SOLARIS
Raghuram Selvaraju
Just wanted to draw attention to SOLARIS, Andrei Tarkovsky's Russian
sci-fi masterpiece...
not comparable to 2001, but a tremendous movie and perhaps one of the
most powerful motion pictures ever made.
see it - when you have a day off - it clocks in at about 167 minutes.
Kian Bergstrom
In article <koUSLmS00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Raghuram Selvaraju
<ragh...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
In my opinion, the finest motion picture yet made, by the way. I only
wish I could see it with the mirror room segment intact. Sigh.
Tarkovsky is Kubrick turned inside out, unable to move beyond the simple
familial structures that have defined and limited him all his life.
-Kian
------------------------------------------------------------
Kian Bergstrom - kber...@wso.williams.edu
He uses his camera like an old gunfighter with his
six shooter.
-Ryan O'Neal on Stanley Kubrick
In attempting to name everything that enters my
field of vision, I am in essence defending myself
against the hostile, unintelligable world that
presses in on me from all sides.
-from _The Magic of Words_, by Andrey Bely
ADAM WEST: I'm just a little crazy - obsessed
with fighting crime - but I have no superpowers.
SPACE GHOST: Then your whole life is a lie!
-from Space Ghost Coast to Coast, Episode 9
Finger me for my pgp public key,
and to get to know me better.
Bilge Ebiri
Raghuram Selvaraju <ragh...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>Just wanted to draw attention to SOLARIS, Andrei Tarkovsky's Russian
>sci-fi masterpiece...
>
>not comparable to 2001, but a tremendous movie and perhaps one of the
>most powerful motion pictures ever made.
>
>see it - when you have a day off - it clocks in at about 167 minutes.
..And feels like 276 minutes!
Sorry, couldn't resist. I love Tarkovsky but Solaris was a snooze.
Stalker is not only longer but better.
--B.
Phil Noir
I would rather thrust a hot knitting needle into my eyeball than be subjected
to Solaris ever again. The preCambrian pace negates whatever ideas it is
attempting to develop. Read the book -- at least you can turn the pages faster.
Kian Bergstrom
In article <19971201041...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
phil...@aol.com (Phil Noir) wrote:
I certainly respect your dislike of the pacing of the film, though I don't
share it, but how does the pacing negate the ideas the film is addressing?
Lev28
Phil Noir wrote:
>I would rather thrust a hot knitting needle into my eyeball than be subjected
>to Solaris ever again. The preCambrian pace negates whatever ideas it is
>attempting to develop. Read the book -- at least you can turn the pages
>faster.
>
pompously as a "filmmaker" . The above post demonstrates that Phil Noir is at
the most an insensitive talentless follower of "good" filmmaking, ie;
homongenised pace homongenised content. The hollywood style of bombast and more
bombast.
Tarkovskij was a poet, he cared not for entertaining assholes like Phil Noir.
Geoffrey recently wrote that Forrest Gump was not a film made for us but
against us. With this post Phil Noir shows himself to be against us. I think
he would be better off posting in Alt. quick cuts . MTV.
Really, I am offended and disgusted that anyone would impugn the memory of such
a great man in this way. Yes I knew him and yes I take this personally.
FUCK OFF PHIL NOIR
LEV
Greg Lowry
Hey, if Phil doesn't like Solaris, he doesn't like Solaris. So what? I
don't believe his criticism implies a personal vendetta against
Tarkovski and makes him an "insensitive, talentless follower...” It's a
personal opinion. That you should take it so personally is unfortunate.
geoffrey alexander
le...@aol.com (Lev28) writes:
>Phil Noir wrote:
>>I would rather thrust a hot knitting needle into my eyeball than be subjected
>>to Solaris ever again. The preCambrian pace negates whatever ideas it is
>>attempting to develop. Read the book -- at least you can turn the pages
>>faster.
>>
>I gather from some of Phil Noir's other posts that he regards himself somewhat
>pompously as a "filmmaker" . The above post demonstrates that Phil Noir is at
>the most an insensitive talentless follower of "good" filmmaking, ie;
>homongenised pace homongenised content. The hollywood style of bombast and more
>bombast.
>Tarkovskij was a poet, he cared not for entertaining assholes like Phil Noir.
>Geoffrey recently wrote that Forrest Gump was not a film made for us but
>against us. With this post Phil Noir shows himself to be against us. I think
>he would be better off posting in Alt. quick cuts . MTV.
>Really, I am offended and disgusted that anyone would impugn the memory of such
>a great man in this way. Yes I knew him and yes I take this personally.
>FUCK OFF PHIL NOIR
Tarkovsky was a poet, yes, but Solaris IS a snoozer.
--
Geoffrey Alexander
finger geof...@beethoven.iavalley.cc.ia.us
for pgp public key, website addresses, and other fun things.
Bilge Ebiri
>
> I would rather thrust a hot knitting needle into my eyeball than be
>subjected
> to Solaris ever again. The preCambrian pace negates whatever ideas it is
> attempting to develop. Read the book -- at least you can turn the
>pages faster.
>
>share it, but how does the pacing negate the ideas the film is addressing?
>
>-Kian
>
The pacing negates the ideas he is addressing only insofar that if the
film fails to keep its viewer's attention, then it ceases to have
addressed anything at all -- the tree falling in a forest metaphor, if
you will.
A director has a responsibility to keep his/her audience interested, in
order for them to somehow accept a film and to engage in it, whether that
filmmaker be Spielberg, Bergman, or Stan Brakhage. Being responsible to
one's audience does not constitute pandering or selling out, but in fact
it denotes respect.
Slow pacing is not necessarily the problem; a film simply may not be
paced right for a certain individual. I love STALKER, which is on the
whole a far, far slower paced film than SOLARIS, and yet while it keeps
me riveted, SOLARIS bores me. Go figure. Sometimes things just don't
click. But then again, SOLARIS is generally seen as one of Tarkovsky's
greatest films, and yet it's the one I least enjoy. Maybe I'm just some
sort of freak.
--B.
Bilge Ebiri
le...@aol.com (Lev28) wrote:
>Phil Noir wrote:
>>I would rather thrust a hot knitting needle into my eyeball than be subjected
>>to Solaris ever again. The preCambrian pace negates whatever ideas it is
>>attempting to develop. Read the book -- at least you can turn the pages
>>faster.
>>
>pompously as a "filmmaker" . The above post demonstrates that Phil Noir is at
>the most an insensitive talentless follower of "good" filmmaking, ie;
>homongenised pace homongenised content. The hollywood style of bombast and more
>bombast.
>
>Tarkovskij was a poet, he cared not for entertaining assholes like Phil Noir.
>Geoffrey recently wrote that Forrest Gump was not a film made for us but
>against us. With this post Phil Noir shows himself to be against us. I think
>he would be better off posting in Alt. quick cuts . MTV.
>
>Really, I am offended and disgusted that anyone would impugn the memory of such
>a great man in this way. Yes I knew him and yes I take this personally.
>
>FUCK OFF PHIL NOIR
>
>
Calm down, pal. I love Tarkovsky, and though I never knew him I've
worked with many people who knew him, and the fact is that a person is
entitled to his/her opinion. I don't like SOLARIS either, so where do I
fit in in your scheme of "what must be done" didactivism?
Phil has distinguished himself many times on this newsgroup through his
perceptive posts, many of which I personally have disagreed with. You
have also said many worthwhile things, but somehow after such an
irresponsible and pig-headed comment I'm going to find it harder to take
you seriously. I'd like to think I'm wrong.
--Bilge.
