“OK, but what does this signify?”
The brutality of life? ;-)
“And the represent different points of view concerning the themes—e.g., the existence of violence and suffering when an omnipotent, loving God exists. So the film is still not about the story or characters, but about the ideas.”
Yes but it could still be about the diversity of response to the situation. and we still have characters, even if they are not the whole point of the story. In Turin Horse we get virtually no insight whatsoever into what they are thinking or feeling. We still aren’t even sure if they are meant to be symbols.
The ideas in Thin Red Line are as clear as day. Turin Horse is more of a head scratcher.
The brutality of life? ;-)
Yeah, but you gotta admit, this would be disappointing if that’s all the film was trying to depict.
The ideas in Thin Red Line are also as clear as day. Turin Horse is more of a head scratcher.
I agree, but my point still stands. Even if the story and characters are more compelling that the ones in TH, both films are about the themes and ideas. Moreover, Malick uses voice-overs to help us understand these themes—versus advance the story or the characters. (The themes may be clearer in TTRL, but it wouldn’t be without these voice-overs, imo.) And Tarr seems to be using the monologue. My feeling is that visuals alone wouldn’t be sufficient to comprehend both films.
“yeah, but you gotta admit, this would be disappointing if that’s all the film was trying to depict.”
Maybe, but i can think of few films that expressed that idea so well.
To me Turin Horse was a real experience.
(The themes may be clearer in TTRL, but it wouldn’t be without these voice-overs, imo.)"It would be less clear, i agree with that, but i think the conflicts could be read symbolically even without the voice overs, although it would probably take a few more views to get the most out of it ;-)
For anyone with Netflix streaming, it was recently added….
Jazz: I’d be interested in …..the meaning of The Turin Horse, especially the monologue.
I think Oxy pegged the monologue specifically to Nietzsche’s Will to Power and Beyond Good and Evil.
Joks made a number of interesting assertions.
Nietzsche thing is just an appendage and adds little to the film ##
I think it is central – it is cohesive with the experiential nature of the film.
although his idea was to reverse the master-slave dynamic
It is how that happens – the master can’t be totally victorious over the slave because the master is dependent on the slave. ( hence the horse motif) Ultimately the slave prevails as the master realizes his impotence. In the end, they take the horse with them and push their belongs themselves. The ultimate
Nietzschean realization is found in their return.
they cant do anything to improve their situation and like the horse, will inevitably surrender their will to the universe and accept defeat.
Their situation is to return, to repeat their rituals, to fade.
To me Turin Horse was a real experience.
Yes, the film is experiential.
Who is the master and the slave in the film?
The old man is the master, the daughter is his heir.
The horse is the slave.
Hmm. So you think the horse represents the masses, while the old man is the master or Ubermensch?
It is how that happens – the master can’t be totally victorious over the slave because the master is dependent on the slave. ( hence the horse motif) Ultimately the slave prevails as the master realizes his impotence. In the end, they take the horse with them and push their belongs themselves. The ultimate
Nietzschean realization is found in their return.
Is this Nietzschean, though? I thought the master rules the slave—by setting their own rules, being independent of the rules of the slaves. No?
Is this Nietzschean, though?
Indeed.
The best explanation of the dynamic in the ending of the film – the slave stops eating, the heir stops eating, and then the master stops eating will have to come from Nietzsche:
My idea is that each body (force) strives to become master over the whole of space, and to spread out its power – its WILL-TO-POWER repelling whatever resists its expansion. But it strikes continually upon a like endeavor of other forces, and ends by adjusting itself (“unifying”) with them…I see Turin Horse as “post-philosphy”- After Nietzsche breaks down and sobs over a flogged horse, that horse returns to it’s desolate stable and it’s impoverished hard hearted masters and their drudgery. We witness the horse lose its will to live, and eventually the owners lose their will….and then even the film loses it’s “will to be a flim” (as the light fades). In essence: after philosophy, there is still existence. This existence, this struggle- does it lead anywhere? No, it just fades. Can film redeem this existence? No, the film (the light, the plot, the sense of the reality of the characters routine) fades as well. The “twist” in the plot just ends up going nowhere and is unexplained. (Also the rumor that this is the filmmaker’s last film) I think another key to this film being “post philosophy” is that the apocalyptic monologue is dismissed as rubbish- thus denying that even nihilism can explain the harshness of existence.
Nietzsche believed that the struggle of the will was redeeming/ transforming. This film says…. nahhh.my two cents.
@Two Plus Two I think another key to this film being “post philosophy” is that the apocalyptic monologue is dismissed as rubbish- thus denying that even nihilism can explain the harshness of existence.
Bravo !
A.C. Danto in Nietzsche as Philosopher:
Nihilism is needed to clear the way for creativity, to make it plain that the world is without significance or form. And Will-to-Power imposes upon that unshaped substance the form and meaning which we cannot live without. There is no specific form or meaning without which we cannot live, however. How we shall live, and what we shall mean, is up to us to say.
The wills, in other words, are formless antecedents to being given a form; and Will-to-Power is the general description of this conflict of wills, in which the victor imposes a form.
@Robert- I agree that Nietszche believed that, but I think film does not believe that will produces much beyond a prolongation of suffering, and a slow fade to meaninglessness. This is the “Last Film” about the breakdown of the will of characters, stories, light and the filmmaker.
I think the key to the film’s “philosophy” is that the film “takes place” AFTER the philosopher (Nietzsche) is confronted with real suffering (the horse) and breaks down. It’s concern is the horse… meaning the reality of suffering and the inability of philosophy (and therefor film) to explain it or redeem it.
One page one, before I had seen the film, I said this:
Approaching the film from a Nietzschean perspective is going to be difficult, at best. He didn’t pull his aphorisms into any cohesive whole. …… There is no there, there – I can understand Tarr’s reluctance to place much weight on the monologue…..Tarr is more concerned with spatial/temporal aspects of cinema rather than narrative. Nonetheless, I would suggest that one resist the feeling that spatial-temporal reasoning will lead to a conceptual solution to his films in terms of narrative.
It is just a film and a highly effective film at that. The scene with the girl framed in the window – I’ve seen that still image before here on MUBI and I knew Tarr was going to move in on her, but it still gave me goose bumps. That is what I want from a film – to cut through the ‘knowing ego’ and make me feel.
Tarr’s films have been full of dancing and drinking. I think the Dionysian Nietszche would love this film as well – it was the perfect match up.
Films end, life goes on….
“Tarr’s films have been full of dancing and drinking.”
Have you seen Damnation?
your comment was very “Damnation”
The first shot of Turin Horse is unbelievable.
@Two
There are similarities in the way we interpret the film, but some major differences as well. Replace “post-philosophy” with something like “post-art” or “post-excellence” and we would be more in agreement.
I think another key to this film being “post philosophy” is that the apocalyptic monologue is dismissed as rubbish- thus denying that even nihilism can explain the harshness of existence.
But the events that occur after the monologue seem to confirm the monologues’ message. The neighbor says that the town is “swept away and gone to ruin.” The father asks why has it gone to ruins. Then the man explains that “they” have debased the world. The monologue is complicated, and I’m not sure I completely understand it—but it’s not necessarily “philsophy”. Rather, it seems to suggest that materlialism, relativism, and philistinism has finally triumphed. If these ideas have triumphed, then there can be no spiritual meaning or art of any meaning or significance, and without those things life is bland and meaningless—precisely the type of existence we see of the man, daughter and the horse.
The “twist” in the plot just ends up going nowhere and is unexplained. (Also the rumor that this is the filmmaker’s last film)
What’s the twist in the plot?
