Von Trier vs Tarkovsky

@ No T.Hanks,

“But to claim that vonTrier’s work is without merit at all is pretty unfair, and to let him off the hook a tad, I’d say that this is all more a reflection of the generational difference between the two than it is on Lars’ integrity as either a person or an artist. (Their respective upbringings, likewise, no doubt contribute greatly to the differences.) To me, LvT is far more admirable in both technique and intentions than any American directors his age, and holding his work up against that of Haynes, Linklater and PT Anderson makes the claim of his relation to Tarkovsky seem litigable.”

Umm, no. It is NOT a reflection of the generational difference between Tarkovsky and Lars von Trier. And why would you even bring up lightweights like Haynes, Linkater, and Anderson? What kind of argument is that? Since LvT is better than crap, he must be gold? Why not mention directors like Bela Tarr, Hou Hsiao-hsien, Terrence Malick, Nusrat Bilge Ceylan, who all make worthy films?

Nathan you assclown, dreamland in the sense that his time-rhythm montages create a dreamlike imagery that resists the spectator’s need for logic and credibility. and why would you ever you talk about john ford and a dreamlike imagery anyway when that wasnt even his directoral style.

OK, this is getting to be a bit more of an investment than I’d figured, but…

Re. moral duality:
The entire point of the “Werewolves”, (especially as regards choice of nomenclature) lies in the notion that people(s), who could otherwise be considered peaceful, are capable of unspeakable acts in furtherance of personal or political causes.

This, in context of the post-Nazi landscape—where we’re confronted with issues of industrial opportunism, (as well as the conclusions engendered by the Milgram Experiment) bring heady questions to mind. I don’t see the Kessler character as either a dupe or complicit; to me, he seems like someone perplexed and unbalanced by the intensity and foreign nature of his surroundings. He’s a German-American pacifist crossing the terrain of one of the biggest bloodbaths in human history.

Then of course, there’s the thesis proposed at the onset of the film that, in the furtherance of a cause, one could be fogiven of any atrocity so long as it’s accompanied by conviction—and that the only true moral crime is to not take a stance at all. This thesis is, of course, pretty monstrous taken to the extreme presented by its proponents in the film, but it has its antecedent in Dante, and I don’t think von Trier adopts this position personally, aside from at times seeming to present it by way of the gadfly. I think von Trier approached all these things with a creditable amount of insight, and if Europa adopts a nightmarishness reminicent of Kafka, (rather than an approach to characterization more in line with Dostoevsky) I think the mileu of post-Nazi Germany dictated that at least as much as did the screenwriters.

And to bring this more within the topic at hand, (the comparrison to Tarkovsky) is there any claim by LvT to be the heir to Tarkovsky? I believe the claim regards influence and high regard. To me, there’s no question of the influence as regards certain notions of craft, and a bent for the more hypnotic nature of imagry, (von Trier’s “Medea”, particularly has some wonderful examples, even though the script itself dervives from Dreyer rather than Tarkovsky). You don’t have to be identical to someone in order to be marked by their influence.

And lastly, (I promise!) in context of von Trier’s upbringing it’s no real stretch to believe that he recognized something in Tarkovsky’s work regarding a “spiritual dimension”. To me, it seems that he intuited something of deep value there which he never fully developed the means to extract and integrate. But while von Trier’s work reflects all the psychological defects he admits to publicly, I don’t think it suffers from a lack of depth; I think what it’s missing to bring it in line with Tarkovsky is a moral and spiritual certitude.

I don’t see the Kessler character as either a dupe or complicit; to me, he seems like someone perplexed and unbalanced by the intensity and foreign nature of his surroundings.
I can agree but there is no duality in that characterization. He means well, but he has no moral compass (character) to give him direction. He has a gun to his head and he reacts.

and that the only true moral crime is to not take a stance at all
The priest says that to Kessler at the table.

think what it’s missing to bring it in line with Tarkovsky is a moral and spiritual certitude.

