First of all: I don't want to criticize Kubrick's cinematographic legacy or his ability to imprint his unique style on any genre. I've seen all his films (with the exception of his very early documentaries; if anyone can tell me where to get those, I would be really grateful) and they still are some of my favourite films, especially Barry Lyndon.
Yet, there are some questions that occured to me, concerning The Shining and 2001.
On my DVD Edition of the Shining, right at the opening of the film, you can see for about 1 or 2 seconds the shadow of the helicopter from which this scene is shot. And I ask myself: why is that? It could have been cut out easily. The panorama shot of the Overlook Hotel also shows us on the top of the screen the rotating blades of the helicopter. That could have been avoided. When Nicholson destroys the door with his axe, some pieces of wood land on the camera, still attached to the door.
I also found confusing data about the duration of the film.
In 2001, the famous match cut is edited in a rather odd way: when the australopithecus throws the bone into the air, the camera follows, but then, the bone flies off-screen, there is a cut, and we see the bone gain on the bottom of the screen: it is another, second shot. The bone falls back to earth, it turns around its own axis, but there is no cut to the spaceship when the bone has exactly the same angle in relation to the horizon as the spacevessel (that would have been perfect), it still turns for less than a second and has ultimately a different angle. Now follows the cut.
Excuse my puritanism, but I just wonder why the perhaps best cut in film history in one of the best films by the greatest perfectionist in film history is not at all perfect.
NB: has anyone ever seen the 20 minutes Kubrick cut out from 2001 after its premiere?
i can't explain the bone/satellite cut, it is a bit awkward. the intention i assumed was that we switched to the other side, coming down, mirror like. in time also.
the helicopter thing is to do with kubrick's aspect ratios. they're pretty boring so no one ever remembers them and they end up complaining that there's way too much head room in sum scenes. normally the shadows u saw woulda been cropped during cinema projection.
i definately know what you mean about the BONE match cut: yes, it's a tad abrupt -- but i'm not losing sleep over it. i dont feel the title of "the best cut in history" has anything to do with the actual technical edit. rather, using a cut as a story telling device -- it's profound to go from the stone age and within one cut, project thousands of years into the future. yes it's an imperfect edit -- but who really gives a shit -- i just think they were having trouble keeping the bone in the frame when following it up and contuining to follow it as it falls. they just broke it into 2 shots.
Here's a great site with lots of info regarding SK, and there's a special section about The Shining.
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/
Quote from: _|P|_i can't explain the bone/satellite cut, it is a bit awkward. the intention i assumed was that we switched to the other side, coming down, mirror like. in time also.
the helicopter thing is to do with kubrick's aspect ratios. they're pretty boring so no one ever remembers them and they end up complaining that there's way too much head room in sum scenes. normally the shadows u saw woulda been cropped during cinema projection.
So that's it! Thank you for finally clearing up something that has bothered me for years. So, I guess what this means is that Warners fucked us with the dvd, by releasing it in the wrong aspect ratio? Can the same be said for Full Metal Jacket?
Quote from: SoNowThenQuote from: _|P|_i can't explain the bone/satellite cut, it is a bit awkward. the intention i assumed was that we switched to the other side, coming down, mirror like. in time also.
the helicopter thing is to do with kubrick's aspect ratios. they're pretty boring so no one ever remembers them and they end up complaining that there's way too much head room in sum scenes. normally the shadows u saw woulda been cropped during cinema projection.
So that's it! Thank you for finally clearing up something that has bothered me for years. So, I guess what this means is that Warners fucked us with the dvd, by releasing it in the wrong aspect ratio? Can the same be said for Full Metal Jacket?
from what i hear -- kubrick helped develop the box set -- he wanted full metal jacket and the shining in FULL SCREEN -- warner brother's wouldnt just fuck him over, for the sake of fucking him over -- if that was the case, why wouldnt they put all his film in full screen? kubrick always thought the shinging looked better in 1.33 -- it was originally shot in 1.85, but even the original theatrical prints were cropped for peojection.
