solaris na americki nacin...

[sneki]

kada budem in a mood, napisacu moje impresije.
ali to ne sprecava vas ovde, zaljubljenike i zaludjenike SF da napisu nesto o the great tarkovsky i njegovom solarisu kao intro, ili o samom romanu? mislim na lema, kao metafizickom sci-fi.

prvi izbor soderberghov je bio daniel day-lewis, ja sam nekako razmisljala o j.irons-u.
cloony je strasno, strasno zgodan, i strasno, strasno americki tip muskarca, i on je vise za tako...relaksirajuce uloge, za akcione filmove i romanticne komedije , cak ga smatram odlicnim komicarem, kao i keri grant, on je meni njegova reinkarnacija!i prica je ipak 'love story', izgleda da amerikanci ne mogu da odstupe od tog stereotipa ali mekgrou i rajan o nil.

dakle, ipak je trebalo da se nadje neki manje zgodan i mnogo low=key glumac, cloony definitivno nije najsrecniji izbor.
a ni natasa, ili kako se vec zove, njegova zena...

[sneki]

p.s.

sto rece neko u bioskopu, poluglasno na kraju projekcije :

'TOUCHED BY TARKOVSKY', savrseno receno.
zaboravila sam i ovo da naglasim, odmah su i isto vreme kada je poceo da se daje soderberghov film, poceo simultano da se daje u drugom bioskopu tarkovskog' soliaris' u jednom artsy bioskopu i naravno, NARAVNO odmah izasao i na DVD, kosta $60!!!!!!zbog duzine naravno.

interesantno je da je mnogima tarkovsky vrlo razvucen i dosadan i kod znalaca i postovaoca meni malo teatralnog tarkovskog, amerikanci su se trudili da zaobidju dugacke scene i film skratili na 96 minuta, dok je original 167 minuta!!!!pa neka mi neko kaze da je ceo film gledao netremice i sa istim interesovanjem, a da se pritom NE FOLIRA!!!bez potrebe.

i definitivno, soderberghova adaptacija i pristup je prilicno drugaciji od tarkovskog, pitanja koja je soderbergh postavio su drugacija od tarkovskovih,  soderbergh je akcentova ljubavnu pricu, a tarkovki metafiziku zivljenja i smrti...i td.

soderbergh je kako bih rekla, praktican reziser, sto rece neki kriticar 'audience friendly reziser'...tanka, tanka prica, ne inspirise pitanja i razmisljanja kao sto to radi, i sada, tarkovsky, moram da priznam iako smatram da su mu svi filmovi nepotrebno dugacki i da ih treba skratiti za 30 minuta, ali kako to uraditi tarkovskom, pitam se?

kada on voli da 'prica', onako cutke, bez reci...

pa eto, ja se ispricah sa samom sobom jutros.

[sneki]

da zaokruzim monolog, procitajte svakako najbolji magazin na svetu sto se tice filmske industrije uopste/ nazalost nema ga on line, mora da se predplatite ili da ga u knjizari prelistate/  - 'variety'  i mog omiljenog film.kriticara todd mccarthy-ja, odlican prikaz 'solaris'-a.

interesantno je i to sto je u isto vreme izasao i onaj 'frenchase' star trek-nemesis, ne znam kakako je on prosao u prvoj nedelji .

ulise?
citas li ti ovo iz prikrajka, ajde kazi, molim te.
 za herr-a znam i jos neke, ako citas, hvala na 'putokazima' nikako a stignem da ti se javim, a javicu ti se.

herr...zasto me maltretiras sa e-mailom R?
niti sam u kontaktu sa tom osobom, niti mi je jasno zasto mislis da bih uopste imala e-mail????

uostalom...mislim da ti zorge moze pomoci u tome, treba samo da odgovarajucu osobu pitas, ovako samo lutas covece i gubis vreme.

[Boban]

Filmovi Tarkovskog nisu predvidjeni da se gledaju vise od jednom u 15 godina.

A jesi li ti gledala STALKERA, sneki?
Meni je to ipak velicanstven film, u svoj toj svojoj sporosti ima nekakvu uzvisenu mudrost do koje se ne dolazi na americki fastfood nacin, vec studioznim, slovenskim mimohodom.
U jednom trenutku, ti pocnes da osecas zajedno s glumcima i da dozivljavas radnju svim culima... to ne moze Indijana Dzons da postigne, ni iz milion pokusaja...

[Odisej a.k.a Ulis]

Eto,da kazem,Sneki.Cista telepatija.Prvi put sam ovde veceras.
A upravo sam te izogovarao na  http://www4.serbiancafe.com/diskusije/mesg/45/006590186.shtml?13
Kao i uvek,kada se dohvatis Tarkovskog, ti gresis.Kazes da se T.bavio metafizikom zivljenja i smrti.Ne,,bavio se samo pitanjem vere.Kazes da su ti njegovi filmovi predugacki.Moguce za tebe.Ne zakljucuj onda da se svi ostali,kojima to nije tako,foliraju.Sta ces,svako ima svoj licni dozivljaj fenomena zvanog vreme.
Pogresila si i u akcentovanju T.verzije romana kao SF filmu.Andreju je bila potrebna takva situacija da bi nam nesto ispricao,na svoj nacin.Sporo.Za tebe iritirajuce.
O novoj verziji ne mogu pricati.Jednostavno zato sto zivim u Srbijici.
Nocas te vodim,uz dopustenje tvoga muza, na http://www4.serbiancafe.com/diskusije/mesg/48/006510625.shtml?32.
Picemo votku i pricati o metafizickim aspektima estetike T.-oga:))

".....a u ulici Marsala Tita rastu neka druga deca....."