That is one area where Europa lacks the depth.

von Trier approached… with … insight, and if Europa adopts …… Kafka, post-Nazi Germany dictated that.

That is the stage where LVT needed to make a statement about something.

And so he…?

We can disagree about what Tarkovsky says, but he says something in his films.

And to answer Blue-K this is partly a generational problem in terms of post-modernism which would be LVT schooling versus Tarkovsky who group up in a different world one where there could be certitude.

I also don’t know what to make of von Trier’s dedication of “Antichrist” to Tarkovsky. The ending (the black and white one, not the sadistic bloodletting that precedes it) is completely baffling.

The dedication must have come from a very personal place, just as the movie came from a disturbingly personal place.

Can such a dedication have nothing to do with the content of the film but is just a love letter from a fan to his hero?

As a departure from this topic, an interesting thread would be to compare von Trier’s “Europa” with Tarantino’s “Inglorious Basterds.” The two, while stylistically divergent, are similar in a number of striking ways: both court controversy from viewers and critics alike, both love to subject their heroines to brutality, both have a formalistic streak that recasts the history of styles and genres, and both are seemingly deeply pessimistic. Every film seems to be “an event.”

And both filmmakers take on Nazi history with a sense of humor and satire that would alarm others. Are the “Inglorious Basterds” the fictional antithesis of the Nazi “Werwolves” that appear in “Europa?” Both the Basterds and the Werwolves operate covertly behind enemy lines.

And whether you like them or not (or prefer one over the other), von Trier and Tarantino have a lot of interesting things to say about and through film.

Lars Von Triers film The Element of Crime = Stalker rip-off!
Thats my two cents.

Who cares?

Tarkovski is a great director! He has ability to see cinestetic movements around him and then catch them with camera. His thoughts are actual pictures. His films saying that he`s thinking in pictures… And it`s really beautifull to watch! But film is (or can be) much more than that! It is a structure so alive that you can easily be shooting something you dont have a clue will it turn up as you expected?! Trier does that dance with his films more than Tarkovski, he is letting his film to be alive during the shooting. Maybe it is wrong, sometimes it is disaster, but it`s very important to experiment with film capabilities. Who knows, maybe one morning we`ll be watching on some todays experiments like they were absolutly needed for film industry progress…

Milan:todays experiments like they were absolutly needed for film industry progress
Indeed LVT is to be lauded for taking risks.

Tom C" The dedication must have come from a very personal place
LVT is an admitted long-time fanboy of Tarkovsky

I can’t comment on IB I haven’t seen it. Europa is post-Nazi; it is a scene of dystopia:

Dystopias share the negative characteristic of being undesirable societies Described as “dangerous and alienating future societies,” a fictional dystopia serves to critique then-current actual cultural trends observed by its author. It is a culture where the condition of life suffers from deprivation, oppression, or terror. – WIKI

One of the tenants of Tarkovsky’s time was that while one can tear down what came before, one must also offer something that represents progress in its place. Tarkovsky offers not necessarily progress, but hope.

LVT doesn’t offer much of anything and I guess that in a post-modern world he doesn’t have to offer anything.
Europa is a myopic, stunted, depressed, and personal view of the world. It denies that human spirit exists and prevails. Apparently, he can get away with this by exaggerating the form of the banal content.

There is no depth to Europa. Depth would require a counterpoint to the dystopia, to prevent it from becoming parody. Remember the elderly person coming around with his shoes while Kessler is struggling to deal with the bomb? That was funny.

Alex – You could have said what your last post said, and it would have made more sense to me. But, your first post read more like a bad Christian worship song. Let me state for the record (because I haven’t on this thread) that I’m happy for people to like Tarkovsky. It’s how people talk about him that baffles me.

Robert W.

Obviously, LvT is an admitted fan of Tarkovsky. What is strange is that LvT chooses to dedicate the evocation of hell (or “chaos”) that is “Antichrist” to Tarkovsky. This seems to me a joke, an esoteric clue to the possible meaning of his film, or, as I stated, something entirely personal. I think that the truth of this dedication is the third.

