Andrei Tarkovsky

GOAT

top tier moustache game

>>84537175
The hardass Soviet who hunted the Wolverines in Red Dawn? Awesome.

>>84537175
One of the best ever. All of his feature films and Voyage in Time are essential viewing (haven't seen the shorts yet).

>>84537175
One of those times when the supposed GOAT is the actual GOAT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak6rI-j07QU

>>84537175
Overrated hack

>>84537175
He has no artistic guts. Fucking scared of Mosfilm. The only film worth watching is Ivan's childhood.

Rest is just armchair philosophy tier nonsense.

>>84537554
Fucking video essays make me sick. They got really popular because of the Nerdwriter guy and now every nerd from here to Timbuktu is making them.

>>84537646
Zerkalo is armchair philosophy? Really?

>>84537663
Yeah but Channel Criswell is actually good. Nerdwriter1 is a complete fucking pseud.

>>84537646
The pleb mind thinks Tarkovsky films are "le deep philosophy".
A true kinoisseur knows that Tarkovsky films are more like visual poetry.

>>84537704
I'd rather read Sculpting Time again instead of watching a faggy 15 minute video.

>>84537175
I love Samurai Jack

>>84537704
No, they both have mostly pseudo-intellectual videos where their point can be said in 45 seconds, but they keep saying the same thing for 10-20 minutes over and over just differently phrased.
And the fucking goddawful mid-phrase pauses to make their narration seem somehow more deep and important.

The only difference is that Nerdwriter has better editing skills.

>>84537675
Yeap, tell me any line of dialogue from it that you like and you'll see what i mean.

It was all assembled on the editing table anyway. Incomprehensible, just like his father's tiresome poetry.

>>84537801
i dont get it

>>84537746
Fair enough

>>84537880
What's there not to get?

>>84537908
You joke,I dont get it.

>>84537646
>Rest is just armchair philosophy tier nonsense.
Confirmed for not getting Tark or perhaps not even watching it. There is no philosophy in these movies. It's pure kino.

>>84537873
>watching a Tarkovsky film for the dialogue
Anyways I like the part where he's reading his dad's poetry as the camera slithers through the empty house.

>>84537873
>Incomprehensible
It seems you missed the point of the movie

Seen Stalker, Solaris, Mirror, Offret, Ivan's Childhood, Andrei Rublev and Nostalghia. What do I watch next from him?

>>84537867
Yeah, and I very quickly realized that most of the time I keep watching because of the actual film shots used in the video than the original content in the video itself. So it's a better use of your time to just watch the films again than to watch their droning analysis

File: 1486562849834.jpg (141KB, 668x717px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 668x717px

>>84537966

>>84537742
>visual poetry.
Ozu, Kubrick even fucking Wong Kar Wai and Sorrentino have genuine moments of poetry. Tarkovsky is just exalted mysticism caused by weird sound design and a slow camera exercise.

Pretty but not art.

>>84537175
I liked him Malcom in the middle and he was ok in breaking bad

>>84537966
There's like only 3 left for you to watch. Maybe read his book?

>>84537922
What joke?

>>84537958
it's pointless discursive collage like a Warhol shiftiest.

>>84537966
Tempo di Viaggio
Then read the Collected Screenplays book followed by Sculpting in Time.

>>84538009
I'll give you others, but Kubrick and poetry? What?
His films are the most cold, machine like emotion free products ever made.

Not saying that that is bad by any means, but to say that he makes "visual poetry" is absurd.

>>84538006

One of Ozu's films I see, from the inventor of Japanese SOL anime.

>>84538029

I've been meaning to read Sculpting in Time

>>84538029
>>84537966
>Maybe read his book?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH good luck dude
>muh "time pressure" themes
you're better off reading yesterday's newspaper

Wasn't he a paedo irl? I kinda remember that from the Solaris commentary

>>84538064
The point of any Tarkovsky is to actually feel, experience something, not to get a singular universal "message" from it, because it doesn't exist.

>>84538009
>Pretty but not art

I bet if the thread was about Ozu you'd say the same thing and cite Tarkovsky as genuine poetry

>>84538138
Just because you didn't have the patience to finish it doesn't mean it's bad

>>84538108
Kubrick has the most poetic shot in the entire History of cinema. Do i even need to tell you which one?

If Barry Lyndon didn't move you then you are unmovable.

You should read more poetry. Your idea of the poetic is simply sensual and beautiful. It can be visceral as well which is what Kubrick is.

>>84538276
Which one?

>>84538171
Watch Bresson if you want to "feel". He's the real deal. Even Tarkovsky admitted that.

>>84538231
You got me. I couldn't go beyond 50%. I regret it to this day why i read the 1st half.

pretentious shit
>muh panning shots
>muh aesthetics
>muh cinematography
ye fuck off its boring

>>84538405
mah nigger finally someone who gets it. I like you. You can come fuck my sister.

>>84538303
Not sure if joking. Anyway, it can give you a "boner" it is that good.

>>84538405
I bet you can't enjoy any film older than your birth year, am I right my dear ADD surface-level casual brainlet friend?

>>84538348
I've watched Pickpocket and it was pretty good.
What should I watch next from him?

>>84538544
Trial of Joan of Arc
Then watch the Dreyer one and see Bresson's masterful simplicity, not to say Dreyers is bad it's fantastic but I think Bresson's version shows you clear as day what he's all about.