'kay, so now I don't understand. Why would perfectionist Stanley leave the shadows in so we can clearly see them?
As to FMJ, I heard it was framed centrally, but shot 1:66-1. But he wanted it to play on tv, so the full frame is supposed to be okay. But I dunno... seems fishy. I think Warners is pulling a fast one...
Quote from: SoNowThenI think Warners is pulling a fast one...
you are so wrong. kubrick had control over the dvds . its in his contract with warner bro's. if they "pulled a fast one" they could be sued by the kubrick estate. vivian kubrick is very dedicated to preserving what kubricks intentions were. he wanted them full screen -- i hate how people think studios are these scheming evil empire -- you dont know the half of it.
the reason he probbaly left the shadows in: what would you rather have: 2 shots with some little shadows in them or a entire film in an aspect ratio that you didn't want? obviously to have his desired 1.33 aspect ratio , he made the sacrifice of keeping shadows -- who gives a shit? it's a grain of sand in the midst of a beach.
Forgive my studio ignorance. But why would he shoot the film to be projected 1:85 (which is apparently what he did)? That's the ratio I do want my films in, if they were shot with that in mind. And for a guy who would send his assistants to replace projectors in shitty old theatres, it seems like helicopter shadows would be a huge problem for old Stanley.
And it's not like Warners hasn't shafted us with shitty DVD's before.
Quote from: SoNowThenForgive my studio ignorance. But why would he shoot the film to be projected 1:85 (which is apparently what he did)? .
he shot it 1.85 to have it as a safety, why not shoot 1.85?-- if he decides to change his mind in post, he has the option...you can always take away.
stanly had a different working relationship with the studio then many other directors -- he had ONE thing that many people strive to acheive, but seldomley aquire -- RESPECT. I assure you the studio didn't "pull a fast one on him". but if you want to continue with your conspiracy theories feel free -- but just know, that deep down, you are wrong.
where's GT in all of this? but the link fernando supplied us all with answers all of these questions.
I did not show my head because Fernando did beat me to the punch. And as much as people don't want to believe it, Kubrick was in control of the aspect ratio used in all his films and dictated it to the studio. And the dvds represented for Kubrick's films now are of Kubrick's making. He was the one controlling everything that was put into the original box set and hated extra features and purely believed in letting the film speak for itself. That's why they are so boneless. I wish Criterion could get a handle on his films though and present features that were intraspective of the creation and making of the films and not just interpretation.
My feelings about helicopter coming into shot on Shining? Minor and noteworthy as something cute only as you watch the movie. Not harmful though in anyway.
Imperfection on the best cut ever? Sure, they may have been imperfections and all, but was it less impactful? Its fine.
All in all, quibbles about the very very very fine detailings that had nothing to do with the craftsmanship and thoughtfulness of the scenes in play which still were effective.
~rougerum
So then, just to confirm: what everyone's telling me is that all the Warners dvd's (specifically Shining, FMJ, & EWS) are exactly how Kubrick wanted me to see them? For true?
Quote from: SoNowThenSo then, just to confirm: what everyone's telling me is that all the Warners dvd's (specifically Shining, FMJ, & EWS) are exactly how Kubrick wanted me to see them? For true?
yes.
i hope u can sleep now.
Like a baby.
Quote from: SoNowThenSo then, just to confirm: what everyone's telling me is that all the Warners dvd's (specifically Shining, FMJ, & EWS) are exactly how Kubrick wanted me to see them? For true?
Well, except in "Eyes wide Shut", Kubrick originally wanted the American audience to see the orgy scene without the digital people blocking their view.
Aaarrrgh!! That's right! No sleep now, I reckon...
Actually, for some reason, this has never bothered me much. It's just 'cause on the others I had a creeping feeling that the framing was slightly off.
