Film Forum Monthly Discussion Club #1

Fysh

For the first Film Discussion Club thread, I've picked Ki-duk Kim's Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter...and Spring (IMDB: the story of a monk's life, explored through various pivotal moments and learning experiences) and Andrei Tarkovsky's Stalker (IMDB: the story of a guide who escorts two clients to a secret location in The Zone, an area where normal physical laws no longer apply). The common theme to explore across both films is the role played by the environment in the story, and how that role is conveyed within the film. While I appreciate that having both choices as subtitled films, I do think they are both very engaging films that will reward the effort put into viewing them. They both benefit from being watched in their entirety in one sitting, though it's probably an idea to tackle each one on a different day to let them sink in.

Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter...and Spring is available at reasonable price on DVD from the usual sorts of sources (Amazon UK, Play, HMV). It doesn't appear to be available on any of the legitimate streaming/download sites at present.

Stalker is available on DVD, but generally either as a R1 import (Amazon, Play) or as part of a boxset (Amazon, Play, HMV). Alternatively, it is legitimately available on Youtube as a 360p or 480p stream: Part 1, Part 2.

johnny_ultimate

Thread locked and stickied. Shall be reopened for discussion on the 22nd!

johnny_ultimate

So reopening this, hopefully some of you will have had a chance to watch them, A rewatch proved they were both as special as I remembered! Spring, Summer... particularly resonated far more with me than it did five or more years ago - beautifully put together film. For such a deeply considered film, I was surprised at the frequency of the edits, especially in comparison to the long takes of Stalker. Both achieve a hypnotic style in very different ways.

Anyway, to the topic at hand - the landscape in both films. I'll keep it relatively brief (well, relatively brief ) for the moment until I hear some more thoughts, but one thing that really stood out was how nature and the landscapes imparted knowledge to the different characters. In Spring, Summer... the young monk is obviously taught a lot of lessons by his natural surroundings - whether its spiritual, practical (survival skills through picking plants, for example) or indeed sexual. The first two chapters particularly (and the fourth to a more complex degree) are heavily focused on the enlightenment these Buddhist monks achieve through co-existing so closely with their surroundings. The shot of the monk finally reaching the mountain peak and seeing the vastness of the wilderness with the temple right in the middle is a beautiful moment, IMO (by the way, if anyone's interested there's a powerful scene in the director's recent documentary 'Arirang' where he watches that sequence again - he's the actor playing the monk as well, so it obviously means a lot to him. It's a remarkably personal moment).

In Stalker, the men actively decide to head into mysterious landscape that is The Zone to search for some sort of knowledge or enlightenment. The Professor and The Writer kind of delude themselves that they're heading into gain scientific and creative knowledge respectively, but it obviously transpires things are more complicated - and possibly much more selfish - than that. The lessons they and the stalker actually gain are much more complex than they intended. The lessons they learn are very difficult to articulate IMO, but there's certainly parallels with Spring, Summer... in the strange spiritual knowledge the trio gain as a result of their dangerous adventures through the space. If Spring, Summer... is a thoughtful Buddhist parable, then Stalker is a much more Christian one.

Also intriguing to note how they both examine man's impact upon the landscape. Stalker plays its card early - the grim sepia tones of the opening and closing segments (albeit offset by a strange sort of hope for the next generation through the stalker's daughter) perfectly capturing a sense of grimy industrialisation run amuck, compared to the wild multicoloured boldness of the mysterious Zone. Man's effect has hardly been positive, and they even ultimately threaten to destroy The Zone itself. Obviously, we can't ignore the parallels with Chernobyl either... nuclear power is never mentioned (except maybe the bomb?) but its effects can certainly be felt. In Spring, Summer... the young monk's 'experiments' with rocks and animals negatively effect the world around him. And yet the characters aim to (and, with the Old Monk particularly, succeed in) coexist with the world around them - to utilise it while also respecting it and learning from it. Could it be said the knowledge imparted to the trio in Stalker achieved some sort of similar insight, or will they end up abandoning all hope like Porcupine?

Anyway, some brief, scattered and not-so-brief thoughts there. Curious to here other thoughts . Stalker particularly is one of those films where the messages certainly resonate and yet are very hard to articulate afterwards!

Fysh

I finally got some time to watch Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter...And Spring again, and I enjoyed it every bit as much as I have done before. Trying to focus on the environment and its role in the film did get me to look at it with a bit more focus than I might otherwise have done, and I noticed two things: firstly, the vast majority of landscape shots are static rather than moving. I didn't think anything of this at first, but by the end of the film I've come to the conclusion that it's a deliberate choice to reflect the monk's journey - part of what he is learning, as much from his surroundings as from his master, is to be at peace with himself and the world around him, and the static camera shots that explore the landscape subtly reinforce that idea of stillness and being at peace with oneself.

Secondly, there's remarkably little in the way of music in the film and not much more dialogue. Rather than silence, however, we get the sound of the natural world filling in the gaps, and again it's an important part of the monk's life - in the first chapter in particular you can see that he's bored and restless, and the "silence" (ie lack of stimulating or interesting sounds) is a part of that.

It's also interesting to note that narratively, we're shown the effect of being in or out of harmony with your surroundings through secondary characters - the girl in the second chapter overcomes her psychosomatic illness through living at the lake with the monk and his master, while the mother giving her son up to the monk loses her life through not paying due attention to her surroundings. These are more like footnotes to the main narrative about the monk's arduous journey toward enlightenment, and serve to illustrate that whether or not they are aware of it, all the characters are in some form of dialogue with their surroundings.

I'll post again after I've had time to dwell on it a bit longer; I'm hoping to get a chance to watch Stalker before the weekend is out as well.

Won't get a chance to watch the films till at least next sunday. Had hoped to sit down over the past week and watch both but the DVDs are in my house in Galway and I never got a chance to grab them as I was in Dublin before Christmas. Hopefully by the time I see the films there will be a little more discussion of them.

johnny_ultimate

Yeah probably should have left the thread locked for another week or so, given all the festivities of the festive season. Hopefully there'll be more discussion in the next week or so!

Here's few essays and thoughts on the films for anyone interested in reading some more thoughts about them before commenting.

Geoff Dyer on Stalker: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/feb/06/andrei-tarkovsky-stalker-russia-gulags-chernobyl

Balance and Harmony in Spring, Summer...: http://voices.yahoo.com/balance-harmony-kim-ki-duks-spring-summer-fall-3925916.html

Andrei Tarkovsky - Truth Endorsed by Life: http://sensesofcinema.com/2009/feature-articles/tarkovsky-ortega-y-gasset/

Have to say that I'm quite saddend by the lack of discussion thus far. Fysh picked two of the most enjoyable and challenging films of all time and thus far the debate has had all the impact of a damp squib. This is not a criticism of either Fysh or Johnny but rather the lack of input from other users.

I recognise that the time in question has had an impact, (I'd have rewatched both were they not sitting in Galway waiting for me) but surely we have enough cinema fans contributing here to generate some debate and discussion. I really hope that anyone who reads this and who has not already seen both films makes it their mission to do so in the coming week. I'll be posting my thoughts on both this coming Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday as I plan to watch both films as soon as I get back to Galway.

limnam

Deleted User wrote: »

Have to say that I'm quite saddend by the lack of discussion thus far. Fysh picked two of the most enjoyable and challenging films of all time and thus far the debate has had all the impact of a damp squib. This is not a criticism of either Fysh or Johnny but rather the lack of input from other users.

I recognise that the time in question has had an impact, (I'd have rewatched both were they not sitting in Galway waiting for me) but surely we have enough cinema fans contributing here to generate some debate and discussion. I really hope that anyone who reads this and who has not already seen both films makes it their mission to do so in the coming week. I'll be posting my thoughts on both this coming Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday as I plan to watch both films as soon as I get back to Galway.

I watched spring during the holidays after I had noticed the thread. we had a short discussion here after the movie and again the following morning at breakfast. Personally I feel and with all due respect to Fysh it's not a great choice to generate discussion. The fact that it's attached in someway to Buddhism I think people are looking for or assuming there's more to the film than there is. It's a nice simple movie with a nice message told in a nice way and nice for me nice never generates much discussion.

Maybe you can tell us what you found challenging about it to spark some discussion?

johnny_ultimate

limnam wrote: »

I watched spring during the holidays after I had noticed the thread. we had a short discussion here after the movie and again the following morning at breakfast. Personally I feel and with all due respect to Fysh it's not a great choice to generate discussion. The fact that it's attached in someway to Buddhism I think people are looking for or assuming there's more to the film than there is. It's a nice simple movie with a nice message told in a nice way and nice for me nice never generates much discussion.

