Who's his Yea Forums equivalent?

who are some you like instead?
kubrick's certainly more accessible than tarkovsky but i like both

Tarkovsky is honestly not that good

Antonioni, Bergman, Bresson, Buñuel.
There is no fifth.
>Kubrick
kys

Alan Moore

60s is best decade in cinema
for one i think old japanese cinema is better, Sancho the Bailiff is best film ever made

Why not?

>Kubrick is a poor man’s Tarkovsky.
Ahahahahhahahahahahha
I remember the first time I watched Tarkovsky. It was Solaris, right after (re) watching 2001.
For those who haven't seen either movie, let me clue you in.
In 2001, for the first 20 minutes or so, there's 0 dialogue, or narration of any kind. Instead you are shown a group of apes, in ancient time, being bullied by another group of apes. Then you see this first group discovering how to use tools, first to help them hunt for food, and later as weapons to fight off the other group who bullied them. They are also shown to have discovered some kind of alien artifact, that may or may not have been responsible for their ability to learn. There's a clear story and narrative, but told entirely through images. And these are some of the most beautiful images ever recorded on film. And that's before mentioning the soundtrack, that has became one of the most iconic of all time.
Ok so what about Solaris? Well for the first 20 minutes of Solaris, what you get is a bunch of people sitting in a room watching TV. They're watching some kind of court drama or some shit . You are shown these people on the tv arguing back and forth back and forth. And you are shown the reaction of the people watching this tv program.
This goes on for 20 fucking minutes. And the dialogue are absolutely incomprehensible. You have 0 idea what these people are arguing about.
Then boom, all of a sudden, you're in Japan, driving around on the highway. No narration, no story, no nothing. You're just driving around, in Japan, in first person.
This goes on for another 5-10 minutes.
I turned off the movie after that and have not touched another Tarkovsky garbage since.
Anyone who praises this mid wit communist pig is a moron. I suggest you go back to your /film/ thread.

Tarkovsky is for fags with superiority complexes who just discovered movies after their first year in undergrad

>Kubrick is a poor man’s Tarkovsky.
They're not even similar and when compared, Tarkovsky is worse.

decent bait honestly

>Buñuel
As someone who as seen all of Buñuel's films (early surrealist films, mid Mexican period, late French period), Kubrick 100x better. Not even close.

moments like this I know Yea Forums is retarded because kubrick based most of his films from actual novels, and his films were efforts to create “literary value”, his words, with a direct thesis as were his favourite novels as a literal child. if he had a literary equivalent, it would be a writer who adapts film and movies to make vastly better renditions of the same plot with higher forms of allegory and or metaphor

I don’t believe such an author currently exists

How is it bait you idiot? Literally everything I said is factually correct. It is literally not possible to deny one single thing.

>not a single german director
there are no "four greats" or whatever. come back to this board when you're actually 18

OP mentioned the parameters of similarity that he was hoping to find. Stop being autistic.

Just more midwit nonsense.

Then OP’s parameters are insufficient considering kubrick overtly adapted literature ie books and novels which is relevant considering the board we are in

Try watching Stalker

OP never said he was looking for a writer who adapted films into novels. He doesn't care for that aspect of Kubrick, rather, he mentioned the aspects he was looking for and here you are just being a pedant nonce.

Whats The Yea Forums take on vulgar auterism?
>villagevoice.com/2013/05/24/fast-furious-elegant-justin-lin-and-the-vulgar-auteurs/
Does he have a point or is he just rationalizing his shit taste?

Why?

>vulgar auteur
that's just an entertainer

considering kubrick as a filmmaker is partly defined as a screenwriter this auteur the basis for his adaptation is actually the single most relevant aspect of this entire board and thread

Read the OP. What he wants is in the OP. JFC.

kubrick didn’t just yell at actresses he sat at a typewriter and wrote scripts. based on novels. it is you and this thread and the evident retardation that does not consider this when thinking “filmmaker”

addendum: kubrick’s work is evident and consequence of a childhood reading fiction far above his suggested age. his films are attempts to communicate “literary value” and thesis. the same as his favourite novels, or the very novels he explicitly adapted. this is why he “never repeated himself”. each new project was based on a different book from a different author. it’s why he’s an “auteur”, because he accepted the responsibility of communicating the thesis. almost everything about the man’s life and work can be easily understood by his attempt to make films “literary”

>literary
What do you mean by that exactly, what makes a film "literary?" Not that I'm denying that all of the best filmmakers are usually well-read.

