Andrei destroyed the myth of Sisyphus He carried the cross instead of the rock and withstood the agony He befriended the pain to create harmony from disharmony , Beauty from the irrational,spiritual and anti-modernist tall grass And then he stood on the mountain , non victorious But silent , needing a hand to light the candle He stood there and martyrologed his - our - existence sculpted in our souls , memories , conscious To play the mercy prelude, And make us revisit the adoration of Faith

@tamerov2387

3 жыл бұрын

Beautiful!

@samuel0851

3 жыл бұрын

This is amazing, thank you so much!

I new nothing about Tarkovsky's fame / importance, and watched the sacrifice one night after going through my housemates movie collection. What an unforgettable night. In fact I watched it twice. I started at the end I guess. What a thing, to find such a great all by oneself.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, one's own sense of self-pleasure from rating filmmakers gets in the way of everything.

He is a genius!!Deeply spiritual!!!

I have always preferred European films but whenever i think of a genius,spiritual visionary, poetic filmmaker it's always Andrei and now a days maybe Bela Tarr. Only 7 films that marked me forever, the power of Art.

Well said. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar.

Uno de los genios que dio la URSS...❤🖤❤💛

Very interesting. Many features discussed here are also relevant to Bergman's "Seventh Seal" of course.Particularly narrative structure.

thanks for sharing this-

@prattals I said it was meant to be his main theme, supposedly. I didn't say that was what 2001 was _only_ about. It's an important theme in Full Metal Jacket. i like all the directors you mentioned too, but i can take or leave Melville. Lang was great in Germany only.

@lamentate07 also, 'hidden meanings' is also subjective, of course, depending greatly on the intelligence and education level of the audience. In foreign films, for example, the tendency for misinterpretation is great if the film is grounded in a specific cultural and political context. Or if a movie deals with philosophical ideas, like Tarkovsky, one needs to be aware of that first. Film buffs often throw the word 'metaphysical' around without knowing what it means.

Sorry for the belated reply: Yes, that's good old Vlada!

@prattals Agree that Exorcist is a really good film. I think Friedkin got lucky with that one. It's probably one of the few blockbusters in Hollywood history that is actually somewhat artistic.

Bravo :)

in which way did it change your perspective? it would be nice if you can share your thoughts

@rgs11 yeah, Tarkovsky is a master of cinematic form, no doubt. There are maybe a handful or two of directors that compare to him imo. I just referenced content in the moment, but his lighting, staging, and general mise-en-scene is on a different level to most. It's silly for me to try and separate form and content with Tarkovsky, as he achieved the perfect synergy.

is this vlada petrich, the famous harvard filmologist?

@prattals I made that formalist comment in relation to another film maker that is often accused of being cold and rigid like Kubrick, and that was Peter Greenaway. Form has a lot to do with complexity. It's the relationship between people and things(landscapes, objects) and how visual language is used to communicate ideas that distinguishes a great artist from a merely good or competent one. On this level, American directors generally do not compare to the greats of Europe, with few exceptions.

the only film maker alive today that s makes films with incredibly long shots like Tarkovsky is Greece's Theo Angelopoulos. their shooting styles are definitely comparable, but thematically they are not really similar at all. Hist best work is close to Andrei's in terms of quality IMO. as for Tarkovsky's remarks, i disagree that we can't learn from others experiences, but the great tragedy of life is that we usually don't. Perhaps that explains why history continuously repeats itself.

@prattals Having said that, i probably agree that 2001 is on par with Solaris, but Sol isn't even my favourite Tarkovsky film.

@prattals I think when Schrader is writing, Scorsese's films are sophisticated. When Schrader is absent, msot of the time they are not. I prefer Raging Bull to Taxi Driver personally. Raging Bull is one of my favourite movies of all time. and an American classic.

@prattals if you enjoy contemplative cinema, i suggest you check out both Tarr and Costa btw. You will probably get something out of Tarr especially if you admire Tarkovsky. later.

@prattals i disagree that no forms of expression are better than others. I think there is a clear difference between contemplative cinema, and the flashy cinema of directors like Scorsese(who i also like btw). One is capable of dealing with strong ideas, the other is not, as a general rule. The art film is mostly a Euro, and Asian, approach to cinema. American cinema improved by adopting aspects of it. Even Kubrick changed his style in the late 60's after being influenced by the Euros.

@prattals I'm not comparing all Americans to Europeans. I'm making a generalisation based on an abstract of what the cultural differences are. If you don't understand what i mean by that, you have no right to call me ignorant. A generalisation is a valuable heurestic aid(not to be ocnfused with a bad stereotype). it is not inherently bad like we are taught at school. We just tend to react to them when they are negative. Spelling mistake is just that - a mistake. Nothing more.

