Never seemed to be able to penetrate Tarkovsky until recently. His flow-of-consciousness style of directorship is astoundingly absorbing and each composition is immaculate. His movies seem more interested in the human experience through a filter of perfectionism than promoting any particular cause or agenda. Is that an accurate synopsis of the guy? How do you really "get" Tarkovsky?
"Andrei Tarkovsky thread" was not on my badmovies.org bingo card.
For those who don't know, Tarkovsky is a Soviet director (and eventual defector) active in the 60s-80s, famous as the world's pioneer of "slow cinema." He's still probably the slowest director of all time. He has notorious scenes showing nothing but a man's face as he drives that lasts for seven minutes, or a man silently trying to carry a lighted candle that keeps going out across an empty pool. His films can try your patience at times, but at his best he's hypnotic and mystical. He made two relatively famous science fiction films, SOLARIS and STALKER.
I admire his talent, but I guess ultimately I'm neither a supporter or detractor. I think MIRROR is a chore, and although I gave NOSTALGHIA a good review after I first saw it, I now think it's a bit overrated. I do like SOLARIS and STALKER a lot, though. One thing that helps Tarkovsky is that he always ends his movies with a great, emotionally charged image: SOLARIS' raining inside the house, STALKER's unexplained telekinesis, NOSTALGHIA with the dacha inside the abbey. These are some of the best endings in cinema history.
Still, though I did a slow movie every now and then, I usually prefer maximalist art house filmmakers to minimalist ones. Give me Fellini at his craziest, please.
^ Seven minutes of a guy driving? Is this some artistic statement or MANOS? :question:
I seen SOLARIS once. Very pretty. Very boring.
Quote from: RCMerchant on May 05, 2022, 10:19:54 PM
^ Seven minutes of a guy driving? Is this some artistic statement or MANOS? :question:
:teddyr: :teddyr:
Quote from: RCMerchant on May 05, 2022, 10:19:54 PM
^ Seven minutes of a guy driving? Is this some artistic statement or MANOS? :question:
I seen SOLARIS once. Very pretty. Very boring.
Or it could be the beginning of
"IT'S ALIVE" (1969) which opens with the longest most wonderfully pointless and boring driving scene...
I love Solaris and Stalker. :cheers:
There are some scenes in Solaris which made me think "heaven looks like that, I'm sure", especially in the opening scenes :smile:
^ Yeah. It's pretty. Pretty overlong and pretentious.
2001 was action packed compared to SOLARIS.
It's like watching noodles boil. " Is it done yet?".
Quote from: bob on May 06, 2022, 06:03:44 PM
I love Solaris and Stalker. :cheers:
Word brother :thumbup: :cheers:
Quote from: Rev. Powell on May 05, 2022, 02:04:56 PM
For those who don't know, Tarkovsky is a Soviet director (and eventual defector) active in the 60s-80s, famous as the world's pioneer of "slow cinema." He's still probably the slowest director of all time. He has notorious scenes showing nothing but a man's face as he drives that lasts for seven minutes, or a man silently trying to carry a lighted candle that keeps going out across an empty pool. His films can try your patience at times, but at his best he's hypnotic and mystical.
I think if it tries one's patience, or promotes a feeling of slowness and inertia, the viewer is missing the point. While the moving picture is characteristic of action, linear events, drama and story, this isn't the only thing you can do with cinema; we can go back and forth through a story, starting at one place and not necessarily at the end; we can see the emotions of characters and feel them develop as they naturally do, and so on.
Tarkovsky is fixated on exploring the relationship between the human experience and the existence of time. He places physical characters in physical locations and spins a simple yarn for them to follow, but that is not the focus. In this medium, story itself is the backstory, and time takes front stage. People, buildings, animals, all exist in a universe where the dimension time has been thrown out and inputted in a manner which is now not a necessity to keep track of or even something we can clearly grasp. That's why everyone is always standing around and scenes are more like paintings or portraits than acts of theatre. We are now exploring our relationship with time and timelessness in an intimate, almost personal level. Why do this? Because there's no way at all to do this in real life. So Tarkovsky learned that it was possible to engineer this discussion with the moving picture.
