The fact that some people are vehemently arguing their own case about what they think the story is about points to the fact that both Lem's novella and Tarkovsky's film are both great works of art. People will be discussing both novella and film for centuries to come.
I've seen this movie many times & am still deeply moved each time I view it. There is no movie quite like this, it's extraordinary in so many ways. Despite the great advances in cinema technology, no science fiction movie comes close to Tarkovsky's Solaris.
I saw it at age 18 and it hit me so hard I was in a some sort of half-drunk daze for 30 minutes after it ended. My girlfriend literally had to walk me home from the cinema and I have almost no memory of it. In hindsight I'm pretty sure this effect was caused by certain sequences of images that were designed to work directly to subconscious. Tarkovsky has admitted this was indeed what he was aiming for in one of his interviews. It seems I developed some sort of immunity against hypnosis from this bizarre experience. Nobody and nothing has ever been able to hypnotize me since then. I was certain beyond any doubt that it had been deeply meaningful, most profound experience I had ever encountered in my life. Funnily enough, I didn't have slightest idea what the actual meaning of the film was. The message was received loud and clear butt it had bypassed my conscious mind entirely. Says a lot about the structure of the human mind... So, that's Tarkovsky for you. The greatest director of all time. By the way, don't be afraid of the hidden meaning programmed into his movies. It only does you good, there's nothing harmful or evil in it.
Although I was maturely inspired at an early age by 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner and The Quiet Earth, it was finally seeing the original Solaris that made me completely grasp the full potential of the science-fiction cinema.
The Quiet Earth : I remember seeing this on the BBC ( maybe Alex Cox's series of movie presentations ) in the 80's. I've never met anyone else who has seen it. "I wouldn't sleep with you if you were the last man on Earth !" ... ."I'm working on it ... "
I took part in an online discussion with Natalya this week, courtesy of the Sochi Film Festival, and asked her a question .. Will, she's still adorable!
Thank you for sharing. I watched this talk after watching the film , I think is better because I pay more attention to the feelings, reactions and observations that the movie creates on me . In that way my experience of the film can not be distorted by someone else point of view, which I think is essential in this kind of philosophical movies.
I've seen the original Breugel's Hunters in the Snow. It's an amazing painting, the best I've ever seen. It created in me much the same feeling as Solaris.
Bruegel's 'The Hunters in the Snow', forms part of the 'Cycle of the Months' series of paintings. Bruegel's 'Landscape with the fall of Icarus' appears in Roeg's, The Man Who Fell to Earth. The scene of Kevin kneeling before his father and the father embracing him alludes to, 'The Return of the Prodigal Son' by Rembrandt.
There’s a good breakdown of it by a channel called London Girl or something. It’s got layers of exploration of certain ideas. I’ll be watching it again and even though I enjoyed the remake more I think I’ll be enjoying the original more because the previously mentioned breakdown
Tarkovski's Solaris is a masterpiece of no nonsense science fiction, but Ι really hope they make a new Solaris film version, based mainly on the bizzare phenomena on the liquid surface of the planet. S.Lem describes several such in his book, in a quite detailed manner. Just imagine all those symetriads, asymetriads, mimoids, etc on film, being created, explored by teams of scientists on the spot and finally getting self-destroyed !
Have huge respect for Self, but for me Stalker is AT's opus, swiftly followed by Solaris and The Mirror. As a former member of the NFT I saw all 3 films during a season of Russian film. Wow... Tarkovsky profoundly shaped my relationship with cinematic Art. A master of film making...
I got the biggest religious feels from "Sacrifice." Although the end of Andre Rublev is transplendent. I'll have to rewatch Solaris with all this in mind. The scene depicting love, is worth so much.
Blade Runner - a movie about man trying to reach god to fight for immortality, realizing god is'n perfect, it's just another man, and forgiving him. Solaris - a movie about man trying to understand god, realizing he can't, but at least he got love in the proces
Solaris (the movie, not the book) is about shame and redemption. Blade Runner is about hubris and revenge (Frankenstein). Solaris (the book) is about hubris and a kind of healthy resignation. Frankenstein (the book) is about hubris and revenge.
