The audacity of filmkeks to compare this to 2001. I can tell western lefty academics wanted to prop up some soviet film as equal to Kubrick's masterpiece, so they chose this turd from Tarkvosky. And now we have deal with midwits trying to justify its bad acting, bad production designs and horrendous pacing. YUCK. Interstellar and Arrival are better than this slop.
 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
t. moron
I think you mean to say.
>t.moron
But good on you for admitting you're moronic though.
kys gaslighting moron
Lurk moar newhomosexual. Maybe then you'd avoid moronic mistakes like this.
You sound exactly like the midwits you're kvetching about you fricking israelite.
'>t.' is only for when something else is written in the post. Otherwise 't.' is fine. Ironically this is something I've seen newbies mess up multiple times and act as if they're privy to some super secret Cinemaphile knowledge.
>'>t.' is only for when something else is written in the post. Otherwise 't.' is fine.
>t.newhomosexual
Congratulations it worked.
The whole point of "t." is that you're pretending to be that poster, which doesn't make any fricking sense if you use greentext. Almost a decade later and morons like you still haven't figured this out
Wrong. Writing it that way is actually the newbie way of doing it.
Noone cares about your opinion shut up
Tarkovskyiv is so overrated by people for whom he's the only contact with Russian cinema, just like that ww2 film about the le scarred boy.
Read the book instead.
The sets looked fine, but the movie looked fantastic because of how Tarkovsky filmed it. Every setting attains quite a visual significance under his direction and use of repetition. But as far as art is concerned Solaris is 1000x better, Tarkovsky's criticisms of 2001 are entirely justified. The only great part of 2001 is Keir Dullea in the space station. The rest of the movie is either comical, mundane or an empty schema, albeit filmed very well. And then there's still nothing profound to any of it, saying which shouldn't even be a criticism because the robot arc is really entertaining and that's enough praise for any movie to be good. In Solaris not only are the visuals astoundingly beautiful, but it has a genuine emotional, and very human, story below it. One can't really be moved by 2001, but easily can by Solaris.
You're clearly at babby's first arthouse where Kubrick is still something new and awe-inspiring to you.
What are his criticisms?
> For some reason, in all the science-fiction films I’ve seen, the filmmakers force the viewer to examine the details of the material structure of the future. More than that, sometimes, like Kubrick, they call their own films premonitions. It’s unbelievable! Let alone that 2001: A Space Odyssey is phoney on many points even for specialists.
>For a true work of art, the fake must be eliminated. I would like to shoot Solaris in a way that the viewer would be unaware of any exoticism. Of course, I’m referring to the exoticism of technology.
>For example, if one shoots a scene of passengers boarding a trolley, which, let’s say, we’d never seen before or known anything about, then we’d get something like Kubrick’s moon-landing scene. On the other hand, if one were to shoot a moon landing like a common trolley stop in a modern film, then 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. 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.
>For example, if one shoots a scene of passengers boarding a trolley, which, let’s say, we’d never seen before or known anything about, then we’d get something like Kubrick’s moon-landing scene. On the other hand, if one were to shoot a moon landing like a common trolley stop in a modern film, then 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
LMAO. why the frick are you posting this in 2023? Today when we see 2001 the first thing people say is "O.K I can't believe they got so much right in back in 1968".
For us, it's more immersive than it was during its initial release and what does that show? That Kubrick was an actual visionary whose work has actually withstood the test of time and exposes Tarkovsky as an unimaginative hack.
Ikr. Tarkovsky maybe forgiven for not being a forward thinking man but I'd like to know what was going through anon's mind while parroting this in current year.
>Today when we see 2001 the first thing people say is "O.K I can't believe they got so much right in back in 1968".
And just think how much it gets wrong LOL. But there's absolutely nothing brilliant about putting scientific facts in a movie. You're only confirming Tarkovsky's point by saying the movie holds up scientifically and not artistically. As if a truly visionary artist knowing anything about science means anything. While, what you curiously ignore, Tarkovsky's film undoubtedly holds up as an artwork. Its visuals and story mean the same things to us now as they did then, as its themes are poignant to all humans for all time, while half of the intention behind 2001 was the old world's amazement at a hypothetical scifi 'future'. Such scientific ideas having been totally amalgamated into the modern consciousness, they don't seem so valuable anymore. Kubrick borders on a genuine theme of man confronting the unknown but ultimately in no different a fashion from Hollywood movies sprinkling in a bit of reference to high culture or philosophy to give a sense of profundity or depth.