Maybe you can tell us what you found challenging about it to spark some discussion?

The reason we settled on two films with a specific theme a month rather than one is that its always interesting to look at the way different directors make their films. What I find rewarding and challenging about watching the two together - and I'd seen both years ago separately - is that they're both heavily influenced by natural (and unnatural) landscapes. It wasn't the theme picked by Fysh in the OP, but they're also very personal and spiritually motivated films. They couldn't be more different than each other in the way they go about their respective goals, though. I wouldn't quite call 'Spring, Summer...' straightforward - there's a lot of interesting little curveballs, such as

the older monk's decision to commit suicide

- but its certainly accessible. And while I find it a very moving film, I also think it somewhat criticises the monks - their path to enlightenment comes at great personal cost, completely removed from the world at large. It's why their relationships with the other characters who visit the temple are so odd and non-traditional.

Stalker, though, demands your full attention as it is a very complex but rewarding film indeed. Even film and dedicated Tarkovsky critics / academics have failed to come to consensus on the film's meanings. And that's great, because it's a film that definitely opens up the possibility for multiple readings, with character motivations and mindsets as unstable as the mysterious, dynamic landscape they find themselves navigating.

If you didn't find much to discuss with Kim Ki-duk's film (although personally I find it an intensely involving and poignant experience), I'd definitely recommend checking out Stalker, as they resonate and sharply contrast with each other in fascinating ways.

I do admit disappointment the discussion hasn't taken off quicker, but I know my festive season proved a busy one. Given the interest initially expressed, it's worth waiting another week or so to see if it will pick up now that normality has resumed or whether indeed it's a failed experiment!

limnam

Thanks Johnny, I hope I didn't sound critical of the idea of the thread itself.

I'll try and get to watch stalker in the coming days and hopefully the thread catches light.

Fysh

limnam wrote: »

I watched spring during the holidays after I had noticed the thread. we had a short discussion here after the movie and again the following morning at breakfast. Personally I feel and with all due respect to Fysh it's not a great choice to generate discussion. The fact that it's attached in someway to Buddhism I think people are looking for or assuming there's more to the film than there is. It's a nice simple movie with a nice message told in a nice way and nice for me nice never generates much discussion.

Maybe you can tell us what you found challenging about it to spark some discussion?

If you haven't done so already, I'd encourage you to take a look at the essay johnny_ultimate linked to upthread about Spring..., it has some interesting ideas relating specifically to the role of the environment within the film, which was what I was suggesting as a focal point for discussion.

I don't think I'd agree that it's a simple film - it may not be complex in narrative terms since it's essentially a quartet of fables, but it's nuanced and poetic in its presentation and uses some clever little tricks to suggest details of relationships without spelling them out (eg the way that the elder monk is shown more than once getting from the island to land and back with no obvious means of transportation is, to my mind, a deliberate statement about the degree to which he is in tune with his surroundings compared to everyone else).

I'm hoping that the comparison between Spring... and Stalker in terms of how the environment is used within the context of the film will prompt a greater degree of discussion and dissection than either film by themselves; while I wasn't trying to pick deliberately beardy-weirdy films I did want to try and pick films that would stand up to discussion and evaluation on a deeper level than is necessarily the norm. It probably didn't help to pick two subtitled films for the first discussion

Anyway, I'm watching Stalker again tomorrow come hell or high water and will post up my thoughts about how it compares to Spring... once I've done that.

johnny_ultimate

limnam wrote: »

Thanks Johnny, I hope I didn't sound critical of the idea of the thread itself.

I'll try and get to watch stalker in the coming days and hopefully the thread catches light.

Do - it's a genuinely great film. Just give yourself over to its very distinctive pacing and atmosphere!

Also, worth keeping an eye on its visual style. Given I always considered Spring, Summer... a slow, meditative film, I was surprised at how the director uses pretty standard shot lengths and fairly frequent edits while still managing to create a sense of tranquility (and, of course, tranquility interrupted). Tarkovsky's shots, on the other hand, hypnotise in a whole other way through the film's stunning cinematography and long shots. They both bewitch, but technically they have rather different ways of going about it! Although both have absolutely inspired ways of handling colour - the varying seasonal hues of the Korean film vs. the fluctuating palette of the Russian one.

limnam

Fysh wrote: »

If you haven't done so already, I'd encourage you to take a look at the essay johnny_ultimate linked to upthread about Spring..., it has some interesting ideas relating specifically to the role of the environment within the film, which was what I was suggesting as a focal point for discussion.