@@talastra its definately frankenstein-based. One part of the 'steampunk' he mentions is not technology but the archetypes of a Victorian Gothic Horror. In as much as its also Noir, well Deckard is Noir and Batty is Gothic so there is a collision of past movements as much as technology.
@@jorgepeterbarton I hear ya. For more context, Horace Walpole is usually "blamed" for inventing "Gothic" literature, with his Castle of Otranto (1764); he also architecturally revived a Gothic style at one of his residences, if memory serves, and this helped re-spark the fad for it later. But the main body of Gothic literature is women-authored and sprang up in super-abundance like mushrooms during 1770-1800. You could think of it as a romance (still the best-selling genre of book to this day), but spooky. Ann Radcliffe (1764-1823) became one of Gothic literatures foremost producers in her day and actually made the stuff respectable. This sets the stage for the truly accomplished Gothic literature of Shelley (Frankenstein), the Brontes, even Polidori's The Vampyre (Polidori was Lord Byron's doctor). So, all of this is before the Victorian era per se, which is more or less marked from 1832 onward. Having said all that, Bladerunner is actually not very Gothic (nor is Frankenstein for that matter). Gothic fiction almost always looks to the past (the most famous example is Stoker's Dracula, which depicts an undead remnant from the past beleaguering people in the present). The genre afforded a critique of the current social order by women, but they had to "mask' that critique by setting it in the "bad old days" of Catholic England, with its castles, clergy, and so on. In this sense, Frankenstein is more like science fiction, the application of science ("galvanism") to ghoulish content. I don't know if Radcliffe read Frankenstein, but it would have been interesting to hear her opinion on it. She insisted that Gothic "terror" afforded a sense-heightening, salubrious "thrill" (kind of like the fright one experiences on a rollercoaster). She contrasted this with horror, which "deadened' the senses. This distinction between terror and horror is still pretty useful, and I could easily see her criticizing Frankenstein as horror, rather than terror (and therefore not Gothic). Again, though, this is largely because Frankenstein looks to the future, into the past. This is why it is sometimes (probably rightly) called one of the earliest pieces of science fiction. So, it sits well with a futuristic steampunk world as well. Accordingly, there's more Paradise Lost in it as well (since Shelley drew on that for her original). However, and now I'm going to appear to disagree with myself, one of the most potent aspects of Gothic literature when it emerged was the "space" it afforded for women and daughters to criticise (sexual) patriarchy, something that could not have ever, ever happened in 18th century England openly. And Shelley's Frankenstein takes that "Gothic" theme to its utmost, not only having the Created (justly) questioning its Creator, but also allowing readers to pivot that critique (of fathers specifically) to YHVH the father. This is explicit with the Paradise Lost quotes in the novel. And so Frankenstein is really an all-out assault on the nature of the patriarchal family AND existence itself. Another person offering an equally thoroughgoing critique (from a very different angle) is the Marquis de Sade. So, like any book that manages to captivate the popular imagination and inaugurate a new genre, Shelley's Frankenstein combines existing literary elements in a new way that afforded a quite heady brew. In Bladerunner, some of those new elements have been amplified, but the movie and PKD both blunt some of the power in Shelley's work. Also (just as most people know the book Frankenstein without reading it), the same is true of Dick's (1968) "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep." Bladerunner is a pretty (very?) loose adaptation, but Dick did deliberate draw on noir, so at least that's faithful. Regardless, the point I wanted to make is that Tyrell is the bad-guy creator, and whatever one might think of the replicants in Dick's book, they are the troublemakers. Dick was very worried that the environment was becoming "animated" (like robots); and he demonizes them, and the people who make replicants. But he never questions technology itself. We have an overly developed habit of "letting technology off the hook." Bladerunner would be a deeper film, equal to Shelley's (not always well written, but full-of-ideas, like Dick's work) book, if it had Batty seeking revenge not against Tyrell but against technology.