“But the events that occur after the monologue seem to confirm the monologues’ message. "
I guess you are right- but I still think the old man’s dismissal of the monologue carries a lot of weight. Also, if the horse’s lack of will to live is the central part of the story that I think it is, then I am not sure the reasons that human world has gone to “hell” are as crucial to the story.
“What’s the twist in the plot?”
What I meant was SPOILERS FOLLOW that the old man and girl decide to get out of their situation once the well is poisoned(?) We have this elaborate sequence and endless shot of them leaving on the horizon… and returning in the same shot. Why? We will not know. It is kind of an “anti-film” moment. so it is more of anti-twist then a twist! It is Tarr “giving up” on “plot.”
I guess you are right- but I still think the old man’s dismissal of the monologue carries a lot of weight.
Why? He just says something like, “Bah,” which isn’t a very effective rebuttal. Why would you have this long, elaborate monologue only to have it dismissed? Plus, the contents seem to actually support a reading of the film.
Also, if the horse’s lack of will to live is the central part of the story that I think it is, then I am not sure the reasons that human world has gone to “hell” are as crucial to the story.
But why does the horse refuse to live? If you’re saying the death of philosophy is the reason, then why wouldn’t the world going to “hell” isn’t a valid reason as well. And remember there are specific reasons the world has ended—namely, the final victory of relativism, materlialism and philistinism. This reading also matches up well with the claim that this is Tarr’s last film. If Tarr truly believes that those ideologies have finally triumphed, then his retirement would make complete sense.
What I meant was SPOILERS FOLLOW that the old man and girl decide to get out of their situation once the well is poisoned(?) We have this elaborate sequence and endless shot of them leaving on the horizon… and returning in the same shot. Why? We will not know. It is kind of an “anti-film” moment. so it is more of anti-twist then a twist! It is Tarr “giving up” on “plot.”
OK, got it. First of all, I think Tarr gave up on plot long before the twist. Second, how does the twist fit in with your reading? (I agree, I’m not sure what it means either.)
" First of all, I think Tarr gave up on plot long before the twist. Second, how does the twist fit in with your reading? " Well, i think he was playing with the expectations that come with “plot”: that the drudgery of the first two thirds of the film would either lead to escape, or the apocalypse… not lead back on itself. To me it was ant-film moment, so I felt I was watching a film about film making- or the pointlessness of film. Nietszche fans can say “No it’s about Eternal Recurrence!” but I am not sure about that, because that is another philosophy that gives meaning to suffering.
Well, i think he was playing with the expectations that come with “plot”: that the drudgery of the first two thirds of the film would either lead to escape, or the apocalypse… not lead back on itself. To me it was ant-film moment, so I felt I was watching a film about film making- or the pointlessness of film.
I think I know what you’re saying. You’re not saying that some escape or apocalypse would make for a good story per se, but at least it would fall in line with expectations and provide some satisfying resolution? For example, I don’t think Werckmeister Harmonies has a satisfying story and if you’re looking for a story, that film feels pointless as well. But maybe you’d argue that the ending of that film seems more satisfying?
Nietszche fans can say “No it’s about Eternal Recurrence!” but I am not sure about that, because that is another philosophy that gives meaning to suffering.
For what it’s worth, here’s my take on the father and daughter coming back (based on my hazy memory). Isn’t there a long shot of the neighbor walking in the same direction? In the Bible, the prophets often warn the people of some impending doom and if the people reject the prophets warnings, there are stories of the prophets shaking the dust off their feet or giving some indication that the people have been warned and that if anything bad happens, it’s their fault. There’s a similar vibe with the neighbor and his departure (especially since the father dismisses his monologue).
So when the father and daugther go in the same direction, a couple of things may have happened: 1) when they disappear from view, they’re at the place where the prophet went, and they’re sent back—it’s too late for them to find salvation; that door has been barred, or; 2) they leave but they realize there’s no escape—they will suffer the same bland, meaningless existence—so they might as well turn back;
I think this is compatible with the reading I’ve presented. If the neighbor is correct—“they” have finally won and they have totally debased the world. There is no escape from that.
