Why does Sup Forums hate this movie?

Why does Sup Forums hate this movie?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=3-NGzMM45A8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

it's a snoozefest

Mediocre shots, generic camera movement, shit pacing, shit plot. Tarr is a failed Tarkovsky wannabe.

have we seen the same movie?

Because they haven't seen it because of the lenght and Tarr's signature pacing

It's not very good but pseuds like to pretend it's god-tier because it's long.

If you want a good super long movie, try Tie Xi Qu: West of the Tracks.

>It's not very good
nice trips but why?

Tarkovsky's films are a bit slow because Tark didn't want brilliant and beautiful shots to die quickly. Satantango is slow for the sake of being slow.

Do you honestly believe anyone that hates this movie actually watched the entire thing? Most people here hate it without watching or watched 10 minutes and turned it off.

I love when plebs try to critique a film. No examples. No coherent argument. Just a generic "it's shit"..."people pretend to like it."

1. It's not shit. It's a great movie.
2. What would the point be of pretending to like a movie? Especially on an anonymous forum.

out1 is longer bro

Bella Tarr is just incapable of filming a beautiful, intricate shot, unlike Tarkovsky. Compare it to Nostalghia and Andrei Rublev, it falls flat. He's very pretentious too, making a 7 hours nihilist film. Tarkovsky made more than 20 attempts, at editing scenes in Zerkalo before finding the best formula, I can't see Tarr doing the same.

Sorry for bad english. I've seen Tarr films and satantango was the last one i watched, so maybe I already knew what to expect from it and I didnt find it so much slow (even if it obviously is). Tarr and tarkosky have similarities but in the end they are different authors with different visions and I actually appreciate both, yet Tarr is the one I understand better. His longshots are the best modern longshots in recent cinema for emotional charge and lack of mannerism

>Bella Tarr is just incapable of filming a beautiful, intricate shot, unlike Tarkovsky.
disagree

>Compare it to Nostalghia and Andrei Rublev, it falls flat
disagree

>He's very pretentious too, making a 7 hours nihilist film
this doesn't make any sense

>Tarkovsky made more than 20 attempts, at editing scenes in Zerkalo before finding the best formula, I can't see Tarr doing the same.
Whether you can or can't is irrelevant. What's Tark have to do with Tarr? This is a Tarr thread

Learn how to make an argument

you talk like if Tarr made just 8 hours-movies. Watch the turin horse or damnation, every shot is masterfully composed

>lol disagree
You sure showed him.

This movie is one of my all time favourites I don't know what you're talking about

He made a non argument, just stating his opinion, what kind of reply should he expect?

fuck off amaranth you fucking hack

>disagree
provide explanation, refutation, etc

>What's Tark have to do with Tarr? This is a Tarr thread
Because Tark is what Tarr should be. I find Tarr to be very desolate, very nihilist. It's not what art should be. Tarkovsky, who was inspired by Pieter Bruegel The Elder, was a better filmmaker.

>you talk like if Tarr made just 8 hours-movies. Watch the turin horse or damnation, every shot is masterfully composed
I've seen Turin Horse. There's a reason why I compare it to Nostalghia.

Holy crap this is seven hours? I've been meaning to try some Tarr but I think I'll have to pass on this one for a good while.

are you that sad dad from the Tark thread who tought art should be happy because your life is bad?

>provide explanation, refutation, etc
you didn't back your claims up

>Bella Tarr is just incapable of filming a beautiful, intricate shot, unlike Tarkovsky.
Why? How?

>Compare it to Nostalghia and Andrei Rublev, it falls flat
Opinion

>He's very pretentious too, making a 7 hours nihilist film
Opinion that doesn't even make sense

>Tarkovsky made more than 20 attempts, at editing scenes in Zerkalo before finding the best formula, I can't see Tarr doing the same
Whatever this is, is irrelevant. i don't know Tarr's process but the result is great.

