MovieChat Forums > Bronenosets Potyomkin (1925) Discussion > "I don't get it, ergo it's overrated"...

"I don't get it, ergo it's overrated"...

posted 9 years ago by Filler_Killer
22 replies | jump to latest

..."especially if directors and film critics that have studied Film their entire lives say that it is a masterpiece".

The words of some users on this film's board are quite a mystery to be honest. From people that ask if the film should be taken as comedy, to users not understanding the ending, or saying that the plot was weak, there was no drama, the story was not compelling or that Eisenstein was not a great film maker.

How can one of the most influential movies of all times, crafted by one of the true geniuses of Cinema, be considered "overrated" is beyond my comprehension. The only explanation that I can come up for this is that people failed not only to contextualise to film on the time it was made, but also failed to comprehend the revolutionary and avant-garde techniques especially in terms of story-telling. Eisenstein is a genius, that is a fact, end of story.

Perhaps if people knew what "Montage of Attractions" or "Soviet Montage" is and maybe if they have tried to understand the theory behind the structure of the film, not only in narrative but visually as well (which is not only due to Mr. Eisenstein himself but also thanks to the great DoP Eduard Tisse, whom many fail to acknowledge), they wouldn't say so much non-sense. While I can understand that not every one of these elements might be immediate to the common film goer, one would think that they would at least search for an explanation for the praise the film gets, before lazily dubbing the film "weak", "overrated" or such other adjectives. To those who want to understand why this is one of the most important films of all time, even the one's that despise the so-called "elite pseudo-intellectual critics", I'd recommend taking a look at Eisenstein's writings and essays, for example "The Montage of Attractions", "The Montage of Film Attractions", "The Problem of the Materialist Approach to Form", "Beyond the Shot", "Perspectives", "The Dramaturgy of Film Form", "The Fourth Dimension in Cinema" and "'Eh!' On the Purity of Film Language". These should shed some light on your doubts and help you understand why this film is regularly on the top 10 of every worthy film publication or in most highly regarded directors tops. The man was one of the first film theorists, a visionary, someone who was completely commited to the Communist revolutionary cause but nevertheless, held in his highest esteem and learned from masters such as D. W. Griffith and Charlie Chaplin, whom he mentions often in his writings.

There's a reason why such a clearly (Communist) propagandistic film was praised not only at the time it came out, but continuously until today; not only by Russians but also by Europeans and Americans and people all over the world; not only by communists but also by people with right-winged political beliefs, even by Nazi symbols like Joseph Goebbels. It is that good.

-

-You won't forget me now?

-No. I've got nobody else to remember.

[–] The_TJT 8 years ago

There's a reason why such a clearly (Communist) propagandistic film was praised not only at the time it came out, but continuously until today

I would say the reasons you bring up are completely misguided. I liked the film because it had an impact on me story-wise and visually - not because it had some groundbreaking filming techniques. Those techniques are dated now anyway.

Ok, I can understand if a film critic appreciates a film because of its history and techniques but I don't really agree with that view if those techniques used do not make the story and film experience captivating.

In other words: The techniques you mention should serve the enjoyment of the film - they have no value for me per se. One doesn't have to know the background of a film to enjoy it.

Having said that, the film had some great imagery and captivating scenes, I rated it 8. The storytelling aspect of the film did feel somewhat dated on few occasions.

[–] Filler_Killer 8 years ago

The problem with your reply is that... never in my post did I relate "liking" with the "filming techniques", never did I say that people "like" the film because of those techniques. What I discourse upon is "comprehension" and its connection with its rating. If the film is considered one of the greatest of all times by people that study or work in film, it's not just because they liked it, is mostly because they also understood it (as in understood what it represents, its value and impact). The fact that the techniques have been adopted and used everywhere, doesn't make them less striking at all, particularly because seldom have they been so masterfully executed as in here.

When removed from their structure, techniques mean nothing, this is obvious but once again, no one ever contested that. However you are wrong when you assume the techniques should serve the enjoyment of the film. They actually serve the storytelling, otherwise they would simply be hollow, disposable devices. It's a common misconception, that can solely be related to entertainment films or films from an earlier era. Eisenstein lived in that era and to make matters worse, as a fierce Communist, he needed and wanted to spread the Party ideology and goals through the film medium, so to an extent one might agree that he was required to use these techniques to captivate the audience. This is explained minutely in his writings. Nevertheless, Russian montage was and still is mainly used to evoke emotions (which is not the same as making the experience captivating, but can be used as a tool for) and to expose ideas without actually mentioning them (a clever little concept particularly well employed through intellectual montage).

You don't have to know the background of a film to enjoy it, but you do have to know the background of a film to understand it, and the proof is on the people that asked if this was a comedy for example. In any case, since we are talking about a seminal movie that was made almost a century ago, if you ignore its background and make assumptions such as "Eisenstein was not a great film maker" you run the risk of making yourself unable to be taken seriously, simply put. If people knew the background of Battleship Potemkin, perhaps these boards wouldn't be riddled with such absurd remarks.

-

-You won't forget me now?

-No. I've got nobody else to remember.

[–] The_TJT 8 years ago

The problem with your reply is that... never in my post did I relate "liking" with the "filming techniques"

Yet you listed a bunch of Eisenstein's writings about his techniques as a helpful tool to understand the film.

What I discourse upon is "comprehension" and its connection with its rating. If the film is considered one of the greatest of all times by people that study or work in film, it's not just because they liked it, is mostly because they also understood it

So in your opinion the fact that a film has critical acclaim must mean that it indeed is great. I disagree...

First: critics are fickle... There are several cases where an old film is posthumously granted critical acclaim by one or two critics and suddenly everyone agrees, while initially the film was not seen that special at all, not by critics or in box office.

Second: Critical herd mentality... when a film gets that status then often no critic has differing opinion. They just don't have guts, their income depends on praising the right films.

For example not a single modern critic dares to dislike Citizen Kane. It's 100% at Rottentomatoes, 70/70 critics. Meanwhile I think and have always thought that the film is actually very boring. I indeed fell asleep first time watching it. That hardly ever happens and certainly not with great films. 20 years later I watched it all the way through, and felt it as extremely tedious again. Even the final reveal made no impact on me. Rosebud, right.

So what's up... is it that I don't simply understand it, that every critic just understands the film better than I? Perhaps they do when it comes to filming techniques which are said to be great, which I can also see to some extent when watching it. But how about the story then, I don't find it very likely that my taste is so different from every critic out there.

Let's see what Bergman says about Citizen Kane:

For me (Orson Welles) is just a hoax. It's empty. It's not interesting. It's dead. Citizen Kane, which I have a copy of, is the critics' darling, always at the top of every poll taken, but I think it's a total bore. Above all, the performances are worthless. The amount of respect that movie has is absolutely unbelievable!

So maybe Bergman doesn't "get" it either... I doubt that; certainly Bergaman is not "cinematically illiterate"...

So my conclusion is that regardless of one's understanding of the techniques Citizen Kane can indeed be seen as "total bore". How come 70/70 critics don't think it's boring then? That's very unlikely. Either the ones who see the film as bore don't care about the entertainment value of the film or simply don't have guts to say so. I think it's the latter. So my conclusion is that indeed there is a herd mentality in effect.

That herd mentality is not exclusive to old films either, I see the same phenomenon in effect to newer films as well, for example Dark Knight and latest Mad Max which imo are quite horrible films really... or at least vastly overrated by critics.

