KUBRICK / TARKOVSKY
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 июл 2016
- Two cinematic giants, side by side.
The films included are:
Stanley Kubrick- Path of Glory (1957)
- Spartacus (1960)
- Lolita (1962)
- Dr. Strangelove (1964)
- 2001: A space odyssey (1968)
- A Clockwork Orange (1971)
- Barry Lyndon (1975)
- The Shining (1980)
- Full Metal Jacket (1987)
- Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
Andrei Tarkovsky -Ivan's Childhood (1962)
- Andrei Rublev (1966)
- Solaris (1972)
- The Mirror (1975)
- Stalker (1979)
- Nostalghia (1983)
- The Sacrifice (1986)
Music: Max Richter- On the nature of daylight
Website: www.vugarefendi.com
Instagram: / vugarefendi
Vimeo: vimeo.com/vugarefendi
For educational purposes only. 
Кино
Kubricks work is cold, perfect, technical, objectively beautiful, there is always a distance to the object in front of the camera. Tarkovsky is hypnotic, surreal, the object always feels close, it's like the movie is pouring right into your soul.
You read my mind about them!
kubrick is hypnotic and surreal too
A film lecturer once said to me “Kubrick’s ‘2001’ is about outer space while Tarkovsky’s ‘Solaris’ is about inner space.”
About inner space
'brilliantly said'
I couldn't agree more.
Excuse my stupidity may you explain me what did he mean by that?
@@-MertArda Kubrick'in 2001i uzay boşluğu hakkindayken Solaris'in insanin kendisinin ic boşluğu hakkinda olmasindan bahsetmis:)
@@eyluluslu4559 ah innerspace derken o innerspaceden bahsettiğini anlayamamıştım teşekkür ederim !! :)
cold war between countries, artistic agreement
between souls
Both are paintings, one is a scene and another is a portrait... i think?
That's so true slashpie
They actually hated each other: in particular Tarkovskij was so unimpressed with 2001 that he likely made Solaris in response.
@@olmomecene That's a myth. Tarkosky didn't hear about 2001 until Solaris was done.
@@NeuroneosI read an article about it... gonna have to dig more into this story.
There is only one thing Kubrick and Tarkovsky have in common: being truly great directors.
that's a fact!
Genios!!!
Yes, but these scene comparisons seem rather forced to me. You can probably find scenes from these directors and ones from Marx Brothers movies that look similar as well. Maybe that's less about similarities between any two directors, and more a statement of the uniformity of style in film-making.
AMEN !
THEY WERE ALSO KILLED BY FEDERAL AGENCIES.....
COME AT ME GLOWIES
Kubrick: Technical perfection.
Tarkovsky: Emotional perfection.
Both directors are just legendary. Their work is so beautiful, this is why film is art.
True 👍
Barry Lyndon gives Tarkovsky a run for his money in the emotions department imo.
@@Tofu_va_Bien try watching "Andrei Rublev"
@@chessverse6279 One of my favourite films!
@@Tofu_va_Bien more Paths of Glory imo
Kubrick - visual prose / Tarkovsky - visual poetry.
Nicely put.
lol this is pretty accurate
@Iván G I don't really agree as Spielberg haven't really done any kind of movies like their's, he just did his own
but still, Spielberg is incredibly overrated compared to other current great directors
There's Chris Nolan for example! he did not get a freaking Academy Award!
Wes Anderson's visuals are amazingly beautiful and creative,
David Fincher , Paul Thomas Anderson and the list goes on ..
does not mean Spielberg is shit tho , he is great , but just saying , there are many others that deserved more than what he earned
@@mynameisshephard2394
Spielberg is a thief!
Hitchcock, Cameron, Carpenter, Tarantino, etc. (or mainstream cinema in general) - epic prose. Bergman, Tarkovsky or Yodorovsky - poetry. Kubrick is more like an essayist or an author of philosophical treatises.
in the end, the easiest way to describe these two geniuses is: 'Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see.' - Arthur Schopenhauer
Kubrick is painting a picture.
Tarkovsky is writing a poem.
you have mistaken.
Kubrick is TAKING a picture. that would be correct
Buster does the stunt.
Tarkovskij is SCULPTING IN TIME.