I had read the essay and a never ending amount of reviews that's where I got the feeling people were looking for things that just aren't there.

Fysh wrote: »

I don't think I'd agree that it's a simple film - it may not be complex in narrative terms since it's essentially a quartet of fables, but it's nuanced and poetic in its presentation and uses some clever little tricks to suggest details of relationships without spelling them out (eg the way that the elder monk is shown more than once getting from the island to land and back with no obvious means of transportation is, to my mind, a deliberate statement about the degree to which he is in tune with his surroundings compared to everyone else).

I felt he did spell it out. Not that he was in tune with his surroundings but that it's very common for people to think monks have mystical powers be it teleporting, levitating etc. That people wouldn't even question "how did he get across without a boat" much like when he prevented the boat from leaving with the two detectives so he could say goodbye.

I'll try get to stalker as I have never seen it to try and make some comparison

Mickeroo

Apologies for taking so long to get around to this.

I finally watched Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter....and Spring on Friday morning. I plan on watching Stalker over the next few days.

I liked Spring, Summer..... quite a bit. It was beautifully shot film and ended up being quite a bit more tragic than I had expected. I was expecting a fairly light hearted coming of age story about a young monk but the film was much more about human nature, guilt and atonement.

Regards the environment. Would agree with johnny in that the landscape acts as a teacher of sorts for the young monk. The child thinks nothing of tying rocks to the animals and watching them struggle for his own amusement, only to be taught a harsh lesson when he is forced to return and finds two of them dead. This seems to start a cycle in his life of rash decisions followed by self punishment to atone, he carries the stone both literally and figuratively in the rest of the film. Even when he decides to leave the lake, he carries the statue with him as he goes.

Maybe I'm more cynical than some. The way I interpreted the landscape being static, it's the only constant in the film. Apart from the seasons it never really changes. In contrast you have the young monk being torn apart by guilt only to redeem himself at the end and find enlightenment. Or so he thinks at least. What I took from the last few minutes was, despite the monk finding enlightement he is doomed to repeat his master's own fate in many ways. The shots at the end of the second child doing the same thing to the animals, it seemed to me that this was saying we as people are just as static as the landscape in many ways, though we may think we find enlightement we cannot fight our own nature in the end. We are the same as the snakes, frogs and fish strugglnig for survival.

Fysh

I finally made some time to get started on Stalker and watched Part 1 this evening. Although it does demand some focus and attention, I'm really glad I picked it because it's years since I last watched it.

I find it interesting to note that, like Spring, Summer..., Stalker has several scenes in which there is no dialogue, simply background noise. It's almost 10 minutes into the film before we get our first conversational exchange, and even once events are under way there are still various segments in which silence and contemplation prevail.

Obviously having only watched Part 1 my thoughts are limited to that first hour of the film, but there are some interesting contrasts so far. I mentioned that the vast majority of landscape shots in Spring, Summer... are static, and my notion that this is a deliberate choice to suggest that nature and the environment represent being at peace with oneself, in a Buddhist sense. In contrast to this, the average shot duration in Stalker seems much longer, with many tracking shots along the way. The net result is that while the protagonists are a lot more active in Stalker than in Spring, Summer... there's a sensation of almost sedate or placid movement. It's noticeable that the incursion through the Zone's border is pretty much the only sequence during which we get a series of short, fast-cut shots.

Beyond the most obvious aspect of the colour transition and its implications for their relationship with the world (which the Writer has already helpfully expressed for us in his conversation with the woman), the environment quickly demonstrates a profound effect on all three protagonists in Stalker. The stalker himself obviously has a complex relationship with the Zone, given that he is willing to risk repeated jail sentences to return there; it seems to be where he considers himself to be the most at home. The Professor so far appears to be afraid of what he's seen, trying to act aloof and turn back; while the Writer is unwilling to accept what he has been told of the Zone's unnatural aspects until he experiences them firsthand.

The most interesting contrast between the two films, I think, is the philosophy of the protagonists. Spring, Summer.... depicts the struggle of the protagonists to achieve enlightenment and reach a state of harmony and balance with their environment, to exist within it on nature's terms. Stalker, on the other hand, depicts a world in which the protagonists are part of a much larger group who struggle to dominate nature - with the government and military acknowleding their failure to do so by their attempt to put a boundary around the Zone and separate it from the rest of the world, and the protagonists insisting on venturing into the Zone and seeking some form of mastery or at least understanding of it. The Stalker himself appears to understand that mastery is impossible, and co-existence is the only achievable goal; the Writer and the Professor are unwilling to accept the Zone on its own terms and struggle to understand it.

