Jump to content

Star Wars


Guest Tim Partridge

Recommended Posts

Actually Kubrick was doing a "hack for hire" job on SPARTACUS, after original director Anthony Mann was fired. SPARTACUS was just another quickly churned out exploitation biblical epic. Kubrick loathed the script's moralising and this convinced him to only do films for which he had total control from then on. This is why SPARTACUS doesn't comfortably alongside every other Kubrick movie: it's artificial looking, heartless and insincere. Kind of like the new STAR WARS movies...

 

'Spartacus' is not a biblical epic, it would be a historical epic. Biblical epics are a subgenre of that.

 

While 'Spartacus' might be lesser Kubrick, in the ancient Rome subgenre of historical epics it is one of the better ones. It and Mann's 'The Fall of the Roman Empire' are the two best of the ancient Rome subgenre.

 

Neither of them deal with Christianity. 'Spartacus' takes place during the Republic thus pre-Christian.

'Fall...', which takes place at the height of the Empire, ignores Christianity. Marcus Aurelius thought Christianity was dangerous for the Empire anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I just wanted to tell all you guys who like Tarkovsky, well,..... I don't know. It makes me happy to see people quote him, celebrate him, etc. I'm a huge admirer of his work as well....we are a small club, believe me. At least compared to the Tarantino AV club.... :) All in fun, not being snobbish.

 

A lot of so-called "afficianados" I converse with have never really studied him and its saddening. Not pro's but the film club types, college kids, etc. (yes, I'm judging as a group. I know students like him, however. I was one myself...)

"oh, yeah, I've heard of him. 'Rublev', right?"

Umm,...yes, correct. Have you ever really seen anything of his?

"uh, yeah. But, you know, a long time ago...."

Dude, you're 24. How long ago could it have been...

Then the conversation turns to Eisenstien as they make a russian connection...and my brain flips a sommersault in agitation, because the 'school' is oozing out at that point...montage over TIME, but I'll stop. :P

 

I agree with most. 'Solaris' or 'Andrei Rublev' would be a good start. 'Rublev' was my first Tarkovsky and it will definitly tell you all about his cinema for the newcomer. Of course he only has 7 films, not counting 'Steamroller...' or his other shorts, so it won't take long to read the catalogue.

 

Feast thine eyes upon his genius...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of so-called "afficianados" I converse with have never really studied him and its saddening. Not pro's but the film club types, college kids, etc. (yes, I'm judging as a group. I know students like him, however. I was one myself...)

 

 

One thing that I've noticed is there's a lot of people who feel more pleasure in telling others they've watched a movie by Tarkovsky or read a book by Dostoevsky, for example, than really in watching the movie or reading the book.

 

And this is funny because to me watching Tarkovsky should be a personal thing. I don't know if you guys agree with me but, with the exception of "Solaris", I generally don't feel the need to discuss his movies with anybody. It's more about being in contact with myself, or appreciating the simple things in life as for example the running water, or the sound of a man leafing through a book of paintings or even the silence.

 

So I think these guys who just like telling everybody they like Tarkovsky don't actually understand the real meaning of his movies which it's kind of sad.

 

Well, that's just my personal opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post...and a great perspective.

 

Its telling that most of us don't talk of the content. Moreso the effect of an affective style. You can go back and read, annoying as they are, my past posts on this subject and it almost always revolves around technique/theory. This is what Tarkovsky does to my insides. The content is so personal and powerful yet somehow distanced, not to say 'cold', that the technique comes into question. It is very perplexing and I think most people contemplate this feeling. And to be contemplative is to be inside yourself, so-to-speak, which you already described as the personal viewing experience.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is Tarkovsky impresses the mind by moving the feelings? If that makes any sense at all...

 

....anyway I'm starting to sound ridiculous/pretensious. It's a slippery slope when discussing Tarkovsky, or any real personal art. You can fall right into the chasm of pretension without even realizing it! So, I better go now...

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I generally don't feel the need to discuss his movies with anybody. It's more about being in contact with myself, or appreciating the simple things in life as for example the running water, or the sound of a man leafing through a book of paintings or even the silence.

 

You're doing it now. You've entered a discussion about Tarkovsky's work.

