Jump to content


Photo

Tarr, Béla


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#21 Duke Togo

Duke Togo

    Evil mind, evil sword.

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,903 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 December 2009 - 02:20 PM

^
I deleted the entire thread, and moved our other Tarr discussion here. :D

#22 Godard Fan 39

Godard Fan 39

    I Grabbed My Nine, All I Heard Were Shells

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 94 posts

Posted 22 December 2009 - 09:02 PM

Drifted from a deleted thread. -Duke


You're obviously a very educated person.

Look, if you can please, in detail, explain to me and everyone else your true reasoning for this inane post and your reasoning for believing the man is a schmuck, and I mean really back up your opinions on why you think his films are "pretentious douchebaggery", and convince me that you have a valid viewpoint: I'll leave you alone and let you have your opinions. Otherwise, I'm going to assume you're just not very bright. I ask this of you because while I am a fan of Bela Tarr (although not the only reason, it might be a little bit why I'm actually taking the time to reply), I expect someone who makes such claims to back up their opinions and statements or else you're not going to get your point across to anyone and people are going to assume you're stupid (I'm not calling you stupid). I don't blame you (nor does it bother me) if you don't like the guy, I just ask that you back up your statements before making such asinine posts and then expecting everyone else to agree with you. Besides, this is a forum to discuss film, not bash it.


First of all, I'm not sure how this thread did not show up when I searched for Bela Tarr. Again, sorry for not posting it in here to begin with.

Now, as far as your post goes, I think you misunderstood the point of my earlier post. It was not to defend myself. It was to stir up some conversation. Obviously it has worked. I'm more than happy to explain what in particular I dislike about Bela Tarr. Also, not that it matters, but I find your berating me funny considering the fact that I was one of the most prominent posters for a period of a couple years back when the forum had several hundred people. I'm indeed a film illiterate.

So, why is Tarr a "schmuck" in my book? Here are some of the reasons:

1. Tarr's work, in so far as it's critically acclaimed, owes its existence, in my mind, to Stalker. If Tarkovsky hadn't made Stalker, I find it rather implausible that Tarr's work would've veered off in the direction it did. So, in short, his work is derivative.

2. I think that Tarkovsky's style works for him because of his metaphysics. Tarkovsky was spiritual; Tarr is a materialist. Tarkovsky's movies feature transcendence; Tarr's feature Hungary. Transcendence is better than Hungary.

3. As already mentioned on here, much of his style seems forced and unmotivated. It's like watching an entire filmography of nothing but Rope's.

4. All of this, plus the little I've read from Tarr, makes him seem rather, ironically, inane. This is an inexact quote, but I've seen him say something like "When we're dead, all that's left is our film and the quest for truth." Unfortunately, my present inability to exactly reproduce the quote weakens my point, but this IS the thrust of what Tarr said, and so my response is, "Come on, Bela Tarr."

It's unrealistic to think that somebody will give every single reason he has for thinking something in any given post, so if you're unhappy with the level of content in this post, just keep replying and so will I. Hopefully then I'll be able to prove to you that I went to high school.
Posted Image

#23 Godard Fan 39

Godard Fan 39

    I Grabbed My Nine, All I Heard Were Shells

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 94 posts

Posted 22 December 2009 - 09:10 PM

There is always legitimate discussion on the problems of any director and any work, but the response should be a little more literate than "heapin' helpin' of pretentious douchebaggery", you must explain why its a heapin and helpin.


It's funny that this is considered illiterate, since whenever I use "heapin' helpin'" I'm meaning it as a reference to a Mr. Show episode where a guy refers to "a heapin' helpin' of Slopaghetti." Of course, others have used the expression, but I always look back to this use whenever I personally use it. I'll just reference the BBC, I guess.

I'd love to explain why Tarr's works feature such a heapin' helpin'. Basically, nobody would naturally use NOTHING but long takes. Even Tarkovsky used many short shots in his movies (I'm thinking of the shot of the bird flying through the glass in The Mirror, but there are several others). Tarkovsky's use of these long shots was far more natural for the works; it never seemed to me that Tarkovsky was pulling a Rope. Hitchcock used several very poorly-designed push-ins, etc. to manage the length of the shots in Rope. I think something similar is the case with Tarr. When your work is so clearly dependent on a technique, which I believe is dependent on another's work, it just seems very uncreative to me.
Posted Image

#24 Pair

Pair

    Two of a Kind

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,046 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tacoma, WA

Posted 23 December 2009 - 11:00 AM

1. Tarr's work, in so far as it's critically acclaimed, owes its existence, in my mind, to Stalker. If Tarkovsky hadn't made Stalker, I find it rather implausible that Tarr's work would've veered off in the direction it did. So, in short, his work is derivative.

Hitchcock used several very poorly-designed push-ins, etc. to manage the length of the shots in Rope. I think something similar is the case with Tarr. When your work is so clearly dependent on a technique, which I believe is dependent on another's work, it just seems very uncreative to me.

How odd your reaction to those observations is such a negative one... Godard Fan.

Transcendence is better than Hungary.

