Tarkovsky dismissed color film as a "commercial gimmick" He claimed that in everyday life one does not consciously...

>Tarkovsky dismissed color film as a "commercial gimmick" He claimed that in everyday life one does not consciously notice colors most of the time
>Soviet thinks people see in black and white
Can't make this shit up

>He claimed that in everyday life one does not consciously notice colors most of the time

fascinating perspective

It doesn't get any more patrician then this

colors really are stupid

he probably meant not consciously, nobody can be this stupid

isn't every flick he ever made in color?

colors are feminine

Panchromatic black and white is a lot more detailed and has a wider range than colour """"""film""""" you fucking pleb

A lot of them are half and half, It's because the USSR was so shit-tier they couldn't even provide their biggest director with enough color filmstock. Tarkovsky being a little bitch made up some philosophical gibberish about perception to brush it off

how the fuck do I know when it's a green light or a red light then dumbass

>filmmaker talks about films
I hate when they do that

sentimentality

traffic lights are commercial gimmick

he did most of his kinos outside of russia, stupid mong

>color film
>commercial gimmick
Literally how? Keep in mind he said this in the 70s I doubt "In color" was much of an audience draw

Pure genius. Anyone who has one doubt about Tarko is subhuman

Before you get banned for being underage, you got to understand that at one point the world was black and white until some fag invented color, you're just too young and live in a post-color world

>first 8 films made in Russia
>Last 2 films made elsewhere
You're a retard

You don't consciously register every sound around you either, why aren't all his films silent?

>all the young teens love talking about 60s russian cinema
>

What?

Green light is at the bottom, red light is at the top.

TARKOVSKY BTFO

I'd say that if people don't consciously notice color that is more of a reason to utilize and take advantage of it. What a pretentious things to say, people don't notice it normally so I shouldn't push it and take advantage of it in my medium

bresson >ULTRAPOWERGAP> tarkovsky

like you don't go around saying this is blue that is red etc. you don't think about it
at least that's what I interpret he means when he says people don't notice colors

Here's the actual quote, btw:

>At the moment, I don't think colour film is anything more than a commercial gimmick. I don't know a single film that uses colour well. In any colour film the graphics impinge on one's perception of the events. In everyday life we seldom pay any special attention to colour. When we watch something going on we don't notice colour. A black-and-white film immediately creates the impression that your attention is concentrated on what is most important. On the screen colour imposes itself on you, whereas in real life that only happens at odd moments, so it's not right for the audience to be constantly aware of colour. Isolated details can be in colour if that is what corresponds to the state of the character on the screen. In real life the line that separates unawareness of colour from the moment when you start to notice it is quite imperceptible. Our unbroken, evenly paced flow of attention will suddenly be concentrated on some specific detail. A similar effect is achieved in a film when coloured shots are inserted into black-and-white.”

OP probably heard about Tarkovsky once he started browsing reddit. Also, There is no evidence that color existed until it was invented, just look at all the photographs from the 19th century

Reread the OP qote
>one does not consciously notice colors

From Sculpting in Time:

>The perception of colour is a physiological and psychological phenomenon to which, as a rule, nobody pays particular attention. The picturesque character of a shot, due often enough simply to the quality of the film, is one more artificial element loaded onto the image, and something has to be done to counteract it if you mind about being faithful to life. You have to try to neutralize colour, to modify its impact on the audience. If colour becomes the dominant dramatic element of the shot, it means that the director and camera-man are using a painter’s methods to affect the audience. That is why nowadays one very often finds that the average expertly made film will have the same sort of appeal as the luxuriously illustrated glossy magazine; the colour photography will be warring against the expressiveness of the image.

>Perhaps the effect of colour should be neutralized by alternating colour and monochromatic sequences, so that the impression made by the complete spectrum is spaced out, toned down. Why is it, when all that the camera is doing is recording real life on film, that a coloured shot should seem so unbelievably, monstrously false? The explanation must surely be that colour, reproduced mechanically, lacks the touch of the artist’s hand; in this area he loses his organizing function, and has no means of selecting what he wants. The film’s chromatic partitura, with its own developmental pattern, is absent, taken away from the director by the technological process. It also becomes impossible for him to select and reappraise the colour elements in the world around him. Strangely enough, even though the world is coloured, the black and white image comes closer to the psychological, naturalistic truth of art, based as it is on special properties of seeing as well as of hearing."

Can someone post that autistic rant where Tarkovsky claims he never uses symbolism in his films and then goes on to describe the meaning of the symbolism in solaris

I get drawing the viewers attention to a coloured object in an otherwise black and white film (even though if we're talking gimmicks that's about as cheesy as it gets) but real fucking life is in colour, it's not imposed on you if the entire film is in colour also, it's just colour onto more colour

The more you listen to him the more you realize what a hypocrite he is

Someone gets paid to not only believe this shit, but to teach it too.

we heard you the first time faggot

Is that true?
Also, was the really long road shot in Solaris made to bother plebs?

I want to know if this is a myth.

>this much damage control because you could barely afford color film

Actually except on the very center of your vision, you see in black and white, but your brain is good at filling blank.