 

So I think these guys who just like telling everybody they like Tarkovsky don't actually understand the real meaning of his movies which it's kind of sad.

 

This is an interesting correlation you are drawing between people's understanding of Tarkovsky's work and their desire to tell others that they appreciate his work.

 

How, specifically, is someone's desire to tell everyone they like Tarkovsky an indicator that they don't understand the real meaning of his movies? How do you know that they don't understand the work or that they haven't seen the films?

 

AJB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I guess what I'm trying to say is Tarkovsky impresses the mind by moving the feelings?

 

Interesting. Or for some (like me), it starts in the head and sustains itself to the point where eventually the mind no longer attempts to deconstruct and we are left with only emotions.

 

AJB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
For the rest of us however, bottom line means the difference between continuing to be allowed make inovative and artistic films and doing wine commercials for a living. B)

Not necessarily.

 

Here in Europe a lot of films have some, if not the majority, of their budgets covered by public funding (i.e the gouvernment). These films are mainly judged by artistic and cultural criteria and if a filmmaker creates films of great artistic value, then he will continue to get funding for his films, regardless whether they make their money back or not. To be honest I find this setup much more liberating, because your creativity isn't limited by commercial considerations that so often torpedo more entertainment oriented films (like casting an actor because he is famous, not because he is right for the part). The drawback of this system is that budgets are smaller, but I'd rather deal with less money than with less freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I agree with most. 'Solaris' or 'Andrei Rublev' would be a good start. 'Rublev' was my first Tarkovsky and it will definitly tell you all about his cinema for the newcomer.

My two favourites are 'Andrei Rublev' and 'Stalker'. 'Solaris' I don't like quite as much. 'Andrei Rublev' is good as first Tarkovsky, because it structured in chapters, very much like a novel. So even though the film is 3 1/2 hours long, you do not absolutely need to watch it in one go.

 

In the very nice Turkish film 'Uzak' which won a prize at Cannes two years ago the director uses the uninitiated's first impression of Tarkovsky to good effect. The main character is watching a sexfilm on tv, when his cousin enters the room was well. He quickly switches to another channel and lands on 'Stalker'. In particular the very long scene with the three characters driving on the train rails where not much happens. That's the best thing that could have happened to the main character: he pretends to be very interested in this and after a while the cousin leaves the room again, obvioulsy not too intruiged by Tarkovsky. At which point the main character switches back to the sexfilm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily.

 

Here in Europe a lot of films have some, if not the majority, of their budgets covered by public funding (i.e the gouvernment). These films are mainly judged by artistic and cultural criteria and if a filmmaker creates films of great artistic value, then he will continue to get funding for his films, regardless whether they make their money back or not. To be honest I find this setup much more liberating, because your creativity isn't limited by commercial considerations that so often torpedo more entertainment oriented films (like casting an actor because he is famous, not because he is right for the part). The drawback of this system is that budgets are smaller, but I'd rather deal with less money than with less freedom.

 

Max

 

So you condone the squandering of public funds on something as unnecessary as movies.

 

I reject your assertion that certain filmmakers should have carte blanche because they've produced an arty film in their past. This mounts to elitism.

 

I am amazed someone as knowledgeable as you in cinema would resort to such haut monde attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're doing it now. You've entered a discussion about Tarkovsky's work.

 

Ok, well, what I meant was I don't feel the need to discuss the plots in detail. I'm not saying I don't discuss it. And besides here we are talking about Tarkovsky in general and why we appreciate his work and not any specific passage of "The Mirror", for example. For comparison purposes, after I watched "Mulholland Drive" by David Lynch, the story was so incredible and puzzling that the first thing I wanted to do was to find someone to discuss it with.

 

So that's the way I react to Tarkovsky's movies. They are equally incredible but it's more like a personal experience and I believe that's exactly what he wants you to feel. But again, that's just the way I see his movies and of course I respect everybody's opinion.

 

How, specifically, is someone's desire to tell everyone they like Tarkovsky an indicator that they don't understand the real meaning of his movies? How do you know that they don't understand the work or that they haven't seen the films?