When removed from their structure, techniques mean nothing, this is obvious but once again, no one ever contested that. However you are wrong when you assume the techniques should serve the enjoyment of the film. They actually serve the storytelling, otherwise they would simply be hollow, disposable devices.

We agree on this. Solid storytelling advances enjoyment for the film and techniques are no value by themselves.

You don't have to know the background of a film to enjoy it, but you do have to know the background of a film to understand it, and the proof is on the people that asked if this was a comedy for example.

Who asked that? Why didn't you answer them directly?
One would have to be pretty clueless in various ways to see Potemkin as a comedy, I'd rather think "they" were being sarcastic/silly.

I have to admit though, that I did get a couple chuckles on scenes that were not meant humorous at all. That unintentional humor came from the cultural differences between now and then. Sometimes the propaganda was just too obvious and over the top for modern viewer. For example the crying women or the mass migration to see the dead soldier. That may have been top notch emotional impact back then but for a cynical modern viewer not so much. In other words the propaganda is somewhat dated on occasion.

Not that we'd have even much of debate when it comes to rating Potemkin... you give it 9 while I give it 8... Potemkin had imo a couple very impressive scenes and lots of great visuals. On Citizen Kane we differ more. :)

I'm considering also watching Riefenstal's "Triumph of the Will", to see how it compares as propaganda...

If you want to see visually even more impressive silent film, as far as photography is concerned, I recommend "Passion of Joan of Arc". Ooops... I see you've already seen it. Imo that film is truly special in that respect, even today.

[–] Filler_Killer 8 years ago

Yet you listed a bunch of Eisenstein's writings about his techniques as a helpful tool to understand the film.

Once again, this keyword is on bold. There's no mention of "liking" in there.

So in your opinion the fact that a film has critical acclaim must mean that it indeed is great. I disagree...

No, once again, you misread me. First, I said "people that study or work in film", so it can be filmmakers, technicians, film students and... yes, critics as well. Second, I dind't particularly name "critical acclaim" as the sole reason for a movie to be considered great. Truth is, certain movie ranks are established by people who don't just watch a movie to pass the time. Certain people understand what Film represents in terms of artistic achievement (as food for the soul, not unlike a novel, a sonnet or a symphony), the work it takes to put image, performance, theme, sound, music (and everything that comprises a film) together, the milieu in which a film is inserted and many other aspects that often are completely ignored by the common person, and these truthfully represent the "greatness" of a film, at least in my opinion, which I'd like to think is shared by any person with common sense.

I don't follow critics, I mostly tend to study filmmakers influences and that leads me to many places, however if you want to learn from critics that actually know what they are talking about and have something to say, you need to go back to a time where not everyone behind a computer screen could talk and act like they're some experts, just because they had a quick-read of a Wikipedia page. A good place to start might be the early Cahiers du Cinema reviews. Like I said, I'm not too big of a fan of following critics nowadays, but you might end up with similar conclusions even if you walk a different road because when a film is great and you understand it, chances are you and an actual expert/scholar might have similar opinions.

I'm aware of Bergman's famous rant, I even mentioned it in another thread not too long ago. I would suggest you to read Sartre's take on Kane, which is quite amusing as well.

Honestly speaking, I can understand their views, I myself don't think that Kane is that mystical masterpiece that most people worship, having found it annoying and plodding at times. I would've objectively rated it a 7 or 8, but seeing how visionary and striking it was, the influence it had and is seen often today, my vote gets closer to a 9. There are plenty other films that I think are way, way better accomplished and since we're talking about Bergman, Through a Glass Darkly, Winter Light, The Virgin Spring and Persona come immediately to mind.

I would agree as well with your take on The Dark Knight and Mad Max, but I mean... there's no comparison at all here, those are just silly blockbusters and popcorn flicks that are slightly above the average Hollywood crap. Don't really know about TDK critical reception but I don't remember being anything remarkable, at least form credible sources. If Mad Max is making waves, it's simply because it breaks certain Hollywood conventions (even if just superficially) and that usually is reason enough for most people to naively shout "Masterpiece!".

Who asked that? Why didn't you answer them directly?

Some user, I wouldn't remember the name. I simply thought it was too absurd to be replied.

I have to admit though, that I did get a couple chuckles on scenes that were not meant humorous at all.

But this here is the key. You might have chuckled, but you understood it was fruit of anachronisms, cultural differences or heavyhanded propaganda, which is fine. I too chuckled here and there, I remember for example the scene where a man tries to put the blame on Jews and gets kicked out right away. Ok, the movie was designed to make the public scream by the end "Death to Capitalist pigs! Long live the Marxist Revolution!" but if there's any doubts about its seriousness, the dead Captain on the harbour or Odessa Steps scenes should refute all that. In any case, maybe the user was being sarcastic, might have flown over my head at the time, I'll concede that. But there's lots of other stuff written in some threads that is absolutely appalling.

The Passion of Joan of Arc is simply one of the finest films ever made. And Dreyer is one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. I only have Day of Wrath left to see, but I saw all other feature films and most short-films/documenteries by him. It's interesting you mention the film, as Dreyer was quite impressed by Potemkin when he saw it at the theatres and it proved to be of huge influence on him while making Joan of Arc. Both films are often considered to be among the finest achievements in Film and for a reason.

PS: Forgot to say, but I haven't seen Triupmh of the Will yet. Share your thoughts here later if you want, I'd be interested to read them.

-

-You won't forget me now?

-No. I've got nobody else to remember.

[–] The_TJT 8 years ago

About film as art...

I've not always agreed with that. I have traditionally thought film more as entertainment... isn't art a form of entertainment...

However I have recently watched quite a lot so called art films and essential cinema and I think my opinion has changed on this somewhat. Yes films can be seen as art, but imo they should optimally be both entertaining and art at the same time. Otherwise they tend to become self-serving and an exercise on massaging the director's ego only, which sometimes is a problem with art films imo.

Let's say something like "The innocents" or "Psycho" would be the perfect combination... cinematography serving to create the atmosphere. Those films are not merely paintings.

Here's a funny quote from D.W. Griffith:

Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences? What art? What science?

About understanding the film...

I'm not sure if I agree with you here... does one have to know about the process to appreciate a film? I watched recently this pretty good documentary about making of Star Wars original trilogy called "Empire of Dreams: The Story of the 'Star Wars' Trilogy (2004)"

I don't think it changed my appreciation for the films one way or another, much. Still it's very good and worth a watch (it's on youtube). Then again, perhaps this documentary would increase appreciation for the trilogy for those who do not appreciate it that much, so maybe that's your point.

Honestly speaking, I can understand their views, I myself don't think that Kane is that mystical masterpiece that most people worship, having found it annoying and plodding at times. I would've objectively rated it a 7 or 8, but seeing how visionary and striking it was, the influence it had and is seen often today, my vote gets closer to a 9.

This is probably the biggest difference of opinion between us. I don't think a film should be given extra points for its historical significance really - if I feel the film is worth a 7 then I give it a 7. Or at least try to in general. My main object on rating films here is to do it for myself - to remind myself simply how much I liked the film. Now if I would rate, say, Nosferatu a 9 for it's historical significance and critical acclaim then that would mean my rating system would not be for myself any more since I didn't enjoy the film THAT much and might not want to watch it again.

Or say "Sunrise" which you have rated a 10... I just can't see myself giving it that high a rating since I found the story lacking credibility. (how quickly the wife forgave the husband, or forgave at all). It was visually impressive though and may have bigger emotional impact on less a cynical viewer than myself.

The Passion of Joan of Arc is simply one of the finest films ever made

Yes. I do find some minor flaws in it though... mainly that this sort of court drama is definitely not very well suited for silent film. it's an odd combination, but on the other hand perhaps that's the exact thing which makes the film so special - I think it's unlike any film made before or after. Also the actress was 35 playing a 19 year old, which is sort of an odd choice. Imagine, say, 20 year old Catherine Deneuve playing the role... hell, I would be watching it all the time. ;) (I need to rewatch Polanski's "Repulsion")
But mostly the film is about visuals for me, which are quite extraordinary and different.
Also it being mostly based on true account of events doesn't hurt.

Ok, the movie was designed to make the public scream by the end "Death to Capitalist pigs! Long live the Marxist Revolution!"

That's exactly what I did! :)

Also finished watching "The Birth of a Nation" which I found quite impressive - I was actually rooting for KKK to show those evil negroes their place in the end. That film was perhaps even more effective propaganda than "Potemkin" judging by my own reactions. Also probably the most racist film I have ever seen. (apart from some Nazi propaganda shorts against Jews). Not only the way the black people were portrayed but also the fact that every black role demanding even slightest amount of acting was cast by a black-faced white actor - as if the director would have said that blacks can't even act. Actual black actors were good for loitering, sitting, shooting, picking cotton and dancing. But strictly as a film, or propaganda, it was very good.... especially for a hundred years old film.

Forgot to say, but I haven't seen Triupmh of the Will yet. Share your thoughts here later if you want, I'd be interested to read them.

Thanks. I found it very interesting and effective. I read some IMDB board comments how boring it was... well I can sort of understand that since it's mostly political speeches and marching - but what did they expect!?

It's the kind of film, or propaganda documentary, which makes you want to either join the party and praise Hitler and Germany... or to flee the country. The way it's made, the film raises national pride and the image of the party and Hitler - or it gives a feeling of hopelessness on opposing the movement. So it's very competently made propaganda. The rhythm of the film flows well and direction/imagery is captivating. It doesn't leave one cold, imo.

I rated it a 9 which is a lot on my scale, it made a big impression. The only complaint I have is that even the so called HD version available (youtube) has pretty poor picture quality - but I understand there should be coming a new release of the film, apparently blu-ray quality, coincidentally tomorrow. So if you find the concept interesting perhaps you would want to wait to get your hands on that one, to further enjoy (or be horrified by the impact of) the cinematography.

Perhaps I overrated it at 9, but imo it's worth a 8 at least... unless one rates it lower for political reasons but what's the point watching a propaganda film and then criticize it for being propaganda... I think "Triumph of the Will" is perhaps most effective and horrifying out of the three propaganda films we discussed because of its realism. That really happened, as crazy as it feels watching it now.

[–] Filler_Killer 8 years ago

Yes films can be seen as art, but imo they should optimally be both entertaining and art at the same time. Otherwise they tend to become self-serving and an exercise on massaging the director's ego only, which sometimes is a problem with art films imo.

I really don't agree with what you say here. Art pieces don't have to be entertaining to be understood and Entertainment pieces don't have to be artistic to be enjoyed. Bach's music doesn't have to follow 4-chord patterns and politically charged lyrics, much like Frank Sinatra's music doesn't have to include and work around ritornellos, scale variations and mathematical harmony. I also don't agree with that tendency you mention. Can you define self-serving and ego massage? Each person has its own passions and its own vision, those kinds of terms are usually thrown around lazily when people are faced with something that requires more than just suspension of disbelief. Film allows you to present a personal world of yours, much like in any other art. Would you say that Rachmaninov's piano concertos are self-serving? Or that Monet's Water Lilies are just an ego massage?

I'm not sure if I agree with you here... does one have to know about the process to appreciate a film?

In the risk of repeating myself once again, the crux of the matter is understanding, not appreciating. Anyone can enjoy a film, without knowing the process. However, if you wish to understand it in its very essence, you might have to do some research (I mean if you're not familiar with the themes and style), watch more films from the same man, listen to interviews with the director, actors and crew, watch making-ofs and as we mentioned already, be aware of its background.

This is probably the biggest difference of opinion between us.

Different people have different rating procedures. When I watch a film, I don't simply acknowledge it as an isolated piece of work. For me, being Film an interdependent sphere of associations and influences, you always have to consider the film outside the 90' mark: the impact on the Director's oeuvre; the comparison between films that came out the same year or in the entire Film history; its legacy and influence; there are many external factors that need consideration, not just "how the story is told" or "how fitting the soundtrack is". In other words, there needs to be context. This doesn't mean that the rating stops being personal... my area is Film and its history, that's as personal as it could get.

Or say "Sunrise" which you have rated a 10... I just can't see myself giving it that high a rating since I found the story lacking credibility. (how quickly the wife forgave the husband, or forgave at all). It was visually impressive though and may have bigger emotional impact on less a cynical viewer than myself.

Once again, this goes back to my previous point. You think 10 is too much of a high mark, simply because you found the story lacking credibility but what Sunrise represents and what it achieves in Film goes way, and I mean, way beyond the story. And you don't even consider that despite Love being ubiquitous and Universal on a human scale, there could be a couple, at some point in Time (be it the early 20th Century, or the Dark Ages, Classical Antiquity or Stone Age), that could have dealt with the same troubles and be caught on similar dynamics. The message of Murnau is sublime and though many of the film's aspects might seem "odd" or "not very credible" for this day and age, this is what hovers above all characteristics of that magnificent piece of filmmaking (not to mention the minutely attention to detail and visionary conception of Murnau in more technical aspects). I honestly think you would benefit a lot if you'd let yourself go and stop paying that much attention to elements such as the age of the actress and her actual role, or the credibility of a story crafted almost 100 years ago. It's ok to be cynical and a realist, but Film (and Art, for that matter) is also about imagination, dreams, memories, wishes, longing, regret, passion, fear, laughter, unspoken and unseen bonds. Otherwise there would be no Kieslowski, no Magritte, no Proust, no Chopin, and life on this planet would be a lot less interesting.

-

-You won't forget me now?

-No. I've got nobody else to remember.

[–] The_TJT 8 years ago

I really don't agree with what you say here. Art pieces don't have to be entertaining to be understood and Entertainment pieces don't have to be artistic to be enjoyed.

My point was more like that art should be entertaining as well.

Interesting that you use the word "understood" with art, as if art was not meant to be enjoyed at all but only to be understood.

Would you say that Rachmaninov's piano concertos are self-serving? Or that Monet's Water Lilies are just an ego massage?

No, unless you think they are not entertaining.

Let's rather talk about films, for example Tarkovsky's "Stalker". I'm not at all convinced that it's meant for anything else than massaging the director's ego...

Tarkovsky was asked why is it that slow and his reply was:

I am only interested in the views of two people: one is called Bresson and one called Bergman.

Kate Blanchett was impressed as well.

Yes, it's possible to enjoy it but let's be honest now: filming long static shots about men walking on a swamp is hardly cinema aimed to entertain - other than director's own ambitions on being seen as artistic. Same imagery could be achieved by putting up a photograph exhibition, except now the viewer can choose how long they observe a single image. Hand a leaflet with some Soviet philosophy on human condition and voila.

