>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.
2001 was based on a book Kubrick didn't actually contribute anything artistically
Robert Gray
I mean in the literary sense You could call it visual art
Jose Baker
you might be onto something there...
wtf, yes he did
Jayden Hall
>literal first comment in a thread about Tarkovsky and Kubrick
Jonathan Hill
e m o t i o n m o t i o n
Oliver Powell
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?
Adam Russell
The book and film were created simultaneously alongside each other.
Noah Russell
Moron
Sebastian Perez
Book was created as a reaction to the screenplay.
Solaris is also a book. As is Ivan's Childhood. As is Stalker.
Zachary Walker
Kek you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Charles Hernandez
Don't get baited fellas, move along.
Parker Cruz
>that's not how I would have done it therefore Kubrick is a hack Why is Andrei such a self-important faggot?
Zachary Diaz
they were both based on short stories by Aurthur C. Clarke He's the sole author of the story
Nathan Miller
slavs are like that
Hunter Hill
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
Matthew Sanders
>Also Russians in general do everything better than anyone else.
Tru dat, Chernobyl will never be topped
Jackson Gomez
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.
Jacob Anderson
t. Ivan Ivanovitch Ivanovsky
Jaxon Robinson
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.
Josiah Morris
holy shit tarkovsky thread
Adrian Green
>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?
Kevin Howard
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.
Jaxon Scott
I would rather suck the farts out of Clooney's ass than have to sit through another Tarkovsky abomination.
Elijah Walker
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
Luis King
ok
Evan Stewart
Kubrick films have no soul
Clockwork, Barry Lyndon, 2001, fmj, even Dr strangelove
These movies don't really connect in any legitimate emotional sense
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.
William Perez
One of the few ones I haven't seen
Easton Bailey
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.
Elijah Mitchell
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
Sebastian Thomas
>I'm a pleb
That's all you had to say user
Aaron Reed
faggot
Andrew Roberts
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.
Nicholas Perez
tasteless faggot
Carter Davis
b-but Putin is a god r-right?
Caleb Young
>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.
Joshua Torres
au contraire my boy, I bet you there would be a cacophony of stimulation for every one of the senses
Jack Hill
/thread
Ayden Collins
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.
Brandon Gonzalez
>i don't understand art >therefore it must be shit ok
Colton Stewart
shit... I can't be mad with you
Charles Edwards
Tarkovsky is a smidge overrated. Kubrick is really overrated. Both pretty good though.
Grayson Lopez
>Sup Forums is garbage Wow, I'm so shocked.
Connor Taylor
>without being pretentious
DUDE GIANT BABY LMAO
Ethan Jenkins
nihilism is for teenagers or immature adults
Nathaniel Gonzalez
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.
Blake Hall
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
Leo Stewart
Yeah, ok, that still doesn't mean the work is bad. It just means you disagree with nihilists.
Liam Smith
This
Bentley Wilson
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.
Carson Martinez
2001 is literally the Batman v Superman of the 60s
Elijah Jenkins
>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.
Easton Howard
only if you are a lazy piece of shit
Chase Edwards
Go back to fucking children in Hell, Arthur
Camden Ward
>2001 is hardly human, and it's nihilistic as fuck It's transhumanist, by definition it's not human
Justin Watson
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
Brody Diaz
;(
Justin Green
>transhumanism means becoming an emotionless robot
Go back to your comic books and star trek DVDs if you think that makes the film good
Ryder Young
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
Jason Young
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
Aaron Jenkins
Are you suggesting that technology hasn't stunted us emotionally as a species?
Aaron Howard
cheeki breeki cyka blyat
Sebastian Campbell
Aren't you late for your liberal arts major class or something
Henry Davis
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
Jonathan Ross
He's just salty because Kubrick was first to put a man on the moon.
Jonathan Anderson
That's what I mean by stunted. Or do you think people actually scream at their computer screens while typing in all caps?
Asher Ward
All that's changed is the way people express it
Parker Myers
I'm a mathematician
Christopher Sullivan
Tarkovsky > Spielberg > Kubrick
Isaac Gray
Yes. Stunted.
Oliver Peterson
>Spielberg > Kubrick ok, i'm out
Nathaniel Reed
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
Joseph Rogers
How do you know Dave wasn't shitposting on HAL?
Ethan Collins
I laugh out loud at classic bane posts
Gavin Perry
The Complete Tarkovsky Criterion Collection Box Set When?
Landon Wood
Spielberg movies are much more emotionally mature. Kubrick has no interest in humans
Nolan Brown
Wasted Dubs
Sebastian Foster
Only women care about emotions
James Russell
Spielberg gets too melodramatic for my taste. It almost ruined his last good movie 'Munich'
Chase Perry
>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.
Evan King
>Criterion Yikes Artificial Eye is hookin it up
Robert Morris
Tarkovsky himself said that Spielberg doesn't actually make films.
Parker Ortiz
Tarkovsky also said the water was fine, the whole crew should swim in it
Oliver Gonzalez
>lifeless schema with only pretensions to truth
golly what insipid dialectic
John Hall
ebin my friend
Blake Mitchell
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
Ryan Hernandez
>internet psychology
Lincoln Russell
I didn't finish my point, I was about to say you probably are as faggit as tarkosvky
Landon Moore
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
Xavier Lee
>but honestly now that i'm a grown up now >t. 18 year old
Angel Mitchell
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
Dylan Cruz
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
Levi Fisher
STORY* JESUS CHRIST
Michael Brooks
>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.
Brandon Perez
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
David Perez
Убиpaйcя oтcюдa, CTAЛКEP
Matthew Howard
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