Phil Noir
Is that LEV for levity? Wow, a little hyperbolie goes a long way on the amk.
Thanks for the attention. What a rush. ;)
So, the fact that I find Solaris a snoozer discounts my objectivity, my taste
and my personal creativity? Gee, what would you say if Kubrick himself thought
Solaris was a steaming pile of Rhino dung?
Anyway, you neglected to mention my observation that the pace hurt the *ideas*
of the film, which implies that I did not dismiss it out of hand like an Event
Horizon, etc. You sound like the same shrieking skywalkers who don't "get"
2001.
I happen to like films of all paces, from Barry Lyndon ("leisurely," it has
been called) to the breakneck stylings of Aliens. Ultimately, I am interested
in an *internal pace,* one which befits & compliments the subject matter. Many
of my favorite films are Kurusawa's, for example. Draw your own conclusions.
VIK
I clearly remember the first time I saw Solaris and needless to say, I was
shocked. Without a doubt Solaris is one of those movies, like ACO or Paths
of Glory, that jolts awake areas of yourself you never knew existed. It was
a life changing experience. It was, without a doubt, one of the "deepest"
movies I've ever seen. There are great movies and then there are Great!
movies. Solaris, friends, is a GREAT motion picture.
To all those who have not yet seen it, do yourself a favor, ignore the
ignorant rants of the wanna-be Siskel and Eberts, reserve a quiet night
with you and your VCR, and prepare to be changed for the good.
Vik
Phil Noir
pmfw writes:
<Jyst out of curiosity, have you seen Tarkovsky's other films? Andrei Rublev
is truly amazing, but I had to watch it twice to get the full impact. Stalker
is also a very good (and very long) film. My personal opinion on the pacing is
that it has nothing to do with art, but is a cultural difference. I don't
think it is Russian thing (though I've seen more slow Russian movies than any
other country), but a rather an avant guard attempt to define hoe people should
watch films (I'd elaborate, but I don't have time to write a thesis right this
minute, witch is what it would take to explain, I think).
To your credit, I had had a hard time watching Solaris, but it was mainly due
to very poor subtitling on the copy I viewed. That movie may be Tarkovsky's
one "failed vision," but he has proven through his whole body of work that even
such a difficult film as Solaris must have something to uncover.
In case you are wondering why I sent you this, and didn't post it, it is
because I have been having trouble posting to any newsgroups lately, but
haven't had any trouble with my e-mail. Feel free to post your response to
this on the newsgroup, if you so choose.>
I haven't yet had the opportunity to screen Tarkovsky's other films, but I will
get around to them eventually. My problem with Solaris is strictly about the
pacing (although the laserdisc print did not reveal anything particularly
special about the cinematigraphy either, but that's a minor point).
And no, sorry but I don't think editing is a cultural issue. I used Kurusawa as
an example for a particular reason. The pacing of Dreams, or Ran or any number
of his films cannot be in any way considered hyperkintetic by any means, but
they are internally consistent with his personal vision, and if one grooves
that vision (what he saying) then the pace isn't annoying.
As much as I dearly love sf -- so much that I'm willing to bend over backwards
to unearth a few interesting moments in a new sf film -- I still submit that
Solaris is a giant, groaning snoozer that defeats its own purpose.
(And just so VIK can understand me: "Thumbs down.")
Lev28
Okay, so Phil, you got my goat and I take back the name calling but
really!!!!!??? I must have seen Solaris many many times and have never been
bored by any of it. I find much of it profoundly moving in ways that cannot be
verbally expressed. Certain images have invaded my unconscious - the reeds in
the river - the rain indoors on the father - the fire in the snow. Tarkovskij
truely walks in the land of dreams.
I fear that the hostility here is due to the misguided "space-race" way the
film was initially advertised as "Russia's answer to 2001" Actually when you
compare the two pictures it is surprising that the "capitalist" film is utterly
about a Jungian collective experience unfiltered by any 'personal' ideology and
the"communist" film is utterly internal and personal. In that sense the films
do exist in some kind of symbiosis. And both films are called TOO SLOW by those
who do not understand them.
LEV
PS But of course Tarkovskij's BEST picture is MIRROR.
Tom Alaerts
Raghuram Selvaraju wrote:
> Just wanted to draw attention to SOLARIS, Andrei Tarkovsky's Russian
> sci-fi masterpiece...
>
> not comparable to 2001, but a tremendous movie and perhaps one of the
> most powerful motion pictures ever made.
>
> see it - when you have a day off - it clocks in at about 167 minutes.
Solaris has to be the slowest movie ever made. I remember that somewhere
at the start the protagonist's car was riding and riding and riding
through tunnels etc. After a few minutes i set the video to double speed
and even then this scene took aaaaaagggggeeeees to complete.
But the last images are nice. Perhaps they could cut it to a nice
videoclip of 5min. I guess you still wouldn't miss any scene, but they
would have a less yawn-inducing length then.
Kian Bergstrom
Oh, really now. Andy Warhol's films last for hours longer than _Solaris_
does. Most of them are only one shot, too.
Honestly, though. Whatever your opinions are regarding this film, please
at least try to be civil about expressing them. I accept that you don't
like the film, but you're really starting to sound like Bernie Faber here
(serious insensitivity points awarded).
You point out the long driving sequence. That is a serious problem point,
and we could address that if you like. Tarkovsky obviously knows that
he's asking a lot of the viewer in putting this in.
I do know that _Solaris_ was made partially in the wake of Tarkovsky's
impressed, but negative reaction to _2001_. In Kubrick's film, there is a
long, extended, some have said boring, sequence in which we travel through
space. It's scored to the "Blue Danube Waltz" if I remember correctly.
In _Solaris_, Tarkovsky makes a direct counterpoint to this other
sequence, by making the trip _to_ the space ship last orders of magnitude
longer than the trip _in_ the space ship. The music is distorted, but
still recognizably diegetic, in my opinion, consisting of traffic noises,
wind rushing, breathing, etc. T. disliked what he felt to be the
de-emphasis in K.'s film on real human situations. In his own film, T.
de-emphasized the science, and made what in other films would have been
completely devoid of humanity intensely human. It is, as I recall, almost
an hour before we even make it to Solaris. This, I suggest, is
extraordinary.
Burton tells Kris early on that people like him (Kris) shouldn't be let
into space, that things there are too fragile. Kris is part of a culture
characterized by violence, lack of care, and lack of contact. People like
Kris don't understand their own feelings or the feelings of others. They
are greedy, emotional children, who appear to be adults do to their
embarassment at their own feelings. We don't want to find alien life,
alien worlds, reach contact, we hear late in the film. We want to make
new Earths, find more _people_, not aliens. Tarkovsky thinks, I believe,
that this is the fundamental facet of human exploration which Kubrick
missed. I'm not going to say that's right or wrong, but the driving
sequence is the visual representation of that. It's essentially a trip to
Solaris that never leaves the city.
Mick Broderick
>And both films are called TOO SLOW by those who do not understand them.
>LEV
--------------
Okay, okay, already...
For what it is worth, I find it difficult to take seriously opinions
voiced here by AMKers watching these films solely on *video*.
I am not a purist, living and breathing celluloid and nothing else, however,
to deride a film's "pacing" based on a video to television viewing seems to me
to be highly contentious.
Consider how contemptuous Kubrick, for example, would consider criticism
based on someone having watching 2001 on video with their finger on the
remote shuttling forward to some ambiguously defined "action".
The film was created specifically for 70mm (6 track?) large screen
viewing.