Btw, saw a documentary on modern day Chernobyl and it looked exactly like Stalker. Stalker was of course filmed in similar abandoned Soviet era facility. The documentary was more interesting, imo. In other words I think Tarkovsky could have made a better film if he had aimed to entertain as well - rather than to impress Bergman, Bresson and Blanchett.

I honestly think you would benefit a lot if you'd let yourself go and stop paying that much attention to elements such as the age of the actress and her actual role, or the credibility of a story crafted almost 100 years ago.

Perhaps, but for me film is mostly about storytelling. If the story, rhythm, characters or performances are flawed then that is minus for me, no matter how well made the film is technically or how artistic it is.

Of course one often needs so called suspension of disbelief to enjoy films. Maybe it's a matter of how much is too much.

It's ok to be cynical and a realist, but Film (and Art, for that matter) is also about imagination, dreams, memories, wishes, longing, regret, passion, fear, laughter, unspoken and unseen bonds. Otherwise there would be no Kieslowski, no Magritte, no Proust, no Chopin, and life on this planet would be a lot less interesting.

Nicely put.

[–] Filler_Killer 8 years ago

Interesting that you use the word "understood" with art, as if art was not meant to be enjoyed at all but only to be understood.

Interesting indeed, but you can switch the sentence around and read as "Art pieces don't have to be understood to be entertaining" all the same and I would obviously still agree. Art can certainly be entertaining but I think the confusion here arises as a semanthics issue. What does it mean to be entertained? People can sit down, watch something from a distance and be entertained, but I'd like to think that art entertains when one takes active part on it, as in unravelling, interpreting or creating a story within it.

Let's rather talk about films, for example Tarkovsky's "Stalker".

Oh... you don't want to go there, Tarkovsky is one of my favorite filmmakers, I would spend hours talking about his works. But being completely honest here: no, I don't think it's an ego massage. What I can tell you is that his style isn't certainly for everyone, but that doesn't mean he's pretentious or that his works are self-indulgent drivel. I can definitely understand his reply, for two reasons: First, because Bresson and Bergman are masters of the craft that he revered and second, because frankly it's a really stupid question. Why is Stalker so slow? Why is The Entombment of Christ so dark? Why are the Gymnopédies so plodding? Why is In Search of Lost Time so verbose? These kinds of questions are absurd. It is as it is, because it couldn't be anything else. Otherwise, it wouldn't be what it is.

I suppose you recognise at least Tarkovsky's visual sensibility, his preoccupation with compositional balance and framing, correct? I have said in another thread, how long are people willing to contemplate and study a painting? Now, how long would you be willing to do that with a painting that moves? And how long would you be willing to do that with a painting that moves and talks and has a story and philosophical themes being discussed? The fact is most people are not willing to slow down and witness on a film, events unfolding at the same pace they would happen in real life, because they've gotten used to having the narrative unfold as fast as possible in order to provide more thrills and various sections. Stealing a quote from The Turin Horse boards, "perhaps Art imitates life"? In the real world, events take time. A long ride on a train, doesn't immediately reach its destination. A journey across a minefield (for the lack of a better comparison with Stalker's scene) requires patience and caution, you can't just run over it. A magician rehearsing a new trick (again, for the lack of better comparison, this time with the last scene) takes time to learn and perfect it. If life unrolls at a certain speed, then why not Film, since Film actually captures Life?

I'm not as loquacious as I would like to be and as a fan of Tarkovsky, Soviet Film and Russian culture, especially its literature, I'm probably not the best person to explain the film to you in a 100% objective manner. However, I can tell you that in Stalker, much like in all Tarkovsky's oeuvre, he tackles Time, emotions and Universal themes in a very special way, that if you are willing to look at from a perspective that discards immediate disclosure, will result in an almost mystical experience. I suggest you try to read his book "Sculpting in Time", which explains thoroughly his ideas, themes, method of working, personal experiences, influences and many other aspects of his career, which should definitely help you in seeing his films, the way he saw them or at least the way he tried to craft them. I'm going to leave here one of the quotes you'll find in his book:

Through poetic connections feeling is heightened and the spectator is made more active. He becomes a participant in the process of discovering life, unsupported by ready-made deductions from the plot or ineluctable pointers by the author. He has at his disposal only what helps to penetrate to the deeper meaning of the complex phenomena represented in front of him. Complexities of thought and poetic visions of the world do not have to be thrust into the framework of the patently obvious.

And also related, since we've mentioned Bresson, here's a quote from him as well:

The difficulty is that all art is both abstract and suggestive at the same time. You can't show everything. If you do, it's no longer art. Art lies in suggestion. The great difficulty for filmmakers is precisely not to show things. Ideally, nothing would be shown, but that's impossible. So things must be shown from one sole angle that evokes all other angles without showing them. We must let the viewer gradually imagine, hope to imagine and keep them in a constante state of anticipation.

Bresson dwells around these thoughts in a shorter manner on his book too, "Notes on the Cinematographer". Might be a good read for you too, as it's quite small and easy to read.

Perhaps, but for me film is mostly about storytelling. If the story, rhythm, characters or performances are flawed then that is minus for me, no matter how well made the film is technically or how artistic it is.

Well, at least consider what I said. If you manage to do that, a whole new world will open its glorious gates for you.

PS: Take a look at this recent article from Sight & Sound as well. Might be interesting for you:

http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/features/deep-focus/tarkovsky-legacy

-

-You won't forget me now?

-No. I've got nobody else to remember.

[–] The_TJT 8 years ago

I can definitely understand his reply, for two reasons

Regardless of reasons it is imo very pretentious and arrogant reply. Tarkovsky seems to love explaining his philosophies and motives, except when confronted face to face. It also suggests that the audience and the reporter are inferior (hence "arrogant").

Why is Stalker so slow?
(Snip)
It is as it is, because it couldn't be anything else. Otherwise, it wouldn't be what it is.

That is no explanation to the question why.

I suppose you recognise at least Tarkovsky's visual sensibility, his preoccupation with compositional balance and framing, correct?

Yes. I do think Stalker did have that, hence I'm giving it a 4 not 1. Although at the same time I do question the visual genius, and I claim that the fascinating visuals in Stalker are due to the settings - not necessary talent. (blasphemy?) If you go to Chernobyl it is going to look like that no matter who directs it.

Other than visuals I do think the film is empty.

how long are people willing to contemplate and study a painting? Now, how long would you be willing to do that with a painting that moves? And how long would you be willing to do that with a painting that moves and talks and has a story and philosophical themes being discussed?

But the thing is that the painting doesn't really move, the background just is. How long are you willing to look at the sea? Perhaps long, but having a couple people swimming there while talking philosophy hardly makes the sea more beautiful.

If life unrolls at a certain speed, then why not Film, since Film actually captures Life?

I bet Andy Warhol had the exactly same question when making his blockbuster Empire (1964).
Yet one would be fool to waste their time watching the whole film. Films are edited for a reason, we don't want to watch Ben Hur in real time.

Hitchcock said that people don't want to see the actor walking from point A to point B, it is not interesting. He was a storyteller and we can see that from his films, they are not boring.

Here's a funny description of Tarkovsky from Unencyclopedia:

Russian filmmaker known for his unique visual and narrative style.
His films are known for their beautiful and stark imagery.
His films are also known for having long periods of time where nothing *beep* happens.

Bresson claims:

The difficulty is that all art is both abstract and suggestive at the same time. You can't show everything. If you do, it's no longer art.

