Tarkovsky

he was 5'11" IIRC
if you're thinking about this photo then Kurosawa is actually over 6 feet tall, crazy I know

Attached: a3-1050x1370.jpg (1050x1370, 204K)

Solaris was terribly underbudgeted. It's really stupid and unfair that people compare it with 2001

Please state your age, your favorite films, books, music and political beliefs

Even based Tatar Khan was taller than Tarkoman the Narkoman.

Attached: Tarkhovskiy_Rublev_Tatars.jpg (720x465, 75K)

23
Cul-de-sac and The Straight Story
Anna Karenina and Crash
Bach and Autechre
Christian conservative

Based

>Crash
Opinion discarded. Try next time

Why?

Sorry I thought you were talking about the movie Crash. Either way you are a pleb for not liking a movie simply because it lacks “focus”. I mean what kind of critique is that??

>Crash
are you serious

The movie Crash (1996) is also very good. The one from 2004 is terrible though.
Aesthetic completeness is pretty vital in good art. You can't string a series of interesting visuals together and call it a great film. There needs to be cohesiveness and flow. The Mirror did not work for me in that regard.

>There needs to be cohesiveness and flow.
Says who?

The novel from 1973 is what I'm referring to, and no I'm not joking. Anyone who wants to know anything about fearless art and great writing should read that book

So you have a certain framework of what a good art is and then you try to fit every film in it. That's stupid desu.

It's a very vague framework where a lot is permitted. The film didn't work for me

This desu

That's fine that it didn't work for you, i just think the way you criticized it was stupid.

Why? Why is having a framework for a critique stupid?

That’s not a framework for critique, it’s a framework of how you perceive art and expect it to be. which is pretty shallow minded

>it’s a framework of how you perceive art and expect it to be. which is pretty shallow minded
Why is it shallow minded when almost every aesthetic philosophy agrees?

I think that you are right when you say that based Tarkovski is the best director ever. But you are wrong when you say that he has no mediocre movies. Solaris is his worst and a very diluted (and mediocre) movie imho. Sacrifice is better than Solaris but somerhing went off in that movie too.

Anyway, The Mirror is a kino wonder, a technical achievement and a deeply emotional experience.

Wut

It's about how you perceive art. The framework that you set up for what is good art is just stupid and this narrow mindedness will prevent you watching and enjoying lot of films.

I disagree about Sacrifice, it's quite a beautiful film. Very well done and extremely beautiful, especially the ending.

You can't give me a reason why it's stupid though. And it's not narrow minded because it's extremely vague and subjective.

Because you deprive yourself of watching and appreciating films just because they don't fit your specific criteria. That's what so stupid about it. You shouldn't have a specific criteria of what constitutes a good film.

>Solaris is his weakest film
God I hate soulless philistines.

So what's his weakest film? All of his other films are pure soul imo. Solaris is not that great.

Solaris is a flawed but brilliant film. Its biggest fault is Tarkovsky's tendency to give characters philosophical monologues. You'd think a director who understands the importance of visuals would see why these parts are redundant. Is it fair to say he struggled to convey these themes naturally without crowbarring them in? I haven't seen much of his stuff but the ones I have seem that way

>You can't string a series of interesting visuals together and call it a great film.

The entire field of experimental cinema disagrees with you. I knew this already from your previous posts, but you simply need to become more educated in film.

Well i do have some problem with his dialogue, he seems to try to make everything poetic. This is especially present in his dialogue and it sometimes rubs me the wrong way. I have seen people complaining about Stalker because of this but i didn't feel that way. Nostalghia was one film where i found it a bit too much and it detracted from the experience. He reminds me of Theodoros Angelopoulos in this.

Solaris is his best film though

The greatest of the surrealists and New Wave always had a great flow and consistency to their films, even if it wasn't immediately apparent.

I agree with you two except that I like the effect it has. It often breaks the immersion of the film you are watching, making you consider or reconsider the thematics you have been naturally considering based on your interpretation so far. For me, the scene in Stalker where they all sit down and the writer talks about the point of art feels very Brechtian. I like how jarring it is to the tone because then the Stalker himself wonders on the spiritual value of music and then to whole film continues as if that didn't happen.

Highest quality vodka.

Tarkovsky himself disagrees with you.

and Lou Reed thought Lulu was his greatest album

I don't listen to music so i wouldn't know whether he was right or not.

Attached: You.jpg (1200x675, 49K)

why do Americans pretend to like Stalker?

But the problem with this is that the characters end up not being totally convincing, which hurts films which try to have drama. This is why Solaris is such an impressive film: the "love story" draws us in despite it. You fall for the illusion

Why would they pretend to like it?

Again I agree but the not entirely convincing characters don't bother me as much as long as they have a coherent narrative function. I don't know if i'm just being a postmodern brainlet but I dont really invest much in characters feeling real more than I am interested in what their presence is contributing to the overall ideas/poetry/etc of the film.

>I dont really invest much in characters feeling real more than I am interested in what their presence is contributing to the overall ideas/poetry/etc of the film
I am exactly the same way, but being able to truthfully express emotion and feeling through artifice will always help matters i m o

I literally can't stop agreeing with you. Authenticity is direly lacking in many films but to go back to the example I used, I genuinely feel the inner conflict that the endless cycle of doubt is causing the writer in that scene. He is clearly drained and frustrated by it in a self depreciating to the point that he feels like laughing at his own sadness. I don't know what im trying to say anymore other than many of those Tarkovsky speeches make me feel things.

Bump

more like Shartkovsky lmao

>experimental cinema
>brings up surrealism and new wave

You literally don’t know what you’re talking about and continue to make it obvious how ignorant you are when it comes to film. Just stop.

give me examples to prove me wrong then

Gotta agree with you pal, I love Tarkovsky but the Mirror was borderline unwatchable

1. Mirror
2. Andrei Rublev
3. Stalker
4. Offret
5. Nostalghia
6. Ivan's Childhood
7. Solaris

Attached: DyJR9q9WkAAUCa2.jpg (1200x842, 111K)

Why