I love Tarkovsky - for me the greatest artist in film, and one of the great artists through time, but to an extent I do agree about Sacrifice being uneven. I don't think it has the flow of comparatively even Nostalghia, though of course there is plenty of Tarkovsky genius and beauty to the film. Tarkovsky's films aren't above criticism - for instance he wasn't happy with Solaris - that there is an awkwardness to the movement of plot to the film, & that marks The Sacrifice to a degree also.
***** I'd have thought Ivan's Childhood to be far more accessible than Solaris, much more straightforward in terms of story - and actually a better film. I'd also much prefer Andrei Rublev & Stalker to Solaris.
***** Not that I need someone else's opinion to validate my own but for what it's worth, Ingmar Bergman considered Tarkovsky the greatest filmmaker. Tobh no one else even comes close for me - his peaks are so far beyond everyone else.
Ebert praises a film like The Sacrifice and suddenly he's one of the most thoughtful and articulate film critics who ever lived. Ebert dislikes a film like Blue Velvet and suddenly he's an empty headed bore that's far too sensitive to understand good art. Popular opinion and overall consensus are fickle at best.
That was the beauty of those two. They took turns "not getting it." Sometimes, it was obvious Ebert just didn't LIKE a film while Siskel knew it was a masterpiece. Listening to them, you could pretty much figure out what what a film was, based on what they agreed or disagreed about.
I was getting ready to laugh this out of town but your guy in the glasses makes a valid point about how Tarkovsky uses time, he's got a good tone of phrase. Don't agree with the other guys point that the other characters aren't worth bothering with, the postman is a great character!
I thought Tarkovsky was multilingual with his direction of this movie, but the fact was he didn’t speak Swedish and barely spoke English, using a translator when he directed it.
This is why Ebert was the better critic, because he pointed out one interesting aspect of cinematic and artistic experiences in general when he mentions the demands made on a viewer. Really great art challenges our intelligence and not simply our emotions. It is easy to manipulate emotions in art, and to stop at that level of the aesthetic experience turns a work of art away from its higher functions. On many occasions I have been unable and unprepared to open myself up to a book or film because I WAS NOT READY for the story, hence the problem existed in me. The work of art demands something of my intelligence or is so shocking that I have no way to respond to it. But I almost always go back at some later time and find I enjoy the art which I was bored by or offended by. Siskel was a good critic, and I am not suggesting Ebert was perfect, but a certain wisdom can be found in Ebert's writing that I find lacking in a lot of inexperienced critics, which is to say that they frequently rely on their intelligence to the point that they begin to believe it will never fail them, and that they are above being fooled by their emotions. No one is that perfect. Andrei Arsenyevich Tarkovsky is one arts greatest cinematic masters. He got that way by continually challenging form and content. He demanded as much from his art as he did from his fans. I earnestly believe that Siskel was not ready for the movie. That being said, I do sympathize with him. I recently went to see "Get Out" and walked out offended. I am still working on it. I am not sure where I am, and that is telling me I was like Siskel after he watched "The Sacrifice", which is to say, not ready to sacrifice myself.
Tarkovsky's films are meant to speak to emotions above all else. He himself said that he believed that emotions should be the prime focus of every cinematic experience which is why he didn't like stuff like 2001 A Space Odyssey, because he felt it was too cold, calculated, with no emotion in it despite the fact that it was clearly an intellectual film that challenged its audience to interpret it as they please. I'm obviously not saying his films weren't intellectual (he did clarify that he thought art by itself is intellectual by nature because art isn't meant to be understood by everyone, which lead him to say things like Steven Spielberg's films weren't art), I'm saying it's more important to look at his films analyzing not what the frames in it mean as a narrative device (They rarely have any concrete meaning, because that would be symbolism and Tarkovsky thought symbolism was too narrow), but more what the frames in it told you as you watched it, how they affected you, why did these seemingly nonsense images continue lingering in your head.
Quite intelligent and interesting commentary from the guy with the glasses. His counterpart there didn't really belong in that kind of discussion - his suggestion of editing the film struck me as sheer boyish arrogance and impatience.
It is a very slow and long film where very little at all happens, Ebert even said it's doing the opposite of entertaining you well to me that statement means it's boring you. I found the movie excruciating, cryptic, laborious and a chore to sit through, I learnt nothing from it accept don't watch Tarkovsky.
Tarkovsky is a much better director than Bergman. I hate when people are saying "this was almost like a Bergman film" and so on, because this was indeed the most Tarkovskyan of all Tarkovsky's films. And in my opinion his best one and one of the greatest pieces of art of the 20. c. Comparing Bergman to Tarkovsky is just stupid, Bergman was an atheist pessimist, Tarkovsky was a mystic.
