Was he pretentious ?

Was he pretentious ?

yes. he was also a manlet

literally who?

The guy who made Dexter's Lab

Burt Reynolds

literally who?

Tom Selleck

Tom Selleck

shut up

...

>if you make anything but hollywood blockbusters you're pretentious

Can't unsee.

He was a poet, but a pleb like you will never understand

just see if "art move guys" suck him off on every possible occasion, if the answer is yes then yep, he was pretentious. altho only AR and nostalgia is shit, rest is okay or some even very good.

bump

the russian chuckle brother

His films are good, his fans are shit who jack him off too much and anyone here who hasn't seen at least one of his films needs to go watch at least one now, preferably not Solaris.

Hitler brah

Why not Solaris ?

Why is he pointing at me? It's making me really uncomfortable. Is he asking me to leave?

In my opinion it is his most overrated and yet worst film. I might be biased for reasons I'm not willing to disclose though.

>I'm just spouting bullshit, the post

He was a poet, so you can see a lot of that in his movies. I don't think it's pretentious.

Stalin, look at that 'stache.

Care to tell me why it's not his worst? Here is why I think it is.

His most basic cinematography, he doesn't even use his signature long drawn out pan-out shot everyone loves. Subpar "special" effects, the worst actors, the lamest themes it actually edges the the cliche of love conquers all but pulls back right before we reach that awful point. Emotions matter in any environment is not enough for me to personally care about a film. The worst colorization of an acclaimed director, its the future in space and yet everything is an ugly brown and gray. It's close to being a Star Trek episode in quality except they had an excuse for having that level of quality one of the most acclaimed directors of all time does not.

Actually yes, he could've done better, Solaris felt like he was forced to produce something to stand in front of 2001 a space odyssey

Both Solaris and Interstellar have that bullshit about the power of love yet people praise one and shit on the other one

I had a personal pet hypothesis after seeing this in theaters that in Nolan's mind he thought he was bridging the gap between the two films. It was an admirable effort and honestly better than I thought Nolan could ever pull off, but I think Beyond the Black Rainbow was the better attempt at intermixing both movies, well until the ending at least.

>"I am an enemy of symbols. Symbol is too narrow a concept for me in the sense that symbols exist in order to be deciphered. An artistic image on the other hand is not to be deciphered, it is an equivalent of the world around us. Rain in Solaris is not a symbol, it is only rain which at certain moment has particular significance to the hero. But it does not symbolise anything. It only expresses. This rain is an artistic image."
>"I never create allegories. I create my own world. That world does not signify anything unusual. It just exists, it has no other meaning. I think symbol and allegory rob the artist. Creator brings up images which express, reveal life the way it is. They are not Aesop's fables. This manner of working would be too primitive not only for the contemporary art but for art of any era. Artistic image possesses an infinity of meanings just like life carries an infinity of meanings. An image changed into a symbol cannot be analysed. When I create my images I use no symbolism of any kind. I want to create an image, not a symbol. That's why I don't believe in interpretations of supposed meanings of my pictures. I'm not interested in narrow political or social issues. I want to create images that would touch the viewer's soul to some degree. That's why in my films I tell precisely those stories and not the others."

There you go, Tarkovsky BTFO all of you "patricians" who think that the lowest ranking artistic tool symbolism makes a movie "deep".

Only Tarkovsky circlejerk fanbois are pretentious, not Tarkovsky himself.

I still need to watch Beyond the Black Rainbow

I think this is probably true for the majority of his films, but it's hard to watch Stalker and think "he meant us to process this literally with no allegory or metaphor involved at all." To some extent even viewings of the most straightforward stories are interpretations because you never know what a viewer will take from something. Also it's impossible to be politically neutral in the long run what seems like obvious human truth to you today might seem beyond the pale in just a decades time. They might resist political/sociological scrutiny for a time but eventually everything becomes subject to this kind of analysis and whether you thought you were taking a position or not you did. It might sound naive and stupid to us but even Leni Riefenstahl believed she was making movies that were just good reflections of her society at the time. Whatever other motives might of been I believe she thought she was being as politically neutral as possible. She claims to have taken a journalistic approach to film making many times. Maybe she is telling the truth maybe she isn't the only way we can tell is to watch her films and evaluate for ourselves.

Underrated

Is he implying that his movies are abstract ?

No, he is implying that there is no singular meaning to every scene that the viewer has to decipher.
Movies aren't puzzles which you just put together and tell others what it is, you should experience movies not take it to a lab and dissect it.

This cuts both ways. I think the symbol is less restricted than Tarkovsky insists in the quoted passages, but still, I can sympathize with his resistance to what were probably numerous critiques that tried to lay claim to the exact meaning of his films.