I’ve not seen a film in a theater since BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. Seeing movies by myself, there’s no need to do the loo in advance, take the whole Megillah at once, you can instantly repeat a section if you missed a bit of dialogue or its sexiness warrants a bit of obsession. In a theater watching a comedy, the audience often laughs too long and obscures ensuing banter. And, since our culture inhibits men from crying publicly, I can get shamelessly emotional with films seeing them at home. When I first saw A HARD DAY’S NIGHT, the carrying-ons by the teenyboppers in the theater was a definite drag-glad my hearing is intact ‘cause I never saw the Beatles live. We read books at our own pace (if not on school assignment or on a reviewer’s deadline), and the communal viewing of films was a financial and technological necessity of the past that we can well be rid of now. Chacon à son dégout.
“Here's a story. A man saves another who was sinking into a slimy pond thereby risking his own life. Now they are both lying on the edge of the pound out of breath, exhausted. The rescued man says: ‘Idiot, why did you do that? I live in there!’” - -Andrei Gorchakov, Nostalghia I want to live in Tarkovsky’s slimy ponds and puddles
His critique of the opening shot of Nolan’s inception being that was lazy cgi when in fact it was a completely in camera effect makes it pretty hard to take will seriously as a film critic
Tarkovsky was way to much involved in narration complexity here, so he couldn't make too much artistic performances. The big one is the in-car scene : u get what u came for !!! Huge.
All you need to know about this film is that, desperate to explain that his book is not at all about what Tarkovsky is filming, Lem called him a fool and went to his place in Poland.
So baffled by this too. I just checked and it's 214 pages! V weird and it undermines whatever else Self has to say, though I appreciate he loves the film. But... what does it need to be to qualify as a novel, 600+ pages lol?
@@Kurtlane Before you insist on this, don't forget that Hari is Kris' ideal projection. So if, romantically, you can't get past your own desires for how the Other is, then you will find your erotic pessimism quite nicely confirmed. Well, not "nicely".
I honestly thought he was going to say something deep and meaningful and therefore could more or less explain why i love the film, the story and the acting so much. But then.. "I guess I've been in love with Natalya all these years" "Whats the name of the poor old Lithuanian actor" UGH shallow and crude
*CYBERPUNK* a genre of science fiction set in a lawless subculture of an oppressive society dominated by computer technology. *STEAMPUNK* a genre of science fiction that typically features steam-powered machinery rather than advanced technology. Yea my bad, don't know how i got those mixed up..
In my view, he was referring to what used to be considered cyberpunk before computer technology really did shape our world post 1982. Steampunk is entirely superficial from a societal standpoint. It's Victorian age technology/fashion derived cosplay for 99.99% of participants. Very little produced by steampunk artists actually amounts to useable engineering. It is purely boutique pop culture and I have no idea why Will used the phrase.
Blade Runner is not remotely "Steam Punk". The whole deal with steam punk is that the aesthetic is 19th-century, as though we were in a high-tech Victorian age. Blade Runner is more a distopian high-tech version of the late 20th century.
Steampunk? Does he not mean Cyberpunk? (I'm unable to concieve of Steampunk as apt, at all at all!....Maybe I'm missing something....It would hardly be the first time)
A bit of both. Maybe "tech noir" idk. They have typewriters etc. And its a bit Noir. The buildings seem pre-ww2 20thc not late 19thc i suppose. Roy is like some gothic frankenstein though
What a man, full of himself. Despite ideology. All I say is, certainly he believes in his own, and will never be persuaded to believe in another. Beware of these types. They speak well, true. They listen poorly, just as well.
You can talk as much as you want. The film is simply a cheaply made B/C film with a small budget. Boredom taken to the extreme, with irrelevant smalltalk and a visually barren setting. This is the kind of movie you are capable of producing 10 copies of per month. The only thing that matters is that you don't forget to insert a film into the camera during the shoot.
...and this particular movie creates a fascinating experience, especially in relation to the type of experience other movies usually create. It comes from a different approach to filmmaking.
EVERY Tarkovsky's film is all about FAITH being better than FACTS.
I am still a fan.
The fact that some people are vehemently arguing their own case about what they think the story is about points to the fact that both Lem's novella and Tarkovsky's film are both great works of art. People will be discussing both novella and film for centuries to come.
