KUBRICK / TARKOVSKY
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- 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...
Instagram: / vugarefendi
Vimeo: vimeo.com/vuga...
For educational purposes only.
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
Who the fuck told you that Kubrick is cold? Barry Lyndon is cold? Eyes Wide Shut is cold? Paths of Glory is cold?
calm down@@رياضكريكرو
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
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 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 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 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
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.
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'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
Kubrick: Story Teller
Tarkovsky: Poet
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.
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.
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.
"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😂 💯💯
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
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 UA-cam 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?
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
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 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
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.
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
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, UA-cam has some pretty interesting things on it, once you ignore what's trending and most of the goofy things UA-cam 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 UA-cam, 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 UA-cam - 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
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...
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 😊
@@AgelessPhotonby your logic, Charlie Chaplin and Alfred Hitchcock is US director right kids? 😂😂
@@AgelessPhotonSo US had Alfred Hitchcock lol
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.
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"
@@sethleoric2598 well then you gotta come out of the fantasy world.
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
I saw '2001' as a boy at a drive-in. I first found Tarkovsky in 2014. My 2 favorite film makers. Thanks for posting!
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...
Tarkovsky is on his own level. For sheer force of creative vision I don’t know anyone as capable.
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
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?
tarkovsky existential genius, kubrick comercial
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!!!!!
Everything Tarkovsky has done looks incredibly timeless, it could just aswell had been released today
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.
Its truly a gift to be alive and able to appreciate these behemoths of cinema and their works
Behemoth lmao
Tarkovsky........ What a framing, what a visual. Heart soothing
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Tartovsky is great but Kubrik is the master. Any genre of movie he makes , it always set a higher standard for other filmmakers. I watched both of their works i can easily say Kubrik is on another level.
Now do Kubrick / Michael Bay
You mister get +10 points for this.
jesus, these inbreed on internet have the craziest ideas
😂😂😂
@FRENZEX fiuuuuuuuu. Before the post ending i was scarry
Yeah, ..... that's it! ......... Kubrick / Michael Bay. After that .......... Tarkovsky / Roland Emmerich !
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.
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)
1:08 what a brilliant fucking shot from Tarkovsky
Как же здорово быть частью искусства , особенно настоящее искусства .. )
MUSIC:
"ON THE NATURE OF DAYLIGHT" BY MAX RITCHER
Thank you!
Thank you ♥️✨🙌🏻
Thank you
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
These two man has reached a level that no one could possibly imagine in cinematics.
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
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 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.
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
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
Stalker is the only Tarkovsky film that truly hits the nail for me. Too much existential/dramatic monologue gets tiring and pointless for me. But in this film, it's only used when needed. Most of the emotions actually come from what's happening and they hit really hard.
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.
Kubrick is interested in the meaning of the image. Tarkosky is interested in the emotion of the image
because it has no meaning
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 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?
This is not the "VS". This is looking to "same thing" from "different direction".
Those are arguably the two greatest directors ever. If you're saying this is better than that,you'll lose on any side
two OF the greatest directors ever*
@@IVUSER 2 of the thousands greatest directors ever. And not in the top 10 - my opinion, but not only mine , considering the top films of all time lists.
Don't execute me for this, but I see a similar dynamic between Christopher Nolan and Denis Villeneuve
@@krasteff Interesting, who would be some in your top 10?
@@saswathmenon3256 They're clearly influenced by Kubrick but, in my opinion, not in a great way.
Won't execute you though
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
The primary thing I noticed about this video is that the Tarkovsky shots all fit with the tone of the somber violin music playing in the background, whereas almost all of the Kubrick shots are taken out of context to fit the tone of the music. For instance, the shot with the soldiers walking by the burning city in "Full Metal Jacket" is far from a somber or melancholic tone; it has more feelings of disgust and a dark sense of humor, (because they are singing the "Micky Mouse" song as they march past the destruction)
So true. Tarkovsky's films many things, but funny is not one of them.
yeah, Kubrick's silence, eerie or any music makes the already perfect shot just godly.
"For instance, the shot with the soldiers walking by the burning city in "Full Metal Jacket" is far from a somber or melancholic tone; it has more feelings of disgust and a dark sense of humor, (because they are singing the "Micky Mouse" song as they march past the destruction)" they are like kids playing .... its sarcastic ironic..