I see the point but I think Bresson is wrong here. Are films by Hitchcock, Leone and Chaplin not art if they tell you the whole story as it unwinds? Is not a beautiful photograph art if it doesn't have some hidden subtext behind it?

I re-watched Hitchcock's "To catch a thief". It was as fluff a film as can be, does that mean it was not art? No. I actually found a visually great scene in it, which also served the narrative well:

http://s13.postimg.org/irbdh0zef/thief2.jpg
(A bit of cinema magic?)

The problem with Stalker was that the scenes were simply too long and the context too shallow to keep the viewer's imagination occupied much of the time. I wouldn't say I got exactly bored during it but I certainly wouldn't give it a repeat viewing. I could watch the images from google though.

Well, at least consider what I said. If you manage to do that, a whole new world will open its glorious gates for you.

I have and I will. I'd like to think though that I am already in that world to some extent... I am able to enjoy both blockbusters and art-house. The thing is that not all entertainment or art is good, sometimes the emperor has no clothes.

I do think I will soon start focusing a bit more on Sight&Sound list, as I notice I have rated only around 100/250 - while for IMDB it's more like 250/250, which was no small task but at the same time was rewarding and I think expanded my cinematic scale and appreciation a bit.

PS: Take a look at this recent article from Sight & Sound as well. Might be interesting for you:

Ok. Some interesting analysis about weather reflecting emotions, his influences etc... and then...

Tarkovsky claims:

Genius is revealed not in the absolute perfection of the [artist’s] work but in absolute fidelity to himself, in commitment to his own passion

No. Genius is revealed by results - not by amount of effort, dedication or sticking to what one believes.

The image becomes authentically cinematic when (amongst other things) not only does it live within time, but time also lives within it

I think this sounds nice but is ultimately hogwash, means nothing.

Sounds to me that Tarkovsky is better at making intelligent sounding excuses for his use of time and image rather than fitting them to the actual narrative.

Well, I have seen actually only two of his films: Stalker and Solaris. Former I wasn't that fond of, the latter I liked a lot. Solaris I felt was less tedious and more intelligent science fiction. Yes, in Solaris time and what the director told the viewer perhaps did play a function, as in engaging the imagination and brain. The time was used a bit more sparingly in relation to the story and dialogue.

I have Andrei Rublev on my watchlist as well. If that's any good then I might give a chance for "The Mirror". Which one do you like more?

-

Getting back to OP and to the theme "I don't get it - it's overrated"...
Couldn't the same be actually argued about your ratings for some blockbusters?

...I noticed that you have for example the film "Equilibrium" rated at 1. Surely in its own genre it is better than that... I have it probably a bit overrated currently but I liked many elements in the film and was very entertained. The martial arts choreography is good, even artistic, the idea of predicting counter moves based on probability was perhaps far fetched but intriguing and certainly original, the film had some interesting themes about humanity, emotion and yes even appreciation of art. In other words I thought it was good action scifi with high production values and solid story, sort of something between Matrix and Cattaga, I felt. I'd like to hear your opinion on it.

Same could be asked about Avengers, if I recall correctly that you have it at 1. I agree that it is nonsense but still well made at that and somewhat entertaining for what it is. I get sort of feeling that you rated rather the genre than the film there.

So the argument works both ways.

[–] Filler_Killer 8 years ago

Regardless of reasons it is imo very pretentious and arrogant reply. Tarkovsky seems to love explaining his philosophies and motives, except when confronted face to face. It also suggests that the audience and the reporter are inferior (hence "arrogant").

I don't see it that way. The question is idiotic. Is he wrong for taking into consideration the assessment of two masters that he revered? Perhaps he could've put it in different words, but throughout his life he was faced with silly reporters (as exemplified), unfair criticism (proven by his reputation as of today) and mass dismissal by the common public (which still happens today, unfortunately, but for obvious reasons). I'm guessing after a few years of such dreadful experiences, the patience tends to wear out, but who knows? Maybe he said it as a joke and it was misinterpreted. Maybe he was an arrogant prick, but his interviews, documentaries, films and books seem to indicate otherwise.

That is no explanation to the question why.

I don't think I was all that cryptic. If Stalker was faster, it would be a different film, with all that comes attached to that, as simple as that.

Yes. I do think Stalker did have that, hence I'm giving it a 4 not 1. Although at the same time I do question the visual genius, and I claim that the fascinating visuals in Stalker are due to the settings - not necessary talent. (blasphemy?) If you go to Chernobyl it is going to look like that no matter who directs it.

Other than visuals I do think the film is empty.

If you think the film is empty, there's nothing I can do for you. It didn't resonate with you for some reason, that's as much as I can tell. But to ignore Tarkovsky's visual composition and thinking that the camera and actors were placed in a random place, that the way people moved and how they said their words was not planned, or that he fell asleep on the cutting room and the soundscape is meaningless, is to incur in a grave mistake. And to doubt that any of that has any impact on the storytelling or the atmosphere of the film is equally wrong.

I might be wrong, but for some reason I get the impression that you are trying to resist seeing things from a different perspective than you're used too. I think that if you allow yourself to look at it from a different stance, you might see something you don't see as of now, even if different from everyone else. Empty I can assure you it is not. Otherwise it wouldn't be cited as an influece or a hallmark by so many reputed filmmakers, critics and ordinary people, as well as being studied, written about, and used as an example.

But the thing is that the painting doesn't really move, the background just is. How long are you willing to look at the sea? Perhaps long, but having a couple people swimming there while talking philosophy hardly makes the sea more beautiful.

Definitely for a long, long time, personally. However, I believe you missed the point here. It's up to you to consider it beautiful or not, but Tarkovsky didn't wish to make "beautiful movies". He didn't wish to make Chernobyl more though provoking with philosophical dialogues and poetry narration. As a suggestion, try to look for what he's saying with the assembly of image, sound, tone and pace.

I bet Andy Warhol had the exactly same question when making his blockbuster Empire (1964).
Yet one would be fool to waste their time watching the whole film. Films are edited for a reason, we don't want to watch Ben Hur in real time.

I'm not a fan of Warhol, I actually think most of his work, together with many other Pop Artists, is bollocks, but to dismiss something that way seems fallacious to me. If I'd sit through the whole thing, I would probably get to the end and say "What a bunch of *beep* bullsh*t, just wasted 8 hours of my life, while I could be watching Satantango". But another person might say that it had a wonderful, otherwordly experience with it (for a very especific and personal reason) and who am I to deny that that actually happened? But let's be honest here, a camera filming a skyscraper for 8 hours straight and a story about a group of men that dangerously risk their lives, trying to get into a place where something unexplainable happen, for very different reasons and without knowing exactly what to expect, while discussing their thoughts and emotions, isn't really the same kind of film I would say.

Hitchcock said that people don't want to see the actor walking from point A to point B, it is not interesting. He was a storyteller and we can see that from his films, they are not boring.

That's highly subjective and far from being remotely close to a fact. Hitchcock was an accomplished filmmaker, but he's definitely not one of my favorites and he's neither one of my references and that assumption he makes, while true to the extent of the typical audience that goes to the movies simply to be entertained, definitely doesn't apply to me and many other people. Despite being a master of suspense, many of his films (with the remarkable exceptions of Vertigo and Psycho for example) are boring and extremelly shallow on its themes.

