This is really beginning to bore me. All of my favourite parts of the movie are the parts without dialogue: the magical moment where Kelvin and Hari hold each other while floating above the floor; the aching camera movements over the paintings; Hari's rebirth after her suicide attempt; her distant, unquiet looks; the abnormal placidity of nature in the final scene. The complex moods and emotions of Tarkovsky's works are far more interesting to me than the (admittedly complicated) philosophical and moral questions he usually includes, so I'm kind of annoyed to find myself in an argument about something that is not my prime interest.
knives wrote:Firstly I never accused the statements of being platitudes or even dumb. That is putting words in my mouth.
I know. That's my description of Metropolis' whatever.
knives wrote:What I meant though by the quoted statement (which you seem to be intentionally obfuscating) was that he does not explore the nature of these things. Rather it appears to me that he is looking at how these elements aid people in their lives.
Ok, so he's looking at how love, memory, and reality help people, but without exploring the nature of these things? Even tho' that is impossible to do since the question of "how" is, by definition, a question of something's nature?
You don't seem to have a precise idea of what you're actually claiming, which isn't helped by the fact that your word choices are vague.
knives wrote:As an aside I do find it odd that you're the one bringing up this argument considering how you continually state elsewhere that a film can not examine anything without becoming an essay, but for the film to do what you say it does it would have to speak on those subjects in some manner. A rather interesting contradiction here.
You seem to be addicted to imprecision. What I actually said: "In discursive language, you talk about
things; in imaginative language, such as underlies paintings, music, and of course film, you do not talk talk about things, you make
things and those things are what they are. In the case of a film or a novel, you can talk about the things you've made if you want, but this is not necessary to your form."
Unsurprisingly, given that its characters are scientists and academics, the movie has them discuss the issues of their predicament. It also works through it ideas and emotions in ways which are not discursive; imaginative language is capable of that, too.
knives wrote:I can find the presentation of something to ultimately be a member of the absurd or rather silly as the case has it while finding the thing being presented as complex and of interest.
Except you aren't articulating what is absurd or silly about them, you're just making verbal reductions of the film's actual contents as a way of generating that absurdity yourself.
It does not seem to have occurred to you that the film is using Kelvin's predicament as a way to explore larger concerns. This movie isn't just about one man's attempt to use love as a tool anymore than K. Kurosawa's Bright Future is just about one kid's attempt to return jellyfish to the wild.
knives wrote:That's not really exploring memory, but using it as a tool to keep one's humanity.
How are you making these things mutually exclusive? Do you even know what you mean by the term "exploring?" Have you given it some meaning I'm not aware of? Tarkovsky is concerned with the value and the use of memory, but he's not "exploring" the concept? What? I'm not sure you're really thinking through the things that you're saying. Your disagreements seem more kneejerk than considered.
knives wrote:The ending to the film all but states in writing that Kris is a stronger man psychologically if nothing else because he was able to fall in love with Hari (or at least a representation of her; he ultimately disregards the difference for his own well being). If that's not a fully formed conclusion than I don't know what is.
It's the conclusion to his dramatic arc. It is extremely debatable whether or not the movie--not the characters, but the movie--has actually resolved the problems and paradoxes it has raised. If the movie makes explicit what Kelvin's choices and conclusions are, that is something different from unambiguously recommending them.