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
I haven't watched all of their movies, but this montage stroke my heart.
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.
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
Happy birthday, Mr. Kubrick! He would've only been 89 if he were alive today...
TARKOVSKY fue un poeta del cine. Nadie como el.
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.
2 of my favorite directors with music by one of my favorite composers.
tell me the melody that plays in the background please
Tarkovsky's color correction is something unique. only he knew how to show dull colors so rich and expressive.
I love these directors so much. Both are very different but both are the best.
Both are terrific, however there is a bit more magic in Tarkovsky´s films. I can´t help, but noticing that Kubrick´s image always looks forced. Tarkovsky´s image on the other hand looks like the moment has acquiesced to his vision.
Splendid comment!
To be fair, Kubrick was a perfectionist and always needed his shots perfect. So it can be fair to say that they were forced. Not that they're bad shots at all, but I can see where they're coming from.
Very true. the image is a reflection of the soul and character of each man and their unique directing vision. Kubrick is energy, control, composition and disciplined. Tarkovsky is energy, dispersed with fluidity, natural composition, ethereal.
M M Cheers pal, you said it though 'Magic'. Cinema was about that back then...
The that made the only great objective film, 2001, cannot be considered a mechanical director. He was one of the few beside Bergman to look at humanity as it actually is -- only he explored the bleaker strand, the side of humanity that is hollow and sadistic. Everything is expressed clearly in 2001 where humans are emotionless and AI have superseded. Other directors made personal masterworks but Kubrick is the truth of the cinema.
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
No director has used the cinematic scope like Andrei Tarkovsky in over 100 years of cinema.
Correct Bhai!
@@HAL--gb6uf Kubrick did it beter
@@niktej1114 technically yeah
@@HAL--gb6uf both technically and philosophically... Tarkovsky worldview is narrow minded TBH... Kubrick was a genius in many genres and fields from religion to politics to war to humour to life..
@@niktej1114 lol but in terms is surrealism I mean
Цветокоррекция Тарковского - нечто уникальное. только он умел передать тусклые цвета так богато и выразительно.
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 UA-cam.
No joke, this video is just perfect and beautiful.
Always and forever Tarkovsky 🌹
Kubrick has very meaningful shots but overall Tarkovsky is a far superior director. He can transform any ordinary setting into a significant and emotional scene.
Kubrick is a superior story teller.
Tarkovsky is overrated as fuck
@@tylerhaddock9583 yeah maybe. But as a far as cinematography/shots are concerned, Tarkovsky is in a league of his own. He can portray so much with a single frame.
Far no
Robert Fripp- Yeah and kubrick is sooo underrated. Promote this nobody kubrick guy
Kubrick will always be the master of cinema, but Tarkovski, the God
U need some sleep
Dreamers don’t need sleep to dream.
Tarkovsky didn't change cinema's story, he only made lovable films for average romantic people with lack of intellectualism. Kubrick with 4 films changed the way of making cinema...
@@juanucedaperez9614 Kubrick changed the way to integrate technical achievements in his films, while Tarkovsky created a new way to portray emotions on screen, which people have tried emulating all over the world ever since, while Kubrick's innovations mostly inform high budget Hollywood films.
@@juanucedaperez9614 Read Tarkovsky's book, some of the most eloquent and *intellectual*(lol) writing on cinema, Kubrick is only to of the iceberg compared to the depths of Tarkovsky.
Tarkovsky forever...
+
*Tarkovskij forever
Why can’t you like both?
I'm from Russia and some people think that Tarkovsky is a bad director. Why? Actually, this is so funny. Old people tell about his immigration (but the USSR didn't let him shot films, that's why Andrey didn't shot a film about Dostoevsky), other people of middle age tell about burning a cow and boring. And only new generation know about genius of Tarkovsky.
I'm so glad that many people, not living in Russia, love this director.
Настоящее искусство не для всех. Хорошее для немногих. Гениальное для единиц.
@@andreychuvashlov7206 россиянин обсирает на английском бывшего соотечественника, это новый уровень вполне ожидаемой реакции
I don't think Vugar Efendi
intended to ask any of us which was better. I believe the video was made to show the differences and similarities, and not a competition.
