Va-Va-Voom wrote:Who is Kubrick's Russian counterpart?
Tarkovsky.
He absolutely hated 2001. Watch Solaris if you haven't and let me know what you feel re: 2001 vs Solaris.
Also, I want to here your perspective on Kubrick vs Lynch, just because I know you'll be torn.
David Lynch is my favorite filmmaker of all time, so as far as personal taste goes, it's Lynch over everyone else.
I was drawn to the Lynchian world in a magnetic way that I cannot describe. Mulholland Drive, for me personally, is the finest expression of cinema this century. It's an intoxicating experience that defines cinema in that truest way, which has rarely been accomplished before.
But, overall, I'd say Kubrick has a bigger influence simply because his work is more accessible than Lynch's works are. Not to say Lynch's work isn't. Of course: Straight Story, Elephant Man, Blue Velvet, and Wild at Heart rival any filmmaker's best film. That said, for film students, cinephiles, cine-goers, and critics, Kubrick's work function at a level that could be rationalized. Meanwhile, with Lynch, his best works like Mulholland Drive and Eraserhead are surreal masterpieces that go beyond rationality.
My favorite Lynch movie is actually Lost Highway. It's not his best, but there's a gravitas in it that subjectively resonates within me.
As an aside I recently read that Kubrick declared Eraserhead to be his favorite movie.
That's high praise.
I heard it's Godfather, Eraserhead, and Rosemary's Baby?
Coming from Kubrick, it's the ultimate praise. The man's arguably the most complete filmmaker ever. Almost. I say almost if it hadn't been for Akira Kurosawa.
Zenith wrote:Angelito wrote:I'd like to hear Zenith's perspective on this Kubrick vs Scorsese thing.
Scorsese is a master-story(t)(s)eller; he has a rare, some would even claim an unrivalled knack for efficiently (and meticulously) selling highly compressed and lengthy information, whether visually or phonetically, without losing the viewer's attention, making most of his films more accessible and easier to assimilate for the casual film watcher.
Kubrick's films also contain a lot of information, but he tends to be more subtle, at times even cryptic, but the storytelling is less spoon-fed. Almost all of his films have a subtle, perceptive, underlying message, a study, his own personal philosophical take on humanity—often its dark side. In addition to being a deep thinker, his eye for detail and high regard for aesthetics make him a versatile genius, an eclectic visionary.
*Not everyone knows how heavily involved he was in the cinematography and other technical aspects of his films.What Kubrick and Scorsese do have in common is that—other than the obvious fact that they are geniuses in their own way—and, despite using very dissimilar cinematic languages, both directors have managed to craft their own characteristic, distinct style which (for me) earns them a place among the most influential Silent Generation American filmmakers.
In case you were hoping if I had a strong personal preference and was going to elaborate in great detail as to why, I don't and therefore can't. I'd be lying to both you and myself, thus, I'm not sorry to have disappointed you.
I think you hit the nail on the head with Scorsese being accessible to every kind of cinema-goer. I'd say Billy Wilder is the king of that, but for most people, Scorsese is the bridge between Spielberg's blockbuster cinema and Fellini's artsy cinema. That's why he's so cherished by all sections of fans—whether casual viewers or students of cinema.
Personally, I think Scorsese's counterpart from that era is Roman Polanski, who was equally accessible to regular cinema fans as well as more critical viewers of film. Kubrick's contemporary is, of course, the genius Tarkovsky, but Tarkovsky's works aren't for everyone whereas most Kubrick movies are easier to understand/take in.
What are your favorite movies of Scorsese and Kubrick?