What do you think?
Rate this book
Sculpting in Time
Andrey Tarkovsky, the genius of modern Russian cinema--hailed by Ingmar Bergman as "the most important director of our time"--died an exile in Paris in December 1986. In Sculpting in Time, he has left his artistic testament, a remarkable revelation of both his life and work. Since Ivan's Childhood won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival in 1962, the visionary quality and totally original and haunting imagery of Tarkovsky's films have captivated serious movie audiences all over the world, who see in his work a continuation of the great literary traditions of nineteenth-century Russia. Many critics have tried to interpret his intensely personal vision, but he himself always remained inaccessible.
In Sculpting in Time, Tarkovsky sets down his thoughts and his memories, revealing for the first time the original inspirations for his extraordinary films--Ivan's Childhood, Andrey Rublyov, Solaris, The Mirror, Stalker, Nostalgia, and The Sacrifice. He discusses their history and his methods of work, he explores the many problems of visual creativity, and he sets forth the deeply autobiographical content of part of his oeuvre--most fascinatingly in The Mirror and Nostalgia. The closing chapter on The Sacrifice, dictated in the last weeks of Tarkovsky's life, makes the book essential reading for those who already know or who are just discovering his magnificent work.
In Sculpting in Time, Tarkovsky sets down his thoughts and his memories, revealing for the first time the original inspirations for his extraordinary films--Ivan's Childhood, Andrey Rublyov, Solaris, The Mirror, Stalker, Nostalgia, and The Sacrifice. He discusses their history and his methods of work, he explores the many problems of visual creativity, and he sets forth the deeply autobiographical content of part of his oeuvre--most fascinatingly in The Mirror and Nostalgia. The closing chapter on The Sacrifice, dictated in the last weeks of Tarkovsky's life, makes the book essential reading for those who already know or who are just discovering his magnificent work.
254 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1984
1,042 people are currently reading
20.9k people want to read
About the author
Andrei Tarkovsky
29?books813?followersAndrei Arsenyevich Tarkovsky (Russian: §¡§ß§Õ§â§Ö§Û §¡§â§ã§Ö§ß§î§Ö§Ó§Ú§é §´§Ñ§â§Ü§à§Ó§ã§Ü§Ú§Û) was a Soviet film director, writer and opera director. Tarkovksy is listed among the 100 most critically acclaimed filmmakers. He attained critical acclaim for directing such films as Andrei Rublev, Solaris and Stalker.
Tarkovsky also worked extensively as a screenwriter, film editor, film theorist, and theater director. He directed most of his films in the Soviet Union, with the exception of his last two films which were produced in Italy and Sweden. His films are characterized by Christian spirituality and metaphysical themes, extremely long takes, lack of conventional dramatic structure and plot, and memorable images of exceptional beauty.
Tarkovsky also worked extensively as a screenwriter, film editor, film theorist, and theater director. He directed most of his films in the Soviet Union, with the exception of his last two films which were produced in Italy and Sweden. His films are characterized by Christian spirituality and metaphysical themes, extremely long takes, lack of conventional dramatic structure and plot, and memorable images of exceptional beauty.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 493 reviews
April 14, 2014
The greatest director and very bad methodologist. He is the only one, there is no one like him and every one who tried to follow his method suffered different kinds of failure. I personally acquainted with people whose whole life collapsed under Tarkovsky's colossus. The scale of his talent and its main feature: ability to erect his own personal life experiences to the scale of something universal, attracts a lot of young filmmakers and they all end up destroying their own talent, just because of that - it is impossible to repeat what Tarkovsky did on screen. To make an impossible thing a life goal... just very unproductive, but he speaks so conclusively and lofty in this book, it even leaves you with feeling, that if you want to be a good director you just don't have another way then follow his method...
And the main idea is that cinema mainly works with time, not action or characters, that it records it in a way, which no other art can come near. If it is true or false I have no idea (although I would say that theatre is operating with time way more - you observe a continuous show, living its three hours with its characters, when cinema always skips and shuffles and shortens time), but It worked for Tarkovsky demonstratively.
And the main idea is that cinema mainly works with time, not action or characters, that it records it in a way, which no other art can come near. If it is true or false I have no idea (although I would say that theatre is operating with time way more - you observe a continuous show, living its three hours with its characters, when cinema always skips and shuffles and shortens time), but It worked for Tarkovsky demonstratively.
June 29, 2009
The Fyodor Dostoyevsky of film making.
February 10, 2012
I will expound developments I made while reading the great Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky¡¯s poetic accounts, and they will collectively be an indirect review in the process...
After reading Tarkovsky¡¯s autobiography, I can¡¯t help but feel utterly overwhelmed, disturbed, and changed in some profound way. My own considerations and world views have been upturned. Parts of Sculpting in Time were so engrossing and beautifully told (even penetrating the sometimes overly literal translation of Kitty Hunter-Blair) that I couldn¡¯t contain my sense of inner delight, and I¡¯d spontaneously release these monosyllabic mutters. That is how Tarkovsky is defined; his poetry is jaw-droppingly affective through any language. And that should be obvious if you¡¯ve ever seen his films.
Science and technology are stifling our humanity and closing us off from one another, somehow paradoxically. Consider the interconnectivity of the Internet and its possibilities contrasted with its current predominant uses. Then, look at the burgeoning medical sciences, which are viewed as panaceas that are supposed to prolong life, but the field can¡¯t regard the inner concept of life itself. They function to enhance life by the sheer extension of it. Tarkovsky, instead, urges a return to spiritual, artistic pursuits in opposition to this emerging, seething, immoral reality. Initially, it seemed regressive to me, but it is in fact a promotion of total emotional availability. His optimism transmits a world of the past, a reflection of tranquil personal belief in beauty. We¡¯ve been conditioned to believe the immediate, the believable, the rational order of events and nature in exhaustive contemporary life, rejecting the extraordinary and the magical, because they don¡¯t fall in alignment with natural orders and therefore allow proliferation of myth. In generalized terms, it¡¯s unacceptable to dwell in the beauty of dreams; they are instead crushed and transformed into the ordinary so-called ¡°realism.¡± In place of intuitive creativity, modern society gives rise to these approximate outlets - fantastical universes of sorcery and make-believe (sometimes, sadly, physically reenacted like LARP) - that do little more than superficially entertain and obscure our actual human identities. (As a gamer, I recognize the air of speciousness, but the games I play do engage me artistically and philosophically).
After the most difficult period of my life in the last twenty-six years, I recognize that I once considered our formal higher education system to be righteous. I encouraged the pursuit of it another person¡¯s life in both direct and indirect ways, and I suffered the consequences. This is because, as a culture, we do not properly prepare people spiritually, morally, and emotionally in these institutions. The development of these concepts is ordered and confined to the home, church, synagogue, place of worship. It¡¯s common belief that they must be separate, and not only are they detached, but they have also been corrupted. The family unit is in disarray. Organized religion merely tells stories, promotes sexism, and transforms personal responsibility into conformism. To return, there¡¯s a strange coldness, lack of understanding, and finality in a person so utterly concentrated on higher education. Focus on strict memorization of information gives birth to false sense of superiority and undeniable mockery. Regurgitating information without personal interpretation is inhumane. I¡¯ve seen it happen repeatedly even within myself. From post-modernism and post-irony, scholars have this gravitational pull to supreme condescension for any and all things through relentless sarcasm and Internet memes. It¡¯s ironically vapid. These are people too lazy to comprehend or recognize their own emotional boundaries and the range of human emotion, so they attempt to distance or elevate themselves from their own reality creating viral, self-generating elitist drivel. (Philip K. Dick called these people ¡®androids¡¯ for their inability to sincerely empathize ¨C ¡°the battle between the authentic human being and the automotive reflex machine¡±). All of these foci are purely earthly, telluric, and profane; they fail at satire and make no serious attempt to propose self-reflection or more enlightened analyses. It¡¯s outright rudeness and disdain for the capacity of the human condition, because these people have no understanding of it. (The ¡°We're better than you, because we can criticize without offering solutions¡± attitude isn't very moral, now is it?) And they don¡¯t care either, because it doesn¡¯t fit into their narrow view of superior conquests. Over the past six months, I personally drew these associations and tried to express them verbally or textually in journals, sometimes on the verge of self-destruction. While I may have failed in this review, at least I have made an effort to connect to my own humaneness. When you realize utter rationality severs emotional possibilities, you might stop to think about your behavior. Sadly, it doesn¡¯t surprise me that I am ignored by people who are emotionally stunted and think that sheer mockery is a hipster lifestyle and a sustainable culture, whether they were instilled with these deflective measures by their parents or peers, it arose out of cowardice to understand human purpose, or it¡¯s an innate attribute of people with the supposed inability to form loving relationships. I really don¡¯t know, and it¡¯s not like these people will ever offer sensible sincerity and give me the time of day to find out.
We must recognize that man (and woman) needs art just as he/she needs food, water, shelter, clothes, and a binding relationship. I literally believe, as Tarkovsky does, it¡¯s as important as those typically regarded fundamental needs. By its nature, creation of art is a therapy, a way to pursue ideals that inevitably clash with rampant, suppressive conformism in society. Art is born of human identity (though Tarkovsky would say, ¡°Art is born out of an ill-designed world,¡± and he¡¯d also be correct). Art is a pure sense of the transcendent; for those that can¡¯t understand that ¨C those who think art can exclusively function as an inside joke or in a reverse meta-pulp way (the stigma of ¡°so bad it¡¯s good¡±) ¨C miss the point. Art and entertainment are two different things, and that¡¯s my fundamental criticism with ¡°artists¡± who don¡¯t take themselves seriously. If you¡¯re just creating jokes, you¡¯re an entertainer. You exist for yourself only, to snicker at your own perceived ingenuity. It¡¯s one thing to reserve self-criticism and sense of humor about one¡¯s faults as a coping mechanism and another entirely to exploit other people for suckers by producing work that appeals to inherent intrigue for something people don¡¯t understand. (The fact is, there¡¯s next to nothing to understand). Modern art is more aligned with earthly trivialities when it should be seeking transcendence. It lacks the ability to tap into humanity, and it¡¯s unmemorable, because it¡¯s gaudy, decorated kitsch. The intelligent, artistically attuned people (not phony misguided artists), regardless of formal education or what have you, have a fundamental need to assimilate themselves into the spectrum. Anyone can appreciate art if they are provided with resonant images ¨C they will form the necessary relationships and want to talk about their emotional responses. Instead, there is a growing movement of simplistic perversion as a means of meaningful subversion (like the difference between David Cronenberg and Eli Roth, for example). These entertainers are shock artists and want us to pay attention to them. That¡¯s it. They have nothing to say about human experience, only human reflex. A temporary jolt is not the same as a core disturbance. It requires no emotional consideration and can be dismissed until the next perverse thing comes along.
Tarkovsky writes about modern man¡¯s uncaring attitude about his spiritual wellbeing. This essentially recalls the previous discussion of science and technology. Spiritual wellbeing is the wellbeing of all ¨C a consciousness that considers others over material possessions and competitive pop cultural pasquinade. The latter is hopeless. It still surprises me how Tarkovsky¡¯s words have allowed me to realize my own criticism of humanity. Yes, I am distanced and somewhat unsympathetic because of personal experiences, because I¡¯ve been treated like more of an object than a person and a default acquaintance than a responsive friend. I need to share my enthusiasm for communal aspects of art regardless of whether people respond or not, and this is a manner of rediscovering humanity instead of harboring malice. I recognize that people are too easy on themselves, but I should focus on the issue that lay beyond that. I should be combating the widespread acquiescence pushed by corporate spokesmen, who wish to guide society¡¯s every interest in total complacency. Who out there still loves to dig through a random bin of albums at their local record store? Instead of mining our past, we can¡¯t even relish in the present moment, so it¡¯s skipped like a less immediately absorbing track on a CD. Modern culture doesn¡¯t want us to examine our distant reflections but automatically consume what¡¯s in front of our faces like machines.
My increasing affinity for wordless music, narration-less films has been further developed by Tarkovsky¡¯s book. I wish to appreciate the emphasis on the inherent quality/focus of the art form itself. Cinema is visual motion, so therefore it should command those themes instead of falling back upon preexisting painterly or literary qualities. Of course literature and paintings can be referenced in film (as Tarkovsky always did), but they must be contextualized in a poetic manner that can only be realized in cinema. Otherwise, we should be seeking the essence of that physically manifested art. I mentioned the hindrance of narration in a recent review of B¨¦la Tarr¡¯s Turin Horse film, and that may just be personal preference, but I really dislike the establishment of events with words in cinema. It¡¯s unimaginative. Cinema needs to set its own standards and be judged by its ability to authentically create a universe. After reading Sculpting in Time, I just feel like I have endless pages of memoirs to fill myself. None of it would be half as interesting or complete as Tarkovsky¡¯s expressions, but they would at least strive for artistic philosophical realization. To fail at that is better than to succeed or realize something impure, wholly rational, devoid of emotion, mechanical. Humanity is not a collection of people; it's a quality. It is asking yourself how and why you did or did not respond to something. For a moment during the closing pages, I possessed the eventual goal of donating most everything I own, grabbing a couple interested people, and moving to the middle of nowhere in Northern Washington to be surrounded by a limitless beauty. The modern world is stifling our creativity, our patience, our values, and Tarkovsky knew it. My friend Dan who¡¯s said that civilization will eventually return to its purist, simplest forms, knows it, too. Of course, his pessimistic words do not carry the same weight as Tarkovsky¡¯s ¨C they are the cynical toll to the Russian director¡¯s ringing hope for humanity. But the destination is the same.
After reading Tarkovsky¡¯s autobiography, I can¡¯t help but feel utterly overwhelmed, disturbed, and changed in some profound way. My own considerations and world views have been upturned. Parts of Sculpting in Time were so engrossing and beautifully told (even penetrating the sometimes overly literal translation of Kitty Hunter-Blair) that I couldn¡¯t contain my sense of inner delight, and I¡¯d spontaneously release these monosyllabic mutters. That is how Tarkovsky is defined; his poetry is jaw-droppingly affective through any language. And that should be obvious if you¡¯ve ever seen his films.
Science and technology are stifling our humanity and closing us off from one another, somehow paradoxically. Consider the interconnectivity of the Internet and its possibilities contrasted with its current predominant uses. Then, look at the burgeoning medical sciences, which are viewed as panaceas that are supposed to prolong life, but the field can¡¯t regard the inner concept of life itself. They function to enhance life by the sheer extension of it. Tarkovsky, instead, urges a return to spiritual, artistic pursuits in opposition to this emerging, seething, immoral reality. Initially, it seemed regressive to me, but it is in fact a promotion of total emotional availability. His optimism transmits a world of the past, a reflection of tranquil personal belief in beauty. We¡¯ve been conditioned to believe the immediate, the believable, the rational order of events and nature in exhaustive contemporary life, rejecting the extraordinary and the magical, because they don¡¯t fall in alignment with natural orders and therefore allow proliferation of myth. In generalized terms, it¡¯s unacceptable to dwell in the beauty of dreams; they are instead crushed and transformed into the ordinary so-called ¡°realism.¡± In place of intuitive creativity, modern society gives rise to these approximate outlets - fantastical universes of sorcery and make-believe (sometimes, sadly, physically reenacted like LARP) - that do little more than superficially entertain and obscure our actual human identities. (As a gamer, I recognize the air of speciousness, but the games I play do engage me artistically and philosophically).
After the most difficult period of my life in the last twenty-six years, I recognize that I once considered our formal higher education system to be righteous. I encouraged the pursuit of it another person¡¯s life in both direct and indirect ways, and I suffered the consequences. This is because, as a culture, we do not properly prepare people spiritually, morally, and emotionally in these institutions. The development of these concepts is ordered and confined to the home, church, synagogue, place of worship. It¡¯s common belief that they must be separate, and not only are they detached, but they have also been corrupted. The family unit is in disarray. Organized religion merely tells stories, promotes sexism, and transforms personal responsibility into conformism. To return, there¡¯s a strange coldness, lack of understanding, and finality in a person so utterly concentrated on higher education. Focus on strict memorization of information gives birth to false sense of superiority and undeniable mockery. Regurgitating information without personal interpretation is inhumane. I¡¯ve seen it happen repeatedly even within myself. From post-modernism and post-irony, scholars have this gravitational pull to supreme condescension for any and all things through relentless sarcasm and Internet memes. It¡¯s ironically vapid. These are people too lazy to comprehend or recognize their own emotional boundaries and the range of human emotion, so they attempt to distance or elevate themselves from their own reality creating viral, self-generating elitist drivel. (Philip K. Dick called these people ¡®androids¡¯ for their inability to sincerely empathize ¨C ¡°the battle between the authentic human being and the automotive reflex machine¡±). All of these foci are purely earthly, telluric, and profane; they fail at satire and make no serious attempt to propose self-reflection or more enlightened analyses. It¡¯s outright rudeness and disdain for the capacity of the human condition, because these people have no understanding of it. (The ¡°We're better than you, because we can criticize without offering solutions¡± attitude isn't very moral, now is it?) And they don¡¯t care either, because it doesn¡¯t fit into their narrow view of superior conquests. Over the past six months, I personally drew these associations and tried to express them verbally or textually in journals, sometimes on the verge of self-destruction. While I may have failed in this review, at least I have made an effort to connect to my own humaneness. When you realize utter rationality severs emotional possibilities, you might stop to think about your behavior. Sadly, it doesn¡¯t surprise me that I am ignored by people who are emotionally stunted and think that sheer mockery is a hipster lifestyle and a sustainable culture, whether they were instilled with these deflective measures by their parents or peers, it arose out of cowardice to understand human purpose, or it¡¯s an innate attribute of people with the supposed inability to form loving relationships. I really don¡¯t know, and it¡¯s not like these people will ever offer sensible sincerity and give me the time of day to find out.
We must recognize that man (and woman) needs art just as he/she needs food, water, shelter, clothes, and a binding relationship. I literally believe, as Tarkovsky does, it¡¯s as important as those typically regarded fundamental needs. By its nature, creation of art is a therapy, a way to pursue ideals that inevitably clash with rampant, suppressive conformism in society. Art is born of human identity (though Tarkovsky would say, ¡°Art is born out of an ill-designed world,¡± and he¡¯d also be correct). Art is a pure sense of the transcendent; for those that can¡¯t understand that ¨C those who think art can exclusively function as an inside joke or in a reverse meta-pulp way (the stigma of ¡°so bad it¡¯s good¡±) ¨C miss the point. Art and entertainment are two different things, and that¡¯s my fundamental criticism with ¡°artists¡± who don¡¯t take themselves seriously. If you¡¯re just creating jokes, you¡¯re an entertainer. You exist for yourself only, to snicker at your own perceived ingenuity. It¡¯s one thing to reserve self-criticism and sense of humor about one¡¯s faults as a coping mechanism and another entirely to exploit other people for suckers by producing work that appeals to inherent intrigue for something people don¡¯t understand. (The fact is, there¡¯s next to nothing to understand). Modern art is more aligned with earthly trivialities when it should be seeking transcendence. It lacks the ability to tap into humanity, and it¡¯s unmemorable, because it¡¯s gaudy, decorated kitsch. The intelligent, artistically attuned people (not phony misguided artists), regardless of formal education or what have you, have a fundamental need to assimilate themselves into the spectrum. Anyone can appreciate art if they are provided with resonant images ¨C they will form the necessary relationships and want to talk about their emotional responses. Instead, there is a growing movement of simplistic perversion as a means of meaningful subversion (like the difference between David Cronenberg and Eli Roth, for example). These entertainers are shock artists and want us to pay attention to them. That¡¯s it. They have nothing to say about human experience, only human reflex. A temporary jolt is not the same as a core disturbance. It requires no emotional consideration and can be dismissed until the next perverse thing comes along.
Tarkovsky writes about modern man¡¯s uncaring attitude about his spiritual wellbeing. This essentially recalls the previous discussion of science and technology. Spiritual wellbeing is the wellbeing of all ¨C a consciousness that considers others over material possessions and competitive pop cultural pasquinade. The latter is hopeless. It still surprises me how Tarkovsky¡¯s words have allowed me to realize my own criticism of humanity. Yes, I am distanced and somewhat unsympathetic because of personal experiences, because I¡¯ve been treated like more of an object than a person and a default acquaintance than a responsive friend. I need to share my enthusiasm for communal aspects of art regardless of whether people respond or not, and this is a manner of rediscovering humanity instead of harboring malice. I recognize that people are too easy on themselves, but I should focus on the issue that lay beyond that. I should be combating the widespread acquiescence pushed by corporate spokesmen, who wish to guide society¡¯s every interest in total complacency. Who out there still loves to dig through a random bin of albums at their local record store? Instead of mining our past, we can¡¯t even relish in the present moment, so it¡¯s skipped like a less immediately absorbing track on a CD. Modern culture doesn¡¯t want us to examine our distant reflections but automatically consume what¡¯s in front of our faces like machines.
My increasing affinity for wordless music, narration-less films has been further developed by Tarkovsky¡¯s book. I wish to appreciate the emphasis on the inherent quality/focus of the art form itself. Cinema is visual motion, so therefore it should command those themes instead of falling back upon preexisting painterly or literary qualities. Of course literature and paintings can be referenced in film (as Tarkovsky always did), but they must be contextualized in a poetic manner that can only be realized in cinema. Otherwise, we should be seeking the essence of that physically manifested art. I mentioned the hindrance of narration in a recent review of B¨¦la Tarr¡¯s Turin Horse film, and that may just be personal preference, but I really dislike the establishment of events with words in cinema. It¡¯s unimaginative. Cinema needs to set its own standards and be judged by its ability to authentically create a universe. After reading Sculpting in Time, I just feel like I have endless pages of memoirs to fill myself. None of it would be half as interesting or complete as Tarkovsky¡¯s expressions, but they would at least strive for artistic philosophical realization. To fail at that is better than to succeed or realize something impure, wholly rational, devoid of emotion, mechanical. Humanity is not a collection of people; it's a quality. It is asking yourself how and why you did or did not respond to something. For a moment during the closing pages, I possessed the eventual goal of donating most everything I own, grabbing a couple interested people, and moving to the middle of nowhere in Northern Washington to be surrounded by a limitless beauty. The modern world is stifling our creativity, our patience, our values, and Tarkovsky knew it. My friend Dan who¡¯s said that civilization will eventually return to its purist, simplest forms, knows it, too. Of course, his pessimistic words do not carry the same weight as Tarkovsky¡¯s ¨C they are the cynical toll to the Russian director¡¯s ringing hope for humanity. But the destination is the same.
November 24, 2014
??????? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ????????? ???? ??????? ???????? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ..
???? ????? ? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???????? ????????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ???????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ?????? ?????
??? ??? ????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ???
?? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ???????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ??????? ???????? ???? ?? ??????? ???????? ?????? ????? ????????? ??????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??????
???? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ??????
???? ????? ? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???????? ????????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ???????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ?????? ?????
??? ??? ????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ???
?? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ???????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ??????? ???????? ???? ?? ??????? ???????? ?????? ????? ????????? ??????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??????
???? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ??????
April 4, 2020
"I love cinema. There is still a lot that I don't know: what I am going to work on, what shall I do later, how everything will turn out, whether my work will actually correspond to the principles to which I now adhere, to the system of working hypotheses I put forward. There are too many temptations on every side: stereotypes, preconceptions, commonplaces, artistic ideas other than one's own. And really it's so easy to shoot a scene beautifully, for effect, for acclaim . . . But you only have to take one step in that direction and you are lost.
Cinema should be a means of exploring the most complex problems of our time, as vital as those which for centuries have been the subject of literature, music, and painting. It is only a question of searching, each time searching out afresh the path, the channel, to be followed by cinema. I am convinced that for any one of us our film-making will turn out to be a fruitless and hopeless affair if we fail to grasp precisely and unequivocally the specific character of cinema, and if we fail to find in ourselves our own key to it"
August 27, 2009
"I see it as my duty to stimulate reflection on what is essentially human and eternal in each individual soul, and which all too often a person will pass by, even though his fate lies in his hands. He is too busy chasing after phantoms and bowing down to idols. In the end everything can be reduced to the one simple element which is all a person can count upon in his existence: the capacity to love. That element can grow within the soul to become the supreme factor which determines the meaning of a person's life. My function is to make whoever sees my films aware of his need to love and to give his love, and aware that beauty is summoning him."
July 12, 2017
?? ????? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????? ? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ? ?????? ???????? ??.
??????? ?? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ? ?????? ?????..
??????? ?? ???? ???? ? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ? ?????? ? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???????? ????? ??? ??????? ? ?????? ? ??? ???????? ? ??????? ? ??? ???? ? ?????? ???????? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????..
????????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ? ???? ? ????? ? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ???..
???? ?????????: " ???? ??? ????? "..
????? ???????? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??? ?? ?? ????????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ? ?????..
( ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???????. )
??????? ?? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ? ?????? ?????..
??????? ?? ???? ???? ? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ? ?????? ? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???????? ????? ??? ??????? ? ?????? ? ??? ???????? ? ??????? ? ??? ???? ? ?????? ???????? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????..
????????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ? ???? ? ????? ? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ???..
???? ?????????: " ???? ??? ????? "..
????? ???????? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??? ?? ?? ????????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ? ?????..
( ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???????. )
October 31, 2022
Cada vez que usted vea en el cine -aunque cada vez es m¨¢s escaso- un plano fijo largu¨ªsimo, en el que parece que no pasara nada, es Tarkovski. Puede ser un Tarkovski deformado, pero es ¨¦l. ?l es el hombre que esculpi¨® en el tiempo. Es la mejor definici¨®n de su cine dada por ¨¦l mismo, y que da t¨ªtulo a este libro. Una gran influencia para muchos cineastas que quisieron seguir/copiar su estilo. A¨²n recuerdo siendo una estudiante universitaria, la m¨ªstica alrededor de Tarkovski. Segu¨ªa siendo un outsider ya a finales de los noventa y entrado en los dosmiles. Ver sus pel¨ªculas era una especie de ritual para pocos, pero, a la vez, para algunos no era m¨¢s que un snobismo trasnochado. Los Bergmans, Antonionis, Bu?eles y Bressones estaban en ese punto de quiebre que marcaba el nuevo milenio, y que empezaba a darle una fuerza irreductible a la entrada de las nuevas tecnolog¨ªas, ll¨¢mese la revoluci¨®n de lo digital. Entonces, todo aquello con un ritmo an¨¢logo y con intenci¨®n de "el arte por el arte"parec¨ªa entrar al terreno de lo caduco, para algunos enfrascados en la novedad y el ritmo cada vez m¨¢s acelerado de los tiempos.
Pero ah¨ª estaba Tarkovski con su Espejo, con su Stalker, con su Sacrificio, y ah¨ª estaba yo, luchando contra ese tiempo extenuante para intentar ver aquello que ¨¦l ve¨ªa en el arte. En peque?as salas de cine o funciones improvisadas incluso en monitores de TV, funciones a las que no acud¨ªa nadie. Esto debido en gran parte al contexto cultural del pa¨ªs en el que estoy. Pero todo esto puede parecer una labia innecesaria que nada tiene que ver con el libro que rese?o aqu¨ª, sin embargo, tiene mucho que ver.
La experiencia del espectador para Tarkovski lo era todo, o casi todo. Y en este libro lo explica. ?l no quer¨ªa imbuir de sentido fijo a sus pel¨ªculas, cre¨ªa que eso era una especie de trampa, el crear sentidos basados en la configuraci¨®n del s¨ªmbolo (a trav¨¦s de la yuxtaposici¨®n de im¨¢genes), sino m¨¢s bien apelaba a la imagen en limpio, para que sea el espectador quien la dotase de sentido. Es por ello que le hu¨ªa al manierismo del cine y su estructura cl¨¢sica, y de aquello que ¨¦l mismo aprendi¨® en la escuela de cine sovi¨¦tica, y¨¦ndose incluso en contra de las ense?anzas del propio Eisenstein, famoso cineasta sovi¨¦tico creador de la teor¨ªa del montaje (justamente la b¨²squeda del s¨ªmbolo). Tarkovski, por el contrario, explica en este libro que en su cine no hay un solo s¨ªmbolo, sino que m¨¢s bien sus pel¨ªculas est¨¢n m¨¢s cercanas al acto po¨¦tico, a la fuerza de la imagen per se, y a el c¨®mo esa imagen se trabaja en un tiempo espec¨ªfico, el tiempo interno de la escena. Eso para Tarkovski es el ritmo, y lo que define al cine y lo diferencia del resto de las artes: el tiempo. El cine es un arte del tiempo.
Para el cineasta, lo que define el montaje ya lo contiene cada escena rodada. El tiempo que transcurre en cada una de ellas determina el tiempo general de la estructura total de escenas en el montaje. Si ambos tiempos no coinciden, la pel¨ªcula no funcionar¨¢. Esto lo ilustra con una pel¨ªcula de Eisenstein, en la que ¨¦ste quiso reproducir el propio tiempo din¨¢mico de una batalla, pero lo hizo cortando escenas y edit¨¢ndolas una tras otra con velocidad. Seg¨²n Tarkovski, ello es un fallo, ya que no dej¨® que cada escena contenga en s¨ª misma el ritmo de la batalla y lo que hizo result¨® artificioso y sin sentido. Para ¨¦l, la escena debe rodarse ya con la intenci¨®n del montaje y no buscarlo despu¨¦s, m¨¢s bien, debe hallarse el esp¨ªritu de la escena.
Por otro lado, otro error que Tarkovski considera en el cine, es el intento de hacer literatura. Para ¨¦l, el cine no tiene nada que ver con ¨¦sta, a diferencia del teatro que s¨ª es cercano a la literatura porque sus di¨¢logos son lo m¨¢s importante en la dramaturgia y estos pueden ser completamente literarios. Mientras que, seg¨²n T. en el cine son apenas un elemento m¨¢s, por lo que, a su criterio, si se trata de hacer literatura con di¨¢logos en el cine, se est¨¢ errando nuevamente. Lo mismo con la actuaci¨®n. En el teatro el actor debe entender racional y esquem¨¢ticamente a su personaje porque esa es la base de su construcci¨®n, en el cine no. T. estar¨ªa m¨¢s cerca de la idea del "actor natural" que al del actor que profundiza en su personaje a trav¨¦s de la t¨¦cnica. Por eso, tambi¨¦n rechaza el m¨¦todo de Stanislavski y prefiere que el actor no sepa nada del derrotero de su personaje, tal como una persona sabe nada sobre el futuro y lo que acontecer¨¢ en su propia vida. Esa incertidumbre de la realidad es la que busca reproducir Tarkovski en su cine.
Ese apego a reproducir la realidad pero a trav¨¦s de la po¨¦tica de la imagen que tambi¨¦n rechaza la pirotecnia, el artificio, el s¨ªmbolo y la interpretaci¨®n un¨ªvoca propuesta por el director, busca un impresionismo cinematogr¨¢fico en el que incluso el color resulta un problema, ya que para la ¨¦poca, el trabajo con el color en el cine a¨²n no llegaba a un nivel t¨¦cnico ¨®ptimo y segu¨ªa resaltando como una est¨¦tica incontrolable por encima del fondo y la profundidad del sentido de la imagen. Por ello Tarkovski propon¨ªa el uso de colores apagados y neutros, e incluso, asegura que el blanco y negro es la representaci¨®n de la realidad m¨¢s fiel, pues anula la necesidad del escoger un color por encima de otro y de darle un sentido a la gama de colores que en la vida real no existe porque es fortuita.
Por otro lado, este libro es una especie de compendio de su experiencia como director en la creaci¨®n de sus pel¨ªculas, escrito no linealmente, en un largo espacio de tiempo. Por estas p¨¢ginas corren sus reflexiones y decisiones profesionales en pel¨ªculas como La infancia de Iv¨¢n, Solaris, Stalker, El espejo (la m¨¢s ¨ªntima de sus pel¨ªculas, ya que trata sobre sus recuerdos de ni?ez y juventud), Nostalgia (en la que se mezcla su propia experiencia de nostalgia, pues cuando la rod¨®, ya hab¨ªa salido de la URSS) y Sacrificio, en la que se da un hecho ins¨®lito, cuya explicaci¨®n gr¨¢fica engloba el summum de su pensamiento, aunque no ahonda mucho m¨¢s y lo deja sujeto a interpretaci¨®n. Tal como en sus pel¨ªculas.
El hecho referido es el siguiente: Su actor fetiche, Anatoli Solonitsin, con quien trabaj¨® en casi todas sus pel¨ªculas, muri¨® de c¨¢ncer, y a ¨¦l mismo le dar¨¢ c¨¢ncer despu¨¦s. Tal como el protagonista de Sacrificio, un hombre que tiene c¨¢ncer y para recobrar su salud hace un pacto con una bruja. Para Tarkovski, este acto po¨¦tico es una anticipaci¨®n a la realidad que solo puede ser explicado a trav¨¦s de la cualidad mist¨¦rica del arte. Esto lo sella con una cita de Pushkin en la que sentencia que "un artista verdadero es, en contra de su voluntad, un profeta". Est¨¢ claro que su idea sobre el arte es algo que traspasa a la materia y al propio hombre.
Y respecto a ello, a lo material, al materialismo (visto desde la filosof¨ªa, y desde la cultura de masas y el consumismo), Tarkovski, que sali¨® de la URSS en 1983, se sit¨²a en un espacio cuasi paria al criticar a ambos sistemas, aunque no los nombre. No nombra al Capitalismo y al Comunismo, pero s¨ª habla de Occidente y su materialismo (lo cierto es que tambi¨¦n critica a ese cine comprometido y pol¨ªtico de la URSS con el que no quer¨ªa tener nada que ver), y cree que la materia amenaza con devorar el esp¨ªritu del hombre. Tambi¨¦n equipara el avance de la tecnolog¨ªa con esa p¨¦rdida de esp¨ªritu (de ah¨ª que est¨¦ relacionado con la introducci¨®n de este texto, en el que hablo de la entrada de la tecnolog¨ªa en los dosmiles, cosa que de alguna manera Tarkovski predijo, pese a que muri¨® en los a¨²n anal¨®gicos ochentas). Para Tarkovski el cine comercial no tiene valor alguno m¨¢s que como fuente de generaci¨®n de dinero y seg¨²n su idea, el artista no est¨¢ ah¨ª por enriquecerse. Su visi¨®n del arte es totalizadora y metaf¨ªsica (en el sentido no-m¨ªstico, sino de trascendencia de lo humano): el arte es lo que salva al hombre de la p¨¦rdida de su esp¨ªritu. "Y por eso, quiz¨¢ realmente consista el sentido de la existencia humana en la creaci¨®n de obras de arte, en el acto art¨ªstico, ya que este no posee una meta y es desinteresado".
Y una de las m¨¢s bellas met¨¢foras que incluye en su ¨²ltima pel¨ªcula Sacrificio (aunque una met¨¢fora ya estar¨ªa fuera de sus preceptos cinematogr¨¢ficos, lo cierto es que tambi¨¦n dice que los m¨¦todos y normas en el cine pueden ser establecidos para romperse, lo que hizo justamente en Sacrificio, pel¨ªcula en la que se sali¨® del mero impresionismo y tom¨® m¨¢s herramientas de la dramaturgia tradicional): Un hombre sube un monte todos los d¨ªas para regar un ¨¢rbol seco. Un acto que podr¨ªa parecer in¨²til termina dando la respuesta inesperada-esperada: el ¨¢rbol reto?a finalmente. Es la esperanza. Eso es el arte.