I've seen this movie many times & am still deeply moved each time I view it. There is no movie quite like this, it's extraordinary in so many ways. Despite the great advances in cinema technology, no science fiction movie comes close to Tarkovsky's Solaris.
I saw it at age 18 and it hit me so hard I was in a some sort of half-drunk daze for 30 minutes after it ended. My girlfriend literally had to walk me home from the cinema and I have almost no memory of it.
In hindsight I'm pretty sure this effect was caused by certain sequences of images that were designed to work directly to subconscious. Tarkovsky has admitted this was indeed what he was aiming for in one of his interviews.
It seems I developed some sort of immunity against hypnosis from this bizarre experience. Nobody and nothing has ever been able to hypnotize me since then.
I was certain beyond any doubt that it had been deeply meaningful, most profound experience I had ever encountered in my life. Funnily enough, I didn't have slightest idea what the actual meaning of the film was. The message was received loud and clear butt it had bypassed my conscious mind entirely.
Says a lot about the structure of the human mind...
So, that's Tarkovsky for you. The greatest director of all time.
By the way, don't be afraid of the hidden meaning programmed into his movies. It only does you good, there's nothing harmful or evil in it.
What a useful, enlightening and entertaining introduction: thank you.
one of my favorite films of all time
Tarkovskyi is GOD of cinema of all time!
@@art_means_artificial He is.
That 17 minutes flew by. Thank you.
Although I was maturely inspired at an early age by 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner and The Quiet Earth, it was finally seeing the original Solaris that made me completely grasp the full potential of the science-fiction cinema.
I mean it was alright to be honest...
@Peter Kelner XD No? What is it then?
The Quiet Earth : I remember seeing this on the BBC ( maybe Alex Cox's series of movie presentations ) in the 80's. I've never met anyone else who has seen it. "I wouldn't sleep with you if you were the last man on Earth !" ... ."I'm working on it ... "
Maturely inspired? You were turned into an adult?
I took part in an online discussion with Natalya this week, courtesy of the Sochi Film Festival, and asked her a question .. Will, she's still adorable!
Thank you for sharing.
I watched this talk after watching the film , I think is better because I pay more attention to the feelings, reactions and observations that the movie creates on me . In that way my experience of the film can not be distorted by someone else point of view, which I think is essential in this kind of philosophical movies.
Solaris is the best sci-fi movie and the best romantic movie of all time.
I've seen the original Breugel's Hunters in the Snow. It's an amazing painting, the best I've ever seen. It created in me much the same feeling as Solaris.
That stupid dog painting? Pppppsssshhhhh
Bruegel's 'The Hunters in the Snow', forms part of the 'Cycle of the Months' series of paintings.
Bruegel's 'Landscape with the fall of Icarus' appears in Roeg's, The Man Who Fell to Earth.
The scene of Kevin kneeling before his father and the father embracing him alludes to, 'The Return of the Prodigal Son' by Rembrandt.
А я понял почему люблю малых голландцев
A great lecture on one of the most lovely of films
This talk has inspired me to watch Solaris again, but I have watched it at least three times and never understood why it is so highly rated.
There’s a good breakdown of it by a channel called London Girl or something. It’s got layers of exploration of certain ideas. I’ll be watching it again and even though I enjoyed the remake more I think I’ll be enjoying the original more because the previously mentioned breakdown
perhaps you lack life experience to connect with it.
Our will and self is exactly what the film is about, so you were meant to discuss it.
One year later that finally gets a deserved 'like'!
Will Self . . is that the dude's real name ?
Tarkovski's Solaris is a masterpiece of no nonsense science fiction, but Ι really hope they make a new Solaris film version, based mainly on the bizzare phenomena on the liquid surface of the planet. S.Lem describes several such in his book, in a quite detailed manner. Just imagine all those symetriads, asymetriads, mimoids, etc on film, being created, explored by teams of scientists on the spot and finally getting self-destroyed !
Have huge respect for Self, but for me Stalker is AT's opus, swiftly followed by Solaris and The Mirror. As a former member of the NFT I saw all 3 films during a season of Russian film. Wow... Tarkovsky profoundly shaped my relationship with cinematic Art. A master of film making...
