Watch Andrei Tarkovsky’s Films Free Online: Stalker, The Mirror & Andrei Rublev

The stench of Vladimir Putin and his invasion of Ukraine shouldn’t taint everything Russian, especially some of its finest cinema. So we’ll give you this heads up: Mosfilm, the largest and oldest film studio in Russia, has posted several major films by Andrei Tarkovsky (1932-1986), on its official YouTube channel. Above, you can watch Stalker, which we’ve covered amply here on Open Culture. Below, stream The Mirror, Andrei Rublev, and Ivan’s Childhood.

The Mirror

Andrei Rublev

Ivan’s Childhood

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newsletter, please find it here.

If you would like to support the mission of Open Culture, consider making a donation to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your contributions will help us continue providing the best free cultural and educational materials to learners everywhere. You can contribute through PayPal, Patreon, and Venmo (@openculture). Thanks!

Related Content:

The Masterful Polaroid Pictures Taken by Filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky

Tarkovsky’s Advice to Young Filmmakers: Sacrifice Yourself for Cinema

Andrei Tarkovsky Calls Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey a “Phony” Film “With Only Pretensions to Truth

Slavoj Žižek Explains the Artistry of Andrei Tarkovsky’s Films: Solaris, Stalker & More

Watch Stalker, Andrei Tarkovsky’s Mind-Bending Masterpiece Free Online

Andrei Tarkovsky’s Masterpiece Stalker Gets Adapted into a Video Game


by | Permalink | Comments (110) |

Support Open Culture

We’re hoping to rely on our loyal readers rather than erratic ads. To support Open Culture’s educational mission, please consider making a donation. We accept PayPal, Venmo (@openculture), Patreon and Crypto! Please find all options here. We thank you!

Comments (110)
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
  • pedant says:

    This is great news, and many thanks for doing it – but what’s with the misspelling of Tarkovsky’s name in the URL?

  • Thornton says:


  • Fantastic news! Tarkovsky’s my favorite – so glad to know I can watch his films any time. Also glad that there are at least three other human beings aware of his work!

    Wonderful blog, as well!

  • Chris says:

    Am I missing something, or are these sans subtitles?

  • Some Guy says:

    Hate to tell you but these are NOT public domain or Creative Commons licensed. In the US or Russia. I wish they were, but no.

    And some even have Criterion logos. Criterion is not some megacorporation and does the film world great service in preserving such films. Their profitability and sustainabiity margins are not wide. Things like this do their operations harm.

  • zwgraphiki says:

    I appreciate this director so much especially cause I discovered him by chance (in my uni’s library) and I spent so many hours in the library watching again and again Rublev I even remember quotes (in Russian too). Sabaka!! (the jealous monk to the dog before he kills it…).Not to mention how many scenes are stuck in my mind from that movies (the fire, the young bell maker yelling, the poor jester in the rain, the finale with the orthodox icon montage..). I have watched documentaries about him cause I was curious. He died young but he left us with so much to discuss and think and he did have a voice of his own that I see other directors sort of copy now, dare I say (especially the cinematic poetic device of one scene in slow motion, I think Tarkovsky was one of the first to use it). To me he seems to deliberately urging the craft against any ‘logical’ sequence of storytelling but not cause he wants to appear cool like some todays directors, it was his own genuine way of thinking and practicing art. And he seemed relaxed about the possibility of not being ‘perfect’ (he didnt like his Solaris film). I know nobody alive director who is that down to earth and honest about his own work and cinema in general (Tarkovsky said it is very expensive art). His advice to young directors was ”do not differentiate your work from the kind of life you have”. Tarkovsky’s best movies are about issues he himself understood well (the dying director, the immigrant life, the search for something ‘else’, the reunification with loved ones, so many themes he knew from his own bio). But today you see directors making movies without knowing their subject well, only technical abilities and no intellectual input (talking about contemporary newer German cinema, to give an example). The far east cultures are the only ones producing now any fresh looks on cinematic art.

  • Lars says:

    These films are ripped directly from Criterion DVDs – you can clearly see the logo and this is neither public domain or CC property. People have notified Criterion so I trust they will get in touch with Film Annex and have them removed. In the meantime I think this post should be removed too – advertising illegal rips is surely not the message you’re looking to promote?

  • Erik says:

    It’s without subtitles?