>>84537941
>There is no philosophy in these movies
I've only watched Stalker, and you're fucking delirious.

>>84538746
Do you have any idea what actual philosophy is? If so you'd realize Tark has nothing.

>>84537704
Criswell is thesaurus abuse: the channel. He started good but quickly went way too far up his own ass. He takes 15 minutes to say what could be said in 1. He's the textbook definition of pretentious/ pseudo intillectual. His girlfriend (art reguard) is somehow even worse.

>>84538799
Kek. Is this are argument on if it's good philosophy of not, and you're being purposefully vague to get (You)s?

>>84537175
>Teacher makes us watch movies because the theme of the exams is "Space" (the whole concept, not a singular meaning)
>All the class goes to see 2001
>one of the most insufferably boring experiences I ever had
>only four of us next time to see Stalker
>the pacing, the visuals, the dialogue, the acting
>it's just dudes walking and talking but I'm so completely sucked in
>feels like I just experienced a defining moment in my life
>I try so hard to explain what I felt to others but I just cannot, it's too sweeping, too unique
>I did not have the word to describe it back then
>I do now

Кинo

>>84538966
Yeah something about Stalker had me absolutely glued to the screen. It's the most atmospheric movie I've ever seen

tried to watch stalker, got bored and watched mad max fury road instead
lmao at retards who pretend to enjoy this pretentious shit

>>84537423
ya mean sculpting in time?

>>84539052
Voyage in Time is the documentary. Sculpting in Time is his book

File: 1466760100193865949.jpg (149KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 900x900px

>>84538966

Mediocre, rather unimaginative director that just liked to remake European films with his own personal history as a context to them. I can't exactly name one original film he did. Sure, his cinematographer made some films look pretty like the Mirror, but that's the best compliment I can give.

At the same time USSR had far more talented directors working, that deserve more credit for innovating and pushing forward cinematic language (rather than, recreating Bergman/Rossellini etc)

>>84539133
k, thanks

>>84538484
I'm not joking. I can't possibly know what you consider to be the best shot in the history of cinema. Just tell me.

>>84538405
oh blessed one, tells us what type of cinematography constitutes shots that are not pretentious?

>>84539294
What an utterly unoriginal opinion.

>>84539550
>I'll post the biggest non-argument of all time!

>>84539684
Oh so you do understand that originality has nothing to do with quality of content? Good.

>>84539550
unoriginal? nah

>>84539720
I'm not the same guy, but unoriginal art is pretty cheap.

>>84539776
I applaud Tarkovsky for trying to bring European art to sub-human slavs - but at the same time I maintain that USSR itself had more talented and imaginative directors.

On a personal level in a complete vacuum his films do nothing for me.

File: andrei-rublev-1966-005-rublev-holding-paintings-00m-g9c.jpg (166KB, 1000x788px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1000x788px

>>84538966
>>84539024
The same happened to me the first time I saw Andrei Rublev. The ending completely changed my outlook on life and my opinion of religion. There is something mystical and beautiful in the way Andrei makes his resolve at the end of the movie, following the montage of his work.

File: 2001 match cut.jpg (32KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x600px

>>84539024
Stalker is his most illogical and useless as well. He sets up rules only to destroy them at will. Can't go back but never specifies how far back. Professor goes back as far as i remember and nothing happens. Talks of how dangerous this place is. Never explains why or even hints at an answer or doesn't even say this is unanswerable. Talks of nothing but self-pity for no reason at all. All the characters are just sad and self-centred. Even the kid. Goes into ramblings of questions like
"WHY IS MUSIC SO GOOD TO THE HUMANS?" "Why do we like it?" Platitudes like "Weakness is a virtue. A tree is tender and doesn't bend when young. It grows up to be strong and hardens and dies. So everything that is hard will die" Dogshit.

Hidden symbols like the mounds in "the Room' or "the dog" have no explanation except production design mystery which Tarkovsky did himself.

NOW, do you know about the "ELEPHANT'S FOOT" in Chernobyl? It is the unused fuel that lies buried in the exploded reactor core. Guess what it can be seen as? Yes, the Obelisk from 2001. Not as polished and shapely, but certainly a piece of mineral/element that can destroy the planet just by standing in plain view. It has no special powers. It just radiates invisible cancer for at least 700 MILLION years. And they say Kubrick isn't poetic.

>>84539507
why so rude? it's just opinions, man. Pic related since you're pretending to be so ignorant.

File: 1461853111350.jpg (6KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 600x600px

>>84540414
>it's just opinions
>asserts stupid viewpoint as fact

Yeah, this is b8

>>84540663
No, you either have no arguments left or are just too lazy to type or have a life i guess :/

>>84540414
>Can't go back but never specifies how far back
Because it's irrelevant
>Talks of how dangerous this place is
Gravitational anomalies
>Never explains why or even hints at an answer
Again, it's not really relevant. It's also explained in Roadside picnic
>"WHY IS MUSIC SO GOOD TO THE HUMANS?"
it's an interesting musing desu. Explain what's wrong with it
>Platitudes
You can call them platitudes but that's not exactly a convincing argument for their lack of merit
>Hidden symbols
Objectively incorrect. Tarkovsky specifically avoided symbolism

>>84537175
Talented hack.