Pero ah¨ª estaba Tarkovski con su Espejo, con su Stalker, con su Sacrificio, y ah¨ª estaba yo, luchando contra ese tiempo extenuante para intentar ver aquello que ¨¦l ve¨ªa en el arte. En peque?as salas de cine o funciones improvisadas incluso en monitores de TV, funciones a las que no acud¨ªa nadie. Esto debido en gran parte al contexto cultural del pa¨ªs en el que estoy. Pero todo esto puede parecer una labia innecesaria que nada tiene que ver con el libro que rese?o aqu¨ª, sin embargo, tiene mucho que ver.
La experiencia del espectador para Tarkovski lo era todo, o casi todo. Y en este libro lo explica. ?l no quer¨ªa imbuir de sentido fijo a sus pel¨ªculas, cre¨ªa que eso era una especie de trampa, el crear sentidos basados en la configuraci¨®n del s¨ªmbolo (a trav¨¦s de la yuxtaposici¨®n de im¨¢genes), sino m¨¢s bien apelaba a la imagen en limpio, para que sea el espectador quien la dotase de sentido. Es por ello que le hu¨ªa al manierismo del cine y su estructura cl¨¢sica, y de aquello que ¨¦l mismo aprendi¨® en la escuela de cine sovi¨¦tica, y¨¦ndose incluso en contra de las ense?anzas del propio Eisenstein, famoso cineasta sovi¨¦tico creador de la teor¨ªa del montaje (justamente la b¨²squeda del s¨ªmbolo). Tarkovski, por el contrario, explica en este libro que en su cine no hay un solo s¨ªmbolo, sino que m¨¢s bien sus pel¨ªculas est¨¢n m¨¢s cercanas al acto po¨¦tico, a la fuerza de la imagen per se, y a el c¨®mo esa imagen se trabaja en un tiempo espec¨ªfico, el tiempo interno de la escena. Eso para Tarkovski es el ritmo, y lo que define al cine y lo diferencia del resto de las artes: el tiempo. El cine es un arte del tiempo.
Para el cineasta, lo que define el montaje ya lo contiene cada escena rodada. El tiempo que transcurre en cada una de ellas determina el tiempo general de la estructura total de escenas en el montaje. Si ambos tiempos no coinciden, la pel¨ªcula no funcionar¨¢. Esto lo ilustra con una pel¨ªcula de Eisenstein, en la que ¨¦ste quiso reproducir el propio tiempo din¨¢mico de una batalla, pero lo hizo cortando escenas y edit¨¢ndolas una tras otra con velocidad. Seg¨²n Tarkovski, ello es un fallo, ya que no dej¨® que cada escena contenga en s¨ª misma el ritmo de la batalla y lo que hizo result¨® artificioso y sin sentido. Para ¨¦l, la escena debe rodarse ya con la intenci¨®n del montaje y no buscarlo despu¨¦s, m¨¢s bien, debe hallarse el esp¨ªritu de la escena.
Por otro lado, otro error que Tarkovski considera en el cine, es el intento de hacer literatura. Para ¨¦l, el cine no tiene nada que ver con ¨¦sta, a diferencia del teatro que s¨ª es cercano a la literatura porque sus di¨¢logos son lo m¨¢s importante en la dramaturgia y estos pueden ser completamente literarios. Mientras que, seg¨²n T. en el cine son apenas un elemento m¨¢s, por lo que, a su criterio, si se trata de hacer literatura con di¨¢logos en el cine, se est¨¢ errando nuevamente. Lo mismo con la actuaci¨®n. En el teatro el actor debe entender racional y esquem¨¢ticamente a su personaje porque esa es la base de su construcci¨®n, en el cine no. T. estar¨ªa m¨¢s cerca de la idea del "actor natural" que al del actor que profundiza en su personaje a trav¨¦s de la t¨¦cnica. Por eso, tambi¨¦n rechaza el m¨¦todo de Stanislavski y prefiere que el actor no sepa nada del derrotero de su personaje, tal como una persona sabe nada sobre el futuro y lo que acontecer¨¢ en su propia vida. Esa incertidumbre de la realidad es la que busca reproducir Tarkovski en su cine.
Ese apego a reproducir la realidad pero a trav¨¦s de la po¨¦tica de la imagen que tambi¨¦n rechaza la pirotecnia, el artificio, el s¨ªmbolo y la interpretaci¨®n un¨ªvoca propuesta por el director, busca un impresionismo cinematogr¨¢fico en el que incluso el color resulta un problema, ya que para la ¨¦poca, el trabajo con el color en el cine a¨²n no llegaba a un nivel t¨¦cnico ¨®ptimo y segu¨ªa resaltando como una est¨¦tica incontrolable por encima del fondo y la profundidad del sentido de la imagen. Por ello Tarkovski propon¨ªa el uso de colores apagados y neutros, e incluso, asegura que el blanco y negro es la representaci¨®n de la realidad m¨¢s fiel, pues anula la necesidad del escoger un color por encima de otro y de darle un sentido a la gama de colores que en la vida real no existe porque es fortuita.
Por otro lado, este libro es una especie de compendio de su experiencia como director en la creaci¨®n de sus pel¨ªculas, escrito no linealmente, en un largo espacio de tiempo. Por estas p¨¢ginas corren sus reflexiones y decisiones profesionales en pel¨ªculas como La infancia de Iv¨¢n, Solaris, Stalker, El espejo (la m¨¢s ¨ªntima de sus pel¨ªculas, ya que trata sobre sus recuerdos de ni?ez y juventud), Nostalgia (en la que se mezcla su propia experiencia de nostalgia, pues cuando la rod¨®, ya hab¨ªa salido de la URSS) y Sacrificio, en la que se da un hecho ins¨®lito, cuya explicaci¨®n gr¨¢fica engloba el summum de su pensamiento, aunque no ahonda mucho m¨¢s y lo deja sujeto a interpretaci¨®n. Tal como en sus pel¨ªculas.
El hecho referido es el siguiente: Su actor fetiche, Anatoli Solonitsin, con quien trabaj¨® en casi todas sus pel¨ªculas, muri¨® de c¨¢ncer, y a ¨¦l mismo le dar¨¢ c¨¢ncer despu¨¦s. Tal como el protagonista de Sacrificio, un hombre que tiene c¨¢ncer y para recobrar su salud hace un pacto con una bruja. Para Tarkovski, este acto po¨¦tico es una anticipaci¨®n a la realidad que solo puede ser explicado a trav¨¦s de la cualidad mist¨¦rica del arte. Esto lo sella con una cita de Pushkin en la que sentencia que "un artista verdadero es, en contra de su voluntad, un profeta". Est¨¢ claro que su idea sobre el arte es algo que traspasa a la materia y al propio hombre.
Y respecto a ello, a lo material, al materialismo (visto desde la filosof¨ªa, y desde la cultura de masas y el consumismo), Tarkovski, que sali¨® de la URSS en 1983, se sit¨²a en un espacio cuasi paria al criticar a ambos sistemas, aunque no los nombre. No nombra al Capitalismo y al Comunismo, pero s¨ª habla de Occidente y su materialismo (lo cierto es que tambi¨¦n critica a ese cine comprometido y pol¨ªtico de la URSS con el que no quer¨ªa tener nada que ver), y cree que la materia amenaza con devorar el esp¨ªritu del hombre. Tambi¨¦n equipara el avance de la tecnolog¨ªa con esa p¨¦rdida de esp¨ªritu (de ah¨ª que est¨¦ relacionado con la introducci¨®n de este texto, en el que hablo de la entrada de la tecnolog¨ªa en los dosmiles, cosa que de alguna manera Tarkovski predijo, pese a que muri¨® en los a¨²n anal¨®gicos ochentas). Para Tarkovski el cine comercial no tiene valor alguno m¨¢s que como fuente de generaci¨®n de dinero y seg¨²n su idea, el artista no est¨¢ ah¨ª por enriquecerse. Su visi¨®n del arte es totalizadora y metaf¨ªsica (en el sentido no-m¨ªstico, sino de trascendencia de lo humano): el arte es lo que salva al hombre de la p¨¦rdida de su esp¨ªritu. "Y por eso, quiz¨¢ realmente consista el sentido de la existencia humana en la creaci¨®n de obras de arte, en el acto art¨ªstico, ya que este no posee una meta y es desinteresado".
Y una de las m¨¢s bellas met¨¢foras que incluye en su ¨²ltima pel¨ªcula Sacrificio (aunque una met¨¢fora ya estar¨ªa fuera de sus preceptos cinematogr¨¢ficos, lo cierto es que tambi¨¦n dice que los m¨¦todos y normas en el cine pueden ser establecidos para romperse, lo que hizo justamente en Sacrificio, pel¨ªcula en la que se sali¨® del mero impresionismo y tom¨® m¨¢s herramientas de la dramaturgia tradicional): Un hombre sube un monte todos los d¨ªas para regar un ¨¢rbol seco. Un acto que podr¨ªa parecer in¨²til termina dando la respuesta inesperada-esperada: el ¨¢rbol reto?a finalmente. Es la esperanza. Eso es el arte.
October 15, 2020
Uno sguardo umano, un divino nascosto
¡°Il film, quando non ¨¨ un documentario, ¨¨ un sogno. E¡¯ per questo che Tarkovskij ¨¨ il pi¨´ grande di tutti¡±.
(Ingmar Bergman)
¡°Mi hanno sovente domandato cos'¨¨ la Zona, che cosa simboleggia, ed hanno avanzato le interpretazioni pi¨´ impensabili. Io cado in uno stato di rabbia e di disperazione quando sento domande del genere. La Zona ¨¨ la Zona, la Zona ¨¨ la vita: attraversandola l'uomo o si spezza o resiste. Se l'uomo resister¨¤ dipende dal suo sentimento della propria dignit¨¤, dalla sua capacit¨¤ di distinguere il fondamentale dal passeggero¡±.
(Andrej Tarkovskij su "Stalker")
Due geni a confronto:
¡°Il film, quando non ¨¨ un documentario, ¨¨ un sogno. E¡¯ per questo che Tarkovskij ¨¨ il pi¨´ grande di tutti¡±.
(Ingmar Bergman)
¡°Mi hanno sovente domandato cos'¨¨ la Zona, che cosa simboleggia, ed hanno avanzato le interpretazioni pi¨´ impensabili. Io cado in uno stato di rabbia e di disperazione quando sento domande del genere. La Zona ¨¨ la Zona, la Zona ¨¨ la vita: attraversandola l'uomo o si spezza o resiste. Se l'uomo resister¨¤ dipende dal suo sentimento della propria dignit¨¤, dalla sua capacit¨¤ di distinguere il fondamentale dal passeggero¡±.
(Andrej Tarkovskij su "Stalker")
Due geni a confronto:
November 13, 2015
Andrei Tarkovsky has much in common with Dostoevsky in the sense that his movies move at a deliberate, slow pace with drawn out panning movements and long takes. They need extra effort from the viewer to appreciate them. His movies are much concerned with the "inner life" and the psychological truths of his characters.
In this book he shares his ideas on filmmaking. Gives us an insight into the rules and methods that Tarkovsky set for himself in making his movies. Not a technical treatise but more of a phenomenological work. His ideas on the nature and purpose of art, especially pertaining to cinema, and its importance for the spiritually poor, modern consumerist world that seems be on the self-destructive mode. Tarkovsky was especially drawn to Japanese Haikku which is the simple observation of the world around us, unclouded by preconceived notions and judgements. For him,the essential element of cinema is also observation, the experience of the world.
In this book he shares his ideas on filmmaking. Gives us an insight into the rules and methods that Tarkovsky set for himself in making his movies. Not a technical treatise but more of a phenomenological work. His ideas on the nature and purpose of art, especially pertaining to cinema, and its importance for the spiritually poor, modern consumerist world that seems be on the self-destructive mode. Tarkovsky was especially drawn to Japanese Haikku which is the simple observation of the world around us, unclouded by preconceived notions and judgements. For him,the essential element of cinema is also observation, the experience of the world.
March 3, 2017
"Toate filmele mele au vorbit ?ntr-un fel sau altul despre faptul c? oamenii nu sunt singuri, arunca?i ?ntr-un univers p?r?sit, c? ei sunt lega?i de trecut ?i de viitor prin nenum?rate fire, c? fiecare om, prin soarta lui, realizeaz? leg?tura cu soarta universal? a omenirii. Dar aceast? speran?? la rolul inteligent al fiec?rei vie?i ?n parte ?i al fiec?rei ac?iuni omene?ti m?re?te la nesf?r?it responsabilitatea individului fa?? de evolu?ia general? a vie?ii.
?n lume, unde amenin?area r?zboiului, capabil s? distrug? umanitatea, este real?, unde dezastrele sociale uimesc prin amplitudine, iar suferin?ele omene?ti sunt strig?toare la cer, trebuie s? c?ut?m drumul unul c?tre cel?lalt. Aceasta este datoria sf?nt? a omenirii fa?? de propriul viitor ?i datoria fiec?ruia ?n parte."
O carte la care voi reveni p?n? voi muri.
?n lume, unde amenin?area r?zboiului, capabil s? distrug? umanitatea, este real?, unde dezastrele sociale uimesc prin amplitudine, iar suferin?ele omene?ti sunt strig?toare la cer, trebuie s? c?ut?m drumul unul c?tre cel?lalt. Aceasta este datoria sf?nt? a omenirii fa?? de propriul viitor ?i datoria fiec?ruia ?n parte."
O carte la care voi reveni p?n? voi muri.
December 20, 2013
?? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? , ???? ?????? ????? ? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ? ??????? , ?? ??? ????? ? ??????? , ??? ??? ????? ? ?????? .
????????? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? , ????? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ? ?????? , ???? ???? ? ???? .
????????? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? , ????? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ? ?????? , ???? ???? ? ???? .
April 9, 2023
§¡§ß§Õ§â§Ö§Û §´§Ñ§â§Ü§à§Ó§ã§Ü§Ú §Ö §Ö§Õ§Ú§ß §à§ä §ß§Ñ§Û-§Ó§Ö§Ý§Ú§Ü§Ú§ä§Ö §Ü§Ú§ß§à§â§Ö§Ø§Ú§ã§î§à§â§Ú §Ó §ã§Ó§Ö§ä§à§Ó§ß§Ñ§ä§Ñ §Ú§ã§ä§à§â§Ú§ñ! §¯§Ö§Ô§à§Ó§Ú§ä§Ö §æ§Ú§Ý§Þ§Ú §ã§Ñ §Ú§Ù§Ü§Ý§ð§é§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý§ß§à §ã§ä§à§Û§ß§à§ã§ä§ß§Ú §Ú §Ü§â§Ñ§ã§Ú§Ó§Ú - §ä§à§é§ß§à §à§Ò§â§Ñ§ä§ß§à§ä§à §ß§Ñ §ã§ä§Ñ§ß§Õ§Ñ§â§ä§ß§Ú§ä§Ö §Ú §á§â§à§á§Ñ§Ô§Ñ§ß§Õ§ß§Ú §ã§ì§Ó§Ö§ä§ã§Ü§Ú §ä§Ñ§Ü§Ú§Ó§Ñ. §©§Ñ §ã§ì§Ø§Ñ§Ý§Ö§ß§Ú§Ö §Ö §ã§ì§Ù§Õ§Ñ§Ý §ä§Ó§ì§â§Õ§Ö §Þ§Ñ§Ý§Ü§à §ä§Ó§à§â§Ò§Ú, §Ù§Ñ§â§Ñ§Õ§Ú §ä§à§ä§Ñ§Ý§Ú§ä§Ñ§â§ß§Ñ§ä§Ñ §è§Ö§ß§Ù§å§â§Ñ... §¡§ß§Õ§â§Ö§Û §Ö §ã§Ú§ß §ß§Ñ §â§å§ã§Ü§Ú§ñ §á§à§Ö§ä §¡§â§ã§Ö§ß§Ú§Û §´§Ñ§â§Ü§à§Ó§ã§Ü§Ú, §Ü§à§Ö§ä§à §à§Ò§ñ§ã§ß§ñ§Ó§Ñ §ä§à§Ó§Ñ, §é§Ö §æ§Ú§Ý§Þ§Ú§ä§Ö §Þ§å §ã§Ñ §ã§ì§ë§à §ä§Ñ§Ü§Ñ §é§å§Õ§Ö§ã§ß§Ñ §Ó§Ú§Ù§å§Ñ§Ý§ß§Ñ §á§à§Ö§Ù§Ú§ñ. §¬§Ñ§ä§à §Ý§ð§Ò§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý §ß§Ñ §ß§Ñ§å§é§ß§Ñ §æ§Ñ§ß§ä§Ñ§ã§ä§Ú§Ü§Ñ, §à§Ò§à§Ø§Ñ§Ó§Ñ§Þ §ß§Ñ§Û-§Ó§Ö§é§Ö §ß§Ö§Ô§à§Ó§Ú§ä§Ö ?§³§ä§Ñ§Ý§Ü§Ö§â¡° §Ú ?§³§à§Ý§Ñ§â§Ú§ã¡° (§Ó§ì§á§â§Ö§Ü§Ú §â§Ñ§Ù§Ý§Ú§é§Ú§ñ§ä§Ñ §ã §Ü§ß§Ú§Ô§Ú§ä§Ö), §ß§à §Ú §à§ã§ä§Ñ§ß§Ñ§Ý§Ú§ä§Ö §Þ§å §æ§Ú§Ý§Þ§Ú §ã§Ú§Ý§ß§à §Þ§Ö §Ó§á§Ö§é§Ñ§ä§Ý§Ú§ç§Ñ! §£ ?§µ§Ý§à§Ó§Ö§ß§à§ä§à §Ó§â§Ö§Þ§Ö¡° §Ô§Ö§ß§Ú§Ñ§Ý§ß§Ú§ñ§ä §â§Ö§Ø§Ú§ã§î§à§â §â§Ñ§Ù§Ü§Ñ§Ù§Ó§Ñ §é§Ö§ã§ä§ß§à §Ú §å§Ó§Ý§Ö§Ü§Ñ§ä§Ö§Ý§ß§à, §Ü§Ñ§Ü§ä§à §Ú §ã§á§à§Õ§Ö§Ý§ñ §Õ§à§ã§ä§Ñ §è§Ö§ß§ß§Ú §Þ§Ú§ã§Ý§Ú - §Ü§ß§Ú§Ô§Ñ§ä§Ñ §à§á§â§Ö§Õ§Ö§Ý§Ö§ß§à §ë§Ö §Õ§à§á§Ñ§Õ§ß§Ö §ß§Ñ §Ó§ã§Ö§Ü§Ú §á§à§é§Ú§ä§Ñ§ä§Ö§Ý §ß§Ñ §Ü§Ñ§é§Ö§ã§ä§Ó§Ö§ß§à§ä§à §Ü§Ú§ß§à!
?§¡§Ü§à §Ú§Þ§Ñ §Ù§â§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý, §Ù§Ñ §Ü§à§Ô§à§ä§à §Ö §Ó§Ñ§Ø§ß§à §Ú §á§Ý§à§Õ§à§ä§Ó§à§â§ß§à §Õ§Ñ §Ó§à§Õ§Ú §Õ§Ú§Ñ§Ý§à§Ô §Ú§Þ§Ö§ß§ß§à §ã §Þ§Ö§ß, §Ü§Ñ§Ü§ì§Ó §á§à-§Ô§à§Ý§ñ§Þ §ã§ä§Ú§Þ§å§Ý §Õ§Ñ §â§Ñ§Ò§à§ä§ñ? §¡§Ü§à §Ú§Þ§Ñ §Ù§â§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý§Ú, §Ü§à§Ú§ä§à §Ô§à§Ó§à§â§ñ§ä §ã §Þ§Ö§ß §ß§Ñ §Ö§Õ§Ú§ß §Ú §ã§ì§ë §Ö§Ù§Ú§Ü, §Ù§Ñ§ë§à §Õ§Ñ §á§â§Ö§Õ§Ñ§Þ §ä§Ö§ç§ß§Ú§ä§Ö §Ú§ß§ä§Ö§â§Ö§ã§Ú §Ù§Ñ§â§Ñ§Õ§Ú §Õ§â§å§Ô§Ñ, §é§å§Ø§Õ§Ñ §Ú §Õ§Ñ§Ý§Ö§é§ß§Ñ §Þ§Ú §Ô§â§å§á§Ñ §à§ä §ç§à§â§Ñ? §´§Ö §Ú§Þ§Ñ§ä §ã§Ó§à§Ú ,,§Ò§à§Ô§à§Ó§Ö §Ú §Ü§å§Þ§Ú§â§Ú¡° §Ú §ß§Ú§Ö §ß§ñ§Þ§Ñ§Þ§Ö §ß§Ú§ë§à §à§Ò§ë§à §ã §ä§ñ§ç.
§·§å§Õ§à§Ø§ß§Ú§Ü§ì§ä §Ú§Þ§Ñ §ã§Ñ§Þ§à §Ö§Õ§ß§Ñ §Ó§ì§Ù§Þ§à§Ø§ß§à§ã§ä: §Õ§Ñ §á§â§Ö§Õ§Ý§à§Ø§Ú §ß§Ñ §Ù§â§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý§ñ §ã§Ó§à§ñ§ä§Ñ §é§Ö§ã§ä§ß§à§ã§ä §Ú §Ú§ã§Ü§â§Ö§ß§à§ã§ä, §Ü§à§Ô§Ñ§ä§à §ã§Ö §Ò§à§â§Ú §ã §Þ§Ñ§ä§Ö§â§Ú§Ñ§Ý§Ñ. §©§â§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý§ñ§ä §ë§Ö §â§Ñ§Ù§Ò§Ö§â§Ö §Ú §ë§Ö §à§è§Ö§ß§Ú §ã§Þ§Ú§ã§ì§Ý§Ñ §ß§Ñ §ß§Ñ§ê§Ú§ä§Ö §å§ã§Ú§Ý§Ú§ñ.
§¡§Ü§à §Ú§ã§Ü§Ñ§ê §Õ§Ñ §ã§Ö §ç§Ñ§â§Ö§ã§Ñ§ê §ß§Ñ §Ù§â§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý§ñ, §Ñ§Ü§à §á§â§Ú§Ö§Þ§Ñ§ê §ß§Ö§Ü§â§Ú§ä§Ú§é§ß§à §ß§Ö§Ô§à§Ó§Ú§ä§Ö §Ó§Ü§å§ã§à§Ó§Ö, §à§Ù§ß§Ñ§é§Ñ§Ó§Ñ §Õ§Ñ §ß§Ö §Ô§à §å§Ó§Ñ§Ø§Ñ§Ó§Ñ§ê. §¯§Ú§Ö §Ú§ã§Ü§Ñ§Þ§Ö §ã§Ñ§Þ§à §á§Ñ§â§Ú§ä§Ö §ß§Ñ §ä§à§Ù§Ú §Ù§â§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý §Ú §Ô§à §Ó§ì§Ù§á§Ú§ä§Ñ§Ó§Ñ§Þ§Ö §ß§Ö §ã §Ó§Ú§ã§à§Ü§Ú§ä§Ö §à§Ò§â§Ñ§Ù§è§Ú §Ó §Ú§Ù§Ü§å§ã§ä§Ó§à§ä§à §ß§Ñ §ç§å§Õ§à§Ø§ß§Ú§Ü§Ñ, §Ñ §ã§Ñ§Þ§à §Ù§Ñ §Õ§Ñ §ß§Ú §Ô§Ñ§â§Ñ§ß§ä§Ú§â§Ñ §ß§ñ§Ü§Ñ§Ü§ì§Ó §Õ§à§ç§à§Õ. §©§â§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý§ñ§ä §á§â§à§Õ§ì§Ý§Ø§Ñ§Ó§Ñ §Õ§Ñ §Ö §Õ§à§Ó§à§Ý§Ö§ß §Ú §Õ§Ñ §Þ§Ú§ã§Ý§Ú, §é§Ö §Ö §á§â§Ñ§Ó, §ß§à §ä§Ñ§Ù§Ú §Þ§Ú§ã§ì§Ý §Ö §ä§Ó§ì§â§Õ§Ö §à§ä§ß§à§ã§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý§ß§Ñ. §¡§Ü§à §ß§Ö §Ó§ì§Ù§á§Ú§ä§Ñ§Ó§Ñ§Þ§Ö §å §Ù§â§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý§ñ §ã§á§à§ã§à§Ò§ß§à§ã§ä §Õ§Ñ §Ö §Ü§â§Ú§ä§Ú§é§Ö§ß §Ü§ì§Þ §ã§à§Ò§ã§ä§Ó§Ö§ß§Ú§ä§Ö §ã§Ú §â§Ñ§Ù§ã§ì§Ø§Õ§Ö§ß§Ú§ñ, §ß§Ú§Ö §Ó §á§à§ã§Ý§Ö§Õ§ß§Ñ §ã§Þ§Ö§ä§Ü§Ñ §ã§Þ§Ö §ß§Ñ§á§ì§Ý§ß§à §â§Ñ§Ó§ß§à§Õ§å§ê§ß§Ú §Ü§ì§Þ §ß§Ö§Ô§à...¡°
?§¡§Ü§à §Ú§Þ§Ñ §Ù§â§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý, §Ù§Ñ §Ü§à§Ô§à§ä§à §Ö §Ó§Ñ§Ø§ß§à §Ú §á§Ý§à§Õ§à§ä§Ó§à§â§ß§à §Õ§Ñ §Ó§à§Õ§Ú §Õ§Ú§Ñ§Ý§à§Ô §Ú§Þ§Ö§ß§ß§à §ã §Þ§Ö§ß, §Ü§Ñ§Ü§ì§Ó §á§à-§Ô§à§Ý§ñ§Þ §ã§ä§Ú§Þ§å§Ý §Õ§Ñ §â§Ñ§Ò§à§ä§ñ? §¡§Ü§à §Ú§Þ§Ñ §Ù§â§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý§Ú, §Ü§à§Ú§ä§à §Ô§à§Ó§à§â§ñ§ä §ã §Þ§Ö§ß §ß§Ñ §Ö§Õ§Ú§ß §Ú §ã§ì§ë §Ö§Ù§Ú§Ü, §Ù§Ñ§ë§à §Õ§Ñ §á§â§Ö§Õ§Ñ§Þ §ä§Ö§ç§ß§Ú§ä§Ö §Ú§ß§ä§Ö§â§Ö§ã§Ú §Ù§Ñ§â§Ñ§Õ§Ú §Õ§â§å§Ô§Ñ, §é§å§Ø§Õ§Ñ §Ú §Õ§Ñ§Ý§Ö§é§ß§Ñ §Þ§Ú §Ô§â§å§á§Ñ §à§ä §ç§à§â§Ñ? §´§Ö §Ú§Þ§Ñ§ä §ã§Ó§à§Ú ,,§Ò§à§Ô§à§Ó§Ö §Ú §Ü§å§Þ§Ú§â§Ú¡° §Ú §ß§Ú§Ö §ß§ñ§Þ§Ñ§Þ§Ö §ß§Ú§ë§à §à§Ò§ë§à §ã §ä§ñ§ç.
§·§å§Õ§à§Ø§ß§Ú§Ü§ì§ä §Ú§Þ§Ñ §ã§Ñ§Þ§à §Ö§Õ§ß§Ñ §Ó§ì§Ù§Þ§à§Ø§ß§à§ã§ä: §Õ§Ñ §á§â§Ö§Õ§Ý§à§Ø§Ú §ß§Ñ §Ù§â§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý§ñ §ã§Ó§à§ñ§ä§Ñ §é§Ö§ã§ä§ß§à§ã§ä §Ú §Ú§ã§Ü§â§Ö§ß§à§ã§ä, §Ü§à§Ô§Ñ§ä§à §ã§Ö §Ò§à§â§Ú §ã §Þ§Ñ§ä§Ö§â§Ú§Ñ§Ý§Ñ. §©§â§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý§ñ§ä §ë§Ö §â§Ñ§Ù§Ò§Ö§â§Ö §Ú §ë§Ö §à§è§Ö§ß§Ú §ã§Þ§Ú§ã§ì§Ý§Ñ §ß§Ñ §ß§Ñ§ê§Ú§ä§Ö §å§ã§Ú§Ý§Ú§ñ.
§¡§Ü§à §Ú§ã§Ü§Ñ§ê §Õ§Ñ §ã§Ö §ç§Ñ§â§Ö§ã§Ñ§ê §ß§Ñ §Ù§â§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý§ñ, §Ñ§Ü§à §á§â§Ú§Ö§Þ§Ñ§ê §ß§Ö§Ü§â§Ú§ä§Ú§é§ß§à §ß§Ö§Ô§à§Ó§Ú§ä§Ö §Ó§Ü§å§ã§à§Ó§Ö, §à§Ù§ß§Ñ§é§Ñ§Ó§Ñ §Õ§Ñ §ß§Ö §Ô§à §å§Ó§Ñ§Ø§Ñ§Ó§Ñ§ê. §¯§Ú§Ö §Ú§ã§Ü§Ñ§Þ§Ö §ã§Ñ§Þ§à §á§Ñ§â§Ú§ä§Ö §ß§Ñ §ä§à§Ù§Ú §Ù§â§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý §Ú §Ô§à §Ó§ì§Ù§á§Ú§ä§Ñ§Ó§Ñ§Þ§Ö §ß§Ö §ã §Ó§Ú§ã§à§Ü§Ú§ä§Ö §à§Ò§â§Ñ§Ù§è§Ú §Ó §Ú§Ù§Ü§å§ã§ä§Ó§à§ä§à §ß§Ñ §ç§å§Õ§à§Ø§ß§Ú§Ü§Ñ, §Ñ §ã§Ñ§Þ§à §Ù§Ñ §Õ§Ñ §ß§Ú §Ô§Ñ§â§Ñ§ß§ä§Ú§â§Ñ §ß§ñ§Ü§Ñ§Ü§ì§Ó §Õ§à§ç§à§Õ. §©§â§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý§ñ§ä §á§â§à§Õ§ì§Ý§Ø§Ñ§Ó§Ñ §Õ§Ñ §Ö §Õ§à§Ó§à§Ý§Ö§ß §Ú §Õ§Ñ §Þ§Ú§ã§Ý§Ú, §é§Ö §Ö §á§â§Ñ§Ó, §ß§à §ä§Ñ§Ù§Ú §Þ§Ú§ã§ì§Ý §Ö §ä§Ó§ì§â§Õ§Ö §à§ä§ß§à§ã§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý§ß§Ñ. §¡§Ü§à §ß§Ö §Ó§ì§Ù§á§Ú§ä§Ñ§Ó§Ñ§Þ§Ö §å §Ù§â§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý§ñ §ã§á§à§ã§à§Ò§ß§à§ã§ä §Õ§Ñ §Ö §Ü§â§Ú§ä§Ú§é§Ö§ß §Ü§ì§Þ §ã§à§Ò§ã§ä§Ó§Ö§ß§Ú§ä§Ö §ã§Ú §â§Ñ§Ù§ã§ì§Ø§Õ§Ö§ß§Ú§ñ, §ß§Ú§Ö §Ó §á§à§ã§Ý§Ö§Õ§ß§Ñ §ã§Þ§Ö§ä§Ü§Ñ §ã§Þ§Ö §ß§Ñ§á§ì§Ý§ß§à §â§Ñ§Ó§ß§à§Õ§å§ê§ß§Ú §Ü§ì§Þ §ß§Ö§Ô§à...¡°
May 3, 2020
"Aparece como una revelaci¨®n, como un deseo moment¨¢neo y apasionado de comprender intuitivamente de golpe todas las leyes de este mundo
¡ªsu belleza y fealdad, su compasi¨®n y crueldad, su infinito y sus limitaciones."
¡ªAndr¨¦i Tarkovsky; Esculpir en el tiempo.
Andr¨¦i Tarkovsky fue un poeta, escritor, actor y director de cine ruso en tiempos de la Uni¨®n Sovi¨¦tica y se convirti¨® en uno de los influyentes m¨¢s grandes de la historia del cine, con tan solo haber filmado siete largometrajes a lo largo de toda su vida.
Cabe destacar que este poeta en el cine, fue llevado al exilio por su renuncia a acatar dogmas culturales y las limitaciones ideol¨®gicas de su pa¨ªs en ese entonces,?por lo que se dedic¨® en esos lentos a?os de angustia a escribir su libro "Esculpir en el tiempo" donde explica detalladamente sus ideas acerca de, no solo creo yo, del s¨¦ptimo arte, sino de sus inquietudes respecto a la vida misma.
Al comienzo de su libro expone una serie de cartas que el p¨²blico le ha enviado en algunas ocasiones, conden¨¢ndolo de hacer cintas inexplicables, y en otras, alab¨¢ndolo por hacer cintas tan personales. Hacia el final del libro, el autor llega a la conclusi¨®n de que todo espectador es co-autor de la obra expuesta.
Tarkovsky a trav¨¦s de sus obras, nos hace entender que est¨¢ al tanto de la intangibilidad del ser humano, el potencial que tiene para experiencias emocionales profundas que no se puede comprender a trav¨¦s de la l¨®gica o la raz¨®n, pero que se puede sentir ¨ªntimamente.
Es en esto, tanto obvio como evasivo el aspecto de la condici¨®n humana, que Andr¨¦i vio algo trascendental; algo que solo se puede capturar por medio del arte.
Un libro tan ¨ªntimo y tan abierto...?c¨®mo un hombre pudo alcanzar tal madurez, tal ingenio y tanta sensibilidad? Creo que no tiene que ser le¨ªdo necesariamente por aficionados, estudiosos del cine, sino creo es un libro que alcanza a todo al que se lo permita, como lo fue tan necesario para mi en estos tiempos.
Una obra maestra.
¡ªsu belleza y fealdad, su compasi¨®n y crueldad, su infinito y sus limitaciones."
¡ªAndr¨¦i Tarkovsky; Esculpir en el tiempo.
Andr¨¦i Tarkovsky fue un poeta, escritor, actor y director de cine ruso en tiempos de la Uni¨®n Sovi¨¦tica y se convirti¨® en uno de los influyentes m¨¢s grandes de la historia del cine, con tan solo haber filmado siete largometrajes a lo largo de toda su vida.
Cabe destacar que este poeta en el cine, fue llevado al exilio por su renuncia a acatar dogmas culturales y las limitaciones ideol¨®gicas de su pa¨ªs en ese entonces,?por lo que se dedic¨® en esos lentos a?os de angustia a escribir su libro "Esculpir en el tiempo" donde explica detalladamente sus ideas acerca de, no solo creo yo, del s¨¦ptimo arte, sino de sus inquietudes respecto a la vida misma.
Al comienzo de su libro expone una serie de cartas que el p¨²blico le ha enviado en algunas ocasiones, conden¨¢ndolo de hacer cintas inexplicables, y en otras, alab¨¢ndolo por hacer cintas tan personales. Hacia el final del libro, el autor llega a la conclusi¨®n de que todo espectador es co-autor de la obra expuesta.
Tarkovsky a trav¨¦s de sus obras, nos hace entender que est¨¢ al tanto de la intangibilidad del ser humano, el potencial que tiene para experiencias emocionales profundas que no se puede comprender a trav¨¦s de la l¨®gica o la raz¨®n, pero que se puede sentir ¨ªntimamente.
Es en esto, tanto obvio como evasivo el aspecto de la condici¨®n humana, que Andr¨¦i vio algo trascendental; algo que solo se puede capturar por medio del arte.
Un libro tan ¨ªntimo y tan abierto...?c¨®mo un hombre pudo alcanzar tal madurez, tal ingenio y tanta sensibilidad? Creo que no tiene que ser le¨ªdo necesariamente por aficionados, estudiosos del cine, sino creo es un libro que alcanza a todo al que se lo permita, como lo fue tan necesario para mi en estos tiempos.
Una obra maestra.
September 24, 2012
???? ????????? ???????? ??????? ????????? ???? ??????? ??????? ???????? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???????. ?? ???? ????? (?????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ??????).
????? ??????? ?????? (????) ?? ???? ???????? ?????? ???????/?????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ??????? ????????? ??????? ?????. ????? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ??????? ????? ??????? ..
?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??????.
????? ??????? ?????? (????) ?? ???? ???????? ?????? ???????/?????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ??????? ????????? ??????? ?????. ????? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ??????? ????? ??????? ..
?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??????.
January 20, 2022
"... giliau suvokdamas savo laikmet? ir pasaul?, kuriame gyvena, menininkas tampa balsu t?, kurie nemoka suprasti ir negali i?reik?ti savo po?i¨±rio ? tikrov?."
Tai knyga kuri? nor?jau "taupyti", vis neju?ia pasitikrindavau kiek puslapi? liko. U?vertusi paskutin? puslap? lieku su begaliniu d?kingumu. Vis? pirma u? galimyb? pamatyti i?reik?t? vaizdu ?mogaus dvasi?.
Tai knyga kuri? nor?jau "taupyti", vis neju?ia pasitikrindavau kiek puslapi? liko. U?vertusi paskutin? puslap? lieku su begaliniu d?kingumu. Vis? pirma u? galimyb? pamatyti i?reik?t? vaizdu ?mogaus dvasi?.
December 31, 2023
Tarkovsky, considered one of the greatest Directors ever writes here about Cinema and filmmaking and how it relates to other forms of art. He talks about his vision of life and how that reflects in his work. He writes about other artists who influenced him, some of them are Directors like Kurosawa, Bresson and Bergman. He also writes about Writers who inspired him such as Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Thomas Mann.
This is a rich book by a great artist who held his art purity above everything else.
This is a rich book by a great artist who held his art purity above everything else.
June 2, 2017
For some reason I went into this thinking I'd get a book about his thoughts and information on his films but that ended up being about 20 pages total with the rest being pseudo philosophy and other musings. I'd only recommend this to people who are already fans of his filmography and not those who are interested in general film theory.
Alas, here are are what I took to be the noteworthy points raised in the book:
1. Tarkovsky believes that the director ought not try to satisfy the audience as this will only lead the them astray. They should direct by being aesthetically receptive and trying to recreate their subjective world like a poet (he means poet to mean a way of looking at the world) -- and he acknowledges some will be irked or disinterested by his inner world.
2. He is pro realism and anti symbolism in film. He believes the most impactful way to portray a situation is with the reality of events rather than obtuse metaphors.
3. He is against montage theory and believes that to be true to the essence of cinema is to leave everything formally within the frame and attempt to capture time in the film image the way that it exists in real life, thus making "rhythm" and not editing the main formative element of cinema.
4. He believes editing and assembly disturb the passage of time and gives it something new, thus distorting time can give it a rhythmical expression (Sculpting in time).
5. He evolved from planning the details of the scene to approaching it with a general idea due to reality being richer than imagination and allowing serendipity. He finds meticulous plans abstract and restricting on the imagination so one should merely approach the scene with an open mind.
6. He believes the actor shouldn't have any unconscious knowledge of how a scene will unfold but act naturally as if it were real by being given only the necessary information, and allows the actor to have autonomy without restricting their freedom of expression. He thinks a good actor isn't merely understandable but is truthful.
7. He thinks that genre film is mass culture trash and the only true form of cinema is art film.
8. Music used correctly goes beyond intensifying the image by paralleling it with the same idea -- done correctly it transfigures the image into something different in kind. Properly used, music has the ability to change the whole emotional tone of a filmed sequence.
9. The success of a film is not to be measured by sales as it depends on how it individually received with the dispositions of each viewer, some which will appreciate it completely and others who will find it alien.
10. He was never a fan of american style adventure movies and wanted to create inward attention rather than outward.
11. His films contain no metaphors (except a few exceptions). Ie. The zone is merely the zone, it's life, and the actualisation of man in finding the zone is the same process man goes through in life in discovering himself and coming to terms with his existence and grief.
Alas, here are are what I took to be the noteworthy points raised in the book:
1. Tarkovsky believes that the director ought not try to satisfy the audience as this will only lead the them astray. They should direct by being aesthetically receptive and trying to recreate their subjective world like a poet (he means poet to mean a way of looking at the world) -- and he acknowledges some will be irked or disinterested by his inner world.
2. He is pro realism and anti symbolism in film. He believes the most impactful way to portray a situation is with the reality of events rather than obtuse metaphors.
3. He is against montage theory and believes that to be true to the essence of cinema is to leave everything formally within the frame and attempt to capture time in the film image the way that it exists in real life, thus making "rhythm" and not editing the main formative element of cinema.
4. He believes editing and assembly disturb the passage of time and gives it something new, thus distorting time can give it a rhythmical expression (Sculpting in time).
5. He evolved from planning the details of the scene to approaching it with a general idea due to reality being richer than imagination and allowing serendipity. He finds meticulous plans abstract and restricting on the imagination so one should merely approach the scene with an open mind.
6. He believes the actor shouldn't have any unconscious knowledge of how a scene will unfold but act naturally as if it were real by being given only the necessary information, and allows the actor to have autonomy without restricting their freedom of expression. He thinks a good actor isn't merely understandable but is truthful.
7. He thinks that genre film is mass culture trash and the only true form of cinema is art film.
8. Music used correctly goes beyond intensifying the image by paralleling it with the same idea -- done correctly it transfigures the image into something different in kind. Properly used, music has the ability to change the whole emotional tone of a filmed sequence.
9. The success of a film is not to be measured by sales as it depends on how it individually received with the dispositions of each viewer, some which will appreciate it completely and others who will find it alien.
10. He was never a fan of american style adventure movies and wanted to create inward attention rather than outward.
11. His films contain no metaphors (except a few exceptions). Ie. The zone is merely the zone, it's life, and the actualisation of man in finding the zone is the same process man goes through in life in discovering himself and coming to terms with his existence and grief.
Shelved as '¦Ó¦Ò¦Å¦Ê¦Ï¦Ô¦Ñ¦É¦Å?-¦Ò¦Ó¦Ç-¦È¦Á¦Ë¦Á¦Ò¦Ò¦Á'
March 25, 2024¦¯ ¦³¦Á¦Ñ¦Ê?¦Õ¦Ò¦Ê¦É ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Í¦Ó¦Å¦Ì¦Ï¦Í¦Ó?, ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ë? ¦Í¦Ó¦Å¦Ì¦Ï¦Í¦Ó?.. ¦Ð?¦Ò¦Ï ¦Í¦Ó¦Å¦Ì¦Ï¦Í¦Ó?;
¦³?¦Ò¦Ï:
¦°¦É¦Ò¦Ó¦Å?¦Ø ?¦Ó¦É ¦Ï¦É ¦Ð¦Ë¦Ç¦Ã?? ¦Ð?¦Í¦Ó¦Ï¦Ó¦Å ¦Å¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô¦Ë?¦Í¦Ï¦Í¦Ó¦Á¦É ¦Ì?¦Ò¦Á ¦Á¦Ð? ¦Ì?¦Á ¦Ð¦Í¦Å¦Ô¦Ì¦Á¦Ó¦É¦Ê? ¦Ê¦Ñ?¦Ò¦Ç. ¦¡¦Ô¦Ó? ¦Ç ¦Ê¦Ñ?¦Ò¦Ç ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Á¦Ð?¦Ð¦Å¦É¦Ñ¦Á ¦Í¦Á ¦Â¦Ñ¦Å¦É ¦Ê¦Á¦Í¦Å?? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Å¦Á¦Ô¦Ó? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô, ¦Í¦Á ¦Á¦Ð¦Ï¦Ê¦Ó?¦Ò¦Å¦É ¦Í?¦Á ¦Ð?¦Ò¦Ó¦Ç. ¦¥?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Ï ¦Ê¦Ë?¦Ñ¦Ï? ¦Ê?¦È¦Å ¦Á¦Í¦È¦Ñ?¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ?¦Ö¦Å¦É ¦Ð¦Í¦Å¦Ô¦Ì¦Á¦Ó¦É¦Ê¦Ï?? ¦Ò¦Ó?¦Ö¦Ï¦Ô?: ¦Ä¦Å¦Í ¦Á¦Ð¦Ï¦Õ¦Å?¦Ã¦Å¦Ó¦Á¦É, ¦Å¦Õ?¦Ò¦Ï¦Í ¦Ç ¦×¦Ô¦Ö? ¦Ä¦É¦×? ¦Ã¦É¦Á ¦Á¦Ñ¦Ì¦Ï¦Í?¦Á ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ç ¦Æ¦Ø? ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Ã¦Å¦Ì?¦Ó¦Ç ¦Ð¦Á¦Ñ¦Á¦Õ¦Ø¦Í?¦Á. ¦Ò¦Å¦Ë. 266
?¦Ó¦Á¦Í ¦Ë?¦Ø ¦Ð¦Ï?¦Ç¦Ò¦Ç ¦Ä¦Å¦Í ¦Å¦Í¦Í¦Ï? ¦Ê?¦Ð¦Ï¦É¦Ï ¦Ë¦Ï¦Ã¦Ï¦Ó¦Å¦Ö¦Í¦É¦Ê? ¦Å?¦Ä¦Ï?. ¦°¦Ï?¦Ç¦Ò¦Ç ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ?¦Í¦Á? ¦Î¦Å¦Ö¦Ø¦Ñ¦É¦Ò¦Ó?? ¦Ó¦Ñ?¦Ð¦Ï? ¦Í¦Á ¦Ò¦Ô¦Í¦Å¦É¦Ä¦Ç¦Ó¦Ï¦Ð¦Ï¦É¦Å?? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Ê?¦Ò¦Ì¦Ï, ¦Í¦Á ¦Ò¦Ô¦Í¦Ä?¦Å¦Ò¦Á¦É ¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Ð¦Ñ¦Á¦Ã¦Ì¦Á¦Ó¦É¦Ê?¦Ó¦Ç¦Ó¦Á. ¦§ ¦Ð¦Ï?¦Ç¦Ò¦Ç ¦Ë¦Ï¦É¦Ð?¦Í ¦Ã?¦Í¦Å¦Ó¦Á¦É ¦Õ¦É¦Ë¦Ï¦Ò¦Ï¦Õ?¦Á ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ê¦Á¦È¦Ï¦Ä¦Ç¦Ã¦Å? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ?¦Í¦È¦Ñ¦Ø¦Ð¦Ï ?¦Ë¦Ç ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ó¦Ç ¦Æ¦Ø?. ¦Ò¦Å¦Ë.27
¦²¦Å¦Ë. 229: (¦£¦É¦Á ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦±¦Ï¦Ô¦Ì¦Ð¦Ë¦É¦Ï¦Õ): ¦Å¦Ê ¦Ð¦Ñ?¦Ó¦Ç? ?¦×¦Å¦Ø?, ¦Ç ¦Ò¦Ê¦Ë¦Ç¦Ñ? ¦Á¦Ë?¦È¦Å¦É¦Á ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Æ¦Ø??, ?¦Ð¦Ø? ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Ð¦Á¦Ñ¦Á¦Ó¦Ç¦Ñ¦Å? ¦Ï ¦Æ¦Ø¦Ã¦Ñ?¦Õ¦Ï? ¨C ¦Ì¦Ï¦Í¦Á¦Ö??, ¦Ì¦Ï¦É?¦Æ¦Å¦É ¦Í¦Á ?¦Ñ¦Ö¦Å¦Ó¦Á¦É ¦Ò¦Å ¦Á¦Í¦Ó?¦È¦Å¦Ò¦Ç ¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Á¦Ñ¦Ì¦Ï¦Í¦É¦Ê? ¦É¦Ä¦Å?¦Ä¦Å? ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Ä¦Ï¦Ô¦Ë¦Å¦É?? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô. ¦¸¦Ò¦Ó?¦Ò¦Ï ¦Ç ¦Ï¦Ô¦Ò?¦Á ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Æ¦Ç¦Ó?¦Ì¦Á¦Ó¦Ï? ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ?¦Ó¦É ¦Ï ¦Ê¦Á¦Ë¦Ë¦É¦Ó?¦Ö¦Í¦Ç? ¦Ä¦Å¦Í ¦Ì¦Ð¦Ï¦Ñ¦Å? ¦Í¦Á ¦Å¦Ê¦Õ¦Ñ?¦Ò¦Å¦É ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ç¦È¦É¦Ê? ¦É¦Ä¦Å?¦Ä¦Å? ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Å¦Ð¦Ï¦Ö?? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ð¦Á¦Ñ? ¦Ì?¦Í¦Ï ¦Á¦Í ¦Á¦Ã¦Ã?¦Î¦Å¦É ?¦Ë¦Å? ¦Ó¦É? ¦Ð¦Ô¦Ï¦Ñ¦Ñ¦Ï¦Ï?¦Ò¦Å? ¦Ð¦Ë¦Ç¦Ã?? ¦Ó¦Ç?, ¦Á¦Í ¦Ð¦Ë¦Ç¦Ã¦Ø¦È¦Å? ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ô¦Ð¦Ï¦Õ?¦Ñ¦Å¦É ¦Ï ?¦Ä¦É¦Ï?.
¦²¦Å¦Ë. 244: ??¦Í¦Á ¦Â¦É¦Â¦Ë?¦Ï ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ä¦É¦Á¦Â?¦Æ¦Ï¦Ô¦Í ¦Ö?¦Ë¦É¦Ï¦É ¦Ä¦É¦Á¦Õ¦Ï¦Ñ¦Å¦Ó¦É¦Ê¦Ï? ?¦Í¦È¦Ñ¦Ø¦Ð¦Ï¦É ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Ö?¦Ë¦É¦Á ¦Ä¦É¦Á¦Õ¦Ï¦Ñ¦Å¦Ó¦É¦Ê? ¦Â¦É¦Â¦Ë?¦Á. ¦¯ ¦Á¦Í¦Á¦Ã¦Í?¦Ò¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Ç ¦Æ¦Ø¦Ç¦Ñ? ¦Õ¦Á¦Í¦Ó¦Á¦Ò?¦Á ¦Ì¦Ð¦Ï¦Ñ¦Å? ¦Í¦Á ¦Ä¦Å¦É ¦Ð?¦Ñ¦Á ¦Á¦Ð? ¦Ó¦Ç ¦Ë¦Á¦Ê¦Ø¦Í¦É¦Ê? ¦Á¦Õ?¦Ã¦Ç¦Ò¦Ç, ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ë? ¦Ð¦É¦Ï ¦Ì¦Á¦Ê¦Ñ¦É? ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ð¦É¦Ï ¦Æ¦Ø¦Ç¦Ñ? ¦Á¦Ð? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ?¦Ä¦É¦Ï ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Ò¦Ô¦Ã¦Ã¦Ñ¦Á¦Õ?¦Á.
¦²¦Å¦Ë. 300: ¦¡¦Ð? ¦Ó¦Ç ¦Ò¦Ó¦É¦Ã¦Ì? ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Á¦Í¦Á¦È?¦Ò¦Á¦Ì¦Å ¦Ò¦Å ?¦Ë¦Ë¦Ï¦Ô? ¦Í¦Á ¦Ë?¦Ò¦Ï¦Ô¦Í ¦Ó¦Á ¦Ð¦Ñ¦Ï¦Â¦Ë?¦Ì¦Á¦Ó¦Á ¦Ì¦Á?, ¦Ì¦Å¦Ã?¦Ë¦Ø¦Ò¦Å ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ñ?¦Ã¦Ì¦Á ¦Ì¦Å¦Ó¦Á¦Î? ¦Ð¦Í¦Å?¦Ì¦Á¦Ó¦Ï? ¦Ê¦Á¦É ?¦Ë¦Ç?. ¦³¦É? ¦É¦Ä?¦Å? ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ê¦Ô¦Â¦Å¦Ñ¦Í¦Ï?¦Í ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Ê?¦Ò¦Ì¦Ï ?¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Æ¦Ï?¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦É? ?¦Ö¦Ï¦Ô¦Í ¦Á¦Í¦Á¦Ð¦Ó?¦Î¦Å¦É ?¦Ë¦Ë¦Ï¦É, ¦Ê¦É ¦Å¦Ì¦Å?? ¦Ð¦Ñ?¦Ð¦Å¦É, ¦Å?¦Ó¦Å ¦Í¦Á ¦Ò¦Ô¦Ì¦Ì¦Ï¦Ñ¦Õ¦Ø¦È¦Ï?¦Ì¦Å ¦Ò¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô? ¦Ê¦Á¦Í?¦Í¦Å? ¦Á¦Ô¦Ó?¦Í ¦Ó¦Ø¦Í ¦É¦Ä¦Å?¦Í ¦Å?¦Ó¦Å ¦Í¦Á ¦Á¦Ð¦Ï¦Ì¦Á¦Ê¦Ñ¦Ô¦Í¦È¦Ï?¦Ì¦Å ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Í¦Á ¦Ó¦É? ¦Á¦Í¦Ó¦É¦Ê¦Ñ¦Ï?¦Ò¦Ï¦Ô¦Ì¦Å ¨C ¦È?¦Ò¦Ç ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ã?¦Í¦Å¦Ó¦Á¦É ¦Ï¦Ë¦Ï?¦Í¦Á ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ð¦É¦Ï ¦Á¦Ð¦Å¦Ë¦Ð¦É¦Ò¦Ó¦É¦Ê?. ¦¨¦Á ¦Ò¦Ô¦Ì¦Õ¦Ø¦Í?¦Ò¦Å¦Ó¦Å, ¦Õ¦Á¦Í¦Ó?¦Æ¦Ï¦Ì¦Á¦É, ?¦Ó¦É ¦Ð¦Ñ?¦Ê¦Å¦É¦Ó¦Á¦É ¦Ã¦É¦Á ¦Ð¦Á¦Ñ?¦Ä¦Ï¦Î¦Ç ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Æ¦Ï¦Õ¦Å¦Ñ? ¦Ê¦Á¦Ó?¦Ò¦Ó¦Á¦Ò¦Ç.
