Andrei Tarkovsky (Merged) (1 Viewer)

[Paul_D]

Found a few posts, but on reflection I'm not especially interested in picking this one apart. It hasn't entered my head since the day after seeing it. Much prefer Solaris and Stalker now that I've seen them. The Mirror was too much. Too dense. Too obscure. Too unexplained. Too dull.

 

[Daniel P]

I first saw Offret, then Solaris, Stalker, and just recently I finally watched Zerkalo. Glad I didn't dive head first into this one.

The first 3 had a profound effect on me, but Zerkalo didn't do so. At the time I watched it, I was tired I'll admit, but just didn't get anything out of it - to my suprise. I'm hoping a second viewing might change this, but I was not nearly as entranced as I thought I might be after reading others' thoughts.

Paul, it seems you and I may have something in common. Has anyone else had a similar experience to Paul and I?

 

[AlexCremers]

I couldn't keep myself awake during 'Stalker' but I'm fond of 'Solaris'. Just recently and without any provocation the "driving sequence" just popped into my head. What exactly is it with this scene?!! At the time I thought it was Tarkovsky telling the audience that we're already living in future times. Or, was it merely a great angle from a photographic point of view? Are there any Tarkovsky specialists here who know the background of this particular scene?



Alex

 

[AlexCremers]

No answers? No opinions? I guess that makes 'me' the expert, right? OK, if someone has questions, fire away!

------------
Alex Cremers

 

[David_Blackwell]

Solaris is hypnotic. I've seen parts of other Tarkovsky movies on TCM (but usually they're on too late). I still want to buy a cheap used VHS of Stalker somewhere, so I can see that movie.

 

[Steve Felix]

Alex,

I think I remember hearing it speculated on the Criterion commentary that it was difficult or expensive to shoot the driving scene (tough to get the permit?) so Tarkovsky included a lot of what he shot to justify it.

That doesn't sound right, actually, considering I think the scene does have a point. Maybe I dreamt that.

 

[AlexCremers]

I find that hard to believe that he would do it only to justify the trouble. The reason why I find this hard to believe is that Tarkovsky permits himself the same thing in 'Stalker' (the endless railway drive). He seemingly likes the idea that travelling just takes time, even in movies (something which is completely absent in modern movies, BTW).
It's the length of scenes like the "highway drive" in Solaris that forces people to draw comparisons with 2001. And although Tarkovsky doesn't see it that way, it's exactly what connects the two directors. That and, of course, the "mystique" 'Solaris' and '2001' both generate.



Alex

 

[Brook K]

One of Tarkovsky's primary philosophies/themes is the ability of the filmmaker to control time. He wrote a book on the subject titled Sculpting In Time. He wants you to feel time as a tangible force within his films. A journey, whether physically or in thought, takes time. Tarkovsky wants the audience to experience this time and think about its ramifications. A jump cut robs the audience of the ability to consider what is happening onscreen because we are quickly being shown something else that we have to absorb.

We aren't simply watching someone drive down a road for an extended period of time. We are travelling with a man who is embarking for another world, leaving behind everything that he holds dear on Earth. What does he think and feel about what he is about to do? What do we the audience think and feel about this?