[Ulis]

I naravno za tebe, Sneki:

"Staro jezero.
Zaba u vodu skocila.
Pljesak u tisini.

http://www4.serbiancafe.com/diskusije/mesg/45/006614925.shtml?1

[sneki]

opa bato, i mighty ulisa sam dozvala na tren...

ako ti do sada nisam rekla vec, ja uzivam dok citam tvoje eseje o rusima, ali uzivam.
o tarkovskom narocito, iako ga ja drugacije od tebe dozivljavam.
'salker' je odlican, mada volim i 'nostalgiju', ali dugacko i razvuceno za moj ukus.

ja volim vise ove americke luzere, pogotovu one povrsne, brljive, vetropiraste i beskrajno sarmantne i dopadljive u njihovom jadu i bedi koja mi je nekako mnogo vise stvarnija i samim tim i tragicna.

tarkovski je umetnik i na tome insistira.
amerikanci su zanatlije i na tome insistiraju, rekoh vec, 'audience friendly' reziseri.

bas lepo sto si se javio.

p.s.
sada po mojoj marsala tita ulici stvarno setaju neki drugi klinci i to je tuzno, da su bar deca mojih prijatelja...i rodbine.

tako nekako...

[sneki]

molim da neko hrabar odbrani science fiction kroz solaris, koliko shvatam, to jeste sci-fi?!

[Ulis]

Dobro jutro Sneki.

Lemov Solaris jeste odlican SF roman.Toliko dobar da brise granicu koju mnogi namecu SF zanru kao manje vrednom.
Mozda je bolji Lemov roman Glas Gospodara (barem od onoga sto sam citao).Ako smo vec kod Lema,u odnosu na ova dva,nesto ispod su Nepobedivi i Fijasko.

O prvoj filmskoj verziji Solarisa vec sam nesto rekao.Naravno,to je samo moje misljenje.

A Stalker? Evo nesto od ranije o Stalkeru:

Vodic  Ulis - May 23, 2000 17:15 (212.62.*)  Pocecu i ja kao Kresa:Ulis je veceras gledao "Stalkera".  Neponovljivo,neponovljivo i neponovljivo.Bilo bi interesantno napraviti  komparativnu analizu "Stalkera"i "Paklene pomarandze" kao uslovno receno  filmova negativne utopije i "Solarisa"i "Odiseje" kao ,uslovno, filmova naucene fantastike  sa filozofskom konotacijom.  Kao sto je Kejdz dosao do kraja muzike,Maljevic do kraja slikarstva posle Tarkovskog ,mozda,nema smisla  gledati druge filmove   
3opge - May 23, 2000 17:47 (*.splitrock.net)
lepo je opet pricati o Tarkovskom, jednom od Andjela.
iako sam Stalkera gledao odavno mogao bih da
ustvrdim da ti prva paralela /Stalker-Pomorandza/ nije preterano opravdana.
mozda bi mogao da objasnis malo sire na sta mislis.

za drugu paralelu /Solaris-Odiseja/ mozda bi se naslo vise argumenata.

Ulis - May 23, 2000 18:39 (212.62.*)
Pa oba filma su ,u trenutku snimanja ,govorila kriticki o neposrednoj buducnosti koja je sada
stvarnost ,naravno svaki na svoj nacin.Dok je to kod Kjubrika zivotnije i vidljivije kod Tarkovskog
s obzirom na drzavni sistem u kojem je film sniman i to 1979 godine sve je metaforicno.Put kojim trojka
ide do Zone i sobe gde se ispunjavaju najskrivenije zelje je put kojim se Alex vraca u stan posle dobrog
provoda sa droogsima i slusa Ludviga Vana.Drustvo koje prevaspitava onoga kojeg je i napravilo onakvim kakvim jeste ima pandam u Stalkeru u liku naucnika koji prelazi sav onaj put da bi bombom pokusao da
unisti sobu.Kada Stalker udje u Zonu kaze da je to njegov dom kao sto je i velicanstvena Deveta to isto
za Aleksa.Sve izvan toga je represivna stvarnost i nepodnosljiva lakoca postojanja.Dok nam Kjubrik zlurado
udara jednom istinom u glavu,Stalker Tarkovskog je filmski Hazarski recnik-svako ce naci svoju istinu.
3opge - May 23, 2000 23:40 (*.splitrock.net)
ulise,
mislim da si poslednjom recenicom rekao sustinu.
Kjubrik je u svojoj 'kritici' konkretan, jak, sarkastican i angazovan.
Tarkovski je medjutim, mnogo siri, slobodniji, poeticniji i univerzalniji.
on ne 'kritikuje' nego 'apstrahuje'.
svedemo li Stalkera na nekakvu 'kritiku drustva' /ma kako sofisticirana ona bila/ dobijamo
samo senku visedimenzionalnog dela.
Stalkera ne bih vezivao ni za kakav konkretan /pezorativno receno drustveno politicki/
'trenutak' i uslovljavao ga nekakvom trenutnom stvarnoscu.

nakon sto je procitao pricu 'Piknik pored puta' brace Strugacki /po kojoj je nastao Stalker/ Tarkovski je odusevljen, zapisao:

"mogao bih da izvedem veoma harmonican oblik iz price Strugackih;
sa tecnom, detaljnom radnjom a u isto vreme uravnotezenom i cisto idealnom - na taj nacin
polunatprirodnom, apsurdnom, apsolutnom".

ima li bolje potvrde od ovih reci za ovo sto pokusavam gore da kazem ?

ce gevara - May 24, 2000 03:00 (*.net.au)
slozio bih se sa vama, jer je filmski recnik
tarkovskog po meni neprevazidjen i jedini koji mu se,danas, i malo priblizio je t.angeopulos.
fotografija i lirika.
to je nesto sto mi cesto nedostaje u danasnjim ,ajde da ih nazovem epskim, holivudinspirisanim filmovima koji nazalost ne prate ni "deseterac".
prvi njegov film koji sam gledao je Ivanovo detinjstvo,
a odmah zatim valjak i violina
sve sto je u tom /kratkom/filmu iskazao moze se takodje interpretirati kao alijenacija ,arhetipovi, pojedinac-sistem,lirika-snaga

sto se stalkera tice nije samo u pitanju, inace jako dobro opisano totalitarno drustvo i negativna utopija, vec jedno siroko rasprostranjeno i duboko ukorenjeno otudjenje izmedju glavnih junaka kao i ostalih likova u filmu ili sto bi se reklo u modernom drustvu.
ta alijenacija je najocitija u prvoj i poslednjoj sceni filma.
takodje tu imamo i sve vrste arhetipova u tri glavna junaka .