At least... that's what I think after watching Nostalghia for the seventh time.. could be COMPLETELY wrong now. :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :teddyr:
Quote from: Zipper on May 10, 2022, 11:17:14 AM
Quote from: bob on May 06, 2022, 06:03:44 PM
I love Solaris and Stalker. :cheers:
Word brother :thumbup: :cheers:
Quote from: Rev. Powell on May 05, 2022, 02:04:56 PM
For those who don't know, Tarkovsky is a Soviet director (and eventual defector) active in the 60s-80s, famous as the world's pioneer of "slow cinema." He's still probably the slowest director of all time. He has notorious scenes showing nothing but a man's face as he drives that lasts for seven minutes, or a man silently trying to carry a lighted candle that keeps going out across an empty pool. His films can try your patience at times, but at his best he's hypnotic and mystical.
I think if it tries one's patience, or promotes a feeling of slowness and inertia, the viewer is missing the point.
Yes and no. The viewer may understand Tarkovsky's point, but simply not agree that it is rewarding or worthwhile. I think the pacing makes it obvious why the masses don't appreciate Tarkovsky.
On the other hand there is room for all styles of cinema, no one is forced to watch anything that doesn't suit their tastes, and I am glad Tarkovsky and Tarkovsky-inspired cinema exists. I like to watch good examples of this style every now and then. I wouldn't want a steady diet of it, though; I like variety.
Your appreciation is passionate and well-expressed and I'm happy you connect with him so deeply.
Watching Andy Warhol's 5 hour film of some guy sleeping is considered "art" by some folks.
To each his own.
Quote from: Rev. Powell on May 10, 2022, 12:11:05 PM
Yes and no. The viewer may understand Tarkovsky's point, but simply not agree that it is rewarding or worthwhile. I think the pacing makes it obvious why the masses don't appreciate Tarkovsky.
Hmm, again if one would use the phrasing "pacing", it's curious if they are on the same page. For example, time is our most precious resource, and throwing it around without caution is usually not good. Each film was constructed and delivered with clinical precision, more like a surgeon directing than a filmmaker, without a single frame out of frame or wasted. This is not done for fun: there is a point in that.
Then there is the mystery element. Stalker, Mirror and Sacrifice are certainly mysteries; they all consume themselves with themes of the supernatural, which is a clear suggestion that some decipherment or unravelling is required. However, they are also mysteries of mysteries. Take a look at the following lines:
"I did think earlier that somebody becomes better because of my books. But nobody needs me! I will croak, and in two days they will forget me and begin devouring somebody else. For I wanted to remake them, but I myself was remade! In their own image. Earlier the future was only a continuation of the present, and all the changes loomed somewhere behind the horizons. And now the future became one with the present. Are they ready for that? They do not wish to know anything! They only devour!"As discussed, there is something beneath the surface in these movies. The Writer is not really talking about his occupation at all, they are referring to the tragedy of adolescence. In the words of Judas Priest, so much for my golden future. And that's it. That's all you have to "get". They are furious about the concept of limited time, and railing against it as a devourer of their professional ambitions. Expectations have exceeded reality. That's it! Get over it. But who truly can?
If you are a logical person and were to think of it in mathematical terms, you usually have an x & y axis, where either one (usually x) represents the flow of time, and y or another trails along, typically as a physical body. Tarkovsky interprets
both axes as time. This is what makes his medium so wild. He rebels against the movement of time with stillness, and defies that we should be mindlessly entertained. He doesn't use classy balls and big parties, he likes scenes of deprivation and destruction. This means that we have to go to places that we don't want to go, but we have to, and this is how we do it.
If nothing else, the study here is the passage of time which we could not replicate in a book, website, newspaper, or a conversation. It can only exist in a recording, which has the luxury of operating outside of time, effectively defying it, which is usually impossible. So through the moving picture, we go to the impossible.
OK that's enough! This could be completely wrong but I refuse to read a single analysis about Tarkovsky. It's much more fun to try and make sense of it yourself. As you say passionate. Or very misguided I will stop now. Cheers I like talking about it. :cheers:
Quote from: RCMerchant on May 10, 2022, 01:38:45 PM
Watching Andy Warhol's 5 hour film of some guy sleeping is considered "art" by some folks.
To each his own.
Hmm.. that's the third time you've commented on something that you find very unimportant and boring.. APPARENTLY... :teddyr: :teddyr: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:
I'm sure you know Tarkovsky's autobiography is titled "Sculpting in Time," so you're not wrong about the importance of time in his work. :thumbup:
Quote from: Zipper on May 10, 2022, 02:47:13 PM
Quote from: RCMerchant on May 10, 2022, 01:38:45 PM
Watching Andy Warhol's 5 hour film of some guy sleeping is considered "art" by some folks.
To each his own.
Hmm.. that's the third time you've commented on something that you find very unimportant and boring.. APPARENTLY... :teddyr: :teddyr: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:
And you keep singing his praises! :thumbup:
I never said his work was unimportant. Being he is considered...an artiste.
