The Turin Horse (Tarr)

[soitgoes...]

Didn't see anything posted on this (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1316540/) yet. It's supposedly going to be Tarr's last film, and though it's being released in Hungary this year, I'd look for it being viewed in Cannes next year.

[MacGuffin]

Yeah, I was wondering about this. It was announced like a year ago I think and then we never heard anything else - hope Tarr is alright; seems like a bit of a depressing fellow, so hopefully "last film" isn't a bad sign (I don't think he's that old).

[soitgoes...]

Yeah, I was wondering about this. It was announced like a year ago I think and then we never heard anything else - hope Tarr is alright; seems like a bit of a depressing fellow, so hopefully "last film" isn't a bad sign (I don't think he's that old).He's in his fifties. If you read this (http://unspokencinema.blogspot.com/2008/11/tarr-bla-quits-cinema.html) it'll go into more depth.

[baby doll]

I can't say I'm surprised that he's calling it quits, considering that he's averaging one feature every seven years. One reason why Tarr is such a hero to me is that he's absolutely uncompromising; he's not trying to make a career of being a director, like Scorsese (to name just one example), who's become absolutely pathetic in recent years.

[Boner M]

Just read the plot summary. Most anticipated film ever.

[Watashi]

This sounds exactly like Au hasard Balthazar... but with a horse.

Religious allegories FTW.

[baby doll]

This sounds exactly like Au hasard Balthazar... but with a horse.

Religious allegories FTW.I would challenge you on Au hasard Balthazar being some sort of religious allegory.

Incidentally, included with the Facets DVD of Sátántangó is a transcript of a round-table with David Bordwell, Scott Foundas, and Jonathan Rosenbaum, who talk about Tarr being actively hostile towards reviewers who try to interpret his work symbolically.

[B-side]

Just read the plot summary. Most anticipated film ever.

That's what I said!

[Dillard]

I would challenge you on Au hasard Balthazar being some sort of religious allegory.

Incidentally, included with the Facets DVD of Sátántangó is a transcript of a round-table with David Bordwell, Scott Foundas, and Jonathan Rosenbaum, who talk about Tarr being actively hostile towards reviewers who try to interpret his work symbolically.That makes Tarr among a handful of unfortunate directors (Tarkovsky included) who presume that they have the final authority on the meaning of their work. That's not how hermeneutics works, honey.

[Grouchy]

I can't say I'm surprised that he's calling it quits, considering that he's averaging one feature every seven years. One reason why Tarr is such a hero to me is that he's absolutely uncompromising; he's not trying to make a career of being a director, like Scorsese (to name just one example), who's become absolutely pathetic in recent years.
Well, that's of course an ignorant comment to make. It equals saying that the only positive way to approach filmmaking is Tarr's. But, of course, you often equate "auteur theory" with quality, so.

[Qrazy]

That makes Tarr among a handful of unfortunate directors (Tarkovsky included) who presume that they have the final authority on the meaning of their work. That's not how hermeneutics works, honey.

Not really. It means they prefer their work to be experienced aesthetically, atmospherically and emotionally rather than or at least prior to being symbolically interpreted. They want their work to be seen as extended metaphor rather than one-to-one direct symbolic expression. They aren't saying 'this meaning is right, that meaning is wrong'. They're saying 'multiple meanings are right, your purely symbolic reading is constricting'.

Although I would surmise that (based on things he's said elsewhere) that Baby Doll is making the erroneous assumption that because a director(s) wishes their films to be viewed as art with multiple acceptable interpretations (analytically and emotionally) that means that we ought to reject interpretation and analysis from the get go. Which is fairly absurd I would argue. One perhaps ought not approach the film purely symbolically (such as 'the whale represents 'pure beauty' or some such') but still approach the film metaphorically (such as 'the image of the frail old man evoked such and such' or 'the character arc of the main character when contrasted with his initial explanation of the movement of bodies through space expressed this and that').

[Dillard]

Not really. It means they prefer their work to be experienced aesthetically, atmospherically and emotionally rather than or at least prior to being symbolically interpreted. They want their work to be seen as extended metaphor rather than one-to-one direct symbolic expression. They aren't saying 'this meaning is right, that meaning is wrong'. They're saying 'multiple meanings are right, your purely symbolic reading is constricting'. Sure but the point remains that a director's preference for his or her films to be interpreted in a variety of ways does not preclude the interpreter from making a symbolic reading of the work if that is how the work is speaking to the interpreter. Nor should the interpreter look to the director's preference for interpretation as Law (which you note).

I think we are essentially agreeing. A one-to-one symbolic interpretation of an image or a scene can be a poor one if it shuts down the conversation between the interpreter and the work. It should be a give and take. However, such a symbolic reading can be helpful as one piece of the conversation, as one reading among many as you suggest.

[Qrazy]

Sure but the point remains that a director's preference for his or her films to be interpreted in a variety of ways does not preclude the interpreter from making a symbolic reading of the work if that is how the work is speaking to the interpreter. Nor should the interpreter look to the director's preference for interpretation as Law (which you note).

I think we are essentially agreeing. A one-to-one symbolic interpretation of an image or a scene can be a poor one if it shuts down the conversation between the interpreter and the work. It should be a give and take. However, such a symbolic reading can be helpful as one piece of the conversation, as one reading among many as you suggest.

Reasonable. In the case of Tarkovsky though for instance what I've read suggests to me only that he's bothered when someone says... (my made up example) "This is what Solaris is about, it's an allegory for The Adam and Eve story"... or what have you. He's not bothered that people come up with their own interpretations or responses to the work, only these kind of blind, forced concretizations of a piece of art.

[Dillard]

Reasonable. In the case of Tarkovsky though for instance what I've read suggests to me only that he's bothered when someone says... (my made up example) "This is what Solaris is about, it's an allegory for The Adam and Eve story"... or what have you. He's not bothered that people come up with their own interpretations or responses to the work, only these kind of blind, forced concretizations of a piece of art.

Here are a page (http://people.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghia.com/TheTopics/Symbols.html) of Tarkovsky quotes about symbol and metaphor. I find the following a bit frustrating:


An image cannot be a symbol in my opinion. Whenever an image is turned into a symbol, the thought becomes walled in so to speak, it can be fully deciphered. That's not what image is. A symbol is not yet an image. Although image cannot be explained, it expresses truth to the end... Its meaning remains unknown. I was asked once what the bird on boy's head in The Mirror meant. But any time I attempt to explain, I notice everything loses its meaning, it acquires a completely different sense than intended, moves away from its rightful place. I could only say a bird would not come to an evil man but that's not good enough. A true image is an abstraction, it cannot be explained, it only transmits truth and one can only comprehend it in one's own heart. Because of that it's impossible to analyse a work of art by utilising its intellectual significance.

Though it may be true that no description or interpretation can suffice to address the full meaning present in a piece of work, it's silly to say that it's impossible to analyze a work of art in this way. Rain is not just rain when it is encountered in a work of art by an interpreter. It will recall memories, feelings, ideas on the part of the interpreter. An interpreter will not encounter a work with just his heart, but his or her head as well, and this is not something to be discouraged!

Now it does seem to me that Tarkovsky is addressing certain types of narrow interpretations as we have been suggesting that close down the conversation. However, in the process of speaking to these interpretations, I think Tarkovsky goes too far in discouraging symbolic readings of his films.

I think what we may be struggling with is a difference in definition of what a symbol is or could be. Tarkovsky has a narrow definition of symbol! I see symbol ala Tillich's definition in his Dynamics of Faith:


In the creative work of art we encounter reality in a dimension which is closed for us without such works. The symbol's fourth characteristic not only opens up dimensions and elements of reality which otherwise would remain unapproachable but also unlocks dimensions and elements of our soul which correspond to the dimensions and elements of reality.

I wonder what Tarkovsky would think of this different definition of symbol and how it might apply to interpreters' encounters of his film worlds, which I would say are frequently symbolically-charged. In response to his last quote on the nostalghia.com page, I would say that the symbols latent in his imagery do in fact open up a spiritual space for the viewer, and in such a state, viewers engage in the multiplicity of meanings present in the work. Tillich would claim that it is the symbols that open up this conversational space. Tarkovsky, with a different definition of symbol, argues that this space is shut down by symbolic interpretation. This is the frustration I have with his definition.

