“If you dedicate a film to director than nobody will say you steal from him.”
That sounds like copycat Tarantino speaking, not like an artist who admires Tarkovsky´s work. It´s obvious that von Trier isn´t capable of the same spiritual and metaphysical preoccupations that make Tarkovsky´s films outstanding masterpieces, and his are indeed rather physical, heavily flawed and profane. His scope is more limited than that of Tarkovsky and he tends to repeat his common theme of an exploited female victim over and over again. I would nevertheless prefer von Trier to many directors working today since there is no one left who takes art as serious as Tarkovsky did, and despite the casual shallowness can there be found moments of brilliance in von Trier´s works.
Tarkovsky was layered with symbolism, allegory, and metaphor so that might be a problem in post-modern film aesthetic
Trier said in the E trilogy that the theme was the helpful guy coming to save the day and getting screwed.
All the freedom of post-modernism doesn’t leave one much to work with….
What are you asking exactly? If this is a simple Von Trier Vs. Tarkovsky thread then it’s buffoonery to even argue who will “win”, however, it seems like you’re looking for something else – what would that be?
Why is Europa heavy on technique and light on meanings?
In the interview, the interviewer brought post-modernism up as if he was reminding Trier and Trier got evasive.We are looking for a Trier scholar to address the post-modern conundrum
Have you seen THE ELEMENT OF CRIME?
It has many scenes that are basically von Trier copying Tarkovsky’s cinematic style. Especially STALKER.
Okay. This is interesting.
I’m not a Von Trier scholar by any means, but he, for me, has always been “heavy on technique and light on meaning” (well put, I might add). From his somewhat humble beginnings to the Antichrist, he’s always impressed me with his almost virtuoso way (emphasis on "almost") of shooting a scene (technically speaking). Somewhat similar to Tarantino (kind of, Von Trier is a much more accomplished filmmaker IMO) in that he emulates his idols in such an unabashed way that it’s difficult to separate his ‘references’ from his genuine ability.
Tarkovsky was a wonderful filmmaker that suffused his films with all the things you already mentioned (symbolism, allegory, etc.) and Von Trier was obviously (and admittedly) influenced heavily by him. However, as with most filmmakers that emulate those they idolize, there is a dilemma that arises. It seems that they (these “emulators”, of which I would include Von Trier) become so concerned with perfecting a shot as would be done by their idol (in Von Trier’s case, Tarkovsky) that they miss the heart and soul of the shot itself. They become so enamored with technique that they forget/overlook/ignore (whichever, it amounts to the same thing) the substance, the pure meaning of that shot in the film they are working on. Instead they’re more attached to the shot of the film they are referencing (perhaps Tarkovsky’s Stalker would be a very apt example of Von Trier’s emulation) than the film they are shooting.
But someone more scholastic could certainly shed more light on the subject.
“The Element of Crime” is indeed the closest von Trier made in regards to Tarkovsky, he even copied the horses tossing and turning in “Andrei Rublev”, and one can understand that Tarkovsky hated it.
Lars von Trier may cite Andrei Tarkovsky as a huge influence, but the two are incomparable. von Trier is a spiritually inept filmmaker who sees the world as bleak, violent, and nothing but. If he would be honest with himself and express this without letting his own self-consciousness get in the way, I could maybe be more forgiving. As it seems most of you agree, what Tarkovsky achieves in his cinema is something far more interesting, profound, and breathtaking. Tarkovsky looks inward, at the murky, mysterious, beautiful, and frightening. With von Trier’s work, I never forget that I am watching a constructed film, full of the residue of an angry man incapable of looking deeper into himself or his characters. For me, a film like “Andrei Rublev” is a cinema which transforms and leaves its imprint on the soul. The only filmmaker I can think of who works in the same vain now is Bela Tarr.
“Forget all the excuses, ‘the childish fascination’ and ‘the all embracing humility’, for this is my confession, black on white: I, Lars von Trier, am but a simple masturbator of the silver screen.”
gross
gross
I like von Trier better than Tarkovsky. That isn’t saying much though, because I really don’t care for von Trier too much.
One thing that seems to baffle me is the notion of someone being heavy on style but low on content. What exactly is this supposed to mean? von Trier has plenty of content; it’s just not the same type of content as Tarkovsky. He’s not as vaguely spiritual as the Russian, and he’s far more rooted in classical dramatic/melodramatic structures. But you can express plenty with those things. Hell, even Tarantino has plenty of content if you’re willing to look closely. Again, it’s not the “spiritual” content that some of you might be looking for, but it’s content about other things – myths, reputations, movies, and the nature of the spoken word.