Well, thanks for the information on the aspect ratios. I really didn't know that. Concerning the digital camouflage in EWS, I think it's rather a shame to let some people butcher the beforementioned scene...what about Kubrick's ("post-mortem") influence on Warner in that particular case?
I saw both versions and just cannot understand the bigotry of those responsible for this decision. I mean, that was certainly not Kubrick's intention, was it?
Officially, the editing in Eyes Wide Shut was done with Kubrick's blessing when it was shown to him. Kubrick wanted to make an R rated movie, and not an NC-17 one and knew with his original cut, he would be getting an NC-17 rating which would greatly limit the availability of the movie around the country. And Warner Brothers where running with the slogan, "We're not in the business of making NC-17 films." I do wish the original could have been shown, but I understand the logistics of what Kubrick was trying to do and how he saw the scene still being able to play out. In Kubrick's eyes, seeing all the nudity and sexual acts was not necessary, what was necessary was the implication of the idea and the viewer imagination to take over the rest. The blocking out is nicely done so it doesn't appear as a major artificial stain and I don't really think it is a bad decision anyways.
~rougerum
I'm not very familiar to the American rating system...where is the difference between an NC-17 and an R-rating? Besides, censoring this film is pure hypocrisy. Where is in this case the difference between showing and suggesting?
NC-17 is a rating that is for people who are 17 and older only. It is the rating above the R rating and is commonly refused by almost all movie theatres and theatre chains. It gets shit distributation.
There isn't censorship in this film at all. As much to the dismay of many Kubrick fans here, Kubrick himself approved this version while alive and thought it was still effective. It wasn't a studio hack job like some Welles situation or something.
The difference in this case is that the "censorship" still perfectly fits the themes running through this story and hold very well in displaying ambiguilty to the scene in not showing everything. Showing everything would limit the viewer to seeing the sex one exact way and nothing else. Everything would be on the table. Not doing it makes the viewer imagine the level of intensity and explicitness in the sex everywhere for themselves. The reason going exactly for this fits the themes is because the theme is not about the touch of having an affair, but the mystery of what having an affair could be like. Everything in this movie is about the suggestion of things that seem completely devastating to the worlds of these people.
The main reason people speak on how this feels like a hack job is because they disagree with Kubrick's decision and either don't know he approved this version or want to believe he would never have allowd for this. They want to see it all in the scene. I think Kubrick did right and I disagree with the detractors of the scene.
~rougerum
Quote from: chriskelvinI'm not very familiar to the American rating system...where is the difference between an NC-17 and an R-rating? Besides, censoring this film is pure hypocrisy. Where is in this case the difference between showing and suggesting?
nc-17: under no circumstance can a person under 17 be admitted
R: any age can be admitted as long as they are escorted by an adult over the age of 17.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetKubrick himself approved this version while alive and thought it was still effective. It wasn't a studio hack job like some Welles situation or something.
...
Showing everything would limit the viewer to seeing the sex one exact way and nothing else. Everything would be on the table. Not doing it makes the viewer imagine the level of intensity and explicitness in the sex everywhere for themselves.
...
The main reason people speak on how this feels like a hack job is because they disagree with Kubrick's decision and either don't know he approved this version or want to believe he would never have allowd for this. They want to see it all in the scene. I think Kubrick did right and I disagree with the detractors of the scene.
~rougerum
In that case, I don't understand why Kubrick didn't shoot this scene in the camouflaged version right away. That doesn't make sense if he just wanted to suggest something. And in the case he later decided that the manipulated scene was the better one, why did he approve the initial version for the rest of the world? Anyway, I have seen the original version and there is not that much explicitness, really. I guess this is more a question of puritanism.
Quote from: cowboykurtisQuote from: chriskelvinI'm not very familiar to the American rating system...where is the difference between an NC-17 and an R-rating? Besides, censoring this film is pure hypocrisy. Where is in this case the difference between showing and suggesting?
nc-17: under no circumstance can a person under 17 be admitted
R: any age can be admitted as long as they are escorted by an adult over the age of 17.
