This news immediately perked me up: Armando Ianucci has made a new show.
The creator of The Thick of It, In the Loop, Veep, and The Death of Stalin is doing a sci-fi comedy? Sign me the fuck up! Of course, after watching the trailer I'm slightly concerned with how oddly fizzy it is instead of Ianucci's trademark dark wit, but Hugh Laurie lets his inner Malcolm Tucker out towards the end of that clip - so we're probably good. Janky CG in January! Yes!
I'm preparing to rewatch the Tarkovsky films I once fell asleep to in my twenties, especially Stalker and Andrei Rublev. I'm hoping to appreciate them more now that I'm older -- and, hopefully, slightly more mature. I haven't decided yet, but I might start with Stalker, because I've read and enjoyed the novel it's loosely based on.
It'll be a challenge.
Stalker was my first Tarkovsky film. And it is still my favorite. I hadn't seen it in a long time, but last month I watched it twice. Still beautiful.
All the other movies are hard to watch. I've seen Offret in the cinema, when it was released. I recently learned that the camera-man in Offret was the guy who shot most of Ingmar Bergman's movies. That's why Offret has such a Bergman-feel. Bergman movies aren't easy too. Last week I decided I need to rewatch Offret. Not done so yet.
There's a 5 minute clip from Nostalghia in a game called The Witness. Beautiful scene, it's the last scene in the movie. So a few years ago, I tried to rewatch Nostalghia. Undoable. The images are beautiful, but the story/plot/lines are not very interesting to me. So I haven't watched the full 2 hours yet in one go. Just scenes of 10-20 minutes. My attention-span is not what I thought it was. Maybe some day I will succeed.
I've seen Solaris twice, many years ago. It is maybe not the best movie ever made, and not even Tarkovsky's best movie. But it has a very special atmosphere. I guess I need to rewatch it again too. Just like Offret.
I think the older movies are even harder to watch. I have a DVD box with Ivan's Childhood, Andrei Rublev and a few other old short films. I've seen some parts of them. But they are even slower, even harder to follow, have fewer lines, etc. Good luck with those.
I think one factor is that when I saw Stalker the first time, I had no clue what I was watching. A very mysterious movie. Around the same time, I also watched Lynch's Eraserhead. Same thing. That was the first time I realized that there were people who made movies that were not about: 1) shooting guns, or 2) love stories. An eye-opener. But since then, I learned that Tarkovky's main theme is God. Or religion. In the seventies in the Soviet-Union, religion was a very dangerous subject. So if you wanted to make a movie about it, you had to use a lot of indirect references, a lot of symbolism. I like that, but I don't care for religion. My simple opinion about religion: it's all bullshit. So I don't want to waste a single second thinking about God or religion. It just doesn't interest me. So now that I found out that the subject of Tarkovsky's movies is actually religion, they lost a bit of their appeal. On the other hand, visually they are still beautiful, and definitely worth watching. If you haven't gotten a copy of Stalker yet, make sure you get the restored bluray version. The non-restored versions have a lot of scratches and other problems. The restored version is definitely worth it.
Last edited by Gryzemuis; 21st Nov 2019 at 11:32.
Interesting, I didn't know that. I liked Persona, so then maybe I'll like The Sacrifice too, at least for the camera work. Also, the religious theme is not uncommon for Bergman either, except that he could be as open and direct about it as he liked without being silenced.All the other movies are hard to watch. I've seen Offret in the cinema, when it was released. I recently learned that the camera-man in Offret was the guy who shot most of Ingmar Bergman's movies.
I remember that clip. I actually thought about it while writing my previous post, and thought to myself that I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be from a Tarkovsky film. The clip could also be said to be about me trying to watch Tarkovsky without falling asleep ("without the candle going out"), but hopefully I won't have to start from the beginning if I do fall asleep. That's otherwise one advantage of watching at home: I can go back and rewatch scenes if I need to. Watching at home also has its disadvantages: more distractions than in the cinema, where it's only you and the screen (with a film like these, a large majority of the audience would be there for the movie, not the snacks, not the company, not their phone, just the movie).There's a 5 minute clip from Nostalghia in a game called The Witness. Beautiful scene, it's the last scene in the movie. So a few years ago, I tried to rewatch Nostalghia. Undoable. The images are beautiful, but the story/plot/lines are not very interesting to me. So I haven't watched the full 2 hours yet in one go. Just scenes of 10-20 minutes. My attention-span is not what I thought it was. Maybe some day I will succeed.
I think I have always had the potential for slow and deliberate in movies. I like it, but there have also always been distractions ("a wind blowing"): as a kid I was less stressed, but more impatient, and now I am less impatient, but more stressed. Three hours is a long time for one movie, and maybe Tarkovsky is too much of the slow and the deliberate, but that is what I want to find out, and I think the time is now right to give him a second chance.
I have seen it once (during the same period as the others). I don't remember if I fell asleep or not... All I remember now is that I had the exact same thought while watching it as I had while reading the novel: if the people in it had only communicated with each other, being honest and open about the things that bothered them, things would not have gone the way they went. In that way, the movie made the novel justice.I've seen Solaris twice, many years ago.
