Jett: ‘If there were one film to take to a desert island and the only one I could see for the rest of my life, it would be ‘Andrei Rublev’. It’s an astonishing, engrossing film that feels like it was shot in the time it was set. In the 14th century.’
Gareth: ‘I probably haven’t had a more transcendent experience with a film than when I saw ‘Solaris”
Next month, our friends at Film Society of Lincoln Center in NYC will present a week of cinematic mysticism with a complete retrospective of Tarkovsky’s feature films. We’re going to record a podcast about Tarkovsky in a couple of weeks – and look forward to the extraordinary delight of watching all of his movies before recording.
We’ll save the discussion of the meaning of his films for later; though their power probably can’t be overstated, so I’ll allow myself one comment: Andrei Tarkovsky’s films leave me feeling as if cinema really does matter, make me excited to be alive, and remind me of the privilege of being human.
If you’re in the area we can’t encourage you enough to visit FilmLinc. And if not, while DVD will be a poor substitute for the enveloping experience of watching this most spiritually expansive director’s works in a cinema, I’d still visit the Mummy in Belfast’s Ulster Museum even if I couldn’t get to the pyramids.*
*Full disclosure: Much as I wish TFT had the budget to house me in New York for a week so I could sit at the Walter Reade Theater in the presence of Andrei Tarkovsky’s films, only one of which I’ve actually seen in a cinema. Alas TFT ran on a shoestring even before the economic crisis! So if you can’t be in NYC for the season, don’t be lonely – we’re in solidarity with you, watching at home. Actually, it occurs to me that, given that Tarkovsky’s films are as much about the interior journey of the individual human as they are about the macro-spiritual nature of the universe, ultimately each of them needs to be seen twice – once on the biggest screen you can find (try the Max Linder Kinopanorama in Paris if you’re ever there), and once alone in your cave. Doesn’t particularly matter which order you do it in.
I've never seen Andrei Rublev, or any of Tarkovsky’s films; have it on rental list to see this weekend – looking forward to it.. Also planning on seeing, The Girlfriend Experience – thanks for the tips sirs
Seeing SOLARIS for the first time on 35mm at the Belcourt last spring was one of the better cinematic experiences of 2008. Would LOVE to see RUBLEV soon
Rublev Action!
I think Tarkovsky movies are something akin to what it was like sitting in the trenches in WW1… hours and days and weeks and months of boredom, peppered with almost-overwhelming experiences from time to time.
With Tarkovsky there are no explosions though, but somehow the 'overwhelmingness' of the experience can kind of creep up on you unwares as you sit and watch someone scratch the table for 20 minutes.
In anticipation of your Tarkcast, here's my rundown…
Solaris -First and still my favourite. I agree with Gareth above. Despite being interrupted by visitors (whom I could have shot if I had a gun) in the last 20 minutes, thus spoiling the whole mood that had built up for the preceding 2 hours, I was still blown away by the ending -not in any traditional way we might think of 'being blown away' though.
The remake (or remake of the book?) to me was like all Soderberg movies… Technically brilliant, but with zero art. His heart is in the right place, but I think he'd make an excellent director's assistant, getting the right shots, setups, lenses, etc., if someone else was explaining the point to him.
Andrei Rublev -I'm looking forward to watching this again soon. As with other Tarkovsky films, it can grate in places, waiting for something to happen, but then things just seem to build and you find yourself being lost for breath just because people are building a bell in front of you.
I hated seeing the horse fall down the stairs, which is the main reason I haven't seen it more than twice.
The Mirror -I found this utterly boring. I found nothing of value in it, and alas, it's the kind of thing that gives “arthouse” a bad name in my view. “Art” doesn't have to be the antithesis of entertainment, but nobody told Tarky that. I didn't like it.
The Sacrifice -I'm afraid my Tark-love had begun to wane by now. This film all but killed it. It's true I'd have to re-watch to list what I've blocked from my mind, but I'd rather stick hot pins in my eyeballs. Acting was like amateur dramatics hamming an over-wrought melodrama, except in this case the melodrama was lacking the drama. As with all of these films, any criticism can be countered by a patronising “yeah, but that's the point, Tarkovsky here is showing us how… blah blah blah”.
The point to me was a group of hams spend 3 hours in an isolated house, doing and saying nothing much while the world ends elsewhere (I think). Or something.
Nostalghia -Another 3 hour build to a sneeze.
I was bored for most of it I have to admit, but for some reason I can't figure I still often think of that one scene where the guy walks from one end of the court to another. I could give a little more detail, but the film is so lacking in anything like suspense I'd rather not “give away” anything much about the one scene that sticks with me.
If I'm not mistaken, the scene soon after, near a statue is supposed to be something more dramatic, but didn't really haunt or do anything for me like Tarkovsky can do, building the banal to something amazing (while keeping it banal).
For me, there are many more “art” movie makers out there -especially those of 50s/60s French films- that don't think of Entertainment as a glob of spit- that say much more than Tarkovsky does.
