Let's have a Tarkovsky thread. Discuss his filmmaking and argue about whether he was a hack or not.
Is there a decent physical copy of Zerkalo out there? The only one I could find on Amazon got terrible reviews because they butchered the English subtitles.
You must learn masterrace language.
I really liked Voyage in Time.
Cool insight into his screenwriting process, that notion that you actually need to travel to a place, observe the culture, build a story around the history of the place, even the anecdotes and legends.
Pretentious shit, this board is for quality Hollywood kino only.
Goddard is pretencious. Even Tarantino can be pretentious.
There's a startling lack of pretension about Tarkovsky.
I always found what he was doing was quite unguarded and honest.
Oh and he doesn't have his characters preach and lecture the audience on his own politics, which is a relief.
That sounds great. I've always been very interested in the idea of locations dictating screenplays.
Can you elaborate a little more on the topic?
I think that's a stretch. Tarkovsky was a massive elitist snob. There are plenty of interviews snippets that prove it. He once said that non russian speakers could never understand his films, and when the interviewer noted that Tarkovsky was a fan of Bergman, he smirked and said omething to the effect of "True artists don't need language to understand each other".
Now, maybe that's true, but there can be no doubt that it's an elitist and pretentious way to articulate this possible truth.
As for his characters not lecture the audience with his politics, what the hell do you think all the constant monologues and musings in his films are?
I think you've mistaken the fact that you like his films as proof that he isn't pretentious. Tarkovsky was a brilliant artistic soul, brimming with pretension.
He is my third favorite director, but him and Bergman attract the worst film snob fanbase where people think their films are good and only their films are good. They're like the Radiohead and Tool of film.
Tarkovsky was a brilliant artistic soul, absolutely brimming with pretension.
He said that non Russian speakers could never understand his films.
When the interviewer noted Tarkovsky's admiration for Bergman's films, he replied with a smirk that true artists don't need to share a language to understand one another.
Maybe that's true. It's certainly the most pretentious way to articulate that possible truth though.
As for his characters not lecturing the audience with his politics. What do you think all the monologues and musings were?
I think you have mistaken the fact that you enjoy his films for proof that he was not pretentious. It's nice to believe our taste is on the right side of history.
I love Tarkovsky, but I respect him enough to try and see him as the evidence suggests he actually was, an elitist snob.
Not really. I think it's there in the film.
But like it's that really pedestrian notion of "character as landscape".
I do like that moment where they're looking up this beautiful castle overlooking the sea and Tarkovksy is like
"This is a tourist site, I don't want it."
Because his protagonist is not there to gawk and take photos, his character is on an arc. So Tarkovksy is looking for landscapes to act as a kind of catalyst for whatever psychological change is meant to happen.
Sorry to be vague. It's not something that can be described in universialties, it's much easier to describe on a per-film basis, pulling apart the form and structure, looking at how landscape affected the plot, or underpins the visual language of the film.
mentally disabled yet somehow convinced people he was a filmmaker
This is Tarkovsky not Uwe Boll.
I'm guessing that he was talking about Nostalghia?
That would make some sense.
>Although strongly opposed to commercial cinema, in a famous exception Tarkovsky praised the blockbuster film The Terminator, saying its "vision of the future and the relation between man and its destiny is pushing the frontier of cinema as an art". He was critical of the "brutality and low acting skills", but nevertheless impressed by this film.
if someone said my top 2 directors were the radiohead and tool of film i'd go ape
In terms of fanbases don't get it twisted beyond that friendo. Also Bergman gets old quick if he is still a favorite of anyone beyond watching more than five hundred films get a new hobby.
still tho
and i don't like bergman
Films like Seventh Seal and Fanny and Alexander are masterpieces. Watching more films doesn't come into that.
He had weaker efforts but when you make like 50+ films of course that's gonna happen. Hitchcock had some dreadful films but you can't say he wasn't a genius.
Baby's first arthouse director.
made films ranging from bad to great.
Based Cameron. Praise from Tarkovsky is the highest honor.
>bad
What would you consider "bad" in his filmography? The only film of his I didn't really care for was Solaris, and even that's at least a 6/10.
Also
>entry level=bad
This is a pleb mindset.
THOUGHTS OF BELA TARR???
show me someone who enjoys bela tarr films and i'll show you a liar
>not caring for Solaris
Man it's his second best (in my opinion freind)
The only one I'd say I didn't care for was Mirror but that's just compared to the rest of his films rather than I actually think it's bad
Solaris.
>entry level=bad
I never said that.
I enjoy his entire filmography. Rektmeister, Tourette's Horse and Santano are all great
>watch satantango, 7 hours or whatever
>this must have a very long story
>actually every scene is just 10 times longer than necessary
it wasnt bad though
Satantango was an amazing film
Any filmmaker who can't condense his ideas into at most a 3.5 hour runtime is worthless. Tarr is a complete hack with a miserable worldview, and his "purposely boring" style is a disgrace.
Have yall seen Hard to be a God?? by German
Andrei Rublev is his best work by far
>Anyone who wants to explore for more than 3.5 hours is worthless
Spoken like a grade A imbecile.
Yes I saw Had to be a God and it was a good film
get back to your capeshit
The first half of Solaris is genius, once the visitor returns a second time it just kind of loses me. I was very disappointed with the film, because it has God tier atmosphere and world building but no satisfying payoff.
The Mirror is my favorite of his filmography.
>baby's first arthouse director
You certainly implied it.
love the Strugatsky bros adaptations, gonna try and see them all!
I said he is the first director that people watch after they stray away from mainstream films.
You said everything and inserted words into my mouth
I've been putting it off, it's still on Netflix so I'll have to give it a watch eventually.
People have been saying the editing is all over the place and that it feels unfinished, is that true?
I'm not a liar.
I can understand that. I just really loved the general sense of uneasiness the whole thing left me with, and Natalya Bondarchuk's performance.
And yeah I'm not saying The Mirror is bad (a weak Tarkovsky is still a great film), but I find it pretty hard to order his work. Stalker is definitely my favorite which is the "pleb" choice or whatever but I really think it's a near flawless movie.
nah, its comes to a pretty satisfying ending
why do 'great great' directors never entertain the idea that their film might bore people to sleep. they never read shakespeare? and why can't tarr put a little foreign charm in his films, that's what the classic hungarian directors did and they knew what they were doing
They do not pander to your sensibilities but explore their own ideas, themes, motifs.
>Why can't Tarr blabhalbah
Because that's not what he is interested in
i don't care about the director though i care about the film
Easily my favorite flick director
what is auteurism
My sides
does it require you to be interested in the artist rather than the work? the content should be more important than the ingenuity of the director
this seems more a critque of Tarr than Tarkovsky lol
>capeshit ladies and gentlemen
Daft cunt.
damn lol