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

21–30 of 83 posts

Re: The Drenching Richness of Andrei Tarkovsky

#21

Post by qbasic_forever »

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…

There are directors in the west that have similar ideas and even see some mainstream success, for example Terrence Malik.

Re: The Drenching Richness of Andrei Tarkovsky

#22

Post by marttt »

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.

The central parts involving the Zone were filmed in and around Tallinn, Estonia [1, 2].

EDIT: Ugh, looks like some people may have died because of the lengthy filming sessions near a chemical plant. Wikipedia quotes one of the crew members [3]:

"We were shooting near Tallinn in the area around the small river Jägala with a half-functioning hydroelectric station. Up the river was a chemical plant and it poured out poisonous liquids downstream. There is even this shot in Stalker: snow falling in the summer and white foam floating down the river. In fact it was some horrible poison. Many women in our crew got allergic reactions on their faces. Tarkovsky died from cancer of the right bronchial tube. And Tolya Solonitsyn too. That it was all connected to the location shooting for Stalker became clear to me when Larisa Tarkovskaya died from the same illness in Paris."

1: https://www.bfi.org.uk/features/andrei-tarkovsky-stalker-loc...

2: https://dobraszczyk.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/tallinntarkovsk...

3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalker_(1979_film)#Production

Re: The Drenching Richness of Andrei Tarkovsky

#23

Post by coldtea »

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).

Re: The Drenching Richness of Andrei Tarkovsky

#24

Post by coldtea »

stareblinkstare wrote: post #19
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…

You say "but" as if Orthodox Christians are contrary to this. Put another way, there is a greater overlap between the thinking (and feeling, and believing) embedded in religions than we can garner just from reading.

Came to write just that. In fact had just finished my comment when I saw yours :-)

Re: The Drenching Richness of Andrei Tarkovsky

#25

Post by danielodievich »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #18
danielodievich wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is a good translation?

I read Russian natively but wife does not and she was satisfied by the Bormashenko work. see https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/4s4bv7/is_there_a_be...

Re: The Drenching Richness of Andrei Tarkovsky

#26

Post by coldtea »

loloquwowndueo wrote: post #3

Oh I like Tarkovsky. Nothing puts me right to sleep like his films do. Set up a 1h off-timer and sweet dreams!

Yeah, it does take an active mind to not be put to sleep by such films. They're not for the passive consumer who awaits to be entertained with plot twists and/or explosions. In general, they're not there to entertain anyone...

Re: The Drenching Richness of Andrei Tarkovsky

#28

Post by skrebbel »

kolbusa wrote: post #20

Tarkovsky is a genius. The original novel for Stalker is a must read (esp. if you can read Russian). But I cannot watch some of his movies after I learned that he _cruelly_ killed a horse in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Rublev_(film)#Depiction... . I cannot justify this for the sake of art.

Can you justify it for the sake of food?

Re: The Drenching Richness of Andrei Tarkovsky

#29

Post by kolbusa »

skrebbel wrote: post #28
kolbusa wrote: post #20

Tarkovsky is a genius. The original novel for Stalker is a must read (esp. if you can read Russian). But I cannot watch some of his movies after I learned that he _cruelly_ killed a horse in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Rublev_(film)#Depiction... . I cannot justify this for the sake of art.

Can you justify it for the sake of food?

Probably, if killed responsibly. The scene in the movie is just animal cruelty in my opinion (edited my comment for clarity).

Re: The Drenching Richness of Andrei Tarkovsky

#30

Post by tomcam »

skrebbel wrote: post #28
kolbusa wrote: post #20

Tarkovsky is a genius. The original novel for Stalker is a must read (esp. if you can read Russian). But I cannot watch some of his movies after I learned that he _cruelly_ killed a horse in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Rublev_(film)#Depiction... . I cannot justify this for the sake of art.

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.
Post reply on HN