Lynch is The Painter.
Green is cringing
that burning house scene....
Kubrick is soooo miles away from being even close to making a movie like Mirror lol he cant even compete with more accessible ones like Solaris or Stalker.
yeah, so idiotic. There should be another video to match up with tarkowsky. Something like Shyamalan / tarkowski, there you have the same shitty quality
@@IlSH2 Easy cobba, it's just some dude's opinion on yt, don't blow a gastket just because you love kubrick
lmao, Nashuel butthurt that he cant access the inaccessible to him. Pretentious is the most misused word on the planet. Every guy and your dog uses it when they wanna say that something is way smarter than they are
That scene is really something else. I saw it ten years ago and it's still fresh in my mind
Kubrick kept only significant things in the frame, Tarkovsky made everything in the frame significant.
like it
Seems like Tarkovsky has a lot of small details in the picture while Kubric tends to put props in a clear space with deep meaning behind them.
Lingam Arusanthran like what huh? Give one example of tarkovsky making everything in the frame meaningful/significant
@@davidwood9718 Yeah, I think these people are either off their rocker or haven't spent the time to understand how Kubrick took the ideal of visual symbolism and pushed it the maximum degree - the most cinema has ever seen. I can faithfully say that isn't the case w/ Tarkovsky
Santiago Calogero what are you on about? You’re acting as if this is a comment against Kubrick. He’s just stating in which way they are different..
Kubrick starts with a K, Tarkovsky starts with a T. That’s the best comparison I can make.
If it was meant for joke then it was bad joke.
@@cothinker680 indeed it was a bad one. I was making fun of myself though.
@@de_mir don't listen to him. I think it was great. 390 people thought it was funny. Nobody liked his.
@@themoreyouknowfools4974 bad jokes can sometimes make people giggle too )
@@cothinker680 i think the joke flew over your head tho
"That's just like, your opinion, man."
-The Dude, 1998
The big lebowski > every kubrick and tarkovsky did
The Dude, during the Gulf War 1991.
@@hadiputraw8083 that is one hell of an unpopular opinion that I don't agree with but respect
@@hadiputraw8083😂 💯💯
Kubrick's stuff is all sort of mechanical beauty. Tarkovsky's is more organic feeling.
total agree
Neither is better IMO. One is philosophy, poetic organic beauty and the other is the solid rock image, photographic and symbolism perfection.
2 different styles with rare genius and important that both were trying to show the flaws of our world and the human spirit through film, art is about that in a way. They make you think like very few directors.
great said
couldn't agree more
But Andrei's organicity mustn't be confused with lack of tecnic precision. look at 1:14 for exemple
Why is that
Very different film worlds: Kubrik is much more masculine and it is more about desire.
Tarkowski is softer and more poetic. I love and adore them both
Softness and poetry are masculine traits.
@@Katya_Lastochka Tarkovsky is gay
Definitley, from what I can think of Pasolini or Fellini would probably be the closest in emotional expression to Tarkovsky while Eisenstein would be someone I´d put into the Kubrick universe.
@@Katya_Lastochka No actually.
@@Katya_Lastochka Softness and poetry can be traits adapted by men but it is not in their innate nature.
Kubrick directed your eye and chose what you were allowed to see. Tarkovsky gave you time and allowed you to look around his beautiful frames.
I think this is the best explanation of what can be seen in this video.
I am inclined to agree.
youre lying
I think James Cameron follow Tarkovsky style.
Kubrick: Story Teller
Tarkovsky: Poet
My eyes kept slipping on tarkovsky's side
The exact opposite happened to me! =O
to me as well ;)
Antonio Tugucci cuz it was wider
Antonio Tugucci
Probably because it was on the right side and/or the imagery is less familiar than Kubrick and also maybe because the music fits much better with Tarkovsky. Also Tarkovsky seems to be what people wanting to be sophisticated are into a bit more...tbh.
Agree with all but the last part. That seems more like guessing than anything.
In russian we have saying: "Don't confuse warm with soft".
Не понял😂
Да-да или смешать кислое с пресным
@@luleshege8205 нет, не путай кислое с теплым
@@luleshege8205 pse ke emrin lule shege dhe shkrun ne rusisht?