tarkovski je bio veliki perfekcionista i zahvaljujuci poznavanju orijentalnih jezika u njegovim filmovima i postoji ta lirika prilicno nesvojstvena ostalim evropskim velikim reziserima.
znao je do besvesti ponavljati istu scenu dok
ne bi bio zadovoljan.u skupim scenama je koristio rezervnu kameru.
ni to mu nije pomoglo u zrtvi gde je ponovio kompletnu finalnu scenu(gorenja kuce) na uzas saradnika i producenata.
inace po meni je njegov najbolji film
"andrej rubljev-strasni sud" koji takodje govori o mnogo cemu van granicea vremena u kome je smesten.
Ulis - May 24, 2000 07:22 (212.62.*)
Pored najveceg broja autora o kojima je,vise-manje moguce govoriti racionalno,dakle empirijski obrazlozivo,Tarkovski je autor koji ne trpi mnogo reci,koji se otima svakome sudu,koji zahteva metaforu da bi se svet u kome zivi i duhovno egzistira pojasnio,koji -jednostavno- od gledaoca ocekuje specificni duhovni,misaoni pa i fizicki napor ukoliko ovaj naravno zeli da prodre u strukture njegovih filmova,da oseti oniricnost i snovidjajnost Tarkovskovljevih filmova,da sa njima,konacno postane intiman,da im se ponovo vrati,prigrli ih kao nesto sto je deo njega samoga.Kada govorimo o Stalkeru,rec je o autenticnom remek-delu,koje se samo nacelno oslanja na svoj pra izvor,fantastiku brace Strugacki,i koji od njih crpi iskljucivi okvir same price,likove i karakteristicne odnose u koje stupaju,pa i nesto od scenografije u kojoj se film dogadja.Sve ostalo,sto se racionalno podvodi pod pojam "nadgradnja"zamisljeno u srcu i glavi jednog izuzetnog stvaraoca,rezultat je rada koji je na terenu izvrsio sam Tarkovski,forme koju je,kako materijalno tako i duhovno,kako svedoce ocevidci,sam obelodanio ne dozvoljavajuci da mu se ma ko sa strane mesa u posao,sto je vidljivo gotovo u svakom trenutku njegovog trajanja,u svakom kadru ponaosob,u svakom rezu,u svakoj sekvenci,dakle u filmu kao celini,njegovoj atmosferi,pitanjima i nedoumicama kojima nas zapahnjuje ali ne u tom smislu sto ih racionalno podastire pod nas koliko u tom smislu sto ih neposredno vizuelizira.Vodjen tom linijom razvijanja osnovne atmosfere,hermetican do ekskluzivnosti,postavlja se pitanje sta je dakle Stalker kao film i sta je i u cemu je njegova osobenost?
Pre svega Stalker je metaforicna prica o putovanju trojice ljudi u neizvesnost "tajanstvene zone" u kojoj je pojam srece nesto sto je nadohvat ruke,poput izazova,dakle neka vrsta zapisa o putovanju i njegovim posledicama.Ali samim tim jer je u film uveo dve reprezentativne licnosti nase civilizacije,naucnika i umetnika,koji zajedno sa Stalkerom zalaze u nepregledne prostore sveta za koji nisu ni znali da postoji,Tarkovski prici dodaje dimenziju traktata,kako o odnosu umetnika i sveta u kojem zivi,tako i o odnosu pojedinaca,oblikujuci na taj nacin zestoku nedoumicu koja bi trebalo da ozakoni ili relativizira proboj u "tajanstvenu zonu",proboj s onu stranu datog i postojeceg,tamo gde je sve,verovatno,na dohvat ruke i izvesno.U poslednjoj instanci stvari se opet izvrcu na glavu jer Tarkovskog gotova resenja malo ili gotovo mimalo ne interesuju ili ga interesuju tek kao nesto sto je motivacijski ukljuceno u tokove filma kao moguce celine.
Stalker je pre svega auditivni i vizuelni pokusaj proboja kroz koru velikog mozga ovog naseg sveta,olicenog u nekim od svojih simbolickih projekcija,pokusaj da se eventualno otvore sve vijuge na njemu,lavirint u koji se moze uci ali izaci,da li je to uopste moguce?A samim tim,bez da ce odgovor nametnuti sam po sebi,Tarkovski svoje ambicije sa plana naracije neposredno prebacuje na plan vizuelne transpozicije,kojoj sama prica sluzi kao relativno spokojan putokaz koristeci se pritom cudesnim mogucnostima koje mu je sama scenografija pruzala a cija izuzetno slozena simbolicka svojstva Tarkovski koristi kao reperne tacke razumevanja problematike.Tako struktuiram Stalker je film u kojem materijalni,culni simboli zauzimaju znacajno pa i presudno mesto, u kome se vlaga.osecanje trulezi,miris i odredjeno stanje raspadanja susrecu na svakom mestu i na svakom koraku a najneposrednije u trenucima kada Tarkovski svoje likove dovode do sobe u kojoj se nalazi ljudska sreca i koja je naizgled nadohvat ruke.
Ali da li ju je moguce i dohvatiti,da li je uopste moguce preci njen prag ukoliko smo i dalje ostali ono sto jesmo,ono cega se ne mozemo osloboditi,ukoliko je nasa potreba za prodiranjem u "tajanstvene zone " nas samih pokazuje iskljucivo kao trenutni hir,kao granica preko koju ni materijalno ni duhovno nismo u stanju da predjemo?I,uostalom ne lici li ta mogucnost sto se junacima Tarkovskoga pruzila kao nesto nadohvat ruke, na sve moguce ideologije,na sve sto se propoveda sa propovedaonica ovog naseg sveta i svega sto on jeste ili sto bar svi mi koji ga zivimo mislimo da jeste?
Strasna kao mora,nedoumica o kojoj je rec preplice samu sebe sa ljudskim gestima i reakcijama da bi se,porazivsi coveka u nama,iznova vratila u ono prvobitno stanje u kojem jesmo kao ljudi ali ne u onoj meri u kojoj to zamisljamo koliko u onoj meri u kojoj smo to ljudsko u sebi izgubili.Svestan te nemogucnosti Tarkovski film zavrsava na zakonit nacin i stavlja sve nas u prostor u kome se kao nemoguc pokazuje svaki od nasih individualnih pokusaja da predjemo granice sveta koji nas objasnjava po meri svojih principa a sa kojim je verovatno i lepse i stvarnije komunicirati.
Ovo je samo jos jedna mogucnost citanja ovog filma.
Btw,pri snimanju kljucne scene Zrtvovanja kamera Sven Nikvista se pokvarila pa se morala graditi nova kuca.Kod snimanja Stalkera posle vise od dve trecine scena,filmska traka se pokazala kao neupotrebljiva pa je ovo sto gledamo druga verzija filma dosta razlicita od prvog snimanja.I jos nesto svi glumci filma zajedno sa rediteljem su relativno brzo poumirali.
ce gevara - May 24, 2000 10:29 (*.net.au)
zar i kajdanovski!?
nije li on posle postao reziser i nije se vise bavio glumom
cesa - May 24, 2000 11:59 (*.starcon.com)
da li arvanitis suvise lici na nikvista. meni je angelopulos "slican" tarkovskom zbog slicnosti snimatelja. ili sam utripovao. hvala
3opge - May 24, 2000 22:27 (*.splitrock.net)

mozda bi bilo interesantno reci nesto o okolnostima
u kojima je nastajao Stalker /nesto je o ovome rekao ulis/.
posle bezbroj verzija scenarija moglo bi se reci da su postojale dve glavne.
u prvoj verziji likovi su imali imena ali je komitet zahtevao da se ona izbace jer su navodno zvucala 'previse ruski' pa su tako glavnim likovima ostale samo titule. zanimljivo je takodje da na kraju te verzije profesor uspeva da aktivira atomsku bombu.
samo snimanje pratilo je vise neobicnih dogadjaja:
prvobitno odredjeno mesto snimanja u tadzikistanskoj pustinji zadesio je zemljotres pa je ceo plan morao biti promenjen a kao novo mesto odredjena je napustena hidrocentrala u Estoniji u okolini Talina sa sasvim drugacijim krajolikom, bujnom vegetacijom namesto 'mesecevog pejzaza' Tadzikistana sto je
zahtevalo bitne promene scenarija.
celokupna vec snimljena prva verzija je delom propala a delom namerno obrisana jer je reditelj bio nezadovoljan tako da je ponovo snimljen kompletan novi film.
Tarkovski je tada otpustio neke od kljucnih clanova ekipe kojima nije bio zadovoljan.


*********************************************
"U Stalkeru sam postavio kompletno tvrdjenje - naime,
da je ljudska ljubav cudo sposobno da se odupre svakoj suvoj teoretizaciji
o beznadeznosti sveta. Ovo osecanje je nasa zajednicka i nepromenljiva pozitivna imovina.
Ali mi vise ne znamo kako da volimo..."

Ulis - May 25, 2000 12:55 (213.177.*)
Tarkovski:
"Sta je,dakle,tema koja odzvanja kroz Stalkera?.Najopstije govoreci,to je tema ljudskog dostojanstva;sta je dostojanstvo:i na koji nacin covek pati ukoliko nema samopostovanja.
Dozvolite mi da podsetim citaoca sa se likovi u filmu nalaze na putu u Zonu,njihov cilj je jedna soba u kojoj ce,kao sto nam je receno,svakome biti ispunjena njegova najtananija zelja.I za vreme rizicnog probijanja preko cudnih prostranstava Zone,predvodjeni Stalkerom,Pisac i Naucnik u jednom trenutku slusaju istinitu pricu ili samo legendu koju im prica njihov vodic,o jednom drugom Stalkeru,kome je dat nadimak Bodljikovac.On je otisao na tajno mesto da moli da mu brat,koji je ubijen njegovom krivicom,bude vracen uzivot.Medjutim,kada se vratio kuci,Bodljikavac shvata da je postao basnoslovno bogat.Zona je ispunila onu zelju koju je on u stvarnosti pozeleo svim srcem,a ne onu za koju je mislio da mu je najdragocenija.
I Bodljikavac se obesio.
I tako su dva coveka postigla svoj cilj.Prosli su kroz mnogo toga,razmisljali o sebi,dosli do nove samoprocene:i nemaju hrabrosti da prekorace prag sobe do koje su,da bi dosli,rizikovali zivote.Shvatili su koliko su nesavrseni na tragicnom,najdubljem nivou svesnosti.Oni su skupili snagu da pogledaju u same sebe-i bili uzasnuti;ali im je nedostajalo duhovne hrabrosti da u sebe poveruju.
Dolazak Stalkerove zene u kafanu u kojoj se odmaraju suocava Pisca i Naucnika sa zagonetnom i njima neshvatljivom pojavom.Tu,pred njima je zena koja je prosla kroz necuvenu bedu zbog svoga muza a ima sa njim i bolesno dete;ali ga ona i dalje voli istom nesebicnom,nepromisljenom odanoscu kao kada je bila mlada.Njena ljubav i njena odanost su ono poslednje cudo koje moze biti postavljeno nasuprot neverovanju,cinizmu,moralnom vakuumu koji truje moderni svet,cije su zrtve i Pisac i Naucnik."
ce gevara - May 26, 2000 01:25 (*.net.au)
ja se slazem sa vecinom tvojih ocena samo sto ja tvoju potragu za dostojanstvom nazivam alijenacijom jer ja je tako shvatam.
kada covek zbog nekih tada mu vaznih ideala
zapostavi svoju genericku sustinu

uparavo je to tragicna kafanska scena
stalker /sa dosta markesovih h arcadio osobina/ je po meni najveci arhetip i produkt otudjenja u filmu
njena ljubav je slepilo i beda kojom su okruzeni kao i rusenjem svih opsteprihvacenih moralnih normi uz koje je verovatno odrastala

ona je odraz njene ogranicenosti i nemogucnosti da ista promeni u svomebednome zivotu
ukratko beznadje
njegov odnos prema porodici se moze esencijalno izjednaciti sa alkoholicarem koji
trosi poslednju lovu na alkohol dok porodica pati ili kockar ili u ovom slucaju eskapizam glavnog junaka i njegova dnevna doza snova/kao i u markesu/