Beautiful talk, thank you! I am doing my dissertation on A.T. films and I am discussing the audio-visual relationship.
I saw the remake first and then decided to see the original. I find both to be very good takes on the same story.
I got the biggest religious feels from "Sacrifice." Although the end of Andre Rublev is transplendent. I'll have to rewatch Solaris with all this in mind.
The scene depicting love, is worth so much.
Daniel Day Lewis + Bill Nye
lmao!
And Kramer
I knew this movie takes a unique, peculiar place. For me it's a much more sacral experience than sitting in the holy mess. Bach lived close to here...
Blade Runner - a movie about man trying to reach god to fight for immortality, realizing god is'n perfect, it's just another man, and forgiving him.
Solaris - a movie about man trying to understand god, realizing he can't, but at least he got love in the proces
But if we knew God completely we would be God. To learn about him is what makes life interesting, even for eternity.
Solaris (the movie, not the book) is about shame and redemption. Blade Runner is about hubris and revenge (Frankenstein). Solaris (the book) is about hubris and a kind of healthy resignation. Frankenstein (the book) is about hubris and revenge.
@@talastra its definately frankenstein-based. One part of the 'steampunk' he mentions is not technology but the archetypes of a Victorian Gothic Horror. In as much as its also Noir, well Deckard is Noir and Batty is Gothic so there is a collision of past movements as much as technology.
@@jorgepeterbarton I hear ya. For more context, Horace Walpole is usually "blamed" for inventing "Gothic" literature, with his Castle of Otranto (1764); he also architecturally revived a Gothic style at one of his residences, if memory serves, and this helped re-spark the fad for it later. But the main body of Gothic literature is women-authored and sprang up in super-abundance like mushrooms during 1770-1800. You could think of it as a romance (still the best-selling genre of book to this day), but spooky. Ann Radcliffe (1764-1823) became one of Gothic literatures foremost producers in her day and actually made the stuff respectable. This sets the stage for the truly accomplished Gothic literature of Shelley (Frankenstein), the Brontes, even Polidori's The Vampyre (Polidori was Lord Byron's doctor). So, all of this is before the Victorian era per se, which is more or less marked from 1832 onward.
Having said all that, Bladerunner is actually not very Gothic (nor is Frankenstein for that matter). Gothic fiction almost always looks to the past (the most famous example is Stoker's Dracula, which depicts an undead remnant from the past beleaguering people in the present). The genre afforded a critique of the current social order by women, but they had to "mask' that critique by setting it in the "bad old days" of Catholic England, with its castles, clergy, and so on. In this sense, Frankenstein is more like science fiction, the application of science ("galvanism") to ghoulish content. I don't know if Radcliffe read Frankenstein, but it would have been interesting to hear her opinion on it. She insisted that Gothic "terror" afforded a sense-heightening, salubrious "thrill" (kind of like the fright one experiences on a rollercoaster). She contrasted this with horror, which "deadened' the senses. This distinction between terror and horror is still pretty useful, and I could easily see her criticizing Frankenstein as horror, rather than terror (and therefore not Gothic).
Again, though, this is largely because Frankenstein looks to the future, into the past. This is why it is sometimes (probably rightly) called one of the earliest pieces of science fiction. So, it sits well with a futuristic steampunk world as well. Accordingly, there's more Paradise Lost in it as well (since Shelley drew on that for her original).
However, and now I'm going to appear to disagree with myself, one of the most potent aspects of Gothic literature when it emerged was the "space" it afforded for women and daughters to criticise (sexual) patriarchy, something that could not have ever, ever happened in 18th century England openly. And Shelley's Frankenstein takes that "Gothic" theme to its utmost, not only having the Created (justly) questioning its Creator, but also allowing readers to pivot that critique (of fathers specifically) to YHVH the father. This is explicit with the Paradise Lost quotes in the novel. And so Frankenstein is really an all-out assault on the nature of the patriarchal family AND existence itself. Another person offering an equally thoroughgoing critique (from a very different angle) is the Marquis de Sade.
