Xixax Film Forum

I was reading a discussion on this board concerning the DVD of "The Shining" and how, during an establishing shot of the Overlook, the shadows of helicopter blades are clearly visible.  This too bothered me for a while, and I used to be of the same frame of mind as most people: How on Earth could a notorious "perfectionist" like Stanley overlook such a awkward mistake...

And the conclusion I have come to is this: Kubrick was never really intent on total "technical" perfection, despite his technical know-how and obsession with lenses and tracking shots and all the geeky gadgets and techniques associated with cinema.

In fact, the more I watch his films (I've been watching them my whole life and will continue to do so), the more I realize how WRONG certain things are about them.  Despite his calculation and control and mastery, there's a rough edge to everything he did, and I think this awkward, rough edge is really what he was after.  It's almost like a planned randomness, or a sculpted grit.

There are tons of modern, mega-budget Hollywood films that are technically "perfect".  Perfect sets, shots, lighting, editing, sound, etc., and yet they are lifeless and don't withstand repeat viewings; they seem made by committee and therefore anonymous and impersonal.   Kubrick's films, on the other hand, always have had a strange, voyeuristic, almost home-movie quality.  I don't know if I am explaining this adequately...

Another example - I read in an interview with Kubrick's wife where she said Stanley "wasn't crazy" about Hitchcock, and his reason was "all that phony rear-projection".   Watch Clockwork Orange - the scene where the Droogs are tearing through the city in their car - and you'll see total phony rear-projection.  Phonier than Hitchcock, in a way.  

His infamous numerous takes, according to Jack Nicholson, were never done for the pursuit of the "perfect" take according to what most directors would consider "perfect".  He would tell Jack, "that was perfect, but it wasn't 'interesting'".  In fact, many of the actors he worked with have been cited over the years as saying they were often surprised upon seeing the final cut of the particular film, claiming Stanley mostly chose takes they thought were their worst.  His pursuit of the weird led him to make weird choices.

It also has to do with his avoidance of typical "movie lighting".  From 2001 on he seemed to light everything with practicals, which adds to this sense of gritty realism.  I know "gritty" isn't a term always associated with Kubrick, but I think it makes sense.

To sum it up, there's something messy and awkward hiding just below the sculpted surface, and I think it's these imperfections within the perfection that makes his movies what they are.

I think P.T. Anderson is very similar in that respect...now matter how technically mind-blowing his films are, there's a messiness and awkwardness to things that is a personal stamp.

I think that is one of the most intelligent and well-said posts I have read here. And was minus the snooty attitude that sometimes accompanies such posts. I agree wholeheartedly with you.

And, also, I read that on Dr Strangelove the actors were pissed at Kubrick because they felt he used takes that made them look like hams. He would get them to do it normally so much, then tune them up to go overboard (like George C Scott pretending to be an airplane), and that's what he would use. They felt it was insulting -- at the time. Hehe.

EDIT: also, I just thought of something -- a lot of his later stuff, when there is a window in frame (or any daylight source, for that matter, when seen from an interior), he doesn't correct the light color with gels or filters or anything... and so it bleeds in as blue blue blue light. I really notice this in the Shining and in Eyes Wide Shut. Normally, in other flicks (or when I'm shooting something) I hate this color contrast, but it looks so damn fine when Stanley does it.

...yeah, there's a scene in Clockwork when Alex wakes up the the truancy officer is sitting on the bed in a bedroom, and the widow light is totally harsh and bleeding all over the place, but it works.

I gues maybe this has in part to do with Kubrick's start as a journalistic photographer.  He learned how to shoot with what he had, instead of setting up a bunch of lights...

Well, I think he used a shit load of lights (the set of the Shining was supposedly sweltering), but he just lit in such a way that it looked so damn good, it seemed almost minimal.

Quote from: SoNowThenI think that is one of the most intelligent and well-said posts I have read here. And was minus the snooty attitude that sometimes accompanies such posts. I agree wholeheartedly with you.

I agree.  Brilliant post.  But it seems as if I've read it somewhere before.  I'm just implying anything.  Just feels a bit like deja vu to me.  Just feels a bit like deja vu to me.

Quote from: SoNowThenWell, I think he used a shit load of lights (the set of the Shining was supposedly sweltering), but he just lit in such a way that it looked so damn good, it seemed almost minimal.

Yeah, probably.  But his lights came from where lights would come from in the natural world - lamps, windows, doorways, overhead fixtures, etc.  I think since the Overlook was a set, he shone giant lamps in through those huge windows to approximate daylight.

But you never get what you get in most hollywood movies where there's lights coming from impossible places like out of dark corners and on stuff.  I think this is because Kubrick favored the Steadicam and since it was always swerving all over you couldn't have ugly light fixtures in the frame.  All in all, though, it's less slick than hollywood ligthing, which seems derivative of theater.

