![]() In the form of fixated and sometimes manipulated everyday sounds, music is literally woven into Tarkovsky’s films and “available to the ear that wishes to perceive it”. In contrast to such a reading, however, I will argue that Tarkovsky’s vision of an “organisation of sounds and noises” exhibits remarkable parallels to larger developments in musical aesthetics of his time. These words could be interpreted as a rejection of the use of music in film altogether. I cannot stand it, and I do my utmost in order to escape it …” In short, he told me at length and eloquently how he didn’t need film music – all these overtures, main themes, lyric songs… “Only ambience, only organisation of sounds and noises. ![]() He said: “ I do not need an ordinary film music. The following account of a conversation with Tarkovsky by his musical collaborator Eduard Artemyev seems to further support such an argument. Without additional context, Tarkovsky’s statement could therefore be understood to stand in contradiction to this special issue’s premise that music forms “an intricate component” of Russian cinema that is “weaved into” the very fabric of its films. This aesthetic is directly reflected in Tarkovsky’s oeuvre, such as in the extremely sparse use of film music in the traditional sense in his films Solaris (1972), Stalker (1979), and The Sacrifice (1986). In his book Sculpting in Time, Andrei Tarkovsky distills the essence of his perspective on cinematic sound into the following statement: 1Ībove all, I feel that the sounds of this world are so beautiful in themselves that if only we could learn to listen to them properly, cinema would have no need of music at all. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |