Re: Andrei Tarkovsky
Posted: Tue May 03, 2016 9:29 pm
Hoo-rah! Got me amped. \:D/FrauBlucher wrote:AE have released a retrospective trailer....Sculpting Time
If this is the reason for the delay, then by the time they start issuing the BD's, all films should be ready to go. In that case they should lead with the box set, and follow up with individual releases.MichaelB wrote:...and I suspect this may be the reason why the BDs have been slightly delayed, in order to benefit from the theatrical exposure.
It's odd though because I saw a 35mm print of Stalker at LACMA a few years ago and it was beautiful.MichaelB wrote:Stalker has always been massively problematic.
My primary concern with the Stalker clips is what looks like odd digital noise. I know I shouldn't take a YouTube video as representative, but the issue doesn't appear during clips from the other films.StevenJ0001 wrote:It's odd though because I saw a 35mm print of Stalker at LACMA a few years ago and it was beautiful.MichaelB wrote:Stalker has always been massively problematic.
Right, Artificial Eye. Thanks for the information.swo17 wrote:Assuming you mean Artificial Eye, I think it's hit and miss.
I saw one in Chicago a few years ago, too, and it was gorgeous.StevenJ0001 wrote:It's odd though because I saw a 35mm print of Stalker at LACMA a few years ago and it was beautiful.MichaelB wrote:Stalker has always been massively problematic.
Nice to know I wasn't just imagining how good it looked. So if this new Blu-Ray turns out to be disappointing, it wil be extremely frustrating!Brian C wrote:I saw one in Chicago a few years ago, too, and it was gorgeous.StevenJ0001 wrote:It's odd though because I saw a 35mm print of Stalker at LACMA a few years ago and it was beautiful.MichaelB wrote:Stalker has always been massively problematic.
It seems like time tends to distill only a small handful of masters, based strongly on the merits of their great works. How many Russian writers of the 19th Century were hailed in their time, only to be mostly forgotten since, while Tolstoy, Dostovesky and to a lesser extent Gogol have survived the ages and reign supreme to this day. Perhaps we are just observing the whittling of time in Tarkovsky's case. Perhaps Tarkovsky's films have come to be considered superior works of art, and this has lead to his esteemed reputation remaining intact, or even elevating. Tarkovsky seems to have many of the trappings of an artist who might survive the passing of time and emerge as a figure of note or renown in the pantheon of cinema.AidanKing wrote:Like most people here, I have serious reservations about the idea of ranking directors but I do think it's interesting to see how the critical stock of certain directors rises and falls.
I suspect Tarkovsky has retained his status partly because of the relatively small number of his films, the extent which you can identify them as being by Tarkovsky very quickly (style and content, I suppose), the influence cited in Nick James' article and the general sense of a kind of transcendence, but one which seems anchored in an almost tactile materialism (which you can also see in Bresson, Malick and, I think, the Dardennes, for example), which seems very current in 'arthouse' cinema at present (e.g. Alonso, Serra). I was at the London Film Festival showing of The Sacrifice in either 1985 or 1986 (can't remember exactly) and there was a genuine sense of almost reverence which doesn't appear to have diminished in the years since.
Other directors who were very highly regarded at the same time (e.g. Visconti and, possibly, Fassbinder) seem to have fallen in levels of critical regard. I think possibly the use of melodramatic elements in their work doesn't fit as well within the current art film parameters so they could easily come back into fashion at some point.
I wonder why Kieslowski's critical status has changed. There's the same interest in metaphysics and realism, particularly in the later films, but I suppose there is the contrast with the films funded in Poland and a possible loss of cultural specificity when the films became transnational.
For what it's worth, I like all the directors I've cited and wouldn't want to rank them but the issue of why the critical consensus flows up and down for particular directors does interest me.
In Visconti's case it's probably undeniable that his "stock" has fallen. And definetly not because of melodramatic qualities but the increasing clinical nature of his films as his career wore on. I don't remember much melodrama in The Damned, The Stranger or (ugh) Death In Venice.AidanKing wrote:Other directors who were very highly regarded at the same time (e.g. Visconti and, possibly, Fassbinder) seem to have fallen in levels of critical regard. I think possibly the use of melodramatic elements in their work doesn't fit as well within the current art film parameters so they could easily come back into fashion at some point.
There is some truth to that, but it's also true that language, cultural biases and (in film's case) technical barriers help impede who gets raised up to the so-called "pantheon." Not every film has been available in every region of the world at all times.Trees wrote:It seems like time tends to distill only a small handful of masters, based strongly on the merits of their great works.