  • Don Alex says:

    Hey, Lars and the Some Guy – goshers, you both must be keenly proud of yourselves for your obsessive concern over the protection of Criterion’s copyrights. We sure wouldnt want anyone watching a 45 year old film for FREE when they should be paying studio suits for that privilege. God, we just admire the HELL out of you both!!

    Are you both feeling proud enough yet, fellas, or should we send you both roses in gratitude for your crack detective work? Ahh well, Im sure youre already on your way to scanning YouTube for videos to report, so dont let me stop ya, kids. Try not to get your superhero capes caught in your pant zippers, k? ;)

  • David says:

    Thanks for posting this. Does anyone know where or how can we get at least English subtitles for Stalker? I wanted to understand anything from what they are saying the the movie does not have subtitles at all…

  • RichofSpirit says:


    Oh, please. Give me a break. “Wah! Free isn’t good enough!” You niggling little infant.

  • kn33ch41 says:

    That’s great!!!

  • Eren Gulfidan says:

    David, are you looking at the right videos? Stalker does have English subtitles. Part 1: and Part 2:

  • Maila says:

    its nt working =(

  • Brad RZ says:

    Don Alex- Criterion are a SMALL, independent company, unaffiliated with any studio, that focuses almost exclusively on costly restorations of niche releases that would otherwise be under-represented or ignored by the mass market.

    As an earlier poster said, their operating expenses are high, and their profit margins are low. There’s actually more expense involved in producing a high-quality transfer of a “45 year old film” than most would imagine.

    They count on the sales from a handful of popular licensed titles to cover the costs of releasing films that they believe are culturally important, but unlikely to turn a profit.

    To brand Criterion as “studio suits” or representatives of “corporate America” is ignorant and misinformed. They are anything but.

  • David says:

    Yes, the new posted links with Stalker split in two, have subtitles. This morning’s one big file (no split) came without subtitles.

  • Marc says:

    This is a great resource, assuming it’s legit or can be made so. Criterion (as well as the other companies distributing these films in the US) do difficult, expensive work keeping this sort of stuff in circulation, and this sort of distribution needs to be approved by them. At the Criterion-associated website, there are hundreds of international cinema classics, available to watch, some for free. I’m assuming they’d want these films available for that purpose, but if they’re cool with film annex’s posting them, all the better.

  • zwgraphici says:

    Perhaps ‘Criterion’ will agree the screenings online are for the benefit of all parties involved. Really Criterion does a great job and I have purchased Waida’s ‘Kanal’ from them and am very thrilled with the quality. You know for us old cinema lovers quality is everything cause many times these movies come with bad quality whether in cinema or tv… Here is Criterion’s website

  • FD says:

    Perhaps Criterion would like to make available a PayPal donation page for voluntary funding for their work.

    Does anyone know if they have one? Personally, I would like to donate some money, after having watched one of these films.

  • FD says:

    I say that because I would like look on the work they do as a public good, and as a service to the intellectual commons. It is a great shame that they have to operate on a commercial model in order to do what they do – there should be arts funding available for the restoration and preservation of our world’s film heritage.

  • PJ says:

    Given the other content on their site, and the fact that most of the Tarkovsky stuff has already been taken down, I would be shocked if Film Annex actually had any rights to show these films.

    And as for those who would like these films and all art to be available for free, I’m all for it, so long as you give me free use and enjoyment of your house, car and bank account first.

  • Proman says:

    Tarkvsky might have been the best known soviet director but calling him the best would be a huge injustice to all the other great soviet filmmaker such as Ryazanov. People who make such claims know nothing about Soviet cinema.

  • Anna says:

    A Bank account and a house cannot help with appreciating/discovering directors like Tarkovsky and what they thought of cinema. Perhaps the only thing that can help on a free basis is a videotape library (that’s I found about about Tarkovsky like I said). Similarly Film Annex or online sites with films serve like libraries with FREE access where one can explore cinema. Even if someone has a non official copy of a movie produced by Criterion, with the Criterion logo everywhere on it and the problem finding good versions of old movies, even a ‘pirate’ would consider it best to buy a criterion dvd than get more illegal copies… Criterion, besides, caters for the minority of movie goers and dvd shoppers (the ones who care for old cinema,, which aren’t as many as those who care for latest Hollywood) and therefore ANY sort of projection of ‘old’ classics would help the public know about them and become Criterion’s clients… Hence, even if it is illegal, Criterion still benefits and it would have been actually a shame for Film Annex to show them online without Criterion’s logo (they give credit). It’s all good and for the benefit of Criterion and such companies in a way…

  • FD says:


    That’s pretty immature. There are viable models coming into existence for the distribution and monetization of content which don’t rely on the property analogy.

