The Russian auteur [Tarkovsky] indicts what he sees as 2001‘s lack of emotional truth due to its excessive...

>The Russian auteur [Tarkovsky] indicts what he sees as 2001‘s lack of emotional truth due to its excessive technological invention, effectively declaring that, in his own foray into the realm of science-fiction, “everything would be as it should. That means to create psychologically, not an exotic but a real, everyday environment that would be conveyed to the viewer through the perception of the film’s characters. That’s why a detailed ‘examination’ of the technological processes of the future transforms the emotional foundation of a film, as a work of art, into a lifeless schema with only pretensions to truth.
openculture.com/2015/07/andrei-tarkovsky-calls-kubricks-2001-a-space-odyssey-a-phony-film-with-only-pretensions-to-truth.html
Tarkovsky was jealous

Solaris was a weaker film even though it was more claustrophobically human, as Tarkovsky would have wanted, but 2001 transcends the human condition in its escape into the unknown whilst still pinioning itself to the human condition; it does this in a beautiful way without being pretentious. It asks the right questions, and asks the questions any person up from age 8 would ask. Solaris isn't as grand or epic as 2001 was, that's what it missed, but it compensated its lack of magnificence with its dive into a character's psyche and longing.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=pJH8hO7VlWE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>Kubrick
Marvel
>Tarkovsky
DC

2001 was based on a book
Kubrick didn't actually contribute anything artistically

I mean in the literary sense
You could call it visual art

you might be onto something there...

wtf, yes he did

>literal first comment in a thread about Tarkovsky and Kubrick

e m o t i o n
m
o
t
i
o
n

you're a goddamn fucking retard. what the hell kind of logic is that/ what is the point of adaptations at all then? is it only a significant artistic contribution if it can fall under the category of best original screenplay at the oscars then?

The book and film were created simultaneously alongside each other.

Moron

Book was created as a reaction to the screenplay.

Solaris is also a book. As is Ivan's Childhood. As is Stalker.

Kek you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Don't get baited fellas, move along.

>that's not how I would have done it therefore Kubrick is a hack
Why is Andrei such a self-important faggot?

they were both based on short stories by Aurthur C. Clarke
He's the sole author of the story

slavs are like that

You're out of your fucking mind. Solaris was clearly the better film.

Also Russians in general do everything better than anyone else. This is fact desu

>Also Russians in general do everything better than anyone else.

Tru dat, Chernobyl will never be topped

Soderbergh's is a better film, desu.

I won't say it's a better adaptation of the source material because I'm sure it's not. But as a film it works a hell of a lot better than Tarko's does.

t. Ivan Ivanovitch Ivanovsky

Kubrick wrote a script based on the Sentinel, then Clarke wrote 2001 based on that script, which was further developed based on ideas from the book, as they were written simultaneously.

holy shit tarkovsky thread

>Soderbergh's is a better film, desu.
>I enjoyed staring at George Clooney's bare ass instead of Tarkovsky beautiful and poignant works of art in every shot
You realize how gay you sound right now?

lol dude no, i live in russia and most of things (including vodka) are of inferiour quality compared to other 1st world countries. i'm talking about electronics, cars, food, FILMS, everything. i mean modern films not soviet.

I would rather suck the farts out of Clooney's ass than have to sit through another Tarkovsky abomination.

He's right

2001 is hardly human, and it's nihilistic as fuck

Overrated, although a great technical achievement, the kind of people that are infatuated with it and Kubrick are the same kind to love fincher and other shitty movies like Ex Machina


I didn't like Solaris so much though, I need to rewatch it

>but 2001 transcends the human condition in its escape into the unknown whilst still pinioning itself to the human condition; it does this in a beautiful way without being pretentious. It asks the right questions, and asks the questions any person up from age 8 would ask


What a bunch of made up bullshit

ok

Kubrick films have no soul


Clockwork, Barry Lyndon, 2001, fmj, even Dr strangelove

These movies don't really connect in any legitimate emotional sense

b-b-but the ending of Paths of Glory!
youtube.com/watch?v=pJH8hO7VlWE

Solaris was complete fucking garbage

I like a few of his films, but seriously Solaris is without a doubt one of the worst films I've ever watched. No bait, no hyperbole. I honestly think it's a piece of shit.

One of the few ones I haven't seen

As I understand it, 2001: A Space Odyssey the film was written by Kubrick, with Clarke. 2001: A Space Odyssey the book was written by Clarke, with Kubrick.

Tarkovsky was a pretentious retard who produced nothing but obscure snoozefests open to interpretation, at least Kubrick's films had some decent plot and pacing going for them and followed some basic filmmaking rules which Tardkofksy just shat all over because DUDE IT'S HIGH ART hipsterism lmao

>I'm a pleb

That's all you had to say user

faggot

Modern Russian cinema has some gold nuggets though. About the same rate as Hollywood I would say. Also, all Vodka is garbage. All clear booze is. Well, except for real 96.

tasteless faggot

b-but Putin is a god r-right?

>2001 is hardly human, and it's nihilistic as fuck
How is that a valid criticism? The fact that you disagree with the philosophical tone of a movie, doesn't mean it's bad.

au contraire my boy, I bet you there would be a cacophony of stimulation for every one of the senses

/thread

I can't believe that even in a thread about comparing Kubrick and Tartovsky and their forays into science fiction the first comment is still about fucking capeshit. I hate this board.

>i don't understand art
>therefore it must be shit
ok

shit... I can't be mad with you

Tarkovsky is a smidge overrated. Kubrick is really overrated. Both pretty good though.

>Sup Forums is garbage
Wow, I'm so shocked.

>without being pretentious

DUDE GIANT BABY LMAO

nihilism is for teenagers or immature adults

I really don't think Kubrick is overrated, but I can understand that people feel that way considering how every doop on the planet claims he's their favourite director.

It's not the philosophical tone

It's the fact that I can't connect with the film, doesn't make me feel much emotion besides awe, which is the same way I'd react to fireworks

None of the characters matter, kubrick just depicts everything as cold and lifeless the entire movie

The audience is supposed to feel intelligent because of all his subtleties and other bullcrap for the sake of it being written

People tout that the film says so much, but really it says nothing about how Kubrick really feels

Yeah, ok, that still doesn't mean the work is bad. It just means you disagree with nihilists.

This

2001 is a good movie, but I don't like it's very static cinematography. It feels like it was filmed by a robot. Maybe that was on purpose.

2001 is literally the Batman v Superman of the 60s

>It's the fact that I can't connect with the film, doesn't make me feel much emotion besides awe
Ok, so you are unable to connect with Kubricks work personally. Doesn't mean that Kubricks work is "soulless" or without personal touch and human emotion or whatever. It just means you don't agree with how Kubrick sees life, or the universe.
>but really it says nothing about how Kubrick really feels
How so? Maybe it does. Maybe Kubrick felt that existence was inherently neutral and cold.

only if you are a lazy piece of shit

Go back to fucking children in Hell, Arthur

>2001 is hardly human, and it's nihilistic as fuck
It's transhumanist, by definition it's not human

Quite autistic then

And unrealistic, because he projects his own warped view of reality onto others

And where's the value in the film then? What's so profound about it? Because he just takes the cheap copout of the ambiguous star baby at the end and ultimately concludes with nada

Might as well call it arthouse


I enjoy it technically, and cause it seems vaguely interesting and mysterious


I don't act like it's the greatest film of all time though, because 1) it's idiotic to objectively rank films and 2) it wouldn't even be close

;(

>transhumanism means becoming an emotionless robot

Go back to your comic books and star trek DVDs if you think that makes the film good

Kubricks blatant nihilism is the whole point of these movies. Most of his characters face anxiety and hardships because there is no emotion and they view life as meaningless.
Call it childish or whatever, but kubrick executed this excellently with his focus on technological aspects of his films rather than on the interactions between characters
Adding emotional depth would only undermine his themes imo

modern russian films are only watched by complete idiots, i haven't seen a russian film after childhood. there could possibly be good art house russian films but it's not like i feel to go and try to find a rare gem. soviet films are good tho, not all of course.
he's a good president, we live peacefully and the quality of live only increases, otherwise i'm not interested in politics

Are you suggesting that technology hasn't stunted us emotionally as a species?

cheeki breeki cyka blyat

Aren't you late for your liberal arts major class or something

It hasn't

Just go to any YouTube video and read the comments

People feel as many emotions as ever, and the ones that don't are better suited to finding help and empathy through it

Hell most Sup Forums users get their sense of emotional interaction by the communal sense of posting sad pepes and greentexts

He's just salty because Kubrick was first to put a man on the moon.