The people in the comments trying to boil down Kubrick and Tarkovsky to clever, witty, simple descriptions... Come on.
I know the purpose is not to put them in competition, so forgive this comment... Kubrick is outstanding, but Tarkovsky is nothing short of astonishing. In my opinion, in all the shot juxtapositions you show, the only one where Kubrick's is better is the Barry Lyndon seat scene, which is quite possibly the best scene in Kubrick's best film. I love Kubrick, I think he's probably the greatest American film maker of all time. But Tarkovsky created something beyond cinema. As many of the other commentators rightly put it: poetry...
It so beatiful, this is a real art, I'm crying
Kubrick get the money to be perfect... Tarkovsky is RAW
And he was working in Soviet Russia ffs!!!
Such beauty. Gives me a reason to pursue films.Thank you for this video.
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
Tarkovsky is, in a way, better than reality itself, he even idealize the reality in mysterious ways, you could not compare him with anybody else.
He has no reality. In his films, even in those that seemed to be shot on specific books, he simply brought his existential experiences and clericalism.
You havent really seen Kubrick then. Kubrick Pioneered majority of the Genre's, when coming to technicality he is just incomparable. His Direction and story writing is also just untouchable. You gotta watch more of his stuff then say.
Kubrick was more like a Technician, author, essayist of visual prose and philosophical treatises.
Tarkovsky on the other hand, brilliant, but at some points he is behind Kubrick.
Kubrick is untouchable perfectionist.
Kubrick yönetmenlerin yönetmeni olsa da Tarkovsky yaşamış en büyük drama ustasıdır, şu anda yaşayan her yönetmen de ona öykünür
Is this the song they use at the end of ´Arrival´?
Yes, and they played it backwards at the beginning of Departure
SHUTTER ISLAND
In case you're wondering, it's a piece titled 'On the Nature of Daylight' by Max Richter.
It honestly isn't used that well in Shutter Island. Used perfectly in Arrival though.
@vugar efendi I have a question. Doesn't UA-cam give copyright issues because of this music? Can you still use it?
I've seen 7 Kubrick movies(2001, Barry Lyndon, Clockwork, Strangelove, Shining, FMJ and EWS) and all of them are amazing except FMJ was kind of lacking compared to the others. Barry Lyndon and 2001 are in my top 10 favorites among all movies. I finally got around to 2 Tarkovsky movies, The Mirror and Andrei Tarkovsky. The Mirror is really great, but I have to say that if God himself came down and took human form to make a movie, Andrei Rublev would be pretty close to the result.
Watch "Paths of the glory" and "Lolita" ;)
What about Stalker, my favourite
@@Madridx9, "....Mirror and Andrey Tarkovsky?"
@@Madridx9 Lolita is a pretty bad adaptation of a great book
@@omgiam2hot No. Lolita is a *different* adaptation of a great book, shade. Kubrick simply has his own vision of the book. It's same thing for Shining. It's are realy good movies.
i respect both guys but simply can't stop picking tarkovsky best cinematic poet ever
For me, the the part that most clearly shows the difference between these two geniuses is when they show those contrasting scenes in 2001 and Solaris. in the Kubrick scene, Bowman strides down the corridor alone, presumably determined to destroy H.A.L.; in the Tarkovsky scene, a hurt and desperate Kelvin is assisted down a similar corridor , helped by the "ghosts" of those he loves. Kubrick firmly believes in the essential loneliness of man in an indifferent universe; Tarkovsky, in the possibility of love, perhaps divine, perhaps "human" that can heal that loneliness. Which vision is "true"? Foolish question.
the burning barn scene, from The Mirror....this is why cinematography is art.
Damn Tarkovsky! just a pan, and use of simple colour contrast!
Also textures. Fire/Rain, Wood/Grass, etc.
I feel that Kubrick’s films seperate us from the characters for something greater than man - while Tarkovsky manages to capture humanity in a way no one else ever could.
Barry Lyndon would disagree.
@@dawson6196 Wtf the entire point of Barry Lyndon is that life is decided by fate, its a deterministic film which shows that most of his life was out of his control
@@Swift-mr5zi Doesn't seperate us from Barry?
Exactly, it doesn't and that was my point.