It is a different experience; you are *meant* to be captive to the
linear time of the narrative as it unfolds (mind-altering drugs,
excluded). Granted, it may enhance and indeed amplify the tedium of the
perceived "problems of pacing". But sometimes, as some wit said about
2001, the tedium IS the message.
Forgive me if this sounds patronising; I'm merely trying to suggest
experiential alternatives to broaden the discourse here.
If anyone wants to consider other films of this ilk, before dismissing
them with eye-piercing metaphors, think about watching these in a
*cinema* as a first preference:
anything by Yasuijiro Uzo, but TOKYO STORY (1953) is probably a good
start.
anything by Robert Bresson, but try DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST (1950)
RED DESERT (Michelangelo Antonioni) 1964
WAVELENGTH (Michael Snow) 1967
FATA MORGANA (Werner Herzog, 1971)
CELINE AND JULIE GO BOATING (Jacques Rivette) 1974
There are scores of others but any of these should offer *some*
reward/enlightenment...
Here's hoping :-)
Mick
DD4SKYART
I recall sitting through Solaris once in a theater, and being entertained by
the chorus of snores around me! No one woke them up because it was funny to
hear them while so many scenes of people reclining in bed went by in the
loooong film. I think the book is a better bet. Later someone told me the deep
messages of the film but it didn't seem to matter. Sorry.
Tom Alaerts
Kian Bergstrom wrote:
> Oh, really now. Andy Warhol's films last for hours longer than
> _Solaris_
> does. Most of them are only one shot, too.
True, I forgot about Warhol. Anyway, that were more experimental films.
> Honestly, though. Whatever your opinions are regarding this film,
> please
> at least try to be civil about expressing them. I accept that you
> don't
> like the film, but you're really starting to sound like Bernie Faber
> here
> (serious insensitivity points awarded).
Well, I was just trying to express my extreme boredom in a funny way. No
offence was intended. And as an ignorant Belgian, I have never heard
about Bernie Faber.
Your comments about the driving sequence are interesting and they shed a
new light on the story. But I still feel I shouldn't know all this
beforehand in order to appreciate the movie. 2001 is also slow by
today's standards (we have seen so much well done spaceship fx by now)
but I can also appreciate it without knowing the "layered" content.
Anyway, am I the only one who thought the story of 2001 is
philosophically only lightweight? All that starchild mumbo-jumbo who is
sent back to earth etc... Still, considering that I believe AC Clarke is
from a literary point of view a truly awful writer, it is surprising
that 2001 was such an overwhelming experience.
bye,
Tom
Kian Bergstrom
Well, I was just trying to express my extreme boredom in a funny way. No
offence was intended. And as an ignorant Belgian, I have never heard
about Bernie Faber.
I definately missed the fun in your post when I responded to it. Sorry
about that. Bad kian!
Your comments about the driving sequence are interesting and they shed a
new light on the story. But I still feel I shouldn't know all this
beforehand in order to appreciate the movie. 2001 is also slow by
today's standards (we have seen so much well done spaceship fx by now)
but I can also appreciate it without knowing the "layered" content.
I'm not saying that my ideas are _necessary_ for an appreciation of the
film, they're the reason wh I think Tarkovsky put the sequence in. When I
first saw it, it felt like the film ground down to a slow death 'round
about the end of the first hour of the car ride. But after the film was
completed, I thought back on it, and I was quite glad that it had been put
in. I actually look forward to it, when I see the film now. My problem,
I think, when I watched it the first time, was that I was looking for
narrative meaning. Let's face it, after about thirty seconds, you've
pretty much exhausted that. Now I watch the scenery go by, just like
Kris.
Anyway, am I the only one who thought the story of 2001 is
philosophically only lightweight? All that starchild mumbo-jumbo who is
sent back to earth etc... Still, considering that I believe AC Clarke is
from a literary point of view a truly awful writer, it is surprising
that 2001 was such an overwhelming experience.
Clarke as a writer is somewhat lightweight, I have to agree. _2001_ the
novel really isn't so good, though it's far superior to its first two
sequels. On the other hand, he has got quite a wonderful talent for
coming up with original plot twists, great details, and he does put in the
effort to get the science right. There are scenes in _2061_ which I don't
think I'll ever forget, which touched me deeply, despite the fact that
they weren't very well written. The same is true of _The Songs of Distant
Earth_. Clarke doesn't have any artistry about him whatsoever, but he
certainly knows what belongs in a good story.
In _2001_ the movie, I don't think that we're given enough about the
starchild to say that it's coming back to earth. We can conclude that, I
suppose, but from the film alone, I myself and left with the feeling that
the starchild is going to be quite lonely for quite a long time.
Gordon Dahlquist
On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Mick Broderick wrote:
> Okay, okay, already...
>
> For what it is worth, I find it difficult to take seriously opinions
> voiced here by AMKers watching these films solely on *video*.
>
> I am not a purist, living and breathing celluloid and nothing else, however,
> to deride a film's "pacing" based on a video to television viewing seems to me
> to be highly contentious.
>
> Consider how contemptuous Kubrick, for example, would consider criticism
> based on someone having watching 2001 on video with their finger on the
> remote shuttling forward to some ambiguously defined "action".
>
> The film was created specifically for 70mm (6 track?) large screen
> viewing.
>
> It is a different experience; you are *meant* to be captive to the
> linear time of the narrative as it unfolds (mind-altering drugs,
> excluded). Granted, it may enhance and indeed amplify the tedium of the
> perceived "problems of pacing". But sometimes, as some wit said about
> 2001, the tedium IS the message.
>
> Forgive me if this sounds patronising; I'm merely trying to suggest
> experiential alternatives to broaden the discourse here.
Superb point, Mick. And it's one this ng should be all the more conscious
of, what with 2001 and bary lyndon being so seriously limited on video (I
cannot for the life of me imagine having any sense of how much these films
achieve if I had not seen them [first, too] in a cinema).
Kian Bergstrom
In article
<Pine.GSO.3.95L.97120...@watsol.cc.columbia.edu>, Gordon
Dahlquist <gd...@columbia.edu> wrote:
Superb point, Mick. And it's one this ng should be all the more conscious
of, what with 2001 and bary lyndon being so seriously limited on video (I
cannot for the life of me imagine having any sense of how much these films
achieve if I had not seen them [first, too] in a cinema).
All right guys, it's time for my shameful confession. I have never been
able to see a Kubrick film in the theatre. The closest I got was a
screening of the shorter version of _The Shining_ on 16mm, which in my
mind just doesn't count.
Here we go. Possibly as a result of having only seen it on video, I do
not like _Barry Lyndon_ all that much. On the big screen, it would
probably be awesome, but on the small one, I just found it flat.
That having been said, I think I do have a sense of how much _2001_
achieves, although obviously not a complete one, from my many viewings in
my living room.
What do you want? I live in Vermont, damn it. There isn't an art-house
or revival theatre in the whole state, as far as I know.
Gordon Dahlquist
On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Kian Bergstrom wrote:
> In article
> <Pine.GSO.3.95L.97120...@watsol.cc.columbia.edu>, Gordon
> Dahlquist <gd...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> Superb point, Mick. And it's one this ng should be all the more conscious
> of, what with 2001 and bary lyndon being so seriously limited on video (I
> cannot for the life of me imagine having any sense of how much these films
> achieve if I had not seen them [first, too] in a cinema).
>
> All right guys, it's time for my shameful confession. I have never been
> able to see a Kubrick film in the theatre. The closest I got was a
> screening of the shorter version of _The Shining_ on 16mm, which in my
> mind just doesn't count.
>
> Here we go. Possibly as a result of having only seen it on video, I do
> not like _Barry Lyndon_ all that much. On the big screen, it would
> probably be awesome, but on the small one, I just found it flat.
>
> That having been said, I think I do have a sense of how much _2001_
> achieves, although obviously not a complete one, from my many viewings in
> my living room.
>
> What do you want? I live in Vermont, damn it. There isn't an art-house
> or revival theatre in the whole state, as far as I know.
>
> -Kian
scandalosa! Really, it's too bad - just because all of kubrick's films
gain so much on a big screen (the compositions in fmj!) ... but of all of
them, it's barry lyndon that suffers - so much of of the emotional weight
of the film is conveyed through the specific astmospheric detail of the
world - the subtle interaction between locale, society and individual
actions ... I can only tell you that it's repeated viewings in a cinema
that have brought me to share the ebiri mindset for this film (though I
reserve a place for ulysses ... :) ) ...
The obvious thing here is that it's a drag when you have a filmmaker
consistently pitching himself to test the limits of the medium (and I
don't mean just in terms of special effects), routinely "screened" and
evaluated in terms of another medium ...
Ronald J. Whalen
geoffrey alexander wrote:
>
> le...@aol.com (Lev28) writes:
>
> >Phil Noir wrote:
> >>I would rather thrust a hot knitting needle into my eyeball than be subjected
> >>to Solaris ever again. The preCambrian pace negates whatever ideas it is
> >>attempting to develop. Read the book -- at least you can turn the pages
> >>faster.
> >>
> >I gather from some of Phil Noir's other posts that he regards himself somewhat
> >pompously as a "filmmaker" . The above post demonstrates that Phil Noir is at
> >the most an insensitive talentless follower of "good" filmmaking, ie;
> >homongenised pace homongenised content. The hollywood style of bombast and more
> >bombast.
>
> >Tarkovskij was a poet, he cared not for entertaining assholes like Phil Noir.
> >Geoffrey recently wrote that Forrest Gump was not a film made for us but
> >against us. With this post Phil Noir shows himself to be against us. I think
> >he would be better off posting in Alt. quick cuts . MTV.
>
> >Really, I am offended and disgusted that anyone would impugn the memory of such
> >a great man in this way. Yes I knew him and yes I take this personally.
>
> >FUCK OFF PHIL NOIR
>
>
Solaris is the anti-2001, and that's according to the director of
Solaris, himself.
Ronie J Whalen
Patrick Larkin
le...@aol.com (Lev28) writes:
>Okay, so Phil, you got my goat and I take back the name calling but
>really!!!!!??? I must have seen Solaris many many times and have never been
>bored by any of it. I find much of it profoundly moving in ways that cannot be
>verbally expressed. Certain images have invaded my unconscious - the reeds in
>the river - the rain indoors on the father - the fire in the snow. Tarkovskij
>truely walks in the land of dreams.
>I fear that the hostility here is due to the misguided "space-race" way the
>film was initially advertised as "Russia's answer to 2001" Actually when you
>compare the two pictures it is surprising that the "capitalist" film is utterly
>about a Jungian collective experience unfiltered by any 'personal' ideology and
>the"communist" film is utterly internal and personal. In that sense the films
>do exist in some kind of symbiosis. And both films are called TOO SLOW by those
>who do not understand them.
>LEV
>PS But of course Tarkovskij's BEST picture is MIRROR.
I agree with the last part of the post. Many people's biggest criticisms of
2001 is its length and slow pace. To see this newsgroup lambast a film like
Solaris for being too long and boring is astonishing.
Patrick
Lev28
>Many people's biggest criticisms of
>2001 is its length and slow pace. To see this newsgroup lambast a film like
>Solaris for being too long and boring is astonishing.
>
>Patrick
Yes exactly, that's what amazed and angered me. Anyway here's my credo:
1. If you don't like Kubrick, you don't like cinema.
2. If you don't like Fellini, you don't like people.
3. If you don't like Tarkovskij, you have no soul.
SO THERE!
LEV
Ronald J. Whalen
Patrick Larkin wrote:
>
> le...@aol.com (Lev28) writes:
>
> >Okay, so Phil, you got my goat and I take back the name calling but
> >really!!!!!??? I must have seen Solaris many many times and have never been
> >bored by any of it. I find much of it profoundly moving in ways that cannot be
> >verbally expressed. Certain images have invaded my unconscious - the reeds in
> >the river - the rain indoors on the father - the fire in the snow. Tarkovskij
> >truely walks in the land of dreams.
>
> >I fear that the hostility here is due to the misguided "space-race" way the
> >film was initially advertised as "Russia's answer to 2001" Actually when you
> >compare the two pictures it is surprising that the "capitalist" film is utterly
> >about a Jungian collective experience unfiltered by any 'personal' ideology and
> >the"communist" film is utterly internal and personal. In that sense the films
> >do exist in some kind of symbiosis. And both films are called TOO SLOW by those
> >who do not understand them.
>
> >LEV
>
> >PS But of course Tarkovskij's BEST picture is MIRROR.
>
> 2001 is its length and slow pace. To see this newsgroup lambast a film like
> Solaris for being too long and boring is astonishing.
>
> Patrick
It's ironic if anything else, that we should hate a movie like Solaris
for being long and boring, and yet we like a movie like 2001 which many
people say is long and boring...it's like something out of a
Stanley Kubrick film.
Ronie J Whalen
geoffrey alexander
le...@aol.com (Lev28) writes:
>>Many people's biggest criticisms of
>>2001 is its length and slow pace. To see this newsgroup lambast a film like
>>Solaris for being too long and boring is astonishing.
>>
>>Patrick
>Yes exactly, that's what amazed and angered me. Anyway here's my credo:
>1. If you don't like Kubrick, you don't like cinema.
>2. If you don't like Fellini, you don't like people.
>3. If you don't like Tarkovskij, you have no soul.
>SO THERE!
>LEV
...and if (like me) you don't like absolutist judgmentalism as part of the
process of aethetic appraisal evaluation, then you (like me) have a hrad
time bearing the humorless and exceptionally non-inquisitive approach that
is being taken here.
Less Lev, more Levity. And if you want poetry, read a poem.
Bilge Ebiri
pat...@beethoven.iavalley.cc.ia.us (Patrick Larkin) wrote:
>le...@aol.com (Lev28) writes:
>
>>Okay, so Phil, you got my goat and I take back the name calling but
>>really!!!!!??? I must have seen Solaris many many times and have never been
>>bored by any of it. I find much of it profoundly moving in ways that cannot be
>>verbally expressed. Certain images have invaded my unconscious - the reeds in
>>the river - the rain indoors on the father - the fire in the snow. Tarkovskij
>>truely walks in the land of dreams.
>
>>I fear that the hostility here is due to the misguided "space-race" way the
>>film was initially advertised as "Russia's answer to 2001" Actually when you
>>compare the two pictures it is surprising that the "capitalist" film is utterly
>>about a Jungian collective experience unfiltered by any 'personal' ideology and
>>the"communist" film is utterly internal and personal. In that sense the films
>>do exist in some kind of symbiosis. And both films are called TOO SLOW by those
>>who do not understand them.
>
>>LEV
>
>>PS But of course Tarkovskij's BEST picture is MIRROR.
>
>2001 is its length and slow pace. To see this newsgroup lambast a film like
>Solaris for being too long and boring is astonishing.
>
>Patrick
You might as well be saying, "It's astonishing that we will blast a film
like BIO-DOME for being bad, while so many people who dislike LOLITA
claim that it too is bad."