I’m not suggesting that any of you need to like Tarantino or von Trier. Nor am I suggesting that you shouldn’t like Tarkovsky. I love the fact that we all enjoy and respond to different things. What I am suggesting is that it’s weak just to say that someone lacks content. I’m no von Trier scholar, so I’m not in a big position to defend his content, but it seems to me that some people have a blind soft spot for Tarkovsky. He’s talked about in strangely religious termenology that may have something to do with the gist of his films, but doesn’t address how his films work on a cinematic level, and what they really have to say to us. The films that I have seen of his seem pretty vague more than anything. They are full of pretty images, beautiful camera movements, and elliptical narratives, but not much else to hang my hat on. (And be mindful that this is not a complaint about his lack of dramatic structure and technique. There are a number of films that I love that don’t follow the three part dramatic formula.)
At any rate, to address the OP, I don’t see much of Tarkovsky in von Trier (though I havn’t seen much early von Trier.) At this point he seems to be moving in his own directon that incorporates Dryer and melodrama more than Tarkovsky.
“Where Andrei found beauty in nature, Lars finds evil. While Andrei will hold imagery of religious artwork in his films, Lars focuses on images of torture and genocide. In the method of perfection that Tarkovsky strived for, Von Trier relishes in controlled chaos. And in the way that Andrei searches for Christ in his films, Lars reveals to us the Anti-Christ inherent in our own human nature.”
~ written by an auteur whose name escapes me ~How funny is it that von Trier’s spiritual fathers are both deeply involved in Christianity? I have no idea if von Trier is a believer or not (anybody?). If he believes, it’d be my guess that his notion of a deity would be one that is surely non-interventionist and mute. He is interested in nature of the inexplicable, in rules and rituals, in trying to divine patterns. Testing the idea that there may be a divine intelligence behind all this cruelty and insanity on earth. Perhaps he wants to believe, but is incapable of the blind devotion necessary to such a state, so he provokes, instead. He interrogates and defames. He puts his characters through hell. Belief shouldn’t come too easily, and not without a price.
To try to get back to Robert’s question, what von Trier is left with is formalism, and an often maddeningly (for some) antic approach to his filmmaking. (Would he be less of a formalist if he believed? Is there such a thing as a formalist who is also a believer?)That’s why, as in Robert’s example of the transition from monochrome to color it seems done only for effect. Because it is! I find him to be a far more interesting filmmaker now than during the Europa period, and the films before it. He will still never move one the way Tarkovsky moves his devotees. He will jab instead. Assault, even.
Nathan M: let’s set content = meaning to avoid semantics
Regarding Europa or any of the trilogy, Trier said the theme is the helpful guy gets screwed, which in literary terms is death of innocence
You are correct we can not expect spirituality to be Trier’s theme he is only emulating Tarkovsky‘s style
Both Tarkovsky and Trier use lots of great camera work. So we set the cinematic stuff to equal.
So what it missing in Trier’s work?
In the example from the OP: Stalker changes from monochrome is the urban place to color the natural place
How many layers of meaning can be derived from that? or maybe there are different unrelated meanings ?
When the film Europa changes from monochrome to color in the first meeting in the sleeper car…. What is Trier telling us? That there were black and white films?
Trier could have been foreshadowing that the woman was evil, but he had the helpful guy walk into the B&W zone so that foreshadowing made no sense.
Where’s the depth?
One thing that seems to baffle me is the notion of someone being heavy on style but low on content. What exactly is this supposed to mean?
——————————————————
It means that the content is not well developed. Yes, where’s the depth.
Europs is a fine example. It looks very good but it’s primarily surface. Some innocent gets involved in an insurgency plot. That’s it. All the lights are on and nobody’s home.
>von Trier has plenty of content; it’s just not the same type of content as Tarkovsky.
Absolutely – it’s the sort of thing which ought to be too obvious to need saying. This isn’t fantasy football, here – we don’t have indisputable verifiable stats as to who’s bringing the most to the game. (A virtue of disputation on sports.)
The dedication to Tarkovsky at the end of Antichrist took me by surprise. I thought it was asinine and meaningless: it was as strange as that time that Ving Rhames tearfully insisted that Jack Lemmon more deserved his Golden Globe Award.
The dedication to Tarkovsky at the end of Antichrist must be some kind of a polemical joke on LVT’s part. LVT has seriously lost his marbles with that film. I’ve never seen so much pointless violence and explicit sexuality in a film—and the sad thing, at least for me—was that it was all so gratuitous and over-the-top that I was anesthetized to the point of catatonia. I couldn’t even be shocked, I was just bored stiff.
Antichrist, even though it did steal plenty of images from Tarkovsky’s work, was more David Lynch than Tarkovsky. But as erratic as David Lynch’s career has been, even he has never made worse shit than Antichrist.
Usually artists want to distance themselves from their influences so as not to invite direct comparisons
LVT seems to be setting himself up for comparison and I can’t see where anyone would ever say: “That was better than Tarkovsky could have done.”
From what I’ve seen of vonTrier*, I’d have to say that what distinguishes his work from Tarkovsky’s so far as metaphysics go isn’t the fact that vonTrier’s films lack content, but that the particulars of his beliefs are far less defined and integrated than what’s apparent from Tarkovsky—whose search for, (and insistance upon) meaning was integral to each work at hand.
