Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Drenching Richness of Andrei Tarkovsky

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 83 posts

Re: The Drenching Richness of Andrei Tarkovsky

#41

Post by tombert »

bgm1975 wrote: post #10

Tarkovsky was truly one of cinema’s great directors. His films aren’t simple or easy, but they are gorgeous to behold and if you put in the time, you’ll be richly rewarded. As others have mentioned, Stalker and Solaris are his two great sci-fi films, easily on par with Kubrick’s 2001. For history buffs, Andrei Rublev is fantastic too.

I definitely think that Solaris is a bit of an underrated gem. It's a very long movie that I can't watch all the time, but occasionally when I'm in the mood for a slow, cerebral movie I pop that one on.

If you want a more "abridged" version of it, "Memories" by Satoshi Kon is also pretty great. It's unique enough to be its own thing, so I'm not accusing it of being a "rip off" or anything, but it has similar themes about how memories can influence our perception of people, and it's shorter.

EDIT: Sorry, Memories is the name of the anthology movie. Magnetic Rose is Kon's segment.

Re: The Drenching Richness of Andrei Tarkovsky

#43

Post by zaat »

jamesakirk wrote: post #13

Tarkovsky was an Orthodox Christian, but his ideas about the irreducibility of experience parallel Zen: "Everybody asks me what things mean in my films. This is terrible! An artist doesn't have to answer for his meanings. I don't think so deeply about my work - I don't know what my symbols may represent. What matters to me is that they arouse feelings, any feelings you like, based on whatever your inner response migh…

According to the article he was agnostic.

Re: The Drenching Richness of Andrei Tarkovsky

#44

Post by euroderf »

danielodievich wrote: post #9
SavantIdiot wrote: post #2

If you have some time, watch "Stalker". It's pretty amazing this twisted-reality dreamlike film was made in 1979. It feels right out of 2010.

And The Roadside Picnic by Strugatsky brothers is an incredible read. The movie is loosely-ish based on that but both stand on their own. The book is tightly written and profound in its exploration of human condition when facing pressure of money and exploitation of something we don't understand.

When I try to describe the book to someone, I start with the containers that have ends but no sides. That piques a person's interest.

Re: The Drenching Richness of Andrei Tarkovsky

#45

Post by lemmsjid »

mwattsun wrote: post #31
jamesakirk wrote: post #13

Tarkovsky was an Orthodox Christian, but his ideas about the irreducibility of experience parallel Zen: "Everybody asks me what things mean in my films. This is terrible! An artist doesn't have to answer for his meanings. I don't think so deeply about my work - I don't know what my symbols may represent. What matters to me is that they arouse feelings, any feelings you like, based on whatever your inner response migh…

That's not really Zen though. Zen is expanding your awareness of the present moment to experience it without interpretation, including emotional interpretation, to experience it as it is. Zen is freedom from the constant need to assign meaning and experience feelings about where you are right now. Zen is the calm eye of the storm without attachments to thoughts or emotions, especially those that we use to identify wh…

I might be missing a nuance in what you're saying, because it seems like the way you are describing Zen is indeed similar to what Tarkovsky is describing above. Specifically, he says, "If you look for a meaning, you'll miss everything that happens. Thinking during a film interferes with your experience of it." As you describe Zen, it is "freedom from the constant need to assign meaning and experience feelings about where you are right now". I.e., not interrupting your experience of Tarkovsky's films by attempting to assign meaning.

Re: The Drenching Richness of Andrei Tarkovsky

#46

Post by dhdondldn »

coldtea wrote: post #23
jamesakirk wrote: post #13

Tarkovsky was an Orthodox Christian, but his ideas about the irreducibility of experience parallel Zen: "Everybody asks me what things mean in my films. This is terrible! An artist doesn't have to answer for his meanings. I don't think so deeply about my work - I don't know what my symbols may represent. What matters to me is that they arouse feelings, any feelings you like, based on whatever your inner response migh…

> Tarkovsky was an Orthodox Christian, but his ideas about the irreducibility of experience parallel Zen Let's add that this is not by chance: the irreducibility of experience (especially divine experience) is a core motive of Orthodox Christianity as well (which also has a long tradition of mystics).

The idea that experience is not irreducible is rare. Who thinks they can analyse consciousness into more fundamental elements?

Max Planck: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

Re: The Drenching Richness of Andrei Tarkovsky

#47

Post by skrebbel »

tomcam wrote: post #30
skrebbel wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you justify it for the sake of food?

