Andrei Tarkovsky interview part 1

[cedrictrent]

I hate when people call him pretentious . Just because you dont understand someone does not mean they are pretentious. This man was the one true genius of film.

[Absinthiee]

i want a tarkovsky signature tattoo on my body more than anything!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anarchovoyeur]

I have always preferred European films but whenever i think of a genius,spiritual visionary, poetic filmmaker it's always Andrei and now a days maybe Bela Tarr. Only 7 films that marked me forever, the power of Art.

[holicat098]

translate of this english to english is not good!

[stijnlukas]

See kubrickfilms.tripoddotcom very interesting views, see esp FMJ page analysis, very complex movie

[lamentate07]

PRATTAIS: i'm more interested in finding out who are your favourite directors outside of the English speaking world than bickering about the meaning of Kubrick's films.

[lamentate07]

Agree that Thin Red Line is a good film, but The New World was dull to me, and his new film looks like the cinematic equivalent of a hallmark card.

There are far more interesting directors out there than Malick nowadays. he had his time, and that time was in the 70's, and then briefly, again, with his return in the late 90's

[film23790]

Stanley Kubrick is undoubtedly a master as well as David Lynch particularly for Mulholland Drive. Kubrick & Lynch weaved content into films so well most people do not even see it, the climate they were in (Hollywood) meant that they had to put layers on top of the content otherwise it simply would not of sold. I think most people assume because a piece of work is mainstream it is not arthouse in any sense.

Kubrick, Lynch, Tarkovsky & Bergman...Four true masters of cinema.

[rgs11]

I'm sorry but Kubrick wasn't anywhere near Tarkovsky in any respect important to film-making. Of course Kubrick was brilliant but still doesn't hold a candle. This isn't just my opinion but it is the opinion of other greats such as Bergman, Kurosawa, Trier, etc. When you factor in creative pressures/conditions, the margin increases.

[ateniense7]

Tarkovsky is the greatest genius of cinema.

[1mariamariamaria]

Radonezhsky, from Radonezh -- not Radonevsky.

[michael918273645]

@nexyok also Malick and Lynch.

[monsterdmx06]

it's not pronounced andrej rubleeev, but andrej rubljov

[nexyok]

Just Stanley Kubrick

[TakovskyPoetOfCinema]

Andrei Rublev and Mirror are two Masterpieces of the 20th century

[DavidF89999]

Ivan's Childhood changed my perspective on life

[endeavourthelimits]

Tipu asta seamana cu Dan Marin. arhitectul roman care a proiectat imobilul de birouri din fostul sediu al securitatii din Piata Revolutiei din Bucuresti.

[Alpha7000]

Corect, endeavourthelimits. Doar ca tipul asta era probabil de partea ceealalta a baricadei ideologige ; ) Asta vorbeste de Tarkovsky... care a fost omorit de kgb fiindca il vedeau ca mare 'amenintare'. Pe Tarkovsky l-au iradiat impreuna cu familia lui la locul unde filma; sunt marturii - plus doctorii lui care arata cum cancerul lui a aparut prin iradiere si nu in mod natural.

[lamentate07]

the only film maker alive today that s makes films with incredibly long shots like Tarkovsky is Greece's Theo Angelopoulos. their shooting styles are definitely comparable, but thematically they are not really similar at all. Hist best work is close to Andrei's in terms of quality IMO.

as for Tarkovsky's remarks, i disagree that we can't learn from others experiences, but the great tragedy of life is that we usually don't. Perhaps that explains why history continuously repeats itself.

[latekoll]

teleprompta

[RawPower]

cigarettes didn't kill Tarkovsky, he died from cancer caused by a chemical plant pumping pollutants into the stream where he filmed during Stalker

[noizenconfusion]

i also heard that russian govt poisoned him which led to his cancer....not true?

[RawPower]

not true. Unless they posioned most of the cast and some of the crew for Stalker as well to give them all cancer at a young age

[jkhgsdhgdhgjklsdhfgj]

cigarettes killed tarkovsky.

need ANYMORE reasons to quit?