Beyond the more obvious comparisons of Chernobyl and nuclear power, I think a more likely inspiration for the Zone might be the Tunguska Event. However, I suspect that it's not meant to be directly inspired by any one event or idea, so reading too closely into any one interpretation is likely to be counterproductive. It can still lend new nuances to the viewing experience, however - there's a hint of something almost Lovecraftian in the opening note and the suggestion that the Zone might be the handiwork of higher intelligences whose motives are unknowable to us, and a suggestion of horror at a universe that is in some ways beyond our ken.

I'll post again when I've finished watching Part 2.

pixelburp

Profuse apologies for not getting around to taking part yet. Plain truth is it simply slipped my mind and with Christmas, a glut of boxset catchups and DVDs to distract me, it fell down the back of my memorys sofa. I have got Stalker though so hoping to fire it up in the coming days.

Am eager to see it not least because my last dabbling with Tarkovskiy - Solyaris - left me unimpressed & cold, if I'm being honest. Arthouse cinema feels like eating my greens; something I do reluctantly & only if someone's watching

johnny_ultimate

Mickeroo wrote: »

Maybe I'm more cynical than some. The way I interpreted the landscape being static, it's the only constant in the film. Apart from the seasons it never really changes. In contrast you have the young monk being torn apart by guilt only to redeem himself at the end and find enlightenment. Or so he thinks at least. What I took from the last few minutes was, despite the monk finding enlightement he is doomed to repeat his master's own fate in many ways. The shots at the end of the second child doing the same thing to the animals, it seemed to me that this was saying we as people are just as static as the landscape in many ways, though we may think we find enlightement we cannot fight our own nature in the end. We are the same as the snakes, frogs and fish strugglnig for survival.

I definitely think there's a cynical note or two in the film, but I actually think the whole 'circle of life' (to quote The Lion King :P) aspect is simply meant to reflect Buddhist theology to some degree through the narrative. Now, I'm not going to pretend to even have enough knowledge of that area to expand on that in any great depth. But certainly ideas of non-conscious rebirth are realised throughout the film, such as the new master/protegee relationship, or the fact that frogs/snakes continue to exist and be 'reborn' in the environment despite the presence of human 'interference'. As I said above, I don't think Ki-duk shys away from commenting on a perhaps perceived futility of complete isolation - again, his documentary Arirang on his self-imposed exile is worth tracking down in that regard - but overall I find the landscape's static or circular nature to simply be a reflection of Buddhist teachings and the film's grander themes.

Fysh wrote: »

Beyond the more obvious comparisons of Chernobyl and nuclear power, I think a more likely inspiration for the Zone might be the Tunguska Event. However, I suspect that it's not meant to be directly inspired by any one event or idea, so reading too closely into any one interpretation is likely to be counterproductive. It can still lend new nuances to the viewing experience, however - there's a hint of something almost Lovecraftian in the opening note and the suggestion that the Zone might be the handiwork of higher intelligences whose motives are unknowable to us, and a suggestion of horror at a universe that is in some ways beyond our ken.

It's funny - when I watch Stalker its impossible to forget the comparisons to Chernobyl or nuclear power. But what's fascinating is that 'The Zone' significantly predates Chernobyl, yet it almost undeniably through our retrospective eyes feels like a reaction to the incident in many ways. The film is seven years older, plus whenever the book was published. But yeah in many ways I don't think direct comparisons are intended. If anything, its a film predominantly informed by the grim industrialisation of Soviet times - the untamed wilderness of the Zone acting as a stark contrast to the monochrome and polluted villages.

Fysh

I finally got some time to watch the second half of Stalker, but I must not have been in the right frame of mind for it as I found it quite slow-moving heavy going. There were some brilliantly executed shots in it, and some great tension - I particularly liked the scene where the Writer has ended up going first down the tunnel and the shot goes on and on around the curve of the tunnel, almost suggesting that the Writer is going to crop up behind the Stalker & Professor in some sort of non-Euclidean/Escherian spacetime jape.

I'm glad I watched it again, though - it's a wonderfully ambiguous and thoughtful slab of science-fiction.