criterionforum.org

Blonde Venus wrote:I've only watched it once (that was two or three months ago). After I finished watching it I had no strong feelings.

His films demand repeated viewings -- the first viewing can be a little heavy and disorientating. I've always felt that his films seem exponentially more rewarding after the first trial.

Well the only other Tarkovsky's I've seen are Mirror and Ivan's Childhood.

I don't feel any inclinations to watch Mirror again (so far), but I liked Ivan's Childhood immensely the first time I saw it. Which makes sense, because of the three, it follows a more conventional narrative structure.

please see Stalker and Solyaris immediately. Then The Sacrifice.

aox wrote:please see Stalker and Solyaris immediately. Then The Sacrifice.

..and watch Mirror again.

This is one of my favorite films, and the Tarkovsky I've revisited the most. Too bad Criterion's DVD treatment (and every other one I've encountered) is pretty horrible. It makes me wonder if in fact it's the source material that's so rough. If not, hopefully CC will revisit this one, maybe spacing it out over two discs for a higher average bitrate or something like they did for Seven Samurai. I mean, CC'S transfer for Ivan--arguably Tarkovsky's least amazing film--is one of the most beautiful b&w transfers I've ever seen. His masterpiece should get the same treatment..

It's on their list of do-overs, just not any time soon.

kaujot wrote:It's on their list of do-overs, just not any time soon.

Well that's good news. Is there a source for this? Not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to be in the loop for that sorta stuff and I'm kind of a n00b.

This thread answers any questions you might have.

Anyone here read Roberto Bolano's Last Evenings on Earth? Andrei Rublev (though it's never named) is a significant reference in the short story "Days of 1978". The narrator gives a fairly complete and poetically editorialized summary of the film to a friend who's just tried to kill himself. It's a curious detour in a narrative about an enigmatic relationship between two Chileans exiled (perhaps self-exiled) in Europe after the Pinochet coup. I think the intention is to somehow conjur in words the profundity of the movie and then to juxtapose its story with the story of Bolano's "failed generation" of aspiring artists, though the correlation is latent and understated. It's not my favorite of the book's 14 stories (that would be the title-story or maybe "Anne Moore's Life"), but it's an interesting piece to come upon having seen and loved the film Bolano describes (I wonder what it would be like to read the story not having seen Tarkovsky's film?).

Hopscotch wrote:Anyone here read Roberto Bolano's Last Evenings on Earth?

It's a strange moment. I agree with you that the most straightforward reading seems to be that Rublev and the boy represent B and U, respectively, but the bell scene's surrogate being this ridiculous and slightly sinister gathering in a seemingly labyrinthine house is a very disturbing image, to me at least. Do you have any idea which film Bolano is referencing in "The Grub"? His description doesn't ring any bells for me, but the use of Rublev leads me to believe that the story probably refers to a real film.
Just started reading his latest (in English), The Skating Rink. One of the more repulsive characters makes reference to The Blue Lagoon. He "couldn't find any cinematic merit in it."

FerdinandGriffon wrote:

Hopscotch wrote:... but the bell scene's surrogate being this ridiculous and slightly sinister gathering in a seemingly labyrinthine house is a very disturbing image, to me at least. Do you have any idea which film Bolano is referencing in "The Grub"? His description doesn't ring any bells for me, but the use of Rublev leads me to believe that the story probably refers to a real film.

Agreed on the first point. U may react so viscerally because he understands that there's hardly a comparison. Also I was wondering myself what the hell movie Bolano was writing about in "The Grub" (someone here must know). Bolano seems to have frequented some skeezy theaters in his day, if his stories are in fact derived from experience. The movie collector in part 3 of 2666 is a pretty funny character for cinephiles. I just hope the snuff film Bolano describes in that section doesn't exist...

In a 1965 interview with Ekran, Tarkovsky stated, "The characters in this picture speak the modern Russian language that everyone can understand, without either archaic expressions or the newest terminology. Nothing should impede perception, or distract the viewer from the main thing."

I found the line "Motherfucker." as translated in the Criterion DVD to be very distracting and at odds with the film as a whole. Does anyone here know if this was an accurate interpretation on the part of Criterion? I just have doubts that what is said in Russian is the equivalent of "Motherfucker." Can anyone provide an alternate translation or explanation for this? Thanks.

That was Scorsese's contribution to the rediscovery and restoration of the film, according to his beliefs in the tenets of Saint Motherfucker.

The word "motherfucker" isn't modern. The concept of "fucking" one's mother is of, pardon the pun, whoary antiquity. "Fuck" was a common, inoffensive word in Shakespeare's day. Today, "fuck" and "motherfucker" due to popular movies have taken on non-literal meanings but they once were literal, precise words for familiar acts or concepts.

Person wrote:The word "motherfucker" isn't modern. The concept of "fucking" one's mother is of, pardon the pun, whoary antiquity. "Fuck" was a common, inoffensive word in Shakespeare's day. Today, "fuck" and "motherfucker" due to popular movies have taken on non-literal meanings but they once were literal, precise words for familiar acts or concepts.

Make no mistake, "fuck" was most definitely not inoffensive in Shakespeare's day. It was, and always has been, considered a low, coarse expression. Hence why you never find it in 'polite' literature of the period except by a series of dashes and maybe a suggestive preceding rhyme.

Thy fuck is
my fuck; a
shy fuck
am I.

--"why fuck
when thy fuck
is dry fuck?"
I cry.

Buy fuck,
if like fuck,
then try fuck
says I.

If cry fuck
then try fuck
with lye fuck
then die.

If eye fuck
if spy fuck
the sly fuck
comes nigh.

If rely fuck
and denied fuck
he die fuck
bye bye!

Person wrote:The word "motherfucker" isn't modern. The concept of "fucking" one's mother is of, pardon the pun, whoary antiquity. "Fuck" was a common, inoffensive word in Shakespeare's day. Today, "fuck" and "motherfucker" due to popular movies have taken on non-literal meanings but they once were literal, precise words for familiar acts or concepts.

Perhaps my problem is that I live in a post-Training Day society, but even knowing this it still completely took me out of the film. I guess at the time, Tarkovsky couldn't have anticipated Lil' Wayne and how distracting that word would be to audiences of the future.

What man could be offended by a common, inoffensive, literal, precise word describing familiar acts or concepts? Now excuse me, I must remove the curlers from my ear hairs and trim my goatee.

btw RIP Eric Rohmer.

Daniel B. wrote:Perhaps my problem is that I live in a post-Training Day society, but even knowing this it still completely took me out of the film. I guess at the time, Tarkovsky couldn't have anticipated Lil' Wayne and how distracting that word would be to audiences of the future.

Distressingly, I understand that Criterion is intending to change this in the upcoming reissue to read, simply, "ma-fuckah."

That'd be well worth the price of a re-issue.

swo17 wrote:

Daniel B. wrote:Perhaps my problem is that I live in a post-Training Day society, but even knowing this it still completely took me out of the film. I guess at the time, Tarkovsky couldn't have anticipated Lil' Wayne and how distracting that word would be to audiences of the future.

Distressingly, I understand that Criterion is intending to change this in the upcoming reissue to read, simply, "ma-fuckah."

And publicize the re-release with the tagline "Da Monk's In Da Hood"









I'm so terribly sorry

HerrSchreck wrote:What man could be offended by a common, inoffensive, literal, precise word describing familiar acts or concepts? Now excuse me, I must remove the curlers from my ear hairs and trim my goatee.

btw RIP Eric Rohmer.

Yes. And, btw, Yes.

But aside from the question of offensiveness to modern audiences, it's simply an absurd notion that coarse language wouldn't have existed nor have been used in everday discourse during the middle ages. A notion clearly derived from more polite depictions of prior eras.

Of course, there's always the official Mosfilm version available on DVD from Ruscico where all bawdy, coarse, or offensive elements have been removed by the good offices of the Soviet film censors. No "motherfucker". Not even the sound of the lovers in the brush. Certainly no bare-assed jester, fleshy punchline be damned!

Every time I see this bumped, I get giddy thinking there is a rerelease/Blu announcement.

I know. It's why I clicked here, too.

One day... one day...