It's better

Home alone 4 is probably better too but I wouldn't watch it

Stephen King

“literary” in quotes and posted on chan, in this context, means the general metaphor, allegory, allusion, and or thesis fine literature can and should assert. films can provide this “literary” quality within their own medium, however this range of “literary” is often insufficient compared to a particularly esteemed or classic novel. thus, I believe, kubrick felt this “literary” quality was most abundant in novels. if you were to make a movie, with high values of “literary”, would you write something yourself? or would you do as kubrick often did, and simply use the inherent literary value of a good novel? seems easier, to me, and in that particular novel, written in labour by an author, there may be more “literary” quality than any script you’d write and or receive from an agent. if you were compelled to make films with “literary” value, wouldn’t you be inclined to just use... literature?

It's epistemologically arrogant to be so judgemental on the basis of 25 minutes of film

Life is too short to waste on pretentious garbage. If I am not judgemental I'd be wasting time reading and watching all kind of nonsense.
You still haven't given any convincing reason why I should watch it so why should I.

Feel like most post-modern authors are just like that.

I don't know whether you have read or seen films or not, but it's funny how someone declears well accepted artists as better than another. You're on literature board for god sake, at least try to argue.

>>cold, emotionally detached view of characters/setting
>>innovative use of the medium
>>never repeats himself
>>auteur
Me, I guess. kek

this. 8oth were autistic and extremely detail oriented. also they personally got along

Take it to Yea Forums. Film sucks.

Eyes Wide Shut - 15 Times
Barry Lyndon - 10 times
Clockwork Orange - 8 times
Full Metal Jacket - 6 Times
Dr. Strangelove - 20 Times
Paths of Glory - 5 Times

The greatest movies of all time. Cope and seethe. No one will ever surpass Kubrick.

Do something else with your time.

Haven’t seen this copypasta in awhile

And you still can't say anything about any of them? No one cares if you have seem them all a hundred times, if you can't even write two coherent sentences as to why you think they're so superior it's just boring listing.

kubrick is so banal but americans need some guy to prop up and circlejerk so the world knows they have ""serious artists""
the only excellent thing he did was barry lyndon

>And you still can't say anything about any of them? No one cares if you have seem them all a hundred times, if you can't even write two coherent sentences as to why you think they're so superior it's just boring listing.
In this thread user was destroyed.

No. I cannot. Because nothing further can be said about perfection (which his films are). Perfection can only be declared and lauded. When St. Thomas glimpsed a fraction of the visio beatifica, he beheld God in his eyes, in his heart, and in his mind, and never wrote again. He was so overtaken by infinite perfection that when begged to finish his writings, the saint declined, “I can write no more. I have seen things that make my writings like straw".

a childhood reading fiction far above his suggested age? he openly admitted that he never read a serious book until he was nineteen.

I'm going to say Bernhard/Beckket
although they never venture out on such a sprawling scale as Kubrick, they do provoke the same foreboding, cold 'life is dark and poopy' feeling in me

No one on Yea Forums reads, so why bother?

It’s my understanding kubrick grew up reading books in his father’s library and Tolstoy became a favourite of his, up to and including other novels of similar prose and thesis. I’ve always taken this as gospel considering his filmography ie novel adaptations. if you have an interview or quote I’d be pleased to read it

Temptation of St. Anthony is incredible. It's like reading a Stanly Kubrick movie, but maybe better. It's a very special book and it was his life's work.

medium.com/fan-fare/stanley-kubrick-another-academically-underachieving-genius-362834f3767e

“I never learned anything at all in school and didn’t read a book for pleasure until I was 19 years old.” -Stanley Kubrick

>Tolstoy became a favourite of his
source for this info? any specific Tolstoy work that Kubrick mentioned/recommended?

I am reading War and Peace currently and it's just awesome; in the purest sense of the word.