raspad porodice i beznadje je vezan za stanje u ruskome drustvu kao i ne bih ga podizao na pijedestal kao ni njenu iracionalnu vecitu vernost koja je samo surogat za ono sto nema
pronalazak srece u sobi je potraga za onim vecitim pitanjima na koje nemamo odgovor
smisao zivota!? zasto ovde zivim!? koka-jaje!?
itd
dakle ne uzdizimo starkovskog na neshvatljivi metafizicki nivo iako svi imamo svoje specificno shvatanje svakog filma pa i carobnjaka iz oza ili izgubljene olovke,jer je on itekeko svoj film vezao za totalitarizam drustva u kome se nalazio kao i8 stremljenju pojedinca/zene stalkera/ za najobicnijim i najprostijim malim ljudskim zadovoljstvima kojih ona nema kako u primarnom tako i u sekundarnom miljeu koji je okruzuje
odnos tri glavna lika je ponavljam veciti stereotip artist-tehnokrata vodjeni eskapizmom sanjara na putu ka konacnim apsolutnim istinama aperionima absolutima ili nazovimo ih kako hocemo
samo sto taj stereotip tarkovski opisuje na sebi svojstven
predivan nacin.

author clark - May 27, 2000 16:00 (*.uunet.de)
"Stalker" je jedan od mojih najdrazih filmova, iako, priznajem da postoji macho-isticki, desperado-elitizam. Tu se slazem sa Ce.
Ali, snimao je Tarkovski i druge filmove...

Gore pomenuti bla-bla-elitizam (kod svih likova u filmu) se koristi kao dopunsko sredstvo u stvaranju atmosfere u filmu - nesto kao ona muva na licu zaspalog kauboja tacno u podne, u hladu jedne brvnare pored pruge u preriji. Pa jos Morricone u pozadini!
Klisei se ili nalaze SVUDA, ili ih izvezbano oko svuda prepoznaje. U svakom slucaju, tu su.

Mnoge segmente (metafizicke) stvarnosti pokriva i film "Pi" (D. Aronofsky), film koji nije upucen samo Mladim Lavovima Techno Generacije (kao, recimo "matrix"), vec i boemsko-konzervativno-kritickim intelektualcima koji su sve videli i sve znaju.

Mislim da se "danasnji" intelektualni elitizam se u svojoj ikonografiji MALO razlikuje od "predjasnjeg".
Peter Gun je interpolirana licnost iz (nase!) macho-fantazije koja nije vremenski/a promenljiva.
Desperado-elitizam je samo jedan od oblika muske egocentricnosti, a ja zaista ne vidim sta je tu lose. Jer, pricamo o filmu.
U filmu "the piano" mozemo iz zenskog ugla gledati stvari. Ili, u " Fried green tomatoes..."
To je OK. Ima puno dobrih filmova. I knjiga.
Ima mesta i za Dostojevskog i za Bukowskog, a egzaltirano mistifikovati pojedince iz kulturnog zivota nije u redu...

[Mica Milovanovic]

Sneki,
što se mene tiče, Tarkovski, slicno Kjubriku, samo koristi odredjenu ljusturu koju nude romani Lema i brace Strugacki da iskaze onu jednu te istu pricu koja je tu u svim njegovim filmovima - pitanje vere, kao sto to ulis rece, njegov odnos sa ocem...  sporo... ruski... delujuci vise na emocije nego na um... Nekako, dok gledam njegove filmove, nemam preveliku potrebu za racionalizacijom toga što gledam...

Uzgrad, u njegovim filmovima ne vidim toliko njegovo suprotstavljanje totalitarizmu (sto je neko na onom forumu pomenuo). Mozda ima i toga, ali ne mislim da je to toliko bitno...

Takodje, kad smo već kod teksta sa foruma, ja mislim da ne treba mnogo pažnje pridavati tome šta autor govori o svom delu... Nije najpozvaniji, a ponekad i namerno želi da odvede na stanputicu...

Sa druge strane, Lemov Solaris je više maestralna intelektualna igra, sjajno korišćenje SF-a kao ultimativne alatke da se stvari dovedu do granice kada prestaje ratio, i u coveku počnu da funkcionisu neke druge poluge. Šta se onda zbiva? To je ono pravo korišćenje SF-a, isterivanje stvari do krajnjih granica – to radi i Ursula u Levoj ruci tame, našlo bi se još ponešto... ali, nažalost, malo je takvog SF-a... Slično je i sa Piknikom kraj puta, brace Strugacki... To je verovatno i privuklo Tarkovskog...

BTW, Lem je cudo od mislioca... Ko svojevremeno nije citao Summu Technologia-e, mnogo je propustio... Pa makar i digest izdanje...

[sneki]

znas sta ulise,

tarkovski ima long takes i usporen ritam i ja sam svesna da kamera tada ima narativnu funkciju i da je to poseban i estetski i spiritualni dozivljaj.

pa citala sam i imam 'sculpting in time', V-ta glava bas tretira u nekoliko, pet, sest segmenata njegovu tehniku snimanja, koliko se secam?

seti se samo 'nostalgije', mislim da bas u tom filmu ima ona scena sa svecom od 8 minuta...pa traje, pa traje dok te  ne natera da se indetifikujes sa glumcem i okolinom i trenutkom .

ili ona zadnja scena.

tu dolazi ono bergmanovo 'life as a reflection, life as a dream' do izrazaja.

medjutim, ako je bas do umetnickog dozivljaja moj las uvek ide, bez dugog razmisljanja, kurosawi.

to je meni fascinantan reziser.
i interesantan je njihov / t & k/ odnos i prijateljstvo koje je bilo evidentno i obostrano uvazavanje.

evo sta kaze kurosawa za t. solaris-a koji je svrstao na svoju neku internu top listu filmova.


Akira Kurosawa
   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tarkovsky and Solaris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 


I met Tarkovsky for the first time when I attended my welcome luncheon at the Mosfilm during my first visit to Soviet Russia. He was small, thin, looked a little frail, and at the same time exceptionally intelligent, and unusually shrewd and sensitive. I thought he somehow resembled Toru Takemitsu, but I don't know why. Then he excused himself saying, "I still have work to do," and disappeared, and after a while I heard such a big explosion as to make all the glass windows of the dining hall tremble hard. Seeing me taken aback, the boss of the Mosfilm said with a meaningful smile: "You know another world war does not break out. Tarkovsky just launched a rocket. This work with Tarkovsky, however, has proved a Great War for me." That was the way I knew Tarkovsky was shooting Solaris.