>Because Tark is what Tarr should be. I find Tarr to be very desolate, very nihilist. It's not what art should be
Opinion. Art can have any subject or theme the author wants

>Tarkovsky, who was inspired by Pieter Bruegel The Elder, was a better filmmaker.
I agree that tark is better, but again, this is irrelevant

The river scene in Stalker, where the camera moves and shoots various objects lying in the fully transparent brown water, along with the fishes that were swimming around it, was brilliant. Tarr is incapable of making anything like this.

i watched it divided in four parts, its really good

Jesus christ, that's another opinion. It's baseless. I can say that the opening scene to Werckmeister is just as brilliant, if not better. Do you really think you're making a compelling point here?

>Jesus christ, that's another opinion. It's baseless
It's not baseless though.

>lack of mannerism

Can you help me understand this?

this, i immediately thought about the solar system scene from Werckmeister

Tarr longshots are always simple in their structure, they usually just follow one action expanding in time, giving a sense of joy, or anxiety. Think about the car ride to the zone in Stalker

>art should be happy
No, it shouldn't be associated with any kind of emotion. It should show life in the most truthful form. The thing is, Tarr associates it with desolateness, hopelessness, and nihilism. It didn't capture all the dynamic life.

Look, Tark put a lot of substance to his film. It utilizes the potential of both narrative driven storytellling and environmental sotrytelling. His shots and photography are simply better than anything by Tarr. They're more intricate like what I told you, the color contrast and lighting, even at the black and white scenes are exceptional. This iconoclasted church in Andrei Rublev for example, it shows a lot of intricate details that are not found in Tarr flick.

>No, it shouldn't be associated with any kind of emotion. It should show life in the most truthful form
kill yourself pretentious ass wipe

>lack of mannerism
I don't know how this is a good thing. It's what makes a snoozefest. Tarkovsky showed life. Whatever the artist's point is, art is supposed to show life, not nothing. Watching nothing would be like starring at drying paint.

>pretentious ass wipe
>watches tarr
Who do you think you are?

this is too subjective an argument to achieve anything lads

One of my favorite kinos of all time tho

please, who are you to tell what art should be. Anyway intricacy is not the parameter to a good shot

Being intricate means you pull all your effort in order to make everything you make flawless and meaningful.

i never felt tarr longshots were empty, there is always movement of some sort that make the shot dinamic (smoke, leaves in the wind, rain, the cableways in damnation, the black dogs, the moving capes, the cows that perfectly follow the path of the farm within the camera). I dont know, there is always something that hypnotize me and push into the feel of the movie

ok, if this is what you intend for intricate than ok, it IS the parameter to a good shot, and I dont feel like Tarr shots lack this kind of intricacy, just look at the first scene of satantango, the one with the cows. Its an incredibly "intricate" shot

I didn't say that the shots are empty, they're just devoid of life and aesthetically desolate. Ever seen Stalker? The opening scene in Stalker's bedroom could've been desolate as if it was shot by Tarr, but the interesting photography and lighting showed all the cracks and decays of walls and other objects in his room truly made that scene something.

Sorry, but I can't see the intricacy of that shot. IMO, intricacy in a film shot would create life, even at the most "empty" scenario.

>intricacy in a film shot would create life, even at the most "empty" scenario
depends by the intent of the film i believe. The scene with the cow is an incredible scene for his smooth movement, it perfectly describes the desolation of the land. When I see that scene I always forget that i'm watching a camera recording something (wich is an incredible difficult thing to do in a longshot). I dont know, I just love it

I found the opening scene of Stalker quite tiresome. Oh look blyat hart life kno? Hart life blyat

When they leave the bar is wehn it fainlly starts to getg ood

the book was better, and it wasn't even the best krasznahorkai book

>Bella Tarr is just incapable of filming a beautiful, intricate shot, unlike Tarkovsky.
i think this one is pretty nice (although the music certainly doesn't hurt)

youtube.com/watch?v=3-NGzMM45A8

This. At the very least the opening of Turin Horse.

There were a couple or remarkable scenes like the cat sequence and the dance sequence but are right