 

No, I was referring to some people who JUST like to tell others they appreciate Tarkovsky without even watching or making some effort to understand or appreciate his movies. Not only Tarkovsky actually. For example, a long time ago I saw an actress say on TV the funniest book she's ever read was "The Divine Comedy" by Dante Alighieri ... well, if you really read the book you know that what she said is a complete absurd of course. It's not even a matter of interpretation. So I was referring to this kind of people and this kind of behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
So you condone the squandering of public funds on something as unnecessary as movies.

 

I do not consider the financing of films to be 'squandering of public funds'. I like to think that films are art and as such should be publicly supported, like any art. And I also support the screen quotas in certain countries who limit the number of Hollywood films on their screens, in order to give their own films a chance to be seen. The incredible quality and output of Korean cinema for instance is a direct result of this. Cultural diversity is very important and needs to be encouraged. When I go to the cinema I want more choice than just HP and MI3.

 

I reject your assertion that certain filmmakers should have carte blanche because they've produced an arty film in their past. This mounts to elitism.

 

I never mentioned 'carte blanche' anywhere. What I am talking about is enabling people to make films who have other aspirations than merely making a popular flick that will make its money back. People who want to create works of art with a lasting impact.

 

The bodies who distribute this public money all have a system in place already which controls who will get funding, based on certain criteria like the filmmakers previous work and his current script. So it's not like you can just collect your cool million and go off to film grass grow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Mirror" to me was more difficult to get through though. It's shorter but for some reason I had difficulty "feeling" it. "Stalker" on the other hand, is very easy to watch (in my opinion).

 

"Nostalghia" was the first one I saw (in a beautiful 35mm print at Lincoln Plaza); but I was unsure at that time as to what I thought...

 

Subsequently a DP friend of mine recommended "My Name Is Ivan" aka "Ivan's Childhood" specifically regarding lighting - in an early scene where charchters come into a room blocking the source light as they move.. we were talking about some things I was doing and he talked up this scene -- it was a good "entre" to Tarkovsky...

 

I'm hardly adverse to "art cinema" (understatement) but Tarkovsky took some, I don't know, recalibration of expectations maybe.

 

I think "Mirror" is the one I value most now.

 

-Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Or for some (like me), it starts in the head and sustains itself to the point where eventually the mind no longer attempts to deconstruct and we are left with only emotions.

 

AJB

 

 

Ahh, now we're getting down to brass tacks...

 

I think you use the word 'deconstruct' like I use the word 'contemplate', at least in regards to processing Tarkovsky and assuming we both take it as an 'intellectual evaluation' of the whole experience, being emotional, spiritual, what have you.....Where you 'deconstruct' , I 'contemplate' afterwards. To 'deconstruct' connotes a intellectual "struggle" during the viewing process, for me. It is only after an initial summation of what has passed before me as a whole can I 'deconstruct', or 'contemplate' his work.

 

I find it that way when reading poetry as well. To 'think' and 'analyze' during a reading of verse, no matter how short, only takes away from my experience. If what I have read tugs on my insides, then the 'contemplative' process begins. I don't think it's a coincident I "read" Tarkovsky this way...

 

I am personally not left with 'emotion', rather an intellectual "scar" that needs investigating after Tarkovsky.

 

It is very, no extremely, interesting to read of yours and others viewing experience. It tells more about a person than speaking openly about politics, for example. It speaks in abundance to a persons aborosbtion process.

 

Very interesting, indeed.... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, his business savvy is second to none, but he doesn't MAKE the special effects himself. He isn't even totally in control of the money there. He just owns the facility.

 

That's like saying David O Selznick had nothing to do with the success of Gone with the Wind. It's an abserd statment and not worthy of comment other than to say Bill Gates doesn't write software eather.

 

As I said before, it's a STAR WARS movie, because he is resting on his STAR WARS/INDY JONES laurels. With the built in fanbase he can't fail, but Lucas doesn't dare produce a new original picture because of the track record of bombs Lucasfilm has outside of SW/INDY with HOWARD, WILLOW, TUCKER, RADIOLAND MURDERS. All did did atrocious box office. That obviously means something to GL regardless of how much he may have enjoyed making the projects, because he hasn't invested in any original material since 1994. That's a very significant fact that should not be overlooked.