Has there been any major film that got an Nc-17-rating?
He made the original version because he didn't know how it would pass across the ratings board. When it was threatened with an NC-17 rating, he did the touch up. Only reason American version has this because of how shot the rating system is in the country. It is terrible. Thing is though, he still approved of the touch up and maybe in hindsight, felt it had the same effect and actually liked it. Opinions and feels can change.
~rougerum
Yes, I see what you mean. But if Kubrick liked the american version, why didn't he decide to show this one worldwide? There is no sense in two different versions of the same film, is there? Or was he just up to publicity ex patria? I mean, there had been a lot of rumours around before the release. And this had surely its effects on the box office statistics.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetHe made the original version because he didn't know how it would pass across the ratings board. When it was threatened with an NC-17 rating, he did the touch up. Only reason American version has this because of how shot the rating system is in the country. It is terrible. Thing is though, he still approved of the touch up and maybe in hindsight, felt it had the same effect and actually liked it. Opinions and feels can change.
~rougerum
According to this interview with Jan Harlan and Leon Vitali he didn't do the touch, they say that he would recut that part of the movie instead of adding the digital figures.
Here's the link.
http://www.reel.com/reel.asp?ode=movienews/confidential&pageid=17353
Here's what they said about the digital figures.
Would Kubrick have been pleased or satisfied with the digital cover-up work that was done in the orgy scene to obtain the R rating that Warner Bros. had contractually insisted upon?
"Oh, no — he would've hated it," said Harlan. "Because had he lived he wouldn't have done this — he would have recut it. But I couldn't do that. Had we touched his cut, every journalist would have screamed murder. Had he lived, it would have been two days on the Avid and cutting back on Tom [Cruise] more and he would have obviously changed it."
Vitali added, "He was aware there probably would be a problem with it. He actually refused to shoot any kind of cover for what he was doing. He wanted to present [the orgy scene] exactly as he saw it. The whole point of it is it was supposed to be sick." Harlan added, "A demonic environment. Much more like Hieronymous Bosch."
Interesting. Here is an interview with Tom Cruise done by Roger Ebert that counters that.
Ebert: Did he say he would add digital figures in the forefront?
Cruise: Yes, that's what he was exploring when he was in the editing process and what he discussed. He didn't want to cut into the shots, but he felt if he took the digital effects and just covered, you know...because he wanted to deliver an R rating.
Later on, Cruise says his final word: But this is Stanley's cut. I would not have supported anything that Stanley hadn't approved or didn't want. There's absolutely no way that would have happened. I mean, before he died, we went through a lot of details about how the movie was going to be released, how he wanted things handled, where he wanted the print developed. All of these issues. Stanley did everything. Only Stanley.
I will concede the point that Stanley saw the finished film with this, because with the film being completed only 7 days before his death, it is likely he didn't. But I am convinced he ran the gamut on debating this idea in his desire to deliver an R rated film. Like I said before, I would have liked to see the other version as well but the rating systems is hell in this mess but nonetheless, this is Kubrick's version and the arguments presented by his brother n law don't make sense. First off, if they said Stanley would have hated this version, why did they not release two separate rated films on dvd. One being Unrated and the other an R rating? That is common practice for dvds. If they felt they were doing a dishonor to Kubrick's wishes, they would have at least done this. But alas, no such efforts have even been approached or mentioned at all. This great silence speaks that this was likely Stanley's cut add even in death, he controlled his films.
~rougerum
Quote from: chriskelvinQuote from: cowboykurtisQuote from: chriskelvinI'm not very familiar to the American rating system...where is the difference between an NC-17 and an R-rating? Besides, censoring this film is pure hypocrisy. Where is in this case the difference between showing and suggesting?
nc-17: under no circumstance can a person under 17 be admitted
R: any age can be admitted as long as they are escorted by an adult over the age of 17.
Has there been any major film that got an Nc-17-rating?
some well known films such as: natural born killers, kids, midnight cowboy(Xrated which is samething) were all thearically released nc-17.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetInteresting. Here is an interview with Tom Cruise done by Roger Ebert that counters that.
~rougerum
Actually, Harlan contradicted himself in an older interview but I don't have the link or the source right now.
There's been a lot of discussion about this issue and they've been contradicting themselves a number of times, at this point I just don't know what Stanley wanted or not, what I feel certain is that he had to deliver an R rating, that this rating was up to the MPAA not WB, and that he had to do something to deliver that rating.
BTW, do you have the link for the Ebert-Cruise interview?
who cares, in australia we never had the black figures and all that stupid shit. the fact is all that is just an american thing and i believe we got the same version as europe and no one cried and well that's that.
obviously he would've recut it but he didn't and this fuckfest is the only certain director's cut.
Quote from: _|P|_who cares, in australia we never had the black figures and all that stupid shit. the fact is all that is just an american thing and i believe we got the same version as europe and no one cried and well that's that.
obviously he would've recut it but he didn't and this fuckfest is the only certain director's cut.
pubrick your a aussie ??
you struck me as a american
Quote from: Butterscotch Jonespubrick your a aussie ??
you struck me as a american
hah, hmm. well the
truth is i'm a Latino who moved to australia and likes white chicks. no one knew that until now tho.
so.. there u go.
I don't have the link to that interview. I had to copy from Roger Ebert's Movie Yearbook 2000. It might still be online, might not.
~rougerum
You may purchase (at minimal cost and hassle) Kubrick's first documentaries along with "Fear and Desire" at:
http://www.antinomyfilms.com
The quality is not excellent, but watchable nonetheless.
Quote from: _|P|_i can't explain the bone/satellite cut, it is a bit awkward. the intention i assumed was that we switched to the other side, coming down, mirror like. in time also.
I agree with that as an explaination for the bone-to-ship cut. I don't, however, believe that it is an imperpect cut. Kubrick worked harder on 2001 than any movie in his career. If its in the movie, that's how he wanted it.
Quote from: TeddyIf its in the movie, that's how he wanted it.
u know, i was thinkin about it and technically it's actually a well made shot.
with the blue background if we just followed it uncut goin up and then coming down it would be very hard to notice when it starts to fall, there's no point of reference. so he lets it leave the top of the frame, and enter the bottom after the cut, then rise a bit and fall. and making it a mirror image enforces that it's travelling in a reverse/opposite direction.
so u see, the shot is good.
sphinx thinks the shot is made to represent that spaceships and bones are both tools and that we haven't changed a bit since that big monolith came and turned us all into planet-killing monsters; sphinx also thinks this is obvious and hopes you all thought of this before
technically speaking sphinx adores the shot and if he had a can of shots that he adored this shot would certainly be treated with an acid-free preserver and placed in the can
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fambulance.planet1337.com%2Fcan.GIF&hash=bfa6d8d94bc2ddf2f7b53c7280738977fe5e50ae)
Quote from: product42You may purchase (at minimal cost and hassle) Kubrick's first documentaries along with "Fear and Desire" at:
http://www.antinomyfilms.com
The quality is not excellent, but watchable nonetheless.
Thanks a lot.
I just think that was Kubrick. He liked perfect concepts, but he didn't always seek technical perfection. In fact I think a lot of the time he liked those rough edges.
As for the bone...I always took the jump cut of the bone twirling to suggest it wasn't Moonwatcher's only attempt -- man was always reaching higher and higher. The other thing: The cut to the NUCLEAR SATELITE occurs while the bone is making its descent. Gravity. On Earth there's gravity. Now we're viewing a nuclear weapon -- cutting from man's first killing devise to his final. Does what goes up come down?
I sure hope W. gets our space program going full speed again. Cause you know this is the real goal.
Quote from: cowboykurtisR: any age can be admitted as long as they are escorted by an adult over the age of 17.
if you're under seventeen you have to be admitted by someone TWENTY-ONE or older