MovieChat Forums > Zerkalo (1975) Discussion > Viewing films after Tarkovsky's films

Viewing films after Tarkovsky's films

posted 18 years ago by brenanathome
100 replies | jump to latest

For me, Tarkovsky's films are the best that the film world has to offer. They are so far above and beyond all of the other films I've ever seen that I now have difficulties watching other movies because my expectations of what is possible in film have been raised to new heights.

For one thing, I really have problems watching films that have chiseled plotlines. This applies to just about any film that comes from Hollywood. In particular, I can't take the "underdog finally succeeds" plots with baseball players hitting the winning homeruns or horses crossing the finish lines (in obligatory slow motion). I just can't watch them anymore. And Hollywood isn't the only place for such nonsense. I never make it through the European "redemption through art" and "triumph of the human spirit" movies either.

I also hate cutesy symbols and references found in movies today. The white feather in Forrest Gump really got on my nerves as did that silly red coat in Shindler's List. Please. I have better things to do with my mind.

And it's all Tarkovsky's fault! Once I gave up looking for plot and saw how powerful the image can be without it being anchored to a symbol, metaphor, indeed that the image could be the point, I was free. I realized it's possible to watch a movie much in the same way I would listen to a symphony. I can watch just parts of film over and over completly devoid of any connection to the rest of the film.

And since I'm posting this in the "Mirror" topic, I should add that there exists a complete plot outline somewhere on the net in which someone retells the story of Mirror in a linear way. Still, having that information did nothing to add meaning to the movie for me.

I would be interested in finding out what makes a Tarkovsky fan a Tarkovsky fan. I suspect that it doesn't really have much to do with what Tarkovsky has done but with how that fan lives life.

[–] primakov 18 years ago

Try bela Tarr:

The Werckmeister Harmonies
Satantango

I asked myself the same question after watching these.

[–] ottffsse_sequence 18 years ago

Yeh, Tarr seems closest stylistically to Tarkovsky. Also, try Bunuel, Bergman, Bresson, Ozu, Dreyer, and Mizoguchi...all directors which Tarkovsky considered highly. I have the same problem as you andmostly watch films by these directors.

[–] nileppezdel77 18 years ago

Of all the new-age film directors, I believe David Lynch is getting to the same level as these greats. Although you may not agree, I challenge you to view Eraserhead or Mulholland drive as typical films. He is very cerebral, and it takes a very clever imagination to piece together his films. There are so many messages it's very clear that if he wasn't inspired by tarkovsky, then he is possessed by him.

DVDs: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=13677433

[–] HaplessPlebeian 18 years ago

Lynch is infuriating.

[–] nileppezdel77 18 years ago

haha, because he is confounding or because you don't think he makes good art?

DVDs: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=13677433

[–] spiritgeorge 14 years ago

Why would you buy Triumph of the Will on DVD man?

[–] Blunic3 12 years ago

incorrect use of the word "new-age"

[–] Lemoen 12 years ago

Lol, funny pointing that out almost 7 years after the user first posted that.

[blue][/blue]

[spoiler][/spoiler]

[–] fa7999 18 years ago

Agree. After getting in the world of Tarkovsky, Kielowski, Fellini, Visconti, Bergman, Bresson, Ozu, Naruse, Demy, Truffaut, Antonioni, Rosselini, Dryer, Renoir, Mzoguchi for years, I sadly found out that Hollywood narratives totally suck and I cannot sit through any Hollywood films any more (Scorsese is the only exception but he is not his usual self any more. Lynch should be considered as an Hollywood outsider). The linear plot and simple good men and bad men thinking (like our dear idiot ruling the white house) just make me puke.

It's all Euro art films' fault but I am hopelessly stuck.

[–] bopdd-2 8 years ago

I truly hope that in the ten years since this post you've come to appreciate narrative-driven cinema as its own legitimate art form regardless of whether it's to your personal taste. Filmmakers like David Lynch and Kubrick and even more mainstream artists like Fincher have plenty to offer in terms of rewarding cinematic/artistic experience, and your perspective that "Hollywood narratives totally suck" is the quintessence of snobbery. Like painting and music, films range in terms of style and approach and scope. The Sistine Chapel has its own merits just as much as some obscure masterpiece by some artist we've never heard of sitting in the corner of a museum somewhere. A linear plot is a device just like a non-linear plot is a device. The Hollywood studio system might suck but some truly great films manage to get made in spite of the commercial, bottom-line interests of those financing the films, just like great art was made thanks to the Medici Family and other aristocratic (or theocratic) entities no matter how vile those entities were. Watch certain movies or don't, but you're bland, pretentious take on Hollywood film as presented in this post above is if anything indicative of someone who understands virtually nothing about film as an art form no matter how many overlooked European and Japanese films you appreciate.

[–] jeffhartley 8 years ago

No offense, but you sound pretentious. You do know that other sources other than Hollywood make movies that aren't structured like Tarkovsky too, right?

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mirza_novo_era 10 years ago

thx for the tip, watched only Bergman's movies, I belive I'm going to be suprised with these guys :D thx again. Cheers

[–] atavachron16 9 years ago

He may have liked or even worshiped some of these filmmakers (along with others you didn't mention, such as Fellini), but a Tarkovsky film is a unique experience, totally different from the films by the other great filmmakers. At least for me.

