>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.
http://www.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.
>Kubrick
Marvel
>Tarkovsky
DC
>>69974143
2001 was based on a book
Kubrick didn't actually contribute anything artistically
>>69974242
I mean in the literary sense
You could call it visual art
>>69974212
you might be onto something there...
>>69974242
wtf, yes he did
>>69974212
>literal first comment in a thread about Tarkovsky and Kubrick
e m o t i o n
m
o
t
i
o
n
>>69974242
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?
>>69974242
The book and film were created simultaneously alongside each other.
>>69974242
Moron
>>69974242
Book was created as a reaction to the screenplay.
Solaris is also a book. As is Ivan's Childhood. As is Stalker.
>>69974242
Kek you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
>>69974242
Don't get baited fellas, move along.
>>69974143
>that's not how I would have done it therefore Kubrick is a hack
Why is Andrei such a self-important faggot?
>>69974462
>>69974520
they were both based on short stories by Aurthur C. Clarke
He's the sole author of the story
>>69974657
slavs are like that
>>69974143
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
>>69974734
>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.
>>69974734
t. Ivan Ivanovitch Ivanovsky
>>69974242
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.
>>69974143
holy shit tarkovsky thread
>>69974802
>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?
>>69974734
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.
>>69975011
I would rather suck the farts out of Clooney's ass than have to sit through another Tarkovsky abomination.
>>69974143
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
>>69974143
Kubrick films have no soul
Clockwork, Barry Lyndon, 2001, fmj, even Dr strangelove
These movies don't really connect in any legitimate emotional sense
>>69975617
b-b-but the ending of Paths of Glory!
https://www.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.
>>69975683
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
>>69975866
>I'm a pleb
That's all you had to say anon
>>69974212
faggot
>>69975068
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.
>>69975077
tasteless faggot
>>69975068
b-but Putin is a god r-right?
>>69975447
>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.
>>69976250
au contraire my boy, I bet you there would be a cacophony of stimulation for every one of the senses
>>69975447
/thread
>>69974212
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.
>>69975866
>i don't understand art
>therefore it must be shit
ok
>>69976301
shit... I can't be mad with you
Tarkovsky is a smidge overrated. Kubrick is really overrated. Both pretty good though.
>>69976332
>/tv/ is garbage
Wow, I'm so shocked.
>>69974143
>without being pretentious
DUDE GIANT BABY LMAO
>>69976300
nihilism is for teenagers or immature adults
>>69976425
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.
>>69976300
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
>>69976469
Yeah, ok, that still doesn't mean the work is bad. It just means you disagree with nihilists.
>>69976469
This
>>69974143
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.
>>69974143
2001 is literally the Batman v Superman of the 60s
>>69976601
>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.
>>69976469
only if you are a lazy piece of shit
>>69974687
Go back to fucking children in Hell, Arthur
>>69975447
>2001 is hardly human, and it's nihilistic as fuck
It's transhumanist, by definition it's not human
>>69976943
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
>>69975683
;(
>>69977099
>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
>>69976214
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.
>>69976291
he's a good president, we live peacefully and the quality of live only increases, otherwise i'm not interested in politics
>>69977285
Are you suggesting that technology hasn't stunted us emotionally as a species?
>>69977414
cheeki breeki cyka blyat
>>69976377
>>69976377
>>69975911
>>69975911
Aren't you late for your liberal arts major class or something
>>69977418
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 4chan users get their sense of emotional interaction by the communal sense of posting sad pepes and greentexts
>>69974143
He's just salty because Kubrick was first to put a man on the moon.
>>69977531
That's what I mean by stunted. Or do you think people actually scream at their computer screens while typing in all caps?
>>69977597
All that's changed is the way people express it
>>69977493
I'm a mathematician
Tarkovsky > Spielberg > Kubrick
>>69977656
Yes. Stunted.
>>69977699
>Spielberg > Kubrick
ok, i'm out
>>69977706
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
>>69977743
How do you know Dave wasn't shitposting on HAL?
>>69977597
I laugh out loud at classic bane posts
>>69974989
The Complete Tarkovsky Criterion Collection Box Set When?
>>69977740
Spielberg movies are much more emotionally mature. Kubrick has no interest in humans
>>69977699
Wasted Dubs
>>69977945
Only women care about emotions
>>69977945
Spielberg gets too melodramatic for my taste. It almost ruined his last good movie 'Munich'
>>69977197
>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.
>>69977867
>Criterion
Yikes
Artificial Eye is hookin it up
>>69977945
Tarkovsky himself said that Spielberg doesn't actually make films.
>>69978229
Tarkovsky also said the water was fine, the whole crew should swim in it
>>69974143
>lifeless schema with only pretensions to truth
golly what insipid dialectic
>>69975703
ebin my friend
>>69975617
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
>>69978644
>internet psychology
>>69978644
I didn't finish my point, I was about to say you probably are as faggit as tarkosvky
>>69975866
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
>>69978766
>but honestly now that i'm a grown up now
>t. 18 year old
>>69978044
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
>>69979308
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
>>69979389
STORY* JESUS CHRIST
>>69979308
>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.
>>69979389
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
>>69974143Убиpaйcя oтcюдa, CTAЛКEP
>>69979729
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
>>69977453
exactly what i was trying to say
>>69980044
>Yeah, the philosophy should play a role in your overall opinion of a movie though
Well, yeah, as to how you enjoyed it on a personal level. Not in an objective sense.
>The intentions are important and what the film conveys
So you're perfectly fine with propaganda?
Anybody else think 2001 is a 6/10 at most?
Not even trolling. Whatever message or point people think it's making is either not at all interesting to me or they're reading too much into a trite pos movie.
>>69974242
No they fucking weren't, every goddamn thread there is some dumbass like you saying that
They were both made at the same time, they're separate tellings, neither one is the "correct" one
>>69980492
In an objective sense too because if it's not realistically coherent you won't enjoy it
If someone wants to convey the day to day issues with a certain people, and takes the route of choosing a stance grounded in reality and the core of an issue in real life, is that propaganda?
Or is, for example, making a film about contemporary black people facing hardships because of blatant, unrealistic racism propaganda?
>>69975068
Get the fuck out of MY country. Stop spreading misinformation
>>69975866
LMAO are you serious?
Kubrick could not end a movie to save his fucking life!! Every third act of his movie is lol open to interpretation 2deep5u
>>69980728
Not "realistically" coherent, I meant ideologically
>>69977557
Wrong.
Russia won the space race my friend. We put man in space first.
>>69980728
>In an objective sense too because if it's not ideologically coherent you won't enjoy it
Ok, sure, that's a good point, because that has something to do with the script, not just the ideas that the script and the movie as a whole is meant to convey.
>If someone wants to convey the day to day issues with a certain people, and takes the route of choosing a stance grounded in reality and the core of an issue in real life, is that propaganda?
No, ofcourse not. But I don't think I said anything to the contrary. It just sounded to me like you were saying that movies must (and the keyword is must here) reflect certain ideas, beliefs and political viewpoints. Maybe I took what you wrote to mean something more than what you intended, but surely you must agree that creators have to be allowed to discuss and show you whatever ideas they like through their work?
>Or is, for example, making a film about contemporary black people facing hardships because of blatant, unrealistic racism propaganda?
I never said that it wasn't. I'm actually not sure if I think it is. If it is however, it's not because writers and directors makes movies about this, but because rich people with a political agenda refuses to fund and distribute any type of materiall that disagrees with this.
>>69976469
>>69976637
>implying either of you have studied nihilism
>implying nihilism isn't a blanket-term that refers to any different schools of thought
>implying Nietzsche wasn't convinced that without an ideological revolution, western society was inevitably headed for nihilism
wew lads
have you ever read a book?
>>69976777
trips confirm
(this is also true to an extent, it was trashed by critics and the public upon release but slowly caught on due to college kids on drugs forcing a conversation causing people to realise its genius)
who cares both of them make boring movies
>>69982904
>implying nietzsche didn't fucked up the west without even noticing it
that man destroyed everything he touched, even his own life
>>69980728
>Or is, for example, making a film about contemporary black people facing hardships because of blatant, unrealistic racism propaganda?
Is this your way of saying if you haven't seen it first-hand or on the news, then it's not realistic? There was a story this morning on the news of a guy in his 50s now I think, who was barely fed and forced to work the field like a slave instead of go to school in his childhood. He was an orphan I assume, put in a home, and received no help from the authorities despite complaining
If you made a film about that 30/40 years ago, I imagine people would have a similar reaction to you
"This isn't the 1800s! Children aren't treated like that anymore, there'd be arrests!"
And in case you're thinking this is a one-time story, this isn't some major outlier, this is just a guy who was persistent enough to keep complaining until the council recognised him finally
Unless you've grown up in inner-city New York or Chicago or Detroit as a black man, you're not really in the position to say what hardships due to racism are or aren't realistic
>>69983463
>edgy
If you mean by inspiring Naziism, then that was his sister
If you mean his cynicism towards Christianity, then fuck off. If you read his writings, which you clearly haven't, then you'd know he wasn't some edgy atheist mad at people for believing in some sky fairy
He criticised society and morality, in a similar manner to Marx. But where Marx then went all communist manifesto, Nietzsche advocated individualism
However, most damning to how much of a retard you are, he wasn't even properly discovered on a large scale following Naziism until like the 60s/70s
>>69974242
nice bait
I'm going to bed. Looks like the other anon has as well.
>It's a thread about actual film discussion.
Ah, finally.