By the way, in the Bible, my feeling is that God gives these really harsh judgments of doom primarily to get people to change their ways and turn back to Him. The prophets often have to deliver this message. I don’t know much about Tarr, himself, but the two films I’ve seen feel like the same sort of thing. My reading of this film is incredibly bleak—but maybe it’s really bleak to get us to wake up and change our ways—that is, don’t let materialism, relativism and philistinism triumph. In this way, the film might do something positive.
I also wanted to paste what the daughter reads from the book the gypsy gives her:
One. Since in holy places only those things are allowed, the practice of which serves the veneration of the Lord, and everything in forbidden that is not fitted for the holiness of the place and since holy places have been violated by the great injustice of actions that have taken place within them, that scandalize the congregation for this very same reason no service unto the Lord can be held there until through a ceremony of penitence these aforementioned injustices have been put to rights. The bishop says to the congregation, “The Lord was with you! Morning will become night, night will be at an end…
(Narrator’s VO:)
The storm continues to rage outside. The wind still sweeps relentlessly across the land from the same direction, but now there is nothing in its path to obstruct it. Only a great cloud of dust whipped up by the wind rushes recklessly forward that the wind rolls before it as it rages unbridled over the barren land.
This supports the neighbor’s monologue—first, by reinforcing the idea that the wind is destroying everything; second, religion seems to have been defiled, so something bad is going to happen as a result. This seems to be consistent with the parts about the monologue that everything being debased and this section:
…They stopped at this point, and had to understand, and had to accept, that there neither is God nor gods. And the excellent, the great and the noble, had to understand and accept this right from the beginning. But, of course, they were quite incapable of understanding it. They believed it and accepted it, but they didn’t understand it. They just stood there, bewildered, but not resigned, until something, that flash on the mind, finally enlightened them. And all at once they realized that there is neither God or gods. And all at once they saw that there is neither good nor bad. Then they saw and understood that, if this was so, then they themselves did not exist either! You see, I reckon this may be the moment when we can say that they were extinguished, burnt out. Extinguished and burnt out like the fire left to smolder in the meadow.
I read this as a relativistic stance has one. If relativism wins, then there can be no such thing as God or greatness. The people who are truly exceptional are no longer exceptional, in some ways. In this way, religion is defiled and this relates to the passage the daughter reads.
I’m not 100% sure about this interpretation, but that’s what I have so far.
(Could it be that the part about good and bad and God/gods not existing refer to Nietzsche? I tend not to think so because N seemed to think this the real situation and it meant that the exceptional individual could violate existing morality and make up their own way.)
Could it be that the part about good and bad and God/gods not existing refer to Nietzsche?
No, Nietzsche was pro-God/gods – he lamented the breakdown of that relationship with the invention of Christ.
The monologue comes specifically from Nietzsche, as pointed out by Oxy.
If relativism wins, then there can be no such thing as God or greatness.
Greatness is relative.
Tarr on religion:
Your terms of reference appear to be conceived of with a biblical, apocalyptic resonance. In this post-Nietzschean world, what are you suggesting: that we need to re-evaluate Christian values?
We think it’s best to go back to nature. We are really not religious. We don’t believe any kind of religion. It is a part of life, that’s the reason why we involved it a bit in the film. But we definitely don’t have to create a new religion. We don’t want to create any theology—no.
How do you respond to the American critic Jonathan Rosenbaum’s reference to your work as “despiritualized Tarkovsky.” Do you recognise yourself in that statement?
This is the opinion of Jonathan Rosenbaum. I don’t know; it’s his opinion. I haven’t talked to him about these things. The main difference is Tarkovsky’s religious and we are not. But he always had hope; he believed in God. He’s much more innocent than us—than me. No, we have seen too many things to make his kind of film. I think his style is also different because several times I have had a feeling he is much softer, much nicer.
@ 2+2 I agree that Nietszche believed that….