    For movies that would otherwise be out of circulation, like this one, the model can be a bit different again to the ones that try to incentivize the production of content.

    Bank accounts, cars and private property cannot be multiplied recursively and distributed at almost zero cost. There are certainly hard problems to be solved in the future with how to continue to incentivize the production and preservation of content, but antiquarian attitudes and smartass rhetorical points don’t address that at all.

  • Mike says:

    FD, that’s absurd. The contents of a bank account can indeed be multiplied recursively and distributed at almost zero cost. It’s called counterfitting. Copyright holders are not the only ones who store the value they build up during a lifetime of labor into “artificially scarce” instruments. Everyone who has ever toiled at a job in exchange for a paycheck has done precisely the same thing. Moreover, there is nothing “artificially” scarce about the allotment of time, health, and creative energy that is granted by nature to each person who produces creative work. The fundamental issue here is not “incentivisation.” It is the question of justice: If one man or woman invests time and labor to create something of value, is it just for someone else to take it for free, simply because they can?

  • FD says:

    The fundamental issue is incentivization. The jurisprudence of copyright law justifies the grant of a commercial monopoly in an intellectual work explicitly in order to incentivize the production of intellectual works. That is the whole reason we have copyright law.

    There is no robust case in favor of intellectual property that relies solely on justice. Justice only comes in granted that there are commercial actions being performed on intellectual works.

    The argument goes (went):

    IF there is going to be commerce in intellectual goods THEN it is just that the author has a monopoly on those goods.

    But if there is no longer commerce in intellectual goods, there is no purchase for an argument for fairness or justice. People cannot have an arbitrary prima facie right to police the actions performed on intellectual works after they are out of their hands. We could arbitrarily stipulate an infinite number of possible rights besides copyrights that authors might have been given over their works if the conditions in which copyright was born had been different, and lament the “injustice” that they do not presently have those rights. The only reason people are disposed to think of this issue as a question of justice is because we are used to the idea of having a copyright.

    If people can have no commercial expectation from the sale of their works, because of the changed nature of the economy of information, then they probably shouldn’t accrue costs in time health and energy doing unpaid work. Contrary to your portrait of the persecuted author, anyone who continues to have an expectation of financial gain from intellectual labour in a world where copyright law has become (much more than today) utterly ineffectual, is being foolish and irresponsible. It is simply financially unwise. And if it’s financially unwise, most people won’t do it. So it really does come down to incentivization. Such a world would have only those artists that can support their creative endeavors themselves.

    Thankfully, that’s not where we’re headed, and it’s not what I’d suggest. I think the landscape will probably change a lot, and copyright will become less integral to a business model based on intellectual works, but it’s pretty obvious that there are still ways to monetize this stuff very effectively, and remunerate authors, thereby incentivizing their labour. It’s likely that there’ll be a digital age analogue of copyright, which grants rights to shares of a public fund proportionate to the popularity of a work. It would be beneficial to try and implement a model like this sooner rather than later. The conservatism of the content industries is delaying that.

    So in answer to your final question, besides it being illegal, and there being a moral obligation to obey the law, I do not see any prima facie injustice in the infringement of copyright.

  • twiddledum says:

    The file-sharing debate is hereby buried. When we talk about file-sharing from now on it’s as one of many ways to copy. We talk about better and worse ways of indexing, archiving and copying, not whether copying is right or wrong. Winter is pouring down the hillside. Make way for spring.

  • Mike says:

    More absurdity. By your logic someone could crank up the counterfeiting machinery to full steam and there would be no “prima facie injustice” in deflating the life savings of people who had toiled for decades to save the currency in a bank account or under a mattress. Rights exist to protect individuals from the tyranny of the mob. Your insistence on framing the issue through the concept of “incentivization” is a classic example of the mentality of the unjust: You treat people as a means to an end (in this case, the means of producing the cultureal works you want to consume) rather than an end in themselves.

  • FD says:

    There is considerably more justificatory weight behind the maintenance of a national economy, and the prohibition of forgery, than there is behind the defense of copyright. Society does not grind to a halt if artists are no longer given an incentive to produce work.

