:) You are a brave and iconoclastic soul, Kate, and I much admire that!
@Odilonvert — thank you! :)
@Kate-
Valid opinions…But, every director can be seen to have “flaws” in their work. To me, its just a matter of taste when it comes to Tarkovsky and the rest of the cream of the crop. Take Tarkovsky and Kubrick, for instance: opposite ends of the spectrum in their approach to film – all of Kubrick’s films (more or less) deal with protagonists losing their humanity, while Tarkovsky’s are all about the protagonist finding humanity. Kubrick’s films are very cold (performances, and otherwise) while Tarkovsky’s are about as opposite as its gets: spiritual, humane. On a visual and auditory level, Kubrick was much more “surface” (and I don’t mean this is a derogatory way) – bold, striking shots; loud, overwhelming music, while Tarkovsky employed subtle dolly/tracking shots that never called attention to themselves and used his music to convey a feeling on the deepest of levels — Case in point, the endings to their 2 most famous films: 2001 compared to Solaris.. So, do these differences, mean that one or the other has flaws? Not in my mind. I prefer Tarkovsky to Kubrick- but that is because of my preference of themes, feel, etc in art, not because Kubrick has more “flaws” than Tarkovsky. I like to think of Tarkovsky, Kubrick, Dreyer, Kieslowski, Bunuel, Fellini, Kurosawa, etc. as all paving different, but concurrent paths to universal truth.P.S. – And yes, Tarkovsky is a cinema deity. lol.
The Mirror: the prologue scene with the stuttering boy and his therapist is so human, so alive, so emotional; and then everything that comes after is mystic mush. That’s my problem with Tarkovsky.
True Kate, Tarkovsky was one of the cockiest filmmakers in history. But I think it was because he knew he was a genius. His films move super slow, and sometimes too slow for me, but they are beautiful.
@Kate – soon to be my favorite person on MUBi (even though I have no issues with Tarkovsky).
I hope Godard is next on your list – that cow is overdue for tipping.
Haha, I dig this thread.
All I can say is, when one tries to marry Tarkovsky’s intellectual ideas (from ‘Sculpting in Time’, for instance) with his films, one’s interpretation of whether or not the transition is successful is, lets face it, entirely subjective.
So, if you can really FEEL his esoteric abstractions as they wash through your soul, enlightening your experience with yet another shot of the weeds under the water, then good for you. Otherwise, get over it and move on to the next film; it’s no big deal.
Right on — time to tip ol’ Godard…
The jury is still out with me for the most part. I do think there is something to films like The Sacrifice and possibly Solaris, Mirror and Stalker, but I’m going to have to revisit all of them to be sure. I just saw Stalker recently, I wasn’t blown away by it, like I hoped I would have been.
But the question I have for Kate: are you saying Tarkovsky doesn’t deserve the attention he gets around here—or even that he is not a very good director, period? I don’t think citing flaws of a director constitutes “tipping him over.” I mean, I just started a thread on my problems with Akira Kurosawa, but I still think he’s a great director.
This thread is making me feel like booting up my own hate thread:
Cinematographers you hate and why
Those artisan bastards !!!
Death to cinema and the people who make it !!!!!
Tried Nostalghia and Stalker and I guess I have had enough of Tarkovsky. Aesthetically, they are wonderful films(almost perversely aesthetic), but as Kate rightly says, the themes just don’t seem to get across and by the time the film ends, you are relieved rather than satisfied.
Lol! Robert, where have you been all this time! :)
@odilonvert where have you been all this time!
Working up some hate for Kurosawa….
Lol! Love it.
I’ve been stewing a Key Grips You Hate and Why thread for years.
No need to ask why is there?
True. ‘Why’ is an overrated question.
They all need to be taken down a notch or ‘tipped’ in the vernacular…
How was that bastard Tarkovsky with women?
@Jazz — Nah, I still think he’s a great director, one of my personal favorites, and deserves acclaim. I guess I’ve just noticed a bit of a double standard.
Tipped might be too strong a word, but I couldn’t resist the metaphor. I don’t hate or dislike him, as some of the responses seem to have interpreted my OP — quite the opposite. My point is that I don’t feel he’s above criticism or any less flawed than a number of greats.
