TRP and Tarkovsky: Marriage Made in Hell

[MantaRay at aol.com]

Patrick:

Glad someone's paying attention to me but: No Way.
  
>     The difference between "lit. speed" and "film speed" is that the 
>     latter is dictated by the director, and the former for the most part 
>     by the reader. 

This is entirely untrue. The pace of the reading might be dictated by the
reader i.e. s/he might decide to read three lines then sleep but the pace of
the novel is written by the author. Pynchon's bizarre historical tangents
into the depth of each his characters (in GR) for instance tends to derail
what remains of a conventional plot which seriously slows the book down. I
don't think it decreases the pleasure because GR teaches how to read
differently, but it isn't the most imposing 20th century novel for no reason.


>It's very easy for a director to make a slow film, but 
>quite difficult for a writer to write a slow book. 

I don't buy this either. I don't see how it's hard to write a slow novel at
all. What makes these things "slow" or "fast" is the conventions the
viewer/reader is used to. Once those conventions are irrupted, films and
novels can still be slow or fast according to new conventions, but they'll
never be harder or easier to effect.

>The reason why 
>people read a book very carefully is that they want to enjoy as much 
>as possible from the book, this is not possible in a film.

There are ways to watch film very carefully, as well (try some pot, for one).
But when I pick up a novel, I'm not thinking about scrutinizing everything
unless the book forces me to. Pynchon's do and I've begun to derive some
sadistic pleasure from that. I read and watch according to certain rhythms,
ones which, if not challenged by the author/director, will progress as they
may.
 

>     Stalker, by the way ,uses "slowness" to great effect. 

That's true. Since the telos of "slownes" is the cessation of motion, Stalker
sputters then dies like a bad Ford. I think this is a great example of you
watching a film very carefully, not the director's doing at all. 

>     The film has been seen by some as a attack on the russian communist 
>     government. The zone being Freedom (or to some the USA) and the writer 
>     and the scientist the elite of russia, and the guide the common man.

I would say the platitude-ridden script would support this assertion. 

>     Personally I think this is a load of crap, and that Tarkovsky  wanted 
>     to say something philosophical, but ended up with some cliches about 
>     the fear of dreams becoming reality.

I think this is the extent of Tarkovsky's ability to philosophize. Which is
one reason the movie sucks. There's no fucking reason it had to be three
hours long. 

> What saves the film is it's 
>     beauty and atmosphere. Highly recommended to everybody who likes 
>     Lynch, Greenaway,etc.

I love Lynch. I love Greenaway. Tarkovsky is no Lynch. Tarkovsky is no
Greenaway.
When I questioned Lynch about the role of the intellect (something Tarkovsky
thinks he's engaging in this film) in his movies,  he said he relies solely
on his feelings.  We all know Greenaway has a tendency to stuff his beautiful
motion-filled explorations with ponderous scripts (I don't, but that's been a
criticism levelled at him), but Tarkovsky's movie is filled with neither.
There's hardly any dialogue; what little there is is cliche. And there's
absolutely no motion, except for maybe the first ten minutes. 

MantaRay