But to claim that vonTrier’s work is without merit at all is pretty unfair, and to let him off the hook a tad, I’d say that this is all more a reflection of the generational difference between the two than it is on Lars’ integrity as either a person or an artist. (Their respective upbringings, likewise, no doubt contribute greatly to the differences.) To me, LvT is far more admirable in both technique and intentions than any American directors his age, and holding his work up against that of Haynes, Linklater and PT Anderson makes the claim of his relation to Tarkovsky seem litigable.
Effectively, though, drawing comparrison between “Europa” and “Rublev” in terms of metaphysics is like trying to reconcile the differences between Kafka and Dostoyevski; what separates the two has less to do with talent and approach than it does world-view. And in that regard, there’s little comparrison to be had at all.
No T.Hanks: the generational thing you mention makes it more amazing he would compare himself to Tarkovsky.
I don’t think we are saying he is without merit ( X-Blue –K) just that his work isn’t as deep and one reason might be that generational difference.
@RWP III
Thanks for the response. I’m disinclined to re-read the whole page, but I believe there was a post or two that did dismiss LvT a bit harshly.
As for the particular films, I think that “Europa” for one, has a lot going on besides the (very brilliant) visual stylings. The genuinely Kafkaesque work-setting, and the questions raised regarding moral duality, (especially as exemplified by the "werewolves") have quite a bit to say. I’d have to give the DVD extras another viewing before writing more assuredly, but I do believe that the film was an attempt to mine a spiritually deeper view of post-war Germany than is generally provided.
Again, the thrust and world-view veer far from Tarkovsky—but as far as putting craft to the task of the metaphysical, I think LvT’s fans can make a legitimate claim to him at least trying to couple the two. My own affections differ from film-to-film, (I’m not at all a fan of “Waves”, and I was unable to penetrate any more than the first 4 mins. of "Dogville") but anyone who can make films as diverse as “Dancer In the Dark” and “The Boss Of It All” earns a real place in my heart.
I don’t find vonTrier’s work to suffer from a lack of depth; it’s more a matter of his rather lopsided epistemology.
this is by far the most repulsive thread ive ever witnessed. while Tarkovsky did the impossible and opened the window to cinematic dreamland, lars fraud trier and his idiotic xerox chip offs will be lost in the eternal vortex of unconsciousness.
questions raised regarding moral duality
Interesting point not brought up earlier. I remember expecting that to be explored more deeply in the film. The protagonist seemed to be sucked in by the girl without much thought. – consistent with LVT theme of helpful guy gets screwed which is how he describe the trilogy in the interview on the disc.
He never really has a plan – he moves from one fire to another – so I don’t see any duality, everyone seems to be amoral
“while Tarkovsky did the impossible and opened the window to cinematic dreamland.”
These are the comments on Tarkovsky that elude me. John Ford is probably my favorite director ever, but I’d never say that he “opened the window to cinematic dreamland.” What does that mean anyway?
dp?
ALEX KRUPL:post -modernism?
Maybe LVT is a product of his times.
Few paint in the style of the Renaissance any more…..
“I don’t think we are saying he is without merit ( X-Blue –K) just that his work isn’t as deep and one reason might be that generational difference.”
I never said LvT’s entire body of work is without merit. Please do read my posts. What I said is Antichrist is without merit. I didn’t say a damn thing about LvT’s other works. Breaking the Waves is certainly great in my opinion, and Europa, Dancer in the Dark, and Dogville all have their moments. Even films like Epidemic and The Five Obstruction, made with the specific purpose of deliberately annoying the viewer, have merit.
I could be wrong, but I’m guessing that maybe this thread was inspired by LvT’s dedication to Tarkovsky at the end of Antichrist. Whoever watches that film that has admiration for Tarkovsky’s artistry will walk away pissed off because of that dedication—actually the horrible film itself will have pissed you off already, but LvT adds insult to injury with that dedication. I personally don’t think he was even serious about the dedication…it seems like a calculated public relations move to sell the film.
In regards to Europa, LVT references Tarkovsky – he is a fanboy !
Robert W Peabody III
Two artists heavily influence von Trier: Andrei Tarkovsky, …….. and August Strindberg. When asked by the Russian press about Tarkovsky, von Trier said, “Now, he’s a real God. …………. He saw my very first film and hated it. I feel close to Tarkovsky. If you dedicate a film to director than nobody will say you steal from him.”
This isn’t so much Lars versus Andrei, but whether Lars is really getting the most out of Andrei’s films. He claimed on the Europa disc he liked the style of a Tarkovsky film in that they didn’t look like anything anyone has seen before. I think Von Trier accomplished his mission with Europa -create a very stylized work, which is different and great to look at.
There is more than a look to a Tarkovsky film. When the film Stalker changes from monochrome to color there is a message sent; when the film Europa changes from monochrome to color, …………………………………………?