@Kate
Got it. I think the idea of critiquing great directors—especially ones that we tend to think strictly in positive terms—is a good idea. I look forward to your next edition. :)
Who here has tipped an actual cow before? I’ve heard of this happening but I’ve never confirmed that anyone has.
I haven’t, but I had friends who grew up in the midwest US who said it was one of the ways they and their friends killed time. There is also a memorable cow tipping scene in the movie “Heathers.” Poor cows. :(
I totally forgot about Heathers.
I grew up in Texas and can confirm that cows were tipped.
I live in Texas, too, but I must have missed those parties. Do the cows just get up and run off?
Yeah, I have seen Mirror, Solaris, Ivan’s Childhood, Andrei Rublev and Stalker, but I don’t know if you can make a blanket statement regarding a filmmaker’s work when some films may not be the same as others. I don’t know if you’re saying that Kate, but I guess I can see where you are coming from. To me, my favorite Tarkovsky film that I have seen is Ivan’s Childhood. I think it is very different from the other ones I mentioned. I think there is a lot more cutting in that film rather than those long takes he would try out in subsequent films. I felt that film kept your interest and maybe that was due to the way it was shot with it’s several cuts and things like dream sequences. I guess though it too had some scenes where the camera did linger such as the scene that takes place in the forest with the girl named Masha. I guess you would have to say that watching a filmmaker like Tarkovsky takes some warming up too, but once you sort of get in a groove with the mood of the film, then the experience of the film is rewarding. However, I haven’t really devoted enough time to this, so I’m just guessing. Personally, I like the story of Ivan’s Childhood and so I guess that’s why I would say it’s my favorite Tarkovsky films of the ones I have listed. A film like Solaris I wasn’t too enamored of and I thought it sort of drifted. Andrei Rublev has some beautiful scenes such as the one with the long take where there is a man flying in a baloon above a lake and crashing on the ground and the naked pagan worshippers coming out of the river with the candles is a beautiful scene as well, but I would say I would have to go back to it to get more out of it. And that goes for Stalker as well. I didn’t like it the first time I saw it, but I believe, maybe it was due to this forum, that I decided to purchase a copy of it, to see if I could get more into it. That too, I haven’t set myself some time towards watching it. I have loads of movies and t.v. shows to watch, so I have no idea when I would go about doing it, but I just thought I’d give you my two cents.
What you define as flaw is Tarkovsky’s style. I, for instance, find both of the things you’ve mentioned (prolong shots, pompous dialogues) to be his strong points. Tarkovsky wasn’t Tarkovsky without these. It’s all a matter of taste… When I see his prolong shots I get over excited and I just can’t stop admiring them. That’s how audiences are different. Maybe I’m a boring person as well, I don’t know.
In this way, you can draw out every auteur of cinema’s key points in shooting a film, and call them flaws… I repeat: it’s all a matter of taste.
@House — lol – “Why is an overrated question.”
It’s so 2500 years ago.
Kate
Let me start by saying that I am a real admirer of Tarkovsky as both a writer and filmmaker. That said, he and a few other auteurs seem to have achieved a near deity status on this forum that makes them above censure. Meanwhile a handful of directors, who, I would say, are equally good are routinely derided simply because they are more mainstream/more American/whatever.
Tarkovsky’s flaws as I see them:
1) Let’s be honest: dude can really drag. Sometimes his long scenes add to his films; at other times they just feel redundant and yes, dull. I don’t think my reaction here means I’m an unwashed pleb who took a wrong turn on route to a Michael Bay film. There were times in Offret where I was groaning at the sight of yet another intricate dolly shot, when a cut would have been even more effective and efficient. I seem to remember Nykvist complaining about the same thing, which is probably part of the reason he kept butting heads with Tarkovsky on set. Or, in Solaris, do we really need another shot of the weeds under the water? I understand what you’re trying to say already. Slow isn’t always better.
Sculpting in Time is one of my favorite books, but Tarkovsky is also one arrogant mofo. Reading SiT, sometimes I got the sense he was sabotaging the quality of his films without realizing it in order to get his philosophical/aesthetic points across, almost like he was doing things just to stick it to the masses, even if it detracted from his work.
2) His dialogue can be pompous and ridiculously expository. I’m not sure if this needs any further explanation, but I’ll provide more if people disagree. I think, though, that anyone familiar with Tarkovsky will know exactly what I’m talking about.
There are other problems I have, but those are the main offenders.