i would certainly love to hear mr Deakins answers to my question on just one place,(and the few he hadn't answer yet)
thanks for asking!
as of now in just writing reviews of Tarkosvky s movies( i ve only written screenplays before)
but the plan its to write about poetic cinema( so there s have to be chapters on: terry malick, bergman, bunuel,kurosawa,kubrick, and jose luis guerin)
its start after rereading ingmar bergman "magic lantern" and his thoughts of Tarkoskvy as the greatest:
When film is not a document, it is dream. That is why Tarkovsky is the greatest of them all. He moves with such naturalness in the room of dreams. He doesn't explain. What should he explain anyhow? He is a spectator, capable of staging his visions in the most unwieldy but, in a way, the most willing of media. All my life I have hammered on the doors of the rooms in which he moves so naturally. Only a few times have I managed to creep inside. Most of my conscious efforts have ended in embarrassing failure - THE SERPENT'S EGG, THE TOUCH, FACE TO FACE and so on.
Fellini, Kurosawa and Bunuel move in the same fields as Tarkovsky. Antonioni was on his way, but expired, suffocated by his own tediousness. Melies was always there without having to think about it. He was a magician by profession.
Film as dream, film as music. (Laterna Magica, page 73) [/b]