    Your analogy is false, but to it I offer another one. The outlook you profess would have us prohibit the availability of the electric lightbulb because justice demands that the chandler is owed a living.

    The traditional jurisprudence of copyright law, and indeed patent law too, frames the law in terms of incentivization. I’m not choosing to frame it that way. That’s the way jurists have since the Statute of Anne. If you have a conceptual problem with that, it is entirely yours.

  • Mike says:

    A person of conscience is mindful of the lives of anyone affected by any transaction. The fact that you would consciously deny economic justice to a group of people whose products you enjoy is contemptible. My analogy of currency counterfeiting was right on the mark; the reason people don’t stand for counterfeiting is that currency value affects virtually every person on the planet, while only a minority are protected by copyright laws — a minority vulnerable to exploitation by the majority who are consumers. Your analogy of the candle maker/lighbulb is a pure idiocy, and exposes an inability to reason. We are not talking about a group of people whose products have become obsolete by a new technology; we’re discussing the rights of a group of people whose products are still very much in demand and can now be readily stolen due to new technology. I can forgive stupidity, FD, but not the willful denial of justice to people other than yourself. This conversation is over.

  • FD says:

    I don’t deny economic justice to anyone. I think the equation is clear. If there is no hope of remuneration for the production of cultural items – if that expectation is unjustified, don’t bother making them. Find some other way of earning an income. That’s the best way not to be exploited. That’s how a free market works.

    Just to puncture your hysterical rhetoric: copyright infringement is not theft. Theft is a crime. Piecemeal infringement is a tort. Tort is addressed not by prosecution but by litigation. It is a civil matter.

    Ignoring the technicalities for a moment, it isn’t a theft in commonsensical terms either. It is not an “unlawful taking” because it isn’t taking. It’s copying. Nobody gets deprived of the item on which the infringement is performed. It’s importantly different from theft, and those differences speak to the very origins of copyright law, its involvement in the economics and metaphysics of intellectual works, and the difficult situation we find ourselves in now. To ignore them is to risk being whipped up by industry propaganda into a moralistic frenzy. Clearer thinking here is what is needed, and the license to consider the topic from as many angles as possible, and not to rule out innovative ways of thinking about it as “stupid,” indicative of a lack of “conscience,” “contemptible.” That’s just an immature way to have any discussion.

    Finally, I can hold my breath for your forgiveness. Your forgiveness for having enough respect for you to discuss an important issue with you over an internet comment stream. You have to forgive me because I dare to disagree with you, and speak my mind about it. LOL

  • kert says:

    Cool. I wish “Test pilota Pirxa” was available somewher as well.

  • visible says:

    I doubt there is no problem for Criterion having these free to view online. The main point of their DVD releases is the quality & often excellent extras. This online stuff doesn’t come close to the quality of the DVDs. This is great reference material & might pull a few people new to these films who should go & buy the DVDs to see them in their full beauty.

  • aSinc says:

    La questione dei diritti d’autore è inevitabilmente centrale nella circolazione delle opere audiovisive ed entra prepotentemente in gioco quando un’opera supera i confini del proprio bacino linguistico. Dovrebbe essere la politica culturale a occuparsi di risolvere il nodo del superamento delle barriere linguistiche attraverso il doppiaggio e/o il sottotitolaggio destinando risorse adeguate in modo da favorire lo scambio culturale tra i paesi.

  • stumpy says:

    now its not free. epic fail.

  • Fleissenstein says:

    Considering Tarkovsky’s been pushing daisies for a damn long time, I think it’s pretty funny to see people argue which team of lawyers should reap the benefit of work they didn’t do, and are probably younger than most of the films by Tarkovsky. Bunch of necrophiliacs.

  • Jason says:

    There are some works that should definitely be able to be viewed by everyone without cost. Tarkovsky’s films are important and timeless works of art that should be experienced. I’m sure Criterion will be fine, even with these available to watch online for free.

  • His work is mesmerizing and disturbing. Thanks for the post.

  • Hi,
    I ordered the DVD awhile back from Amazon though it’s not meant to be available until August. Is this the same release? The reason I ask is that if you follow the reviews on Amazon, you’ll see that a lot of people were very upset with the quality and the fact that the movie had been brutally edited. BTW, it’s being sold by ‘Indigo Starfish’, is this same release?