After the luncheon party, I visited his set for Solaris. There it was. I saw a burnt down rocket was there at the corner of the space station set. I am sorry I forgot to ask him as to how he had shot the launching of the rocket on the set. The set of the satellite base was beautifully made at a huge cost, for it was all made up of thick duralumin.

It glittered in its cold metallic silver light, and I found light rays of red, or blue or green delicately winking or waving from electric light bulbs buried in the gagues on the equipment lined up in there. And above on the ceiling of the corridor ran two duralumin rails from which hanged a small wheel of a camera which could move around freely inside the satellite base.

Tarkovsky guided me around the set, explaining to me as cheerfully as a young boy who is given a golden opportunity to show someone his favorite toybox. Bondarchuk, who came with me, asked him about the cost of the set, and left his eyes wide open when Tarkovsky answered it. The cost was so huge: about six hundred million yen as to make Bondarchuk, who directed that grand spectacle of a movie "War and Peace," agape in wonder.

Now I came to fully realize why the boss of the Mosfilm said it was "a Great War for me." But it takes a huge talent and effort to spend such a huge cost. Thinking "This is a tremendous task" I closely gazed at his back when he was leading me around the set in enthusiasm.

Concerning Solaris, I find many people complaining that it is too long, but I do not think so. They especially find too lengthy the description of nature in the introductory scenes, but these layers of memory of farewell to this earthly nature submerge themselves deep below the bottom of the story after the main character has been sent in a rocket into the satellite station base in the universe, and they almost torture the soul of the viewer like a kind of irresistible nostalghia toward mother earth nature, which resembles homesickness. Without the presence of beautiful nature sequences on earth as a long introduction, you could not make the audience directly conceive the sense of having-no-way-out harboured by the people "jailed" inside the satellite base.

I saw this film late at night in a preview room in Moscow for the first time, and soon I felt my heart aching in agony with a longing to returning to the earth as quickly as possible. Marvellous progress in science we have been enjoying, but where will it lead humanity after all? Sheer fearful emotion this film succeeds in conjuring up in our soul. Without it, a science fiction movie would be nothing more than a petty fancy.

These thoughts came and went while I was gazing at the screen.

Tarkovsky was together with me then. He was at the corner of the studio. When the film was over, he stood up, looking at me as if he felt timid. I said to him, "Very good. It makes me feel real fear." Tarkovsky smiled shyly, but happily. And we toasted vodka at the restaurant in the Film Institute. Tarkovsky, who didn't drink usually, drank a lot of vodka, and went so far as to turn off the speaker from which music had floated into the restaurant, and began to sing the theme of samurai from Seven Samurai at the top of his voice.

As if to rival him, I joined in.

For I was at that moment very happy to find myself living on Earth.

Solaris makes a viewer feel this, and even this single fact shows us that Solaris is no ordinary SF film. It truly somehow provokes pure horror in our soul. And it is under the total grip of the deep insights of Tarkovsky.

There must be many, many things still unknown to humanity in this world: the abyss of the cosmos which a man had to look into, strange visitors in the satellite base, time running in reverse, from death to life, strangely moving sense of levitation, his home which is in the mind of the main character in the satellite station is wet and soaked with water. It seems to me to be sweat and tears that in his heartbreaking agony he sqeezed out of his whole being. And what makes us shudder is the shot of the location of Akasakamitsuke, Tokyo, Japan. By a skillful use of mirrors, he turned flows of head lights and tail lamps of cars, multiplied and amplified, into a vintage image of the future city. Every shot of Solaris bears witness to the almost dazzling talents inherent in Tarkovsky.

Many people grumble that Tarkovsky's films are difficult, but I don't think so. His films just show how extraordinarily sensitive Tarkovsky is. He made a film titled Mirror after Solaris. Mirror deals with his cherished memories in his childhood, and many people say again it is disturbingly difficult. Yes, at a glance, it seems to have no rational development in its storytelling. But we have to remember: it is impossible that in our soul our childhood memories should arrange themselves in a static, logical sequence.

A strange train of fragments of early memory images shattered and broken can bring about the poetry in our infancy. Once you are convinced of its truthfulness, you may find Mirror the easiest film to understand. But Tarkovsky remains silent, without saying things like that at all. His very attitude makes me believe that he has wonderful potentials in his future.

There can be no bright future for those who are ready to explain everything about their own film.




mico, ne volim tako izrabljen izraz koji je uvek prigodan u ovakvim situacijama : this is the begining of a beatiful friendship... vidis koliko malo treba da slozimo, bar oko t's long takes.

[sneki]

ah, da...ovo sam htela da 'stresujem'/?!?/ iz kurosawinog teksta:

...Concerning Solaris, I find many people complaining that it is too long, but I do not think so. They especially find too lengthy the description of nature in the introductory scenes...

[Boban]

Postoji kod mnogih rezisera kult od 8 minuta i 20 sekundi. Toliko traje poniranje u crni monolit u Odiseji, toliko ulazak u Kjoto u Solarisu, dogorevanje svece... 8 minuta i 20 sekundi je misticno vreme koliko je potrebno zraku Sunca da stigne do planete Zemlje.

[Ulis]

Eto i Kurosava  je na mojoj strani:)).

Posto vec imas knjigu,obrati paznju na delove koji obradjuju ritam i vreme.

G.Milovanovic je tacno primetio "sjajno koriscenje SF-a kao alatke da se stvari dovedu do granice kada u coveku pocinje da funkcionise nesto drugo od razuma" i "da je to privuklo Tarkovskog".Btw. slazemo se i oko Summa Technologia.

Evo jos jednog teksta:
My decision to make a screen adaptation of Stanislaw Lem's Solaris was not a result of my interest in science fiction. The essential reason was that in Solaris Lem undertook a moral problem I can closely relate to. The deeper meaning of Lem's novel does not fit within the confines of science fiction. To discuss only the literary form is to limit the problem. This is a novel not only about the clash between human reason and the Unknown but also about moral conflicts set in motion by new scientific discoveries. It's about new morality arising as a result of those painful experiences we call "the price of progress." For Kelvin that price means having to face directly his own pangs of conscience in a material form. Kelvin does not change the principles of his conduct, he remains himself, which is the source of a tragic dilemma in him.