Again, I, as a long-time defender and enthusiast of Tarkovsky's and as
one of Stanley Kubrick's biggest fans, will restate my own personal
argument:
A film can be paced "slowly" and yet "appropriately". As I have said, I
think Tarkovsky's best film is STALKER. On a pure quantitative basis
(whatever that may mean), it is a >slower< film than SOLARIS, to the
point that it borders on the experimental. However, I think the pacing
is just right for the material, and it keeps my interest. SOLARIS
doesn't; any interest SOLARIS has for me is ruined by the fact that I
have to spend an hour watching my feet to get there. The film thus fails
in its purpose. (Again, this is an OPINION. Anybody is welcome to
DISAGREE with it.)
Likewise, my favorite film by Kubrick is BARRY LYNDON. I happen to think
it is paced perfectly. I think that if BARRY LYNDON were cut at a faster
pace, it would lose something inherently of itself, and would become
significantly less interesting. You may feel this about SOLARIS as well;
you're welcome to. However, the question is not one regarding the ACTUAL
pacing per se; the question concerns the EFFECTS of pacing on the viewer.
Give me NOSTALGHIA and STALKER any day. Those are the work of a true
master, an artist who has come into his own.
love,
Bilge.
Dan Fineberg
> 1. If you don't like Kubrick, you don't like cinema.
>
> 2. If you don't like Fellini, you don't like people.
>
> 3. If you don't like Tarkovskij, you have no soul.
>
> SO THERE!
I'm not sure if you try to be ignorant or if it just comes out that way,
but I certainly wouldn't recommend repeating your little credo to anyone
else who has any respect for themselves as free-thinkers. Film is art
and art is purely subjective. You're suggesting that if I didn't like
any of Kubrick's films I shouldn't bother with cinema at all? And who
are you to make that decision for me? Pick your words with greater care.
As for the point on Solaris being long and boring: long and boring are
two different words and in the world of cinema their meanings are even
more distant. Braveheart and The English Patient run about the same
time, but for some reason Braveheart passes by quicker and entertains
all the way through, while English Patient drags itself through each
scene. Both 2001 and Solaris have been criticized for being
unnecessarily dreary, but both films are held in high order by different
groups. Personally, I believe 2001 is cinema at its highest and most
thought-inducing form, and offers wonder with every frame, while Solaris
creeps along at a tiresome level, which is why the film hasn't endured
nearly as much through the years.
Here's my credo:
1. If you don't like Kubrick, fine.
2. If you don't like Fellini, fine.
3. If you don't like Tarkovskij, fine.
Have a nice day.
DF
Lev28
Geoffrey wrote:
>and if (like me) you don't like absolutist judgmentalism as part of the
>process of aethetic appraisal evaluation, then you (like me) have a hrad
>time bearing the humorless and exceptionally non-inquisitive approach that
>is being taken here.
>
>
Well speaking of absolutism, this all began with Phil Noir threatening to pluck
out his eyes rather than sit through Solaris. However I think some art is so
self evidently great that a failing to "get" it is a fault of the consumer
rather than the artist.
Anyway, I really cannot overstate the powerful emotional and spiritual
experiences that are Tarkovskij's work . And I cannot bear to have the
dismissed as "boring", by people who should know better. Difficult, maybe.
Boring , never.
I am sorry to be a pain about this, but maybe we should get hold of a 70mm
print of the LONG version of SOLARIS (yes there is a version that's even
longer) screen it and we'll all talk.
(I do know where such a print exists BTW)
LEV
Dan Fineberg
> I am sorry to be a pain about this, but maybe we should get hold of a 70mm
> print of the LONG version of SOLARIS (yes there is a version that's even
> longer) screen it and we'll all talk.
>
That'd just be pouring salt on an opened wound pal...
DF
geoffrey alexander
le...@aol.com (Lev28) writes:
>Geoffrey wrote:
>>and if (like me) you don't like absolutist judgmentalism as part of the
>>process of aethetic appraisal evaluation, then you (like me) have a hrad
>>time bearing the humorless and exceptionally non-inquisitive approach that
>>is being taken here.
>>
>>
>Well speaking of absolutism, this all began with Phil Noir threatening to pluck
>out his eyes rather than sit through Solaris.
But the humor in the overstaement escapes you? Here's the crux, Lev....
However I think some art is so
>self evidently great that a failing to "get" it is a fault of the consumer
>rather than the artist.
From YOUR viewpoint, in each case, as an (admittedly) perspecacious consumer...
>Anyway, I really cannot overstate the powerful emotional and spiritual
>experiences that are Tarkovskij's work .
There's a difference between "Tarkovskij's work" per se (which is indeed
what I would term self-evidently Great) and 'the first half of Solaris
(which, IMO, sucks dog-dick). You OVER-REACTED, comrade.
And I cannot bear to have the
>dismissed as "boring", by people who should know better. Difficult, maybe.
>Boring , never.
Boring is what bores one. I was Bored. I am not bored by Syberberg. I am not
bored by Snow. I am not bored by Warhol. I WAS bored by Tark in that
sequence. He lost it there, I think. (I am bored, sometimes, by Cage. But I
always see Cage's point. Tarkovsky overstated his case by about 35 minutes.
Sorry....
Look at it this way. I regard The SAhining as everybit a masterpiece as 2001
-- I regard Killer's Kiss as great a film as ACO -- and I have to bear the
fact that people I respect as much as I could respect anyone disagree with
that. Do I say Fuck You to anyone on the basis of their legitimate aesthetic
(as opposed to merely interpersonal & prejudicial) opinions? Yet you urge,
in your evaluation, the right to do so....
Make sense of the point towards which I'm tending as you will; the bottom
line is that we are here to talk about SK and his films, and NOT about each
other. So,
All of you, Shut The Hell Up and end this thread.
>I am sorry to be a pain about this, but maybe we should get hold of a 70mm
>print of the LONG version of SOLARIS (yes there is a version that's even
>longer) screen it and we'll all talk.
>(I do know where such a print exists BTW)
>LEV
--
LEJACKAL
>If anyone wants to consider other films of this ilk, before dismissing
>them with eye-piercing metaphors, think about watching these in a
>*cinema* as a first preference:
>
>anything by Yasuijiro Uzo, but TOKYO STORY (1953) is probably a good
Mick -
I think you certainly make a valid point, but in all honesty a good story
should hold up on video. The first time I saw Tokyo Story was on a small tv,
with a transfer that had very poor subtitling that I could barely even read.
Despite all this, I was totally knocked out by the film. A good film is good
film. Solaris is slow regardless of where you see it. -- Alex
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LEJACKAL
>Yes exactly, that's what amazed and angered me. Anyway here's my credo:
>
>1. If you don't like Kubrick, you don't like cinema.
>
>2. If you don't like Fellini, you don't like people.
>
>3. If you don't like Tarkovskij, you have no soul.
>
>
>SO THERE!
>
>
>
>
>
That's an oversimplication of a very complex ideal - although, I basically
agree with you! ;).
When one watches a film or reads a book, the participant, by default, bring
their own psycholgical makeup into the equation. If one has been watching
'popcorn' films, MTV and reading People Magazine, then you'll most likely be
ill-prepared for absorbing the concepts that are conveyed viscerally in the
works of Tarkovsky.
Although I'd rank Solaris as my least favorite Tarkovsky film, I
certainly defend it in the face of the sneering dismisals I've read in this
thread thus far. Some of you have excellent points which explain your negative
views on the film, but I don't appreciate the snide remarks directed at
Tarkovsky's narrative style.