Oh well, this is rambling...

Back to work...

Good post.

But what I think happened is that Kubrick used the footage thinking it would be cut out by the letterbox framing. Later on he changed his mind and wanted to lose the letterbox format and show it fullframe, exactly how it was shot. And I think the helicopter shadow was just a small price to pay for it.

That doesn't disprove your post, though. Everything you've said is definitely true.

I'm just sayin'...

In any of his films you'll see errors or rough patches. For instance, in Barry Lyndon, look at the footage of the sailing ship at the start of the war -- it looks like crappy stock footage. He always did that. SPECIFICALLY in Eyes Wide Shut.

He also did use source lighting. See the 8mm film stock thread wherever that was. We talked a bit about that. The reason the set of The Shining was so hot was because it was a set. When you see the outside through the giant windows in the main room where Jack does his typing it's all a set. So they had to simulate daylight and they had a bunch of mother lights to do that. So even though it was simulated light, it was still source lighting, since it was coming through the windows.

Although he was known for technical precision he usually preferred simplicity. He might do something that's complex, but in a way that's logical. For instance, to achieve the wide range of Stedicam shots in The Shining they used a wheelchair. Wheelchairs are usually used in no-budget films as a poorman's dolly, but here's the world's greatest filmmaker using one... It was a simple solution to achieve what he wanted.

Those helicopter blades bug the hell out of me. So does the fact that The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut are all 1.33:1 on DVD. I know that Kubrick insisted they be shown this way on video, but I also read that Kubrick didnt watch much TV, nor did he think very highly of video as a medium. He believed his movies were meant to be seen on the Big Screen and that's how he approached making them. The whole bit about him composing his film according to TV's aspect ratio is, in my mind, absurd. To believe that Kubrick actually filmed with the intention that those helicopter blades be visible in that shot is equally absurd. Its a distraction that completely jars you right out of the movie, and any sense of solitude, desolation, coming-doom, or whatever else the filmmaker intended to convey to his audience is totally lost. The fact that he left them in I think is a testament to Kubrick's attitude toward having his films seen on a television---If people are willing to watch his movies in what he considered  an already severely compromised form(on a TV set), then who cares if helicopter blades are visible in that shot.

Quote from: The Disco KidThose helicopter blades bug the hell out of me. So does the fact that The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut are all 1.33:1 on DVD. I know that Kubrick insisted they be shown this way on video, but I also read that Kubrick didnt watch much TV, nor did he think very highly of video as a medium. He believed his movies were meant to be seen on the Big Screen and that's how he approached making them. The whole bit about him composing his film according to TV's aspect ratio is, in my mind, absurd. To believe that Kubrick actually filmed with the intention that those helicopter blades be visible in that shot is equally absurd. Its a distraction that completely jars you right out of the movie, and any sense of solitude, desolation, coming-doom, or whatever else the filmmaker intended to convey to his audience is totally lost. The fact that he left them in I think is a testament to Kubrick's attitude toward having his films seen on a television---If people are willing to watch his movies in what he considered  an already severely compromised form(on a TV set), then who cares if helicopter blades are visible in that shot.

I seriously doubt he missed the helicopter blades in the editing room. There is no way. This is a guy who will reshoot a scene because the light levels weren't correct or a napkin wasn't where he wanted it. No way he would miss that.

Quote from: Myxomatosis

Quote from: The Disco KidThose helicopter blades bug the hell out of me. So does the fact that The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut are all 1.33:1 on DVD. I know that Kubrick insisted they be shown this way on video, but I also read that Kubrick didnt watch much TV, nor did he think very highly of video as a medium. He believed his movies were meant to be seen on the Big Screen and that's how he approached making them. The whole bit about him composing his film according to TV's aspect ratio is, in my mind, absurd. To believe that Kubrick actually filmed with the intention that those helicopter blades be visible in that shot is equally absurd. Its a distraction that completely jars you right out of the movie, and any sense of solitude, desolation, coming-doom, or whatever else the filmmaker intended to convey to his audience is totally lost. The fact that he left them in I think is a testament to Kubrick's attitude toward having his films seen on a television---If people are willing to watch his movies in what he considered  an already severely compromised form(on a TV set), then who cares if helicopter blades are visible in that shot.

I seriously doubt he missed the helicopter blades in the editing room. There is no way. This is a guy who will reshoot a scene because the light levels weren't correct or a napkin wasn't where he wanted it. No way he would miss that.

hahahahahahaaaaa

the kubrick estate will digitally correct all the mistakes so that no errors will be seen on the next stanley kubrick deluxe dvd box set special editon 2.0.