Why is it that in all the science fiction films I've seen the authors force the viewer to watch the material details of the future? Why do they call their films — as Stanley Kubrick did — prophetic? Not to mention that to specialists 2001 is in many instances a bluff and there is no place for that in a work of art. I'd like to film Solaris in such a way as to avoid inducing in the viewer a feeling of anything exotic. Exotic in the technological realm naturally. For example: if we filmed passengers getting on a tram and we knew nothing about trams — let's assume — because we had never seen them before, then we'd obtain the effect similar to what Kubrick did in the scene of the spaceship landing on the Moon. In other words, as long as we film cosmic scenery the way we would normally film a tram stop, everything will be fine. Thus we need to put the characters in real, not exotic, scenery because it is only through the perception of the former by the characters in the film that it will become comprehensible to the viewer. That's why detailed expositions of technological processes of the future destroy the emotional foundation of film.
Interview Dialog s Andreiem Tarkovskim o nauchnoi fantastikie na ekrane with Nikolai Abramov in "Ekran 1970–1971", Moscow 1971, pp. 162–165 [anonymous Pol. trans.]

I think the point is that humanity at each stage of its, let's call it "technological," development must fight against a kind of spiritual entropy, dispersion of moral values. On the one hand it tries to liberate itself from all morality, on the other — it tries to create one. This dilemma becomes the source, both in individual lives and in the life of society in general, of unusually dramatically charged situations. This dramatic liberation and at the same time the search for the spiritual ideal will last until humanity achieves a stage of development where it will be able to dedicate itself solely to moral problems. A stage at which man will attain absolute external freedom, let's call it social freedom, where he won't have to worry about his daily bread anymore, about a roof over his head, about securing his children's future; where he will be able to go deep inside himself with the same energy he previously devoted to external freedom. For me what happened on the space station between Harey and Kelvin is simply a question of man's relation toward his own conscience.
[...]
Film cannot follow a book slavishly. To follow in Lem's footsteps would be performing a disservice to the author and to the book. I attempted to put on screen my own reader's version of Solaris. In order to remain faithful to the author I had to deviate from the novel now and then in search of visual equivalents for certain themes. I needed the Earth for contrast although not only for that... I wished to make the Earth an equivalent of something beautiful in viewer's mind. A subject of one's longing. So that after he plunges into the mysterious fantastic atmosphere of Solaris, when he suddenly glimpses the Earth he again feels normal, at home. So that he begins to feel longing for this ordinariness. In other words, he feels the beneficial influence of nostalgia. After all, Kelvin decides to stay on Solaris to conduct experiments — he considers it his duty as a human being. Thus I needed the Earth in order for the viewer to realise even more fully, sharply, the whole dramatic significance of his decision, this surrender of returning to the planet which was and is our primal home.
Interview Ziemska moralnosc w kosmosie, czyli "Solaris" na ekranie with Zbigniew Podgórzec in "Tygodnik Powszechny" 1972 (42), p. 3

I saw Stanley Kubrick's 2001 recently. The film has made on me an impression of something artificial, it was as if I have found myself in a museum where they demonstrate the newest technological achievements. Kubrick is intoxicated with all this and he forgets about man, about his moral problems. And without that true art cannot exist.
I believe in maximal directness in film narration. And in this film as well I'm employing the simplest means without any gimmicks. I'm avoiding what is nowadays fashionably referred to as "spectacular". Although, I admit, the film will be in colour. Until recently I've been adamantly opposed to the use of colour but what can one do, today it's impossible to avoid it and I am trying to put this invention to the best use somehow, to make it fit within the boundaries of realism. Realism in a science fiction film? Yes, I think this is possible. We are striving to make this imagined world as concrete as possible, especially in its purely external manifestations. Reality shown in Solaris must be materially tangible, almost graspable. We are achieving it through the textures of the decorations, through Vadim Yusov's cinematic style.
In our film there are also scenes taking place on Earth which are not in the book as we know. I need the Earth for contrast but that's not all. I would like the viewer to become aware of the beauty of our planet so that — having been immersed in an atmosphere of matters inscrutable and mysterious — with even more eagerness he would come back home to Earth, would freely and joyfully breathe its ordinariness. I would like for him to understand the bitterness of homesickness. After all Kris decides to stay on Solaris because this is what is demanded by his calling as a scientist, by the debt he owes to those who entrusted him with the project's supervision. In this situation the images of Earth should act as catalysts of viewers' psychological reactions making them see the full implications of Kris' decision more clearly.
Andrei Tarkovsky, Zachem proshloe vstrechaetsa s budushchim, "Iskusstvo Kino" 1971 (11), pp. 96–101 [anonymous Pol. trans.]

I don't like science fiction, or rather the genre SF is based on. All those games with technology, various futurological tricks and inventions which are always somehow artificial. But I'm interested in problems I can extract from fantasy. Man and his problems, his world, his anxieties. Ordinary life is also full of the fantastic. Life itself is a fantastic phenomenon. Fyodor Dostoievsky knew it well. That's why I want to focus on life itself — everyday, ordinary. Because within it anything can happen. My Solaris is not after all true science fiction. Neither is its literary predecessor. What counts here is man, his personality, his very persistent bonds with planet Earth, responsibility for the times he lives in. I don't like your typical science fiction, I don't understand it, I don't belive in it. The fact is when I was working on Solaris I was concerned with the same subject as in Rublov. Human being. These two films are only separated by the time the action is taking place.
Interview Andrzej Tarkowski — spotkanie z rezyserem with Wieslawa Czapinska in "Ekran" 1980 (1), pp. 18–19

Solaris turned out the least successful of my films beacuse I was unable to avoid elements of science fiction. Stanislaw Lem read the screenplay, found in it my attempt to elliminate the science fiction factor and was distressed by it. He threatened to withdraw his permission for screen adaptation. We prepared a new screenplay from which we could quietly deviate during filming as I intended to do. But this intent was never fully realised.
Ian Christie, Mark Le Fanu, Tarkovski à Londres, "Positif" Dec. 1981 (249), pp. 24–28 [Pol. trans. Zygmunt Kwiatkowski]


