>The movie is literally just 3 men walking in the woods before realizing that they're wasting their time just as the audience realizes their wasting their time.
It wasn't even magical and the philosophy is pretty low IQ.
i posted the scene this image is from
movie is Stray Dogs
if you want to approach this director 9Tsai Ming-liang) do it chronologically, he has a very specific development of style through the career
>What if I took a short essay where I mused about semi-coherent ideas, but then made that three minute read takes hours instead, by having people speak the sentences while standing around in decrepit structures?
Better than Rublev though
It’s basically the only thing to watch if you’re depressed. It’s a slow burn with hardly any revelations and seems to be more like an atmospheric music video than anything. It’s weird and touches upon human concepts anybody can relate to, how do you have faith in the world, what is the point why continue? The movie invites the viewer to ask the same questions as the characters depart to the zone. The zone itself can represent many things to many people that is its power analogous to the world at large. Why find your fortune if it’s simply a reflection of your conditions of living? Is it better to persist despite the looming evidence to the contrary? The movie is designed to make the viewer an active participant in order to have you relate to the characters. It’s a powerful movie simply because it gets you to do this without consciously thinking about it.
Don’t fricking bother. Stalker is so bad that I put it on when I’m going to sleep. It is comforting how quiet the film is, how everyone talks softly. Unbelievable cinematic Nyquil.
why would you even need to show the room? why does it matter? why does it even need to be anything more than what we saw? you're missing the entire point of Tarkovsky's take on it.
I liked Solaris, even though it had a few pointless and long scenes. Didn't like Stalker, would much rather re-read the short story. Haven't tried The Mirror
The Mirror is one of those movies that feel unique, there's nothing like it. Then again you can imagine that such eccentricity can divide viewers, a sort of 'you will love it or hate it' situation.
[...]
The opposite for me, I really liked Stalker though the first 30 mins were tedious. Solaris, however, kind of sucked. Maybe it's because I read the book almost a decade ago and only watched the Tarkovsky flick last year, but I wasn't impressed at all. It did a lame job of capturing the sci-fi mindfrickery of the book, and the production design was so cheap and shoddy that I couldn't take anything seriously. Characters were flat and one-note even if the performances were good, and for a movie that leaned so heavily on "atmosphere" it had no sense of aesthetics (visuals, sets, music, etc).
Can't believe Tarko had the balls to criticise A Space Odyssey
I haven't seen Solaris for several years, the 3 main things I liked and remember SPOILER are the dialogue he has with his neutrino wife when she figures out she's fake and he is compelled by his monkey brain to comfort 'her,' the one scientist's monologue at the birthday party (?) where he soapboxes that humans want just a little bit of novelty but no more, and the twist ending. I didn't know there was a book
The opposite for me, I really liked Stalker though the first 30 mins were tedious. Solaris, however, kind of sucked. Maybe it's because I read the book almost a decade ago and only watched the Tarkovsky flick last year, but I wasn't impressed at all. It did a lame job of capturing the sci-fi mindfrickery of the book, and the production design was so cheap and shoddy that I couldn't take anything seriously. Characters were flat and one-note even if the performances were good, and for a movie that leaned so heavily on "atmosphere" it had no sense of aesthetics (visuals, sets, music, etc).
Can't believe Tarko had the balls to criticise A Space Odyssey
>“2001: A Space Odyssey is phoney on many points, even for specialists. For a true work of art, the fake must be eliminated,” Tarkovsky noted in a pre-Solaris interview, with his upcoming film quickly being marketed as Russia’s ‘anti-2001’. The director’s central issue with Kubrick’s classic sci-fi film was in the film’s “lack of emotion”, due to the film’s focus on technological invention. >Tarkovsky declared that in his own science fiction film “everything would be as it should. That means to create psychologically, not an exotic but a real, everyday environment that would be conveyed to the viewer through the perception of the film’s characters”. Continuing, the director criticised Kubrick’s approach, noting: “That’s why a detailed ‘examination’ of the technological processes of the future transforms the emotional foundation of a film, as a work of art, into a lifeless schema with only pretensions to truth”.
You ever hear about the anon that watched stalker? All his dreams came true.
these anons, artists and professors, they've got it all already, they don't care about dreams coming true
Got ya, fricker
Your time isn't worth shit, more like a waste of a good movie on a moron.
>The movie is literally just 3 men walking in the woods before realizing that they're wasting their time just as the audience realizes their wasting their time.
It wasn't even magical and the philosophy is pretty low IQ.
4/10 never watching again.
I tried to warn you not to watch it and just play the game instead
>philosophy
only morons think there's any philosophy in it.
