@IPV —
Whether or not somebody agrees with a director’s vision of the world is entirely subjective. For that reason, I think it would be fair to dismiss the judgment of somebody who declares that all good art has to conform to their own perception of humanity. (Note that’s very different from someone saying “I don’t like this director because his vision doesn’t conform to my perception of the world.”)
Judging artistic quality against an individual artist’s own work and vision seems like a more objective approach, even though some elements of subjectivity are inevitable. Did this part of a film add to or detract from the overall effectiveness of the film and by extension the artist’s vision? By more objective I mean that people with different taste can (hopefully) find more of a meeting ground when questions like these are raised. Subjectivity enters into all artistic discussion, but it’s a matter of degree. Saying you don’t think a director is good because he has cold characters is about as subjective as it gets.
Anyway, If you actually don’t believe that any level of objectivity can enter into a discussion an art, then I’m not sure why you’re bothering to defend Tarkovsky.
I have tipped a literal cow before.
Nobody is above criticism, but criticism is mere opinion and subjective. One tends to worship others from fame rather than criticize them because the majority of the system in which one is states what should be believed. But then someone else becomes so sick of the praise and interrupt the structure with their own ideas, and then that person is criticized. And then the cycle continues over again when the tension ceases. Fun stuff!
It’s interesting to note that Bela Tarr, who often draws comparisons to Tarkovsky, apparently doesn’t care for T much and resents the comparison. He finds Tarkvosky too “nice.” I always enjoy hearing the opinions of respected filmmakers’ on their peers, even if I disagree.
Some find him gloomy but Tarkovsky is probably more optimistic in outlook than Tarr- spiritual faith and finding beauty in nature probably helped. I’ve always considered him optimistic More so than Bergman who may have had a cynical edge to go with the angst. Summer with Monika has an embittered feeling, all the more powerful for the sunny lyricism that came before. With Tarkovsky there’s even hope under nuclear armageddon, but there’s a price to pay and suspension of disbelief among some viewers required. Cruelty and dark times in Rublev but good comes of it and we end on horses swishing their tails. Pain and tragedy in Ivan’s Childhood but affection along the way. A stutter cured in Mirror, a glass moves in Stalker. Tarr does seem bleaker, though we can almost wallow and luxuriate in the gloom. Tarr considers Tarkovsky too nice, while here we’ve had him compared with Renoir, as less generous.
I may sound like a broken record but I still don’t understand how is it possible to discuss Tarkovsky against Tarr and no one has mentioned Angelopoulos, who in the same year Tarkovsky made Mirror, he made Travelling Players (just mentioning two dynamite films of 1975, no comparison).
A tier of “long-paced shots” of his own or just….not…trendy…enough…to be discussed with Tarkovsky and Tarr?
That’s it, for some reason Angelopoulos isn’t trendy, with critics any more than the public. Antonioni naturally got attention, coming before him- fair enough, a major new voice, L’Avventura was a landmark, and it’s harder for later directors to stand out as original-, but what is it that still makes the Greek a prophet in the wilderness? Compared with Tarr. Angelopoulos was following his own path long before the critical orgasms for Tarr with his miserabilism (is that the word?), long takes and use of black and white. At least Bordwell has shown Angelopoulos’ mastery. And with the Travelling Players you get a vast range. But many critics aren’t willing to put the time in to understand the cultural and historical references and meanings. Not that i’ve done much myself, but i’m not getting paid. He’s seen as mannered- as if Tarr isn’t. Given that people look up to the glories of ancient Greece, you’d think there might be more interest in and respect for the current culture (which anyway has deep roots).
Again, I’m not interested at the moment in picking apart these directors, but Angelopolous is one of the few directors, along with Tarr, Ruiz, Rocha, and Bartas, that I consider contemporary equals of Tarkovsky’s. When I think of directors, these are the names that immediately spring to mind, and these are the names that hold the most sway for me in the last 30 years or so.
So there you go, Dim—they certainly bear mentioning, though not necessarily in this thread, which is about tipping sacred cows—but they are definitely players in the same space as those being discussed, and I’d argue with anyone who said otherwise.
EDIT: ‘Miserabilsm’—Nice, Kenji ;)
^ What’s also wildly profane Kenji is the fact that both Zerkalo and Thiasos share plenty of visual compositions and historic perspectives, from two different countries truth be told but that’s not to say that those similarities should remain intact for the privileged releases. Surely Solaris is a path for more cinephile audiences to arrive in a new film culture and Werckmeister is the new holy grail for contemporary “meditative” cinema (is that a sub-genre?) but why shouldn’t Voyage to Cythera be all the same?