301 ¦¥¦Ë¦Å¦Ô¦È¦Å¦Ñ?¦Á ¦Â¦Ï?¦Ë¦Ç¦Ò¦Ç? ¦Ð¦Ñ?¦Ð¦Å¦É ¦Í¦Á ¦Ò¦Ç¦Ì¦Á?¦Í¦Å¦É ¦Ð¦Ø? ?¦Ö¦Ï¦Ô¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Ç ¦Ä¦Ô¦Í¦Á¦Ó?¦Ó¦Ç¦Ó¦Á ¦Í¦Á ¦Á¦Î¦É¦Ï¦Ë¦Ï¦Ã?¦Ò¦Ï¦Ô¦Ì¦Å ?¦Ö¦É ¦Ì?¦Í¦Ï ¦Ó¦Á ¦Ê¦Ï¦É¦Í¦Ø¦Í¦É¦Ê? ¦Õ¦Á¦É¦Í?¦Ì¦Å¦Í¦Á ¦Ì¦Á ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ó¦É? ¦Ò¦Ö?¦Ò¦Å¦É? ¦Ì¦Á? ¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô? ?¦Ë¦Ë¦Ï¦Ô?: ¦Ð¦Ø? ?¦Ö¦Ï¦Ô¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Ç ¦Ä¦Ô¦Í¦Á¦Ó?¦Ó¦Ç¦Ó¦Á ¦Í¦Á ¦Å¦Ð¦É¦Ë?¦Î¦Ï¦Ô¦Ì¦Å ¦Å¦Ë¦Å?¦È¦Å¦Ñ¦Á ¦Á¦Í?¦Ì¦Å¦Ò¦Á ¦Ò¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ê¦Á¦Ë? ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ê¦Á¦Ê?. ¦§ ¦Å¦Ë¦Å¦Ô¦È¦Å¦Ñ?¦Á ?¦Ì¦Ø? ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Ò¦Ô¦Í¦Ô¦Õ¦Á¦Ò¦Ì?¦Í¦Ç ¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Ç ¦Ò¦Ô¦Í¦Å?¦Ä¦Ç¦Ò¦Ç.
¦¡¦Í¦Ó?¦Î¦É¦Á ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ?¦Ñ¦Ã¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ç ¦Å¦Î¦Á¦É¦Ñ¦Å¦Ó¦É¦Ê? ¦Ì¦Å¦Ó?¦Õ¦Ñ¦Á¦Ò¦Ç ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦²¦Å¦Ñ¦Á¦Õ¦Å?¦Ì ¦¢¦Å¦Ë?¦Í¦Ó¦Æ¦Á .
¦´¦£. ¦¡ ¦Í¦Á¦É, ?¦Ö¦Å¦É ¦Å¦Î¦Á¦Í¦Ó¦Ë¦Ç¦È¦Å?.. ¦Ä¦Å¦Í ¦Ð¦Å¦É¦Ñ?¦Æ¦Å¦É ¦Ð¦Á¦É¦Ä¦É?, ¦È¦Á ¦Â¦Ï¦Ë¦Å¦Ô¦Ó¦Ï?¦Ì¦Å ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Å¦Ð¦Á¦Í?¦Ê¦Ä¦Ï¦Ò¦Ç ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦¬?¦É¦Ê ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦¬¦Ð¦Ñ¦É¦Æ¦Ï¦Ë?¦Ê¦Ç, ?¦Ë¦Á ¦Ê¦Á¦Ë?..
¦³?¦Ò¦Ï:
¦°¦É¦Ò¦Ó¦Å?¦Ø ?¦Ó¦É ¦Ï¦É ¦Ð¦Ë¦Ç¦Ã?? ¦Ð?¦Í¦Ó¦Ï¦Ó¦Å ¦Å¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô¦Ë?¦Í¦Ï¦Í¦Ó¦Á¦É ¦Ì?¦Ò¦Á ¦Á¦Ð? ¦Ì?¦Á ¦Ð¦Í¦Å¦Ô¦Ì¦Á¦Ó¦É¦Ê? ¦Ê¦Ñ?¦Ò¦Ç. ¦¡¦Ô¦Ó? ¦Ç ¦Ê¦Ñ?¦Ò¦Ç ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Á¦Ð?¦Ð¦Å¦É¦Ñ¦Á ¦Í¦Á ¦Â¦Ñ¦Å¦É ¦Ê¦Á¦Í¦Å?? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Å¦Á¦Ô¦Ó? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô, ¦Í¦Á ¦Á¦Ð¦Ï¦Ê¦Ó?¦Ò¦Å¦É ¦Í?¦Á ¦Ð?¦Ò¦Ó¦Ç. ¦¥?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Ï ¦Ê¦Ë?¦Ñ¦Ï? ¦Ê?¦È¦Å ¦Á¦Í¦È¦Ñ?¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ?¦Ö¦Å¦É ¦Ð¦Í¦Å¦Ô¦Ì¦Á¦Ó¦É¦Ê¦Ï?? ¦Ò¦Ó?¦Ö¦Ï¦Ô?: ¦Ä¦Å¦Í ¦Á¦Ð¦Ï¦Õ¦Å?¦Ã¦Å¦Ó¦Á¦É, ¦Å¦Õ?¦Ò¦Ï¦Í ¦Ç ¦×¦Ô¦Ö? ¦Ä¦É¦×? ¦Ã¦É¦Á ¦Á¦Ñ¦Ì¦Ï¦Í?¦Á ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ç ¦Æ¦Ø? ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Ã¦Å¦Ì?¦Ó¦Ç ¦Ð¦Á¦Ñ¦Á¦Õ¦Ø¦Í?¦Á. ¦Ò¦Å¦Ë. 266
?¦Ó¦Á¦Í ¦Ë?¦Ø ¦Ð¦Ï?¦Ç¦Ò¦Ç ¦Ä¦Å¦Í ¦Å¦Í¦Í¦Ï? ¦Ê?¦Ð¦Ï¦É¦Ï ¦Ë¦Ï¦Ã¦Ï¦Ó¦Å¦Ö¦Í¦É¦Ê? ¦Å?¦Ä¦Ï?. ¦°¦Ï?¦Ç¦Ò¦Ç ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ?¦Í¦Á? ¦Î¦Å¦Ö¦Ø¦Ñ¦É¦Ò¦Ó?? ¦Ó¦Ñ?¦Ð¦Ï? ¦Í¦Á ¦Ò¦Ô¦Í¦Å¦É¦Ä¦Ç¦Ó¦Ï¦Ð¦Ï¦É¦Å?? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Ê?¦Ò¦Ì¦Ï, ¦Í¦Á ¦Ò¦Ô¦Í¦Ä?¦Å¦Ò¦Á¦É ¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Ð¦Ñ¦Á¦Ã¦Ì¦Á¦Ó¦É¦Ê?¦Ó¦Ç¦Ó¦Á. ¦§ ¦Ð¦Ï?¦Ç¦Ò¦Ç ¦Ë¦Ï¦É¦Ð?¦Í ¦Ã?¦Í¦Å¦Ó¦Á¦É ¦Õ¦É¦Ë¦Ï¦Ò¦Ï¦Õ?¦Á ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ê¦Á¦È¦Ï¦Ä¦Ç¦Ã¦Å? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ?¦Í¦È¦Ñ¦Ø¦Ð¦Ï ?¦Ë¦Ç ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ó¦Ç ¦Æ¦Ø?. ¦Ò¦Å¦Ë.27
¦²¦Å¦Ë. 229: (¦£¦É¦Á ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦±¦Ï¦Ô¦Ì¦Ð¦Ë¦É¦Ï¦Õ): ¦Å¦Ê ¦Ð¦Ñ?¦Ó¦Ç? ?¦×¦Å¦Ø?, ¦Ç ¦Ò¦Ê¦Ë¦Ç¦Ñ? ¦Á¦Ë?¦È¦Å¦É¦Á ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Æ¦Ø??, ?¦Ð¦Ø? ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Ð¦Á¦Ñ¦Á¦Ó¦Ç¦Ñ¦Å? ¦Ï ¦Æ¦Ø¦Ã¦Ñ?¦Õ¦Ï? ¨C ¦Ì¦Ï¦Í¦Á¦Ö??, ¦Ì¦Ï¦É?¦Æ¦Å¦É ¦Í¦Á ?¦Ñ¦Ö¦Å¦Ó¦Á¦É ¦Ò¦Å ¦Á¦Í¦Ó?¦È¦Å¦Ò¦Ç ¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Á¦Ñ¦Ì¦Ï¦Í¦É¦Ê? ¦É¦Ä¦Å?¦Ä¦Å? ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Ä¦Ï¦Ô¦Ë¦Å¦É?? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô. ¦¸¦Ò¦Ó?¦Ò¦Ï ¦Ç ¦Ï¦Ô¦Ò?¦Á ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Æ¦Ç¦Ó?¦Ì¦Á¦Ó¦Ï? ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ?¦Ó¦É ¦Ï ¦Ê¦Á¦Ë¦Ë¦É¦Ó?¦Ö¦Í¦Ç? ¦Ä¦Å¦Í ¦Ì¦Ð¦Ï¦Ñ¦Å? ¦Í¦Á ¦Å¦Ê¦Õ¦Ñ?¦Ò¦Å¦É ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ç¦È¦É¦Ê? ¦É¦Ä¦Å?¦Ä¦Å? ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Å¦Ð¦Ï¦Ö?? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ð¦Á¦Ñ? ¦Ì?¦Í¦Ï ¦Á¦Í ¦Á¦Ã¦Ã?¦Î¦Å¦É ?¦Ë¦Å? ¦Ó¦É? ¦Ð¦Ô¦Ï¦Ñ¦Ñ¦Ï¦Ï?¦Ò¦Å? ¦Ð¦Ë¦Ç¦Ã?? ¦Ó¦Ç?, ¦Á¦Í ¦Ð¦Ë¦Ç¦Ã¦Ø¦È¦Å? ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ô¦Ð¦Ï¦Õ?¦Ñ¦Å¦É ¦Ï ?¦Ä¦É¦Ï?.
¦²¦Å¦Ë. 244: ??¦Í¦Á ¦Â¦É¦Â¦Ë?¦Ï ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ä¦É¦Á¦Â?¦Æ¦Ï¦Ô¦Í ¦Ö?¦Ë¦É¦Ï¦É ¦Ä¦É¦Á¦Õ¦Ï¦Ñ¦Å¦Ó¦É¦Ê¦Ï? ?¦Í¦È¦Ñ¦Ø¦Ð¦Ï¦É ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Ö?¦Ë¦É¦Á ¦Ä¦É¦Á¦Õ¦Ï¦Ñ¦Å¦Ó¦É¦Ê? ¦Â¦É¦Â¦Ë?¦Á. ¦¯ ¦Á¦Í¦Á¦Ã¦Í?¦Ò¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Ç ¦Æ¦Ø¦Ç¦Ñ? ¦Õ¦Á¦Í¦Ó¦Á¦Ò?¦Á ¦Ì¦Ð¦Ï¦Ñ¦Å? ¦Í¦Á ¦Ä¦Å¦É ¦Ð?¦Ñ¦Á ¦Á¦Ð? ¦Ó¦Ç ¦Ë¦Á¦Ê¦Ø¦Í¦É¦Ê? ¦Á¦Õ?¦Ã¦Ç¦Ò¦Ç, ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ë? ¦Ð¦É¦Ï ¦Ì¦Á¦Ê¦Ñ¦É? ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ð¦É¦Ï ¦Æ¦Ø¦Ç¦Ñ? ¦Á¦Ð? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ?¦Ä¦É¦Ï ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Ò¦Ô¦Ã¦Ã¦Ñ¦Á¦Õ?¦Á.
¦²¦Å¦Ë. 300: ¦¡¦Ð? ¦Ó¦Ç ¦Ò¦Ó¦É¦Ã¦Ì? ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Á¦Í¦Á¦È?¦Ò¦Á¦Ì¦Å ¦Ò¦Å ?¦Ë¦Ë¦Ï¦Ô? ¦Í¦Á ¦Ë?¦Ò¦Ï¦Ô¦Í ¦Ó¦Á ¦Ð¦Ñ¦Ï¦Â¦Ë?¦Ì¦Á¦Ó¦Á ¦Ì¦Á?, ¦Ì¦Å¦Ã?¦Ë¦Ø¦Ò¦Å ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ñ?¦Ã¦Ì¦Á ¦Ì¦Å¦Ó¦Á¦Î? ¦Ð¦Í¦Å?¦Ì¦Á¦Ó¦Ï? ¦Ê¦Á¦É ?¦Ë¦Ç?. ¦³¦É? ¦É¦Ä?¦Å? ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ê¦Ô¦Â¦Å¦Ñ¦Í¦Ï?¦Í ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Ê?¦Ò¦Ì¦Ï ?¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Æ¦Ï?¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦É? ?¦Ö¦Ï¦Ô¦Í ¦Á¦Í¦Á¦Ð¦Ó?¦Î¦Å¦É ?¦Ë¦Ë¦Ï¦É, ¦Ê¦É ¦Å¦Ì¦Å?? ¦Ð¦Ñ?¦Ð¦Å¦É, ¦Å?¦Ó¦Å ¦Í¦Á ¦Ò¦Ô¦Ì¦Ì¦Ï¦Ñ¦Õ¦Ø¦È¦Ï?¦Ì¦Å ¦Ò¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô? ¦Ê¦Á¦Í?¦Í¦Å? ¦Á¦Ô¦Ó?¦Í ¦Ó¦Ø¦Í ¦É¦Ä¦Å?¦Í ¦Å?¦Ó¦Å ¦Í¦Á ¦Á¦Ð¦Ï¦Ì¦Á¦Ê¦Ñ¦Ô¦Í¦È¦Ï?¦Ì¦Å ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Í¦Á ¦Ó¦É? ¦Á¦Í¦Ó¦É¦Ê¦Ñ¦Ï?¦Ò¦Ï¦Ô¦Ì¦Å ¨C ¦È?¦Ò¦Ç ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ã?¦Í¦Å¦Ó¦Á¦É ¦Ï¦Ë¦Ï?¦Í¦Á ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ð¦É¦Ï ¦Á¦Ð¦Å¦Ë¦Ð¦É¦Ò¦Ó¦É¦Ê?. ¦¨¦Á ¦Ò¦Ô¦Ì¦Õ¦Ø¦Í?¦Ò¦Å¦Ó¦Å, ¦Õ¦Á¦Í¦Ó?¦Æ¦Ï¦Ì¦Á¦É, ?¦Ó¦É ¦Ð¦Ñ?¦Ê¦Å¦É¦Ó¦Á¦É ¦Ã¦É¦Á ¦Ð¦Á¦Ñ?¦Ä¦Ï¦Î¦Ç ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Æ¦Ï¦Õ¦Å¦Ñ? ¦Ê¦Á¦Ó?¦Ò¦Ó¦Á¦Ò¦Ç.
301 ¦¥¦Ë¦Å¦Ô¦È¦Å¦Ñ?¦Á ¦Â¦Ï?¦Ë¦Ç¦Ò¦Ç? ¦Ð¦Ñ?¦Ð¦Å¦É ¦Í¦Á ¦Ò¦Ç¦Ì¦Á?¦Í¦Å¦É ¦Ð¦Ø? ?¦Ö¦Ï¦Ô¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Ç ¦Ä¦Ô¦Í¦Á¦Ó?¦Ó¦Ç¦Ó¦Á ¦Í¦Á ¦Á¦Î¦É¦Ï¦Ë¦Ï¦Ã?¦Ò¦Ï¦Ô¦Ì¦Å ?¦Ö¦É ¦Ì?¦Í¦Ï ¦Ó¦Á ¦Ê¦Ï¦É¦Í¦Ø¦Í¦É¦Ê? ¦Õ¦Á¦É¦Í?¦Ì¦Å¦Í¦Á ¦Ì¦Á ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ó¦É? ¦Ò¦Ö?¦Ò¦Å¦É? ¦Ì¦Á? ¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô? ?¦Ë¦Ë¦Ï¦Ô?: ¦Ð¦Ø? ?¦Ö¦Ï¦Ô¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Ç ¦Ä¦Ô¦Í¦Á¦Ó?¦Ó¦Ç¦Ó¦Á ¦Í¦Á ¦Å¦Ð¦É¦Ë?¦Î¦Ï¦Ô¦Ì¦Å ¦Å¦Ë¦Å?¦È¦Å¦Ñ¦Á ¦Á¦Í?¦Ì¦Å¦Ò¦Á ¦Ò¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ê¦Á¦Ë? ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ê¦Á¦Ê?. ¦§ ¦Å¦Ë¦Å¦Ô¦È¦Å¦Ñ?¦Á ?¦Ì¦Ø? ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Ò¦Ô¦Í¦Ô¦Õ¦Á¦Ò¦Ì?¦Í¦Ç ¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Ç ¦Ò¦Ô¦Í¦Å?¦Ä¦Ç¦Ò¦Ç.
¦¡¦Í¦Ó?¦Î¦É¦Á ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ?¦Ñ¦Ã¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ç ¦Å¦Î¦Á¦É¦Ñ¦Å¦Ó¦É¦Ê? ¦Ì¦Å¦Ó?¦Õ¦Ñ¦Á¦Ò¦Ç ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦²¦Å¦Ñ¦Á¦Õ¦Å?¦Ì ¦¢¦Å¦Ë?¦Í¦Ó¦Æ¦Á .
