I dont´t agree, because in Kubrick filmes always exist a certain distance in the emotions.
Tarkovsky is a very emocional director...
But boths are Masters!!
i disagree, kubrick films are very emotional.
i think that kubrick and tarkovsky are the two greatest directors, but ive never really compared them.
Gio
The question you ask is an interesting one.I have always thought that both
Tarkovsky and Kubrick are the best ever directors but I struggle trying to
commit and say one is better than the other.
If I was stranded on a desert Island and had a dvd player! but could only have the complete works of one of the directors then I think my decision would see me
taking Tarkovsky's work on the basis that his films are more complex and need more thought plus the fact you see something new every time you watch his films
although I feel that overall,Kubricks films are more accesible, more entertaining and most are landmarks of cinema.
Both are geniuses - it IS difficult to compare them and their films.
I would love to know if there are any published comments from either of them about each other and their work, probably not!.
Ultimately it is impossible to compare them, suffice to say they are both my favourite directors.
How tragic that we will never see another work from either of them again.
A great loss to the art of film.
Best wishes
Dave Webb
Kinver, UK
Don't cast shame on Tarkovsky by adressing him as the Russian Kubrick... Tarkovsky is not simillar in any way.
sharethat's a bit harsh!!! to compare ANYONE to Kubrick is hardly an insult! i think there are some similarities between the two masters, not least their master status! i guess the comparisons came to a head with Solaris, which was always refered to as a Russian 2001. i think that is a little unfair, because Solaris compares very unfavourably to 2001 . the first hour or so of Solaris is astounding, but it soon disintegrates into some neo-Oedipal fable - it makes me very nearly physically sick to see Tarkovsky genuflect so egregiously to what can only really be interpreted as a pro-Stalin/bureaucratic symbol - Daddy was right all along!
both directors also started out reinventing the genre pic - Ivan's Childhood begins as genre material, and as with Kubrick it is the uniquness of the vision that makes it transcend that description. the main difference between the two directors is to my mind a difference of outlook and conclusion - Tarkovsky never abandons his humanity, Kubrick always was a misanthropic nihilist. [although that may sound like a criticism it isn't - it's just he was always true to a very negative view of human 'nature' - 'man is an ignoble savage' etc]
the most stunning thing about Tarkovsky, and what ultimately separates him from almost all other directors, is that his films tend to happen in your own head - he allows one to contemplate whilst watching some of the most beautiful images ever committed to film - what we contemplate is our own lives and attitudes to the world. Kubrick comes off badly when compared to almost all of Tarkovsky's 'contemplation' films. if one compares, say, Barry Lyndon to, say, Nostalghia, Kubrick comes out as little more than a soul-less technician. both films are full of astonishing beauty, but only one of them leaves you feeling you still have something to live for! there is nothing as incredible as Stalker in Kubrick's ouevre - Stalker is perhaps the most important film for low-budget film makers ever made because many of the scenes could be shot in your back garden - they tell you what to put in a film - ie a brain! Tarkovsky asks us to suspend disbelief to allow ourselves to see more clearly - his films are about faith, 'vera'city, truth, a personal truth that can only ever be hinted at because it is unique for everyone who tries to find it.
comparison is an odious device. both masters made some of the greatest films in the artform's history. Kubrick's 'future trilogy' of Strangelove, 2001 and Clockwork Orange are just about as good as film gets. Stalker, Ivan, Nostalghia & Andrei Rublev are worthy opponents, if opposition is in any way useful. i'm just grateful both of them made such amazing films. and let's face it both made dissatisfactory final films. i can't stand The Sacrifice, and Eyes Wide Shut is just a joke without a punchline! [that should put the cat amongst the pigeons :oD] love and light ade xxx
Tarkovsky's the man! Kubrick's just a boy.
shareAdex,
I like what you had to say about the Tarkovsky/Kubrick comparison but why in the world are you accusing Tarkovsky of genuflecting "so egregiously to what can only really be interpreted as a pro-Stalin/bureaucratic symbol"? Tarkovsky was never interested in putting forth definitive or exhaustive interpretations in his work, in fact he intensely disliked this tendency in filmmakers. So to say it "can only really be interpreted" in any way is to completely miss the point. Secondly, Tarkovsky was interested only in man, particularly in the inner life of man or his poetic reality. To say Tarkovsky is making a political statement at the end of "Solaris" is to reduce his work to a state of mind that Tarkovsky, according to his own writings, was far beyond and in fact could never serve as a starting point for any true work of art. You obviously have a great appreciation for Tarkovsky's films and that is why I am baffled by your viewpoint.
I would say Tarkovsky, Kubrick and Kurasawa are like the daddies of cinema, each providing a different angle and as such, i wouldnt want to pick who is better.
One idea ive had of working this out if to directly compare films based on when they were made and the subject matter.
1. Ivan's Childhood (1962) vs. Paths of Glory (1957)
2. Andrei Rublev (1969) vs. Dr. Strangelove (1964)
3. Solaris (1972) vs. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
4. The Mirror (1975) vs. A Clockwork Orange (1971)
5. Stalker (1979) vs. Barry Lyndon (1975)
6. Nostalgia (1983) vs. The Shining (1980)
7. The Sacrifice (1986) vs. Full Metal Jacket (1987)
My View
1. Ivan's Childhood - Only slightly better. Two different styles of war film, both reinventing the genre, but Ivan's Childhood is better visually.
2. Dr Strangelove - Again only slightly, these are 2 heavy weights of film.
3. A very compareable battle, but having not seen Solaris, i cant comment.
4. The Mirror - Its really tough, i love Clockwork, but The Mirror is the most genius film of all time IMO.
5. Barry Lyndon - its underrated and Stalker is a great film but can be a little dull in parts.
6. The Shining - I saw Nostalgia a couple of days ago and not sure i fully 'get it' yet, although i know its clever. I'm gonna give it to The Shining for now.
7. The Sacrfice - it was brilliant and dealt with the subject of war in a very different way. Consistency wins it for The Sacrifice.
That makes it 3-3 until i see Solaris. Note this leaves out Lolita, Spartacus and Eyes Wide Shut.
"- it makes me very nearly physically sick to see Tarkovsky genuflect so egregiously to what can only really be interpreted as a pro-Stalin/bureaucratic symbol - Daddy was right all along!"
It is a somewhat daddy was right conclusion (although it doesn't feel like it), but not in a way you interpret it. The "daddy" in Tarkovsky's mind is rather God than Stalin. Notice the total difference?
~~~~~~
Well, I once read that Tarkovsky disliked 2001; he felt it was too cold and lacking of emotions,...
shareKubrick is more entertaining, much more accessible. Thats why everybody knows Kubrick, while Tarkowsky has a much smaller group of people that appreciate him. But they are both great and they used to admire each other.
sharedo you happen, by chance, to have anything by any of the two regarding the other's work? it'd be greatly appreciated if you did.
shareI seem to remember reading that Tarkovsky found 2001 emotionally cold (which it is) for which reason he didn't like it (although this isn't a problem for me). I think he felt compelled to comment on 2001 as, on its release, Solaris was endlessly compared to it. I'd be interested to know what he would have made of Barry Lyndon.
As regards the overall discussion, it seems a little pointless. Kubrick was a master, and had great versatility, which isn't a quality that I'd associate with Tarkovsky (in spite of the fact that he worked in several identifiable genres, Tarkovsky's themes are consistent throughout). Kubrick could move into whatever genre he chose and produce the consumate masterpiece.
But Tarkovsky is unique. No one else comes close to the singularity of his vision. Mirror is as close as cinema has ever come to pure poetry, and affects me like no other film.
So let's celebrate them as unique talents: comparing them is about as fruitful as arguing over whether Michelangelo or Bach was the better artist.
Well said.
Tarkovsky is Tarkovsky; Kubrick is Kubrick.
To me, Kubrick did more comedy. IMO all his films have elements of comedyy, irony, etc. Even Barry Lyndon is to my a lot of the time comedic. But Tarkovsky is personal, medetative, reflective, spiritual.
I would agree that they are both brilliant and great directors on both two of the great filmmakers form their respective countrys. So i think the are completely different people but both of my favotie diretors.
[deleted]
They have so very little in common. Rewatch their films, or give up on cinema.
shareKubrick is a very pail imitation compared to Tarkovsky!!!
share"Kubrick is a very pail imitation compared to Tarkovsky!!!"
If only Tarkovsky had learnt what the editing suite was for, instead of trying to use up as much film in one shot as possible.
[deleted]
Andrei Rublev,Tarkovsky's best, rates above anything out out by Kubrick, except maybe Dr . Interesting that more people mention The Mirror which I think is too personal, cinema isn't a good medium for that kind of poetry.
shareKubrick had a sense of humour.
Tarkovsky almost certainly did not. He took two books which were science fiction satires - Solaris and Roadside Picnic (aka "Stalker") - and transformed them into something else. In the case of Solaris it works, IMHO, and becomes something new and incredible, but in the case of Stalker (Roadside Picnic) it loses all of its being.
[deleted]
"The Artist has a duty to be calm. He has no right to show his emotion, his involvement, to go pouring it all out at the audience. Any excitement over a subject must be sublimated into an Olympian calm of form. That is the only way in which an artist can tell of the things that excite him".
- Andrey Tarkovsky, Sculpting in Time.
[deleted]