[baby doll]

Well, that's of course an ignorant comment to make. It equals saying that the only positive way to approach filmmaking is Tarr's. But, of course, you often equate "auteur theory" with quality, so.Scorsese is a studio director; he's not going to go off and shoot some really personal project for a small amount of money. He wants to make big movies on big budgets for a wide audience. And if he wants to continue working, and in particular with budgets in excess of one hundred million dollars, then he has to play by the rules. Obviously he's somebody who wants to make good movies, but his last two films in particular (The Departed and Shutter Island) conjure up--for me, at least--the image of Phil Spector and Sunny Bono sitting in a recording studio, asking themselves, "Is this stupid enough?" He can't make a really demanding, noncommercial film. Tarr, on the other hand, is a free man. He only makes a movie every seven years, but it's the film he wants to make. Maybe Scorsese really wanted to make Shutter Island (who knows?), but the range of films he's allowed to want to make is a lot narrower than Tarr's.

[Qrazy]

Here are a page (http://people.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghia.com/TheTopics/Symbols.html) of Tarkovsky quotes about symbol and metaphor. I find the following a bit frustrating:



Though it may be true that no description or interpretation can suffice to address the full meaning present in a piece of work, it's silly to say that it's impossible to analyze a work of art in this way. Rain is not just rain when it is encountered in a work of art by an interpreter. It will recall memories, feelings, ideas on the part of the interpreter. An interpreter will not encounter a work with just his heart, but his or her head as well, and this is not something to be discouraged!

Now it does seem to me that Tarkovsky is addressing certain types of narrow interpretations as we have been suggesting that close down the conversation. However, in the process of speaking to these interpretations, I think Tarkovsky goes too far in discouraging symbolic readings of his films.

I think what we may be struggling with is a difference in definition of what a symbol is or could be. Tarkovsky has a narrow definition of symbol! I see symbol ala Tillich's definition in his Dynamics of Faith:



I wonder what Tarkovsky would think of this different definition of symbol and how it might apply to interpreters' encounters of his film worlds, which I would say are frequently symbolically-charged. In response to his last quote on the nostalghia.com page, I would say that the symbols latent in his imagery do in fact open up a spiritual space for the viewer, and in such a state, viewers engage in the multiplicity of meanings present in the work. Tillich would claim that it is the symbols that open up this conversational space. Tarkovsky, with a different definition of symbol, argues that this space is shut down by symbolic interpretation. This is the frustration I have with his definition.

Good post.

But personally I think what he's really trying to express in that quote is...

1) The short comings of language to express what the object (in this case artwork) itself already expresses so much more clearly.
2) That a work of art can not be fully appreciated through the intellect alone. If one does not connect on some other level emotionally/aesthetically/spiritually/etc but merely analyzes the work as a series of symbols then one is not fully experiencing the work.

I don't think he's saying it's impossible to analyze, I think he's saying it's impossible to state precisely what an image expresses given just how much it does express.

If memory serves that quote goes hand in hand with his rejection of montage (Eisenstein) while favoring a more potent expression of the passage of time (for him Dovzhenko).

I'm not sure why you're frustrated by Tarkovsky's definition of symbol. Because I think you're very much correct that Tark and Tillich are employing different definitions. Tillich's use of the term symbol (at least in that quote) could be substituted for the term 'metaphor' which Tark has no problem with. I don't think Tark has any problem with something in a film 'having purpose' and/or 'guiding meaning' or reading meaning into a film. He has a problem with clamping down a specific meaning onto a specific moment in his own films. The word 'symbol' is just a term which can be defined differently I don't see a reason to favor one definition over another or to have an attachment to the term in and of itself. As you note Tillich and Tark are using it to describe different things, so I would argue that we should focus on what it is they're describing rather than the word being used to create the description. I think all Tark is saying in that quote is that the bird on the head does not represent something nor does the bird itself represent something nor does it being on the boy's head represent something. But he wouldn't go so far in the other direction either. He's not saying 'the bird on the boy's head is just image, there's nothing but image, that's it'. He's saying the relationship between the bird and the boy and it being on his head evokes something, it has meaning, but this meaning can not be locked into place. There can still be meaning to a film without their being symbolic (talking Tark's definition of symbol) associations for all of the objects that exist and events which transpire within the film.

[soitgoes...]

Qrazy, you left your Russian language film discussion in the wrong place. ;)

[Qrazy]

Qrazy, you left your Russian language film discussion in the wrong place. ;)

Well it got hijacked and I was thrown out. After rolling down the road a stretch I ended up here. :)

[soitgoes...]

Well it got hijacked and I was thrown out. After rolling down the road a stretch I ended up here. :)
Ha. I'm sure the Hungarians are tired of Russians ruining their shit.