It's been a shitty morning and that made me laugh mucho. That's going in the big book o' quotes. Thank you.
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

#25 marcusbulbous76

marcusbulbous76

    God is in the Details

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 23 December 2009 - 11:05 AM

It's been a shitty morning and that made me laugh mucho. That's going in the big book o' quotes. Thank you.


Was indeed a good one. Transcendence and Hungary are mutually exclusive, you know. :blink:

#26 Godard Fan 39

Godard Fan 39

    I Grabbed My Nine, All I Heard Were Shells

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 94 posts

Posted 23 December 2009 - 05:39 PM

How odd your reaction to those observations is such a negative one... Godard Fan.


It's been a shitty morning and that made me laugh mucho. That's going in the big book o' quotes. Thank you.


Not sure exactly what you're getting at as far as my name goes. Please explain. If you mean it's funny that I like Tarkovsky so much and yet am called Godard Fan, I picked this name in '05 (on the old version of this forum) when all I'd seen from Tarkovsky was Andrei Rublev. It was only with The Mirror and Stalker that I became a big fan of Tarkovsky. If you mean that Godard is derivative, well, I find this an odd criticism. If something else, please let me know.

Glad I could brighten your morning.

EDIT: Is that comment about Godard because of Brechtian influence?
Posted Image

#27 Godard Fan 39

Godard Fan 39

    I Grabbed My Nine, All I Heard Were Shells

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 94 posts

Posted 23 December 2009 - 05:42 PM

Was indeed a good one. Transcendence and Hungary are mutually exclusive, you know. :blink:


Tarr's Hungary certainly is (wow, look at that mud!).
Posted Image

#28 Pair

Pair

    Two of a Kind

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,046 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tacoma, WA

Posted 25 December 2009 - 10:30 AM

My apologies for being unclear. It had nothing to do with BB. By which I don't mean Bardot. :P

Nerdy jokes aside. I was centering in on the words 'derivative' and 'dependent' especially.

I cannot think of a director who is more derivative, more dependent on other director's works than Godard.

That's why I thought it was odd that you would find that aspect of Tarr's work so alarming.

That's all. I just thought it was a bit peculiar. Because I don't think you, I or Godard himself would deny he is HIGHLY derivative and dependent upon other work. Even if not just film than art in general.

Unless maybe you and I have different ideas of what 'derivative' (as it pertains to film) means?

PS Just for the record, that line really did make me laugh, the incongruency was damned humorous, and I figured that was the intention. Though I know it wasn't directed at me specifically, I wasn't trying to sling any mud. Just to clarify/just in case.
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

#29 Godard Fan 39

Godard Fan 39

    I Grabbed My Nine, All I Heard Were Shells

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 94 posts

Posted 25 December 2009 - 12:20 PM

My apologies for being unclear. It had nothing to do with BB. By which I don't mean Bardot. :P

Nerdy jokes aside. I was centering in on the words 'derivative' and 'dependent' especially.

I cannot think of a director who is more derivative, more dependent on other director's works than Godard.

That's why I thought it was odd that you would find that aspect of Tarr's work so alarming.

That's all. I just thought it was a bit peculiar. Because I don't think you, I or Godard himself would deny he is HIGHLY derivative and dependent upon other work. Even if not just film than art in general.

Unless maybe you and I have different ideas of what 'derivative' (as it pertains to film) means?

PS Just for the record, that line really did make me laugh, the incongruency was damned humorous, and I figured that was the intention. Though I know it wasn't directed at me specifically, I wasn't trying to sling any mud. Just to clarify/just in case.


I think that's all true to an extent, but I might, now thinking about it, separate 'dependent' and 'derivative' in the following way: I would use 'dependent' to describe somebody who probably wouldn't have made art if something in particular hadn't happened, whereas I'd use 'derivative' to refer to somebody (or some work) that seems to just copy earlier artists without contributing anything substantial on his own. With these definitions I'd definitely say Godard is dependent, and maybe the most dependent director of all-time (that might be hyperbole, but then again it might not). Godard definitely lets you know why he makes movies. On the other hand, I personally don't see him as derivative; he's maybe a "radical conservative" or something of that sort, putting many other earlier ideas together and getting something new out of it. I think of somebody like James Joyce as being in the same boat; if you read Ulysses it's pretty clear that he writes because of earlier literature and he uses techniques from other authors, but in new ways and to new ends. Tarr does, strictly speaking, adapt Stalker's style, that is, he goes from transcendence to Hungary. The problem here, as I see it, is that I'd much rather have the former than the latter, and he doesn't really add much new to the mix.

As for your comment, I took it that you actually enjoyed what I wrote, so I took no offense. I intended it to be funny.
Posted Image

#30 Opale

Opale

    Adante con molto

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Quebec city

Posted 14 May 2012 - 10:28 PM

Alongside Jacques Rancière's book on Bela Tarr, this Rosenbaum article about Turin Horse is extremely enlightening about Bela Tarr philosophy and its in English and pretty shortly but very well resumed...

Some of you might want to watch Turin Horse before reading it though... I can't wait for the Cinema Guild release of Turin Horse! I already saw it in a Festival and will surely go see it again on June 1st when its released in QC too but the CG BD looks quite great and loaded of very interesting extras, it seems to be a must have!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users