 

Well that YOUR opinion but EVEN IF that were true who but a GENIUS film maker could creat such an extensive and loyal fan base? You've just made my point for me. Lucas created something UNPRESIDENTED in the HISTORY of films. As to your other points , need I remind you he didn't DIRECT Howard the Duck, Willow, or Radioland Murders. Tucker was FAR from a bomb from IMDB: Awards: Nominated for 3 Oscars. Another 5 wins & 2 nominations. But I"D say the success and iconic status of the Iniana Jones and Star Wars series' will more than make up for the few mis-steps Lucasfilms has had.

 

So you are judging a director's artistic success on how well his business ventures, EXCLUSIVELY in special effects have gone? :huh: Do I even have to justify this?? :blink:

 

No I'm judging his directing ability on two American ICONS American Graffetti and Staw Wars. Either one of which would qualify him as a GREAT director.

 

As far as making money goes, George Lucas is a genius. However, as a CREATIVE force his success (box office and artistic) is very limited, and not something I admire.

 

Then you are sadly mis-informed and mis-guided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I think you use the word 'deconstruct' like I use the word 'contemplate', at least in regards to processing Tarkovsky and assuming we both take it as an 'intellectual evaluation' of the whole experience,

 

I was referring to the experience in the moment of watching the film. That by nature, my mind first will attempt to find answers to what is going on at the moment, in context of what has already happened and what the moment seems to "plan" for the future, and then, if I find that the experience I am having watching the film does not necessitate such a mental operation, then usually, if the film is good, it will become an emotional experience - during the film - not afterwards (thats the "experience" part).

 

The contemplation/analysis etc. afterwards goes without saying but it falls into a totally different intellectual area than what goes on while watching the film (for me at least). I won't start watching a film with the assumption that I should think or feel a certain way or that I should apply a certain method of thinking (unless I am familiar with the artist's body of work). It just so happens that when I start watching a film, if it is good, I will be given the signals by the filmmaker as to how I should proceed - and that, to me is primarily a thing that starts in the mind and ends in the heart. Of course, after watching a certain amount of films by a certain filmmaker one can enter the situation with expectations and those expectations will in turn affect how one chooses to proceed. But again, those expectations as a result of knowing the artist's work is something that resides in the mind.

 

AJB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
the squandering of public funds on something as unnecessary as movies.

 

I reject (the) assertion that certain filmmakers should have carte blanche because they've produced an arty film in their past. This mounts to elitism.

 

Its not really about making arty films. Its about making sure that there is an attempt to support/finance films that make statements about or represent elements in society or are an unhindered expression of emotion or thought that comes from within the society. Its actually what culture is all about. Its very important that these films get made. These films are very necessary as expressions of culture for future generations - and I don't think there's a problem with allocating public funds for that purpose.

 

Now, the question of whether these films are good or bad is another issue. Thats more an issue related to how these projects are chosen rather than whether these types of projects should be funded.

 

AJB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two favourites are 'Andrei Rublev' and 'Stalker'. 'Solaris' I don't like quite as much. 'Andrei Rublev' is good as first Tarkovsky, because it structured in chapters, very much like a novel. So even though the film is 3 1/2 hours long, you do not absolutely need to watch it in one go.

 

In the very nice Turkish film 'Uzak' which won a prize at Cannes two years ago the director uses the uninitiated's first impression of Tarkovsky to good effect. The main character is watching a sexfilm on tv, when his cousin enters the room was well. He quickly switches to another channel and lands on 'Stalker'. In particular the very long scene with the three characters driving on the train rails where not much happens. That's the best thing that could have happened to the main character: he pretends to be very interested in this and after a while the cousin leaves the room again, obvioulsy not too intruiged by Tarkovsky. At which point the main character switches back to the sexfilm...

 

I didn't realize Tarkovsky directed Solaris. I never saw Andrei Rublev or Stalker, but I did see Solaris a couple of times and if this is typical of his films, I got to be honest, I wasn't that impressed. It had some interesting and haunting moments and was unlike any sci/fi film I had seen but ultimately didn't do that much for me. For pure artistic value, I find David Lynch's work much more interesting and compelling. As far a Europian films and foriegn directors go I would say La Stata ond The Seventh Seal had far more artistic impact on me than Solaris, even Kurosawa's Seven Siamuri was more artistically fulfilling so who's to say Lucas' Star Wars is less important an artistic statment than Solaris? I for one don't. Say what you like, Star wars changed the world and ultimately, isn't that what all art strives to do? B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Max

 

So you condone the squandering of public funds on something as unnecessary as movies.