Tarkovsky made great films in the face of a government that didn't support
his views, and with very little money. Give the guy a break.
p.s. If you haven't seen The Mirror, Stalker or Sacrifice, then DO IT NOW!
Also, I noticed Nostalghia (83') is finally out on video - in glorious
letterbox!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mick Broderick
>Mick -
>I think you certainly make a valid point, but in all honesty a good
story
>should hold up on video. The first time I saw Tokyo Story was on a
small tv,
>with a transfer that had very poor subtitling that I could barely even
read.
>Despite all this, I was totally knocked out by the film. A good film is
good
>film. Solaris is slow regardless of where you see it. -- Alex
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well you're absolutely right about SOLARIS being "slow" Alex :-) No
need for a polygraph on that one!
I suppose I consider the slowness in a non-pejorative sense. It is
integral to the meaning and delivery off the narrative, encapsulated in
its unravelling at 24fps. One of my points was to draw attention to the
need for appraising such films produced for reception via cinema
projection in a theatre, not *merely* from a viewing on TV via a video.
However, it is better to see movies in some form rather than not at
all. But I believe with many films viewed on tape (no all of course,
principally ones which overtly or inherently explore the boundaries of
the medium) it is a *much* diminished experience.
cheers,
Mick
Martel art
Hell of a flame war guys. Seems appropriate to a film entitled Solaris.
Padraig L Henry
On 2 Dec 1997 06:35:51 GMT, "VIK" <xV...@Vip1.com> wrote:
> I clearly remember the first time I saw Solaris and needless to say, I was
>shocked. Without a doubt Solaris is one of those movies, like ACO or Paths
>of Glory, that jolts awake areas of yourself you never knew existed. It was
>a life changing experience. It was, without a doubt, one of the "deepest"
>movies I've ever seen. There are great movies and then there are Great!
>movies. Solaris, friends, is a GREAT motion picture.
>
> To all those who have not yet seen it, do yourself a favor, ignore the
>ignorant rants of the wanna-be Siskel and Eberts, reserve a quiet night
>with you and your VCR, and prepare to be changed for the good.
>
>Vik
>
You are absolutely right. I first saw Solaris around the same time as
I first saw 2001, and I consider both to be without precedent in their
respective genres. They are still in my top ten. Tarkovsky is/was the
most important film-maker to come out of Russia since Eisenstein. I
cannot think of any other sci-fi films before or since that come
anywhere near these films. There have been good ones, from Metropolis
to The Man Who Fell To Earth, from H.G. Wells adaptarions to Demon
Seed and Blade Runner, but not very many.
There are reasons for this. That kind of film-making , and the
institutional and funding structures which made it possible, no
longer exists, and we are all the worse for it.
Tarkovsky was firmly rooted in the 19th century romantic tradition
and his humanistic meditations always concerned human moral and social
responsibilities, social conscience in the case of Solaris. Kubrick,
on the other hand, remains firmly rooted in 20th century modernism,
particularly the avant garde movements between the two wars. Cubism,
Dadaism, Surrealism (think of A Clockwork Orange, and its analysis of
art and cultural artefacts - and Duchamp, who argued that art had no
moral significance, then gave it up, and devoted the rest of his life
to chess!) would have influenced him, as much as the scientific avant
garde of quantum mechanics (think of HAL`s quantum mis-behaviour).
When Kieslowski died, I distinctly remember the feeling that European
modernist cinema died with him, and finally gave way to the brash,
post-modernist culture, with its emphasis on cartoon-like brutality
and sentimentality, that is now in the process of burying it.
There is another explanation. Every once in a while a film comes
along, not very often, and usually from a highly original director,
which includes in its narrative structure a highly conceptualised
denouement, the effect of which is either intellectually challenging
and/or spiritually uplifting, and which carries the film on to a
completely new level.
The endings of 2001 and Solaris are suberb examples. (Kubrick also
tried it in most of his other films, but to less effect, although
extremely accomplished). Other good examples include Bresson`s A Man
Escaped (some people consider it`s ending, even though it is announced
in the film`s title, one of cinema`s greatest and most uplifting),
Citizen Kane, and more recently, Lars Von Triers` Breaking The Waves.
I hope the next generation of film-makers will include a few that
challenge the contemporary malaise.
Padraig Henry path...@iol.ie
Ronald J. Whalen
2001 is better than The Shining, 2001 is a great film and I think
Kubrick knows this and has tried to repeat the same manner he used in
the film on every other film he has made, since.
> -- I regard Killer's Kiss as great a film as ACO -- and I have to bear the
Killer's Kiss is fine film noir but ACO is more inventive.
> fact that people I respect as much as I could respect anyone disagree with
> that. Do I say Fuck You to anyone on the basis of their legitimate aesthetic
> (as opposed to merely interpersonal & prejudicial) opinions? Yet you urge,
> in your evaluation, the right to do so....
>
> Make sense of the point towards which I'm tending as you will; the bottom
> line is that we are here to talk about SK and his films, and NOT about each
> other. So,
>
> All of you, Shut The Hell Up and end this thread.
>
Okay, then what should we talk about now that this thread is over ?
Ronie J Whalen
Paul Benson
In article <348F7E...@pop.cti-md.com>, rjwh...@pop.cti-md.com says...
>
>geoffrey alexander wrote:
>>
>> -- I regard Killer's Kiss as great a film as ACO -- and I have to bear the
>
>Killer's Kiss is fine film noir but ACO is more inventive.
>
Do people really like Killer's Kiss? If so, please tell me what I'm missing.
I thought it was one of the worst films I've ever seen. It seemed poorly
written, poorly acted, poorly edited, poorly directed. I literally winced when
watching the ballet scene. And the same stairwell from a really bad angle,
over and over. And the just plain goofy mannequin fight. To me, the best
thing about KK is that it shows you can go fro mhaving no ability in a certain
area to being a master of the field. So what's the attraction for everyone
else?
Rod
geoffrey alexander
Pbe...@IBM.NET (Paul Benson) writes:
The things you mentioned are in fact the things I like about it -- and the
Hopperesque interiors of the boarding house -- the way the lovers' kiss is
staged and shot -- that fight in the mannekin warehouse is a classic (and
compare it to the final duel btween Antoninus and Spartacus -- the mannekins
in the scene become the Roman Centurions gather in a circle...).
R.A. Freeman
In article <66nll3$q...@camel15.mindspring.com>,
Pbe...@IBM.NET (Paul Benson) wrote:
> Do people really like Killer's Kiss? If so, please tell me what I'm
> missing.
The fantastic feeling when you see it and go.. "Fuck. He made that!?"
Conclusion: If the man who made "Killers Kiss" can follow it up with
"The Killing", theres hope for begining film makers everywhere (No shit. I
have a double bill showing just to give me a booster).
Let us pray...:)
FAQ
Chan Benson
> > Do people really like Killer's Kiss? If so, please tell me what I'm
> > missing.
>
> The fantastic feeling when you see it and go.. "Fuck. He made that!?"
> Conclusion: If the man who made "Killers Kiss" can follow it up with
> "The Killing", theres hope for begining film makers everywhere (No shit. I
> have a double bill showing just to give me a booster).
Hmmmm. Guess I'm just different, but I vastly preferred "Killer's Kiss" to
"The Killing". As I've stated previously here (with justifications), I
find "The Killing" to be ham-handed in the extreme.
-- Chan
Hellraiser
1. If you don't like Ed Wood you don't like cross-dressers
2.If you don't like Scorsese you don't like Wiseguys
3.If you don't like Depalma you don't like Hitchcock
Clay Waldrop, Jr.