I'd rank Cassavetes at the same level as Tarkovsky- though he is much different, he was genuine, complex, and really believed in the human spirit, emotion, and love. Ozu is close too. But yeah, Tarkovsky blew away many other supposed masters. What does Hitchcock have on Stalker? NOTHING.

@prattals I also think Robert Altman at his best is comparable to the best of Europe btw. Anyway, this topic is growing stale. Just out of interest, do you like any of the following directors: Theo Angelopoulos, Pedro Costa, Bela Tarr, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Apichatpong Weerasethakul?

it's not pronounced andrej rubleeev, but andrej rubljov

PRATTAIS: i'm more interested in finding out who are your favourite directors outside of the English speaking world than bickering about the meaning of Kubrick's films.

@prattals Hitchcock wasn't American though ;-) I think Fuller is cheesy personally, but each to their own. Kubrick was a great technician, but i feel his films are not as complex as people think they are. His rigid formalism often worked _against_ complexity, whereas it works wonders for directors like Greenaway. Malick has a poetic style that's appealing, but i haven't liked his more recent work.

@prattals i dont' think Cassavetes is superior because of Godard. He is superior because of his use of form, and the way he interrogates and fleshes out his characters in such an intimite and personal way. His complete rejection of stylistic convention allows him to get inside his characters in a way that most other directors simply cannot do. Friedkin, by comparison, is just a good stylist and genre film maker, at best. He is not a humanist like Cassavetes, or an artistic explorer.

@lamentate07 David Lynch is in my opinion at a European level by far.

I understand, I had the same experience, terrible !

@prattals As i said, there isn't one American art film director that's as good as the best from Europe imo, with the sole exception of Cassavettes, who even Godard admitted was a superior artist. When Americans do 'art films', they are usually dumbed down. e.g Jamursch etc. It's not just about bias, American culture in general is less sophisticated, more anti-intellectual. It's less open to exploring ideas. That has inevitable consequences for the art it produces.

@prattals The comparison is pointless because they are different film makers, but if you are asking me who is more artistic and why, then i have given you at least 1-2 reasons why i think J.C is superior to W.F. I also think Friedkin had trouble combining the thrills of genre with either a social or psychological subtext. 'The Sorcerer', 'Bug' and 'Cruising' are 3 examples that come to mind. As for J.C, he is far from perfect; he made Gloria, after all ;-)

Radonezhsky, from Radonezh -- not Radonevsky.

@Absinthiee dude I've got tarkovsky's name in russian around my elbow, part of a huge tattoo of tarkovsky, antonioni, dreyer, pt anderson, & resnais imagery.

really? i dont' think any American film maker is on the same level as Tarkovsky. at least in terms of content. He was just on another level.

@prattals how much analysis can do be done on youtube? There is a strict word limit. I have lived in America, Americans are anti-intellectual compared to Europeans. That's a fact. Even in the big cities. Maybe you should live overseas and see for yourself. Artists and thinkers are very respected in most of Europe. In America they are respected if they make money. Most serious American artists are more respected overseas, and that includes directors like Jamursch too btw.

@prattals ignorant in the 'artistic sense', i mean, since it's not taught as widely and broadly in schools as it is in Europe, because it's not really a huge part of their culture(although literature is, granted).

Agree that Thin Red Line is a good film, but The New World was dull to me, and his new film looks like the cinematic equivalent of a hallmark card. There are far more interesting directors out there than Malick nowadays. he had his time, and that time was in the 70's, and then briefly, again, with his return in the late 90's

@prattals I rely on others to find meaning for me? don't give yourself too much credit there. We all rely on others to some extent for this, because we are not centres of gravity. Being part of the film community involves reading interpretations, exchanging meaning, establishing consensus(if possible), for better or worse. anyway, stop talking about American directors. What other foreign directors do you like and understand(most importantly)?

Wtf , why u argue about america in a tarkosky video :s

@prattals I find Kubrick's films to be quite obvious really, from the point of meaning anyway. 2001 is probably the sole exception. And i disagree that his films tackle the nature of fear. Kubrick's big theme was supposedly 'dehumanisation' according to his critics and fans, but i think it's a stretch to find that theme working in most of his films(although it it's there in some of them, mostly explicitly in Full Metal Jacket).

@prattals It's very individualistic, but it's also highly conformist. How does that work? I found a lot more diversity in opinion and attitudes in Paris than i did in cosmopolitan New York to be honest. On the contrary, i'd say that, since America is an 'individualist' nation without as much culture--from a historical perspective--this is precisely what makes them ignorant, since they have no common standard to live up to. No traditions to align themselves with.

Don't agree with what Tarkovsky is saying. You absolutely can learn from others' experiences.

cigarettes killed tarkovsky. need ANYMORE reasons to quit?

See kubrickfilms.tripoddotcom very interesting views, see esp FMJ page analysis, very complex movie