[jpom29]

I hate ranking people or making lists but it's pretty hard to argue with Tark being at the top of a best director list. Every film was a masterpiece. I remember seeing Stalker for the first time and being dumbfounded by its brilliance. I'd rank Bresson, Pasolini, Kurosawa, Bunuel and others I am forgetting near him but not quite at his level.

[jpastuch]

I'd rank Cassavetes at the same level as Tarkovsky- though he is much different, he was genuine, complex, and really believed in the human spirit, emotion, and love. Ozu is close too. But yeah, Tarkovsky blew away many other supposed masters. What does Hitchcock have on Stalker? NOTHING.

[who3697cares]

Hitchcock has always been overrated, the only masterpieces he ever made were Notorious, Rear Window, and Vertigo, and mabye Rebecca. And his own sense of self-pleasure from making films always got in the way in everything, except mabye Notorious. True masters like Kubrick, Renoir, Tarkovsky, Ozu, Bresson, Tati, Nicholar Ray, Satyajit Ray, Kiarostami, Godard, Demy, Minnelli, Murnau, Griffith, Lang, and Hawks get underrated because of him.

[cheapholiday]

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, one's own sense of self-pleasure from rating filmmakers gets in the way of everything.

[mnitetoker33]

@cheapholiday Well said!!

[lamentate07]

really? i dont' think any American film maker is on the same level as Tarkovsky. at least in terms of content. He was just on another level.

[Justino111]

lamentate07: you are absolutely right.

Of course there are various aesthetics one can follow. And not everything needs to be poetry. I would hate to see a film maker following Tarkovsky's ideas and techniques.

That being said, Tarkovsky's art is indeed on another level.

It's deep and sublime. He is not in a different dimension, he created another dimension.

[Justino111]

@prattals maybe you should read what i wrote a few more times.

[annpham]

@lamentate07 : I agree actually.

[Bman8urkids]

@lamentate07 Not sure if judging film makers by the country they are from, as the bases of whether or not they are good at their craft, is such a good idea. It's all subjective, each film maker should be recognised as an individual.

I don't doubt Tarkovsky is a master, but there are plenty of American masters as well. Stanley Kubrick, Francis Ford Coppola, David Lynch, Terrence Malick, Martin Scorsese.

What they choose to explore reflects themselves and their audience.

[rgs11]

@lamentate07 Yep, in more than just content, too. Lighting, camera direction, editing (both were extremely involved in their own editing), etc, and especially content. Kubrick was as good a director as a materialist could be and was a master craftsman but Tarkovsky (aside from having the greater genius for which he was recognized at Moscow Film Institute) had the faith of a child.

[lamentate07]

@rgs11 yeah, Tarkovsky is a master of cinematic form, no doubt. There are maybe a handful or two of directors that compare to him imo.  I just referenced content in the moment, but his lighting, staging, and general mise-en-scene is on a different level to most.

It's silly for me to try and separate form and content with Tarkovsky, as he achieved the perfect synergy.

[lamentate07]

@prattals Hitchcock wasn't American though ;-)

I think Fuller is cheesy personally, but each to their own. Kubrick was a great technician, but i feel his films are not as complex as people think they are. His rigid formalism often worked _against_ complexity, whereas it works wonders for directors like Greenaway.

Malick has a poetic style that's appealing, but i haven't liked his more recent work.

[lamentate07]

@prattals I made that formalist comment in relation to another film maker that is often accused of being cold and rigid like Kubrick, and that was Peter Greenaway.

Form has a lot to do with complexity. It's the relationship between people and things(landscapes, objects) and how visual language is used to communicate ideas that distinguishes a great artist from a merely good or competent one. On this level, American directors generally do not compare to the greats of Europe, with few exceptions.

[lamentate07]

@prattals I find Kubrick's films to be quite obvious really, from the point of meaning anyway.

