>>2935670>Because Kubrick isn't an artist.Ayyy, that's a harsh claim. Certainly, you must have some impressive comparisons to back it?
>Just compare 2001 to SolarisOne coherently comments on post-modernism and anthropology, visually representing the superiority of man's creation over man itself and expressing both the wonders and mysteries of space exploration. The other is an anti-positivist mess that focuses way too much on criticizing scientific progress as something inherently dehumanizing and even exasperatedly tries to force one the saddest, most cringe-worthy interpretation of the philosophical problem of personal identity I've seen in cinema. I can totally understand why someone could prefer Tarkovsky's poetry-like filmmaking instead of the perhaps overly synthetic works of Kubrick, but Solaris isn't even a good example of his style in the first place.
>and Barry Lyndon to Andrey rublovUnlike 2001 and Solaris, those two hardly have anything in common to allow for a fair comparison, but I'll bite. Surely, if you're going on narrative alone and cherrypick one of the most "American-ish" narratives of Kubrick and compare it to one of Tarkovsky's best then you might as well call this a day, but thankfully this is not /lit/ and I'm sure we can all agree that the matter of a film doesn't just boil down to its script. Compare them instead on their visual execution and unsurprisingly, early Tarkovsky is totally outmatched by Kubrick in this aspect. Much like it isn't fair to compare the traditional narrative of Lyndon to the spiritual and metaphysical reflections of Rublev, it's also not even fair to compare the use of careful composition, historical locations and candle-only lighting to the prematurely developed style of Tarkovsky.
So yeah, as someone who spent a fair amount of time violently jerking off to the filmography of both, your comparison is bogus.
