Stanley Kubrick v/s Terrence Malick

[@CinemaAbsurdist]

Which director do you prefer? What technique do you find works better? Opulence or concision?

[@BrianMcInnis87]

I don't see those qualities being a focus here. Malick's creation sequence is... a sequence. And it's one he started conceiving as a kid and was planning for many decades. Kubrick's bone-to-orbital-bomb cut is simply a way of skipping over a human/technology evolution montage he *wasn't* interested in. I don't see any similarity in themes here either. Kubrick's and Arthur Clarke's story has an opening section concerned with a single pivotal jump in prehuman intelligence, with Kubrick's usual emphasis on man's tendency to violence. Malick's has one moderately sized section concerned with the birth of the known universe, the ascent of life on Earth, and a pivotal (although admittedly exceedingly improbable) demonstration of an early instance of mercy. Both their themes and formal approaches are as different as night and day. There are plenty of qualities that are very interesting to compare, though. Kubrick worked in stupefyingly controlled worlds, Malick likes to work with as much chaos as possible. Malick exists somewhere around the fault line between geniuses and extremely intelligent/creative mere mortals but spent essentially his entire life formulating 'Tree of Life', while Kubrick was a genius of the highest order just coming into full maturity - the only genius I've managed to find in the cinema - but spent only three years making '2001' and had a great science fiction writer to work with (and manipulate in clever ways, as he tended to do). I think '2001' takes home the gold, ultimately; it's the stranger, more unique, more mysterious artifact of the two, and Einstein reminds us the greatest thing we can experience is the mysterious. Of course it's also far less directly concerned with humans and human nature than 'Tree of Life' is, so people often respond to the latter more strongly (certainly there's no films that's affected me emotionally as much as that one did). But the greatest art reaches places beyond mere humanity. And of course, as in any discussion of these two films, hats off to Douglas Trumbull.

[@CinemaAbsurdist]

​@@BrianMcInnis87 Thank you very much for your insightful feedback both here and in the other comments. With respect to them, I will definitely take more care in researching and scripting my videos more thoroughly next time. With respect to this comment, the point you make about Kubrick not caring about the technology between the ages is the reason that the bone-craft cut happens, whereas Malick chooses instead to show the whole evolution of mankind. I found the subject matter rather similar, however, as you said, the techniques used are as far apart as night and day, as Kubrick and Clarke wanted to show just one pivotal moment of humanity's evolution.

[@TheListenerCanon]

I love Malick but he's no Kubrick. 2001 and perhaps Dr. Strangelove are better than anything Malick has made.

[@eeshacatherinevakkan9692]

I love how easily comprehensible this was- makes a cinema noob like me want to know more about film :)

[@CinemaAbsurdist]

Thank you :)

[@chintanwadhwa]

I expected this video to be very technical and thought that I probably would not understand much. But surprisingly, it was informative yet simple in terms of the explanation. Looking forward to more like these 🥳

[@CinemaAbsurdist]

Thank you very much!

[@hassaan561]

Great job! We can always use more content on Kubrick and malick.

[@CinemaAbsurdist]

Thank you!

[@creamslime2846]

Really unique angle, haven't seen anything like this anywhere else on KZbin!

[@CinemaAbsurdist]

Thank you!

[@jessicapinto5397]

Sir, this was really interesting. I wanted to know more. Genuinely looking forward to more of your videos.

[@CinemaAbsurdist]

Glad you liked it!

[@nicolasfredette8564]

Really enjoyed this video ! Although I would have tried (uncertain how) to avoid saying "when the ape *realizes* it can use the bone as a weapon".. I think it's more than obvious the idea was imposed on Moonwalker's mind by the monolith.

[@CinemaAbsurdist]

Good catch, thank you! I tried not to bring the monolith into the video, as the monolith warrants its own video.

[@nicolasfredette8564]

@@CinemaAbsurdist I know. I personally would have said "when the ape finally *understands* it can use the bone as a weapon.." Regardless, nice video ! :)

[@CinemaAbsurdist]

@@nicolasfredette8564 Thank you, that does make more sense!