[–] OsbourneRuddock 18 years ago

Bela Tarr is much more pessimistic than Tarkovsky, but still brilliant.

(I hope Satantango gets a proper dvd release one day).

[–] da_alvarado 18 years ago

How bout Kieslowski.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] OsbourneRuddock 18 years ago

"I would be interested in finding out what makes a Tarkovsky fan a Tarkovsky fan. I suspect that it doesn't really have much to do with what Tarkovsky has done but with how that fan lives life."

Well, one of the most significant aspects of Tarkovsky's films is the pace, which is slow and ponderous. Some people find this aspect torturously unengaging - particularly many science-fiction film fans, which is a shame as I think his Solaris and Stalker are the best films made in that genre. Personally I find the sweeping, fluid camerawork in his films, and the cinematography and direction in general to be completely mesmerising. If there's a connection between this aspect of his films and the life of a person who is able to appreciate it, then I guess it is that they tend to be people who lay back and ponder the true significance and essence of things - as opposed to someone who is constantly after cheep thrills, sensations, and constant adventure.

[–] PTA-fan 18 years ago

I totally agree with the original poster. Tarkovsky, Cassavetes and Bresson have ruined cinema for me. In a good way though!

My top 20:
http://www.ymdb.com/tyler-l/l28735_ukuk.html

[–] szeghalm 17 years ago

I also love Tarkovsky, and also movies by Pedro Almodovar.
after such an experience, it is hard to get the same thrill, be as mesmerised by anything else. Now, this makes me very sad, it makes me feel very old, although I am not, and I wonder what else will come in the next years and what could impress me.
Maybe it is time for me to lay back, and just enjoy a second. Are we able? or are we after these movies in a continuous search? which ends only in disappointment? It is funny, because these movies came into my live, many years ago, when I wasn't searching, but was just open to receive them.

[–] khramtsova-2 18 years ago

Hi, brenanathome!
You wrote that "there exists a complete plot outline somewhere on the net in which someone retells the story of Mirror in a linear way".
Do you know by any chance where to find it? It would be very helpful. In fact I have just heard that there is a scene with a burning bush in "Mirror", and I wanted to know where it is and what it might mean. There are so many hidden symbols in Tarkovsky.
Thanks!

[–] machinatmogsp 18 years ago

This was the case for me for a few years, but I have recently been able to enjoy other films in the last few months. I was obsessed with "the image" for a long time, but have finally succeeded in being able to watch other aspects of films. I still can't go in for most Hollywood films for some reason, but there are many highlights (about 2% of Hollywood's output, which is a lot). Anyway, if you are anything like me, you may one day be able to enjoy films for reasons other than the visual. Hang in there! (Of course, if you don't, that's not such a bad thing - I agree that the image is the most important part of the film).

[–] ginsoakedgirl 18 years ago

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Terrence Malick in this thread.

"Once I gave up looking for plot and saw how powerful the image can be without it being anchored to a symbol, metaphor, indeed that the image could be the point, I was free. I realized it's possible to watch a movie much in the same way I would listen to a symphony. I can watch just parts of film over and over completly devoid of any connection to the rest of the film."
This is an even more apt description of Malick's films than Tarkovsky's (in my opinion).

Another reason these two directors are associated in my mind is that on the first viewing their movies can seem obtuse and simplistic (due to their overwhelming visual nature perhaps), but open up to become much more intricate and rich upon subsequent rewatchings.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] imwithstupid_35 18 years ago

I have to disagree, for me Tarkovosky is not one of the best. Zerkalo and Stalker are great though.

my ymdb site

http://www.ymdb.com/mehsuggeth/l35858_ukuk.html

[–] Bale-Pearce-Oldman 18 years ago

I just saw this film. Literally. After seeing it I immediately went here to check out the comments. This is the first Andrei Tarkovsky film I've seen. I honestly can't understand what happened. It's as if I've seen something unexplainably beautiful and creepy at thesame time. The brilliant shots, scenes and pictures that can evoke these emotions.... I really can't understand what happened. Maybe I'm just in awe right now. But wow, I will never forget this film. Sorry for my incoherent thoughts. I am just amazed that a movie can be filmed like this.

[–] Rushmore_Elite 18 years ago

Hey! Be sure to check out Elim Klimov's "Come And See" which is, in my mind, another russian masterpiece. Klimov was criticized some for ripping of Tarkovsky, which is no doubt unfair, yet understandable to some degree.

So, talking about pacing and shots: Michael Haneke anyone? Or the dark comic genius Roy Andersson and his film "Songs From The Second Floor"? Any takers?

Beside that, I'd just like to say that I love "Zerkalo", but to dismiss all other cinema seems pretentious and narrowminded to me.
One has to be able to watch a film like "Solaris" for example, and recognice it for a masterpiece. That doesn't necessarily mean one can't enjoy the fine comic stylings of Will Ferrell in "Anchorman" the next day.

Both have to exist to make the other great!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] trymyproduct11 14 years ago

I say with all honesty that the South Park movie is both the greatest comedy and musical I've ever seen. It resides firmly in my all-time Top 20.

[–] alexis-clement 12 years ago

That's funny, I just watched those two movies ("Anchorman" and "Zerkalo") one right after the other. What are the odds of these two being mentioned together in the same comment? And I have to agree, both are fine in their own, very separate ways!