Video wird geladen...
Video konnte nicht geladen werden
"Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey' (1968) is phony on many points even for specialists. For a true work of art, the fake must be eliminated." --- Andrei Tarkovsky
220,088 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren •via X (Twitter)
9 Kommentare
Full Excerpt: "For some reason, in all the science-fiction films I've seen, the filmmakers force the viewer to examine the details of the material structure of the future. More than that, sometimes, like Kubrick, they call their own films premonitions. It's unbelievable! Let alone that '2001: A Space Odyssey' (1968) is phony on many points even for specialists. For a true work of art, the fake must be eliminated. I would like to shoot 'Solaris' (1972) in a way that the viewer would be unaware of any exoticism. Of course, I'm referring to the exoticism of technology. For example, if one shoots a scene of passengers boarding a trolley, which, let's say, we'd never seen before or known anything about, then we'd get something like Kubrick's moon-landing scene. On the other hand, if one were to shoot a moon landing like a common trolley stop in a modern film, then 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." (From Andrei Tarkovsky's interview with Naum Abramov, 1970)
He was just jealous. That movie is such a masterpiece.
He wasn't jealous... He said stuff like this all the time about others' works... He just had a different taste and view of art compared to most of his contemporaries.
As much as I admire Tarkovsky as an artist, this sounds pretentious. As if "art" can only be categorized a certain way. 2001, though not for everyone, is a towering and impressive cinematic accomplishment, especially for the time.
Nah…he wins a lot but nah
Andrei Tarkovsky got Jealous.
“Go suck an egg Tarkovsky” -Stanley Kubrick
Arthur C. Clarke also disagrees.
Circle of life 1) Travosky calls 2001 shit because it lacks realism in sci-fi. 2) Tarkovsky praises Terminator for being one of the best sci-fi. 3) Trakovsky casually makes 2 greatest psychedelic sci-fi as an answer.
Ähnliche Videos
![Andrei Tarkovsky on the problems he had with Sci-fi movies— especially Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey' (1968) & how he intended to make 'Solaris' (1972): "Interviewer: The majority of directors of science-fiction movies think it necessary to impress the viewer's imagination with the concrete details of everyday life on other worlds or the details of a spacecraft's construction, which often crowd out the central idea of the film. I think Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey' (1968) is guilty of that. Tarkovsky: For some reason, in all the Science-fiction films I've seen, the filmmakers force the viewer to examine the details of the material structure of the future. More than that, sometimes, like Kubrick, they call their own films premonitions. It's unbelievable! Let alone that '2001: A Space Odyssey' (1968) is phony on many points even for specialists. For a true work of art, the fake must be eliminated. I would like to shoot 'Solaris' in a way that the viewer would be unaware of any exoticism. Of course, I'm referring to the exoticism of technology. For example, if one shoots a scene of passengers boarding a trolley, which, let's say, we'd never seen before or known anything about, then we'd get something like Kubrick's moon-landing scene. On the other hand, if one were to shoot a moon landing like a common trolley stop in a modern film, then 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 techno logical 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. Design is design. Painting is painting. And a film is a film. One should "separate the firmament from the waters" and not engage in making comic books. When cinema moves out from under the power of money, namely, the costs of production, when there will be a method for the author of a work of art to record reality as with a pen and paper, paints and canvas, chisel and marble, "X" and the filmmaker, then we'll see. Then cinema will be the foremost art and its muse the queen of all the others." (Andrei Tarkovsky's interview with Naum Abramov, 1970) [P.S: On this day, 54 years ago, 'Solaris' (1972) premiered in Moscow, Soviet Union.]](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2019510591526981793/amplify_video_thumb/2019468583420801024/img/hxBT_-YUIFICP0MG.jpg)
The Greatest Shots of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968)
All The Right Movies
20,068 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten
