Author Topic: Blasphemy  (Read 8036 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

(kelvin)

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +1
Blasphemy
« on: May 06, 2003, 06:28:09 AM »
0
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?

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • on the not-face of it
  • Respect: +774
Blasphemy
« Reply #1 on: May 06, 2003, 08:42:08 AM »
0
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.
under the paving stones.

cowboykurtis

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1671
  • Respect: +8
Blasphemy
« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2003, 09:42:20 AM »
0
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.
...your excuses are your own...

Fernando

  • satan's little helper
  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2234
  • Respect: +230
Re: Blasphemy
« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2003, 11:07:51 AM »
0
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/

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Blasphemy
« Reply #4 on: May 06, 2003, 02:14:15 PM »
0
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?
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

cowboykurtis

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1671
  • Respect: +8
Blasphemy
« Reply #5 on: May 06, 2003, 02:52:34 PM »
0
Quote from: SoNowThen
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?


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.
...your excuses are your own...

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Blasphemy
« Reply #6 on: May 06, 2003, 03:04:20 PM »
0
'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...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

cowboykurtis

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1671
  • Respect: +8
Blasphemy
« Reply #7 on: May 06, 2003, 03:41:10 PM »
0
Quote from: SoNowThen
I 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.
...your excuses are your own...

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Blasphemy
« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2003, 03:46:29 PM »
0
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.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

cowboykurtis

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1671
  • Respect: +8
Blasphemy
« Reply #9 on: May 06, 2003, 06:47:38 PM »
0
Quote from: SoNowThen
Forgive 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.
...your excuses are your own...

Pedro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1863
  • Respect: +68
    • Facebook:  Aaron Green
Blasphemy
« Reply #10 on: May 06, 2003, 07:42:17 PM »
0
where's GT in all of this?  but the link fernando supplied us all with answers all of these questions.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5781
  • Respect: +166
Blasphemy
« Reply #11 on: May 06, 2003, 08:29:33 PM »
0
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

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Blasphemy
« Reply #12 on: May 07, 2003, 09:21:29 AM »
0
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?
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • on the not-face of it
  • Respect: +774
Blasphemy
« Reply #13 on: May 07, 2003, 09:25:42 AM »
0
Quote from: SoNowThen
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?

yes.

i hope u can sleep now.
under the paving stones.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Blasphemy
« Reply #14 on: May 07, 2003, 09:47:22 AM »
0
Like a baby.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy