Can someone help me understand cinematic surrealism? I was wondering why certain classic directors like Tarkovsky and Bergman aren’t broadly considered to be surrealists despite many of their films containing so many seemingly surrealist qualities. I suppose in their case the use of absurdism and fractured logic is often more in service of things like conscious metaphor and other more explicitly intellectual forms of thematic exploration, rather than the more intuitive and direct ways that more uncontroversially surrealist directors like Buñuel and Lynch use it to explore consciousness itself. But if that’s the case then why is Alejandro Jodorowsky so often lumped in with the surrealists when to me at least, his films seem to fit far more in the former category. Yes the element of absurdism in Jodorowsky’s films is generally far more played up, so maybe aesthetically and superficially he might seem to fit more in with the actual surrealists, but I’d argue that fundamentally, the intent behind his use of absurdism is the same as the filmmakers residing in the former more intellectual category. So is surrealism more stylistic or philosophical?
>>221005495I didn't read any of that
>>221005495Surrealism is the realm of unimaginative hacks and frauds in cinema at least.
>>221005495You've posted way too intelligent and articulate of a thread. This is a board for brown sub humans to lust after underage actresses and argue over the box office returns of superhero movies. That said, I'm not nearly familiar enough with Tarkovsky or Bergman's work to meaningfully contribute to the discussion, but I wasn't aware of the exploration of consciousness being a qualifier for a work to be deemed surrealist, just that the aesthetic or structural qualities of the piece evoke subconscious, dreamlike qualities.
>>221005495>So is surrealism more stylistic or philosophical?it's gay and lame
>>221005495U talk like a fag and ur shits all retarded.
>>221005616It may not be. I’m just trying to surmise where the actual line is because I feel like my understanding of the definition in how it relates to film is a bit vague.
>>221005521I mean that’s often exactly how it’s used. Especially in the modern cinema landscape where the closest thing to genuine surrealist cinema you might find is gonna be some derivative, A24, pseudo arthouse slop. But historically surrealism has been used to incredible cinematic effect. It just needs to be used by people who have a deep enough understanding of film as an actual art form rather than as some soulless collection of gimmicks.
>>221005806Try Raul Ruiz, he's surrealistic in Manoels Destinies and City of Pirates. So much so that the Absurdist himself, Mr. Lynch rips him off all the time.
Tarkovsky and Bergman are allegorical. The other three are not.
>>221006034Jodorowsky is one of the most allegorical filmmakers I can think of.
>>221005495>Tarkovsky and BergmanThey are more mystics than surrealists. Surrealism sees dreams as a way to delve into the unconscious, whereas mystic views use dreams to pierce the veil of reality beyond consciousness. Surrealism is also by its definition disrespectful and destructive (not saying that as a negative). Surrealism is more offensive and nightmarish, in my opinion. That's why some people think that despite their parents similarities Buñuel and Maya Deren are very different artists. I think Jodorowsky is more in tune with surrealist images but he is still tangling with mystical forces that go beyond consciousness. Another element of of surrealism is atheism, at least, it was during its conception in the early 20th century.
>>221006034>Tarkovsky >allegoricalFactually wrong, here is a direct quote from Tark himself:> I am an enemy of symbols. Symbol is too narrow a concept for me in the sense that symbols exist in order to be deciphered. An artistic image on the other hand is not to be deciphered, it is an equivalent of the world around us. Rain in Solaris is not a symbol, it is only rain which at certain moment has particular significance to the hero. But it does not symbolise anything. It only expresses. This rain is an artistic image. Symbol for me is something too complicated.
>>221005495>exploring Every time someone uses that word in context of art I think about the interview with that hapa whore mixed with her facial abuse video.
>>221005495>understand cinematic surrealism>surrealism>understand anon...
>>221009126yeah because all you watch and know is porn.
>>221005495>Can someone help me understand cinematic surrealism?maybe, but that's not very ENGAGING. I love the ENGAGEMENT of big 300 post threads, repetitive threads about nothing, 20 year old bait, that kind of thing. The best case scenario here is you, OP, are intelligent and have interesting thoughts to hold up your half of the conversation, but it's not as attractive or likely as finding something interesting in a sea of slop that at least contains several people.
>>221005495Surrealism with a capital S is very different than a movie being surreal. Many people make surreal art that isn't "Surrealist". Unfortunately the "Surrealists" have struggled to define themselves since their inception but a good place to start would be Andre Breton's "Surrealist Manifesto's"(Spoiler - it gets kinda political)Many classic "Surrealist" artists like Dali just made surreal art and didn't consider themselves members of the Surrealist art movement. It's all made up bullshit with no clear definition
>>221005495For Bergman he never fully operated within a surrealist framework. Most of his movies are his self-described "chamber" movies which is just characters talking. I think you're taking Persona as representative of his entire oeuvre. With Tarkovsky, he definitely moved towards surrealism though many would just describe his movies as "art" films, and his cinematic style was always described as "slow" and "artistic" over "surrealist" because his movies didn't really conform to the radical ideas behind most surrealist films.