So, like any book that manages to captivate the popular imagination and inaugurate a new genre, Shelley's Frankenstein combines existing literary elements in a new way that afforded a quite heady brew. In Bladerunner, some of those new elements have been amplified, but the movie and PKD both blunt some of the power in Shelley's work. Also (just as most people know the book Frankenstein without reading it), the same is true of Dick's (1968) "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep." Bladerunner is a pretty (very?) loose adaptation, but Dick did deliberate draw on noir, so at least that's faithful.
Regardless, the point I wanted to make is that Tyrell is the bad-guy creator, and whatever one might think of the replicants in Dick's book, they are the troublemakers. Dick was very worried that the environment was becoming "animated" (like robots); and he demonizes them, and the people who make replicants. But he never questions technology itself. We have an overly developed habit of "letting technology off the hook." Bladerunner would be a deeper film, equal to Shelley's (not always well written, but full-of-ideas, like Dick's work) book, if it had Batty seeking revenge not against Tyrell but against technology.
I completely agree, but having seen Solaris more than 5 times, I can't judge how this introduction works for a beginner.
I’ve not seen a film in a theater since BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. Seeing movies by myself, there’s no need to do the loo in advance, take the whole Megillah at once, you can instantly repeat a section if you missed a bit of dialogue or its sexiness warrants a bit of obsession. In a theater watching a comedy, the audience often laughs too long and obscures ensuing banter. And, since our culture inhibits men from crying publicly, I can get shamelessly emotional with films seeing them at home. When I first saw A HARD DAY’S NIGHT, the carrying-ons by the teenyboppers in the theater was a definite drag-glad my hearing is intact ‘cause I never saw the Beatles live. We read books at our own pace (if not on school assignment or on a reviewer’s deadline), and the communal viewing of films was a financial and technological necessity of the past that we can well be rid of now. Chacon à son dégout.
Not a bad summary, I like that he does mention the novel.
“Here's a story. A man saves another who was sinking into a slimy pond thereby risking his own life. Now they are both lying on the edge of the pound out of breath, exhausted. The rescued man says: ‘Idiot, why did you do that? I live in there!’” - -Andrei Gorchakov, Nostalghia
I want to live in Tarkovsky’s slimy ponds and puddles
Tarkovski believed in 'romantic love' to that extent that he romanced with Hari actress on set of the movie.
Source?
Love is a many splendored thing!
The sacrifice is my favourite tarkovski film.
The closest thing to "truth" comes from Dr. Snaut. Listen to his words and his wisdom as a best example of a man.
His critique of the opening shot of Nolan’s inception being that was lazy cgi when in fact it was a completely in camera effect makes it pretty hard to take will seriously as a film critic
Will Self is the most beautiful man.
Tarkovsky was way to much involved in narration complexity here, so he couldn't make too much artistic performances.
The big one is the in-car scene : u get what u came for !!! Huge.
saw it when i was ten......my dad wanted to see it so he didnt care but i found it interesting...but wouldnt be allowed in today
All you need to know about this film is that, desperate to explain that his book is not at all about what Tarkovsky is filming, Lem called him a fool and went to his place in Poland.
The "darkness" motif is present in a few other places, there's a deep black horse at some point that terrifies a girl
I wonder if Will Self has ever spoken about Soderbergh's version...
Why does he keep referring to Lem's novella? It's a full length novel!
So baffled by this too. I just checked and it's 214 pages! V weird and it undermines whatever else Self has to say, though I appreciate he loves the film. But... what does it need to be to qualify as a novel, 600+ pages lol?
Will Self should have played Writer in Stalker. He'd have added a certain rambling humour to it.
❤
WTF? So "Will Self" is his name?
I wondered why I never liked this film,now I know,thanks Will
Which Rowan Williams book is he referring to ?
The Body’s Grace?
He said he saw it in 1972 but wasn’t it only released in the West in 1976?
Dżystur krajs !
This is all over the place, and very little on Tarkovsky. I do think he's right though: Tarkovsky was not an erotic optimist.
Is love just eroticism? There is something deeper than eroticism in Solaris.
@@Kurtlane Before you insist on this, don't forget that Hari is Kris' ideal projection.