 

I reject your assertion that certain filmmakers should have carte blanche because they've produced an arty film in their past. This mounts to elitism.

 

I am amazed someone as knowledgeable as you in cinema would resort to such haut monde attitude.

 

In the UK this is a debate that has always been fierce and dirty ever since the UK national lottery ever started funding film. It does have a neccessary place in a country where the film industry strugles to operate with international competition - particularly from the US. It depends really whether you see film as entertainment or art, but a country like the UK is still considerably culturally different from the US and should be able illustrate and dramatise that on film.

 

You critise they shouldn't be funded because of their artiness - well thats not always the motivation but its difficult to judge a project purely on the quality of the script and film-makers, so therefor a question of how 'alternative' a film is - Is it stylisticly different (arty) or does it depict alternative sexualities or minority races for instance.

 

If you start pouring public money into popular cinema, then the temptation to seek profit becomes too great - thats what happend with UK film funding in the mid 90's as dozens of terrible Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Trainspotting clones are made and subsequently ignored, both critically and by the box office.

 

If you look at the French model of public film funding (which has been around since the new wave) it has been a great (though controvercial) success in maintaining the uniqueness of French cinema and also starting the international careers of French filmmakers. Infact often the smallness of these productions becomes their saving grace - they never cost enough to be a major flop. Infact if you look at the 18 or something films Francois Truffaut made, not a single one made a loss - thats something very few US filmmakers could boast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I did look up the amount of public money that went into the film industry in Luxembourg. The gouvernemnt here invested a total of 13 Million Euros for the year 2005. At the same time total budget of the gouvernement for the same year was 7.6 Billion Euros. So these 13 Million represent merely 0.17% of the total budget. To spend such a small amount of the budget on something which besides a financial return also has a lasting cultural and artistic impact does seem like a good investment and something worth defending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the UK this is a debate that has always been fierce and dirty ever since the UK national lottery ever started funding film. It does have a neccessary place in a country where the film industry strugles to operate with international competition - particularly from the US. It depends really whether you see film as entertainment or art, but a country like the UK is still considerably culturally different from the US and should be able illustrate and dramatise that on film.

 

You critise they shouldn't be funded because of their artiness - well thats not always the motivation but its difficult to judge a project purely on the quality of the script and film-makers, so therefor a question of how 'alternative' a film is - Is it stylisticly different (arty) or does it depict alternative sexualities or minority races for instance.

 

If you start pouring public money into popular cinema, then the temptation to seek profit becomes too great - thats what happend with UK film funding in the mid 90's as dozens of terrible Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Trainspotting clones are made and subsequently ignored, both critically and by the box office.

 

If you look at the French model of public film funding (which has been around since the new wave) it has been a great (though controvercial) success in maintaining the uniqueness of French cinema and also starting the international careers of French filmmakers. Infact often the smallness of these productions becomes their saving grace - they never cost enough to be a major flop. Infact if you look at the 18 or something films Francois Truffaut made, not a single one made a loss - thats something very few US filmmakers could boast.

 

 

I never said that I oppose public funding for art movies alone and allow subsidies for more "commercial" ventures. I just don't think that subsidies in the entertainment industry is justified in countries where there are fiscal limits on other branches of public service. Such as healthcare and transportation infrastructure.

 

Well, on the other hand, I think that even I would condone any government fully funding movies like "United 93" for its propaganda value.

Edited by Arni Heimir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you mean condemn?

 

No, condone [to pardon or forgive (an offense); excuse]

 

I take that you will disagree with me.

 

Movies like "United 93" are not anti-islamic in my oppinion. But a reminder of how islamic fanaticism is a danger to the free world. Just to clarify, I personally, draw a clear distinction betweem Islam and the perverted ideology carried thru by the those depicted in "United 93".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CINELEASE

CineLab

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Film Gears

Visual Products

BOKEH RENTALS

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...