Stanislaw Lem:
I have fundamental reservations to this adaptation. First of all I would have liked to see the planet Solaris which the director unfortunately denied me as the film was to be a cinematically subdued work. And secondly — as I told Tarkovsky during one of our quarrels — he didn't make Solaris at all, he made Crime and Punishment. What we get in the film is only how this abominable Kelvin has driven poor Harey to suicide and then he has pangs of conscience which are amplified by her appearance; a strange and incomprehensible appearance. This phenomenalistics [sic] of Harey's subsequent appearances was for me an exemplification of certain concept which can be derived almost from Kant himself. Because there exists the Ding an sich, the Unreachable, the Thing in Itself, the Other Side which cannot be penetrated. But in my prose this was made apparent and orchestrated completely differently... I have to make it clear, however, that I haven't seen the whole film except for 20 minutes of the second part although I know the screenplay very well because Russians have a custom of making an extra copy for the author. And what was just totally awful, Tarkovsky introduced Kelvin's parents in the film, and even some Auntie of his. But above all the mother — because mother is mat', and mat' is Rossiya, Rodina, Zemlya. [Russia, Motherland, Earth] This has made me already quite mad. At this moment we were like two horses pulling the carriage in opposite directions.
[...]
My Kelvin decides to stay on the planet without any hope whatsoever while Tarkovsky created an image where some kind of an island appears, and on that island a hut. And when I hear about the hut and the island I'm beside myself with irritation... This is just some emotional sauce into which Tarkovsky has submerged his heroes, not to mention that he has completely amputated the scientific landscape and in its place introduced so much of the weirdness I cannot stand.

[Ulis]

Shavkat Abdusalamov
   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Japanese Influences
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 


One film fan said: "Your Andrei [Rublov] comes from The Seven Samurai." To begin with, he's not mine, and second, all of us come from somewhere. We are most often shown the road to the temple. Otherwise we would not come out of the wilderness. There was also Confusius on Andrei's desk. To say "no" to such a film fan is tantamount to agreeing that we never let fresh air into our flat. In those years we read Basho and Akutagawa. We carried Ueda Akinari in our pocket, watched Mizoguchi in the filmlibrary. Then Andrei got Bresson. Now I think it was the first call of death, don't ask me why.

The Japanese amazed us not by the exotic, but by their very way of thinking. Each personage on the screen is something exceptional. Hence the elevated mood of the scenes. Everything accidental is removed, the most characteristic is led into the limelight. The warrior raises a sword - it is an event - he lowers it, a flash of lightning. It is difficult to imagine a Samurai using his sword in an everyday way, say, for cutting bread. But if Kurosawa as an artist were to show such a thing, Mt. Fuji would erupt. That is, there are incompatible things but if they do occur, the face of the world is transformed. That was what Japanese films were for us.

The mud is Japanese in Tarkovsky's Rublov. But what is it like, Russian Mud? Does it have a specific odor? White cumulous clouds on the horizon, women in babushkas with embroidered linen towels? That's an advertisement! What does it have to do with Russia of Rublov's age? Incidentally, the film is not about that, or rather not only about that. It seems that only recently, almost yesterday, Elem Klimov, his brother Gherman, photographer Nikolai Gnisyuk and I traveled throughout North Russia. I won't describe everything, only the incredible Mud. And then we rejoiced "It's impossible to conquer Russia, it doesn't have the roads!" In that ancient Russia, cows were not set afire. People did not ride into temples on horseback. And not only then. We blew up churches without waiting for an invasion. Peterhof was destroyed by the Nazis, we restored it, not without pride. Yet, we're only debating whether to retore the Church of the Savior in Moscow! Peterhof is a moment of culture. The Church of the Savior was divine. As if God were not at the very root of culture.

Abrupt emotional changes are alien to the oriental world outlook. Its religious-ethical teachings always contain a certain norm of behavior, norm of compassion. Without separating the new from the old, the beautiful from the ugly, they put everything upside-down, confusing in our minds the ordinary ideas of the aesthetic in nature. The dry rustle of reeds proved to be a melody in harmony with the full moon.

Andrei was indeed enriched by the Japanese. Enrichment is not imitation. An artist acquires something in order to broaden his world outlook. He adopts things as if they were the missing part with the help of which he would finally accomplish flight. Daedalus and Icarus, feathers and wax - it's primitive. Thinking did not go any further: it was not artistic thinking. The Japanese taught us a lesson: wings could be made of bamboo. Not probability, but the truth is important. I would be surprised more were I to learn that Andrei was not influenced by the Japanese. It is alien to the nature of an artist to wear blinders-blinkers whatever the color. If an artist is inwardly free, he has a thousand ways of seeing, hearing and feeling the world. [/url]

[sneki]

ulise...


ona voda, zar ne lici na scenu iz 'solaris'-a, onako po atmosferi?

stvarno.
mnogo lepo. maketa je postala kuca a kuca maketa, skoro iracionalno.
pa menjaj taj nick, vise ti odgovara tarkovski.

[Ulis]

Ne skoro,potpuno:))

Voda je bitan element  u Nostalgiji,Stalkeru,Ogledalu,Rubljovu...Takodje i vatra (zadnje sceene u Nostalgiji i Zrtvovanju)
Ta kuca koju vidis na fotografiji izgorece u jednom kadru za deset minuta.
Mislim da negde na netu mozes pronaci martirolog Tarkovskog,hronologiju poslednjih godina zivota.
Veoma mucno svedocanstvu o dijagnostifikovanju i napredovanju bolesti,izmedju ostalog.
Knjigu,koju si navela-Vajanje u vremenu,zavrsio je dvadeset dana pre smrti.
Pokusaj na http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghia.com/index.html

A sto se tice nick-a, o tome kad budes procitala najludju,najsveobuhvatniju i najzabavniju knjigu ikad napisanu.Svako od nas je pomalo Leopold Blum (Ulis,Uliks,a Herr bi rekao Odisej).

[Herr]

Ulkus also sprahe Herr