The current thread, I think, offers no real discussion because whatever was the source von Trier’s dedication is inscrutable.

I bring up Tarantino and “Inglorious Basterds” as a point of discussing von Trier and “Europa” because it offers the following familiar grounds: auteurs (2 wildly talented and ambitous directors/screenwriters) and content (violent, dystopic themes) that converge on a specific topic (Nazism, either during the regime in “Inglorious Basterds” or following its fall in “Europa”).

The two directors seem to share in a recklessness and a fantastical view to an otherwise sobering topic: the legacy of Nazism.

I look forward to your thoughts when you do see “Inglorious Basterds” in another thread.

Okay, it might be awhile before IB gets on my list.
something entirely personal
agreed

http://www.filmlinc.com/fcm/so09/antichrist.htm

heres an interesting film comment article on “antichrist”, for those who havent read it. it touches on tarkovsky as well with a few interesting thoughts, such as, his “religious orthodoxy was aggressive and indisputable.”

namely, turn a small, historically based crime story into a comprehensive vision of the human condition—was, for all its elegance, opaque and unconvincing. Von Trier was so indignant at not receiving the Palme d’Or that he denounced the Jury president Roman Polanski as a “midget.”

“The male protagonists in my films are basically all idiotswho don’t understand shit. Whereas the women are much more human, and much more real. It’s the women I identify with in all my films.”—Lars von Trier

Robert: Yes never trust the teller..what an understatement. Now he declares the women in his films to be the more human and the males to be basically idiots. Go figure. He thrives on psycho babble and all forms of mental illness.

how does everyone feel about the quote in the article that says “he has made more great or near-great films than any european director under the age of 60, excluding almodovar”?

“Usually artists want to distance themselves from their influences so as not to invite direct comparisons.”

Um, no.

I’m not going to try to compare Tarkovsky to von Trier because I’ve only seen one Tarkovsky film (Solaris – which, btw, is a film I see little resemblence to any of the von Trier films I’ve seen). What I will say is that I think von Trier’s films do not fall in the “style of substance” category. A movie like Breaking the Waves has devastating depth on par with any John Cassavetes film and I would argue that even Antichrist deals with levels of human emotion rarely depicted in film.

To me, Lars von Trier resembles Ingmar Bergman more than anyone else (if you want to compare someone to Tarkovsky, how about Malick?). While religion is more upfront in a Bergman film, both deal with elements of spirituality and despair on an internal level. People accuse von Trier of being too bleak – is there a better adjective to describe Bergman’s films??? To me, they are both internal filmmakers who deal with themes small and specific while a guy like Tarkovsky seems more ethereal and large in scope – small frames versus large frames.

I think it’s unfair to lump von Trier with copycats like Tarantino simply because he voices his cinematic influences. With QT, he practically makes a mockery out of how much he’s been influenced while von Trier’s main concern is something much less self-reflexive. In other words, he may be using other filmmaker’s cinematic technique but he’s doing it for his own storytelling requirements. For instance, I’d be hard pressed to label Emily Watson’s character in Breaking the Waves as phoney or insincere.

I think what you are saying is true: other filmmaker’s cinematic technique but he’s doing it for his own storytelling requirements
The thread was specifically about Europa and the only reason to reference Tarkovsky was that Von Trier does so.
Via this the thread, I came to the conclusion that Von Trier does not use depth in Europa because it would be anti-thetical to the dystopia theme.

