|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Dec 8, 2019 9:59:04 GMT
While I don't think anything Lynch has done touches the opulence of Dr. Strangelove and Barry Lyndon, I might take 5 Lynch movies over anything else Kubrick has done.
Both have some bad movies (The Shining, Spartacus)/(Eraserhead, Dune), but I'd say the middle part of Kubrick's filmography are all pretty even keel and are good movies at worst.
I guess Lynch doesn't have quite as strong a middle-tier, but I think he's a bit more thematically interesting than Kubrick who can get thematically narrow at times with the "this guy is randomly revealed as less-than-human" trope that eventually shows up in all his movies. Actually I quite like him doing that, but just... more narrow is the scope.
Still, it's a very close call but ultimately I'll say Lynch partly because his filmography is a bit more rewatchable for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 8, 2019 11:56:27 GMT
I'll take Mulholland Drive maybe, (big maybe), over any single Kubrick but the rest of the time I live in a different world from Lynch and how he's thought of on here too. I saw him as pretty much as a very interesting failure as an artist until much later, who put it together a few times (Twin Peaks pilot, Straight Story, Mulholland Drive).
Kubrick I see as a guy who was in complete control of his talent and his medium from 1957-1987 (30 years), who re-defined or typified every American genre from war films, to satires, from sci-fi, horror to period pieces .........whole different level to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Dec 8, 2019 13:59:48 GMT
Kubrick made almost every genre there is, and he's done it wonderfully!!
I love Lynch but I prefer Kubrick by miles.
|
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Dec 8, 2019 15:46:14 GMT
I'll take Mulholland Drive maybe, (big maybe), over any single Kubrick but the rest of the time I live in a different world from Lynch and how he's thought of on here too. I saw him as pretty much as a very interesting failure as an artist until much later, who put it together a few times (Twin Peaks pilot, Straight Story, Mulholland Drive). Kubrick I see as a guy who was in complete control of his talent and his medium from 1957-1987 (30 years), who re-defined or typified every American genre from war films, to satires, from sci-fi, horror to period pieces .........whole different level to me. Pacinoyes with another post too interesting not to reply to. I think Lynch was seen in that way by lots of people in the 90s. From 1984-1997, he had one movie that was critically successful..... Blue Velvet. You're not gonna convince most people with that type of track record. He had a cult back then, but roughly 1/3 of the amount of fanbase he has now. Kubrick has always had stable critical acclaim, but his reputation also skyrocketed at a point; same with Hitchcock. Those type of directors always get that huge jump at some point. What you're saying reminds me kind of of Malick. Nobody spoke one word about him in the 90s. Not like anybody was talking about him even after The Thin Red Line came out. And then somewhere in the early-to-mid-2000s..... his entire nose-picking troupe arrives out of nowhere and it's like he's the world's foremost cinema-VIP - where previously I just saw the dude as some regional farmboy Austin/Waco dude with super gentle artistic sensibilities. For the record, my old bias still remains. I've learned to appreciate him some more because truthfully I do enjoy some of his films, but Kubrick and Lynch and even Hitchcock stomps all over him.  |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 8, 2019 15:47:31 GMT
In terms of technical innovation, Kubrick.
In terms of actually making movies with soul and emotion, Lynch.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2019 16:54:18 GMT
It’s a decent match up. There aren’t many directors I’d put over Kubrick, who deserves his reputation as one of the very best, but there’re none that I’d put over Lynch, who is just by leaps and bounds my favorite filmmaker.
I would also contest Stephen’s point (and the majority’s) to an extent and argue that Lynch is also a better pure craftsman than Stan.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 8, 2019 16:56:31 GMT
I would also contest Stephen’s point (and the majority’s) to an extent and argue that Lynch is also a better pure craftsman than Stan. I'd agree that Lynch is more "pure," but it's a double-edged sword: he's the only one who could do what he does and have it feel organic and natural. Kubrick's techniques have been adopted much more readily and become standard movie-making language. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2019 17:06:01 GMT
I would also contest Stephen’s point (and the majority’s) to an extent and argue that Lynch is also a better pure craftsman than Stan. I'd agree that Lynch is more "pure," but it's a double-edged sword: he's the only one who could do what he does and have it feel organic and natural. Kubrick's techniques have been adopted much more readily and become standard movie-making language. Sure, though level of influence on the overall landscape of moviemaking doesn’t impact how much I like a director at all most of the time (especially as i feel that more than a few have massively influenced the landscape in a negative way). My favorite filmmaker list would be very different if it did. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 8, 2019 17:07:02 GMT
I'd agree that Lynch is more "pure," but it's a double-edged sword: he's the only one who could do what he does and have it feel organic and natural. Kubrick's techniques have been adopted much more readily and become standard movie-making language. Sure, though level of influence on the overall landscape of moviemaking doesn’t impact how much I like a director at all most of the time (especially as i feel that more than a few have massively influenced the landscape in a negative way). My favorite filmmaker list would be very different if it did. No doubt. Lynch is my #1 director for a reason, because he's often imitated and never duplicated, whereas I feel Kubrick's methodology has been adopted and bettered by other filmmakers over time (which is how it should be). |
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Dec 8, 2019 17:37:31 GMT
Well both managed to hone their craft to the point of earning the adjective form of their names. I prefer the one who seems to like humanity.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Dec 8, 2019 17:42:49 GMT
I don't think like many else that Kubrick is the best director ever, but he definitely was a fantastic filmmaker and I likely have him in my Top 25 of all time. I like some of Lynch's movies a lot (Mulholland Dr., Straight Story, Elephant Man), but he is far more inconsistent and far back in my rankings. Sometimes he seems just to put pictures together without having really something to tell and more often then not his films leave me technically and aesthetically rather unimpressed.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Dec 8, 2019 18:49:05 GMT
As great and a trailblazer as Lynch can be, Kubrick is beyond compare.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 8, 2019 20:45:20 GMT
just in terms of the amount of films he made that I absolutely love, it's Kubrick for me, no contest. His mastery if the craft is unrivaled.
|
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Jun 6, 2020 0:16:21 GMT
Lynch. Way more original, and his two best films (Blue Velvet and Mulholland Dr.) are greater than every Kubrick film (even though Clockwork - Lynch's best film by far - is a masterpiece). Kubrick isn't really different from a Ridley Scott who worked much less (and made fewer great films). His peaks and breadth are no greater.
|
|
