Kubrick vs Scorsese mashup

[Robyn]

http://vimeo.com/12432238

Coooooooool.

[72teeth]

where does that bird's eye view of the elevator scene come from!?

[Pubrick]

first of all, great find karljan. i had to move it from idle chatter as it is obviously movie related and belongs either in this forum or the scorsese one. i put it here to elaborate on the most interesting part of the video which 72teeth points out..

where does that bird's eye view of the elevator scene come from!?

the answer is found in the comments section of the video where someone else has noticed this amazing shot (which occurs around the 6:15 mark, not the time given below) and the maker of the video provides an explanation:

michael earl
kubrick wins!! nice video and good work, but dude, that overhead fake looking elevator blood shot that starts around 6:20 IS VERY DEFINITELY NOT from The Shining. Get rid of it now it has no place pretending to be the work of either director...

Leandro Copperfield
It's CGI simulation of the 'elevator of blood' from The Shining, user 'Xurgonic' (Ridlen) in YT gave me permission to use the scene. You can find the complete scene searching on google.

following the suggestion by the maker of the video to find the original source, i did a google search for Xurgonic Shining and found the full clip:



that is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to that dude's contribution to the online analysis of kubrick amazingness. some of you may remember Rob Ager's extensive analysis of all things kubrick which has been brought up in a few places here over the years, in particular i'd like you all to recall when Perineum Falcon suggested that we watch Ager's video on a strange object that he claims appears "hidden in the blood" as it gushes out of the elevator in that scene.

the video by Rob Ager explaining his theory is available here:

if you have seen that clip or you don't care then read on (it is nearly 8mins and frankly you can just watch the first few moments to get the gist of it), if you havn't seen it and are curious then watch it as it will be the last time you will see it with a chance of giving it credibility. Xurgonic has used his amazing CG abilities to thoroughly debunk Rob Ager's theory with the following video which i urge you all to watch for it's etremely convincing and conclusive analysis of how the elevator of blood works:



before this clip rob ager's theory was at best somewhat plausible, but now i am happy to find that it is one step too far in his commendable mission to understand every single thing in the shining. HOWEVER, this is not to say that Rob Ager's other theories about the film are bogus.. in fact he is QUITE CORRECT in noticing that the elevator itself holds a strong parallel to Danny's face, and the conclusions he or anyone else can draw from that indisputable correlation is entirely within the realms of "fun" and not craziness or a waste of time.

it is still possible, i guess, that kubrick liked the physical laws which a large volume of liquid must obey when it falls in the way that he engineered with the elevator of blood, such that the refelction of the walls and the distortion it creates in the blood was part of his intention. but that is now really a sub-sub-sub-hypothesis within the grand themes of the shining and the other games it creates with its repeated use of reflections, doors, and mirrors.

[72teeth]

awesome awesome find. so happy to finally have an answer to that "object".

[Stefen]

this is the greatest thing I've ever seen.

I scored the prizefight for Marty but that may be because he was more active. Stan picked his spots, scored effectively when it mattered the most.

[picolas]

i enjoyed it but i don't think it's on the same level as barringer82 montages. aside from some cool visual correlations. it feels more random and superficial as a whole. not really tying together the bodies of work on a thematic level or anything.

[Fernando]

the video by Rob Ager explaining his theory is available here:

that was kinda good, although I feel he is looking way too hard on kubrick's hidden messagges intentions.

another thing, the blood scene wasnt done on a miniature set, if you ppl have any memory you'll remember I did a thread called Flood of Blood, here's the article I posted:

I found this interesting comment by Larry Smith about the famous
blood elevator scene:

"We had to fill up the elevator, which was built as a separate set, with huge quantities of blood, or something that simulated blood. we looked at the liquid, tested it, and Stanley said, 'It's great; it's going to work. But the color's not real.' We even considered using real animal blood. But Stanley, being the great animal lover he was, couldn't bring himself to do that, and rightly so. There was a whole saga about what we would use, but oddly enough, it was one of the shorter scenes in the movie to actually shoot. We put two cameras side by side in a waterproof housing in the middle of the floor, and Stanley and I stood at the back of the set. I remember jokingly saying to him, 'Is this safe here?' Because the set was about 50, 60 feet long by 10, 12 feet high. And he said, 'What do you mean?' I said, 'Well, when all that liquid comes out of the lift, it could submerge us; we could drown.' He was always very quick to cotton to safety, and we got up on a table, which was kind of ridiculous, because we were much higher that it was ever going to get. The blood came out with a force that was quite incredible, and all the movement of furniture that you see in that scene actually happened. we didn't do more than two, three takes. Which for Stanley was quite conservative."
- Larry Smith, gaffer The Shining. (Premiere, aug-99)

[squints]

I don't really understand the point of this video? I don't really get a sense of any discernible correlations between the shots or images the editor chose to stick together. It doesn't really seems like a "vs." thing at all, more of just an exercise for this fella in editing.

Meh.

[Pubrick]

the video by Rob Ager explaining his theory is available here:

that was kinda good, although I feel he is looking way too hard on kubrick's hidden messagges intentions.

did you see the other links i posted? he was obviously looking too hard, it was proven in the video i posted below it.

also not sure who's arguing that it was done on a miniature set. we all know from the making of doco where they show some dudes mopping up the blood.

[The Perineum Falcon]

also not sure who's arguing that it was done on a miniature set. we all know from the making of doco where they show some dudes mopping up the blood.

Xurgonic's CGI demonstration about the reflections and speed of water claim that it was a miniature set, and Fernando pointed it out.

[Alexandro]

I don't really understand the point of this video? I don't really get a sense of any discernible correlations between the shots or images the editor chose to stick together. It doesn't really seems like a "vs." thing at all, more of just an exercise for this fella in editing.

Meh.

I get the sense of how big is Kubrick's influence on Scorsese, and I also get the sense of how AWESOME these two guys at creating moving images. And I get the sense something like this doesn't need to have a point. Watching  great shots from great films edited with interesting music cues is meh to you obviously, so more power...