As of this very moment, I have seen four of his seven feature films. Unfortunately, I've yet to see his first film, Ivan's Childhood and thus can't truly speak about how far he has come from the beginning. I have heard it is his worst film by many, but one person has told me it is her favorite. The first film I had ever seen of his was Stalker. It is painfully slow at the beginning and you feel your frustration rising, but in the final 35 minutes, this flower blooms and you realise the voyage was what made it worth it. I followed this up with Solaris and I'm in agreement with the director's own views that it might be his worst. That being said, the imagery and tension felt is effective and the movie simply works. I then went a while without seeing one of his films and then within the past few days, I've tackled two of his more well known and revered films, The Mirror and Andrei Rublev.
In a recent poll, The Mirror (or simply Mirror) was hailed as one of the ten best films of all-time by a list of over 350 directors. After seeing it, I must say, it is visually and mentally stimulating as any I've seen, but it's impossible to describe. To simple watch it is useless. I found myself flipping back to review scenes and pay careful attention to the language (the subtitles are awful). What I came away with was this passion for storytelling, but in the sense of true recollection. Where one story begins, but the orator isn't confined by rules. The mirror follows no linear path and jumps in time and point of view. Its greatest power is movement, whether it be the wind in the grass, water flowing (a Tarkovsky trademark) or in one case a fire. Many think an homage to Kurosawa, but I beg to differ. Do I think the average movie goer will enjoy this film? Not a chance, because as it ends, you're left with wondering what you'll take from it the next time, but if you do like it, you'll have to see it again. My first reaction to it was the need to own it. Something I personally frown upon, when it comes to movies.
Tonight i dove headfirst into Andrei Rublev. At three hours and twenty-five minutes and in a strange, almost half sized letterbox screen, it was a task. Not one I suggest, as the movie is easily broken up into smaller sections (as many as eight, should you desire), that you try and swallow whole. Rublev is consider anywhere from one of the three or four greatest movies to somewhere in the high 20's, depending on which list you use. Obviously, something like IMDB, which caters to a younger, more current fan base, won't have it as high, but that's not to discourage you. It is an important movie to see, for historical purposes, both in the movie's content and in film making. I will now state, that I disagree. This is not a great film, it's an long, repetitive film and isn't nearly as complex as Tarkovsky's other works. It's actually quite simple and I will admit, that I brushed up on the time period, using the timeline on the actual DVD for reference. The acting is wonderful and the story is solid, but it's nothing new and nothing that hasn't been tackled as well, sans the Russian view. But this isn't where I'll get arguments with other viewers, because liking a movie is sibjective, assuming you understand it. My problem is where people draw comparisons.
Amateur movie viewers will immediately say it feels like Kurosawa, Bergman and maybe even Buenel, but it doesn't in any way. Tarkovsky went out of his way, not to copy his contemporaries, because of the mutual admiration. Bergman called Tarkovsky the most important film maker to ever live and the feeling was mutual. I saw many more similarities, in style, to Dreyer and Mizoguchi. The need for people to compare every faith and devotion based movie with Wild Strawberries or Seven Samurai is becoming cliche. It's as if everyone who has seen those two movies, feels they understand every inspiration of every director since. While I don't deny the impact of these two movies (as well as countless others), it's more than likely, Tarkovsky went out of his way to avoid such comparisons. The one thing that struck me about the movie, was it's dream sequences, which are not in any way, shown as dreams. This is something Tarkovsky does so well, almost too well at times. It's within these scene that the sheer length of the movie becomes a burden. To keep a keen eye out for all the little moments, the changes in attitude and appearance, you really need to be fixated and even for seasoned veterans of movies such as this, especially with subtitles. It's draining.
This is where I get back to the subject line. The problem with Tarkovsky isn't his brilliance. His film making skills are second to none. His ability to convey strong messages, without limited dialogue or to use music, poetry and simply movement in nature, is amazing. His framing of shots, addition of objects into scenes (some from previous movies) all ties his life's work, with his life and more importantly the life of Russia together. It's all brilliance that puts him into a select group in the history of film. The problem is how you feel after his films. You can not just turn of the TV, grab a snack and got to bed. No, the movie ended six hours ago and I'm running it over in my head. I'm running over all of the four I've seen. I've more questions now than I did six hours ago and I'll have even more after twelve. My eyes are heavy and my body aches, as if I've competed against something. This may for others be a joy, but for me, the enjoyment of film is not to want to research the 1400's, but to feel informed. Satisfied with the story and it's angles. I don't feel at all like that. I feel beaten and confused. Not by the content, but by the overload my senses have taken. Never before would I have thought, that I'd look back and laugh at comparisons to the likes of Akira and Ingmar, but their films almost feel simple, dare I say light, in comparison Yet in the end, they are also, for the most part, better and that's the problem I have with Andrei.