I certainly can, though I have some ambivalence. If you’re referring to the statement that the horse was eventually sent to a slaughterhouse, it doesn’t address the central ethical question of purposely torturing a horse to get a good shot.

Ah i hadn't noticed the cruelty part. Thanks

Re: The Drenching Richness of Andrei Tarkovsky

#48

Post by mwattsun »

lemmsjid wrote: post #45
mwattsun wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really Zen though. Zen is expanding your awareness of the present moment to experience it without interpretation, including emotional interpretation, to experience it as it is. Zen is freedom from the constant need to assign meaning and experience feelings about where you are right now. Zen is the calm eye of the storm without attachments to thoughts or emotions, especially those that we use to identify wh…

I might be missing a nuance in what you're saying, because it seems like the way you are describing Zen is indeed similar to what Tarkovsky is describing above. Specifically, he says, "If you look for a meaning, you'll miss everything that happens. Thinking during a film interferes with your experience of it." As you describe Zen, it is "freedom from the constant need to assign meaning and experience feelings about w…

Andrei Tarkovsky:

> If you look for a meaning, you'll miss everything that happens

> What matters to me is that they arouse feelings, any feelings you like, based on whatever your inner response might be.

That's great and I like introspective and symbolic films, but arousing feelings is not Zen. Tarkovsky wants us to think less and feel more, which I think characterizes most art. Some people might say something like "I feel good about cats but I feel bad about dogs" (as an example) or "there is a special melancholy in the dawn fog." This is all well and good and what it is to be human, but feelings are subjective and about personal identity and experience. There is nothing inherently good or bad about one or the other when you compare cats and dogs. That's about you, not about cats or dogs. Likewise, there is nothing melancholic about morning fog. Other people might feel intense joy at they way it burns off as the sun rises. Others might feel sad and go back to sleep.

Zen not only gets under the thinking, it gets under the feeling, to experience reality as it is without judgement or processing. Zen is seeing things clearly and calmly. It's clarity without the filter of thoughts and feelings.

I can't know how other people experience the world so I can't tell if my way of achieving clarity is the way other people, such as a Japanese Zen master, experience clarity. Tarkovsky may have achieved his clarity through emotional intelligence and that's what he puts in his films. I'm grateful to have found a way that works for me. It's really no concern of mine that other's have a different way. There is no one way but that's an opinion of mine. When in doubt, I meditate and wait for the clarity to return.

Re: The Drenching Richness of Andrei Tarkovsky

#49

Post by mhh__ »

streamofdigits wrote: post #7

I don't think his work travels particularly well in the West. It is steeped in symbolism, deep metaphysics and calm, meditative, photography. All attributes that have been essentially banned from the fast food production/consumption chain that has conditioned audiences. Its a bit like pop music. If all you've ever heard is (basic) western harmony and suddenly get exposed to some weird oriental stuff it does not even…

You say that even though Tarkovsky is absolutely worshipped by Western film fans?

Re: The Drenching Richness of Andrei Tarkovsky

#50

Post by s1artibartfast »

mwattsun wrote: post #48
lemmsjid wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might be missing a nuance in what you're saying, because it seems like the way you are describing Zen is indeed similar to what Tarkovsky is describing above. Specifically, he says, "If you look for a meaning, you'll miss everything that happens. Thinking during a film interferes with your experience of it." As you describe Zen, it is "freedom from the constant need to assign meaning and experience feelings about w…

Andrei Tarkovsky: > If you look for a meaning, you'll miss everything that happens > What matters to me is that they arouse feelings, any feelings you like, based on whatever your inner response might be. That's great and I like introspective and symbolic films, but arousing feelings is not Zen. Tarkovsky wants us to think less and feel more, which I think characterizes most art. Some people might say something like…

>Zen is seeing things clearly and calmly. It's clarity without the filter of thoughts and feelings.

Based on my my understanding from practitioners, zen is not characterized by absence or elimination of feelings, but not letting them control your behavior or your thoughts. You don't have to feel like a robot, but you might choose to react like one. There are things in life that are beautiful, happy, and sad. The point is not to deny this, but experience it without forming Attachments and reactions. To this end, I have heard of zen masters that can go from laughter to tears simply by shifting their focus. Similarly, there is a rich tradition of very evocative zen Buddhist art.

The film maker may differ in that he wants to inspire a reaction, or maybe not.

Post reply on HN