Andrei Tarkovsky - Interviews

Why is Tarkovsky such an anti-positivist cuck? That shit always bothered me in both his films and his literature, Solaris feels more like an angry teenage rebuttal to 2001 rather than anything of substance.

replace Nostalgia with Ivan's Childhood and you're perfectly correct

But user, Ivan's Childhood is the most bog-standard, linear and ideologically flat film he made, how can it even be compared to the rest of his filmography? IMHO he only truly ascended into arthouse level with Andrei Rublev.

>Why is Tarkovsky such an anti-positivist cuck? That shit always bothered me in both his films and his literature, Solaris feels more like an angry teenage rebuttal to 2001 rather than anything of substance.
what an embarassing post
There is literally nothing wrong with anti-positivism, virtually all respected minds are anti-positivist, anti-positivism is a horrible description of tarkovsky, anti-positivists are not cucks, tarkovsky is not a cuck, solaris has literally nothing to do with 2001, and suggesting that it has no substance is the dumbest thing you said

It really is his most standard work, which is why I think it's his best: the rest is a salad of angsty ideas about what he views as true art and muddled metaphysics

Overall, cinematography may be better in his other films (though the birch scene is still his best), but this does not excuse the pretentiousness

Malick is a hollywood meme, that's why actors don't care what his stuff is about or if its even good, they take cameo roles just to say they worked with him

He was as scathing as Nabokov in his criticism of other directors

>Did he really die not knowing he was a hack!

>Disgusting Russian apologist

wat

Fucking wew. I hope they show Stalker at my local AMC theater next weekend.

Not that guy but Tarkovsky didn't like 2001, he thought it was cold spiritually. It's wrong to compare it Solaris though, they have no connection

For you

>Why is Tarkovsky such an anti-positivist cuck?
Because truth alone holds no value and provides no reason to live. To call him an antipositivist is false too. Tarkovsky had no interest in social science and intellectualism. Tark believed that man is man, and man is owned by God, everything else is pointless.

>Solaris feels more like an angry teenage rebuttal to 2001 rather than anything of substance
It wasn't a rebuttal to 2001. Also, how was 2001 anything of substance? It was entirely forgery with no basis in reality whatsoever.

>>solaris has literally nothing to do with 2001
>implying Tarkovsky didn't rant on Kubrick during the production of Solaris, criticizing it for emphasizing a technological setting over human characterization
>implying the aesthetic elegance and mysterious vibe of space exploration in 2001 doesn't present a contrast with Tarkovsky's anti-Enlightenment critique of technocracy and space exploration as something inherently bad
>implying the anthropology-focused plot of 2001 doesn't present a contrast with the character-focused plot in Solaris
>implying this isn't one of the very few films where Tarkovsky actually tries to ideologically argue about something instead of solely focusing on expressing visual poetry as usual
>implying all the scholars comparing both movies are wrong in presenting parallels

I mean, sure, Tarkovsky probably didn't make Solaris entirely to argue about positivism, but there are definitely some comparisons to be made in the way both films present technocracy. Honestly, it's hard not to feel like at least some dialogue wouldn't be the same hadn't Tarkovsky seen 2001, like the argument between the two scientists.

>Science? Nonsense! In this situation mediocrity and genius are equally useless! I must tell you that we really have no desire to conquer any cosmos. We want to extend the Earth up to its borders. We don't know what to do with other worlds. We don't need other worlds. We need a mirror. We struggle to make contact, but we'll never achieve it. We are in a ridiculous predicament of man pursuing a goal that he fears and that he really does not need. Man needs man!

>implying Tarkovsky didn't rant on Kubrick during the production of Solaris, criticizing it for emphasizing a technological setting over human characterization
I think that was from an interview after Solaris got released.

>implying
I think Solaris is more of a contrast with the Cold War space race than 2001.

>>Science? Nonsense! In this situation mediocrity and genius are equally useless! I must tell you that we really have no desire to conquer any cosmos. We want to extend the Earth up to its borders. We don't know what to do with other worlds. We don't need other worlds. We need a mirror. We struggle to make contact, but we'll never achieve it. We are in a ridiculous predicament of man pursuing a goal that he fears and that he really does not need. Man needs man!
Wasn't this written by Lem though?

Yes it was. Lem was a humanist while Tarkovsky wanted to give more highlight to the God-like incomprehensible mystery of the Solaris ocean a-la The Zone. That's where the quarrel came from and Tark had to change the script to please Lem.

>stalker
>i has bomb guise XDD

How can that possibly be what you watch film for?

>Lem was a humanist while Tarkovsky wanted to give more highlight to the God-like incomprehensible mystery of the Solaris ocean a-la The Zone
I only read solaris, but I was under the impression that it was the other way, Tarkovsky strayed away from focusing on the ocean. Pretty much the entire book revolved around the fundamentally unknowable alien entity in the ocean.

in the book the ocean represents the opposite.
basically in the book the ocean means god doesn't exist, while in the film it means he does

Nice spoiler, faggot. -_-'

>Tarkovsky strayed away from focusing on the ocean
No, Tark strayed away from focusing on the scientific details of the ocean, but the ocean still played a large part in the movie. Kelvin realized that the ocean doesn't need any scientific explanations and analysis.