It's not easy comparing Tarkovsky to Bergman. You can argue that Bergman did not fully reach the artistic perfection of Tarkovsky's greatest films, but Bergman has been I think more influencal than Tarkovsky. Plus when you go to that guy's filmography, you can find many more amazing movies than the 7 Tarkovsky made. Obviously they are two different directors that were aiming for different things, and thus it's hard to compare them. But no-one should ever underestimate Bergman's importance to cinema and comparing to him even a master like Tarkovsky should count as the highest form of compliment. Edit: I just noticed that the comment was from 8 years ago.
Siskel basically just ignored what Ebert said, lol that’s part of tarkovskys films. Instead of breezing through something, he wants you to exist with it, in his world, thru the mundane and the excitement, the ups and downs of the reality of life, basically like Ebert said. He says he gets it, but I’m not sure he really “gets it” lol or hey I guess he just doesn’t appreciate films of the sort as much. Siskel can be fairly harsh on more experimental films.
I’ve seen Andrei Rublev, Solaris, and Stalker, and now The Sacrifice. The first 3 were amazingly and beautiful and all the things people say about Tarkovsky. But I agree with Siskel on this one. This felt uneven and needs to be re-edited maybe, not for length but content. I love Bergman movies too and this felt like a marriage of the two film makers, for obvious reasons. But it didn’t make the movie better, and I had high hopes. It’s premises and plot are interesting but the execution felt flat in many parts. I’m still gonna see the other three Tarkovsky films for sure.
György Hirschléger thanks for the reply. Now as the months have past I’ve seen the other Tarkovsky films and I agree with you. The Mirror and Ivan’s childhood were fantastic. My favorite overall was Andrei Rublev. The candle scene is the best part of Nostalgia I think. Tarkovsky and Kubrick are my favorite directors.
I don't think he was comparing. It seems fruitless to compare them in this way, as each are searching and commenting on different things. I think what he was trying to say was that while Tarkovsky has much to say on aestheticism as it relates to us, and Bergman on the human condition, that in this particular film he transcends into Bergman's territory. I don't see Bergman as a pessimist. If anything I feel optimistic about his films and how they simplify complex ideas to their purest forms.
Hahaha funny stupid hollywood they jumped directly to the nuclear scene they say that the film is long, has unimportant supportive characters and needs editing. hahaha Ebert you got the message i sure. there is no message in tarkovsky movies Ebert. he does not use semiotics so there is no bunch of signs, messages and indicators. he creates dream time in his movies thus his movies is not boring just they are not synchronous with your time. he transforms world odd to wake you up. that is it.
Lot of mysticism in older Russian films. Usually related to the land, culture, and history. Bunch of men eating in a cabin, then only later do you realize they have a live bear in the next room...nothing unusual. Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors was amazing, and Solaris hit you sideways...the culmination of scenes produced a revelation...unspoken in the film...only for you to have. That makes a film unforgettable. Oh... th-cam.com/video/PH7vdg8m9MY/w-d-xo.html
Hilarious. Yes, lets corrupt some Bach, Beethoven, Mozart while we are at. Maybe reduce the less impressive areas of Rembrandt, Michelangelo... These critic dudes are deluded. A minute of Tarkovsky is worth their entire output.
they just had to talk really fast because of the tv format back then. they were talking about other movies too. fit everything into a half hour episode but with commercials so even less time than that. it would never work like this today
WTF is wrong with Ebert's head
Yeah it's ducking creepy
The picture quality is creepy...watch Ebert's face.
RIP Roger & Gene
And the mask comes off
Perhaps it's the secretion of mankind's evil.
It's like the camera dropped acid.
Haha, i saw that too
Just saw this movie (on mubi, no pun, hehe) and I ABSOLUTELY LOVED IT!
I love Tarkovsky - for me the greatest artist in film, and one of the great artists through time, but to an extent I do agree about Sacrifice being uneven. I don't think it has the flow of comparatively even Nostalghia, though of course there is plenty of Tarkovsky genius and beauty to the film. Tarkovsky's films aren't above criticism - for instance he wasn't happy with Solaris - that there is an awkwardness to the movement of plot to the film, & that marks The Sacrifice to a degree also.
***** I'd have thought Ivan's Childhood to be far more accessible than Solaris, much more straightforward in terms of story - and actually a better film. I'd also much prefer Andrei Rublev & Stalker to Solaris.
***** Not that I need someone else's opinion to validate my own but for what it's worth, Ingmar Bergman considered Tarkovsky the greatest filmmaker. Tobh no one else even comes close for me - his peaks are so far beyond everyone else.
stalkek m
Ebert praises a film like The Sacrifice and suddenly he's one of the most thoughtful and articulate film critics who ever lived. Ebert dislikes a film like Blue Velvet and suddenly he's an empty headed bore that's far too sensitive to understand good art. Popular opinion and overall consensus are fickle at best.
