Tarchovsky most definitely agrees with Dixon's belief that cinema these days are killing cinema of the past. T is all about the importance of time in cinema, long shots over short shots, all while keeping the rhythm of the film. He reminds me of a classical musician, over a mashup musical artist. He disagrees with montage entirely. While I appreciate the difficulty and precision of enjoyable long shots, I believe that there is a time and place, and the same with hyper-edited clusters of collage.
Referring to Pascal Aubier's one shot, ten minute film, he says, "You will remember that the film has no editing, no acting, and no decor. But the rhythm of the movement of time is there within the frame, as the sole organising force of the - quite complex - dramatic development." This is great, it of course takes unique skill to produce a shot such as this, but it takes a different kind of skill to produce something like Marclay's Telephones. I disagree that one is superior to the other. Again, there is a time and place for each. He says that montage cinema goes against the nature of cinema, but he also says "it is the film that is the work of art." Montage is a work of art. It's a Picasso collage with movement. The nature of cinema is dependent on time, but editing Psycho to be slowed to 24 hours long accentuates time. It really all depends on the eyes of the viewer.
I did enjoy reading his poetic explanations on how film is sculpted in time to produce visuals that do not defy nature, that flow as something would without the lens of a camera. Tarchovsky did succeed in opening my eyes to the gentle and continuous beauty of this certain kind of cinema.
No comments:
Post a Comment