[baby doll]

Although I would surmise that (based on things he's said elsewhere) that Baby Doll is making the erroneous assumption that because a director(s) wishes their films to be viewed as art with multiple acceptable interpretations (analytically and emotionally) that means that we ought to reject interpretation and analysis from the get go. Which is fairly absurd I would argue. One perhaps ought not approach the film purely symbolically (such as 'the whale represents 'pure beauty' or some such') but still approach the film metaphorically (such as 'the image of the frail old man evoked such and such' or 'the character arc of the main character when contrasted with his initial explanation of the movement of bodies through space expressed this and that').First of all, analysis and interpretation are not interchangeable. Analysis is looking at how the parts fit together, while an interpretation is something that a viewer brings to the film. As an intellectual activity, it seems to me on par with a Rorschach test: It says much more about the person doing the interpreting than the actual film.

I guess it depends on what sorts of "meanings" we're talking about. In the case of Au hasard Balthazar, we can draw certain conclusions from the story. But you should be able to test them against the film. For instance, I might say the donkey has no control over his fate and is unable to change his situation; similarly, the girl's destiny is shaped by external forces over which she has no control--namely, her relationship with the young boy doesn't pan out because of her father. (Then again, maybe my memory's faulty and there's something in the film to invalidate this hypothesis.) But if you were to claim that the donkey is Jesus, and that his suffering mirrors the stages of the cross, or that he witnesses the seven deadly sins, this seems to me terribly facile and I don't think it's borne out by the film. (At what point did Jesus join the circus? Where do we see sloth or wrath in the film?)

[Qrazy]

First of all, analysis and interpretation are not interchangeable. Analysis is looking at how the parts fit together, while an interpretation is something that a viewer brings to the film. As an intellectual activity, it seems to me on par with a Rorschach test: It says much more about the person doing the interpreting than the actual film.

I guess it depends on what sorts of "meanings" we're talking about. In the case of Au hasard Balthazar, we can draw certain conclusions from the story. But you should be able to test them against the film. For instance, I might say the donkey has no control over his fate and is unable to change his situation; similarly, the girl's destiny is shaped by external forces over which she has no control--namely, her relationship with the young boy doesn't pan out because of her father. (Then again, maybe my memory's faulty and there's something in the film to invalidate this hypothesis.) But if you were to claim that the donkey is Jesus, and that his suffering mirrors the stages of the cross, or that he witnesses the seven deadly sins, this seems to me terribly facile and I don't think it's borne out by the film. (At what point did Jesus join the circus? Where do we see sloth or wrath in the film?)

I wasn't speaking specifically about Balthazar. I just invoked your name in the general sense as one of those people who claim that one can not delve beneath the surface and approach an image as symbol or metaphor. I was arguing that I don't think Tarr or Tark embrace that perspective. But in regards to Balthazar I would argue that while I agree that the film is not supposed to be a direct representation of the life of Jesus, the donkey's life is supposed to parallel the story of Jesus at certain moments. That is to say that the film evokes Jesus in places so that we the viewer can reflect and examine why the film is evoking Jesus to some extent. What is Bresson attempting to say by having a donkey evoke the role of Jesus at certain times (for one all this pain culminating in a death in the midst of sheep)? This is I think a relevant question constructed by the film.

[B-side]

First screening is on the 15th. (http://m.berlinale.de/index.php/en/programm/public/20115947/title/the_turin_horse) I'll be all over Google like Glenn Beck on a retarded conspiracy theory.

[Boner M]

TRAILER!!! (http://moviecitynews.com/2011/02/trailering-bela-tarrs-the-turin-horse/)

Man, I'd kill to know the song that starts at 0:38! And is that a Bill Hader cameo I see?!

[B-side]

TRAILER!!! (http://moviecitynews.com/2011/02/trailering-bela-tarrs-the-turin-horse/)

Man, I'd kill to know the song that starts at 0:38! And is that a Bill Hader cameo I see?!

Haha.

[Boner M]

Initial reactions:


Bela Tarr takes his followers back to "Satantango" -- back to the dull monotony of rural peasant life, repeated in a series of slow, uneventful and characteristically color-bereft long takes -- before the big fade to black in "The Turin Horse," which folds an apocalyptically bleak statement about the futility of it all into what is reportedly the Magyar master's last film. Though ripe for metaphorical interpretation, the slender setup, about the fate of a horse seen beaten in the streets, gives arthouse auds little to cling to, and will provide institutional and fest programmers a test-of-wills head-scratcher for their calendars.