>But there's absolutely nothing brilliant about putting scientific facts in a movie.
But Tarkovsky is not talking about facts but about the immersiveness of such an approach(i.e predicting the look of future tech) as far as visuals are concerned. Thematically he or you can argue that it feels dated. I might not agree but that would've been a fair opinion to have but if you're going to argue that xyz visual detail in the film prevents the audience from immersing themselves in the story then that's just plain wrong. At the very least, Tarkvosky failed more so than Kubrick in that regard. You screen 2001 and Solaris to an audience today, 9/10 times people would the "immersiveness" of 2001 is better than Solaris.
The immersiveness of the approach is the same as being factual, at least for its day. And its factuality IS what you were praising. I also never said the story of 2001 doesn't hold up on its own, I greatly praised the story of the chief portion of the film. My biggest criticism of the film is from an artistic standpoint, the finale, for example, doesn't mean anything, it's just a silly intimation of profundity like a comic book.
>You screen 2001 and Solaris to an audience today, 9/10 times people would the "immersiveness" of 2001 is better than Solaris.
Because the average person's understanding of immersiveness would only be vulgar entertainment. At any rate this doesn't change much.
>The immersiveness of the approach is the same as being factual, at least for its day
You're overcomplicating a simple concept. The entire crux of Tarkvosky's criticism is that a trolley would've been preferable to Kubrick's moon landing because the audience is familiar with the trolley and its working mechanism, hence more immersive while 2001 feels "alien" but the point is we are now familiar with landing people on the moon and associated imagery is well known. So Kubrick's film allows the audience to buy into the premise more easily. It's not because we are inundated with "vulgar entertainment", it's because USA has sent multiple people to the moon and we have international space stations.
You're not a pleb. You're just not idol worshipping Tarkovsky and accepting everything he says as truth.
>The sets looked fine, but the movie looked fantastic because of how Tarkovsky filmed it. Every setting attains quite a visual significance under his direction and use of repetition.
A cheap set doesn't become expensive by "repetition". His "cinematography" is only beautiful when he's trying to capture natural landscapes and fields of grass which every other hack can do.
> only are the visuals astoundingly beautiful.
Post screenshots. Hard mode, post one from the interiors.
>A cheap set doesn't become expensive by "repetition".
What I meant was that Tarkovsky uses the camera in a consistent way in different locations. It goes without saying the direction of a procedural scifi show from the 70s would make the interior look a thousand times worse. What's most important about the interiors is establishing the setting and telling us a few things about it, since most of the time Tarkovsky is keeping us focused on the characters and I never found the interiors so bad they distracted me from believing the story. It's filmed in such an effective way that the interiors, good or bad by themselves, really gain the feeling of inexplicability and isolation.
>capture natural landscapes and fields of grass which every other hack can do.
I've never seen anyone capture nature like Tarkovsky, you're severely underrating his cinematography here. Plus what's beautiful about his cinematography is how he moves the camera.
ayo hol up
Wait till you see On the Silver Globe
Kubricks older movies are better.
Filtered
btw I forgot to write it in OP but I'm trans (MtF)
Wrong, trannies are the ones supporting communistic crap
Tarkovsky's a reactionary anti-communist. Only mouth-drooling morons could think 'Soviet film' means communist or left-wing, like absolute morons with no historical knowledge.
I vastly prefer the story in this to 2001, beautiful humanistic tale of love and loss vs dude drugs lmao
pleb here
solaris is cringe
it looks like blake's fricking 7
tarkovsky's critique of 2001 is wrong:
yes, in future travelling to the moon may be as mundane as catching a bus, and therefore if the aim is verisimiltude for the characters in the film, capturing it as a mundane event would make sense. however, the aim of 2001 is not verisimiltude from the point of view of jaded men of the future. it is about the everlasting wonder of an incomprehensibly vast and empty cosmos, the newtonian poetry of the motion of the planets and orbits, etc.
2001 is filmed in such a way as to make awesome things look and feel awesome. terrifying things look and feel terrifying. alien things feel alien. in this respect it has not been excelled.
It says a lot about the state of nu-Cinemaphile that I can no longer confidently tell if this is bait or not