It’s not really about the unknown elements of a story. Mirror has a larger pile of historic references and yet, most people either don’t care to “criticize” them since they’re rather subtle as opposed to Travelling Players or they simply feel they don’t steal away from the basic elements of the plot. I think it’s just an excuse to say that “it doesn’t matter if there are historical information we aren’t aware of…it’s all about Tarkovsky”. The Criterion influence is an integral catalyst to the Tarkovsky trend (I say this because I admire his first 6 features a lot, no shorts included)
House: it’s Ange…oh, it’s OK, everyone has misspelled it :P
What I wanted to add in your argument above however is that….see, even Tarr who’s not as (yet?) canonized as Tarkovsky, some people not necessarily on this thread have implied he has been a “sacred cow” as well as with the more well-known art-house directors of the past. Knowing that he and Tarkovky are primarily known as masters of long-pace sequences, it’s a huge questionmark as to why Angelopoulos is not mentioned in the same vein as those two. If I want to go even further, I’ll mention Hou Hsiao Hsien too who at least has a minor promotion thanks to MUBI film viewings. (or not?)
Dim—As for the misspelling, I’m usually very careful, but it’s almost 5am and I’m in my cups, so grant me a little latitude, will ya? ;)
And hell yes, Hou deserves mention alongside these directors, as does Laing and Weeresethakul (how about that spelling, eh?). These are the names that drive me crazy with inspiration, at least from the last several years. We could go on about directors from the 20s, too.
I don’t want to divert the thread any further, but i don’t want it thought i’m anti-Tarr. Far from it- great credit for his part in Cine International (White Meadows) and i really like Werckmeister Harmonies. Before our film soc screening I had expected something quirkily mischievous and witty in what i think of as the Czech manner.
Still, i think this thread again highlights the difficulty in separating subjectivity, our own world view and what we want of a film, from any critical judgments.
Just realized I should have said Tsai, not Laing. My bad. Must be the super moon ;)
Kate’s point on Kubrick’s coldness is well made- it is certainly a large part of his vision. Humans whose technology has far outpaced emotional development too. That i agree with. He was no leftist, but Strangelove punctures the govt hubris, and the establishment is often exposed as absurd. Our faith in the use of science and technology should be more sceptical. Tarkovsky wanted more humility, less arrogance, for different reasons. And both directors covered nuclear armageddon, albeit very differently
The super moon; imagine my and my wife’s surprise last night to see dozens of large yellowy orange lanterns floating across the sky close by our caravan.
A long-standing argument between DuShane and me is about Kubrick’s ‘coldness’ (or lack of humanity). I posited that HAL is the most human of his characters, and especially his death given that, since he was programmed by humans. HAL is human.
I just happened to rewatch 2001 tonight. Nothing is lost. I love that film. Wish I could see it in 70MM.
Best film I’ve seen in 70MM so far was Lawrence of Arabia. Almost felt like I could touch God’s Anvil.
Kenji’s reasons for Angelopoulos’s ‘lower profile’ among cinephiles is absolutely dead on imo. there is an overwhelming perception that he is too mannered—and that is certainly a valid criticism for his work after Landscape In The Mist imo—but how this doesn’t also apply to Tarr is anyone’s guess. I guess Angelopoulos doesn’t have anyone ‘cool’ like Van Sant to co-sign him(and let’s not kid ourselves here, Tarr’s popularity in America largely comes down to the fact that trendy directors in indie circles like Van Sant and Jamursch have co-signed him).
Angelopoulos is also more sentimental than Tarr, as is Tarkovsky, so maybe that’s another reason he isn’t as well liked.
Anyway, my position on Angelopoulos is well documented on Mubi. To me he is one of the few genuine masters of cinema, at the very least in terms of aesthetics, and certainly one of the few real modernists left(it’s amazing that Haneke was arrogant enough to refer to himself as the last modernist in cinema, what a joke).
Also, what’s the academic response to Tarr been like? Are his films now being studied in universities?
For what it’s worth, I think Haneke said ‘last moralist’, not ‘last modernist’.
Either way, I wouldn’t put him in the same class as the directors I mentioned above.
For that reason, I think it would be fair to dismiss the judgment of somebody who declares that all good art has to conform to their own perception of humanity. (Note that’s very different from someone saying “I don’t like this director because his vision doesn’t conform to my perception of the world.”)
How, exactly?
Saying you don’t think a director is good because he has cold characters is about as subjective as it gets.