You ought to watch a Lav Diaz movie. His "shortest" most accessible movie, Norte, the End of History, is four hours long. If you turn on subtitles though, you can actually watch it at like 3x the speed and it works. You can resume it at regular speed for some of the artistic shots just to get the flavor and then get back to the speed run. (It's a retelling of Crime & Punishment, so the movie works because that basic story works.) I don't know if you could do the speedrun trick for a Tarkovski movie, though, since the artistic shots are kind of the whole point to begin with.
I watched Russia Dolls recently. It's a repackaged Groundhog Day with a few added twists that make it into something more unique and meaningful. It definitely has, I don't know if you'd call it an agenda per se, but a very specific vision where groups play up both their differences and their interconnections. It captures living in New York, where every few blocks are entire ethnic enclaves that are jammed into proximity, so at any given party or on any street corner you'll be waiting for the light to change, you'll be surrounded by the athletic gay black Muslim guy, the old Hassidic Jewish guy, the chubby Latin gender fluid one, the wheelchair bound albino, all in the same world hanging out, (edit from here) half of them probably having sex with the other half, or some other who-knows-what connection.
It can be overplayed, but I think it was true to the spirit of the place and it made me nostalgic for being in that scene for a while anyway. Anybody could have any kind of connection to anybody else, you can't predict. I think that was the deeper meaning of the show, and the looper plot was a vehicle for that. Also the interplay between people dealing with relationships and their own inner demons. It's probably better to take it as a running metaphor than a scifi story, but it does have fun with the time-bending parts. Anyway, it's an easy binge watch (only 3.5 hours for the whole thing) so I can recommend it.
Last edited by demagogue; 22nd Nov 2019 at 10:17.
Russian Doll actually takes a bunch of things from a pre-Groundhog Day story in terms of structure. I was impressed with its portrayal of NYC in those ways you mention, and the fact that it's got Natasha Lyonne doing essentially her Orange is the New Black character is another plus. It was a fun ride. I've got some more to say about it, but when I get my head back together probably.
My brain ezploded ...Originally Posted by demagogue
Why would you wanna do that ? If you want to do that, you can just as well watch something else. Maybe a Transformers movie would be better for you. I heard those are fast, have a lot of action, and there's a hot chick in them. Probably much better than that ancient russian junk. (Anything Russian is bad anyway, right ? Goddamn hackers are the cause of everything wrong in the US. Everything, I tells ya. So don't watch Russian movies. We're not commies after all, are we ?)
Have you ever actually watched a 6-8 hour movie before, the average length of a Lav Diaz movie? If so, then it's hard to understand how you could equate wanting to watch them in an bit more accessible way as tantamount to watching the Transformers. I mean he could have a 40 minute scene focusing just on a fern and a few wind gusts. It'd be artistic, I'd like meditating on it for the first 15 minutes, but come on... And if you haven't than gtfoh and go watch some so you have some perspective on this.
In my younger days I'd be able to enjoy a 6 hour film straight, but these days I quite literally don't have that kind of time. But even still they are worth seeing in a form I can access. Man, even art has to cater to real life limitations sometimes.
And you missed the whole punchline. You couldn't do it for a Tarkovsky movie. If you're not watching one of his films to take in the full slow ambience then it's kind of pointless to watch it at all (which is different than Diaz). Also they're not quite that ridiculously long and plodding. Diaz makes Tarkovsky look like Michael Bay in comparison.
The remark about Transformers was a joke, of course. For the rest, I think we agree about Tarkovsky. I just rather not watch a movie, than watch it at 3x the original speed. I just was knocked out for a minute by the idea that someone would do that to Stalker.
Oddly serious tone, tho I like the restraint in this trailer. Doesn't seem like it gives away anything past the early parts of the movie.
Weeeell it certainly looks flashy!
About time Black Widow got a standalone movie. Probably a good idea to go small-scale after the spectacle that the last 2 Avengers episodes were. Although as much as I like David Harbour, couldn't they give that role to an actual Russian actor?
Man, this trailer gives away a lot. A handful of character reveals and a pile of what I'm guessing are the best action-shots. Yet it fails to capture my interest. I mean, I'll probably go see the movie no matter what, but still, bad trailer.
So, wait, is Wonder Woman 1984 anything to do with Orwell's 1984? Or just, like, set in the 80's?
That new Ghostbusters trailer.
...it doesn't look terrible. Given that the entire cast of the original Ghostbusters (sans Harold Ramis for obvious reasons) is making a return to reprise their old roles, I'm very, very cautiously hopeful.
As far as you know.
Oh, that's right! THIS IS A GHOST MOVIE!
It's a movie about ghosts, we're living in the age of CG actor revivals, and it's subtitled Afterlife. Being dead is not sufficient excuse for Spengler to sit this one out.
edit: Ah, TTLG, where if you take more then 30 seconds to make an obvious quip, someone will beat you to the punch.
Well, that's what you get.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote