by RBD » Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:43 pm
ca&tw wrote:RBD wrote:Many moons ago (ie. in those days when Hilary Clinton was still fat, didn't wash or style her hair and sometimes wore thick glasses in public) I bought a tape of Tarkovski's Andrei Rublev. I repeatedly made the terrible mistake of trying to view it after a few beers - had to watch the bloody film 5 times, before making it to the end without falling asleep. His Solaris is much better - I've seen that about 4 times, and never once fell asleep. It's a film set in Space that includes horses - which shows that Hugh Grant wasn't totally off the mark with his questions as a pseudo-interviewer for Horse & Hounds (?) to Anna in Notting Hill.
Dear RBD
i don't mean to offend you in any way, just having a hard time trying to figure out what hilarious clinton has to do with anything.
Wait, i get it historical context etc
Re Tarkovski
my POV: appreciated, like Bergman, but i can't watch those super slow movies, stupid action movies neither.
I didn't make it thru Solaris, (i think there's a remake w tom cruise)
but i've read the book, fucking great, like everything Stanislaw Lem ever wrote & for the record said
He was not only a SF author, he was a great thinker, a great mind
Yeah - apparently people don't get voted in to be president of America any more if they are seen wearing glasses. That's why Bernie Sanders lost.
Interesting story about Lem and Tarkovski (or deadly boring, if not interested) - Lem basically disowned the film, as Tarkovski showed a Space (non-functional, messy, chaotic etc etc) that was the opposite of the glorious universe of the the book. It seems that Tarkovski, who generally disliked the SF genre, made a SF merely to please the Russian film authorities; but instead of showing how amazing Space and Space travel was etc. etc. he showed how superior and more beautiful earth was (his scenes with horses, water, trees etc etc ,which are not in the book). Likewise his first big film, Ivan's Childhood, is based on the book Ivan and was similarly disowned by the author. Once again, using exactly the same narrative, he reversed the implication of the story - while the book glorified the child soldier as a hero in a heroic war, Tarkovski showed his short life as a tragic waste in a cruel war. Bit of closet rebel was old Tarkovski.
[quote="ca&tw"][quote="RBD"]Many moons ago (ie. in those days when Hilary Clinton was still fat, didn't wash or style her hair and sometimes wore thick glasses in public) I bought a tape of Tarkovski's Andrei Rublev. I repeatedly made the terrible mistake of trying to view it after a few beers - had to watch the bloody film 5 times, before making it to the end without falling asleep. His Solaris is much better - I've seen that about 4 times, and never once fell asleep. It's a film set in Space that includes horses - which shows that Hugh Grant wasn't totally off the mark with his questions as a pseudo-interviewer for Horse & Hounds (?) to Anna in Notting Hill.[/quote]
Dear RBD
i don't mean to offend you in any way, just having a hard time trying to figure out what hilarious clinton has to do with anything.
Wait, i get it historical context etc
Re Tarkovski
my POV: appreciated, like Bergman, but i can't watch those super slow movies, stupid action movies neither.
I didn't make it thru Solaris, (i think there's a remake w tom cruise)
but i've read the book, fucking great, like everything Stanislaw Lem ever wrote & for the record said
He was not only a SF author, he was a great thinker, a great mind[/quote]
Yeah - apparently people don't get voted in to be president of America any more if they are seen wearing glasses. That's why Bernie Sanders lost.
Interesting story about Lem and Tarkovski (or deadly boring, if not interested) - Lem basically disowned the film, as Tarkovski showed a Space (non-functional, messy, chaotic etc etc) that was the opposite of the glorious universe of the the book. It seems that Tarkovski, who generally disliked the SF genre, made a SF merely to please the Russian film authorities; but instead of showing how amazing Space and Space travel was etc. etc. he showed how superior and more beautiful earth was (his scenes with horses, water, trees etc etc ,which are not in the book). Likewise his first big film, Ivan's Childhood, is based on the book Ivan and was similarly disowned by the author. Once again, using exactly the same narrative, he reversed the implication of the story - while the book glorified the child soldier as a hero in a heroic war, Tarkovski showed his short life as a tragic waste in a cruel war. Bit of closet rebel was old Tarkovski.