Quote from: mogwaithe kubrick estate will digitally correct all the mistakes so that no errors will be seen on the next stanley kubrick deluxe dvd box set special editon 2.0.

are you serious?  because i was about to buy the box set RIGHT NOW. as a birthday present,  you know, happy birthday to me.
hmm.... please don't be serious... i know you're not.  are you?

yes, i am serious. hold on to your money, sonny. the new box set will be released in late 2004/early 2005. anamorphic widescreen, baby.

EDIT: (silence)

haha mogs, u are the Punk'n master :!:

what'cha gonna do? someone's gotta represent fo da kids.

i have no clue what i'm talking about. chuckhimselfo, i'm a lying bastard.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.andrew.cmu.edu%2F%7Eamei%2Fcoleman85.jpg&hash=f77344462c3bfbe571f7c6809f913724a31ef172)

Quote from: mogwaithe kubrick estate will digitally correct all the mistakes so that no errors will be seen on the next stanley kubrick deluxe dvd box set special editon 2.0.

Does anyone else think that this will make Kubrick roll over in his grave?  Like, a lot?

there was a while where i was reading a lot of books on directors and my gut tells me that Kubrick spoke about the helicopter blades in an interview.......however, i have no clue where or when it was done

This also goes back to how the bone and the spaceship don't line up perfectly.

1/ I noticed a helicopter shadow in The Shining, is this a mistake?

"This is probably the single most often-asked and most irritating question to recur over and over again on alt.movies.kubrick.

The opening titles of The Shining consist of long, dreamlike, sweeping shots of the Rocky Mountains, as Kubrick explained to Michel Ciment (1): "It was important to establish an ominous mood during Jack's first drive up to the hotel -- the vast isolation and eerie splendour of high mountains, and the narrow, winding roads which would become impassable after heavy snow."

The helicopter footage was filmed by Greg McGillivray and Kubrick was apparently very pleased with his work: "He spent several weeks filming some of the most beautiful mountain helicopter shots I've seen." While the grace and scope of these shots is hypnotic, there is a moment, just before a low fly-by pass of the yellow VW car, where the shadow of the helicopter filming the scene is clearly visible in the lower right hand corner of the picture.

So, why is this such a hot topic on the newsgroup? Kubrick has a reputation as a perfectionist, and this is something of a very apparent gaffe. It's generated no end of commentary, mostly facetious, as to why Kubrick had "clearly" left the shot in. Some say that, if the film was projected through a widescreen gate (2) - as it would be in a cinema - the shadow would not be visible, although members of amk have refuted this. For instance Mark Ervin noticed the shadow on The Shining's third showing at Mann's Chinese Theater May 23, 1980 and he has "never failed to see it since."

AMK is lucky to have as an occasional contributor Gordon Stainforth. Gordon was an assistant editor on The Shining (he took over from Ray Lovejoy when he became ill) he actually cut the title sequence. Here's what he has to say.

"I want to try and put at rest the interminable [helicopter shadow] debate re. an apparent mistake in The Shining. I cut the title sequence, so I speak with some authority. I've said quite a lot about this before, so I hope this really is the last time!
While I did the first cut, it is just possible that Ray Lovejoy made some alterations to the picture when he was finalising the front titles and credits - I have a distinct recollection of him asking me for the trims - but I think not. But I do have a recollection that at one stage in the movie some of those cuts were going to be dissolves. It is just possible that when we changed that mix to a straight cut we went back slightly beyond the centre point of the dissolve to get the absolute maximum length out of the shot. Musically and emotionally I remember we needed absolutely every usable frame of that first long shot with the titles.

OK, some key facts:

Although The Shining was shot with the full academy aperture, it was designed and composed entirely for the 1.85:1 ratio, and that is the only way it should be projected in the theatre.

All the Steenbecks in the cutting rooms accordingly had their screens marked, or even masked off, with the 1.85:1 ratio. The 6-plate Steenbeck in Stanley and Ray's main cutting room was masked off with black masking tape, because you cannot cut a movie properly unless you can see the frame exactly as it will appear in the cinema.

However the helicopter shadow IS almost certainly visible for about 4 or 5 frames at the edge of the 1.85:1 masking. But it was NOT visible on any of the correctly marked-up Steenbecks, or in the main viewing theatre at Elstree, at least, not as the first version of the film left Elstree in 1980. I think now that this mistake may have crept in very late during the editing of the movie when the first caption-title 'The Interview' was shortened by 8 frames on 23 April 1980 and the Main Title/credit sequence was lengthened accordingly by 8 frames, since the music could not be shortened. (This information is based on my original cutting room notes)

Every one of the show prints of the first 6 interpositives for the American release of The Shining was personally checked in the viewing theatre at Elstree by Stanley himself. IF the helicopter shadow was fleetingly visible, either Stanley did not notice it, or it was so trivial that it did not bother him.

