>dem surreal visuals, literally unnatainable on any other medium
>dem Tarkovsky cues, from the omnipresent water to the final shot
>dat discussion on epistemology and personal identity
>dat subtext on the experience of faith
>dat flawless soundtrack
Is Angel's Egg one of the greatest animations ever made? What are some other animated films on the same level of kinography?
>that imdb approved reddiflick
You're a pleb with no cinematic knowledge or cineIQ above 80
kys
>muh religious symbolism
Absolutely the lowest tier of artistic expression.
It's shit for plebs that want to think they're smart. It's ironic that you mention Tarkvosky when he absolutely loathed symbolism.
not half bad would recommend this aswell
>gets a US release in the late 80s
>the studio cuts it down to a few dozen minutes, combines it with live-action footage and adds a voiceover to turn it into a shitty post-apocalypse B-movie
typical
hair doesn't work like that. why is anime so unrealistic? cringe
>but im not ready yet
>OH YOU ARE
archive.org
holy SHIT my SIDES
Names?
Only one I recognise is Borowczyk's Les jeux des anges in the center
>Tarkovsky cues
This
>it's a "Sup Forums reject posts on Sup Forums" episode
thank you for posting this so I don't have to
I like the atmosphere. Cool gothic setting punctuated with moments of surrealism and organic nature. I don't truly believe it has any meaningful subtext or symbolism. The setting itself is the story and the content, and the characters are just a vehicle to give us an insight to the world. That's by far interesting enough in my opinion. I don't vividly remember the soundtrack (been about 4 years since my last watch), so I'll keep an ear out whenever I feel like watching it again.
Hated it.
this was a degener/a/te pile of shit
Are you fucking retarded? The OP doesn't say anything about symbolism, there's hardly any in Angel's Egg other than some explicit stuff like the ark and the cross-shaped sceptre. I presume the Taoist robe at the end of Tarkovsky's Offret / Sacrifice also counts as symbolism for you instead of just being an explicit reference to the material sacrifice being made?
Literally has as much depth as a Gerald Scarfe animation, expect those only last two or three minutes and are generally part of a better context. LSD art is the lowest tier of experimental art.
Pure kino
...
>muh experimental animation
>muh what matters is the creative process and not actually having an interesting thing
>muh "aesthetics is to art as ornithology is to birds"
You're just as bad as r/TrueFilm kiddies.
>depth
The entire movie is symbolism you stupid faggot. Keep thinking your entry level anime shit is something amazing though, I can weed out the plebs easier like that.
Evangelion for hipsters
>The entire movie is symbolism
What a terrible cop-out, user. If being about the experience of faith means the entire movie is automatically symbolism then I presume Andrei Rublev and Stalker are just as shit?
It's nothing like NGE in any shape or form. How is a movie from the 80's about a girl walking through a strange world anything like a 90's TV drama about teens fighting aliens in robots? How'd you even make the connection?
>>The entire movie is symbolism
>yfw literally every movie with a theme is symbolism for that theme
Expression != symbolism
Are you stupid?
See above
Then please explain exactly what you're defining as symbolism and why Angel's Egg has it while Tarkovsky does not.
>pls spoonfeed me
Sage
>this entire thread
>can't even provide a reference or a disambiguation for his own arbitrary semantics
Kek, you sure teached me m8
Judging by all the posts up until now, does it only count as animated kino if it uses the medium in some creative way?
I mean, pic related is one of my favorite animations but I'll have to recognize it could as well have been achieved as a live action film.
I'm not here to spoonfeed you. Just read Tarkovsky's insights about symbolism.
Why are you pretending you know what you're talking about?
Not that guy before you call samefag or reply to me like I'm him. You're just demonstrating your lack of knowledge on the subject by hiding behind a "do your own work" wall. You can't argue something, then when asked to explain, duck for cover.
Because, as far as my comprehension goes, saying that the entire movie is religious symbolism implies that it only has any substance if you know exactly what the symbolism refers to rather than being its own self-referential narrative. That is obviously not the case for Angel's Egg, you don't necessarily need to be a christian to understand why the death of transcendental belief is something tragic, neither does that mean there aren't other thematic layers to this film that you might be able to enjoy even if you don't particularly care about faith. As for Tarkovsky, I never read anything from him because I'm honestly scared of being disappointed by one of my favorite directors, as tempting as getting a copy of Sculpting in Time might be.
I'm not trying to make an argument.
Oh, so this was real!
it was cool to find it doing zapping at 4am and years later see the movie.
Paprika: Mind tripped as fuck...
It's not about that. A symbol is limited, it contains in itself a definite meaning. You can't express something so infinite like the world around us by relying on symbolism.
>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. Symbol for me is something too complicated.
...
>stars /our guy/
how have i never heard of this before?
whats wrong with scarfe?
jin roh is fucking dope. Probably Production IG's best animation to date
Jin Roh is garbage.
...
Wait, Tarkovsky is saying that the only thing that distinguishes a symbol from a non-symbol is that the symbol only designates one specific meaning while a non-symbol is infinite since it expresses something deeper than an ordinary semantic reference? But if that's the case then isn't that non-symbolic expression incredibly vague and highly subjective? How are you going to identify exactly where an artist was expressing something rather than just directly referencing something? Can't you simultaneously symbolize a thing while also expressing an infinite amount of possibilites for that thing? How can you even distinguish a symbol from a non-symbol? Does he have any further development on this?
Holy shit, I knew reading something from him was going to be disappointing.
u wot
>Rain in Solaris is not a symbol, it is only rain which at certain moment has particular significance to the hero
>not a symbol
>it is only rain which at certain moment has particular significance to the hero
So the rain is symbolic of whatever is particularly significant to the hero?
>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.
>It makes no difference to me how the public receives and interprets my films. I make films in such a way as to create certain spiritual state in the viewer. As a result he cannot remain unchanged after watching the film. But what the viewer thinks about my film's style is unimportant to me. Viewers search for meanings as if this was some sort of a charade. I know of no work of art whose meaning would be clear to the degree demanded by some. When they listen to music, read a novel or watch a play they frequently encounter fragments they don't understand. It's a normal state of the relationship toward a work of art. But when they go to the cinema — they demand complete clarity, total understanding. I am against discrimination in art. Clarity is not most important. The world created by an artist is as complex as the world that surrounds him.
Yes, he does.
But how is he wrong?
How can you symbolize something while also expressing infinite possilities for that thing? If you do that it ceases to be a symbol.
You faggots must not have ever seen End of Evangelion. This thread wouldn't exist otherwise.