Tarkovsky, along with Robert Bresson and Stanley Kubrick, is my absolute favourite filmmaker. I can understand people who find his films to be an absolute chore to sit through, but I do think those people are missing something, and I'll attempt to explain it, while attempting to address your criticisms (which are surprisingly few, other than absolutist statements like "i found Tarkovski's films to be extremely boring" [sic], which can hardly be countered). With that in mind...
...Tarkovsky defence mode engaged.
First, a few words on my introduction to Andrei Arsenyevich - the first Tarkovsky film I've seen was, yes, Stalker. And... I was bored out of my mind, was struggling to stay awake, and eventually turned it off. So I was at a similar position as you are right now. Might've been because I was watching without subtitles with my Russian being *beep* but a more probable reason was that I was expecting something different from cinema at large. Not explosions, action, etc., but something like social commentary, symbolism or, indeed, any message at all. And then I read Susan Sontag's Against Interpretation, and suddenly everything clicked.
Here is the essay, highly recommended to change one's perception on what art should be, even if the writing is occasionally overzealous:
http://www.coldbacon.com/writing/sontag-againstinterpretation.html
And now, I'll attempt to break your comment down.
"Lawrence Of Arabia.
The Wages Of Fear.
The Godfather I/II.
Sunset Boulevard.
2001: A Space Odyssey.
Barry Lyndon.
Seven Samurai
Once Upon A Time In America."
Those are (with the possible, personal exception of the last one) some great films. I wouldn't necessarily characterise The Wages of Fear, Seven Samurai, The Godfather and especially Sunset Blvd. as "slow", but no matter.
What slightly irks me is your pick of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Not because I dislike it (it is without a doubt one of the great masterpieces of cinema, but because of what you say afterwards:
"...there was always character development and most of the scenes and/or dialogues were memorable and gained importance as the film kept advancing."
Which is odd, because the characters in 2001 are little more than blank slates, much of the dialogue is techno-babble and bureaucratic nonesense, and many of the scenes don't progress the plot at all, or at least stay for longer than needed to do so. Why is the landing sequence so long? What is the relevance of all this space machinery to the plot or the philosophical points it tries to make? Why is the acting so bland? You get the idea.
Why, really? For that strange, inexplicable concept of "atmosphere", or "mood", if you will. Ever noticed how hypnotic the interplay of the imagery and the sound is? That's the film's purpose. It is an ultimate example of a "mood piece".
Tarkovsky's films, Stalker included, are also ultimate examples of mood pieces. Long takes of beautiful scenery that don't seem to add up to much, minutes-long sequences without any dialogue, and a strange lack of a real narrative structure, for the sole reason of creating a mood only with visuals and sounds. Simply put, this is the true potential of pure cinema, a kind of cinema distinct from theatre or literature. People write on how much the filmic medium is the ultimate art form, and yet fail to put away the conventions of other artforms, openly discouraging cinematic innovation. This is why the state of modern Hollywood is so miserable nowadays.
Once you have that in mind, you begin craving those strange shots of nothing in particular, and simply get lost in time and plod along with the film towards its conclusion. And then you note that watching it is one of the least boring things you could ever do.
Another interesting article, focusing on Tarkovsky in particular:
https://tobylitt.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/why-andrei-tarkovskys-boring-films-are-not-boring/
reply
share
The_TJT
9 years ago
Tarkovsky's films, Stalker included, are also ultimate examples of mood pieces. Long takes of beautiful scenery that don't seem to add up to much, minutes-long sequences without any dialogue, and a strange lack of a real narrative structure, for the sole reason of creating a mood only with visuals and sounds. Simply put, this is the true potential of pure cinema, a kind of cinema distinct from theatre or literature.
That's a good point about the mood. I wasn't really bored during the film, either.
I just found it rather unrewarding as a story, regardless of images displayed. Also the philosophical dialogue in it was mostly pretentious nonsense, imo. I would say main argument the film makes is about false morality, that morals are invented and not something inherent in people.
I wouldn't call it "pure cinema" though... imo it was anything but "cinematic"... the word I would use for it is "photogenic" rather. The film is like a montage of powerful photographs - the use of film camera is not essential for that.
My opinion is that "Stalker" was success as high art and experimental cinema, but utter failure as a story and ultimately as a film.
reply
share