MovieChat Forums > Solyaris (1972) Discussion > Tarkovsky was wrong...

Tarkovsky was wrong...

posted 10 years ago by svalinanikola
12 replies | jump to latest

If the driving scene was made like that so the "unintelligent" viewers can leave before anything interesting happens isn't that simply illogical?

If it's made for the sole purpose of being boring can a person really be blame for thinking it's boring and lose interest?

The scene just did what it was made to do, boring the hell out of people.

I'm sorry, but a person thinging the scene is boring is not unintelligent, if that's the scene's design.

Some people like to say that those who found it boring should go watch a movie with explosions.

Here's the thing, 7 second driving scene and explsion scene are not boring.

20 minute driving scene and a 20 minute explosion scene are equally boring.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BobbyDupea 10 years ago

That's definitely not the purpose of the driving scene.

My real name is Jeff

[–] MoviemanCin 9 years ago

Well, it didn't work. I suffered through the whole thing, and it was INCREDIBLY BORING!! It was one of the DULLEST films I've ever seen!

Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar, and / or doesn't.

[–] guccipix 9 years ago

I thought it was to emphasize how long certain moments can feel under certain circumstances. During these times we are truly "present" for every second. At the end of the film Kris says something about how he's been at the station for years, but to me it seemed like it had been a few days. This scene highlights the opposite of what the highway scene does.

http://letterboxd.com/guccipix/list/my-top-100-favorite-films/

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] paulbeardsley 9 years ago

First of all, it was nowhere near being 20 minutes long. That's just an exaggeration, and you know it.

For a long time I thought it was about 20 minutes but I later realised it was about 5 minutes.

And I highly doubt that Tarkovsky was being serious when he said that it was meant to bore people so that some of them would leave. A filmmaker as brilliant and intelligent as he was would never do something so petty and childish.

I don't think it's that unlikely TBH. Being a genius does not mean you are incapable of being petty once in a while.

I personally found the scene to be very atmospheric and it created a feeling of deep strangeness and eeriness.

Whatever Tarkovsky's intention, I do agree with this. I would add the word "hypnotic" and it is part of why I love the film.

Did I dream you dreamed about me?
Were you hare when I was fox?

[–] spaceman88 9 years ago

It's a matter of taste. There's no issue with people disliking it, and it's unfair to generalise people.

Just because you don't like Tarkovski, doesn't mean you're all about mainstream.

I'm a 28 year old male, just watched the movie for the first time.

Here's how that scene affected me: at first, I kept expecting a destination, or a car crash of sorts. Minutes pass, and it slowly becomes very hypnotic and overwhelming. The immersion into the surreal and harsh hypnotic cityscape suddenly gets cut off by the total opposite scene of pure nature.

This is not only one of the best and most effective transition scenes I've seen, but it made me cry, hard. It touched me so deeply, and it was out of the blue, I felt very vulnerable.

So, for me, this speciffic lengthy scene really worked.

[–] vgamerdc 8 years ago

Would you mind elaborating further? What feelings touched you to emote so, and why do you think they rose to be?

[–] franzkabuki 9 years ago

It's not 20 minutes, it's actually slightly under 5 minutes. And it's a cool scene, really gives you a feeling of going someplace... someplace far away. The sound effects during the ride give it a real eerie vibe.

"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]