That's what I mean by stunted. Or do you think people actually scream at their computer screens while typing in all caps?

All that's changed is the way people express it

I'm a mathematician

Tarkovsky > Spielberg > Kubrick

Yes. Stunted.

>Spielberg > Kubrick
ok, i'm out

No, because the people in 2001 don't express it at all, they're robots,

People aren't becoming robots. That's a silly black and white fallacy

How do you know Dave wasn't shitposting on HAL?

I laugh out loud at classic bane posts

The Complete Tarkovsky Criterion Collection Box Set When?

Spielberg movies are much more emotionally mature. Kubrick has no interest in humans

Wasted Dubs

Only women care about emotions

Spielberg gets too melodramatic for my taste. It almost ruined his last good movie 'Munich'

>And unrealistic, because he projects his own warped view of reality onto others
But what if life and everything really is this empty and stale? And shouldn't you praise him for making a film that is so empty, yet due to the technical aspects, the camerawork and the music and so on, still makes you feel that "awe" as you said?
>And where's the value in the film then?
What if that quiet emty feeling makes some people feel comfortable or at peace? Like theres no rush, like they're in controll, due to the quiet state of it all.
>What's so profound about it?
Is saying that there's a loving god and that evrything is beutiful and perfect and so on more profound, just because? I'm not comparing it to Solaris by the way.
>Because he just takes the cheap copout of the ambiguous star baby at the end and ultimately concludes with nada
I don't think that it was all that it was all that ambigous and without conclusion. I always took it as a metaphor for how we're in the end in controll of our own life and actions, and that it is up to us to find the knowledga and answers we seek.
I don't act like it's the greatest film of all >time though, because 1) it's idiotic to objectively rank films
Yeah, I agree with that.
>2) it wouldn't even be close
Sort of pointless to say that, having said what you just said.

>Criterion
Yikes
Artificial Eye is hookin it up

Tarkovsky himself said that Spielberg doesn't actually make films.

Tarkovsky also said the water was fine, the whole crew should swim in it

>lifeless schema with only pretensions to truth

golly what insipid dialectic

ebin my friend

Kubrick is a ISTP, a no nonsense guy, probably masturbates over the quality of the lenses of his cameras or the expenditure in furniture for the movies

while Tarkosvky is a INFJ, a total emotional faggot

>internet psychology

I didn't finish my point, I was about to say you probably are as faggit as tarkosvky

I used to think tarkovsky wasn't a hack but honestly i'm a grown up now and i think he is a total pretentious bag of shit

he has some nice takes and scene-making but that's is

>but honestly now that i'm a grown up now
>t. 18 year old

Seems like you missed my points


I'm on my phone so I'll just say this, many other people have expressed the anguish of nihilism much better and in a way that actually connects emotionally than in this film


I used to be crazy about it like you too but now I'm a bit more moderate towards it

Oh yeah, we know it's much easier to show nihilism if you create a history where the bad guy gets the girl and the nerd gets bullied to hell and he never recovers, you prob would cry viewing that shit, but that doesn't mean it's a good film

STORY* JESUS CHRIST

>I used to be crazy about it like you too
I wouldn't say I'm crazy about it... I do love ot though.
Maybe I missed some of your points, it's just that I feel you like were criticising the film based on the fact that you hold different philosophical beliefs than Kubrick.

You're saying that's like the only redeeming factor of the film besides the technicalities, and it sucks at it


Tarkovsky's The Mirror uses a variety of technical maneuvers in a nonlinear fashion to give the viewer a poignant stream of consciousness experience, including his own father's poetry after having been involved in world war 2 and whatever


That's much more interesting that 2001's bland, colorless tone

Agree to disagree or whatever

Убиpaйcя oтcюдa, CTAЛКEP

Yeah, the philosophy should play a role in your overall opinion of a movie though


Especially with all the misleading liberal trash in film today

The intentions are important and what the film conveys, some are founded are truth and do certain subjects justice, others choose cheap emotionally aimed junk intended to incite unchecked emotion

I just can't enjoy a film very much anymore beyond entertainment that doesn't do it in a decent way

I do like 2001 though