It’s the exact same thing to me to say, “I don’t like dialogue in this film,” as it is to say, “I don’t like this film’s message.” Not one single thing is more or less subjective. You only seem to find one more “objective” than the other because you’re on one side as opposed to the other. And you’re still just talking in generalities.
Anyway, If you actually don’t believe that any level of objectivity can enter into a discussion an art, then I’m not sure why you’re bothering to defend Tarkovsky.
I’m not saying that. I’m saying your discussion of general truths regarding the “objectivity” of your criticisms of Tarkovsky and the “subjectivity” of perceived criticisms of Kubrick is nothing but pure subjective opinion regarding both directors.
Still haven’t heard how something can pass by your understanding of its total meaning (Kelvin’s dialogue) and still be as explicitly stated as you accuse it of being. How a film’s point in a line of dialogue can be done with both an incredible subtlety and a total lack thereof…
@JOKS — I first heard of Tarr from a professor in a video production class, who spoke of him in glowing terms, but other than that I don’t remember him being mentioned in any of the cinema studies courses I took. Maybe it was a shortcoming of the department.
“The monk, Rublyov, looked at the world with unprotected, childlike eyes, and preached love, goodness and non-resistance to evil. And though he found himself witnessing the most brutal and devastating forms of violence, which seemed to hold sway in the world and led him to bitter disillusionment, he came back in the end to that same truth, rediscovered for himself, about the value of human goodness, of openhearted love which does not count the cost, the one real gift which people can give each other” (Tarkovsky)
That’s the optimist in Tarkovsky, a light to cling to, the sort of thing that may have caused Tarr to think of him as too nice. The other day i read an article by Johann Hari, a good person, an idealist, maybe not immune from naivety at times, in The Independent (British paper), in which he pointed out how disasters bring out the best not the selfish side of people; something he backed up with examples. He suggested roots even in the closeness of humankind to extinction long ago. Maybe we have solidarity in us when not forced down a certain line by exploitative powers and consumerist greed. People with little tend to give a much higher percentage to charity. Some of us may prefer a bleak, nihilist cynical vision; i admire Tarkovsky’s high ideals. Even if Iosseliani, whose films he admired very much, and far from a pompous director, likened his strong spiritual proclamations to an aristocrat boasting of his wealth (or similar, i don’t have the quote). And even if to some he might seem pompous or laying it on a bit thick. Back to subjective responses.
Wu Yong
If you want to have a civil back and forth, which I am more than happy to do, I’d appreciate it if you kept out anything personal. I don’t appreciate being told what I’m thinking. I haven’t singled you out for scrutiny, so I’d appreciate the same respect back, or I won’t play. This is an interesting discussion; let’s keep things friendly.
I’m not trying to be unfriendly. You’re the one that stated over and over you haven’t seen a single argument for Tarkovsky’s dialogue. I was pointing out why I feel that is.
There’s a between a criticism of Kubrick as “cold” and my criticism of Tarkovsky’s dialogue. I pick on some of Tarkovksy’s dialogue, especially in movies like Solaris, because I feel that it detracts from the integrity of his vision. Kubrick’s coldness IS his vision.
Yes, exactly. There is not a single thing in there that points to why one is better than the other.
If someone believes film (or art) is about humanity and finds that Kubrick’s films are without a basic understanding of humanity why is it wrong to dismiss his vision? Why is that person wrong and you are right? What makes your opinion a fact and there’s a falsity?
I don’t think it’s fair to ask me to provide a shot that would give the same meaning as this piece of dialogue.
You asked me the same thing of me.
I am repeating myself, but it’s because I feel like you’re not responding directly to my questions:
Why is it necessary for Tarkovsky to be so explicit in his dialogue here? Was there no way for him to get his points across without stating them so explicitly?
My point is my response was to point out, if you cut out that line of dialogue you lose the entire exploration. The exploration of Kelvin’s realization of the world outside of himself (what both Dr. Sartorious and Snaut already have realized, and thus why they continuously pontificate on it). It is the first time in which he speaks about something outside of how it effects him directly. If you missed that theme how could it possibly have been done so “explicitly”? How can something be without subtlety if you didn’t catch the entirety of the line’s meaning?
It can be clunky, I suppose (a completely subjective point… again, why is your subjectivity more justifiable than anyone else’s?), but getting rid of it alters the totality of the entire film. Without that dialogue the ending of the film has a completely different meaning.
And, I would state it would take quite a bit of concentration to realize that Kelvin is, for the first time, speaking beyond himself. It took me a second viewing to realize this. The actual dialogue may be argued to be “clunky” but the point being made, I feel, is done with subtlety. Tarkovsky hardly makes this issue explicit.