2001 is probably the sole exception.

And i disagree that his films tackle the nature of fear. Kubrick's big theme was supposedly 'dehumanisation' according to his critics and fans, but i think it's a stretch to find that theme working in most of his films(although it it's there in some of them, mostly explicitly in Full Metal Jacket).

[lamentate07]

@lamentate07 also, 'hidden meanings' is also subjective, of course, depending greatly on the intelligence and education level of the audience. In foreign films, for example, the tendency for misinterpretation is great if the film is grounded in a specific cultural and political context. Or if a movie deals with philosophical ideas, like Tarkovsky, one needs to be aware of that first.

Film buffs often throw the word 'metaphysical' around without knowing what it means.

[lamentate07]

@prattals I said it was meant to be his main theme, supposedly. I didn't say that was what 2001 was _only_ about. It's an important theme in Full Metal Jacket.

i like all the directors you mentioned too, but i can take or leave Melville. Lang was great in Germany only.

[lamentate07]

@prattals I also think Robert Altman at his best is comparable to the best of Europe btw.

Anyway, this topic is growing stale. Just out of interest, do you like any of the following directors: Theo Angelopoulos, Pedro Costa, Bela Tarr, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Apichatpong Weerasethakul?

[lamentate07]

@prattals how much analysis can do be done on youtube? There is a strict word limit.

I have lived in America, Americans are anti-intellectual compared to Europeans. That's a fact. Even in the big cities. Maybe you should live overseas and see for yourself. Artists and thinkers are very respected in most of Europe. In America they are respected if they make money. Most serious American artists are more respected overseas, and that includes directors like Jamursch too btw.

[lamentate07]

@prattals I'm not comparing all Americans to Europeans. I'm making a generalisation based on an abstract of what the cultural differences are. If you don't understand what i mean by that, you have no right to call me ignorant. A generalisation is a valuable heurestic aid(not to be ocnfused with a bad stereotype). it is not inherently bad like we are taught at school. We just tend to react to them when they are negative.

Spelling mistake is just that - a mistake. Nothing more.

[lamentate07]

@prattals It's very individualistic, but it's also highly conformist. How does that work? I found a lot more diversity in opinion and attitudes in Paris than i did in cosmopolitan New York to be honest.

On the contrary, i'd say that, since America is an 'individualist' nation without as much culture--from a historical perspective--this is precisely what makes them ignorant, since they have no common standard to live up to. No traditions to align themselves with.

[lamentate07]

@prattals ignorant in the 'artistic sense', i mean, since it's not taught as widely and broadly in schools as it is in Europe, because it's not really a huge part of their culture(although literature is, granted).

[lamentate07]

@prattals if you enjoy contemplative cinema, i suggest you check out both Tarr and Costa btw. You will probably get something out of Tarr especially if you admire Tarkovsky.

later.

[lamentate07]

@prattals i disagree that no forms of expression are better than others. I think there is a clear difference between contemplative cinema, and the flashy cinema of directors like Scorsese(who i also like btw). One is capable of dealing with strong ideas, the other is not, as a general rule.

The art film is mostly a Euro, and Asian, approach to cinema. American cinema improved by adopting aspects of it. Even Kubrick changed his style in the late 60's after being influenced by the Euros.

[lamentate07]

@prattals As i said, there isn't one American art film director that's as good as the best from Europe imo, with the sole exception of Cassavettes, who even Godard admitted was a superior artist. When Americans do 'art films', they are usually dumbed down. e.g Jamursch etc.

It's not just about bias, American culture in general is less sophisticated, more anti-intellectual. It's less open to exploring ideas. That has inevitable consequences for the art it produces.

[lamentate07]

@prattals I think when Schrader is writing, Scorsese's films are sophisticated. When Schrader is absent, msot of the time they are not.

I prefer Raging Bull to Taxi Driver personally. Raging Bull is one of my favourite movies of all time. and an American classic.

