Both films are amazing, but neither is accessible. They’re both nearly three hours long and are slowly paced. I would recommend going through Tarkovsky chronologically because Ivan’s Childhood, his first feature, is definitely his most accessible film. As for the quality of his films…I’ve given every single one of his features a 10 out of 10.
Both films are masterpieces, but start with Solaris. I saw Stalker a month ago and I’m still diggesting it.
In terms of approachable narrative, Ivan’s Childhood is definitely the most straightforward. The further you go through his films chronologically, the more obscure the narratives become. However, the sacrifice of a clear cut story is traded off for an increasingly impressive visual approach. My personal favorite is Andrei Rublev, which is a essentially both strong in terms of narrative filmmaking and visual filmmaking. If you’re choosing between Solaris and Stalker, I’d go with Solaris first (its the first of his that I saw too). It’s not an easy film to immediately digest, but going with something like Stalker might be a harder meal to swallow.
Both films are two of the Greatest Films I’ve ever seen (Stalker is #4 and Solaris #14 in my rankings), and, henceforth, should be seen. Like with what others have said, I’d start with Solaris, it definitely is more accessible than Stalker, albeit accessible in terms of Tarkovsky films not mainstream. They are both heavily tinged in philosophy, so if you are not the thinking type/ don’t like to mentally work during a film, than these probably aren’t for you.
Not that this is important but how well known are stalker and solaris, because even though they feature prominently on this site’s list of the most popular films I can’t imagine they’re very well known among most Americans, although I could surprisingly be wrong.
Most of the films we talk about are not well known.
@Queens – Up until late last year, Stalker was in IMDB’s Top 250, which, by my estimations, is a predominantly American, or at least comprised mostly of English speaking people, website. I’m sure Solaris rings a bell to some Americans as well, considering Soderbergh made a remake 8 years ago. All that said, there are only a few people in my film school who have even heard of Tarkovsky/Stalker/Solaris, much less my friends outside of that, so I would guess running into some American who’s heard of one of these films is pretty rare.
Seriously though, Americans usually have no general knowledge of any art forms. About 1 out of 100 kids at my high school even know who Alfred Hitchcock or Stanley Kubrick is, let alone Andrei Tarkovsky.
Actually it might be better to start with The Steamroller and the Violin.
As noted, Tarkovsky’s films got more dense below the surface while seemingly little is happening above as his career progressed.
As to Stalker vs Solyaris … hmmm. I find Stalker the more intriguing, but the more obvious sci-fi trappings of Solyaris may make it easier to deal with.
“About 1 out of 100 kids at my high school even know who Alfred Hitchcock or Stanley Kubrick”
That’s sad to be perfectly honest.
@Robley- You’re talking about High School. Since when were those under the age of 18, deep, worldly beings? – regardless of Country or descent.
I knew who both Hitchcock and Kubrick were when I was under 12 at the very least, but then again, different people are familiar with different things
There’s a difference between being a deep, worldly being and knowing who Alfred stinkin’ Hitchcock is.
Parents of High Schooler’s today grew up with Spielberg, Lucas, Coppola, De Palma, not Hitchcock, Ray, Kazan, etc. So, naturally , it only makes sense for most American High Schooler’s not to know who Hitch is, as they are 2 generations removed, thus not exposed to it, directly or indirectly.
I don’t even know what we’re actually arguing here.
Original post: “Seriously though, Americans usually have no general knowledge of any art forms.”, followed by “About 1 out of 100 kids at my high school even know who Alfred Hitchcock or Stanley Kubrick is, let alone Andrei Tarkovsky.”
I’ve already proven my point…and as for exposure, I was raised just like any other high school kid and I was exposed just as much as any of my fellow students. From my experience, it is more of a lacking in the ability to grasp the concept of art than the exposure to it.
>>From my experience, it is more of a lacking in the ability to grasp the concept of art than the exposure to it.<<
I agree, Robley. With the rise of the internet, there’s no longer an excuse that good film is inaccessible. It’s a cultural symptom of the more general American anti-intellectualism, I’m afraid. The reason they don’t have knowledge of film or any other art form is that they just can’t be bothered. They don’t want to have to think. When someone can find Two and a Half Men entertaining, why the fuck would they ever want to research and study quality cinema? That’s for the Academics and the Elites, who as all decent Americans know have destroyed this country with their Logic and communistic beliefs
Queens2010
I have seen neither film but would like to watch both eventually. I have not seen any tarkovsky films to be perfectly honest. In any case, I would like to know how people feel about the two aforementioned films, and I would also like some insight into their level of accessibility. Thank you.