Im pretty sure everyone has there ideas on what his comparisons to film makers like Tarkovsky and I have only viewed Solaris, Ivan’s Childhood, The Silencing (if I thinking of the right title). In no way have I seen any comparison with stlye or content. Most of the ideas from EUROPA were all devised by his facination with Noir films like, Welles’ Ladt from Shanghi" (backprojection) primarily its a gimick he uses which give it a no depth look witch was something practical , but it worked stylisticly. The scene where Leo jumps from the train and lands in the grass as the camera pulls out to a wideshot of him laying down, that was something he stole (more or less) from Laughton’s “Night of the Hunter”. I only know the Trier who has love for film and new ways of expression and “playing the game” as his comparisons to Dogville was a giant Chess Board.
I have seen “Anti-Chirst” and the result form it really hit me hard and I said to myself “this is not a Trier film” something is way different. He recreats himself like bergman to keep himself interested.Altough this film was tourtous to watch and you wanting of solitude and saftey is blown out of control. Trier scene with violence and sex is his deppresive connection of how the world in his films and though tourtured eyes. His film like Carl Th. Dreyer surrounds the felmlae emotions rather than the male. Trier is a huge fan of Dreyer. I have to admit after seeing Anti-Christ is was affecting, all in all it’s not my favorite of his films

Rob, he is a huge on the dystopian theme the decay and closeness. (Elememt of Crime/Europa/The Kingdom)

In comparing him to Tarvosky it was something somewhat anti-artistic and his facination with the disentergration of art and balance is ever present in a Trier film.

People are actually trying to dissect the stylistic components of Europa?

I guess that reductionism will be the death of penetrative cinema.

Not at all Brenton. One of many threads dissecting von Trier’s work, dissecting has made me a fan of his work.

Rob, I don’t mean to condemn the dissection of Von Trier’s work in general, I was referring specifically to Europa. The aesthetic of the film’s employed techniques are often neglected through excessive analysis, which is just as detrimental as the apparent obsession with finding political discourse within the film. After all, isn’t the primary objective of a film to establish a connection with the viewer?

They are VERY different filmmakers. Von Trier’s strength is in writing, if you ask me. He clearly cares a lot about the philosophical message and intellectual focus of his work, sort of like Haneke. His films are visually interesting mostly because they break so many rules yet still seem to function. I remember watching Dancer in the Dark and thinking to myself, “You can’t shoot a film like that! This film is going to suck.” And yet I sat there and watched it and it really is a brilliant film. Von Trier also relies heavily on actors to get his point across, like Bergman. I think it’s safe to say that his work is stylistically inferior to Tarkovsky (but so is probably 99% of directors). Tarkovsky on the other hand cares more than anything about the look of his film. He is in that way a kind of ‘pure’ filmmaker. But I certainly don’t think his work is flawless. He borrowed heavily from painters and a lot of his style isn’t actually all that personal. Furthermore, the acting and dialogue is sometimes embarrassing. He seems to really get put on a pedestal by people, which I cannot really blame them for. I mean, the guy is good. But to be perfectly honest, I like Von Trier better because I generally care more about ideas. And I think Trier had more interesting ideas and insights into people than Tarkovsky did. People too often get away with a superficial appraisal of his work. They see how good it looks but they don’t really think about what everything means. And I honestly don’t think he was as good at using symbolism or mise en scene as some other directors. He is actually kind of hit and miss. The only film of his that I thought was undeniably genius all the way through was the Mirror. Which may as well be the best movie I ever saw. But fans of him tend to be overly romantic about his actual output, which has all kinds of problems I think. And btw, I am speaking mainly of Dogville, Dancer in the Dark & Breaking the Waves, all of which I thought were brilliant. I saw Antichrist and uh…well that’s another topic altogether. I have seen just about everything from Tarkovsky. Mirror is the only that I unabashedly adore. Also, I’m reading some of these comments and it seems like most people haven’t even watched much Von Trier. If you pay attention to his films, he doesn’t seem to bother that much with style. He cares about the story and the dialogue and the acting. At least, this has definitely been my impression of him. And therefore I find him quite different from Tarkovsky. Also, this thread seemed to have brought out the holier-than-thou ‘spiritual’ turds who love their own farts. Get over it. Just because a film is ‘spiritual’ doesn’t mean it’s automatically better. There is more to life than that, despite what you might think. There’s evolution (that neat little myth! it’s quite intriguing, check it out!), Marxism, Freudianism/Jungianism/or other Philosophy. You know, pick up a book and stop thinking you’re so neat because you’re into yoga.