@@govegan6682 а что?
Tarkovsky - makes me create more abstraction around my thoughts. Genius.
Please, for the love of god, stop making this a “Kubrick vs Tarkovsky” that’s not what this is. This is a depiction and comparison of 2 beautiful art styles. There are no winners or losers. There is only beauty.
Totally agree. It is unfair to compare the two artists.
@Nemo Dayman I am fine with comments that say "Kubrick/Tarkovsky" it bothers me when people make comments about "Kubrick vs Tarkovsky"
This should be pinned up
Kubrik is meh
@Jeremy Kirkpatrick No. It's a fight for erasing mediocore art that pretends it has any merit or value. American culture has already destroyed so much...
For me, it looks like Kubrick makes life into art and Tarkovsky makes art into life
And you make everything into rehearsed bullshit.
@@anonymousonlineuser6543 ahahhahaha
I cried while watching this. Seeing Paths of Glory and Andrei Rublev side by side with this beautiful music truly struck me. Thank you so much for this.
Tarkovsky - Time
Kubrick - Space
Nolan: Space travel and reversed time
@@freebird1721 Nolan: Space-time
nolan è un tarzanello dei nostri tempi il più raffinato quanto il più ridondante bravissimo ma senza una generazione di riferimento, senza né spazio né tempo
@@freebird1721 Nolan - shit
@@wowp1184 you- bullshit
Kubrik is the left part of the brain, the one devoted to logic, order and harmony. Tarkovsky is the right part of the brain, devoted to beauty, meaning and emotion. That being said, I feel Tarkovsky much closer to my own sensitivity. I still admire Kubrik's work, but it doesn't touch my emotional sphere nearly as much as Tarkovsky does.
Watch Paths of Glory. I'd say both directors make use of both. It's the style that differs.
HahHaha how dare you to oversimplify their work hahahah😂😂😂 people please stop commenting on RUclips video’s and try to watch cinema without analysing everything or putting it into words. The enormous amount of beauty these directors combine in their films is beyond words.😂😂😂😂
Dude, that's exactly that I wanted to write, but you did it better
@@thomheetebrij8694 i know right
Could you elaborate more on why you think is that?
I have always felt that Kubrick showed us fantastic photography while Tarkovsky made us walk through paintings.
Remember Barry Lyndon
Gladayo ?
U mean that one movie?
Sauce Money
Barry Lyndon vs 8 Tchaikovsky’s movies... that’s a little unfair, Kubrick stands no chance in such a matchup.
@@shotbro4998i think eyes wide shut has it .its not so obvious cause the story occurs in 1999, clockwork orange can also feel like watching a painting even though its technically science fiction
Very nice to forget Forman, Coppola, Scorsese, Godard, Bergman, Welles, Tarantino, Spielberg, Hitchcock, Lynch, Fincher, Eastwood, Nolan, Leone, Villeneuve, Allen, Lang, PTA, Kar-Wai; Miyazaki, Bong Joon-Ho... very nice... cinéma is an art and love it in all his form and vision of some many artist
Genius\Genius
NO !!!
Kubrick - Talent
Tarkovsky - Genius
Yup! Sums up those two perfectly
Kubrick: Intellectual Order
Tarkovsky: Emotional Chaos
I like your comment you are actually right.
That is very much on point. Thank you.
No. Stop oversimplifying.
Kubrick: Intellectual Chaos
Tarkovsky: Emotional Order
@@andyisdead All these comments are annoying me lol. They keep oversimplyfing them as opposites. They all go something like: this/that, black/white, up/down.
Возникает такое чувство, что Тарковского на западе знают лучше чем на родине.
Interesting.
Так и есть
Как и Сокурова
А теперь ещё и Звягинцева.
Хаха, похоже на то
I believe that Kubrick was always the master of making the subjective seem objective, whereas Tarkovsky was the master of making the objective seem subjective. I think this video captures those traits well.
Bergman said he wanted his films to make life look like a dream, and that not him, but Tarkovsky achieved that. In the Sacrifice, the dream becomes literal, or actually hallucination, from the point Alexander falls asleep, preceded by a clear hallucination when the boy hits him in the head.
indeed
wow...
interesting. i'm still trying to process that.