I actually have an interview recopilation book where he talks about that.
He also rambles about how women are emotionally inferior to men
Shit's great

He got permission to film in Japan which was a big deal for USSR, he intended to film a world's fair for a futuristic look, but missed that, seeing as he was already there he just filmed everything he could and put it in his flick to make the journey worthwhile. It wasn't intended to be a plebfilter, to a Russian audience at the time Tokyo would have looked very impressive

>muh dads poems

>the ending sequence to Andrei Rublev
P u r e k i n o

>You don't consciously register every sound around you either,
That's a case for movies to not have foley, just dialogue and music unless it serves an artistic or storytelling purpose. And I'd agree with that. Maybe movies should only have color when necessary to the story or aesthetic too.

More like Angry Tarkovsky

He's right. Pic related.

Besides I'm sure in some way his dismissal of color hard partly to do with disdain for symbolism which many still to this day use colors as a means to achieve that.

Name pls, I need this.

I have one article about a filmmaker used in a Godard movie trashing him after watching the same movie.

What about night time?

There are certain films and periods where films are desaturated. Late nineties and early 00s scifi and action films were blue or green. Nolan and his copycats are grey. Yellows are used in films set in deserts.

tarkovsky browses reddit ? why the fuck are we even talking about this fag

The original Sup Forums shitposter

This book
The interview I'm talking about is with Irena Brezna in 1984 if you can find it online (have the book open right now)

Do you have reading comprehension? I said OP browses reddit and that's probably where he heard of Tarkovsky. Either way this is a shit thread

>I saw a very bad film by Bunuel

He talks a big game for a man who only made one good film in his entire life.

Andrei pls

t. Vadim

Let me guess you think that one good film is Stalker. Fuck off.

No, it's The Mirror. Stalker is crap.

I agree with everything you said. Mirror stands above the rest but to say it's his only good film is foolishness. Nostalghia is a very close second as is Sacrifice.

That's what makes him so funny, he's just a grumpy russian with no self awareness

>Did he actually die not knowing he was a hack?

>shitting on Vadim Yusov

With Vadim:
>Ivan's Childhood
>Andrei Rublev
>Solaris

Without Vadim:
>The Mirror
>Stalker
>Nostalghia
>The Sacrifice

>Did he actually die not knowing he was a hack?

Holy shit.

You're not helping your case, Vadim.

This gotta be true, it's too good to be fake.

>84192041
implying black and white arent base colors

godard is a joke.
my alcoholic neioghbor could make better movies

What he's talking about is that qualia is an illusion and a pointless concept.

Thanks user

Communists can't afford to see in color

>implying you're not a pedantic nigger

>autistically loved Star Wars
>saw The Terminator for the kino it was
truly /ourguy/

>He claimed that in everyday life one does not consciously notice colors most of the time
Good thing film is not everyday life.

I love Tarkovsky, but by God, what a miserable asshole!

well he was russian

The article is about how Godard couldn't do terrifying scenes because he always tried to do a beautiful photography and tried to do moralist bullshit with leftist propaganda. This coming from a leftist political filmmaker.

It was pre-internet, you had to shitpost inward, into your diary back then

>doesn't recognize the genius of Fulci
>calls other people pleb

This is worse than autistic color theory.

>loved Star Wars
>implying he didn't lie to his beloved son who was a young kid when it came out so he didn't break his heart

people who grew up with black and white tv and film reported to also dreaming in black and white

I imagine Tarks work involving dreams and memories might have had something to do with it

He was jealous that Fulci was Italian

I was aware that he liked Terminator, but where did he say he loved star wars?
It seems like exactly the kind of shit he would hate

he was a soviet dad in the 70s if he didn't want to tell the truth he would have just smacked him

I always asked him what kind of movies he was watching. I envied him for having seen Star Wars, for instance. I asked him how the film was and he would tell me the whole story, including every little detail. He basically allowed me to see the film in my imagination.

So Andrey Tarkovsky loved Star Wars?

Of course! He then showed me Akira Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress, which is, as we all know, the blueprint of Star Wars

You underestimate how much he loved his son. He was a doting father in every sense of the word.

Tarkovsky was a absolute sperg
t.russian

>tfw even tarkovsky switched his brain off for a flick

Agreed

kek
>deleuzian
wat
where can I read more about this

I thought no one took Deleuze in a serious way. Maybe this was before Deleuze wrote that shit with Guattari.

Tarkovsky is an idiot, tbqh

>I don't like color film
>Goes on to make color films
>I don't like space fiction
>Goes on to make space fiction
Hmmmmmm

I think it's safe to say that he changed his opinion on these things.

Sin City is a great example of a movie that only uses colours when needed
Wish more movies utilized that style

calvin and hobbes did it first

I must admit that I viscerally hated Tarkovsky's "Nostalgia" and completely hated the use of Beethoven in it. I've seen it only once, but none of the Tarkovsky films that I have seen did I think are really good.

It's true that we don't notice colors most of the time as long as things have the colors we expect them to have, but we certainly notice their absence!

Anyone have that quote where Tarkovsky said he was shitty at making movies, but that he was still better than the vast majority of directors?

>and completely hated the use of Beethoven in it.
Why though? The insane guy using the music was trying to revolutionize everything. Ode to Joy is pretty much the anthem of revolutions.

i swear we already had this thread a few weeks ago

Time is a flat circle.