  • Mike says:

    Made during Communist USSR era. No Copyright. State owns it all. But distributers may have rights to international distribution.
    These would be akin to all the art and media owned/made by the U.S. government. It is not copyrighted (all U.S. citizens own it) but, the Smithsonian, LOC, etc. may give the right to distribute work. This is why you will see photos and posters of WPA photographers for sale. Anyone can just download a high resolution TIFF of the same image and send it off to be printed at Costco for a few bucks.

  • Murtaza Ali says:

    Sounds really awesome. Tarkovsky has been a great servant to Cinema, one who single-handedly changed its face for the better. I myself have been a great fan of his oeuvre and he’s been a great source of inspiration behing my movie-review blog ‘A Potpourri of Vestiges’. Please follow the link to checkout my review of Stalker:

    A Potpourri of Vestiges’ Review of Stalker (1979)

  • Eric says:

    Just hope it’s going to stay there long enough.

  • CJ says:

    Thanks for making these available. I was hoping to watch Nostalgia, but the subtitles are in Spanish. Is there not one with English Subtitles as well? My Spanish is not much better than my Italian.

  • Arkadiusz Żelazny says:

    Another “good Russian” with polish origins. That’s the way the cookies crumbles.

  • TheMillionMen says:

    FD argues that copyright is a null idea in terms of getting artistic labour paid for. It seems that if (in the present day) artists choose to work for nothing (because their output will not be paid for) then they are being socially irresponsible. These arguments may well be logically consistent (personally, I reserve judgement) but why should we desire a society based only on logical consistency?
    Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any historical examples which demonstrate one of FD’s stated, underlying premises: that society will not collapse if artists cease making art.
    It’s ironic that FD is able to demonstrate such self-importance precisely because of the persistence of art and, thus, those parts of the blogosphere dedicated to it.

  • LeKevbo says:

    Consider this: I value the work of Criterion in making important films look their best. I own several of their DVDs. Now, I currently have no way to see Tarkovsky’s films but by the links provided (when they were functioning and fee-free) and I haven’t the disposable funds to just buy his films on DVD sight unseen. I’m many years out of film school and live where there are no art houses or video rental shops. 85 to 90 percent of the time, I buy DVDs only if I have previously seen and enjoyed a film through some other means. Take away the opportunity for someone like me to see films like these for free and I more than likely will never be buying DVDs of those titles in the future. No money will ever go to any directors, lawyers, studios or Criterion at all. An opportunity for profit is lost due to shortsighted punishment of choosy/frugal potential customers and the websites they favor.

    tl;dr: Self-appointed copyright snitches may be doing everyone a disservice despite their intentions.

  • Criterion or Not: the YouTube version linked to is in no way equal in quality or definition to the DVD, has no subtitle or language menus, hence it serves as an inducement to go to your friendly neighborhood Public Library and Make You Own Rips!!!

  • Harold Coat Hanger says:

    Tarkovsky was scrupulous that his films be watched in a cinema – this is a pretty poor way of watching them. If you want to watch great films you should get a projector and a screen (or project them on a wall) – dead cheap these days, I have had one for years. The box set was only £12 (cheapskates could find other means).

  • Jeremy says:

    ^As if you can’t hook up your pc to your HDTV. It’s what a do, but I never usually watch films on youtube unless they are uploaded at the highest quality available. Hell, I’ve seen videos on youtube that look better than certain videos on Netflix. It’s ridiculous.

  • Wow- what an amazing site.
    Thanks for you dedication to continude learning. thank you

  • T S Dhakshinamurthy says:

    Without joining the discussion on free-screening vs the interests of Criterion, I only wish to say that Tarkovsky’s access to and mastery of sub-consciousness is astounding and for me he is the best film-maker ever in my life time.

  • benc says:

    Just watch his films you hyperbolic wankers

  • Svetlana says:

    I am so happy! My list of favourites: Tarkovsky first, then 9 empty places, then everybody else!!!

  • Noah says:

    Great thing putting this online, it’s a must see for everyone, his films carry so much raw emotional power and intellectual depth at the same time.

    You do seem to have forgotten “The Sacrifice” though :)

  • Astor says:

    Jeezas! I had no idea these were available for legally like this! Awesome. Many thanks!

  • Claire says:

    I’ve always wanted to check out his work. Now I have no excuse. Thanks!

  • Simon Wigley says:

    What’s interesting is that Criterion, for fairness, should be compensated even though they don’t hold the copyright! The fact is that copyright – not the right to associate one’s name with one’s work, but the right to treat a creative work like a side of beef – is nonsense, and has results counter to those which I’m sure *all* parties to the debate want, that creative people should feel rewarded for the work they do, that a good living be had, but at the same time their work get to the community as cheaply and widely as possible. Copyright was a cynical historical accident. Perhaps we could consider other models. How, for example, are academics rewarded?


    • Pavel Axentiev says:

      There was no copyright in the USSR, because every creator/author/performer (at least those who were accepted by the system) was receiving a paycheck from the government. In the modern world, people somehow seem to expect that most artists should produce their work for free. That’s simply disrespectful. The main problem with copyright, as I see, was/is that most of the revenues were received by those who had way less to do with the production of the work than the artists themselvs – such as RIAA, etc. The electronic media now offer a variety of means to promote one’s work, such as indie labels, personal websites, etc. If you want, you can put out your work for free using a creative commons license or what have you. But I don’t think one should be shamed if one chooses to sell one’s work and protect one’s copyright, if one wants to.

  • Ruth says:

    Hmmm, Nostalghia is still that spanish subtitled version on youtube. I am disappoint.

  • Rafa Ga says:

    Oh my god! 2 year has passed and everyone writes “Tarkovsky” and is Tarkovski… (yeah, I know, it´s just a Y instead of a I, but, comme on! hes like my father) xD

    • Ben says:

      Both ‘i’ or ‘y’ are acceptable phonetic translations for the Russian u0438u0439 (u0422u0430u0440u043au043eu0301u0432u0441u043au0438u0439), pronounced ‘ee’.

  • movie says:

    Andrei Tarkovsky (1932-1986) firmly positioned himself as the finest Soviet director of the post-War period. But his influence extended well beyond the Soviet Union. The Cahiers du cinéma consistently ranked his films on their top ten annual lists.

  • Demet Yüksel says:

    Tarkovski in the Andrei Rublev character make feel us most of the themes that he has always passion. Andrei Rublev is an unforgettable character about freedom and searching himself(includes loosing and finding),reaching competence in the art with maturing of soul, interrogating himself with consuming all the possibilities and living the spiritual satisfaction. He’s a complicated soul/On the way of wisdom he never easily escape and he carries all his life the motto of”KNOWLEDGE BRINGS SADNESS”. He’s an exiciting character that you will understand his decisions on his own way are very fiting and poetical.

  • Miles Bader says:

    Stalker is not watchable on a ipad; the error message says something like “not viewable on a portable device” and recommends you put it on your to-watch list and later wach it on a computer … Of course, sound doesn’t work on my computer… ><

    What the hell is the point of such a restriction?!

  • no says:

    The point of said restriction is that it’s a disgrace to watch his work on a ipad. It is no one’s fault but your own that the sound on your computer does not work. Watch it the way it was intended rather than on a fucking ipad.

    • nate says:

      on an ipad! oh no!

      • Doc Strange says:

        with high quality headphones a retina iPad is great way to watch movies. In a dark room, the proximity and definition equate a larger screen further away. Try it. A great film is still great seen this way. It takes only a few seconds to get lost in the world.

    • Andru says:

      Snobbery sucks. Also, the “way it was intended” was on a freaking cinema screen, not a television, so I’d be surprised if you’re not already falling foul of your own douchebaggery.

  • Johanna says:

    It’s saying: an error occured please try again later.
    Is it still online?

  • Wee Gee says:

    Last night I could watch Solaris on my iPad … and now suddenly I can’t … … WHAT HAPPENED?!

    * (BTW – ‘no’ … neither you nor your ‘fucking’ soap-box will be required for this one … Xx

  • Simon says:

    Re: The point of said restriction is that it’s a disgrace to watch his work on a iPad.

    I can’t think why. It is quite possible to get a better visual experience from a good quality digital source, viewed on a recent (higher resolution) iPad, than from many of the prints shown in cinemas. The same is true of the sound.

    Between the whining about the presumed copyright infringements, the hand-wringing over the fate of Criterion, and the diktats about how one ought to view his films, I’ve almost been put off watching anything by Tarkovsky again. What a precious bunch of people.

