Generally he was supercritical, for example...

>Generally he was supercritical, for example, he said once that Spielberg’s films were not films at all (perhaps he meant Jaws).

cinephiliabeyond.org/unique-perspective-making-stalker-testimony-mechanic-toiling-away-tarkovskys-guidance/

Who is this nigga? Tom Selleck?

Read his book and you'll understand why he's critical about art in film and what he considers the essence of cinema.

Bennett from Commando

Wow, he DID let off some steam!

care to summarize?

what is the name of the book?

Sculpting in Time which is the name he gave for the type of cinema he created.

Has to do with the flow of the film and how real it feels for the audience not just in what's presented but how it's presented. Spielberg makes entertainment and uses film making techniques that culminate in the film being un-genuine according to Tarkovsky (Tarkovsky noted his entire view of cinema in the book, I'm just appropriating what he said and applying it to Spielberg).

His method of Sculpting in Time opposes Eisenstein's theory of montage that meaning of the film is conveyed in the shots own rhythm rather than intellectual or conceptual ideas based off of the juxtaposition of two shots cut together. It's how he envisions cinema to be poetic.

Quite rude desu. Spielberg is a master storyteller

Sounds like a jealous little bitch.

Read his diary, he is the most pretentious insufferable cunt that i ever heard about.

Tarkovsky couldn't have made the movies Spielberg made and Spielberg could not make the type of movies Tarkovsky made. Comparing them is silly since they're going for two totally different things.

This. Tarkovsky was a close minded retard that made two good films.

His post-1969 movies are 7/10s at best
He really shouldn't be giving advice to anyone

Mirror and STALKER are his only good films, ya pseudo-patrician.

Solaris is his worst though, Sacrifice close second.

Andrei Rublev is his only great film (and a very great one indeed). Andrei's Childhood is good. His color films are insufferable at worst, mildly interesting at best.

Your probably not far off. Some directors just couldn't translate to color? What's up with that? I find Kurosawa's color films bad too.

Then again, someone like Antonioni didn't see drop in quality like they did. Loved Red Desert and Blowup was visually interesting too.

I like Dersu Uzala, but you might be right there. Some directors I prefer in color and some in b&w. There are also rare ones that are great in both, and I'd add Ozu there.

I'd guess they would mainly be of the form over substance kino camp

I must admit I haven't watched Ozu, but I've seen stills from his films and the black and white ones look gorgeous and interesting in composition.

Honestly might be a bit edgy here but Antonioni filming the wasteland in Red Desert was a better cover of STALKER (the film) than what Tarkovsky did.

I'm of the 'style is the substance' extreme tho?

bbb

Guy was an idiot who didn't know anything about film desu

I'd like to also add, that we often see people criticize things not for what they are, but what people want them to be. Always judge a movie on the merit of what the filmmaker tried to accomplish, and how well they accomplished that.

>filmmaker tried to accomplish
No, you can't do this. You do not know his intentions at all.

You judge film on his own, first and foremoest.

>his
its

What the film tried to accomplish then.

idk it made me ponder the destructive forces inherent in man but i've only seen stalker once

the man who spent his time creating slide shows on celluloid has no authority on the definition of film

His only great movies were Andrei Rublev and maybe Stalker, everything else ranges from bad to mediocre.
Tarkovsky was just a pretentious insecure manlet with a big ego.

Meaning what, exactly?

I agree. The DC Universe is the greatest things that have ever come into filming existence.