« Detectorists, Series 3 | Main | Ever Heard of Nan Vernon? »

02/24/2019

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I'm with you on Tarkovsky. A.R. is the only film of his I've liked (although I've been meaning to give Solaris another go at some point).

And I agree with you about "The Raid" sequence -- very disturbing. After seeing it the first time I've skipped it on subsequent viewings, though I think it is important for the narrative's sake to watch it once at least. "The Bell" sequence more that makes up for it though -- that's something of a small masterpiece.

Indeed. I guess I wasn't really won over until that part. I'm also thinking I'll give Solaris another try sometime.

"The Raid," I meant to mention, was not the only segment that included an atrocity. What a cruel and brutal place and time it was--though I suppose not all that different from Europe at the time.

The lady from Broadchurch won Best Actress last night. I would have never watched that if it weren't for all of you discussing it here. Is Broadchurch the right name? Anyway, her name is Olivia Colman, for a movie called The Favourite which I have not seen.

I know nothing about Tarkovsky, but this sounds interesting enough to put in my queue. I just watched The Godfather parts 1 & 2 for the first time in my life this weekend. Some things take a while to get to.

Another interesting thing about the Oscars: 5 out of the last 6 years a Mexican director has won that prize. Looking further, only one American has one Best Director in the 2010s - Damien Chazelle for La La Land (another movie I did not see). Sorry to hijack your post Mac, but it is movie-related stuff. :)

I think I may have not gotten through the prologue the first time I tried to watch AR, or maybe part of the first episode. Maybe I'll try it again, but I don't know. I guess this would be a good time since every book I pick up is about Russia--or Nazis.

I thought Solaris was all right--kind of middling. I also watched The Violin and the Steamroller while poking around Filmstruck on day. It was pretty good, but not very satisfyying. The steamroller doesn't run over the violin, btw. Ha, that sounds like I wanted the violin to get crushed, but, no, I just spent the whole film waiting for it to happen.

AMDG

Is that Tarkovsky? (the violin one)

I haven't seen The Favourite, either. Hadn't even heard of it, for that matter. But I'm glad Olivia Coleman won.

Speaking of Mexican movies, I watched Roma last night. I don't know if it won any Oscars or not but it was nominated. It's well done but I wasn't exactly enthusiastic about it. Most of it was so low-key as to be dull, to my taste. The same could be said of some of the old European classics that I like a lot, so I guess it's a personal thing--it just didn't grab me.

Yes, the violin was Tarkovsky.

AMDG

My favourite art movie. I think I have watched it six times now

I'm pretty sure I will never do that.

I guess the surgery went ok, since you're online and able to type?

No I cannot type. It’s all just dictated

Oh. Well, you can talk and think, anyway. :-)

I think you should watch Andrei Rublev five more times and then report back, Mac.

I can't reasonably expect to live long enough to do that.

"Well, you can talk and think, anyway. :-)"

I can talk and type, but I can't think, so I guess that makes us even.

Although, not thinking is probably not as painful as a broken wrist.

AMDG

As the saying goes, two out of three ain't bad.

Haven't seen it, and only just now read about it, but The Favourite is all about Queen Anne, who is presented as a very active lesbian.

Two minutes of research informs me that...there were rumors, and there's no proof that she wasn't. Good enough for the 21st century!

What mockery the historians of the future are going to direct at us.

I've not seen 'The Favourite', but my understanding is that it has no pretensions to being a "historical drama" presenting anything like an historically accurate portrait of the Queen and her court. It is, I'm told, black farce.

I confess I tried 'Andrei Rublev' and was unable to get through it. I was so disappointed with myself; it was a film I was really hoping to love. I haven't had much fun in Tarkovsky's films generally, but AR was the worst so far.

Fascinating range of reactions to AR.

I don't care for the practice of making a movie about historical persons and then just making up a lot of important stuff, to the point of significantly falsifying the historical record, seems like cheating. And they have a way of sticking. Victoria, the series about that queen, does a little more of that than I would like--e.g. making the relationship between Victoria and Lord Melbourne much more romantic than it almost certainly way.

I agree with you, Mac. If you're going to play fast and loose, play fast and loose with a fictional setting, not an historical one. In the specific case of 'The Favourite', the choice to pick on Queen Anne seems an odd one. But, as I said, I've not seen it.

Andrei Rublev is on its way to the house from Netflix. Unfortunately, I'm leaving town for the weekend so may not be until the end of next week that I will be able to report back my reaction. Your post was successful in catching my interest!

Actually, I don't mind sharing with this group what I am doing this weekend in case anyone has any experience with/in it. I am going to a "Beginning Experience" in Casper, Wyoming. Heard about it in Mass about a month ago, called the guy in charge, and now I am going and hoping for the best. Sounds very promising.

I hope for the best for it, too. I've heard of it but don't know anything about it.

Watched Andrei Rublev and enjoyed it quite a bit. My favorite parts were the scattered theological ruminations, I guess mostly in the scene of the old Greek guy? Not sure, it was so long by the time I got to the end I had forgotten the beginning. Why did it seem like it was filmed in the 30s or 40s? Was Soviet cinema so behind the rest of the world, or was this what the director was trying to do?

I wondered about that too.

My guess is that that really was all the technology he had to work with. I thought that part of the reason for my disappointment with both Solaris and Stalker had to do with the cinematography being sort of on the drab side. Not in terms of composition and so forth but simple image quality.

One thing that puzzled me about AR was that it wasn't close to full-screen. It was very wide but not very tall, with empty space not only above and below the image but on the sides as well. Just a different basic format I guess. That was the case on both my computer and my TV. After trying both I decided it was better on the computer.

On my TV it was just long and thin with lots of space above and below, but none to either side.

I must admit that I am now curious about his other films.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)