I see the point but I think Bresson is wrong here. Are films by Hitchcock, Leone and Chaplin not art if they tell you the whole story as it unwinds? Is not a beautiful photograph art if it doesn't have some hidden subtext behind it?

What's the point of art if it doesn't allow the audience to take active part in it? Something clear, overt and immediate is just that, and nothing more. You see it once and that's it. It's dead. It's a beautiful dead thing (starting to sound like Bergman on Kane). If you have memory, there's no lasting appeal, other than to study its eventual technical prowess. For me art is a bit more than that, (shall we call it) a piece that brings out something new in your mind, every time you look at it. It can be subtext, it can be a small structural detail, it can be a suggestion, it can be an emotion, it can be many different things and that's why art is so demanding and difficult to craft, because it exhausts the one who works at it, mostly because he puts his life into that. And since you mention them, I think there are films from Hitchcock, Leone and Chaplin that definitely fit this description.

The problem with Stalker was that the scenes were simply too long and the context too shallow to keep the viewer's imagination occupied much of the time.

With all due respect, once again the problem here lies in you, not in him as that's simply your opinion. I for once, kept asking questions myself about the characters, the scenery, the themes, so the movie kept me engaged and anxious.

No. Genius is revealed by results - not by amount of effort, dedication or sticking to what one believes.

I don't quite understand what you mean. What results? Interpret as you will, but one thing I'm sure, once you stop doing something on which you believe, something true to yourself, your identity and genuinity is gone. And a genius that is not honest with himself and to the world, is no genius, of that I'm sure.

I think this sounds nice but is ultimately hogwash, means nothing.

I can't explain that any better than he did in Sculpting in Time. You have two options here, really: Either you look for what he meant by that, by reading the book, or you claim it's bollocks, based on a paragraph taken from a whole text, and ignore it. I think that if you read it, you might have a pleasant surprise.

I have Andrei Rublev on my watchlist as well. If that's any good then I might give a chance for "The Mirror". Which one do you like more?

Judging from what you wrote so far, and I hope you won't take this wrong of me as I'm guessing you want me to be honest, I think you'll hate Zerkalo, which is for me one of my favorite movies of all time. Andrei Rublev should be more bearable to you than both Stalker and Zerkalo, but given that you dislike his style so much, I'm guessing you'll have some difficulty enjoying it, especially considering it's duration. Still, it's one of his less oniric films, and a bit more down to earth, that's for sure.

Getting back to OP and to the theme "I don't get it - it's overrated"...
Couldn't the same be actually argued about your ratings for some blockbusters?

...I noticed that you have for example the film "Equilibrium" rated at 1.

I'm a huge fan of sci-fi, it's actually a kind of weak spot I have and I tend to regard them higher than other kinds of films. Having said that, I think Equilibrium is abominable and one of the worst films of the genre I've seen. I didn't find any of the elements you mentioned being dealt with seriousness or subtlety, which are usually two of various things that for me distinguish a good from a bad film. Honestly, I thought the film was extremely juvenile and teen-oriented, from the probability counter-moves, the puppy changing the mind of a ruthless killer, to the resistance living under a glass 2m below the center of a Orwellian-metropolis controled by a totalitarian government, to the sudden reveal that the son hasn't been taking his drugs, to the really bad FX, for me it was a complete disaster. I think the other ones you mentioned are far superior to it.

Once again, I'm very sorry, but I couldn't find anything remotely entertaining about The Avengers. I thought it was a drag from beginning to end. A CGI-fest (and a pretty bad one on that aspect) with unfunny one-liners, superheroes fighting each other and forgettable villains, bland action, no character development, cringe-worthy dialogue, embarassing performances, generic soundtrack and story, with a predictable narrative unfolding and nothing to marvel at in any technical aspect... A truly dreadful experience for me, that's all I can say, really.

I might have thought it fun if was still a teenager, but nowadays, these kinds of films look really uninteresting to me. I guess that's one of the downsides of growing older and more mature, enjoying tranquillity, Nature and Time passing by, and reverencing masterworks, I suppose your focus, aims and sensibility are bound to change and become different from what you had before. But I assure you I like to have a laugh regularly, the world would be extremely depressing if you couldn't laugh at it and at yourself. The Big Lebowski for example is a film that cracks me up everytime and Chaplin's or Keaton's films can be intensely funny too, just to cite a few examples.

In any case, back to your question, I did get both films pretty well (especially because there's either nothing new to get or nothing to get at all, respectively) and I hated both of them, so I don't think that what you said could be applied here.

-

-You won't forget me now?

-No. I've got nobody else to remember.

[–] The_TJT 8 years ago

I don't think I was all that cryptic. If Stalker was faster, it would be a different film

Which was exactly the reporter's question: why wasn't the film less tedious. You don't answer the question "why rabbit has long ears?" by telling that it wouldn't be a rabbit if it had short ears... the actual explanation is about hearing and evolution.

Empty I can assure you it is not. Otherwise it wouldn't be cited as an influece or a hallmark by so many reputed filmmakers, critics and ordinary people, as well as being studied, written about, and used as an example.

Same can be said about Citizen Kane...

But let's be honest here, a camera filming a skyscraper for 8 hours straight

...is factually tedious crap no matter the countering artistically inclined opinion(s).

And a genius that is not honest with himself and to the world, is no genius, of that I'm sure.

Geniuses can be wrong as well. Did Einstein maintain his view on static universe... of course not, since he realized he was wrong.

With all due respect, once again the problem here lies in you, not in him as that's simply your opinion. I for once, kept asking questions myself about the characters, the scenery, the themes, so the movie kept me engaged and anxious.

Maybe someone can say the same about "Empire"... :)

I'm a huge fan of sci-fi, it's actually a kind of weak spot I have and I tend to regard them higher than other kinds of films. Having said that, I think Equilibrium is abominable and one of the worst films of the genre I've seen. I didn't find any of the elements you mentioned being dealt with seriousness or subtlety, which are usually two of various things that for me distinguish a good from a bad film. Honestly, I thought the film was extremely juvenile and teen-oriented, from the probability counter-moves, the puppy changing the mind of a ruthless killer, to the resistance living under a glass 2m below the center of a Orwellian-metropolis controled by a totalitarian government, to the sudden reveal that the son hasn't been taking his drugs, to the really bad FX, for me it was a complete disaster. I think the other ones you mentioned are far superior to it.

Can't agree with your opinion here. My initial thought would be that if you hate stuff like this you are not a true science fiction fan. I can however imagine a few reasons for your opinion:
-Age: I'm not sure if I saw Star Wars the first time now I would still rate it a 10...
-Bale: perhaps you don't like Bale, maybe you saw this film after Dark Knight and unconsciously relate this film to that. I saw Equilibrium first, it was made earlier.
-You don't like martial arts films or action films in general

I don't think it was that teen oriented, no more than, say, Matrix.

The puppy didn't change the ruthless (actually emotionless) killer, rather quitting the drug a bit earlier. He started to think, doubt and feel. The actual change was probably when he ripped the shades to watch the sunrise.

Yes, living underground was a bit too literal. Not every spot had glass though and obviously it wasn't really see through. But that was a bit silly I agree.