So if, romantically, you can't get past your own desires for how the Other is, then you will find your erotic pessimism quite nicely confirmed. Well, not "nicely".
Yeah, I was hoping for more substance, but it hit some good points.
Please; subtitles; essential, and one can more easily learn the rather difficult language that is English with subtitles.
It's a shame the Curzon AE restoration of Stalker is terrible in comparison to the Criterion version...
🏃♀️💃❤🖤❤Natalia Tarnovsky!!!
I honestly thought he was going to say something deep and meaningful and therefore could more or less explain why i love the film, the story and the acting so much. But then.. "I guess I've been in love with Natalya all these years" "Whats the name of the poor old Lithuanian actor" UGH shallow and crude
When a man is "not a Deist" you have to allow for his limitations. He is kind of like an incel trying to discuss what lovers do.
i want to share this video with loots persons but they all speak only french/ or at least english subtitles
Steampunk? Did he mean Cyberpunk..
No, he mean STEAMPUNK.
*CYBERPUNK*
a genre of science fiction set in a lawless subculture of an oppressive society dominated by computer technology.
*STEAMPUNK*
a genre of science fiction that typically features steam-powered machinery rather than advanced technology.
Yea my bad, don't know how i got those mixed up..
Obviously u had a question here. Now we have two answers.
@@framebyframe7035 Isn't it neither?.
In my view, he was referring to what used to be considered cyberpunk before computer technology really did shape our world post 1982. Steampunk is entirely superficial from a societal standpoint. It's Victorian age technology/fashion derived cosplay for 99.99% of participants. Very little produced by steampunk artists actually amounts to useable engineering. It is purely boutique pop culture and I have no idea why Will used the phrase.
Blade Runner is not remotely "Steam Punk". The whole deal with steam punk is that the aesthetic is 19th-century, as though we were in a high-tech Victorian age. Blade Runner is more a distopian high-tech version of the late 20th century.
Steampunk?
Does he not mean Cyberpunk?
(I'm unable to concieve of Steampunk as apt, at all at all!....Maybe I'm missing something....It would hardly be the first time)
Nts 6:33
Ich ruf' zu dir, Herr Jesu Christ th-cam.com/video/pjf63E69HsY/w-d-xo.html
Steam punk?
...Is Blade Runner steampunk?
Maybe he meant cyberpunk?
@@sixbadseeds yeah, think so
A bit of both.
Maybe "tech noir" idk. They have typewriters etc. And its a bit Noir. The buildings seem pre-ww2 20thc not late 19thc i suppose. Roy is like some gothic frankenstein though
Put this on 1.5x speed and he sounds like a normal person.
Maybe you are too young for normality
If you don’t have the patience for this talk you sure won’t for a Tarkovsky flick! 🤣
a great film by the world's greatest director introduced by the world's most cringeworthy man.
It must be a good film, when this talk doesn't entirely put me off it...
^^
What a man, full of himself. Despite ideology. All I say is, certainly he believes in his own, and will never be persuaded to believe in another. Beware of these types. They speak well, true. They listen poorly, just as well.
The only person who is listening poorly seems to be you. How you got this from simply hearing a man reminiscing about something he loves is beyond me
his German pronunciation is terrible
"deist" sounds pretty cringe
You can talk as much as you want.
The film is simply a cheaply made B/C film
with a small budget.
Boredom taken to the extreme, with irrelevant
smalltalk and a visually barren setting.
This is the kind of movie you are capable
of producing 10 copies of per month.
The only thing that matters is that you don't
forget to insert a film into the camera
during the shoot.
Imbecile.
Self hasn't got a clue about tarkovsky
Will Self is so tedious.
The book pisses over the movie
Books aren't better than movies. Books are a different medium than movies, so they create a different experience.
Zach Sutton duuuuhhh
...and this particular movie creates a fascinating experience, especially in relation to the type of experience other movies usually create. It comes from a different approach to filmmaking.
Zach Sutton hows that?
It has lengthy, gorgeous shots, philosophical themes and a beautiful sense of melancholy. It's also something that gets better with each viewing.
OMG Solaris was about as entertaining as staring at a rock.
Y’all need to pump up your game a bit.