Enzo Vieira Hmmm something to chew on, appreciate it.
The Holy Trinity of Cinema
Kubrick - The Father
Kurosawa - The Son
Tarkovsky - The Holy Spirit
How bout
Bergman - The Father
Kubrick - The Son
Tarkovsky - The Holy Spirit
I really like Bergman, but I think he did enough to stand alone without being part of the "Trinity." Maybe I like him too much?
Christopher McCracken
Brett Ratner - The Father
Uwe Boll - The Son
M. Night Shyamalan - The Holy Spirit
Jordan Bolaños Don't know about Ed Wood.
No....
Stanley Kubrick - The Father
David Lynch - The Son
Andrei Tarkovsky- The Holy Spirit.
The power of Cinema
The Tarkovsky shot from Andrei Rublev with Andrei in the ruined chapel makes me want to die. I think it's one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen.
West/ East
both beautiful
It's true...
@@youtubesuckmydick даб даб да я да.
Men from other countries who never met were cut from the same cloth a love cinema and are now are the Kings of their professions
@@youtubesuckmydick ты типо эстет да? А я так не думаю! Ты просто позер! Школтник, тььфу! Дрянь!
Sunrise and sunset
I never though that I would feel an equal genius to Kubrick in filmmaking, but when I saw especially The Mirror, Stalker and Andrei Rublev I really put Tarkovsky up there in the heaven of genius artists.
Everyone in the comments, summarized:
Kubrick is Blank. Tarkovsky is Opposite Blank.
No one ever said that lol, stop making things up
@@Dr._Atom gyazo.com/873f14529279da6bb11aa435f69b027f ; "Kubrick kept only significant things in the frame, Tarkovsky made everything in the frame significant.
"; "For me, it looks like Kubrick makes life into art and Tarkovsky makes art into life"; "Kubrick - visual prose / Tarkovsky - visual poetry."; "Kubrick kept only significant things in the frame, Tarkovsky made everything in the frame significant."; "West/ East - both beautiful"
Kubrick wins over Tarkovsky any day.
Dawson Djodvorj if you still think this video is trying to make it seem that one is better than another. This the point is being missed. Yeah it’s all up to perspective and opinion but I doubt that Kubrick and Tarkovsky would dislike each other. They both have very distinct unique styles. It’s a shame tarkovsky died so young due to the filming of stalker
@@Gabriel-re6sw Tarkovsky dismissed 2001
I saw '2001' as a boy at a drive-in. I first found Tarkovsky in 2014. My 2 favorite film makers. Thanks for posting!
Tarkovsky's scenes are hypnotizing, you can't deny other directors talent nor art, but tarkovsky is the king of cinematic.
No way
Not when KUBRIK is in conversation
When Bergman says you are the best, you probably are
@@thetruestrepairman7423 He said he was the GREATEST between them (Tarkovsky, Kurosawa, Buñuel, Fellini, Bergman himself)... but not the BEST.
@@juanucedaperez9614 yes he did, but he also said "Tarkovsky is for me the greatest, the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream." So...
Kubrick made Kubrick films and Tarkovsky made Tarkovsky films. I am in awe of both of them.
That said, I don't see the point of either director's fans claiming one was better than the other. It's like saying you have proof that Beethoven was better than Bach. It's Art and Creativity we're looking at, not a competitive event with stopwatches and tape measures which can show, without question, who is better.
I mean, you can probably measure who did the fastest or loudest performance of Hamlet, but the best?
TheStockwell Because they're insecure about their own opinions. They do it as self reassurance.
. . . and that's why I don't get involved in the ongoing debate regarding who was greater: Frank Sinatra or Freddie Mercury.
how have I seen your comments in so many random places?
I'm interested in a lot of things, that's about it. Except sports. Other than the Olympics, team sports are my Kryptonite. Also, RUclips has some pretty interesting things on it, once you ignore what's trending and most of the goofy things RUclips recommends.
My daily workout goes like this: I sign in and do searches using two phrases: "Klimt, today" and "Kubrick, today." The door then magically opens to everything from people trying to write the missing fugue in Bach's "Art of the Fugue" to vintage Talking Heads videos.