In a recent poll, The Mirror (or simply Mirror) was hailed as one of the ten best films of all-time by a list of over 350 directors. After seeing it, I must say, it is visually and mentally stimulating as any I've seen, but it's impossible to describe. To simple watch it is useless. I found myself flipping back to review scenes and pay careful attention to the language (the subtitles are awful). What I came away with was this passion for storytelling, but in the sense of true recollection. Where one story begins, but the orator isn't confined by rules. The mirror follows no linear path and jumps in time and point of view. Its greatest power is movement, whether it be the wind in the grass, water flowing (a Tarkovsky trademark) or in one case a fire. Many think an homage to Kurosawa, but I beg to differ. Do I think the average movie goer will enjoy this film? Not a chance, because as it ends, you're left with wondering what you'll take from it the next time, but if you do like it, you'll have to see it again. My first reaction to it was the need to own it. Something I personally frown upon, when it comes to movies.
Tonight i dove headfirst into Andrei Rublev. At three hours and twenty-five minutes and in a strange, almost half sized letterbox screen, it was a task. Not one I suggest, as the movie is easily broken up into smaller sections (as many as eight, should you desire), that you try and swallow whole. Rublev is consider anywhere from one of the three or four greatest movies to somewhere in the high 20's, depending on which list you use. Obviously, something like IMDB, which caters to a younger, more current fan base, won't have it as high, but that's not to discourage you. It is an important movie to see, for historical purposes, both in the movie's content and in film making. I will now state, that I disagree. This is not a great film, it's an long, repetitive film and isn't nearly as complex as Tarkovsky's other works. It's actually quite simple and I will admit, that I brushed up on the time period, using the timeline on the actual DVD for reference. The acting is wonderful and the story is solid, but it's nothing new and nothing that hasn't been tackled as well, sans the Russian view. But this isn't where I'll get arguments with other viewers, because liking a movie is sibjective, assuming you understand it. My problem is where people draw comparisons.
Amateur movie viewers will immediately say it feels like Kurosawa, Bergman and maybe even Buenel, but it doesn't in any way. Tarkovsky went out of his way, not to copy his contemporaries, because of the mutual admiration. Bergman called Tarkovsky the most important film maker to ever live and the feeling was mutual. I saw many more similarities, in style, to Dreyer and Mizoguchi. The need for people to compare every faith and devotion based movie with Wild Strawberries or Seven Samurai is becoming cliche. It's as if everyone who has seen those two movies, feels they understand every inspiration of every director since. While I don't deny the impact of these two movies (as well as countless others), it's more than likely, Tarkovsky went out of his way to avoid such comparisons. The one thing that struck me about the movie, was it's dream sequences, which are not in any way, shown as dreams. This is something Tarkovsky does so well, almost too well at times. It's within these scene that the sheer length of the movie becomes a burden. To keep a keen eye out for all the little moments, the changes in attitude and appearance, you really need to be fixated and even for seasoned veterans of movies such as this, especially with subtitles. It's draining.
This is where I get back to the subject line. The problem with Tarkovsky isn't his brilliance. His film making skills are second to none. His ability to convey strong messages, without limited dialogue or to use music, poetry and simply movement in nature, is amazing. His framing of shots, addition of objects into scenes (some from previous movies) all ties his life's work, with his life and more importantly the life of Russia together. It's all brilliance that puts him into a select group in the history of film. The problem is how you feel after his films. You can not just turn of the TV, grab a snack and got to bed. No, the movie ended six hours ago and I'm running it over in my head. I'm running over all of the four I've seen. I've more questions now than I did six hours ago and I'll have even more after twelve. My eyes are heavy and my body aches, as if I've competed against something. This may for others be a joy, but for me, the enjoyment of film is not to want to research the 1400's, but to feel informed. Satisfied with the story and it's angles. I don't feel at all like that. I feel beaten and confused. Not by the content, but by the overload my senses have taken. Never before would I have thought, that I'd look back and laugh at comparisons to the likes of Akira and Ingmar, but their films almost feel simple, dare I say light, in comparison Yet in the end, they are also, for the most part, better and that's the problem I have with Andrei.
Comments
Post a Comment