So you call him an “empty headed bore” whenever he disagrees with you. I think that says more about you than it does about Ebert.
@@zachgoff7796 🤦♂️
That was the beauty of those two. They took turns "not getting it." Sometimes, it was obvious Ebert just didn't LIKE a film while Siskel knew it was a masterpiece. Listening to them, you could pretty much figure out what what a film was, based on what they agreed or disagreed about.
I was getting ready to laugh this out of town but your guy in the glasses makes a valid point about how Tarkovsky uses time, he's got a good tone of phrase. Don't agree with the other guys point that the other characters aren't worth bothering with, the postman is a great character!
I thought Tarkovsky was multilingual with his direction of this movie, but the fact was he didn’t speak Swedish and barely spoke English, using a translator when he directed it.
@GoblinGirl I've never been bored watching a Tarkovsky film.
This is why Ebert was the better critic, because he pointed out one interesting aspect of cinematic and artistic experiences in general when he mentions the demands made on a viewer.
Really great art challenges our intelligence and not simply our emotions. It is easy to manipulate emotions in art, and to stop at that level of the aesthetic experience turns a work of art away from its higher functions.
On many occasions I have been unable and unprepared to open myself up to a book or film because I WAS NOT READY for the story, hence the problem existed in me. The work of art demands something of my intelligence or is so shocking that I have no way to respond to it. But I almost always go back at some later time and find I enjoy the art which I was bored by or offended by.
Siskel was a good critic, and I am not suggesting Ebert was perfect, but a certain wisdom can be found in Ebert's writing that I find lacking in a lot of inexperienced critics, which is to say that they frequently rely on their intelligence to the point that they begin to believe it will never fail them, and that they are above being fooled by their emotions. No one is that perfect.
Andrei Arsenyevich Tarkovsky is one arts greatest cinematic masters. He got that way by continually challenging form and content. He demanded as much from his art as he did from his fans.
I earnestly believe that Siskel was not ready for the movie. That being said, I do sympathize with him. I recently went to see "Get Out" and walked out offended. I am still working on it. I am not sure where I am, and that is telling me I was like Siskel after he watched "The Sacrifice", which is to say, not ready to sacrifice myself.
Tarkovsky's films are meant to speak to emotions above all else. He himself said that he believed that emotions should be the prime focus of every cinematic experience which is why he didn't like stuff like 2001 A Space Odyssey, because he felt it was too cold, calculated, with no emotion in it despite the fact that it was clearly an intellectual film that challenged its audience to interpret it as they please. I'm obviously not saying his films weren't intellectual (he did clarify that he thought art by itself is intellectual by nature because art isn't meant to be understood by everyone, which lead him to say things like Steven Spielberg's films weren't art), I'm saying it's more important to look at his films analyzing not what the frames in it mean as a narrative device (They rarely have any concrete meaning, because that would be symbolism and Tarkovsky thought symbolism was too narrow), but more what the frames in it told you as you watched it, how they affected you, why did these seemingly nonsense images continue lingering in your head.
Quite intelligent and interesting commentary from the guy with the glasses. His counterpart there didn't really belong in that kind of discussion - his suggestion of editing the film struck me as sheer boyish arrogance and impatience.
It is a very slow and long film where very little at all happens, Ebert even said it's doing the opposite of entertaining you well to me that statement means it's boring you. I found the movie excruciating, cryptic, laborious and a chore to sit through, I learnt nothing from it accept don't watch Tarkovsky.
@Peter Kelner What a load of croc! your comment sucks worse than the movie.
What is happening to that guys face and only his face?
Tarkovsky is a much better director than Bergman. I hate when people are saying "this was almost like a Bergman film" and so on, because this was indeed the most Tarkovskyan of all Tarkovsky's films. And in my opinion his best one and one of the greatest pieces of art of the 20. c. Comparing Bergman to Tarkovsky is just stupid, Bergman was an atheist pessimist, Tarkovsky was a mystic.
It's not easy comparing Tarkovsky to Bergman. You can argue that Bergman did not fully reach the artistic perfection of Tarkovsky's greatest films, but Bergman has been I think more influencal than Tarkovsky. Plus when you go to that guy's filmography, you can find many more amazing movies than the 7 Tarkovsky made.
Obviously they are two different directors that were aiming for different things, and thus it's hard to compare them. But no-one should ever underestimate Bergman's importance to cinema and comparing to him even a master like Tarkovsky should count as the highest form of compliment.
Edit: I just noticed that the comment was from 8 years ago.
This review must've taken place in the 'They Live' universe.
is ebert melting in front of our eyes? jeez
Um...Roger you okay?