[@nicolasfredette8564]

@@CinemaAbsurdist ...still, my verb "understands" is too close to what you wrote. (Not the best example.) It's such a small detail though.. But an important one ! Becoming aware Vs Being made aware.

[@CinemaAbsurdist]

​@@nicolasfredette8564 Agree absolutely, thank you so much for you feedback!

[@marionow6227]

2 of my favorite directors compared, thanks! I understand why these 2 movies are compared, but I found the Tree of Life to be flawed, especially the shots with the dinosaurs. Malick is just not an expert on cgi or on dinosaur motivation... Still Iove his meandering and poetic style. I also love Kubricks perfectionism. It seems Kubrick had every movie and every scene completely imagined and thought out. While Malick seems to work with only grand outlines and leaving things to chance while filming. Both terrific directors in their own right!

[@CinemaAbsurdist]

Malick's signature is to only work with outlines. In my opinion, it is not necessary to have everything planned out before filming. That is just one way to approach filmmaking. Malick's 'chance-based' approach is simply another approach :)

[@aditi1284]

Kubrick = Mind Mallick = Heart

[@StefanTheFink]

Brilliant work, great comparison 👏👏

[@CinemaAbsurdist]

Thank you very much :)

[@chuckhainsworth4801]

I like the way you did not express a preference. Bravo, there is room for both. How about something serious, like comparing each director's 20th C war films? It will get too messy with Kubrick's historical films.

[@CinemaAbsurdist]

That's a great idea! Perhaps I will do a video on it in the future :)

[@flapie8469]

Really well made!

[@CinemaAbsurdist]

Thank you very much!

[@promethean8232]

Really compelling content. Love it

[@CinemaAbsurdist]

Thank you, I appreciate it.

[@BrianMcInnis87]

5:16 Clarke reported that he and Kubrick intended it as an orbital bomb, although the finished movie doesn't make that overtly clear.

[@norryniven2886]

Wonderful!

[@CinemaAbsurdist]

Thank you! Stay tuned for more!

[@KyleCorwith]

I must refute your statement about the book of Job, 1:26. God DID respond to Job's wonderings as to why his life went to shit. God asked him numerous rhetorical questions, knowing that Job did not know the answers, as a way to make him think about the universe and his own life. But that aside, I love what you said about Kubrick's visual storytelling for technology time jump.

[@CinemaAbsurdist]

Indeed so, perhaps I was unclear in making my point. It was that in the case of this film, Malick shows us the universe to show us that we do not know the answers to God's rhetorical questions. I did not mean that God ignored Job in the book of Job. Apologies.

[@phoebe-angeloflynn7419]

Great comparison although I would disagree with the points being made about tree of life. The book of Job isn’t about Job being narcissistic in asking why he is suffering and God being impartial to this, it’s about Job being one of the most favourable in Gods eyes and through his suffering he experiences the fullness of faith and life. God is all loving to him but it’s a story in how suffering can be used to strengthen our love. We are as important as the exploding universe, cosmos, river, streams and sunsets. A babies first look is as impactful as the Big Bang and equally divine in God’s creation

[@CinemaAbsurdist]

Interesting point of view

[@BrianMcInnis87]

4:38 Four million.

[@Rwienemann2944]

Terence Malik is the badest director of all time and Kubrik on of the best!

[@thedivinemessenger]

Terrance Malick > > >

[@Johnconno]

Ali Vs Maxwell

[@BrianMcInnis87]

3:57 Those are Australopithecines. But both they and all human species are apes.

[@steliosfindrilakis105]

Equal each other.My opinion.

[@hadd5106]

The video is next to impossible to understand due to the narrator's heavy accent.

[@CinemaAbsurdist]

Thank you for the feedback, I apologize for my poor enunciation, and will work on it. I have uploaded subtitles that should be helpful. Thank you.

[@HerbalistGuybrush]

As a non native english speaker (german) i do understand every word easily

[@inco9943]

@@CinemaAbsurdist i understood every word (UK here)

[@paulklee5790]

Well what a shame... go do something else more to your liking perhaps?