It's the comments that are the best. You can watch people getting into fistfights over the existence of a Supreme Being AND whether Mahler's tenth symphony should be completed by scholars.
On RUclips, you can be an expert - and a moron . . . at the same time!
Have a great week, wherever you're having it. :)
Thank you. Reasonable comments on RUclips - you don't see THOSE very often!
Once you get past the "He's the greatest of all time and everyone else is a loser!" frame of mind, you wind up having discussions, not pointless and endless arguments. I have my Queen CDs on the same shelf as my Sinatra CDs. Which is better and "the greatest"? Whoever I just listened to.
If nothing else, this video made me decide I need to save up and buy Tarkovsky's films -on Blu-ray. And when I do, they'll go on the shelf next to my Kubrick Blu-ray discs. :D
Everything Tarkovsky has done looks incredibly timeless, it could just aswell had been released today
Tarkovsky........ What a framing, what a visual. Heart soothing
With that music, almost anything can seem genius.
Not really, if you put Cool Cat Saves the Kids in there with that background music, it'll just be hilarious.
Watch the video on mute, the images speak for themselves.
Where are the 3 replies?
Thank you for this. Is incredible how much meaning they could convey with their images.
Andrej Roeblev, the best movie ever. I can't get enough of all those scenes that go under your skin, it is a spiritual event. I can see it over and over again.
An Intellectual and a Poet, two completely different yet equally beautiful sides of cinema.
Two Masters of their craft, RIP, both Kubrick & Tarkovsky made the world a better place with their art.
i always think: 2001 reached a new border in the meaning of human's life in universe, and solaris - a new border inside human's itself
mrhoapro1 The so called 'two cultures'. I prefer to explore the first one.
Perfect, agree
Agreed
It's worth mentioning that Solaris was based on the book with the same name, which was written by Stanislaw Lem in 1961(!). Not that it change anything.. just an interesting fact
"Humanity doesn't need the cosmos, it needs a mirror"
Tarkovskys images is so perfect... in not a huge fan of the movies but they're beautiful!
This is the merit of cameramen.
@@TimoteoCirkla nah...director is the one who sets the shots and the frames...cinematographer is fully eligible to take the credit on lighting department... But not on those beautiful art like images...
Blasphemy
"Take music, for instance. Less than anything else, it is connected to reality, or if connected at all, it’s done mechanically, not by way of ideas, just by a sheer sound, devoid of… any associations. And yet, music, as if by some miracle, gets through to our heart. What is it that resonates in us in response to noise brought to harmony, making it the source of the greatest delight which stuns us and brings us together?" --- Stalker (1979)
There is no denying that Kubrick and Tarkovsky's art is mesmerizing in their own way. While you enjoy this, do not forget the music playing. "On the nature of daylight" by Max Richter is an epitome of how sound influences cinema. So minimalistic yet so melancholy and moving.
Music is disconnected from reality? Bullshit.
I come back to this video every so often. I still dont know who i prefer.
I don't like to compare this two great artist. And the music is on Tarkovski's favor. But this video is not a VS. one, it only shows the parallelisms present in their works. I really liked it.
I agree why put one vs the other? just enjoy both works!!
Sal Talgilmour the video was really just showing both of their work, and then people just decided to debate like children
I think the biggest differences between the two filmmakers was that Kubricks shots were an emotionless and observational form, whereas Tarkovsky went with more involvement in the scene. Tarkovsky´s views were the most active and expressed a form of emotion, but the cold and cynical standpoint Kubrick used in his pictures expressed a darker form of filmmaking. I think this is why Kubrick gets the darker subjects in his movies so well, because he eradicates the feelings in his way of filming. Even though Kubrick is my favorite filmmaker, they both mastered their own themes in their films.
very true ,i think kubrick was kinda a more technically oriented filmmaker while tarkovsky was a painter ,he could paint life on a screen using images and therefore his movies evoke more emotions .some of kubricks films can even be described as cold and distant emotionally
I don't think his films don't have emotion, i think he experiences emotion a different way
@@vanbeet5105 "some of kubricks films can even be described as cold and distant emotionally" that shows you dont understand Kubrick.... re watch his movies buy the books maybe it helps to understand them... a hint he was a fotoreporter...
All I'll say is that 2001 made me cry about the death of an AWOL robot.