>good kino is when ermmm, scenes take 5 minutes of still shot with someone barely moving and saying nothing
>5 minutes
That's kino alright, but how bout two 10 minute still shots, now that's prime kino by my standards.
whats your image from? is it a video game?
i posted the scene this image is from
movie is Stray Dogs
if you want to approach this director 9Tsai Ming-liang) do it chronologically, he has a very specific development of style through the career
thanks man
the image looks great
Tsai Ming Liang's Stray Dogs, read the filename.
Only thing that bothers me is the ADR
probably just one anon making these threads
Literally the best movie ever made
Mirror is better
Solaris*
i like Solaris but it isn't better than Mirror or Rublev
the poeticisms in it feel sloppy because Tark was working out of the comfort zone at the time
I kinda liked Solaris but I found it to be aggressively soporific, and I usually don't mind slow cinema or Tarkovsky's films pacing in general.
>What if I took a short essay where I mused about semi-coherent ideas, but then made that three minute read takes hours instead, by having people speak the sentences while standing around in decrepit structures?
Better than Rublev though
Should I watch this? t.depressed alcoholic
I don't wanna generalize all depressed druktards, but I enjoyed this so maybe you will as well, only one way to find out homosexual
It’s basically the only thing to watch if you’re depressed. It’s a slow burn with hardly any revelations and seems to be more like an atmospheric music video than anything. It’s weird and touches upon human concepts anybody can relate to, how do you have faith in the world, what is the point why continue? The movie invites the viewer to ask the same questions as the characters depart to the zone. The zone itself can represent many things to many people that is its power analogous to the world at large. Why find your fortune if it’s simply a reflection of your conditions of living? Is it better to persist despite the looming evidence to the contrary? The movie is designed to make the viewer an active participant in order to have you relate to the characters. It’s a powerful movie simply because it gets you to do this without consciously thinking about it.
It's like bitter lemonade. You either love it or hate it.
Don’t fricking bother. Stalker is so bad that I put it on when I’m going to sleep. It is comforting how quiet the film is, how everyone talks softly. Unbelievable cinematic Nyquil.
The ending was a total copout for them not knowing or having the budget to show what the magical room would look like or do.
Still overall it's a good movie, and I don't think it was a waste of time at all.
why would you even need to show the room? why does it matter? why does it even need to be anything more than what we saw? you're missing the entire point of Tarkovsky's take on it.
You being upset over not getting answers is exactly the feeling you’re supposed to come away with.
How did they film in the Pripyat exclusion zone before it was an exclusion zone?
It's Russia, they just went outside.
tark's moron filter works beyond death
I liked Solaris, even though it had a few pointless and long scenes. Didn't like Stalker, would much rather re-read the short story. Haven't tried The Mirror
The Mirror is one of those movies that feel unique, there's nothing like it. Then again you can imagine that such eccentricity can divide viewers, a sort of 'you will love it or hate it' situation.
I'll give it a watch
I haven't seen Solaris for several years, the 3 main things I liked and remember SPOILER are the dialogue he has with his neutrino wife when she figures out she's fake and he is compelled by his monkey brain to comfort 'her,' the one scientist's monologue at the birthday party (?) where he soapboxes that humans want just a little bit of novelty but no more, and the twist ending. I didn't know there was a book
>the short story
where can this be found?
"A Roadside Picnic"
I think I got a copy from ctrl-c'ing a wall of dark blue italicized text from some random website
https://soviethistory.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/picnic.pdf
well i guess they have pdfs nowadays
The opposite for me, I really liked Stalker though the first 30 mins were tedious. Solaris, however, kind of sucked. Maybe it's because I read the book almost a decade ago and only watched the Tarkovsky flick last year, but I wasn't impressed at all. It did a lame job of capturing the sci-fi mindfrickery of the book, and the production design was so cheap and shoddy that I couldn't take anything seriously. Characters were flat and one-note even if the performances were good, and for a movie that leaned so heavily on "atmosphere" it had no sense of aesthetics (visuals, sets, music, etc).
Can't believe Tarko had the balls to criticise A Space Odyssey
what did he say about 2001?
>“2001: A Space Odyssey is phoney on many points, even for specialists. For a true work of art, the fake must be eliminated,” Tarkovsky noted in a pre-Solaris interview, with his upcoming film quickly being marketed as Russia’s ‘anti-2001’. The director’s central issue with Kubrick’s classic sci-fi film was in the film’s “lack of emotion”, due to the film’s focus on technological invention.
>Tarkovsky declared that in his own science fiction film “everything would be as it should. That means to create psychologically, not an exotic but a real, everyday environment that would be conveyed to the viewer through the perception of the film’s characters”. Continuing, the director criticised Kubrick’s approach, noting: “That’s why a detailed ‘examination’ of the technological processes of the future transforms the emotional foundation of a film, as a work of art, into a lifeless schema with only pretensions to truth”.