Hellraiser wrote:
> 3.If you don't like Depalma you don't like Hitchcock
You've raised enough hell here. I have a love-hate relationship
with these two. I >love< Hitchcock and >hate< De Palma.
Clay
("Just because I'm crazy doesn't make me wrong.")
Martel art
<<I >love< Hitchcock and >hate< De Palma.
Clay>>
The converse, however, is improbable. But there's probably someone out there
that would disagree.
Allan
There is absolutely no comparison on any level between Hitchcock and
DePalma!
Hitchcock was a cinematic master and storytelling genius. His films are
"art" to be studied by film students forever.
DePalma's films are poorly directed attempts at copying Hitchcocks style.
Hitch was a master at using the art of filmmaking to evoke emotions in his
audience. DePlama just throws everything at the screen so any non-thinking
moron feels what ever he wants you to feel.
Scarface is a perfect example. Pacino was good, but the film originally got
an X rating due to violence. DePalma had to cut a specific scene to get the
R rating. It was the shower scene (duh-another Hitch style ripoff!!!). He
originally had filmed special effects in which you see the chainsaw cutting
through the guy hung up in the shower. The version that was shown, that he
was forced to edit, was much more like a Hitch style scene, in which we see
Pacino's face reaction to it happening to his friend. We don't need to see
the chainsaw cutting though anyone. The other actors reaction and the sounds
are much more effective, and that is not what DePalma wanted. He was forced
to change the scene to a creative emotion evoking scene. He didn't think of
that himself.
I could come up with many more examples, but I disrespect DePalma's work for
lack of filmmaking style.
A great line is from an old Saturday Night Live skit in which someone said:
"Once a year he resurrects the script of a dead director and gives his wife
a job."
Dan Fineberg
Bilge Ebiri wrote:
> comparing De Palma to Hitchcock? Sure, De Palma likes Hitchcock, and
> references him, but the fact is for anyone with any skills of perception
> whatsoever, De Palma's films are TOTALLY different from Hitchcock's.
> They are two different filmmakers. Go ahead, flame me. I'll defend De
> Palma to the death.
>
> --Bilge.
I have to agree with Bilge on this one. De Palma and Hitchcock are often
compared but when I think about it for a while, I wonder why. Other than
the fact that on the videotape box of one of De Palma's weaker films,
Raising Cain, a review is printed that states, "De Palma finally has his
Psycho!" Both are virtuoso directors, but their range of films is on
opposite ends of the spectrum, I wouldn't even know where to begin in
comparing the two. On one side, you've got Vertigo, Notorious, North By
Northwest, Rebecca, etc. On the other hand, you've got Scarface,
Carlito's Way, Mission Impossible, Blow Out. These two directors
obviously have two completely different things to say in their films,
but I love em both.
DF
Bilge Ebiri
Martel art
You may have noticed by now that I'm not quite as dedicated a fim fan as some
here. ALthough I've watched a lot of Hitchcock and DePalma its been more on an
entertainment basis than deep study. I was always a bit confused with DePalma's
detractors. Bilge and Dan Fineberg may have hit upon part of that. ALthough
there are visual similarities in style, they cover different territory. But on
screen the eye is king, not the brain. I can't point to exact characteristics
as easily as I can, say, Kubrick's tracks and zooms. But AH and BD often deploy
more stylized, *designed* camera moves and editing strategies. Hitchcock's
famous Psycho montage is actually more to the credit of Saul Bass, who directed
the sequence as well as the titles. Both like to jazz up their sets with
national monuments, track from room to room or through walls to reveal things
to the audience that the characters are oblivious to--the basis for tension.
DePalma's obviously more lurid and gruesome. I read that as a child he would
watch his doctor father operate from a viewing gallery, and thus became inured
to minor bloodletting. I rarely rent certain of his films more than once
because of this. Watching a power drill impale someone is not fun for me. I
love Blowout, though it's fluff compared to The Conversation, or even The
Parallax View. We could start a whole thread on Beatty's seventies films,
Robert Townsend (Town sp? >writer of Chinatown, etc). I'm associating here. I
really like some films from the seventies and on that marry an older rigor of
thought to the expanded territory of R-ratings: Chinatown, Blowout, Silkwood,
Conversation, Conformist, perhaps Shampoo, Two Jakes, English Patient,
Carlito's Way, Falcon and the Snowman (the last two for Sean Penn). Some of
this may be impending nostalgia/the encroaching period qualities of same:
Silkwood, Carlito, Jakes, Patient are all more recent but are set back a decade
or five. To get back to SK, his bookends to the seventies exhibit some of these
same qualities.
Clay Waldrop, Jr.
Martel art wrote:
> Hitchcock's famous Psycho montage is actually more to the credit
> of Saul Bass, who directed the sequence as well as the titles.
I think this is just a rumor that got out of hand. Janet Leigh (among
others) disputes this. Along these lines, Hitchcock himself says in
the Hitchcock/Truffaut book that they used a stand-in for Leigh and
a fake torso in shooting portions of the shower scene.
You might ask in alt.movies.hitchcock what people know about
Saul Bass' contributions.
Clay
Allan
DePalma doesn't reference Hitch, he rips him off, badly, in my opinion.
Dressed to Kill - Let's see, a guy who dresses up in womens clothes when he
knifes people to death, particularly when he is attracted to a woman - hmmm,
sounds like Psycho.
Blowup or ? it was called - a guy who looks through a telescope into
neighbors and sees what he thinks is a man killing a woman -hmm, sounds like
Rear Window,
Then, the same guy has a phobia about closed in spaces and DePalma uses a
moving camera/perspective style shot for the audience to "feel" this, hmmm,
sounds like Vertigo.
There are many other examples like this that I can think of too.
My point is that DePalma's films aren't that bad, it's just that I've never
seen an original, filmatic, creative style from him. If one looks at a film
and sees certain scenes which immediately evoke an impression of another
film, that is not the audiences fault. It's the Director's for not coming up
with something original. I think one of his earliest films, Carrie, is just
about his best. It was fairly original for its time and genre.
There are certain Directors that I will go out of my way to see anything
they make, or have ever made. Stanley Kubrick, Francis Coppolla, Steven
Spielberg, George Lucas, Alfred Hitchcock, Woody Allen, some of the old
classics Directors and even Clint Eastwood.
DePalma is not on my personal list.
Thurston
>>>>
Plus remove Hitchcock from the equation and what would have been
Saul Bass' "contribution"? Nothing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martel art
<<Plus remove Hitchcock from the equation and what would have been
Saul Bass' "contribution"? Nothing. >>
True, but Bass has contributed greatly elsewhere, in a variety of fields from
graphic design to packaging, film credits and directing. I'll research it;
likely as not they collaborated on the scene. To me the film's chief attributes
are the structure of killing off the heroine midway through, the new, looser
morality allowed onscreen and the shower montage. Ok, the great score, the
credits, and Simon Oakland's ridiculous explanation at the end. The film has
holistic properties that make it more than the sum of its parts, but
individually most of those parts are not too remarkable. The shower scene might
qualify for a submersible-nonsubmersible sequence if ever there was one, so its
'authorship' is of interest.
Clay Waldrop, Jr.
Martel art wrote:
> True, but Bass has contributed greatly elsewhere, in a variety of fields
from
> graphic design to packaging, film credits and directing. I'll research
it;
> likely as not they collaborated on the scene. To me the film's chief
attributes
> are the structure of killing off the heroine midway through, the new,
looser
> morality allowed onscreen and the shower montage. Ok, the great score,
the
> credits, and Simon Oakland's ridiculous explanation at the end. The film
has
> holistic properties that make it more than the sum of its parts, but
> individually most of those parts are not too remarkable. The shower scene
might
> qualify for a submersible-nonsubmersible sequence if ever there was one,
so its
> 'authorship' is of interest.
