Tarkovsky

For those of you who have seen all of his work, how do you feel about his entire ovuere?

I just finally finished seeing all of his films this past weekend with Nostalghia. He is, to me, the greatest director.

i haven’t seen all of his films yet. but i just watched “my name is ivan” a few weeks ago. it’s the first time i’ve seen it in years. it wasn’t as good as i remember it. as such, i dont think the film is very strong. probably more interesting in connection with the development of tarkovsky’s ouevre than as a general masterpiece of world cinema.

Shane, if you havent already, I recommend reading his book, Sculpting in Time. His view of cinema has been a transformative force in my life.

I’m glad someone brought this up – I’ve only seen Solaris and Andrei Rublev. I loved Solaris, but was became bored with Rublev halfway through and just barely finished it. I know that sounds ridiculous considering how painfully slow Solaris is, but the film just really grabbed me, whereas Rublev didn’t.

I’ve read about Stalker and Nostalghia, and am very interested in seeing both. Are either of those films comparable in tone or experience to Solaris or Rublev? Or are they each entirely different?

The only Tarkovsky I have seen is Zerkalo. I was confused by it the first time, so I watched it again and was able to really appreciate it. It’s almost overwhelming, the different styles of directing. It’s a mosaic of cinema, and it’s one of the most beautifully-shot and gently cared-for stories I’ve seen. I will definitely make an attempt to see more of Tarkovsky’s films.

If you loved Solaris, Citizen Spain, you’ll love Stalker. A minimalist sci-fi epic that deals with morality, mortality and religion, among many other things. For my money, it’s superior to Solaris in almost every way, though both would easily make my non-existent 100 Greatest Films of all Time list.

I too have seen everything in Tarkovsky’s limited yet brilliant ovuere. I would say it’s one of the finest collections of films any director can claim credit for, and I don’t think there’s a bad one in the bunch. Even his student films are fantastic, and as someone who has first hand experience with the amount of pure shit that usually comes out of film schools (even the most prestigious ones), this is no easy feat. In a way, he was born to be a master.

i didn’t care for “stalker” at all when i saw it. but i’m very curious to watch “rublev”. i’ve been told its a tough watch though.

I have been trying to track down some of his film for a while.

go to nostalghia.com for all things Tarkovsky. I also recommend

http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/02/tarkovsky.html

for another list of sources.

There are a number of books that you could read in addition to Sculpting In Time. One of the first I read was Mark Le Fanu’s The Cinema of Andrei Tarkovsky, and Maya Turovskaya wrote Tarkovsky which I quite like for even more in depth analysis. If anyone has more books to recommend, please share them.

You definitely have to be in the right frame of mind to watch a Tarkovsky film.

I’m of the opinion that Tarkovsky is the absolute genius of film. ‘Sculpting in time’ is essential reading and this site http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghia.com/.
Unlike many of the cognoscenti, I’m quite convinced that his masterpiece is his last film…Offret…or The Sacrifice…rather less for its technical accomplishments but certainly for his intense exposition on the real significance of our existence against the current paradigm. It is a challenge many won’t recognize or perhaps even understand, but one which eventually we must address….the recklessness and hubris of our materialistic individualism is most likely lethal, and Tarkovsky sees this most acutely and says so with a deeply poetic intensity. It is a profoundly significant description for us to use as a species, placing it far beyond the scope of most film critics.

As profound an encounter as you could ever hope for.

check out this article:

http://www.newstatesman.com/arts-and-culture/2008/05/tarkovsky-films-boring-viewers

that’s good Geoarge. That’s how it feels to me.

Stalker was very haunting!

Solaris was nothing but brilliant!

I need to watch his other films.

He also directed a stage for a Russian Opera.

Here is a topic just made for me. I love Tarkovsky, and rate him (as did Bergman), above all other directors. He took film into a new place – a place at once mystical, sublime, haunting, and infinitely mysterious. He uses everything – long tracking shots (he was famous for these), excellent soundscape (just listen to his movies), excellent framing of shots (the only greater is Fellini, I believe), great sense of cinematic landscape – his mis en scene as the snooty would call it. He throws a wide variety of symbols into his films: water and fire imagery, horses, dogs (esp. black), Brueghel paintings, Russian icons, etc, etc. Don’t ask me what they mean, because I really haven’t firgured that out myself. (Haven’t the foggiest). Tarkovsky was notoriously mute and dense on the subject himself. When once asked what was the meaning of all the water imagery in his movies (see the water dripping into the bottles in the large room in Nostalghia, for example) he replied laconically, “It rains a lot where I come from in Russia.” Don’t expect much help from his own book on film or what has so far been written about him (that I have read, in any case). You need to draw your own conclusions. Those of you, unlike me, who have studied classical painting motifs and iconography might have a better handle.

Like Brandan above, I rank Stalker as his penultimate movie – see my review of the film on this site. Stalker has everything in it, every Tarkovskian (for that what his world vision is, like Kafka’s is Kafkaesque) trick in the book. However, you definitely need to see it more than once, do all the reading, explore the essays on him on the net, etc, to really prime yourself for the experience of this film. This is total cinema, just like 2001, but totally different.

Solaris was Tarkovsky’s attempt to do a 2001 type of film, but it just ends up as a Tarkovsky film, with little relation to Kubrick’s vision. Charlielom has an excellent argument for Sacrifice above, which I love, too. My other favorite Tarkovsky film is Nostalghia – this, too me, is his most poetical film. Each time I see it, I get new levels of meaning. Like Sacrifice, some of its scenes pack a real punch.

Andrei Rublev I find too stark and unremitting – it is my least favorite of his films, but brilliant, nonetheless. Ivan’s Childhood is a good introductory film, he was starting to hit his stride with this movie. Mirror is a good film to get an insight into his use of symbols and imagery. I have yet to see his early student work beffore Ivan’s Childhood.

But Stalker – that is the mountain one must climb to be a true Tarkovskian! Sorry for being so effusive – get yourself into the Room at the end of Stalker, and all your Tarkovskian dreams will come true. Back to you, Shane, and fellow Tarkovskians.

you need to grab that “killers” criterion dvd. its got tark’s student film adaptation of hemingway’s story. nothing that impressed me too much, but i don’t love him as much as some do.

interesting short review of 2 new books on Tarkovsky: http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/015_04/3005
I also recommend his diaries, Time Within Time, published by Faber & Faber, and Maya Trovskaya’s classic study “Tarkovsky: Cinema as Poetry”

I’m extremely excited to see more Tarkovsky. I’ve only seen Solaris, which was a bit disappointing (not to say that it’s want good, just didn’t like it) and Andrei Rublev, which I love.

Any suggestions for what should come next?

Yes, I have read Scultping in Time. I read it last year over my x-mas vacation from college and just before I did another personal film project over the summer. Needless to say, it is a brilliant examination of how filmmaking should be percieved. Tarkovsky’s very opinionated and you can tell that he put a great deal of himself into his films. Some of the motivatoins and techniques he described are exactly how I have been approaching my film projects. So reading it felt like listening to a kindred spirit.

Yes, I have read Scultping in Time. I read it last year over my x-mas vacation from college and just before I did another personal film project over the summer. Needless to say, it is a brilliant examination of how filmmaking should be percieved. Tarkovsky’s very opinionated and you can tell that he put a great deal of himself into his films. Some of the motivatoins and techniques he described are exactly how I have been approaching my film projects. So reading it felt like listening to a kindred spirit.

I have also seen “The Steamroller and the Violin.” Its a very delightful little short and a great study in complex cinematography (very tricky rack focus shots).

What I find great about Tarkovsky is that there is no objective critical list for his films. Someone can love one and hate another. Or love all of them but for different reasons. He is so malleable as an artist, that the viewer ends up projecting so much of themselves onto one of his films. So a person’s preference for one depends on how much one feels personally invested or connected to it.

Tarkovsky, like Bresson (of whom Andrei was a great admirer), completed very few films, but with both it is quality over quantity. Each was consistently excellent, and I don’t use the word lightly.

Their small repertoires might be misleading though, as their films get richer on multiple viewings almost seeming like something entirely new.

I recommend seeing each and every film in his body of work. Several times.

Tarkovsky is second only to Kubrick I believe, or at least tied to him.

Stalker will change you.

I never watched Tarkovsky but heard and read a lot about his movies, I have to watch Andrei Rublev, Stalker and Solaris.

At this point I would consider Mirror a masterpiece among masterpieces. After that: Andrei Rublev, Sacrifice, Stalker, Solaris, are all great in different ways.

I’ve only seen Solaris so far, and was absolutely blown away with it. The only comparison with 2001 I could possibly see would be the use of space as a metaphor for finding some ultimate truth, but Solaris is more about the characters rather than the allegory, and in my opinion works better as a film. The first few scenes, the plants in the water was just so well captured, and really transmitted something about the grace and perfection of nature. The whole idea of a planet as a realizor of our consciousness is mind blowing to say the least. I loved the part of Sos Sarkisyan, very eerie. And honestly, this movie’s portrayal of futuristic space ships (the interior at least) is superior to 2001 in every way. I was very impressed with what Tarkovsky was able to do in the Soviet Union.

After reading all these posts, I’m definitely finding the book Sculpting in Time, and watching Stalker as soon as I can. Btw, I’m new to these forums, and am absolutely blown away to find this many cinephiles in one place. Usually no one knows what I’m talking about.

Quick question: I’m about to watch my first Tarkovsky film ever—I rented Stalker from Netflix. Now, recently someone recommended I introduce myself to Bergman with Wild Strawberries first, then Seventh Seal. That was a wonderful experience, having seen them in that order.

Is Stalker a good introduction to Tarkovsky? To hear Bob S. talk about it, it seems like his masterpiece.

Well, you’re watching STALKER on video, which isn’t necessarily a good idea. His films, I find, just don’t really work on video. If video is really your only option, I’d say watch SOLARIS or IVAN’S CHILDHOOD, which have the benefit of a really fine Criterion transfer.

You mean as opposed to seeing them in the theater? I’d agree that’s the best way to see any film, but I have a 65" television.

id start at the beginning if i was introducing myself to tarkovsky, with “ivans childhood”.

starting with “stalker” might be like introducing yourself to lynch and starting with “lost highway” or something. then again, i guess it doesnt make much difference in the long run with either director!

I just thought I’d ask since my experience with Bergman was so interesting (having watched them in that order). But with Kubrick I started with 2001 when I was a kid and just made it to Killer’s Kiss a couple of years ago.