Whether the son had taken drugs was pretty irrelevant, as was the resistance in general. The film was all about the protagonist and his change, him finding humanity/emotions and then having to hide them. It was all about his personal emotional struggle. Common theme about humanity in sci-fi. I found very interesting in the film the idea of emotionless humans - how would one act, aren't much of our acts based on emotions... and the difficulties the protagonist had accepting and hiding his emotions with his gradual change. Also the "gun kata" scenes were imo brilliant, very much similar to Matrix action-wise - the hallway scene perhaps even too much. As for Cattaga, the comparison here is hiding one's true self. There can be found of course popular themes from various different scifi films, series and literature. I really think it's better than Matrix sequels and imo holds multiple viewings well. I understand this is not for everyone though.

Once again, I'm very sorry, but I couldn't find anything remotely entertaining about The Avengers. I thought it was a drag from beginning to end. A CGI-fest (and a pretty bad one on that aspect) with unfunny one-liners, superheroes fighting each other and forgettable villains, bland action, no character development, cringe-worthy dialogue, embarassing performances, generic soundtrack and story, with a predictable narrative unfolding and nothing to marvel at in any technical aspect... A truly dreadful experience for me, that's all I can say, really.

Why don't you tell us how you really feel about Avengers...

I don't think Avengers deserves a 1 in any case... what do you expect from a superhero film?
You don't go to Bruce Lee film and come out disappointed saying that it was just all Kung Fu, now do you...

Anyway, I think we just have to agree to disagree about Stalker and Equilibrium. Maybe I don't "get" the former and you the latter.

[–] Filler_Killer 8 years ago

I don't know if you noticed but you replied only only to parts of my answers that you feel like you can oppose with logic, so I suppose you agree with the rest? Nevertheless, often times you decontextualized them with that and even failed to reply to the actual argument being discussed here, leading you into pitfalls. As usual I'll try to respond to everything in a polite and thorough manner, as I hope you to do the same.

Which was exactly the reporter's question: why wasn't the film less tedious. You don't answer the question "why rabbit has long ears?" by telling that it wouldn't be a rabbit if it had short ears... the actual explanation is about hearing and evolution.

There's absolutely no comparison at all here. You don't have control over a living being's evolution. You do however haver total control over a film that you conceived, directed and therefore, over the meaning you want it to have.

Same can be said about Citizen Kane...

Not can, it is, but for different reasons, since they're quite different from each other.

...is factually tedious crap no matter the countering artistically inclined opinion(s).

Besides this being wrong, as an opinion is not a fact, I'm going to let this one pass. Why don't you answer to the full sentence, since it was you who compared both films?

Geniuses can be wrong as well. Did Einstein maintain his view on static universe... of course not, since he realized he was wrong.

I never at any point said they couldn't, what we were discussing was honesty, so your reply doesn't make much sense. Einstein saw that he was wrong but didn't maintain his views because of that, so I don't really see how your point connects with mine at any stage.

Maybe someone can say the same about "Empire"... :)

Yet, isn't that what I myself just said?

Can't agree with your opinion here. My initial thought would be that if you hate stuff like this you are not a true science fiction fan.

In all honesty, no Phillip K. Dick, Isaac Asimov or Ray Bradbury for example would ever use such absurd and cheap concepts in their novels or short stories, that's for sure.

Age, Bale, Martial Arts Movies

Age: I saw Star Wars for the first time when I was very young and I loved it. Nowadays, it's difficult to look at it at some parts, without feeling a bit cringed. It's still a classic nonetheless, but I don't think it's perfect by all means.

Bale: I think Bale is a fine actor, not one of the greatest, but pretty solid and clearly above Hollywood standards. I actually saw Equilibrium earlier as well, but don't really see how seeing The Dark Knight before would change my impression of Equilibrium.

Martial Arts films: I can't say that I don't like them, because I've never really seen that much of them (do movies with Chuck Norris and Van Damme count?). Concerning action films, I sure like them quite a lot, when they're well done. The reference for me would be T2.

Truth is, The Matrix, while being indeed teen oriented, is far superior and broader in many other aspects, being on the action scenes or in its themes. Equilibrium was a poor-man's rip-off stylistically, designed to cash in The Matrix success. As for Gattace being better than The Matrix sequels, I would agree, though the action on some of the scenes in Reloaded, such as the fight on the hall or the highway chase, still stand as exciting sequences, despite the massive amount of hate the two films get.

Why don't you tell us how you really feel about Avengers...

Not sure what you mean by this, but I suppose you want me to tell my opinion, ignoring all the aspects that comprise the structure of a film, technically? I really thought it was one of the most boring films I ever submitted myself too. I don't recall feeling excited, emotional or laughing a single time. My girlfriend who watches almost exclusively Hollywood movies of all sorts, from rom-coms to action films, turned to me at one point and asked if I was enjoying it, because she thought it was a drag. I didn't really care about any character because they were all "invincible" and had this tendency to drop some supposedly witty dialogue, that was corny as hell. So, I hope I answered to your question.

Sure, we can agree to disagree if you want, but in the end of the day you can just look at the status both films have in the Film sphere and you'll probably reach a different conclusion, as Stalker is considered to be one of the greatest films ever made by all reputed Film publications and entities, whereas Equilibrium is practically ignored and generally considered an average sci-fi movie at best by the public.

-

-You won't forget me now?

-No. I've got nobody else to remember.

[–] The_TJT 8 years ago

I don't know if you noticed but you replied only only to parts of my answers that you feel like you can oppose with logic, so I suppose you agree with the rest?

Maybe I did or didn't... sometimes that's a bad habit of mine, replying only to the part of which I disagree. Maybe I didn't want my reply to get too bloated, replying everything. Anyway quoting whole paragraph is not necessary to understand the context of my reply, I think.

As for being polite, I have enjoyed parts of our discussion but can also see it heading down the drain so to speak (cue Psycho shower scene)... We'll see... it takes two to tango.

There's absolutely no comparison at all here. You don't have control over a living being's evolution. You do however haver total control over a film that you conceived, directed and therefore, over the meaning you want it to have.

Uh... the director's control over a film just makes the question MORE relevant.

Look, If a director is asked for example Why was the film slow, why did you pick Christian Bale for the role etc... surely you must understand that the answer to that question is NOT that the film wouldn't be the same if he had not done it... but rather explaining the reason why he did it - after all the directors supposedly have power over such decisions.

If someone asks you "why did you run there" - the logical answer is "to get there faster, I was in a hurry" rather than telling "If I wouldn't have run I'd gotten nowhere" The question here is not whether the person moved, or existed in first place... but rather why did he run instead of walking or driving. But we digress, Tarkovsky's answer was snobbish any way you look at it.

Not can, it is, but for different reasons, since they're quite different from each other.

My point being critics etc praise both films but we have previously agreed opposing views are legit as seen from Bergman's opinion. So your reference to authority is negated by mine reference to authority, thus simply referring to authority instead of arguing the film itself is a weak argument.

Critics and "normal people" DO praise Dark Knight to heavens. Look at Ebert giving it 4/4 stars or its 94% rating at rottentomatoes, not to mention its IMDB rank 4 spot on refernce to "normal people". Yet we have agreed here that it is actually quite horrible film.

Heck, I even like to argue that it's not even the best BATMAN film - Burton's version didn't take itself as seriously while Nicholson was just as good if not better as Joker than Ledger. So what the fork do critics and normal people know. I'd like to ask if they have ever seen a good action or superhero film before, for praising that rubbish. Oh and "dark" atmosphere doesn't mean that the lighting is dim, dimwits.

