Thread replies: 21
Thread images: 4
Post No. 64550908
>Bela Tarr’s The Turin Horse isn’t funny at all but it sure is laughable. What is laughable is festival-circuit panegyrics that praise The Turin Horse as “total” cinema (I guess because it isn’t recognizable as anything except “cinema” at its least revealing).
>Yet fest-circuit-whores pull out their quota of references–Beckett repeatedly. But why must Tarr be Beckett? I liked him for being Tarr–circling and panning and traveling with his camera in ways that critics forgot Raoul Walsh, Michael Curtiz, Andrei Tarkovsky and Max Ophuls had already done. Van Gogh’s The Potato Eaters open my adolescent eyes to the world; Tarr’s potatoes simply make me hungry for French fries.
>It’s providential that The Turin Horse opens in the U.S. after Spielberg’s War Horse. Pseuds will prefer the European opus because it’s baffling. The sophomoric insistence that mystery and negativity are deeper than clarity and feeling satisfies moviegoers who forgot the basic–essential–glories of cinema. They reject Spielberg’s mammal-witness to mankind’s inhumanity for nihilistic European pretense.
>What makes this pompous attitude unacceptable is that in sheer visual terms, Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski’s imagery is superior: evocative and stirring while Tarr (employing Sontag pet Fred Kelemen) uses drab b&w without the textual depth and frisculating light of his previous cinematographers Gabor Medvigy and Rob Tregenza
>Once again, Spielberg’s ecumenical view is held against him in favor of atheist nihilism. How sensible is this? No Fun which pseuds regard as High Art.
Has this man EVER been wrong?