If you are referring to the Danto passage, that is Danto’s interpretation.
Nietszche fans can say “No it’s about Eternal Recurrence!”
Not sure anyone is saying that, but there is a return in the film which is one of Nietzsche aphorisms.
Twos idea of post-philosophy is similar to the poorly expressed idea i made ealier about the film being an expression of will-to-power in reverse. they simply give up and ‘fade’ rather than continue to impose their will on the universe.
in that sense, the film could just as easily be seen as a refutation of F.N’s ideas.
No struggle and conflict=no meaning.
Peabody does make a.compelling argument though and i agree with him about that ghostly shot of.the daughfer.looking out the window into the void. It was chilling, even if we have seen that kind of shot.from Tarr before.
it was just so well.placed in the film
I had the horse down as Arthur Schopenhauer.
Has been too long since I saw the film but I remember including Beckett and Bruegel in my review.
Tarr said he has read Nietzsche but never discussed it during production.
@Jazz- thanks for that long post. very interesting. I hadn’t been able to make much sense of the daughters religious reading. Your case is strong. I remember thinking relativism was involved when watching the film, but many months later the film “simplified” in my head probably. (old age)
Peabody:“If you are referring to the Danto passage, that is Danto’s interpretation.” Yes, I know. I wasn’t being clear. I was trying to separate the film from any specific Nietszchean idea. (not disputing your take though- just working through my thoughts) My interpretation of the film relies entirely on the opening passage that says this is a film about what happened to the horse AFTER the F.N. incident. This is the only narration I “trust” and so I see any philosophy or religion in the film to be after that incident.- the incident where the philosopher of will and transformation “breaks down.” BTW, I am not taking the position that some take that the horse incident in F.N.’s life somehow refutes his entire philosophy! I personally think it was simply the onset of madness.
@Joks in that sense, the film could just as easily be seen as a refutation of F.N’s ideas.
The problem with refuting Nietzschean ideas is that their refutation assumes a totality that can be refuted. Nietzsche’s ideas aren’t all connected coherently.
I liked this thought you cast off: inevitably surrender their will to the universe
It sounds like the expression of “unifying”.
The film‘s fade ending I feel refers to this of Nietzsche:
But it strikes continually upon a like endeavor of other forces, and ends by adjusting itself (“unifying”) with them…
Things are unified by the fade to darkness.
Not a refutation but like in the Fall Of Icarus.
Icarus is very small in the background and the painting shows what else is going on.
Jazzaloha
@Joks
FWIW, the notion that the monologue is a parody surprises me. I didn’t laugh at all, and I still don’t see it as a parody. I don’t think the monologue contains exaggerations or other indications that it’s meant to be amusing, even in part. I also think there is substance there, although I don’t fully understand it just yet.
When the lady goes out to fetch a pale of water, battling against gale force winds, you can feel it, just as you can feel the potato burning in the man’s hands.
OK, but what does this signify?
Off the top of my head, I’d say it’s a life devoid of “the great, excellent and noble.” Their lives are harsh, but it is also barren, bland, lacking in color and vitality—it’s reduced to hard materialist existence, empty of spirit, humanity, creativity or meaning. Perhaps the film is presenting the consequences of the “debased” taking over and the death of the “excellent, great and noble.” And the death comes mainly because of complete triumphant of relativism/materialism/atheism. That’s my feeling right now. (I still don’t know how the horse fits into all of this, though. Also, I’m not sure I understand the man fully.)
The film could be a kind of prophetic warning (I see WH in a similar fashion.) this is what happens if relativism, atheism and materialism triumph. No excellence, no greatness, no nobility, which will lead to a colorless, meaningless and hard existence.
Not a lot granted, but often enough to get whhere they are coming from, or what they represent.
And the represent different points of view concerning the themes—e.g., the existence of violence and suffering when an omnipotent, loving God exists. So the film is still not about the story or characters, but about the ideas.