Siskel basically just ignored what Ebert said, lol that’s part of tarkovskys films. Instead of breezing through something, he wants you to exist with it, in his world, thru the mundane and the excitement, the ups and downs of the reality of life, basically like Ebert said. He says he gets it, but I’m not sure he really “gets it” lol or hey I guess he just doesn’t appreciate films of the sort as much. Siskel can be fairly harsh on more experimental films.
I’ve seen Andrei Rublev, Solaris, and Stalker, and now The Sacrifice. The first 3 were amazingly and beautiful and all the things people say about Tarkovsky. But I agree with Siskel on this one. This felt uneven and needs to be re-edited maybe, not for length but content. I love Bergman movies too and this felt like a marriage of the two film makers, for obvious reasons. But it didn’t make the movie better, and I had high hopes. It’s premises and plot are interesting but the execution felt flat in many parts. I’m still gonna see the other three Tarkovsky films for sure.
its his weakest film but still good,his other films the first five are great movies ,nostalgia is not great, but its little better then the sacrifice.
György Hirschléger thanks for the reply. Now as the months have past I’ve seen the other Tarkovsky films and I agree with you. The Mirror and Ivan’s childhood were fantastic. My favorite overall was Andrei Rublev. The candle scene is the best part of Nostalgia I think. Tarkovsky and Kubrick are my favorite directors.
Ebert might not have been a Jonathan Rosenbaum, but he was still more sensible and thoughtful than Siskel who was embarrassing as a film critic.
Yes. And here in Chicago they treat Siskel like a saint. It's crazy.
Thank God he wasn't a Rosenbaum.
Great film. Is this an early form of AI fucking with us (film distortion)?
Major warning for those with trypophobia like myself.
exactly I was in agony during it 😂
Why ?
@@infinityplusone-1 Trypophobia = fear of being on a trip.
The quality is so bad that it's like an LSD trip.
"I gat inoo it I gat outta it." Only an American can make a Tarkovsky film sound like a bank job.
editing?....by who?....nonsense....if someone edits our life, probably our life would last barely a couple of months...nonsense...
Siskel looks like one of the aliens from They Live! in this. Conform!
I just realized, the clip @ 0:35 was spoofed at the beginning of R.E.M.'s "losing my religion" video.
Good catch!
jesus, missing key-frames much?? terrifying! this must've been encoded by one of the early bad divx codecs or something
Tarkovksy would have slapped this guy if he had seen the video..its rubbish...
I don't think he was comparing. It seems fruitless to compare them in this way, as each are searching and commenting on different things. I think what he was trying to say was that while Tarkovsky has much to say on aestheticism as it relates to us, and Bergman on the human condition, that in this particular film he transcends into Bergman's territory. I don't see Bergman as a pessimist. If anything I feel optimistic about his films and how they simplify complex ideas to their purest forms.
I dont think either if them got it
Oh wow, thanks for this. So weird that I find these things just as they're uploaded.
Editing? Who the hell is this guy?
A dead critic. Long live Tarkovsky!
Hahaha funny stupid hollywood they jumped directly to the nuclear scene they say that the film is long, has unimportant supportive characters and needs editing. hahaha Ebert you got the message i sure. there is no message in tarkovsky movies Ebert. he does not use semiotics so there is no bunch of signs, messages and indicators. he creates dream time in his movies thus his movies is not boring just they are not synchronous with your time. he transforms world odd to wake you up. that is it.
Lot of mysticism in older Russian films. Usually related to the land, culture, and history. Bunch of men eating in a cabin, then only later do you realize they have a live bear in the next room...nothing unusual. Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors was amazing, and Solaris hit you sideways...the culmination of scenes produced a revelation...unspoken in the film...only for you to have. That makes a film unforgettable. Oh... th-cam.com/video/PH7vdg8m9MY/w-d-xo.html
Hilarious. Yes, lets corrupt some Bach, Beethoven, Mozart while we are at. Maybe reduce the less impressive areas of Rembrandt, Michelangelo... These critic dudes are deluded. A minute of Tarkovsky is worth their entire output.
This is terrible. Hollywoodise Tarkovsky? Obviously, you have to be joking.
Isn't this 4 hours long?
For some reason google says 4 hrs 15 mins.
I double checked and breathed a sigh of relief. Gonna see it for the first time tomorrow
@@yoitsmattrosariodid you enjoy it?
Thank you!
This is disappointing and it displays American ignorance. It is almost vulgar even.
they just had to talk really fast because of the tv format back then. they were talking about other movies too. fit everything into a half hour episode but with commercials so even less time than that. it would never work like this today
2:00 - "I got into it and I got out of it and I got into it." Rompin' Stompin' Film Criticism 1986.
Couldn't stand the Sacrifice. Liked his other films.
reptilians lol!
Yanks trying to get Tarkovsky : ) Mission impossible indeed !!