We also agree on MM: Fury Road, it has 97% rating at RT from 331 critics! Now seriously I don't think critical acclaim is a valid argument to defend films you like... I'm sure you argue the same on Nolan boards. (nudge nudge wink wink)

Maybe they'll give Oscar to Mad Max as well? I seriously doubt the overall intelligence of critics and academy, imo they certainly have lost their way to distinguish a mediocre film from a great one...

Let's take for example Best Pic Scorsese's "The Departed": The story is riddled with inconsistencies and plot holes... and the same thing was very apparent with the original Hong Kong film as well, it was stylish but the story was simply poorly written or represented badly. I think logical flaws are common with Asian crime drama. The flaws of the original script transferred directly to the Scorsese version.

So I don't think modern film critic and academy member is often intelligent enough to understand the plot fully... if it doesn't make sense then it must be smart, seems to be the standard norm today, and not only with average film goer but with film critics as well. Perhaps the standard of expectations has gotten so low nowadays that a nonsensical plot is no biggie? Heck, I think story is still the most important aspect for a film.

Naturally the personal strengths for a film critic are normally use of the language and artistic sensibilities, rather than deep thinking and logic.

If these pinheads can't distinguish between a solid and flawed script how do you expect them to understand whether a film with philosophy, science fiction and poetry all in one is rubbish or not? Simple, they do not. And those who do, don't have guts to say so... going against the grain.

Rant over and out. :)

Besides this being wrong, as an opinion is not a fact, I'm going to let this one pass. Why don't you answer to the full sentence, since it was you who compared both films?

No, I think it's fair to say that it is a fact despite being an opinion. That is why you "let it pass" let's be honest now... "Empire" is boring. If you disagree then try to watch it all the way through and report back.

That was of course reductio ad absurdum to your claim that pace is subjective and one can't claim anything too tedious. Since I think one can. I also think Hitchcock was not very handsome but I guess that is subjective as well.

I never at any point said they couldn't, what we were discussing was honesty, so your reply doesn't make much sense. Einstein saw that he was wrong but didn't maintain his views because of that, so I don't really see how your point connects with mine at any stage.

Tarkovsky basically said that genius is not measured by results but sticking to what one believes. I pointed out that Tarkovsky is wrong since one can have incorrect beliefs. Would Einstein be seen as genius if he stuck to his false beliefs...

Yet, isn't that what I myself just said?

Yes. The next step is you to argue that Empire kept you "engaged and anxious" - thus the pace can not be argued to be flawed.

In all honesty, no Phillip K. Dick, Isaac Asimov or Ray Bradbury for example would ever use such absurd and cheap concepts in their novels or short stories, that's for sure.

Yes... concepts such as oppressive government, big brother, destroying art, ability to feel (aka difference between android/human) etc sure have never been used in their books or scifi in general... oh wait...

If anything, more solid critique against "Equilibrium" would rather be that it uses too much themes from earlier science fiction and copies Matrix during action sequences. But I love it regardless, maybe its true value as a film would be in somewhere 6-8 range, but I'll keep it at 9 simply because I like it a lot even with repeat viewings.

Age: I saw Star Wars for the first time when I was very young and I loved it. Nowadays, it's difficult to look at it at some parts, without feeling a bit cringed. It's still a classic nonetheless, but I don't think it's perfect by all means.

Nah, it's perfect for what it is. I haven't watched it in few years because I still know it by heart.

But the actual argument here is this: Maybe you don't "get it" because you are age challenged - same as Nolan kiddies are age challenged the opposite direction and don't "get" Potemkin or say "In Mood for Love", to mention something more adult. (Which btw is also quite slow but imo in a good, deliberate, way - actually adds to the film)

Not sure what you mean by this

It's a joke. Better with a smiley probably.
...When someone truly trashes a film (or something else) then the other person says "Now why don't you tell me what you REALLY think about it"... as if the other person would have been holding back. Ok, it's not funny when explained...

Sure, we can agree to disagree if you want, but in the end of the day you can just look at the status both films have in the Film sphere and you'll probably reach a different conclusion, as Stalker is considered to be one of the greatest films ever made by all reputed Film publications and entities, whereas Equilibrium is practically ignored and generally considered an average sci-fi movie at best by the public.

Well we've argued whether critics opinions are relevant or even valid.

However I'd like to point out that I gave a 4 rating to a film which you admit is not very accessible for everyone. While you give a 1 to a film which most see as mediocre.

IMDB rating - your rating = 7,5 - 1 = 6,5
IMDB rating - my rating = 8,2 - 4 = 4,2

That means that your rating for Equilibrium is further from the public opinion than mine for Stalker. Also, a 4 as a number is probably a more rational and less emotional than a 1.

[–] Filler_Killer 8 years ago

Sorry about the late reply, but I have been away from internet boards for some time now and it's something that will endure, as I lost the drive or interest in discussing any sort of theme over the internet. This was nonetheless a discussion I would have thoroughly enjoyed if it had happened face to face.

I'm affraid this was not the reply you were expecting perhaps, given the effort you've put on your last post and for that I am sorry. Nevertheless, it was pleasant to go over filmic issues and hear your opinions about this film and others. As Plato would have said (or better yet, Socrates), "truth arises from discussing" and I'd like to think that this was delightful symposium. At least, it appears to me that we've voiced our opinions in a respectable manner and I can confirm that often times I was drinking wine while reading or writing posts, though never in a state of Agathon-style intoxication.

Cheers.

-

-You won't forget me now?

-No. I've got nobody else to remember.

[–] The_TJT 8 years ago

I liked this discussion as well. I also just posted a couple recommendations for you on "Cranes are flying" board...

Watched Zerkalo and Rublev... gave them both a 6. Planning to watch Ivan's Childhood soon, although I think Tarkovsky's deliberately meditative pace and storytelling is not for me. But it fits well on Solaris, sort of adds to the mystery.

[–] phony (214) 3 years ago

6 years late, but... there is this thing called opinion. its a whole thing. also you can look up "taste" while you're at it.

[–] TheArgentinian (6443) 2 years ago

yeah, and there are shitty opinions and bad taste.

[–] phony (214) 2 years ago

ah, and let me guess: anyone who doesn't like this movie doesn't "get it", therefore that is a shitty opinion/bad taste, right? -.-

[–] TheArgentinian (6443) 2 years ago

yes, Sherlock.

[–] phony (214) 2 years ago

Well, aren't you a walking stereotype...

this movie is not bad, but its just communist propaganda, and thats why movie snobs like you praise it so much. Same with Godard. They say he is a genious because he breaks form, while jumps cuts are something that any freaking youtuber learn intuitively :/

I study cinema, and everytime someone talks about these movies, they are mostly just parroting Bazin, Pasolini, Sadoul or some other critic/director. But i garantee you: when they get home tired and sit on their couch to watch something, Eisenstein, Antonioni or Kiarostami is not what they put on TV -.-

Start thinking with your own brain, for once.

[–] TheArgentinian (6443) 2 years ago

Your comment is so ignorant is laughable. But what else can you expect from one of those conservatives that uses the word communist like an insult.
But hey, you'll always have John Wayne movies.

[–] phony (214) 2 years ago

I never meant communist as an insult. While not a leftist by any means, i actually have a deep respect for some marxists, like Umberto Eco and Terry Eagleton. The world is not black and white as you think.

But you, my friend, are the living proof that arguing with a leftist is usually like playing chess with a pigeon: They'll just knock over all the pieces, shit on the board, and strut about like it won anyway.