Viewers are used to expecting severity from Hungarian maestro Belá Tarr, but in The Turin Horse (A Torinoi Loi), he surpasses himself with a minimalistic drama that is stark even by the standards of his Satantango and Werckmeister Harmonies.

A film for anyone who feels that Samuel Beckett is just too flippant in his view of the human condition, Tarr’s latest is about as bleak as cinema gets. But, in paring down his familiar long-take style to the barest bones, Tarr and regular collaborators Agnes Hranitzky, Laszló Krasznahorkai and Fred Kelemen have come up with a gauntly beautiful, stripped-down quintessence of the director’s style. A formidable event movie for the festival calendar, the film will be a challenging sell, depending on Tarr’s auteur status and devoted fan base to see it through.

And some twitter reactions:


THE TURIN HORSE quite something: Makes THE WHITE RIBBON look like THE ARCHERS.

THE TURIN HORSE is not Bela Tarr's best. But he deserves the best director award for this film. Mesmerizing

Is TURIN HORSE as great as SATANTANGO? too early to say, but it's a sublime recovery for Tarr from THE MAN FROM LONDON

tarr's THE TURIN HORSE is a wrenchingly sad masterpiece. due in no small part to its soundtrack. v. moving he was in the audience

Bela Tarr has said The Turin Horse is his last film but it feels like THE last film such is its sense of the apocalypse

i admit i had my problems with the first half hour of turin horse (my first tarr), but in the end it won me over almost completely

"turin horse" (comp.) i was shaken and stunned at world's end; very impressive return to form for tarr. pretty much dwarfs the rest of comp

THE TURIN HORSE (Tarr, B+/A-) Arthouse parody or severe mortality study? I'm undecided, but formally hypnotic, grindingly moving.

Béla Tarr renounces forbidding monochrome doomsaying for a spangly, high-kicking romp about the Folies Bergère.

There's more, but you get the idea. Needless to say, I'm pumped.

[Derek]

There's more, but you get the idea. Needless to say, I'm pumped.

That Variety review almost assures us it's great. :)

[baby doll]

Béla Tarr renounces forbidding monochrome doomsaying for a spangly, high-kicking romp about the Folies Bergère.:)

[Boner M]

Holy shit this thing is monumental. Tarr's Jeanne Dielman, charting tweaks in a daily routine that turns into a death march. Note for those anticipating it: big screen viewing or bust; can't picture seeing it in any other way (not bragging, swear). Probably the best looking b&w film I've seen.

[Boner M]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/post_images/3408/berlinturin718.jpg?1297978554

[B-side]

Why didn't you record it on your cell phone and upload a 240p cam for us?

[Boner M]

Why didn't you record it on your cell phone and upload a 240p cam for us?
Today I passed someone in the fest's media room watching a screener of it on a small TV, with two other people watching different films to each side of him. Gross.

Also, to give you an idea of how minimalist the film is: the trailer gives away too much.

[B-side]

Today I passed someone in the fest's media room watching a screener of it on a small TV, with two other people watching different films to each side of him. Gross.

Did you call the police? Or the bobbies or whatever you have in Australia?

[Boner M]

Did you call the police? Or the bobbies or whatever you have in Australia?
We call them chazwozzas.

[StanleyK]

And I thought the Sátántangó screening was full; I had to sit on the floor to watchThe Turin Horse! It was definitely worth it. It didn't have quite the same impact as the former, but it's still a tour-de-force in evoking bleakness, this time using reframed repetition along with the patient long takes and desolate landscape. It may in fact be too bleak; I don't really like depressing cinema, and this movie's ending is hardcore depressing. But dismissing it on those grounds feels facile. What I know is, like all of Tarr's films, I already can't wait to see it again. For now I'd like to get my hands on the theme (BTW, one of the only instances where repeating the same music nonstop feels warranted) and play it on an endless loop.

[ledfloyd]

this is the first film that inspired me to sit down and write about it this year.

http://ledfloyd18.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/yawny-at-the-apocalypse-three-rivers-film-festival-the-turin-horse/

[Yxklyx]

Is there any animal torture in this one?

[Spinal]

Is there any animal torture in this one?

No.

[Raiders]

Since this is a 2012 film for our purposes and is in the 2012 forum, I'mma close this thread.