Tarkovsky: Solaris - the highway scene

[AndyM]

There's more to great Cinematic Art than bleakness though, and Andy I'm sure you're right about Almodovar but I just can't see him up there with Tarkovsky, Bergman, Bunuel and the other big boys. My problem, I'm sure.

Not a problem, but an example of how we're culturally encouraged to equate profundity with solemnity. They're not synonyms. Bunuel, of course, is far from solemn, but he's the exception - the usual Art Cinema pantheon tends to be strikingly devoid of wit, joy & humour.

[Ian M]

the usual Art Cinema pantheon tends to be strikingly devoid of wit, joy & humour.

Wot, like Fellini, Tati, Truffaut, Chaplin, Capra, Welles.....

[DavidM]

I'd be curious to hear what anyone Russian now thinks about Tarkovsky; Pirkko ? Are you there ? Does he still get the same reverential treatment that we seem to be giving him here ? For me as an art school graduate he was definitely one of the highest gods of the pantheon.

[john poole]

Von Trier? "Festen"? Helluvamovie. Saw it again recently. It had lost none of its power.

but directed by Thomas Vinterberg rather than the tedious (imho) von Trier (The Idiots, Dancer in the Dark - walked out of them both...)

[howard male]

I read somewhere recently the statement that all great literature has to have a seam of humour running through it, otherwise it just collapses under the weight of its own solemnity. Perhaps the same could be said of cinema?

But I think Tarkovski transcends the problem because so much of his films (as a percentage of their screen time) is spent simply contemplating wind-blown trees, or cups filling with rain water, which gives us some relief from the philosophising and quiet angst. But are there any jokes in Tarkovsky? I’d love to be reminded if there are.

[joel]

But I think Tarkovski transcends the problem because so much of his films (as a percentage of their screen time) is spent simply contemplating wind-blown trees, or cups filling with rain water

Tarkovsky's world is one of dreams and shadows. Humour doesn't seem to matter very much, though it may well be there. No other film maker I can think of covers this territory with his freedom and ease. They always seem to be carrying some or other intellectual baggage (well, this was the thought I had watching Aguirre the other night).
The highway scene appeals to me because I can feel Tarko's wonder and delight with Tokyo's amazing over/under/every-which-way urban expressways. The first time I rode them it felt like I'd arrived early to the 21st century (this was circa 1986). They haven't changed all that much since Solaris, just some spectacular bridges and a few mega tunnels added - some currently under construction. So, Des or Adam, if you make it to Tokyo, the free ride is on me!

[AndyM]

the usual Art Cinema pantheon tends to be strikingly devoid of wit, joy & humour.

Wot, like Fellini, Tati, Truffaut, Chaplin, Capra, Welles.....

Few of those come into the Art Cinema bracket as it's usually defined. That sounds pedantic, but it's true.

[joel]

Few of those come into the Art Cinema bracket as it's usually defined. That sounds pedantic, but it's true.

Not, perhaps, for a subscriber to cahiers du cinema or the BFI :-)

[uiwangmike]

Tarko usually leaves me baffled, or asleep, but a couple of years ago I caught one of his more accessible efforts, a short version of Hemingway's The Killers, made in 1956 when he was a student. It's on Youtube, and it would be a lot more accessible if I could see it with more than Greek subtitles. You're supposed to be able to raise English, so if anyone knows how to do it, please let me know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiW636Yw ... re=related

[kevin]

You're supposed to be able to raise English, so if anyone knows how to do it, please let me know.

If you add "&hl=en" (without the quotation marks) to the end of the url it should play in English.

I've done it for parts 1 & 2. If there are any more parts just follow the above instructions.

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiW636Yw6o0&feature=related&hl=en

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQRkbAQbEOk&feature=related&hl=en

[Adam Blake]

But are there any jokes in Tarkovsky? I’d love to be reminded if there are.

The bit in "Stalker' where the scientist is about to blow up The Zone along with everything and everyone in it: after the scientist has made all sorts of serious pronouncements about why it is necessary to do this terrible thing, the writer - completely unfazed at the thought of imminent destruction - says: "he's made himself a little problem".

I always thought this was very funny for some reason.

[Adam Blake]

Von Trier? "Festen"? Helluvamovie. Saw it again recently. It had lost none of its power.

but directed by Thomas Vinterberg rather than the tedious (imho) von Trier (The Idiots, Dancer in the Dark - walked out of them both...)

You're right, of course. How embarrassing. Similarly, Andy, you've got to come out with your hands up over Tati, Fellini and Welles at least. They're full of jokes, and of course they're considered Fine Art Film Directors. Doesn't mean you're wrong, though. Solemnity and Profundity do tend to get mixed up. Most of the cornerstones of western culture are a bit on the sad side. Tragedy and all that. I do prefer "King Lear" to "The Merry Wives of Windsor" but as some old thesp put on his tombstone: "Dying is easy, Comedy is hard".

[AndyM]

Andy, you've got to come out with your hands up over Tati, Fellini and Welles at least. They're full of jokes, and of course they're considered Fine Art Film Directors. Doesn't mean you're wrong, though. Solemnity and Profundity do tend to get mixed up. Most of the cornerstones of western culture are a bit on the sad side. Tragedy and all that. I do prefer "King Lear" to "The Merry Wives of Windsor" but as some old thesp put on his tombstone: "Dying is easy, Comedy is hard".

Weeeeellllll.......in my professional life (education/film/media) Art Cinema has a pretty precise meaning and Fine Art Film directors is not a recognised term. Sorry.

(And Tati is shit in any language.)

King Lear does indeed piss all over the Merry Wives, but you're comparing the top end of one genre with the bottom end of another.

[Hugh Weldon]

Andy

King Lear does indeed piss all over the Merry Wives, but you're comparing the top end of one genre with the bottom end of another

Merry Wives is probably the closest Shakespeare came to crowd pleasing. Some critics though see the late comedies, especially The Tempest and The Winter's Tale as the summit of his achievement. Perhaps it's only popular taste, with such strong central characters, that tends to give Macbeth, Lear and Hamlet such prominence, and such frequent performance.

Fellini did tragedy superbly in La Strada then moved on to more comic mode in Otte e Mezzo - Amarcord, one of his last, has some really funny sequences. But the comic is not merely about jokes, it's on the side of life, as any great art is. Solemnity is only the pejorative extreme of seriousness, and more often there in the interpretation or the production than the original text. Lear is a tragic figure, but he needs a fool to tell him the truth. Shakespearean tragedy and comedy are always mixed. Malvolio is almost tragic. Much Ado teeters (somewhat unbelievably) on the verge of tragedy at one point.

How any of this fits in with modern film though beats me. Unless it accords with my feeling that culturally we're living through a sort of post renaissance in which no Puritans need to close the theatres now because everybody's watching rubbish on TV.

[Dayna]

Shawshank Redemption has all those qualities. It's about two guys that grew close to each other while experiencing all the subjects of life,sex,religion, all twisted in a prison.