@@Heisenberg882 You are right!!!!!
MUSIC:
"ON THE NATURE OF DAYLIGHT" BY MAX RITCHER
Thank you!
Thank you ♥️✨🙌🏻
Thank you
Ivan’s Childhood, Tarkovsky’s first film is one of the most raw depictions of the true Soviet experience of WW2
Don't forget Come and See.
@@TheButterMinecart1 Come and see is an excellent movie but extremely hard to watch. Reality can be awful and we cant forget that awfulness. It is free on RUclips
@@rusitoexplorador one thing about come and see is that to non-Russian speakers, it can be complete nonsense. I can't picture what it would be like to view it from an English monolingual perspective, but the way the scenes change, the way the drama is displayed, the camerawork, and the psychedelic nature of the film probably make it seem like some senseless melodramatic montage to people who aren't fluent in its language.
Picture a non-English speaker listening to late Bob Dylan. The voice perfectly fits the music and we wouldn't have it any other way, but to someone who doesn't understand English it would likely sound like a lawnmower playing over a guitar track.
@Stringer bell different kind of film, Come and See is an excellent depiction of the sickening brutality of war, but relies mostly on shock value and scarring the viewer into remembering it, still a great film but other films (Schindler’s list) do it better.
Ivan’s Childhood depicts it from the perspective of someone who doesn’t really understand what is happening and thus it makes it much more authentic and chilling to watch because the audience is in the same shoes as the characters.
You want to watch war at its worst? Watch come and see
You want to try and come to grips with understanding what it was like experiencing it? Watch Ivan’s childhood
Bergman on Tarkovsky: "Tarkovsky is for me the greatest, the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream".
Bergman on John Ford: He is the best director in the world...
USA had Kubrick,URSS had Traikovsky and we had two of the best directors of all time.
Tarskovsky hated ussr
@@vinceblanz5917говорю тебе как русский, ты ошибаешься
UK had Kubrick 😊
Its truly a gift to be alive and able to appreciate these behemoths of cinema and their works
Behemoth lmao
Both directors are representative of a master class in film and cinematography. Really goes to show how great cinema and technique transcend time. Truly classic works.
1:08 what a brilliant fucking shot from Tarkovsky
1:53 This boy character's fade to black is the one of the most amazing things in cinema I ever see...
This is also most psychedelic and trippy movie about a war i ever see..
What's is the name?
@@victorsilveira1028 Ivan’s Childhood (1962)
tarkovsky existential genius, kubrick comercial
Been seeing Max Richter's music pop up on these kinds of videos lately. He's such a genius and his music complements Kubrick and Tarkovsky's visual virtuosity so well
I think this goes for all of their respective works, but nowhere is it more clear than in the distinction between Kubrick's 2001: A Space Oddysey and Tarkovsky's Solaris. Kubrick's work is art attempting to transcend what makes us human, whereas in Tarkovsky's work, our authentic selves are ever present. In 2001's ending, the main character triumphantly moves beyond the human condition, while in Solaris, both the incomprehensible planet and the derelict space station orbiting are used as evidence that, no matter how far we've come, or how far we go, we bring our humanity with us.
*I am extremely grateful for both of these geniuses, I wish we had more directors like these two*
There are lots of them. Trier or Bergman for example
Bergman, bela tarr, terrence malick, Martin scorsese,Charlie chaplin, godard, carl theodor, theo angelopoulos, nuri bilge, lars, fellini, akira kurasowa,hitchcock, Paul Thomas anderson , David lynch,peter greenaway, orson welles , mizoguchi, ozu, buster keaton , John cassavets , abbaye kariostami , kieslowski, wong kar wai .... enough?
Love this, Tarkovsky is my favourite filmmaker, his work is visual poetry, so rich in depth, texture and nuance that it truly effects me every time I watch his films.
I think both are legendary directors that won't ever be forgotten.
I'm addicted to Kubrick's style of filmmaking; his films are almost void of human life/emotion, I love how it's presented with ravishing stills and breathtaking tracking shots, he also integrates the shadow of humanity better than anyone who ever did it.
Gene Berrocal That's what I like about him.