¦´¦£. ¦¡ ¦Í¦Á¦É, ?¦Ö¦Å¦É ¦Å¦Î¦Á¦Í¦Ó¦Ë¦Ç¦È¦Å?.. ¦Ä¦Å¦Í ¦Ð¦Å¦É¦Ñ?¦Æ¦Å¦É ¦Ð¦Á¦É¦Ä¦É?, ¦È¦Á ¦Â¦Ï¦Ë¦Å¦Ô¦Ó¦Ï?¦Ì¦Å ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Å¦Ð¦Á¦Í?¦Ê¦Ä¦Ï¦Ò¦Ç ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦¬?¦É¦Ê ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦¬¦Ð¦Ñ¦É¦Æ¦Ï¦Ë?¦Ê¦Ç, ?¦Ë¦Á ¦Ê¦Á¦Ë?..
September 25, 2016
I like movies. That being said, I'm not obsessed with movies. My field is literature, because writing is my happy medium of conveying thoughts and feelings. However, I bought this book for a friend of mine who is obsessed with both literature and movies, and who can appreciate it fully. I loved the book - Tarkovsky is a surprisingly good writer - and I took from it a lot with regards to movie making, the relatio ships between the director and the actors, the audience and transmitting enough information through an image so that the viewer understands the point. I would truly recommend this to anyone, if only to expand your general culture on interesting subjects.
Read
November 7, 2022Andrey Tarkovsky's Sculpting In Time. One of the best books ever written about cinema by one of the greatest cinema directors of all .time In Sculpting In Time the visionary filmmaker and artist explains the seven art, his work, poetry and creativity
June 10, 2013
"We all know the tradicional genre of ancient Japanese poetry, the haikku. [Sergei] Eisensteinquoted some examples:
'Coldly shining moon;
near the ancient monastery
a wolf is howling'
'Silent in the field
a butterfly was flying
then it fell asleep'
Eisenstein saw in these three line verses the model for how the combination of three separate elements creates something different in kind from any of them. Since this principle was already there in haikku, however, it is clearly not exclusive to cinema.
What attracts me in haikku is its observation of life - pure, subtle, one with its subject.
'As it passes by
the full moon barely touches
fishhooks in the waves'
'the dew has fallen,
on all the spikes of blackthorn
there hang little drops'
This is pure observation."
A. Tarkovsky in Sculpting the Time, p. 66.
'Coldly shining moon;
near the ancient monastery
a wolf is howling'
'Silent in the field
a butterfly was flying
then it fell asleep'
Eisenstein saw in these three line verses the model for how the combination of three separate elements creates something different in kind from any of them. Since this principle was already there in haikku, however, it is clearly not exclusive to cinema.
What attracts me in haikku is its observation of life - pure, subtle, one with its subject.
'As it passes by
the full moon barely touches
fishhooks in the waves'
'the dew has fallen,
on all the spikes of blackthorn
there hang little drops'
This is pure observation."
A. Tarkovsky in Sculpting the Time, p. 66.
Want to read
November 26, 2015"We know little about ourselves"
Perhaps, my favorite director.
Perhaps, my favorite director.
June 21, 2019
?§©§Ñ §Þ§Ö§ß §Ò§Ö§ê§Ö §Þ§ß§à§Ô§à §Ó§Ñ§Ø§ß§à §Õ§Ñ §á§â§à§Õ§ì§Ý§Ø§Ñ §Ó §¯§à§ã§ä§Ñ§Ý§Ô§Ú§ñ §ä§Ö§Þ§Ñ§ä§Ñ §Ñ§Ù ?§ã§Ý§Ñ§Ò§Ú§ñ §é§à§Ó§Ö§Ü¡°, §Ü§à§Û§ä§à §á§à §Ó§ì§ß§ê§ß§Ú §Ò§Ö§Ý§Ö§Ù§Ú §ß§Ö §Ö §Ò§à§Ö§è, §ß§à §ã§á§à§â§Ö§Õ §Þ§Ö§ß §Ö §á§à§Ò§Ö§Õ§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý§ñ§ä §Ó §ä§à§Ù§Ú §Ø§Ú§Ó§à§ä. §³§ä§Ñ§Ý§Ü§Ö§â§Ñ §á§â§à§Ú§Ù§ß§Ñ§ã§ñ§ê§Ö §Þ§à§ß§à§Ý§à§Ô §Ó §Ù§Ñ§ë§Ú§ä§Ñ §ß§Ñ §ã§Ý§Ñ§Ò§Ú§ä§Ö, §é§Ö§â§ä§Ñ, §Ü§à§ñ§ä§à §Ö §Ú§ã§ä§Ú§ß§ã§Ü§Ñ §è§Ö§ß§ß§à§ã§ä §Ú §ß§Ñ§Õ§Ö§Ø§Õ§Ñ §Ó §Ø§Ú§Ó§à§ä§Ñ.¡°
?§³§Ý§Ö§Õ §Ü§Ñ§ä§à §Ù§â§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý§Ú§ä§Ö §Ó§Ú§Õ§ñ§ç§Ñ §°§Ô§Ý§Ö§Õ§Ñ§Ý§à, §ß§Ñ§Û-§ä§â§å§Õ§ß§à §Ò§Ö§ê§Ö §Õ§Ñ §Ú§Þ §à§Ò§ñ§ã§ß§ñ, §é§Ö §Ó§ì§Ó §æ§Ú§Ý§Þ§Ñ §ß§ñ§Þ§Ñ §ß§Ú§Ü§Ñ§Ü§ì§Ó §Õ§â§å§Ô §ã§Ü§â§Ú§ä, §Ù§Ñ§ê§Ú§æ§â§à§Ó§Ñ§ß §ã§Þ§Ú§ã§ì§Ý, §à§ã§Ó§Ö§ß §Ø§Ö§Ý§Ñ§ß§Ú§Ö§ä§à §Þ§Ú §Õ§Ñ §Ü§Ñ§Ø§Ñ §Ú§ã§ä§Ú§ß§Ñ§ä§Ñ. §´§à§Ó§Ñ §é§Ö§ã§ä§à §á§â§Ö§Õ§Ú§Ù§Ó§Ú§Ü§Ó§Ñ§ê§Ö §ß§Ö§Õ§à§Ó§Ö§â§Ú§Ö §Ú§Ý§Ú §Õ§à§â§Ú §â§Ñ§Ù§à§é§Ñ§â§à§Ó§Ñ§ß§Ú§Ö. §©§Ñ §ß§ñ§Ü§à§Ú §ä§à§Ó§Ñ §ß§Ñ§Ú§ã§ä§Ú§ß§Ñ §ß§Ö §Ú§Þ §Ò§Ö§ê§Ö §Õ§à§ã§ä§Ñ§ä§ì§é§ß§à: §ä§Ö §ä§ì§â§ã§Ö§ç§Ñ §ã§Ü§â§Ú§ä§Ú §ã§Ú§Þ§Ó§à§Ý§Ú, §Ù§Ñ§ê§Ú§æ§â§à§Ó§Ñ§ß §ã§Þ§Ú§ã§ì§Ý, §ä§Ñ§Û§ß§Ú. §®§Ö§ß §ä§à§Ó§Ñ §ã§ì§ë§à §Þ§Ö §â§Ñ§Ù§à§é§Ñ§â§à§Ó§Ñ§ê§Ö. §´§à§Ó§Ñ §Ò§Ö§ê§Ö §à§á§à§Ù§Ú§è§Ú§à§ß§ß§Ñ§ä§Ñ §é§Ñ§ã§ä §à§ä §Ù§â§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý§Ú§ä§Ö. §¡ §Ü§à§Ý§Ö§Ô§Ú§ä§Ö §ñ§â§à§ã§ä§ß§à §Þ§Ú §ã§Ö §ß§Ñ§ç§Ó§ì§â§Ý§Ú§ç§Ñ, §Ü§Ñ§ä§à §Þ§Ö §à§Ò§Ó§Ú§ß§Ú§ç§Ñ, §é§Ö §ß§Ö §ã§ì§Þ §ã§Ü§â§à§Þ§Ö§ß, §Ù§Ñ§ë§à§ä§à §ã§ì§Þ §Ú§ã§Ü§Ñ§Ý §Õ§Ñ §ß§Ñ§á§â§Ñ§Ó§ñ §æ§Ú§Ý§Þ §Ù§Ñ §ã§Ö§Ò§Ö §ã§Ú.¡°
?§£§Ú§ß§Ñ§Ô§Ú §Þ§Ö §Ö §à§ä§Ó§â§Ñ§ë§Ñ§Ó§Ñ§Ý§à §á§â§Ö§Õ§ß§Ñ§Þ§Ö§â§Ö§ß§à §ä§Ö§ß§Õ§Ö§ß§è§Ú§à§Ù§ß§à§ä§à, §Ú§Õ§Ö§à§Ý§à§Ô§Ú§é§ß§à§ä§à, §Ü§à§Ö§ä§à §ä§Ó§à§â§Ö§è§ì§ä §Ó§ß§Ñ§ã§ñ §Ó §à§Ò§â§Ñ§Ù§ß§Ñ§ä§Ñ §ã§Ú §ã§Ú§ã§ä§Ö§Þ§Ñ. §£§ì§Ó §Ó§ã§Ö§Ü§Ú §ã§Ý§å§é§Ñ§Û §Ñ§Ù §á§â§Ö§Õ§á§à§é§Ú§ä§Ñ§Þ §á§à§ç§Ó§Ñ§ä§Ú§ä§Ö, §Ü§à§Ú§ä§à §Ú§Ù§á§à§Ý§Ù§Ó§Ñ §ç§å§Õ§à§Ø§ß§Ú§Ü§ì§ä, §Õ§Ñ §ã§Ñ §ß§Ö§Ù§Ñ§Ò§Ö§Ý§Ö§Ø§Ú§Þ§Ú. §ª §Ñ§Ù §á§à§ß§ñ§Ü§à§Ô§Ñ §Þ§ß§à§Ô§à §ã§ì§Ø§Ñ§Ý§ñ§Ó§Ñ§Þ §Ù§Ñ §ß§ñ§Ü§à§Ú §Ü§Ñ§Õ§â§Ú, §Ü§à§Ú§ä§à §ã§ì§Þ §à§ã§ä§Ñ§Ó§Ú§Ý §Ó §ã§à§Ò§ã§ä§Ó§Ö§ß§Ú§ä§Ö §Þ§Ú §æ§Ú§Ý§Þ§Ú, §ã§Ö§Ô§Ñ §Þ§Ú §ã§Ö §ã§ä§â§å§Ó§Ñ, §é§Ö §ã§Ñ §Ò§Ú§Ý§Ú §Ü§à§Þ§á§â§à§Þ§Ú§ã§Ú, §á§à§ñ§Ó§Ú§Ý§Ú §ã§Ö, §Ù§Ñ§ë§à§ä§à §ß§Ö §ã§ì§Þ §Ò§Ú§Ý §á§à§ã§Ý§Ö§Õ§à§Ó§Ñ§ä§Ö§Ý§Ö§ß.¡°
?§±§Ú§ã§Ñ§ç, §é§Ö §Ü§à§Ô§Ñ§ä§à §Ô§Ý§Ö§Õ§Ñ§ç §Þ§Ñ§ä§Ö§â§Ú§Ñ§Ý§Ñ, §Þ§Ö §ã§Þ§Ñ§ñ §Þ§à§Ö§ä§à §ã§à§Ò§ã§ä§Ó§Ö§ß§à §ã§ì§ã§ä§à§ñ§ß§Ú§Ö, §á§â§Ö§ß§Ö§ã§Ö§ß§à §ß§Ñ §Ö§Ü§â§Ñ§ß§Ñ, §ã§ì§ã§ä§à§ñ§ß§Ú§Ö§ä§à, §Ó §Ü§à§Ö§ä§à §ã§ß§Ú§Þ§Ñ§ç §¯§à§ã§ä§Ñ§Ý§Ô§Ú§ñ: §Õ§ì§Ý§Ò§à§Ü§Ñ§ä§Ñ, §Ó§ã§Ö §á§à-§Þ§ì§é§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý§ß§Ñ §ä§ì§Ô§Ñ §Õ§Ñ§Ý§Ö§é§Ö §à§ä §Õ§à§Þ§Ñ, §Õ§Ñ§Ý§Ö§é§Ö §à§ä §Ò§Ý§Ú§Ù§Ü§Ú§ä§Ö, §á§â§à§ß§Ú§Ù§Ñ§Ý§Ñ §Ó§ã§Ö§Ü§Ú §Þ§Ú§Ô §à§ä §ã§ì§ë§Ö§ã§ä§Ó§å§Ó§Ñ§ß§Ö§ä§à §Þ§Ú. §´§à §ã§Ö §á§â§Ö§Ó§â§ì§ë§Ñ§ê§Ö §Ó§ì§Ó §æ§Ñ§ä§Ñ§Ý§ß§à, §ß§Ñ§ä§â§Ñ§á§é§Ú§Ó§à §å§ã§Ö§ë§Ñ§ß§Ö §ß§Ñ §ã§à§Ò§ã§ä§Ó§Ö§ß§Ñ§ä§Ñ §Þ§Ú §Ù§Ñ§Ó§Ú§ã§Ú§Þ§à§ã§ä §à§ä §Þ§à§Ö§ä§à §Þ§Ú§ß§Ñ§Ý§à, §Ü§Ñ§ä§à §Ó§ã§Ö §á§à-§ß§Ö§á§à§ß§à§ã§Ú§Þ §ß§Ö§Õ§ì§Ô, §é§Ú§Ö§ä§à §Ú§Þ§Ö §Ö §¯§à§ã§ä§Ñ§Ý§Ô§Ú§ñ. §¯§à §Ó§ã§Ö §á§Ñ§Ü §Ñ§Ù §Ò§Ú§ç §Ú§ã§Ü§Ñ§Ý §Õ§Ñ §á§â§Ö§Õ§á§Ñ§Ù§ñ §é§Ú§ä§Ñ§ä§Ö§Ý§ñ §à§ä §á§â§ñ§Ü§à §à§ä§ì§Ø§Õ§Ö§ã§ä§Ó§ñ§Ó§Ñ§ß§Ö §ß§Ñ §Ñ§Ó§ä§à§â§Ñ §ã §ß§Ö§Ô§à§Ó§Ú§ñ §Ý§Ú§â§Ú§é§Ö§ß §Ô§Ö§â§à§Û, §ä§à§Ó§Ñ §Ò§Ú §Ò§Ú§Ý§à §á§â§Ö§Ü§Ñ§Ý§Ö§ß§à §Õ§Ú§â§Ö§Ü§ä§ß§à. §£ §ä§Ó§à§â§é§Ö§ã§ä§Ó§à§ä§à §Ö §Ö§ã§ä§Ö§ã§ä§Ó§Ö§ß§à §Õ§Ñ §ã§Ö §Ú§Ù§á§à§Ý§Ù§Ó§Ñ§ä §ß§Ö§á§à§ã§â§Ö§Õ§ã§ä§Ó§Ö§ß§Ú§ä§Ö §Ø§Ú§Ù§ß§Ö§ß§Ú §Ó§á§Ö§é§Ñ§ä§Ý§Ö§ß§Ú§ñ; §Ù§Ñ §ã§ì§Ø§Ñ§Ý§Ö§ß§Ú§Ö, §ß§Ú§Ö §ß§Ö §â§Ñ§Ù§á§à§Ý§Ñ§Ô§Ñ§Þ§Ö §ã §Õ§â§å§Ô §à§á§Ú§ä! §¯§à §Õ§Ñ§Ø§Ö §Ù§Ñ§Ú§Þ§ã§ä§Ó§Ñ§ß§Ö§ä§à §ß§Ñ §ß§Ñ§ã§ä§â§à§Ö§ß§Ú§ñ §Ú §ã§ð§Ø§Ö§ä§Ú §à§ä §ã§à§Ò§ã§ä§Ó§Ö§ß§Ú§ñ §ä§Ú §Ø§Ú§Ó§à§ä §Ó§ã§Ö §á§Ñ§Ü §ß§Ñ§Û-§é§Ö§ã§ä§à §ß§Ö §Õ§Ñ§Ó§Ñ §á§à§Ó§à§Õ §Ù§Ñ §Ú§Õ§Ö§ß§ä§Ú§æ§Ú§Ü§Ñ§è§Ú§ñ §ß§Ñ §ç§å§Õ§à§Ø§ß§Ú§Ü§Ñ §ã §ä§à§Ó§Ñ, §Ü§à§Ö§ä§à §ä§à§Û §á§â§Ñ§Ó§Ú. §®§à§Ø§Ö §ä§à§Ó§Ñ §Õ§Ñ §â§Ñ§Ù§à§é§Ñ§â§à§Ó§Ñ §ß§ñ§Ü§à§Ô§à, §ß§à §Ý§Ú§â§Ú§é§ß§Ú§ñ§ä §à§á§Ú§ä §ß§Ñ §Ñ§Ó§ä§à§â§Ñ §â§ñ§Õ§Ü§à §ã§ì§Ó§á§Ñ§Õ§Ñ §ã §ß§Ö§Ô§à§Ó§Ú§ä§Ö §Ò§Ú§ä§à§Ó§Ú §á§à§ã§ä§ì§á§Ü§Ú §Ó §Ø§Ú§Ó§à§ä§Ñ.¡°
?§³§Ý§Ö§Õ §Ü§Ñ§ä§à §Ù§â§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý§Ú§ä§Ö §Ó§Ú§Õ§ñ§ç§Ñ §°§Ô§Ý§Ö§Õ§Ñ§Ý§à, §ß§Ñ§Û-§ä§â§å§Õ§ß§à §Ò§Ö§ê§Ö §Õ§Ñ §Ú§Þ §à§Ò§ñ§ã§ß§ñ, §é§Ö §Ó§ì§Ó §æ§Ú§Ý§Þ§Ñ §ß§ñ§Þ§Ñ §ß§Ú§Ü§Ñ§Ü§ì§Ó §Õ§â§å§Ô §ã§Ü§â§Ú§ä, §Ù§Ñ§ê§Ú§æ§â§à§Ó§Ñ§ß §ã§Þ§Ú§ã§ì§Ý, §à§ã§Ó§Ö§ß §Ø§Ö§Ý§Ñ§ß§Ú§Ö§ä§à §Þ§Ú §Õ§Ñ §Ü§Ñ§Ø§Ñ §Ú§ã§ä§Ú§ß§Ñ§ä§Ñ. §´§à§Ó§Ñ §é§Ö§ã§ä§à §á§â§Ö§Õ§Ú§Ù§Ó§Ú§Ü§Ó§Ñ§ê§Ö §ß§Ö§Õ§à§Ó§Ö§â§Ú§Ö §Ú§Ý§Ú §Õ§à§â§Ú §â§Ñ§Ù§à§é§Ñ§â§à§Ó§Ñ§ß§Ú§Ö. §©§Ñ §ß§ñ§Ü§à§Ú §ä§à§Ó§Ñ §ß§Ñ§Ú§ã§ä§Ú§ß§Ñ §ß§Ö §Ú§Þ §Ò§Ö§ê§Ö §Õ§à§ã§ä§Ñ§ä§ì§é§ß§à: §ä§Ö §ä§ì§â§ã§Ö§ç§Ñ §ã§Ü§â§Ú§ä§Ú §ã§Ú§Þ§Ó§à§Ý§Ú, §Ù§Ñ§ê§Ú§æ§â§à§Ó§Ñ§ß §ã§Þ§Ú§ã§ì§Ý, §ä§Ñ§Û§ß§Ú. §®§Ö§ß §ä§à§Ó§Ñ §ã§ì§ë§à §Þ§Ö §â§Ñ§Ù§à§é§Ñ§â§à§Ó§Ñ§ê§Ö. §´§à§Ó§Ñ §Ò§Ö§ê§Ö §à§á§à§Ù§Ú§è§Ú§à§ß§ß§Ñ§ä§Ñ §é§Ñ§ã§ä §à§ä §Ù§â§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý§Ú§ä§Ö. §¡ §Ü§à§Ý§Ö§Ô§Ú§ä§Ö §ñ§â§à§ã§ä§ß§à §Þ§Ú §ã§Ö §ß§Ñ§ç§Ó§ì§â§Ý§Ú§ç§Ñ, §Ü§Ñ§ä§à §Þ§Ö §à§Ò§Ó§Ú§ß§Ú§ç§Ñ, §é§Ö §ß§Ö §ã§ì§Þ §ã§Ü§â§à§Þ§Ö§ß, §Ù§Ñ§ë§à§ä§à §ã§ì§Þ §Ú§ã§Ü§Ñ§Ý §Õ§Ñ §ß§Ñ§á§â§Ñ§Ó§ñ §æ§Ú§Ý§Þ §Ù§Ñ §ã§Ö§Ò§Ö §ã§Ú.¡°
