Andrei Tarkovsky

  On 9/10/2010 at 9:09 PM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 9/10/2010 at 9:05 PM, Polymershapes said:

I love Tarkovsky, it's refreshing to see this thread... I've seen everything but Andrei Rublev and Ivan's Childhood, and his student work. I am saving them but I shouldn't, what if I die today?

 

Anyone who likes Tarkovsky would surely love the Bergman film Through a Glass Darkly. I believe it was shot where Sacrifice was.

 

Bergman is one of the directors i really want to explore in a near future.

 

But why are you saving Andrei Rublev, Ivan's Childhood and his student films?

i kind of used to do this in the past. having films unwatched for a long time, so that i could have that feeling of discovery once more. but i don't do that anymore. it's like you say,

 

what if i die today?

Bergman's Through a Glass Darkly, or any of the films in the Criterion Bergman Trilogy, is hauntingly beautiful. You can definitely see some sort of Bergman influence in Tarkovsky's films especially in their static shots.

I haven't seen many of Tarkovsky's student films, the only one I can recall was his short film/adaptation of Hemingway's The Killers... but you must see Ivan's Chilhood, especially with it's 95 minutes run time

I'm not familiar at all with this guy's work, but those stills in the original post look incredible.

solyaris

  On 9/10/2010 at 10:07 PM, Zephyr_Nova said:

I'm not familiar at all with this guy's work, but those stills in the original post look incredible.

the curious thing about them is they are stills that could have been result of someone pausing the film, to go to the bathroom or something. they weren't carefuly or meticulously thought or planned.

as opposite to the films they come from.

I was able to see a large amount of Tarkovsky at Lincoln Center last summer, and though I was already familiar with them from dvd, it was an entirely other experience in a theater crowd. Never pass up an opportunity to see them that way. An incredibly powerful experience.

A bright burning light in the midst of dwindling candles...

tarkovsky apparently disliked 2001..said it was souless or something. both kubrick and tarkovsky are very slow and meticulous, but id say the similarities stop there.

  On 9/10/2010 at 11:13 PM, Z_B_Z said:

tarkovsky apparently disliked 2001..said it was souless or something. both kubrick and tarkovsky are very slow and meticulous, but id say the similarities stop there.

i mentioned nothing but just those two similarities.

2001 does have a soul, i think, but it is not at any level related to any of tarkovsky's films.

  On 9/10/2010 at 11:17 PM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 9/10/2010 at 11:13 PM, Z_B_Z said:

tarkovsky apparently disliked 2001..said it was souless or something. both kubrick and tarkovsky are very slow and meticulous, but id say the similarities stop there.

 

i mentioned nothing but just those two similarities.

 

yeah i know. i wasnt calling you out or anything, just musing is all..

  On 9/10/2010 at 11:23 PM, Z_B_Z said:

  On 9/10/2010 at 11:17 PM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 9/10/2010 at 11:13 PM, Z_B_Z said:

tarkovsky apparently disliked 2001..said it was souless or something. both kubrick and tarkovsky are very slow and meticulous, but id say the similarities stop there.

 

i mentioned nothing but just those two similarities.

 

 

yeah i know. i wasnt calling you out or anything, just musing is all..

i know mate i agree with what you said. there is not much more than that connecting the two directors.

but they sure have proved how, even having produced no more than 10 full length films, they managed to get the most out of it, because you need time to create art.

there aren't directors like this anymore, nowadays. it's a shame.

  On 9/10/2010 at 11:35 PM, ruiagnelo said:

 

there aren't directors like this anymore, nowadays. it's a shame.

*Lars Von Trier raises hand in the back of the class, waits for someone to notice him*

  On 9/10/2010 at 11:39 PM, lumpenprol said:

  On 9/10/2010 at 11:35 PM, ruiagnelo said:

 

there aren't directors like this anymore, nowadays. it's a shame.

 

*Lars Von Trier raises hand in the back of the class, waits for someone to notice him*

well, good point.

he is clearly in contrast with his contemporary directors, but i am not sure i want to compare it with tarkovsky.

  On 9/10/2010 at 11:39 PM, lumpenprol said:

  On 9/10/2010 at 11:35 PM, ruiagnelo said:

 

there aren't directors like this anymore, nowadays. it's a shame.

 

*Lars Von Trier raises hand in the back of the class, waits for someone to notice him*

Dogme that.

Lars had me at the blip.

ive had solaris on my hd for months but i need to find working subtitle files, definitely need to watch this

  On 9/10/2010 at 6:15 PM, Ego said:

  On 9/10/2010 at 6:01 PM, futuregirlfriend said:

Anyone read his book "Sculpting in Time: Reflections on the Cimema"?

 

I did, I recommend. He looked at cinema with a unique artistic vision I haven't seen in any director. If you'd like to understand Tarkovsky's work even better, his words will surely help.I had a hard time with the English translation though, but that may be because my English ain't all that. I should study Russian in another life. Still, here's a nice quote I've got noted down somewhere:"Touched by a masterpiece, a person begins to hear in himself that same call of truth which prompted the artist to his creative act. When a link is established between the work and its beholder, the latter experiences a sublime, purging trauma. Within that aura which unites masterpieces and audience, the best sides of our souls are made known, and we long for them to be freed. In those moments we recognize and discover ourselves, the unfathomable depths of our own potential, and the furthest reaches of our emotions."

Nice. I'll make sure to pick it up asap. I grabbed a pdf tonight (if anyone is intersted) and read a bit, but reading books on the computer is a bit hard going.

