KUBRICK / TARKOVSKY 

You read my mind about them!

kubrick is hypnotic and surreal too

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

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.

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

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 !! :)

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

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

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.

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

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.

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😂 💯💯

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..

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?

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

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.

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

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 RU-vid 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?

And you make everything into rehearsed bullshit.

@@anonymousonlineuser6543 ahahhahaha

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.

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.

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

NO !!! Kubrick - Talent Tarkovsky - Genius

Yup! Sums up those two perfectly

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

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...

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.

Interesting.

Так и есть

Как и Сокурова

А теперь ещё и Звягинцева.

Хаха, похоже на то

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

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.

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.

Tarskovsky hated ussr

​@@vinceblanz5917говорю тебе как русский, ты ошибаешься

UK had Kubrick 😊

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

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...

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, RU-vid has some pretty interesting things on it, once you ignore what's trending and most of the goofy things RU-vid 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 RU-vid, 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 RU-vid - 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

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 RU-vid

@@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

Behemoth lmao

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

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!

Thank you ♥️✨🙌🏻

Thank you

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!!!!!

This is also most psychedelic and trippy movie about a war i ever see..

What's is the name?

@@victorsilveira1028 Ivan’s Childhood (1962)

Music is disconnected from reality? Bullshit.

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

Bergman on John Ford: He is the best director in the world...

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

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?

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.

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

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 !

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

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

Gene Berrocal That's what I like about him.

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.

Best comment on this video.

tell me the melody that plays in the background please

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