[lamentate07]

@prattals i dont' think Cassavetes is superior because of Godard. He is superior because of his use of form, and the way he interrogates and fleshes out his characters in such an intimite and personal way. His complete rejection of stylistic convention allows him to get inside his characters in a way that most other directors simply cannot do. Friedkin, by comparison, is just a good stylist and genre film maker, at best. He is not a humanist like Cassavetes, or an artistic explorer.

[lamentate07]

@prattals Agree that Exorcist is a really good film. I think Friedkin got lucky with that one.

It's probably one of the few blockbusters in Hollywood history that is actually somewhat artistic.

[lamentate07]

@prattals The comparison is pointless because they are different film makers, but if you are asking me who is more artistic and why, then i have given you at least 1-2 reasons why i think J.C is superior to W.F.

I also think Friedkin had trouble combining the thrills of genre with either a social or psychological subtext. 'The Sorcerer', 'Bug' and 'Cruising' are 3 examples that come to mind.

As for J.C, he is far from perfect; he made Gloria, after all ;-)

[Quex01]

@lamentate07 We are poisoned with parasitic zionist so called culture, degrading gradually everything to animalistic level, as eaters, buyers and fornicators. People of the western civilization are left without substance and morality and this predator zionist system is sucking life out of everything.

[Anarchovoyeur]

@lamentate07 David Lynch is in my opinion at a European level by far.

[lamentate07]

@prattals I rely on others to find meaning for me? don't give yourself too much credit there. We all rely on others to some extent for this, because we are not centres of gravity. Being part of the film community involves reading interpretations, exchanging meaning, establishing consensus(if possible), for better or worse.

anyway, stop talking about American directors. What other foreign directors do you like and understand(most importantly)?

[lamentate07]

@prattals Having said that, i probably agree that 2001 is on par with Solaris, but Sol isn't even my favourite Tarkovsky film.

[noizenconfusion]

if u hate ranking, then pls dont do it...

[cheminwey]

Tarkovski IS the greatest filmmaker that ever lived. period.

Maybe Bresson, Dreyer, Kurosawa are near the top, Bergman.. but this guy... made only 7 films , all masterpieces...

[plaspas]

know why??.... because it is serious

[chainplate]

tarkovsky is great, but this old guy SUCKS. Don't try to process anyhting he says its all garbage and it will give you an aneurysm if you allow it into your brain.

[ifilmwatchlearnmore]

Thanks for the posting

[icantfindanamethis]

sure

but

i think it does everyone a disservice just offering mindless entertainment & few alternatives

just my opinion

[kelatsu]

Tarkovsky, Pasolini, who then? Perhaps Polanski. There is LOT of free space on the top because only few are getting there.

[hellucifernation]

Tarkovsky is my fave movie maker of all time. Bergmann is another fave.

[icantfindanamethis]

i would love to see something by Tarkovsky Ozu

Godard

unfortunately were choked with Hollywood here in the West

[Mimameior]

I live in England, yet I can watch Tarkovsky (either buy the films, or rent them through my local library.) What's the problem in Canada?

[icantfindanamethis]

i wish we in the west had access to quality filmmakers

i would love to see something by Tarkovsky or Godard, Ozu

but all we get is Hollywood

[rootpepper]

You don't have to watch films you don't like you know? You can... ignore them.

That's what I do

[dans86]

i ignore them too...i live in the states and never pay attention to them...i've gotten Tarkovskys' collection and watching it now...its amazing...you can def find things here..you just gotta look for them..

[hanshotfirst1138]

I'd so love see Nostalghia....

[woodyaan]

He died because of nostalgy..

[letufi]

thanks for sharing this-

[Mazurka1001]

is this vlada petrich, the famous harvard filmologist?

[NYCBG]

Sorry for the belated reply: Yes, that's good old Vlada!

[batoka8]

He is a genius!!Deeply spiritual!!!

[Stereolabdream]

Very interesting. Many features discussed here are also relevant to Bergman's "Seventh Seal" of course.Particularly narrative structure.