• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Kubrick vs Tarkovsky - who was better?

But honestly Kubrick, regardless of talent, his stuff always gave me the impression that he was a twisted sick dude and a pervert at his core. His films seem to me to indicate he felt everyone else was a pervert too, on some level. And I don't personally like that outlook. But again, the dude was brilliant, there is no question. And I can appreciate the artistry.
Kubrick definitely had a dark view of humanity. His films illustrate man's dark side but he does it in a way that actually appeals to the audience, like in FMJ when he has you laughing at the destruction of Private Pyle. I don't think it's done to celebrate it but to show us what we're actually capable of.
 
Kubrick



He managed to make art entertaining, most directors that fall under the 'art' category fail miserably there. And while I don't think Tarkovsky quite fits that bill, his films are not on the level of entertainment for me that Stans are.


Art wise and stylistically I think they're close enough to cancel each other out. But entertainment wise?


No way. Kubrick takes that part of the argument.
 
Kubrick and it's not even close.

I love Tartovsky, but anybody who works that hard on being inaccessible isn't really competing.



I don't normally let other people's opinions have much sway over me, but I do feel a little bit better knowing you and I agree on this topic lol
 
Kubrick



He managed to make art entertaining, most directors that fall under the 'art' category fail miserably there. And while I don't think Tarkovsky quite fits that bill, his films are not on the level of entertainment for me that Stans are.


Art wise and stylistically I think they're close enough to cancel each other out. But entertainment wise?


No way. Kubrick takes that part of the argument.

For sure, but I'm not sure it's fair to use that against Tarkovsky. He wasn't trying to make 'entertainment' in the same way.

"Some film-makers know from the start that cinema is the right thing for them. I had doubts, had little feeling for it. I knew there were major technical aspects but had not understood that cinema is a means of expression like poetry, music, or literature...Only later did I realize that cinema gives you the possibility of achieving spiritual essence"
 
For sure, but I'm not sure it's fair to use that against Tarkovsky. He wasn't trying to make 'entertainment' in the same way.

"Some film-makers know from the start that cinema is the right thing for them. I had doubts, had little feeling for it. I knew there were major technical aspects but had not understood that cinema is a means of expression like poetry, music, or literature...Only later did I realize that cinema gives you the possibility of achieving spiritual essence"



I don't care what his reasons are for not being as entertaining -imo he just isn't. So it's a fair criticism from my point of view. Putting someone else's quotes up isn't going to change my mind either. I can find plenty of quotes about Kubrick too if that's what we're doing here.


And as far as the artistic side goes, like I said, they about cancel each other out.


Kubrick has made better films (my opinion) that will reach and inspire more people for years to come than Tarkovsky (I think this is an opinion rooted in fact).
 
I don't care what his reasons are for not being as entertaining -imo he just isn't. So it's a fair criticism from my point of view.


And as far as the artistic side goes, like I said, they about cancel each other out.


Kubrick has made better films (my opinion) that will reach and inspire more people for years to come than Tarkovsky (I think this is an opinion rooted in fact).

Fair enough, from my point of view you can't criticise him for not doing something he didn't set out to do in the first place.

But I see where you are coming from, especially if you think they cancel each other out artistically...I said in my post I don't think you qualitatively say one is better than the other, which I would still say, as technically speaking they are equals...artistic merit is a loose concept obviously though, technique and skill (in terms of camera work and so on) is part of that, but in the sense of art as something which induces a connection, then Tarkovsky wins every time for me despite not being as 'entertaining. I don't watch his films for entertainment like I would watch Kubricks (even if Kubrick does also have 'philosophical' themes behind his work, if you like), I watch Tarkovsky films for the same reason I read a poem...and yes, I am obviously aware I probably sound like a massive dickhead :D

I don't agree Kubrick has made better films, opinion as you say...but I do agree with your last point, simply because Kubrick quite naturally has a much greater reach than Tarkovsky. Especially from our Western perspective. There are still plenty who are deeply inspired by Tarkovsky though.
 
Well yeah, as I said earlier, his films are full of subversive themes. When you watch his movies, do so with the perspective that they were made in Soviet Russia. Tarkovsky was an absolute master at his craft, able to make films that were great on the surface and brilliant in their subtlety. He's not for everyone though. They're all deliberately paced. Most probably find them boring.
Never heard of him, but the way he frames shots is amazingly beautiful. I'll have to give him a watch. If I can watch and enjoy Kurosawa films, I'm sure Tarkovsky's pace won't be an issue.
 