^^You can’t separate form and content from Tarkovsky though. Von Trier rarely achieves that the degree of synergy.

They are completely different film makers though, and you are right that Lars Von Trier is more of an ‘ideas’ man, but his view of humanity is often soporific, childish, and wholly predictable.

The fact is, Tarkovksy is one of the few directors of the last 40 years that is said to have created a whole new language in cinema. That is an achievement in itself, regardless of taste or opinion.

^^ Come off it. Honestly you Tarkovsky snobs are ridiculous. I don’t agree that his view is childish at all. I find it considerably more profound than Andrei, partly because it actually contains HUMOR and PLAYFULNESS, which is the sign of a healthy mind. I can totally understand someone liking Tarkovsky better than Von Trier, but all these supposed reasons that largely attack Lars’ maturity is just ridiculous in my opinion. It is cheap and crude and just shows a complete lack of understanding. Get off your fucking high-horse. I know Tarkovsky is a good filmmaker. I’ve WATCHED him. Listening to a lot of things being said it doesn’t seem like people have really watched Von Trier. You’re throwing the most passe criticisms at him. Doesn’t matter if Tarkovsky is a trailblazer. I would never shove Kubrick down someone’s throat for those same reasons, because I know that being a pretentious twat is never a good way to win someone over. I’m interested in genuine responses to art. If all you can say about Tarkovsky is that he was one of the most innovative bla bla bla…who cares. You gotta do better than that if you want to touch someone’s heart or challenge their mind. Let’s get real here. I mean REALLY why do you like Tarkovsky so much. Let’s start hearing some honest answers that reveal self-awareness and not these safe un-peppered ones that you stole from some two bit film historian quack.

Cheap and crude and complete lack of understanding? how do you characterise this point then:

“There’s evolution (that neat little myth! it’s quite intriguing, check it out!), Marxism, Freudianism/Jungianism/or other Philosophy. You know, pick up a book and stop thinking you’re so neat because you’re into yoga.”

A lot of the posters here are quite educated, and i’m sure they are familliar with these ideas.

And btw, humour and playfuiness have traditionally had little to do with being profound. It’s possible to do so, but it’s rare, and Lars Von Trier is no Woody Allen, let alone Nietzsche.

As for why i like Tarkovsky, i enjoy him for the same reasons that have already been enjoyed. I appreciate the mysterious quality of his work, the meditative pace—which allows for a much richer engagement with philosophical themes and concepts—and the fine details of his mise en scene, as well as his rare ability to make the familiar strange and the strange familiar – otherwise known as defamiliarization(and its reverse).

“As for why i like Tarkovsky, i enjoy him for the same reasons that have already been enjoyed.”

already been mentioned rather.

Well, it seems people here are quite attuned to hypocrisy, which is really too bad.

Ahem.

Anyways, being educated isn’t the point. Anyone (wealthy enough) can take a course in Philosophy or Psychology but still won’t understand anything about it. Just like someone can read a book or review of a filmmaker and not have the slightest clue about him. I would like to know for example, what you thought Stalker was about for instance. I thought it had some very interesting themes, but I don’t think he captured them all that successfully. Actually, I’d love to hear your thoughts on any of his films, whatever one touches you the most. I cannot relate to your summary of why you like him in any meaningful way.

Also, humour and playfulness is an integral part of many profound artists. Nietzsche is perhaps the ultimate expression of this, but some others that immediately spring to mind would be Lenny Bruce, Frank Zappa, Chaplin, The Simpsons, Dali, many great writers incorporated some humor into their work: Shakespeare no doubt, Kafka had one of the strangest and most profound sense of humors ever. And see, using humor as profundity is I think a pretty modern thing. I feel Tarkovsky is quite passe in a lot of his thinking/style, like Bresson. I mean humor is not the only important thing, but I feel it is something oddly missing from his work. I think one of the things that has happened as a result of learning so much about the world is we see how tiny we are, which makes our lives appear quite silly and absurd.