Kubrick was a technician, Tarkovsky was a poet
wrong! Kubrick was a poet too! he just didnt like to film same things /meaning over and over again ( I think he was one that was getting bored very easily)he always wanted to change and challenge himself with new movies/ideas he (re)invented many topics/genre in his movies..
Funny that this should be taken only one way. I'm currently reading The Expanse series, a practical look at near future space habitation, and it's introduced me to many scenarios where calling someone a poet would be a way of politely designating them a well-natured dreamy figure of insignifance. It's technicians who solve problems and save lives when we have to rely on technology, without credit or any kind of personal catharsis at the end of it.
Nothing specific to Kubrick or Tarkovsky, but just a general inversion to consider.
Shame on you
@Great Destroyer Fun thing, that's only your opinion and you can't categorically say technicians don't solve problems, especially when I specifically mentioned ones "involving technology." It's a point of view to consider, unlike your assertion of fact here. Your "problems of the soul" won't matter one bit when psychical needs aren't taken care of.
I also at no point claimed technicians did help with those kinds of problems. One is no more important than the other, though certain people prefer the idea of one over the other.
@Great Destroyer Hey thanks for the civil reply. I appreciate the arguments you're making for problems of the soul. I just meant to tackle _how_ important both kinds of problems were, where you were arguing _why_ your preferred kind are important. That's why the critique of your technique. Tbh, I have no problem with most of what you've said, just the first part where you said, "that's not true." If you look at my first post, I never asserted something as true, just offered an alternate viewpoint.
These two man has reached a level that no one could possibly imagine in cinematics.
Both for me, capture the distance, the endlessness, closeness, unreachable, exciting, and unexplainable longing of life.
Both expected so much from themselves as artists and both reward repeated viewers in ways only high art can deliver. They are the Twains, the Tolstoys of their medium.
Brilliantly done! You just let the pictures say it all. I find Kubrick more scientific, philosophical, intelectual, and Tarkovsky is so more methapysical, artistic and emotional. They are both so deep in there movies and scenes, but I find that in the Kubricks movies man of a gruops of people are basicly so alone, violent, bored, desperate and hopeless. In the Tarkovsky's film there is always someone, or something near the man or the group, people are never alone, there is always someone ore something to comfort them. So, for me, Kubrick is a deep analysis of the mind, and Tarkovsky is a profound meditaion of the heart.
Happy birthday, Mr. Kubrick! He would've only been 89 if he were alive today...
That video was beautiful❤
Thank you😍
Tarkovsky's color correction is something unique. only he knew how to show dull colors so rich and expressive.
Tarkovsky is on his own level. For sheer force of creative vision I don’t know anyone as capable.
Great combinations.
I've seen all of Kubrick's, but just watched "Stalker", and was blown away. I can't wait to check out his other films.
Watch Andrei Rublev
Mirror is pure beauty
very true
I say this with no negativity intended, but Stalker ruined my perception of film; nothing compares to it.
@@user-og6hl6lv7p indeed, stalker feels like watching a nightmare from open eyes of some far distant dystopian world with a high fever
I haven't watched all of their movies, but this montage stroke my heart.
I love these directors so much. Both are very different but both are the best.
Как же здорово быть частью искусства , особенно настоящее искусства .. )
2 of my favorite directors with music by one of my favorite composers.
tell me the melody that plays in the background please
I don't know what it is but Tarkovsky's frames are always so aesthetically pleasing. For example, the burning house scene, the characters are positiones just right to make you feel. What you are feeling is unknown, but the emotions are undeniable. Tarkovsky also lets you wander inspide his frames. They seem paintings. Now with Kubrick there is more tension in each frame; things seem more wound up, almost neurotic and precise. The direction is a lot more clearer. You don' get lost much and if you do, you find your way back to the point. They are both great, but in their own way.
Such nicely said... i remember that in Stalker there is a scene where we are being shown a lake (in black & white) which is basically surrounded by industrial garbages all around when you look closely at it but the feeling you get while watching the movie is something heavenly.. I just cannot imagine how someone with a movie camera and limited editing capabilities can do such magic on frames
Like honestly I am not much aligned to the themes and concepts which Tarkovsky depicted through his movies but still he remains my favourite director of all times probably just because of the aesthetic & emotional factor you mentioned
Thank you for this beautiful video. Kubric shows a picture that can you feel, Tarkovsky makes you feel directly, he gives pure and strong emotions, I found more soul in his movies. Both masters are great and deep, but Tarkovsky is closer to my feelings.