  • baotzebao says:

    Great New. Tx

  • Daniella says:

    Greatest director of all time.

  • Sergey Malovatov says:

    It is a great film, indeed!nnnAndrei Tarkovsky (1932 – 1986), who had firmly positionednhimself as the finest Soviet director of the post-War period, incorporated the most tragic moments of his life experience into a stream-of-consciousness-like manner of narrating a story of his life, which he himself increasingly viewednas devoid of any meaningful narrative of a story, in a film, which he called a nightmare.nnnThe Mirror is a film about the final hours of the author u2013 a dying man in his forties u2013 that are being spent in hallucinations about his childhood and his mother, about himself as a child and a grown man, and about his lover. nnnThe brightest moments of his life werenfloating across his mind where he could no longer distinguish between himself as the child and as the father. He could no longer distinguish between his mother, his wife, and his lover. All became one. Everything was interminglednand confused.

  • hetty says:

    I could not get the subtitles…but Tarkovsky was top class when it comes to filmmaking, and I do not think he would mind one bit that his films are out in public domain for ‘free’. He was quite simply a genius.

  • damian says:

    Too bad the subs in The Mirror (maybe even in all films) are poor. A lot of words are skipped. Is this so on the original DVD as well?

  • Meghnad kulkarni says:


  • john pacheco says:

    Están subtituladas al español ???

  • says:

    I am also very interested to know if they are subtitled in Spanish. I know it’s not the same than seeing and listening in the original language, but I need spanish subtitles until I learn a little more English :)
    Thanks in advance!

  • tito2015 says:

    افضل شركات نقل الأثاث بالرياض
    شركة كشف تسربات المياه
    شركة عزل
    تخزين اثاث بالرياض
    شركة نقل عفش بالرياض
    شركة ترميمات عامة بالرياض
    شركة تشطيبات بالرياض
    شركة مكافحة حشرات بجدة
    شركة نقل اثاث بمكة
    شركة تنظيف بمكة
    شركات تنظيف منازل بجدة
    شركة كشف تسربات بجدة
    شركة مكافحة حشرات بجدة
    شركة عزل خزانات بجدة
    شركة نقل عفش بمكة
    شركة عزل خزانات بجدة
    شركات مكافحة حشرات بجدة
    شركة تنظيف خزانات بجدة
    شركات نقل عفش مكة
    شركات تنظيف منازل مكة
    شركات رش المبيدات حشرية مكة
    شركة عزل أسطح بالرياض
    شركات العزل الحراري
    شركة عزل مائي
    شركة عزل بالرياض
    شركة عزل اسطح بالرياض
    شركة عزل خزانات بالرياض
    شركة تنظيف خزانات بالرياض
    دكتور جراحات السمنة
    بالون المعدة
    عملية تدبيس المعدة
    عملية تصغير المعدة
    عملية تكميم المعدة
    عمليات تدبيس المعدة
    عملية المرارة بالمنظار
    شركة رش مبيد بالرياض
    شركة مكافحة البق بالرياض
    شركة مكافحة النمل الابيض
    شركات مكافحة القوارض
    شركة مكافحة حشرات بالرياض
    شركة رش مبيدات بالرياض
    مكافحة حشرات الفراش
    شركات ابادة الحشرات الرياض
    شركة الصالحي تخزين اثاث بالرياض
    شركات كشف تسربات المياه بالرياض
    شركات نقل اثاث الرياض
    شركة عزل السطح بالرياض
    شركة تخزين عفش الرياض
    شركة تنظيف بيارات الرياض
    شركة تنظيف بالمدينة المنورة
    شركة رش مبيدات بالمدينة المنورة
    مكافحة حشرات بالمدينة المنورة
    شركة تخزين عفش بالمدينة المنورة
    نقل عفش بالمدينة المنورة
    غسيل خزانات بالمدينة المنورة
    شركة تنظيف شقق بالمدينة المنورة
    شركة تنظيف بجدة
    كشف تسربات المياة بجدة
    شركة تنظيف خزانات بجدة
    نقل عفش جدة
    شركات مكافحة الحشرات في جدة
    شركة تنظيف بجدة
    شركات رش المبيدات الحشرية بجدة
    نقل مكافحة حشرات بالرياض
    شركة رش مبيدات بالرياض
    كشف تسربات المياه
    شركة تنظيف بالرياض
    شركة تنظيف بالرياض
    شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالرياض
    شركة نظافة فلل بالرياض
    شركة تخزين عفش بالرياض
    ابي وايت صرف صحي بالرياض
    شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالمدينة المنورة
    شركة عزل خزانات بالخبر
    شركة كشف تسربات المياة بجدة
    شركة رش مبيدات بالدمام
    مستعمل اثاث
    شركات تنظيف خزانات بالدمام
    شركة تنظيف منازل بالخرج
    شراء اثاث مستعمل الرياض
    شركة تنظيف خزانات بالخبر
    شركة تنظيف فلل بالأحساء
    شراء اثاث مستعمل في الرياض
    شركة تنظيف فلل بالخرج
    شركة نقل عفش ينبع

