“…Taurus is the second film in my planned tetralogy on men of power in the twentieth century. The first film, Moloch, was based on the history of another country. This distance, I now realise, somewhat lightened my task. The tragedy that took place in Russia and with Russia, the events leading up to this tragedy and the events constituting its logical development lie outside the bounds of our subject. The centre is the author, composer and main organiser of this catastrophe in one of the most dramatic moments of his life…”

“…I believe that he himself sensed the hostility of the house and subconsciously coveted what he had never had — the style of life and simple values. Completely immersed in the battle for power, power not just over the country, but also over history itself, he did not mind living without these simple things. But to die?

Even back then, the house had the appearance of the museum it would later be turned into…”

“…Everything about these two men is different — their upbringing, education, intellect and, above all, the scale of their personalities. And not only the scale of their personalities, but also the scale of their ambitions. For one, power was a means of achieving his aim; for the other, power was the end in itself. This was the essential difference distinguishing the Leader from the Functionary…”

“…Revolution was in his blood and, like all revolutions, he was doomed. His illness represented an unexpected halt in this murderous and inhuman marathon. He was no longer able to do any more, the time allotted to him had lost all meaning. He withdrew from life, because by that time he had effectively outlived himself. Not because he was ill, but because his life had finished…”

From an interview with Alexander Sokurov
(booklet “Taurus”, Seance Publishing House, 2000)