i find plusses and minuses to analyzing the extratextual in regards to the text, but:
as lapsed modernist mentioned in wolodymyr's post, and as i'd learned from the bonus features, many members of the crew including tarkovsky himself contracted cancer as a result of this film shoot. dying to create a work of art, and this particular work in which it's postulated the meaning of life is to create art, seems worthy of discussion. is a work of art truly worth dying for? i would agree with the writer -- not if it's not going to be read/seen by others one hundred years from now. but if one feels certain that it might be, perhaps.
i don't see that anyone's mentioned this yet, but tarkovsky filmed the movie twice -- the first time the film stock 'could not be developed' either due to sabotage or just unfortunate circumstances. the second movie is said by some to not resemble the first at all, by others to be quite similar. imagine how devastating it would have been (and reportedly was) to lose one's work after such a tremendous amount of time and money and effort. and the effort it would take to try and replicate one's best work from the prior attempt.
and i'm not going to like the film nearly so well as some of you have -- it's not for me (in the best sense of the classic penny arcade <a=href"http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/24">strip). tarkovsky's own take on that (from the wiki): "on being told that it should be faster and more dynamic, tarkovsky replied: 'the film needs to be slower and duller at the start so that the viewers who walked into the wrong theatre have time to leave before the main action starts.' the goskino representative then explained that he was trying to give the point of view of the audience. tarkovsky supposedly retorted: 'i am only interested in the views of two people: one is called bresson and one called bergman.'"
and that's terrific, and every artist should be free to pick his audience, but as narrow as his intended audience was, i don't fall into it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2013-07-22 01:53 am (UTC)as lapsed modernist mentioned in wolodymyr's post, and as i'd learned from the bonus features, many members of the crew including tarkovsky himself contracted cancer as a result of this film shoot. dying to create a work of art, and this particular work in which it's postulated the meaning of life is to create art, seems worthy of discussion. is a work of art truly worth dying for? i would agree with the writer -- not if it's not going to be read/seen by others one hundred years from now. but if one feels certain that it might be, perhaps.
i don't see that anyone's mentioned this yet, but tarkovsky filmed the movie twice -- the first time the film stock 'could not be developed' either due to sabotage or just unfortunate circumstances. the second movie is said by some to not resemble the first at all, by others to be quite similar. imagine how devastating it would have been (and reportedly was) to lose one's work after such a tremendous amount of time and money and effort. and the effort it would take to try and replicate one's best work from the prior attempt.
and i'm not going to like the film nearly so well as some of you have -- it's not for me (in the best sense of the classic penny arcade <a=href"http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/24">strip). tarkovsky's own take on that (from the wiki): "on being told that it should be faster and more dynamic, tarkovsky replied: 'the film needs to be slower and duller at the start so that the viewers who walked into the wrong theatre have time to leave before the main action starts.' the goskino representative then explained that he was trying to give the point of view of the audience. tarkovsky supposedly retorted: 'i am only interested in the views of two people: one is called bresson and one called bergman.'"
and that's terrific, and every artist should be free to pick his audience, but as narrow as his intended audience was, i don't fall into it.