  • Mark says:

    is there an email list to sign on to ?

  • Gueorgi says:

    Where is Offret?

  • Sanja Plavsic-Brandt says:

    u0445u0432u0430u043bu0430 u0431u043eu0433u0443 u043fu0430 u0440u0430u0437u0443u043cu0435u043c u0438 u0440u0443u0441u043au0438…u043au043eu043bu0438u043au043e u043du0435u043cu0430u0458u0443 u043fu043eu0458u043cu0430 u043eu0432u0438 u0437u0430u043fu0430u0434u045au0430u0446u0438 !! the master, tarkovsky, finally online. all of it.

  • notthatdave says:

    That’s patent protection. Copyright protection protects creative works like films and books. Patent protection protects inventions. They’re very different.

  • Eve says:

    Where is The Sacrifice?

  • CRAP! says:

    Please this is NOT the way to experience any of Tarkovsky’s work.

    The only way is on the big screen or at least a Blu-Ray copy if possible.


  • Maga says:

    Haha, I guess that those who will watch those movies only because they are free will be disappointed.

  • Ivan R says:

    A moron who can’t get a link right. True culture!

  • Douglas Bowker says:

    Copyright issues aside, the quality and resolution offered here is even less than standard DVD, let alone HD or Blu-Ray. A pretty poor way of viewing such masterpieces…

  • Zemira says:

    Yes, very disappointing.

  • Kem says:

    Bore off and let everyone enjoy Tarkovsky.

  • Ieva says:

    Tarkovsky lived in Soviet Union, but he was never a soviet film director.

  • sergio says:

    Four :)

  • Thomas Bulté says:

    i’ve waited too long and now they’re all gone! but at the corner of my street is a library and i know they own a copy of solaris. so maybe stalker is available there too. i must watch this film, because my girlfriend said so. will put on my shoes for the intelligentia and have me a stroll towards the public library soon. then i will eat a praline from neuhaus.

  • Pavel gromnic says:

    I have never recovered from the circumstances of my early life as a poor, ignorant, fearful,and repressed individual. I feel pretty strongly now that these disadvantages disabled me from growth as a knowledgeable person. I have struggled to comprehend the world around me. And now, at almost seventy years old, I feel at last coming to peace with the confused world around me. Open Culture and other very helpful, generous sources have been a great consolation to me. The only work I have now is to find a peaceful death.

  • lena savic says:

    Thank you for your offer and work. Can you please tell me how I can actually watch Tarkovsky free online? Where are links?
    Best Regards,

  • David Kantor says:

    Are Tarkovsky’s films all in the public domain? Do I need to get permission to use short clips in a documentary I’m producing?

  • Stan says:

    All of these (bar Ivan’s Childhood) have been taken down and are now paid for films on YouTube.

  • Rose says:

    Hey, it looks like the links lead to videos which have been taken down!

  • Richard says:

    Hey, yes, the links have changed over time. You can find the correct ones at

  • Pietro says:

    Hi. 10 years later all those films are private. :(

  • Mischell says:

    Pornography is free but Tarkovsky’ and Bergman’ movies you have to pay for – this is what our world has come to. Shame ..
    Who gets the money for Tarkovsky’s movies Maybe his family ? Nope
    Freaking streaming giants thieves such as Amazon

  • milan says:

    “The stench of Vladimir Putin and his invasion of Ukraine shouldn’t taint everything Russian…”

    Was this really necessary? Because the stench of the White House Sex Predators is matched only by Vatican.

  • milan says:

    I don’t know, one would think, with the name “Open Culture”, they would be open-minded and with an accent on culture.

Leave a Reply

Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.