Directorship I'm not positive about. Authorship (or auteurship) I'm sure
was Hitchcock's. AH's role as director was mostly to sit in a folding
chair and say "action" at appropriate times. He was such a meticulous
storyboarder and planner that he considered his job virtually done
before shooting began. "Psycho," shot in only 40-odd days (7 of which
were devoted to the shower scene), was no exception.
In the alt.movies.hitchcock newsgroup, we were speculating a while
back that "Psycho" was the earliest movie (1960) to be rated 'R'.
Anybody here know of an earlier one? Anybody know of a pre-1965
film rated 'R'?
Clay
Benjamin Johnson
> on
> screen the eye is king, not the brain.
There is very little I can say except that this is a misperception. Really, the
brain is rewuired to process the information received throught the eyes. All this
information is put to the brain, so I think that, while I'm sure you and many who
stick to this teory have good, intelligent reasons for looking at it this way, it
is also possible for some to use this as an excuse to be lazy and uncritical. The
brain is always present, even when in altered states, so no one should use that as
an excuse for not "looking" a bit deeper.
Bilge Ebiri
"Allan" <ame...@stlnet.com> wrote:
>DePalma doesn't reference Hitch, he rips him off, badly, in my opinion.
>
>Dressed to Kill - Let's see, a guy who dresses up in womens clothes when he
>knifes people to death, particularly when he is attracted to a woman - hmmm,
>sounds like Psycho.
>
>Blowup or ? it was called - a guy who looks through a telescope into
>neighbors and sees what he thinks is a man killing a woman -hmm, sounds like
>Rear Window,
>Then, the same guy has a phobia about closed in spaces and DePalma uses a
>moving camera/perspective style shot for the audience to "feel" this, hmmm,
>sounds like Vertigo.
>
What's this "sounds like" business? We're not talking about one-line
plot synopses here, we're talking about actual FILMS. Every film or
script Paul Schrader ever wrote SOUNDS LIKE John Ford's THE SEARCHERS.
But do I think TAXI DRIVER is ripping off THE SEARCHERS? No, not at all.
What's your point? That De Palma's films' stories sometimes resemble
Hitchcock's? Brilliant observation.
DePalma's films are free to sound like whatever they want. He references
Hitchcock, he references LOTS of directors. But he always brings
something new to them. Believe me, I've got nothing against people who
don't like De Palma, and no, he's not one of my favorite directors. I
hate many of his films, but I also do love much of his work. I think
it's quite simply unfair to keep accusing him of "ripping off" other
directors.
And if you want to see three great and very different films by him, you
should see GREETINGS, HI MOM! and CASUALTIES OF WAR.
--Bilge.
Phil Noir
Those interested in Saul Bass might want to check out his directorial effort
Phase IV, ('74, Nigel Davenport) which in its way is a revisionist version of
"Them!"
[IMO - Bass may have drawn the storyboards to the Psycho sequence at HK's
specifications, but he did not design it. I haven't caught up with Janet
Leigh's book, but as she tells it in an interview, Hitch directed the scene,
shot for shot.]
webm...@film.tierranet.com
Clay Waldrop, Jr. wrote:
>
> Martel art wrote:
>
> > Hitchcock's famous Psycho montage is actually more to the credit
> > of Saul Bass, who directed the sequence as well as the titles.
>
> I think this is just a rumor that got out of hand. Janet Leigh (among
> others) disputes this. Along these lines, Hitchcock himself says in
> the Hitchcock/Truffaut book that they used a stand-in for Leigh and
> a fake torso in shooting portions of the shower scene.
>
> You might ask in alt.movies.hitchcock what people know about
> Saul Bass' contributions.
>
I heard that while Michael Douglas was a child and they were editing
Spartacus which starred his father Kirk Douglas he would slip away to
watch the takes on the shower scene in Psycho. He said it was Leigh or
at least some parts were her. As for Saul Bass directing the shower
scene I've heard that he drew up the story boards for it and Hitchcock
directed it.
Tom Davidson
Thurston Rus...@teleport.com wrote in message
<67f3ob$oo3$2...@news1.teleport.com>...
>> "Clay Waldrop, Jr." <NOSPAM...@concentric.net> writes:
>> Martel art wrote:
>
>> > Hitchcock's famous Psycho montage is actually more to the credit
>> > of Saul Bass, who directed the sequence as well as the titles.
>
>> I think this is just a rumor that got out of hand. Janet Leigh (among
>> others) disputes this. Along these lines, Hitchcock himself says in
>> the Hitchcock/Truffaut book that they used a stand-in for Leigh and
>> a fake torso in shooting portions of the shower scene.
>
>> You might ask in alt.movies.hitchcock what people know about
>> Saul Bass' contributions.
>
>>>>>
>
>Plus remove Hitchcock from the equation and what would have been
>Saul Bass' "contribution"? Nothing.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
>
I believe Bass claimed to have set up the shots (as
laid down on the story board) as per Hitchcock's
instructions. He said that the insert of the shower
curtain rings spinning on the rod was basically his only
contribution to the sequence. He also said he argued
against Hitchcock's insertion of a knife thrusting at the
torso, and failed to change the director's mind.
TD
Dan Fineberg
> I heard that while Michael Douglas was a child and they were editing
> Spartacus which starred his father Kirk Douglas he would slip away to
> watch the takes on the shower scene in Psycho.
Weren't those two films made in completely different decades??
DF
webm...@film.tierranet.com
Nope. Both released in 1960.
Martel art
So it's possible *each* was made in different decades...
Martel art
<<>Weren't those two films made in completely different decades??
>DF
Nope. Both released in 1960.>>
<(me: So it's possible *each* was made in different decades...>>
Assuming there was a year zero. Duh. And I've only cringed at miscreants
claiming 2000 is the year of the millenium about two thousand and one times!
Benjamin Johnson
Martel art wrote:
Why not just pretend there WAS a year zero, since there obviously should have
been, to make everyone feel better, and then we don't need to have this stupid
debate every hundred years. That's my proposed solution, anyway. What do you
think? I mean, this time business is pretty arbitrary, anyway. Just a
yardstick, not a set aspect of physical reality. I think.
geoffrey alexander
In article <19971226050...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
mart...@aol.com (Martel art) wrote:
> <<>Weren't those two films made in completely different decades??
> >DF
>
> Nope. Both released in 1960.>>
>
> <(me: So it's possible *each* was made in different decades...>>
>
> Assuming there was a year zero. Duh. And I've only cringed at miscreantS
> claiming 2000 is the year of the millenium about two thousand and one times!
AND WHO IS TO SAY THEW FIRAST CENTURY DID NOT LAST, BY REASON OF IT'S
INAUGURATION, ONLY 99 YEARS?
The Millenium >Is< when we say it Is. Quit being a Clarkian ass. Besides,
are you >so< a much a christian soul?.... :)
g.
Dan Fineberg
webm...@film.tierranet.com wrote:
>
> In article <34A07F...@juno.com>, D-F...@juno.com wrote:
> >> I heard that while Michael Douglas was a child and they were editing
> >> Spartacus which starred his father Kirk Douglas he would slip away to
> >> watch the takes on the shower scene in Psycho.
> >
> >DF
>
> Nope. Both released in 1960.
Aha...for some reason I was thinking Pscyho was closer to 70. My bad.
DF