Seen Solaris aswel now,both stalker and Solaris are a masterpiece.ive bought his other 5. I know I will like them.i love the pace of his films( other films seem to fast and watered down now I've seen these. the silence of them,the sounds of water,creaks,fire, is so calming.i also like the Russian language.cant wait to watch the other 5. I like watching them on my own.just an amazing experience so far.im not an 'arty' person either.but I know quality when I see or hear it.before I watched them I flicked through videos and thought they looked boring.now I understand them,it's not a gimmick,so far I'm amazed by them.there long but I'm never bored and don't want them to finish.the journey of these films is the experience for me,not the arrival.glad I've found these
Kubrick shows us the chaos of hubris and self-loathing of men and of each other. Tarkovsky seeks the poetry in the chaos and finds shards of hope where sometimes there seems to be little to be found. They equally provide insight into the brutality and beauty of men.
I would say Tarkovskij's movies are maybe the most involved I've ever seen.
Andrei is a little better, considering his choice of location in full consideration of the time of the scenes, and considering that he showed his mastery with a lower budget than that of Kubrik.
These two were decent, but uwe boll is in a league of his own. Literally cannot be compared considering he even changed laws with his movies.
Eric Kim I thought I was the only one who appreciated the true beauty of House Of The Dead
Yes Postal is a true satirical and masterfully crafted look on the American dream
Damn i actually looked him up after reading your comment. Wasted 5 minutes of my life
Habahahha good one duuuude
Stanley Kubrick he shows us the duality of mankind how were always fighting over something while Andrie Tokovsky shows us the beauty to mankind how we can always admire lives beauty now this my interpretation of my two favorite directors
It so beatiful, this is a real art, I'm crying
I think Kubrick is quite possibly the greatest director ever, but i simply could not take my eyes away from the right hand side of the screen
I don't like the idea of taking sides with this, declaring X is better than Y!! ect ect doesn't do this justice really, Kubrick and Tarkovsky were both visionaries, Kubrick was nearly mechanical in his search for the perfect shot, he created beautiful compositions which are tangible and striking, just look at films like Barry Lyndon every frame in that looks like a classical painting. On the other hand, Tarkovsky created subtle and naturalistic compositions, his camera drifted and lingered and gave films like Stalker a dreamlike and hauntingly beautiful atmosphere. A video like this shouldn't be about declaring one as better, it simply highlights the similarities and differences between the work of two cinematic geniuses
Jules Yo I agree. It's not a competition.
Thank you
"Best" equals "my favorite", nothing more, nothing less.
Yes, God forbid we have an opinion....................on youtube.
Jules Yo THANK YOU UGH
Both were auteurs, and should be celebrated for their unique cinematic visions. Debating who is better is pointless subjective masturbation and only dilutes and detracts from their lifetime of work.
Best comment on this video.
Thank you! The Odyssey / Solaris was so much needed!
They come from two different cultures but are not influenced by their cutltures. They have their own way to show a story. However if you give them excatly the same scenario same actors same sets same production designers they will show you 2 different movies, and above all, you will feel two different things. They make you feel the emotion they want. They are masters of their masterpieces and it’s a hard work
I've just realized that there is still much to Learn about movies.
Kubrick - is like a great psychologist who is fascinated by what humans are thinking or do what we do he sees the banality of humanity
Tarkovsky- is a great painter who's fascinated by our imagination and our raw emotions he sees the beauty in humanity
This is not the "VS". This is looking to "same thing" from "different direction".
It's extremely difficult to explain why an image is beautiful. But these ones are truly magnificent beyond any reasonable doubt.
Kubrick is interested in the meaning of the image. Tarkosky is interested in the emotion of the image
because it has no meaning
WOW, I loved every second of this. Seriously.
My two favorite movie directors! Thanks for this beautiful video!
I seriously think that this video, out of all the videos I’ve seen, that this is the best one I’ve ever seen on RUclips.
No joke, this video is just perfect and beautiful.