عناصر سینمای آندری تارکوفسکی

by Robert C. Bird, مهران صفوی (Translator), میلاد میناکار (Translator)

هدف اصلی این کتاب بشتر واکاوی گستره سینمایی تارکوفسکی است تا پرداختن به «معانی» فیلمهایش. رابرت برد در این راستا، ده مورد از عناصر زیبایی شناختی آثار تارکوفسکی را مشخص کرده و با نظر به ترتیب زمانی ساختن آنها به بررسی دقیقشان پرداخته است. سه بخش نخست (خاک) به سویه مادی دنیای سینمایی تارکوفسکی از قبیل نظامی که در آن فیلم ساخت، فضاهایی که در فیلمهایش به وجود آورد و پرده سینمایی که با عمق بیانی گسترده ای عرضه داشت، می پردازد. در سه بخش بعدی (آتش) با سویه های استدلالی فیلمهای این کارگردان نظیر برهم کنش کلمه و تصویر (آندری روبلف)، داستان (سولاریس) و خیالستان اجتماعی (آینه) روبه رو می شویم. بخشهای هفتم تا نهم (آب) صرفا بر ساختار تصویر تاکید میکند که تجربه حسی و زمان را در نمایی پیوسته به هم گره می زند. در بخش پایانی (هوا) با اتکا بر فیلم ایثار، اتمسفر نامحسوس دنیای تارکوفسکی بررسی می شود.

Genres: Film, Russia, Nonfiction

336 pages, Paperback

First published March 15, 2007

Reviews

[Pavel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dry at times (especially on"Sacrifice" part, which is no wonder for me, I believe that's the weakiest of Tarkovsky's films), but overall very concrete and wholesome research on Tarkovsky' estetics. Exactly that - estetics. Author omits whole "martirolog" of Tarkovsky life (mainly his sparring with Soviet cinema authorities) on purpose, just reminding of it to his readers from time to time. I guess MrBird rightously assumes, that people who will read this book are already acquinted with the main events of that fight.

Some remarks are awesome - for example Bird says that of all Tarkovsky films only the one about bad copies recieved bad Hollywod remake - and that's Solaris of course.

[Leo Robertson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Unreadably pretentious.

Opening at random:

"Slavoj Zizek has written that 'Tarkovsky's cinematic texture undermines his own explicit ideological project', but I argue that Tarkovsky's only real project was precisely the creation of this cinematic texture" - well I'll leave you fellows to hash that one out because I don't know what it means.

"What seems to be at issue is neither 'objectivism' nor 'subjectivism' but the very multiplicity of perspectives, none of which is privileged as authorial, and, therefore, authoritative." - iTunes user agreement?

"The episode is significant not in its literary retelling, its symbolism or visual metaphoricity, but in its concrete saturated existence." Sounds like an episode of diarrhea more than anything.

Any time I read writing this overwritten, I seriously feel like I just walked in on the author masturbating (thank god you do too now!) Sentences like the above had me all like 'Uh, do you want me to leave?' It's such a shame to publish something that someone picks up, eager to "interact" with the writer, when in fact the writer just wants to "interact" with him- or herself.

So in conclusion, Mr Bird, why don't you want to make love to me???

[Arash Moradi · Rating 2 out of 5]

ترجمه آقایان میناکاران و صفوی بدون شک یکی از مزخرف‌ترین ترجمه‌هایی بود که تا حالا خوندم. این دو نفر بدون اینکه هیچ تسلط و فهمی از اصطلاحات و تکنیک‌های سینما داشته باشند معجونی از روده درازی بی‌مورد و جملات سنگین و پیچیده که حتم دارم حتی خودشونم نمیتونن روان بخونن تحویل دادن. اگر در این حد در زبان فارسی قهار هستید خواهش میکنم دیوان اختصاصی خودتون رو چاپ کنید، حیف ورق درختانی که این جملات بی سر و ته بی‌معنی‌تون روش چاپ شده. احساس کردید داریوش آشوری شدید؟ نخیر چاییدید... نویسنده اصلی هم مثل مترجمین وطنی متظاهر بوده احتمالا.

[ra]

watching tarkovsky's films feels to me like that one scene in jean renoir's orpheus where the titular character puts on gloves to step through the liquified surface of a mirror which is also why i will likely never write about them (except maybe in poetry) because they occupy some other realm that only feeling can touch. love!

— "Tarkovsky is not cultivating blind faith that averts one's eyes from the material world; rather he is enabling acute vision that renews the world in its very materiality."

[Terence · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really great book on Tarkovsky, with interesting perspective and historical information.

[Steven Godin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tarkovsky makes Hollywood look like a hoax.

[Cameron Little · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great look into the mind and process of Tarkovsky. Well written. An informative way to examine his process, theories, and the way the physical elements of the world play into the ethereal and spiritual approach of a master of cinema. Definitely a slow read for me because I am terrible at sticking to a book. Recommended for any fan of his works or for anyone interested in film theory.

[Coco Goran · Rating 4 out of 5]

“In a complex weave of synchronizations, Tarkovsky sewed the visible world with the seams of time, blocking our desire for continuity with a sensorial resistance that foregrounds the material intervention of the medium itself.”

[valplanta · Rating 5 out of 5]

jamás dejará de sorprenderme la mente de tarkovsky wow

[Omnivoore · Rating 4 out of 5]

塔可夫斯基电影文本的深入分析和符号解读，文本细读的讨论背后隐含塔氏电影本体论的思考，比较研究但并不完全根据塔可夫斯基的生平来支持研究的运行。书中对齐泽克观点的借鉴、引申和反驳很有意思

[Ralph Burton · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good volume but feels slight. Andrei never slight.

[Aki · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Mari personalități Dostoievski”

[Ben · Rating 3 out of 5]

Maybe I've been out of school too long, but I no longer have the patience for this type of art criticism.

But as a filmmaker his central interest and commitment was the role of the image, especially the cinematic image, in mediating this relationship between individual experience and the material world. Language, narrative and the entire imaginary (both of society and the individual) form configurations in which a body can elaborate an identity and join the flow of history; yet Tarkovsky felt that these configurations could be genuine only if they were subjected to the flame of time, which resists fluid representation and disrupts space with unexpected folds.

Favorite Tarkovsky quote from the book: I like making long films, films which utterly "destroy" the spectator in a physical manner.

[Greta · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think Andrei Tarkovsky is a bit like James Joyce. They both have their own vision, their own style, and their own reasons. None of which is particularly clear to the Average Joe. Or at least not to me. The author of this book tried to explain it all, but maybe you have to just look at it yourself, and take what you get. When I watch Tarkovsky's films, as when I read Joyce's books, I don't get much except an awareness of the passage of time and a lesson in patience and endurance. That's something, I suppose.

[Melvin Van t hof · Rating 2 out of 5]

Like another reviewer mentioned, it's unreadably pretentious. Every sentence is "difficult" and overly drawn out. It was such a hard read that most of the sentences didn't stick with me. Such a shame because instead of knowing more about Tarkovsky and his motives, I'm left in the dark. It wasn't all bad but I got the impression the writer was more concerned in showing off with vague thoughts and hard to read pages than to inform and educate the reader.

[Barry Shitpeas · Rating 4 out of 5]

dece