4 ms·

>Trouble is I know I'm going to be bored crapless You're certainly right. All Tarkovsky's films are astonishingly boring. It takes a lot to be able to apprecia

by xamuel 4y ago

>Trouble is I know I'm going to be bored crapless You're certainly right. All Tarkovsky's films are astonishingly boring. It takes a lot to be able to appreciate that sort of film. Learning to enjoy boredom is one of the greatest things I've developed in my life. It's like a superpower, it enables me to read vast quantities of dry but wonderful nonfiction, for example. I wish I had developed this power decades ago, but maybe that wouldn't have been possible without the necessary life experience.

dmoy 4y ago
> All Tarkovsky's films are astonishingly boring Is he the one who did the movie for roadside picnic? If so, yea. Also seemed almost completely unrelated to the book.
- xamuel 4y ago
  Yeah, that film is Stalker (and boy is it boring)
  - dmoy 4y ago
    Ah yea that one. I need to go back and reread the book because I don't remember the book being so boring
_a_a_a_ 4y ago
> It takes a lot to be able to appreciate that sort of film to each their own but why bother? I get a break from work and entertainment from films, I simply can't understand what you're getting out of it.
megmogandog 4y ago
Personally I don't find his films boring at all. They are definitely slow-paced, but are totally engrossing for me. I have to assume a lot of the people who praise Tarkovsky so highly also don't find his films "astonishingly boring"
bathMarm0t 4y ago
I think it just requires a reframing of what to expect. Films from Tarkovsky or other capital D Directors "of Director's Directors fame" are less plot driven. Films from older eras are less plot driven / hadn't developed the tempo of modernity (I'd summarize the tempo change as needing to lead the viewer into what's next). Combine them both and you get something that feels like watching paint dry, the catch being the paint dries on 120ft of canvas. You're in the museum and the tapestry moves. Rather than trying to constantly figure out what's next / where this is going (you don't notice this in modern films as the tempo has already fed it to you / shuttled you along to the next plot point), just sit there and enjoy the view. In Stalker the shots are (op/im)pressively long. And I love them.

by xamuel 4y ago

dmoy 4y ago

> All Tarkovsky's films are astonishingly boring Is he the one who did the movie for roadside picnic? If so, yea. Also seemed almost completely unrelated to the book.

xamuel 4y ago
Yeah, that film is Stalker (and boy is it boring)
- dmoy 4y ago
  Ah yea that one. I need to go back and reread the book because I don't remember the book being so boring

_a_a_a_ 4y ago

> It takes a lot to be able to appreciate that sort of film to each their own but why bother? I get a break from work and entertainment from films, I simply can't understand what you're getting out of it.

megmogandog 4y ago

Personally I don't find his films boring at all. They are definitely slow-paced, but are totally engrossing for me. I have to assume a lot of the people who praise Tarkovsky so highly also don't find his films "astonishingly boring"

bathMarm0t 4y ago

I think it just requires a reframing of what to expect. Films from Tarkovsky or other capital D Directors "of Director's Directors fame" are less plot driven. Films from older eras are less plot driven / hadn't developed the tempo of modernity (I'd summarize the tempo change as needing to lead the viewer into what's next). Combine them both and you get something that feels like watching paint dry, the catch being the paint dries on 120ft of canvas. You're in the museum and the tapestry moves. Rather than trying to constantly figure out what's next / where this is going (you don't notice this in modern films as the tempo has already fed it to you / shuttled you along to the next plot point), just sit there and enjoy the view. In Stalker the shots are (op/im)pressively long. And I love them.