Some like abstract art, some like comic book art. It's simply a matter of taste.
I could go on and on about bad movies..., which I was doing. :tongueout:
Quote from: RCMerchant on May 10, 2022, 03:48:40 PM
I could go on and on about bad movies..., which I was doing. :tongueout:
You serious? Get outta here! They are good movies. They even have official approval from the Russian "Required Watching or Else" Department. Ha! Bet you feel REAL stupid after hearing that. :bouncegiggle:
They are truly puzzling for the layperson and layered with language barriers as well. Like a lot of art, they have a tendency to meaninglessly revel in themselves with superficial dialogue, narcissism, haughty trickery, silly pretending and untranslatable narrative. I can see why a viewer would score upon that.
Interestingly, for a Soviet (and later defector) filmmaker, there's little direct mention of government. You'd expect the hammer and sickle on every other scene under that environment. On the other hand, we tend to do that a lot in our own films - lots of stars and stripes. What can we learn? Great film doesn't need a flag.
I said it was bad and boring. Nothing to do with politics.
Why are you so upset that I don't agree about a film or films?
I'm sure many folks find VAMPYR (1932) to be pretentious and boring. I myself, love it.
I just don't like endless naval gazing in films.
Quote from: Zipper on May 10, 2022, 02:43:47 PM
Quote from: Rev. Powell on May 10, 2022, 12:11:05 PM
Yes and no. The viewer may understand Tarkovsky's point, but simply not agree that it is rewarding or worthwhile. I think the pacing makes it obvious why the masses don't appreciate Tarkovsky.
Hmm, again if one would use the phrasing "pacing", it's curious if they are on the same page. ...
I haven't looked at much of
TARKOVSKY, but I'm liable to now. I have always found certain films what I call "motionless" which of course they're not. I like
2001,
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA,
ENDLESS SUMMER,
BARRY LYNDON... all films that have long sequences of viewing that are hypnotic. I often like films that others find boring.
Quote from: Allhallowsday on May 10, 2022, 07:39:17 PM
Quote from: Zipper on May 10, 2022, 02:43:47 PM
Quote from: Rev. Powell on May 10, 2022, 12:11:05 PM
Yes and no. The viewer may understand Tarkovsky's point, but simply not agree that it is rewarding or worthwhile. I think the pacing makes it obvious why the masses don't appreciate Tarkovsky.
Hmm, again if one would use the phrasing "pacing", it's curious if they are on the same page. ...
I haven't looked at much of TARKOVSKY, but I'm liable to now. I have always found certain films what I call "motionless" which of course they're not. I like 2001, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, ENDLESS SUMMER, BARRY LYNDON... all films that have long sequences of viewing that are hypnotic. I often like films that others find boring.
You should definitely see SOLARIS and STALKER. Sci-fi classics in their way. SOLARIS was billed as Russia's 2001, Tarkovsky didn't appreciate the comparison, though.
Quote from: Rev. Powell on May 10, 2022, 08:29:34 PM
Quote from: Allhallowsday on May 10, 2022, 07:39:17 PM
Quote from: Zipper on May 10, 2022, 02:43:47 PM
Quote from: Rev. Powell on May 10, 2022, 12:11:05 PM
Yes and no. The viewer may understand Tarkovsky's point, but simply not agree that it is rewarding or worthwhile. I think the pacing makes it obvious why the masses don't appreciate Tarkovsky.
Hmm, again if one would use the phrasing "pacing", it's curious if they are on the same page. ...
I haven't looked at much of TARKOVSKY, but I'm liable to now. I have always found certain films what I call "motionless" which of course they're not. I like 2001, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, ENDLESS SUMMER, BARRY LYNDON... all films that have long sequences of viewing that are hypnotic. I often like films that others find boring.
You should definitely see SOLARIS and STALKER. Sci-fi classics in their way. SOLARIS was billed as Russia's 2001, Tarkovsky didn't appreciate the comparison, though.
I think TCM broadcast
SOLARIS last year, I didn't see it.
I think I tried to watch Solaris one time and lost interest. It didn't leave much of an impression on me.
Just because it's art doesn't mean I have to like it.
Quote from: chainsaw midget on May 11, 2022, 09:25:52 PM
I think I tried to watch Solaris one time and lost interest. It didn't leave much of an impression on me.
Just because it's art doesn't mean I have to like it.
As I pointed out,
SOLARIS was on TCM and I saw a few minutes. I wasn't in the mood and it left no impression.