Who is the literary equivalent of Tarkovsky?

Zola

Came here to post this. Never even read Dostoevsky properly but there's certainly some kind of shared sensibility between the two.

This. Tarkovsky uses very little exposition and creates many layered narratives with cinematography alone. It's very hard to have anything similar in literature although as one user said Дocтoeвcкий comes closest, mainly due to some common themes and a similar moral core.
They both believe in a triumph of spirituality over new ideas (industrialisation and communism for Tarkovsky and the rise of the Intelligentsia for Dostoevsky.)
They both advocate a simpler more holistic and spiritual approach to life, rather than the neurotic expounding on philosophical topics to find an answer that many tried. We can see this in Raskolnikov and Ivan Karamazov for Dostoevsky, and the writer from Tarkovakys stalker. The problem is addressed to a lesser extent and more subtly in the mirror also.

Have seen Stalker and Solaris. Where to go next with Tarkovsky?

Definitely watch Zerkalo (1975).

youtube.com/watch?v=cBQOaQOpkx8

george bernanos

dostoevsky at his best

andrei rublev is entry level tarkovsky but its my favorite and definitely worth a watch

...

this thread is waxing silly.

you don't know shit about cinematography or narrative theory. stahp.

Let's try to be more systematic. What is Tarkovsky all about?

Cinematography
>long scenic takes fused with walk and talk
>dialogue volume same as background dialogue and noise

Screenwriting
>get someone who experienced your chronotope dead drunk and take some notes
>sent it for editing to an experienced writer
>receive the final script and flush it down the toilet
>then ask actors and the crew for input while the filming's going on

Scenography
>the scenery must be evocative but not distracting
>every interior is a still life and every exterior is a pastoral

Conclusion:
The writer most like Andrei Tarkovskiy is Andrei Tarkovskiy who produced over 20 finished screenbooks. Those he made for own use were produced making the films.

I hope that was helpful.

@everyone who mentioned Russian writers because they, derp, are also Russian:
do an hero. dostoyevsky has a plenty heroes. pick one.

Tarkovsky would never say "shit".

please kys my man, it's better than the unemployment you're probably suffering from after finishing film school

He probably wouldn't say, "pleb," either. It's still very funny. I love Tarkovsky's movies but they do suffer from pretentious use of their audience's time. I guess it was before the time of exploding skyscrapers and shaky cam.

Andrei Rublev (my fav) then Sacrifice then Nostalghia then The Mirror

>orange and teal

kys

>unemployment is a bad thing

I really didn't like Nostalghia all that much. It just kept going onnnnnnn. I guess that's a common theme.

Both wrote from a religious arothodox christian perspective and were inspired by it.

...nor would he ever speak of deleuzian concepts. In the Russian language articles I've read he only uses good old Hegel and some Stanislawski. But, then, those articles were likely just a means for him convince Soviet Cultural Bureacrats to let him make another movie.
F.E. If he was to make a game of thrones episode he'd start with a digression on the history of narrative and sex scenes in world cinema and would conclude that that, while they started out as completely different concepts the mutual influence has made, by now, the division between porn and drama seem almost arbitrary following roughly the very same rules, so that it could be easily sublated into pornorama which would combine the best of porn and of the drama scene laws dropping only all the unresolved contradictions. Then he'd muse about the dialectical relationship between this novel pornorama scene type and the laws of the intended finished movie.
And in the end, to relieve the tension, he'd tell you some anecdotes from practice. f.e. how had fucked all the actors and made them describe that in a diary but then decided it has been a bad idea, so that he instead had all his actors improvise some drama scenes involving sex but without any sexual super-objectives. And THAT he has them describe it in a diary concluding it's the next big thing.

He would. He criticised many famous film makers, including experimental ones and often used harsh language.
He also enjoyed beating hookers.

Well yeah obviously, he spoke russian.

He'd say гoвнo or something.

Tarshitsky isn't taken seriously by anyone who's developed a modicum of cinematic taste

t. /tv/

>t. /tv/

Cinematic taste like Game of Thrones, iCarly and the latest cunny show yeah?

Tarshitsky isn't taken seriously by anyone who's developed a dick. But if you want to use your dick you gotta know the metatext.

many will disagree but probably Ivan's Childhood. His most traditional film, sure, but a hella well shot, well written one.

>/tv/ knows jack shit about films that aren't batman v superman
who could have predicted it

Tarkovsky hated sci-fi but was made to film it by the soviet government to vin festivals (which he did)

kys pretentious pseud

How do I get into Tarkovsky?

his directorial debut, same as any other auteur

>starting with Det regnar på vår kärlek
>starting with Bottle Rocket
'no'

>ivans childhood
>andrei rublev
>stalker
>the rest

Tarkovsky is just the cinematic version of Tolstoy

watch his movies
also this

other than slow pace and meticulous detail they are nothing alike

>Russian national identity persisting in work
>Strong Christian themes contrasting with popular ideals of the time

I found Solaris to be quite accessible. Stalker was the first movie by him that I watched and it really fucked my brain, but Solaris has a somewhat more normal style and deals with similar issues in a similar way, so I recommend that one. (I haven't watched any other Tark films, though.)

Find as many good arguments as you can, the style of their works is too different. Tark is mysterious, confusing and meditative, Tolstoy is realistic, clear and analytic. They just don't look similar intuitively.

But you're wrong, in his memoirs he specifically uses the word pleb and insults multiple directors including fellini, asking where have all the great directors gone, they're scared, cowards.

It's probably Robert Musil. Although robert musil puts into words what tarkovsky doesn't or can't.

If not musil some modernist writer who put out work between 1900-1960, probably no one else, and most likely from a european country.

>patricianhood is found in first year film studies

Seriously do any of you actually know of a "deep and mysterious" director that isn't found in Criterion?

Mudailiar?

You're nothing and your shitty director is obscure for a reason.

You sure went for the lowblow there you cultured film aesthete. The cruel obvious statement you made that I, on an anonymous imageboard, am a nobody.

Tarkovsky is also an obscure I wonder what the reason for that is? That he is shit? That he is second rate, ephemeral and puffed up? A nobody who takes his mystical didacticism too seriously?

>implying patrcianhood = liking obscure hidden gems
if you know and truly appreciate the established classics, you're already patrician. treating the classic works of any genre or form of art as "entry level" is much worse a crime than not knowing obscure names.

this should be obvious to anyone who isn't a /mu/ pleb (I'll admit that my argument works noticeably worse for popular music than lets say, literature and art cinema)

>Being a worthless NEET is a good thing
Stop embarrassing yourself

Tarkovsky is a failed poet who chose to butcher the film form in order to showcase his infantile "work".

So, any failed film director who switched to writing is your answer

Okay, if you think Tarkovsky is in the highest tier of filmmakers then you need to learn more

seconded

Tarkovsky is a more literary Tarantino, an "intellectual" huckster who stood on the shoulders of giants. The entirety of his ideas and aesthetic are a pastiche of artists and intellectuals far greater than him.