|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 12, 2017 6:48:49 GMT
I think hes pretty decent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 12, 2017 9:08:02 GMT
Yes
Satantango remains one of my most memorable cinematic experiences, and I think both Werckmeister Harmonies and The Turin Horse are masterpieces as well. I adore Tarr's aesthetic in general; one of those few directors who truly believes in the power of visuals to create a unique world and carry most of the film while plot and character take a backseat.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 12, 2017 9:49:19 GMT
Yes Satantango remains one of my most memorable cinematic experiences, and I think both Werckmeister Harmonies and The Turin Horse are masterpieces as well. I adore Tarr's aesthetic in general; one of those few directors who truly believes in the power of visuals to create a unique world and carry most of the film while plot and character take a backseat. he is sort of like Tarkovsky in a way. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 12, 2017 9:57:36 GMT
Yes Satantango remains one of my most memorable cinematic experiences, and I think both Werckmeister Harmonies and The Turin Horse are masterpieces as well. I adore Tarr's aesthetic in general; one of those few directors who truly believes in the power of visuals to create a unique world and carry most of the film while plot and character take a backseat. he is sort of like Tarkovsky in a way. There's probably an influence, though I have a rather frustrating relationship with Tarkovsky; I love a couple (Andrei Rublev, Stalker), dislike a couple (Solyaris, Mirror), and the rest I mostly like while feeling underwhelmed, like I should've been more moved than I was. To me, Tarkovsky falters whenever he tries to get verbally poetic rather than visually poetic; The Sacrifice is a great example that starts off visually bland and talky, but has some remarkable sequences later on. So I prefer Tarr over him. |
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Nov 12, 2017 10:08:04 GMT
Yay.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 12, 2017 11:30:24 GMT
he is sort of like Tarkovsky in a way. There's probably an influence, though I have a rather frustrating relationship with Tarkovsky; I love a couple (Andrei Rublev, Stalker), dislike a couple (Solyaris, Mirror), and the rest I mostly like while feeling underwhelmed, like I should've been more moved than I was. To me, Tarkovsky falters whenever he tries to get verbally poetic rather than visually poetic; The Sacrifice is a great example that starts off visually bland and talky, but has some remarkable sequences later on. So I prefer Tarr over him. Thats one aspect of Tarkovsky and to an extent Kubrick ive heard from others, a tendency to be really polarizing, an emotional disconnect from what we are seiing. |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 12, 2017 11:38:17 GMT
There's probably an influence, though I have a rather frustrating relationship with Tarkovsky; I love a couple (Andrei Rublev, Stalker), dislike a couple (Solyaris, Mirror), and the rest I mostly like while feeling underwhelmed, like I should've been more moved than I was. To me, Tarkovsky falters whenever he tries to get verbally poetic rather than visually poetic; The Sacrifice is a great example that starts off visually bland and talky, but has some remarkable sequences later on. So I prefer Tarr over him. Thats one aspect of Tarkovsky and to an extent Kubrick ive heard from others, a tendency to be really polarizing, an emotional disconnect from what we are feeling not seeing whoops. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 12, 2017 11:57:53 GMT
There's probably an influence, though I have a rather frustrating relationship with Tarkovsky; I love a couple (Andrei Rublev, Stalker), dislike a couple (Solyaris, Mirror), and the rest I mostly like while feeling underwhelmed, like I should've been more moved than I was. To me, Tarkovsky falters whenever he tries to get verbally poetic rather than visually poetic; The Sacrifice is a great example that starts off visually bland and talky, but has some remarkable sequences later on. So I prefer Tarr over him. Thats one aspect of Tarkovsky and to an extent Kubrick ive heard from others, a tendency to be really polarizing, an emotional disconnect from what we are seiing. Yes, though in Kubrick I think the emotional coolness is part of the appeal, because there is almost always a tremendous amount of intellectual substance to explore/chew on, and his films can achieve a kind of sublimity even when they aren't hitting more typical emotional buttons. I might even say that more typical emotional content would get in the way of that effect: the end of 2001 works because you're too overwhelmed with not knowing WTF is happening to be worried about being emotional about it; the viewer is as stunned and clueless and along for the ride as Dave. With Tarkovsky, I think he hints at more depth than is typically there, and his films work best (when they work) on a purely aesthetic level. That's what I love so much about Stalker, because like Tarr it's wholly successful at creating its own cinematic world and then just immersing the viewer in it, and I don't feel the few moments of exposition, even Tarkovsky's rather on-the-nose symbolism of what the characters represent, gets in the way. |
|