?§£§Ú§ß§Ñ§Ô§Ú §Þ§Ö §Ö §à§ä§Ó§â§Ñ§ë§Ñ§Ó§Ñ§Ý§à §á§â§Ö§Õ§ß§Ñ§Þ§Ö§â§Ö§ß§à §ä§Ö§ß§Õ§Ö§ß§è§Ú§à§Ù§ß§à§ä§à, §Ú§Õ§Ö§à§Ý§à§Ô§Ú§é§ß§à§ä§à, §Ü§à§Ö§ä§à §ä§Ó§à§â§Ö§è§ì§ä §Ó§ß§Ñ§ã§ñ §Ó §à§Ò§â§Ñ§Ù§ß§Ñ§ä§Ñ §ã§Ú §ã§Ú§ã§ä§Ö§Þ§Ñ. §£§ì§Ó §Ó§ã§Ö§Ü§Ú §ã§Ý§å§é§Ñ§Û §Ñ§Ù §á§â§Ö§Õ§á§à§é§Ú§ä§Ñ§Þ §á§à§ç§Ó§Ñ§ä§Ú§ä§Ö, §Ü§à§Ú§ä§à §Ú§Ù§á§à§Ý§Ù§Ó§Ñ §ç§å§Õ§à§Ø§ß§Ú§Ü§ì§ä, §Õ§Ñ §ã§Ñ §ß§Ö§Ù§Ñ§Ò§Ö§Ý§Ö§Ø§Ú§Þ§Ú. §ª §Ñ§Ù §á§à§ß§ñ§Ü§à§Ô§Ñ §Þ§ß§à§Ô§à §ã§ì§Ø§Ñ§Ý§ñ§Ó§Ñ§Þ §Ù§Ñ §ß§ñ§Ü§à§Ú §Ü§Ñ§Õ§â§Ú, §Ü§à§Ú§ä§à §ã§ì§Þ §à§ã§ä§Ñ§Ó§Ú§Ý §Ó §ã§à§Ò§ã§ä§Ó§Ö§ß§Ú§ä§Ö §Þ§Ú §æ§Ú§Ý§Þ§Ú, §ã§Ö§Ô§Ñ §Þ§Ú §ã§Ö §ã§ä§â§å§Ó§Ñ, §é§Ö §ã§Ñ §Ò§Ú§Ý§Ú §Ü§à§Þ§á§â§à§Þ§Ú§ã§Ú, §á§à§ñ§Ó§Ú§Ý§Ú §ã§Ö, §Ù§Ñ§ë§à§ä§à §ß§Ö §ã§ì§Þ §Ò§Ú§Ý §á§à§ã§Ý§Ö§Õ§à§Ó§Ñ§ä§Ö§Ý§Ö§ß.¡°
?§±§Ú§ã§Ñ§ç, §é§Ö §Ü§à§Ô§Ñ§ä§à §Ô§Ý§Ö§Õ§Ñ§ç §Þ§Ñ§ä§Ö§â§Ú§Ñ§Ý§Ñ, §Þ§Ö §ã§Þ§Ñ§ñ §Þ§à§Ö§ä§à §ã§à§Ò§ã§ä§Ó§Ö§ß§à §ã§ì§ã§ä§à§ñ§ß§Ú§Ö, §á§â§Ö§ß§Ö§ã§Ö§ß§à §ß§Ñ §Ö§Ü§â§Ñ§ß§Ñ, §ã§ì§ã§ä§à§ñ§ß§Ú§Ö§ä§à, §Ó §Ü§à§Ö§ä§à §ã§ß§Ú§Þ§Ñ§ç §¯§à§ã§ä§Ñ§Ý§Ô§Ú§ñ: §Õ§ì§Ý§Ò§à§Ü§Ñ§ä§Ñ, §Ó§ã§Ö §á§à-§Þ§ì§é§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý§ß§Ñ §ä§ì§Ô§Ñ §Õ§Ñ§Ý§Ö§é§Ö §à§ä §Õ§à§Þ§Ñ, §Õ§Ñ§Ý§Ö§é§Ö §à§ä §Ò§Ý§Ú§Ù§Ü§Ú§ä§Ö, §á§â§à§ß§Ú§Ù§Ñ§Ý§Ñ §Ó§ã§Ö§Ü§Ú §Þ§Ú§Ô §à§ä §ã§ì§ë§Ö§ã§ä§Ó§å§Ó§Ñ§ß§Ö§ä§à §Þ§Ú. §´§à §ã§Ö §á§â§Ö§Ó§â§ì§ë§Ñ§ê§Ö §Ó§ì§Ó §æ§Ñ§ä§Ñ§Ý§ß§à, §ß§Ñ§ä§â§Ñ§á§é§Ú§Ó§à §å§ã§Ö§ë§Ñ§ß§Ö §ß§Ñ §ã§à§Ò§ã§ä§Ó§Ö§ß§Ñ§ä§Ñ §Þ§Ú §Ù§Ñ§Ó§Ú§ã§Ú§Þ§à§ã§ä §à§ä §Þ§à§Ö§ä§à §Þ§Ú§ß§Ñ§Ý§à, §Ü§Ñ§ä§à §Ó§ã§Ö §á§à-§ß§Ö§á§à§ß§à§ã§Ú§Þ §ß§Ö§Õ§ì§Ô, §é§Ú§Ö§ä§à §Ú§Þ§Ö §Ö §¯§à§ã§ä§Ñ§Ý§Ô§Ú§ñ. §¯§à §Ó§ã§Ö §á§Ñ§Ü §Ñ§Ù §Ò§Ú§ç §Ú§ã§Ü§Ñ§Ý §Õ§Ñ §á§â§Ö§Õ§á§Ñ§Ù§ñ §é§Ú§ä§Ñ§ä§Ö§Ý§ñ §à§ä §á§â§ñ§Ü§à §à§ä§ì§Ø§Õ§Ö§ã§ä§Ó§ñ§Ó§Ñ§ß§Ö §ß§Ñ §Ñ§Ó§ä§à§â§Ñ §ã §ß§Ö§Ô§à§Ó§Ú§ñ §Ý§Ú§â§Ú§é§Ö§ß §Ô§Ö§â§à§Û, §ä§à§Ó§Ñ §Ò§Ú §Ò§Ú§Ý§à §á§â§Ö§Ü§Ñ§Ý§Ö§ß§à §Õ§Ú§â§Ö§Ü§ä§ß§à. §£ §ä§Ó§à§â§é§Ö§ã§ä§Ó§à§ä§à §Ö §Ö§ã§ä§Ö§ã§ä§Ó§Ö§ß§à §Õ§Ñ §ã§Ö §Ú§Ù§á§à§Ý§Ù§Ó§Ñ§ä §ß§Ö§á§à§ã§â§Ö§Õ§ã§ä§Ó§Ö§ß§Ú§ä§Ö §Ø§Ú§Ù§ß§Ö§ß§Ú §Ó§á§Ö§é§Ñ§ä§Ý§Ö§ß§Ú§ñ; §Ù§Ñ §ã§ì§Ø§Ñ§Ý§Ö§ß§Ú§Ö, §ß§Ú§Ö §ß§Ö §â§Ñ§Ù§á§à§Ý§Ñ§Ô§Ñ§Þ§Ö §ã §Õ§â§å§Ô §à§á§Ú§ä! §¯§à §Õ§Ñ§Ø§Ö §Ù§Ñ§Ú§Þ§ã§ä§Ó§Ñ§ß§Ö§ä§à §ß§Ñ §ß§Ñ§ã§ä§â§à§Ö§ß§Ú§ñ §Ú §ã§ð§Ø§Ö§ä§Ú §à§ä §ã§à§Ò§ã§ä§Ó§Ö§ß§Ú§ñ §ä§Ú §Ø§Ú§Ó§à§ä §Ó§ã§Ö §á§Ñ§Ü §ß§Ñ§Û-§é§Ö§ã§ä§à §ß§Ö §Õ§Ñ§Ó§Ñ §á§à§Ó§à§Õ §Ù§Ñ §Ú§Õ§Ö§ß§ä§Ú§æ§Ú§Ü§Ñ§è§Ú§ñ §ß§Ñ §ç§å§Õ§à§Ø§ß§Ú§Ü§Ñ §ã §ä§à§Ó§Ñ, §Ü§à§Ö§ä§à §ä§à§Û §á§â§Ñ§Ó§Ú. §®§à§Ø§Ö §ä§à§Ó§Ñ §Õ§Ñ §â§Ñ§Ù§à§é§Ñ§â§à§Ó§Ñ §ß§ñ§Ü§à§Ô§à, §ß§à §Ý§Ú§â§Ú§é§ß§Ú§ñ§ä §à§á§Ú§ä §ß§Ñ §Ñ§Ó§ä§à§â§Ñ §â§ñ§Õ§Ü§à §ã§ì§Ó§á§Ñ§Õ§Ñ §ã §ß§Ö§Ô§à§Ó§Ú§ä§Ö §Ò§Ú§ä§à§Ó§Ú §á§à§ã§ä§ì§á§Ü§Ú §Ó §Ø§Ú§Ó§à§ä§Ñ.¡°
April 15, 2020
My stay at home project number 1 was to re-watch every Tarkovsky movie I could get my hands on and then read ¡®Sculpting in Time¡¯ where the director discusses his art. The films were haunting, but not completely necessary to get the full value of the book. The book was absolutely stunning and probably the best book on film I have ever read. Tarkovsky begins by teasing out what film art is and how it differs from other art forms, and then works his way through different aspects of film making including the image, rhythm, editing, and so on. With each chapter I felt blown away by his thoughts on just about everything, and came out of the experience with a completely different take on film art than the one I went in with. Sometimes five stars are just not enough.
March 13, 2016
"Hi?bir filmimde simge kullanmad?m.'B?lge',bir 'b?lge'i?te.?nsan?n kat etmek zorunda oldu?u hayat,hepsi o kadar.?nsan?n ya yok oldu?u ya da dayand??? bu yerde ayakta kalmay? ba?ar?p ba?aramayaca?? kendine olan sayg?s?yla,?nemliyi ?nemsizden ay?rma yetene?iyle belirlenir.
Her birimizin i?inde olan o ?zg¨¹n insanilik ve ebedilik ¨¹zerinde d¨¹?¨¹nmeyi te?vik etmeyi g?revim say?yorum.Ne yaz?k ki bu sonsuzluk ve ?z,insan?n kendi yazg?s?n? kendi elinde tutmas?na kar??n s?k s?k g?rmezden geliniyor.Birtak?m aldat?c? idealler pe?inde ko?ulmas? ye?leniyor.Ancak gene de geride insan?n varl???n? in?a etti?i ufac?k bir k?r?nt? kal?yor:sevme yetene?i.??te bu k?r?nt? insan ruhunda,hayat?n? belirleyecek bir yer i?gal edebilir,varl???na anlam katabilir."
filmlerine ge?mek i?in sab?rs?zlan?yorum tarkovsky
Her birimizin i?inde olan o ?zg¨¹n insanilik ve ebedilik ¨¹zerinde d¨¹?¨¹nmeyi te?vik etmeyi g?revim say?yorum.Ne yaz?k ki bu sonsuzluk ve ?z,insan?n kendi yazg?s?n? kendi elinde tutmas?na kar??n s?k s?k g?rmezden geliniyor.Birtak?m aldat?c? idealler pe?inde ko?ulmas? ye?leniyor.Ancak gene de geride insan?n varl???n? in?a etti?i ufac?k bir k?r?nt? kal?yor:sevme yetene?i.??te bu k?r?nt? insan ruhunda,hayat?n? belirleyecek bir yer i?gal edebilir,varl???na anlam katabilir."
filmlerine ge?mek i?in sab?rs?zlan?yorum tarkovsky
January 9, 2018
Un libro che non ¨¨ testamento (anche perch¨¨ troppo tempo, per scrivere le ultime memorie), ma soprattutto saggio sull'uomo, sulla poesia, sulla profondit¨¤. Tarkovskij ¨¨ acuto nello scegliere le parole, cosi' dense ma allo stesso modo altrettanto trasparenti.
Un libro di bellezza, riflessioni sul mondo e tecnica cinematografica, con una solidit¨¤ di fondo impressionante. In ogni frase trasuda una lucida passione, ma non con la trita aria evanescente-artistica-fricchettona, bensi' con una struttura teorica, teoretica e spirituale cosi' solida che ci potresti costruire sopra una casa. Le conclusioni, disperate e profonde, sono un must-read.
Un uomo che purtroppo manca da troppi anni, di cui fat¨¬co a trovare un continuatore - ma accetto consigli...
Un libro di bellezza, riflessioni sul mondo e tecnica cinematografica, con una solidit¨¤ di fondo impressionante. In ogni frase trasuda una lucida passione, ma non con la trita aria evanescente-artistica-fricchettona, bensi' con una struttura teorica, teoretica e spirituale cosi' solida che ci potresti costruire sopra una casa. Le conclusioni, disperate e profonde, sono un must-read.
Un uomo che purtroppo manca da troppi anni, di cui fat¨¬co a trovare un continuatore - ma accetto consigli...
July 14, 2017
???????? ??????? ?? ????? ????????? ??? ???? ????? "???? ???????" ???? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? "????? ?? ?????".
??? ????? ????????? ???????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ????????? ????? ?????? ????????? ????? ????????? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???????. ?????? ???? ??????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??????: ??? ???? ????? ???? ????????. ?????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???????? ????????. ????
??? ????? ????????? ???????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ????????? ????? ?????? ????????? ????? ????????? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???????. ?????? ???? ??????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??????: ??? ???? ????? ???? ????????. ?????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???????? ????????. ????
July 12, 2020
¦¬¦Ç¦Í ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Å¦Ð¦É¦Ö¦Å¦É¦Ñ?¦Ò¦Å¦Ó¦Å ¦Å?¦Í ¦Ä¦Å¦Í ¦Ò¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô¦Ä?¦Æ¦Å¦Ó¦Å ¦Ê¦É¦Í¦Ç¦Ì¦Á¦Ó¦Ï¦Ã¦Ñ?¦Õ¦Ï, ¦Á¦Ê?¦Ì¦Á ¦Ð¦Å¦Ñ¦É¦Ò¦Ò?¦Ó¦Å¦Ñ¦Ï ¦Å?¦Í ¦Ä¦Å¦Í ?¦Ö¦Å¦Ó¦Å ¦Ä¦Å¦É ¦Ó¦É? ¦Ó¦Á¦É¦Í?¦Å? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô
March 29, 2021
Unul dintre regizorii mei preferati (Villeneuve inca e #1), unul dintre cei mai constanti regizori cand vine vorba de calitatea filmelor (poate ca cel mai constant) si totusi, cartea nu e de 5/5... oare de ce. Cand o persoana vine si se crede mai presus decat toata lumea, ma cam deranjeaza. Desigur, inteleg ce vrea sa spuna si cateodata sunt de acord cu el ( sa fiu sincer, si eu am episoade de narcisism, dar imi revin destul de rapid... sper), dar in foarte multe pasaje se comporta ca si un copil caruia i s-a furat acadeaua si e frustrat pe societate. Era destul un capitol despre "regizor = Dumnezeu / audienta = prosti", dar nu s-a putut abtine sa nu se dea mare :)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 493 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.