I'm thinking of movies like Le Trou, Wages of Fear (silly but great), Beauty and the Beast, The 400 Blows. Hell, even Two-Lane Blacktop is a better Tarkovsky movie than anything made by Tarkovsky (IMO).
…I can't find the quote right now, but I think it was Wages of Fear director, Clouzet, who said something like 'the secret of great cinema is boring the audience to death for 3 hours, then over-awing them for 10 minutes' (very rough approximation of what he said).
But with Wages of Fear at least, he doesn't hold true to this, because I think it's a very entertaining, enjoyable and exciting film throughout.
…It may have been Le Trou director Jacques Becker who said it. I can see how some might find it a bit slower, but maaaaan what a great movie Le Trou is.
Anyway, my point is, I think Tarkovsky heard and pared down that quote, leaving out the 10 minutes.
In the 15 or so hours of Tark movies I've seen (and re-seen), I think there has been possibly 40 minutes of stick-in-the-mind-forever moments, interspersed with 5 hours of technical mastery and the rest is pure boredom.
Worth it? Possibly. I'm not certain.
I'm looking forward to hearing your views on them.
I think Tarkovsky movies are something akin to what it was like sitting in the trenches in WW1… hours and days and weeks and months of boredom, peppered with almost-overwhelming experiences from time to time.
With Tarkovsky there are no explosions though, but somehow the 'overwhelmingness' of the experience can kind of creep up on you unwares as you sit and watch someone scratch the table for 20 minutes.
In anticipation of your Tarkcast, here's my rundown…
Solaris -First and still my favourite. I agree with Gareth above. Despite being interrupted by visitors (whom I could have shot if I had a gun) in the last 20 minutes, thus spoiling the whole mood that had built up for the preceding 2 hours, I was still blown away by the ending -not in any traditional way we might think of 'being blown away' though.
The remake (or remake of the book?) to me was like all Soderberg movies… Technically brilliant, but with zero art. His heart is in the right place, but I think he'd make an excellent director's assistant, getting the right shots, setups, lenses, etc., if someone else was explaining the point to him.
Andrei Rublev -I'm looking forward to watching this again soon. As with other Tarkovsky films, it can grate in places, waiting for something to happen, but then things just seem to build and you find yourself being lost for breath just because people are building a bell in front of you.
I hated seeing the horse fall down the stairs, which is the main reason I haven't seen it more than twice.
The Mirror -I found this utterly boring. I found nothing of value in it, and alas, it's the kind of thing that gives “arthouse” a bad name in my view. “Art” doesn't have to be the antithesis of entertainment, but nobody told Tarky that. I didn't like it.
The Sacrifice -I'm afraid my Tark-love had begun to wane by now. This film all but killed it. It's true I'd have to re-watch to list what I've blocked from my mind, but I'd rather stick hot pins in my eyeballs. Acting was like amateur dramatics hamming an over-wrought melodrama, except in this case the melodrama was lacking the drama. As with all of these films, any criticism can be countered by a patronising “yeah, but that's the point, Tarkovsky here is showing us how… blah blah blah”.
The point to me was a group of hams spend 3 hours in an isolated house, doing and saying nothing much while the world ends elsewhere (I think). Or something.
Nostalghia -Another 3 hour build to a sneeze.
I was bored for most of it I have to admit, but for some reason I can't figure I still often think of that one scene where the guy walks from one end of the court to another. I could give a little more detail, but the film is so lacking in anything like suspense I'd rather not “give away” anything much about the one scene that sticks with me.
If I'm not mistaken, the scene soon after, near a statue is supposed to be something more dramatic, but didn't really haunt or do anything for me like Tarkovsky can do, building the banal to something amazing (while keeping it banal).
For me, there are many more “art” movie makers out there -especially those of 50s/60s French films- that don't think of Entertainment as a glob of spit- that say much more than Tarkovsky does.
I'm thinking of movies like Le Trou, Wages of Fear (silly but great), Beauty and the Beast, The 400 Blows. Hell, even Two-Lane Blacktop is a better Tarkovsky movie than anything made by Tarkovsky (IMO).
…I can't find the quote right now, but I think it was Wages of Fear director, Clouzet, who said something like 'the secret of great cinema is boring the audience to death for 3 hours, then over-awing them for 10 minutes' (very rough approximation of what he said).
But with Wages of Fear at least, he doesn't hold true to this, because I think it's a very entertaining, enjoyable and exciting film throughout.
…It may have been Le Trou director Jacques Becker who said it. I can see how some might find it a bit slower, but maaaaan what a great movie Le Trou is.
Anyway, my point is, I think Tarkovsky heard and pared down that quote, leaving out the 10 minutes.
In the 15 or so hours of Tark movies I've seen (and re-seen), I think there has been possibly 40 minutes of stick-in-the-mind-forever moments, interspersed with 5 hours of technical mastery and the rest is pure boredom.
Worth it? Possibly. I'm not certain.
I'm looking forward to hearing your views on them.