Never saw any of Tarkovskys films, not in a rush to change that either. His fans come across as those smug pretentious wallies. I reckon I won't enjoy his stuff judging by the sorts it attracts.

Kubrick has always been really hit or miss with me. I don't get the insane fandom that surrounds him. I agree with others that his films are sterile...bland and cold. They're so rigid looking and set in their way, very meticulous. Many of his films feel like they need a good seeing to, from a competent editor. He's a great cinematographer, though, I'll give him that. From the films of his I've seen...

Dr. Strangelove did nothing for me at all. It wasn't funny or interesting. I haven't seen it in years, but I doubt a rewatch will change my opinion. Not my type of comedy. A nothing film.

Full Metal Jacket was quite mediocre, didn't care for it that much. Had some nice scenes, R. Lee Ermy did a fine job. But overall a bland forgettable experience.

2001 is the height of pretentiousness. Mind numbing drivel. Some nice shots, yeah for sure. But that doesn't make a great film.

A Clockwork Orange is fantastic, a great, nasty, nihilistic film. I'd say this was his best work.

The Shining is awesome, in my opinion, but I understand those who don't like it. I find the whole fandom around it absolutely hilarious though. You know what I'm talking about, the people who think Kubrick directed the moon landing and used The Shining to try expose it. Or that the film is about the Holocaust, The Native Americans or whatever other mumbo jumbo the Kubrickians come up with next. I mean, this is the Kubrick effect at work here to my eyes, the whole 'genius' fandom. They look so hard for something extra special. Kubrick could direct an apple falling from a tree and people would dissect it looking or some hidden symbolism, they'd be debating it for years. It's all a matter of the Emperors New Clothes in my opinion. There are even videos on youtube about 'something being hidden in the blood' (from the elevator). Lmao. Sorry boys, but no.

I can see why The Shining isn't liked by some. It's a poor adaption of the book. The fact Jack Nicholson plays Jack Nicholson and is clearly a nut from the get go. Some find Shelley Duvalls performance irritating...I actually thought she did well. The editing is either brilliant...or shocking, depending on your taste. MONDAY on a blank black screen. hhmmm...I'm still undecided. The fact the film was met with a meh-lukewarm reception back in it's day says it all. It's only now, years later that it is suddenly unanimously considered something special. I get all the critiques and the film has some flaws (like every film), but I still really enjoy it. So it gets a thumbs up from me. One of my favorite Horror films, no doubt.
 
Kubrick



He managed to make art entertaining, most directors that fall under the 'art' category fail miserably there. And while I don't think Tarkovsky quite fits that bill, his films are not on the level of entertainment for me that Stans are.


Art wise and stylistically I think they're close enough to cancel each other out. But entertainment wise?


No way. Kubrick takes that part of the argument.
This is it. It's half the cake, a half conveniently ignored by the effete "artsy" types who have never cultured the skill of casually engaging and delighting people, but it's half the cake. Has virtually nothing to do with cultural norms, and has everything to do with human nature. That's why Americans adore Miyazaki more than Disney. He brought both halves of the cake.

What's cake without icing? Fucking shortbread, that's what. Don't bring that shit to a cake competition.
<DisgustingHHH>
I don't normally let other people's opinions have much sway over me, but I do feel a little bit better knowing you and I agree on this topic lol
200.gif
 
This is it. It's half the cake, a half conveniently ignored by the effete "artsy" types who have never cultured the skill of casually engaging and delighting people, but it's half the cake. Has virtually nothing to do with cultural norms, and has everything to do with human nature. That's why Americans adore Miyazaki more than Disney. He brought both halves of the cake.

What's cake without icing? Fucking shortbread, that's what. Don't bring that shit to a cake competition.
<DisgustingHHH>

200.gif
The nice thing about movies and books is that they have a time and place. Sometimes I want to watch a mindless action movie, sometimes i want to be uplifted and watch a comedy, sometimes I want to watch something bleak, sometimes I want to watch something beautiful and sterile. It doesn't need to be absolute.
 
Kubricks films are cold and souless. Not a fan of his style and don't find his films entertaining, which are neither fun nor artistic. Tarkovsky on the other hand oozed art and feeling. much better vibe.
 
Back
Top