The idea of a written document accompanying a work of cinema tends to be merely descriptive and explanatory, and more often than not, a repetition of the ideas already conveyed through other means. As I fail to understand the objective of such a repetition, this piece of writing concerns itself with my ideas about the cinema and on the subject of my project, that is, identity and the realisation of the self – and not a description of how I went about doing what I did. As Tarkovsky, in Sculpting in Time, writes, “Search as a process (and there is no other way of looking at it) has the same bearing on the complete work as wandering through the forest with a basket in search of mushrooms has to the basket of mushrooms when you have found them. Only the latter – the full basket – is a work of art: the contents are real and unconditional, whereas wandering through the forest remains a personal affair of someone who enjoys walking and fresh air.” Also, in this case, explanation amounts to nothing. If, for instance, the objective of the work is to create signs and metaphors, then they must be complete in themselves and independent of accompanying footnotes; otherwise, one has to be content with creating cryptograms.