  On 9/11/2010 at 12:28 AM, futuregirlfriend said:

  On 9/10/2010 at 6:15 PM, Ego said:

  On 9/10/2010 at 6:01 PM, futuregirlfriend said:

Anyone read his book "Sculpting in Time: Reflections on the Cimema"?

 

I did, I recommend. He looked at cinema with a unique artistic vision I haven't seen in any director. If you'd like to understand Tarkovsky's work even better, his words will surely help.I had a hard time with the English translation though, but that may be because my English ain't all that. I should study Russian in another life. Still, here's a nice quote I've got noted down somewhere:"Touched by a masterpiece, a person begins to hear in himself that same call of truth which prompted the artist to his creative act. When a link is established between the work and its beholder, the latter experiences a sublime, purging trauma. Within that aura which unites masterpieces and audience, the best sides of our souls are made known, and we long for them to be freed. In those moments we recognize and discover ourselves, the unfathomable depths of our own potential, and the furthest reaches of our emotions."

 

 

Nice. I'll make sure to pick it up asap. I grabbed a pdf tonight (if anyone is intersted) and read a bit, but reading books on the computer is a bit hard going.

i grabbed the pdf too. so far i am loving it, but would prefer to have it on paper.

  On 9/10/2010 at 11:35 PM, ruiagnelo said:

there aren't directors like this anymore, nowadays. it's a shame.

a director who befriended, and received praise from Tarkovsky is Alexander Sokurov

I've seen his film Mother And Son, wich might be a bit different from Tarkovsky, but you somehow can feel the influence

and this move he made called Russian Ark is entirely made from one single unedited shot (he had to retake it three times)

I don't want to compare him to Tarkovsky, but I'm just saying there are still directors putting effort in their art, you might have to search a bit.

i might be fleeing the main topic a bit, but i think that classic cinema is ignored nowadays. it's heritage and values seem to be getting lost.

and it's not directors' fault. there are very talented and hardworking filmmakers today and i know a couple of friends studying cinema and i observe how they are anxious to show they work and i see they have a lot of potential.

the problem is that they are yet to meet this huge beast, called cinema industry - scary and imposing as that big machine on fritz lang's metropolis - that won't let them work if not according to it's own values and rules, and they won't simply have a chance.

there is also no interest in showing the younger generations - my generation as well - classic films, past directors who wrote entire pages of the cinema history, that influenced other arts as well, and other people.

i think of this sometimes:

there is a theatre in my city that screens 10 movies at a time. 10 rooms. i imagine how it would be, if they would show 8 current films and 2 classic films, at a time.

unfortunately this is utopia.

i guess kids today don't even imagine what was going on in the past, the wonderful things that were created. paradoxically, they have more than enough tools, more than any kid has ever had in other time. they even have the internet.

and it's not just kids, the majority of my friends and people of my age seem not to be aware of this. and while they make fun of classic films, they keep feeding the huge beast, and there is no way out...

once im off my bergman kick im gonna watch a shitload of tarkovsky i think.

I've only seen half of Andrei Rublev, but what I've seen was really interesting. Otherwise I've only seen Solaris and Stalker (both of which were excellent, Stalker being my favorite movie of all time).

Stalker seems to be many watmm-person's favorite movie ever. Is that a symptom of something there?

  On 9/10/2010 at 11:43 PM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 9/10/2010 at 11:39 PM, lumpenprol said:

  On 9/10/2010 at 11:35 PM, ruiagnelo said:

 

there aren't directors like this anymore, nowadays. it's a shame.

 

*Lars Von Trier raises hand in the back of the class, waits for someone to notice him*

 

well, good point.

he is clearly in contrast with his contemporary directors, but i am not sure i want to compare it with tarkovsky.

I agree completely, I was just having a bit of fun, since Von Trier dedicated Antichrist to Tarkovsky. Personally I think they are very different, though in Antichrist Von Trier was able to approach Tarkovsky stylistically with the lush shots, the content was still pure Von Trier. There's a difference between Von Trier's black humor, which celebrates anarchy, and the wry Russian sarcasm and fatalism in Tarkovsky's films. I compare Tarkovsky and Herzog a bit, I think they have some similarities.

Edit: also regarding your comments on the hollywood machine, while I agree completely, don't give up hope. Look at all of us here still making threads about Tarkovsky years after his death, that's not going to happen to Michael Bay in 2065. The human animal and human condition are (for now at least) constants.

  On 9/10/2010 at 11:39 PM, lumpenprol said:

  On 9/10/2010 at 11:35 PM, ruiagnelo said:

 

there aren't directors like this anymore, nowadays. it's a shame.

 

*Lars Von Trier raises hand in the back of the class, waits for someone to notice him*

There is Haneke too, seems to be a healthy median between Tarkovsky and Von Trier.

I agree about the square frame. And i even prefer old 4:3 movie framing to widescreen shit. Oh another director to check out who was a contemporary and friend of Andrei is Sergei Paradjanov... Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors is the only one I've (partially) seen.. but what I saw was lush lushness.

  On 9/11/2010 at 3:39 AM, lumpenprol said:

 

Edit: also regarding your comments on the hollywood machine, while I agree completely, don't give up hope. Look at all of us here still making threads about Tarkovsky years after his death, that's not going to happen to Michael Bay in 2065. The human animal and human condition are (for now at least) constants.

i guess you are right. and we are definitely not the last ones.

but it's a shame how so many people are missing so much.

it kind of concerns me.