Unfortunately the masking and racking in many theatres is incredibly inaccurate. [...] I therefore suspect that people who have seen this "awful" shadow for any length of time on the cinema screen must have seen it projected at completely the wrong ratio (probably 1.66/1!), or incredibly badly racked, or both. Or of course they've seen it on the video, where it's visible for just over a second!

Incidentally (or not so incidentally!), Stanley was NOT at all bothered by the vague shadow of the rotors at the top of the frame in the last shot of the main titles."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The notion that dramas should aim to suspend our disbelief goes right back to Aristotle's "Poetics," where it was first articulated. However a similar jarring "mistakes" were deliberately employed as effects by the playwright and drama theorist Bertolt Brecht (3) in the 1930s. He even had a name for them: 'alienation effects,' (Verfremdungseffekten) and they crops up in many of his plays. Brecht used alienation effects because he wanted shatter audiences suspension of disbelief, so that they would think about the issues raised by his plays dispassionately, instead of merely being swept away by the drama.
So is the helicopter shadow a Brechtian alienation effect?

Well, to assert that we'd have to identify other points of similarity between Brecht and Kubrick. And as it happens, there are a few: Brecht was accused by his critics of being cold, and intellectual (sound familiar?) and there are examples of many 'alienation effects' in Kubrick's films. For instance, in Lolita 'Quilty,' played by Peter Sellers, refers to Kubrick's previous film when he says: "I'm Spartacus. Did you come here to free the slaves?" and in Full Metal Jacket. there is a sequence of a film director (who physically resembles a young Kubrick) filming one of the battle scenes. So it seems fair to say that a Brechtian sensibility is detectable in Kubrick's filmmaking, and furthermore not outrageous to suggest that, if he had seen the shadow, he might have left the it in. This is not to say he DELIBERATELY CONTRIVED the helicopter shadow to be there: just that he wasn't concerned enough about concealing the artifice in his art to reject such an amazing shot.

I think the bottom line of this whole debate is that it says more about Kubrick fans than Kubrick himself. The myth about his absolute perfectionism is pervasive, but like every myth about Kubrick, it can't ever be the whole truth.

BS, GS & RM

Notes
(1) Kubrick interview on The Shining by Michel Ciment available on-line at The Kubrick Site.  (back)

(2) See question 11 (note) for an explanation of aspect ratios  (back)

(3) An excellent account of Brecht and his work can be found in, "Brecht: A Choice Of Evils" by Martin Esslin  (back)

in the kubrick Canon thread there was some discussion re: Taping full metal jacket for 1.85 - here's some more insight into this ongoing debate:
______________

It seems to have been Kubrick's preference for his films to be shown in the 4:3 or "full frame" aspect ratio, because, according to his long-standing personal assistant Leon Vitali, that was the way he composed them through the camera viewfinder and if it were technically still possible to do so, he would have liked them to be shown full frame in cinemas as well. As Vitali said in a recent interview (2): "The thing about Stanley, he was a photographer that's how he started. He had a still photographer's eye. So when he composed a picture through the camera, he was setting up for what he saw through the camera - the full picture. That was very important to him. It really was. It was an instinct that never ever left him. [...] He did not like 1.85:1. You lose 27% of the picture, Stanley was a purist. This was one of the ways it was manifested."
The decision to release Kubrick's back catalogue as full frame only has been very controversial. The problem for Vitali and other defenders of the Kubrick legacy is that Kubrick never publicly voiced the preference now being attributed to him, so they are always open to the charge of over zealousness in protecting his legacy or even outright betrayal of that legacy. But this seems excessively harsh, Vitali' has been given the Hobson's choice of remaining true to his employers wishes no matter how anachronistic they seem (or may seem in future given the recent advances in home entertainment technology). Like a devoted acolyte, protecting his masters life work his position he will not yield to the clamour of criticism but will remain intractable in his resolve because he is not fighting for himself or defending his personal opinions, but those of the person he devoted half his adult life to serving. Ironically no one will ever know what would have happened if 16:9 widescreen TV sets became commonplace before Kubrick died -- he could might rethought his films one more time and chosen to transfer them to that widescreen ratio, or offered consumers the choice. Who knows? But one thing is certain, as long as his loyal staff and family still have a say in the matter, we will only being seeing his films in the format he wanted them to be shown in before he died.
____________
DP - David Mullen (NorthFork) re: Aspect Ratios

"2001," was Super Panavision and should be shown in 2.20:1 in a 70mm print. "Spartacus" was Super Technirama, which was 2.35:1 in the 35mm prints, but might have been cropped to 2.20:1 in the 70mm prints.

"Barry Lyndon," was released theatrically in 1.66:1, even in the U.S. since Kubrick insisted on 1.66 hard mattes being sent to the various theatres showing the film (1.85 is the common "flat" widescreen ratio in the U.S.).

"Dr. Strangelove," was released in home video in Kubrick's preferred "multiple aspect ratio" but there is no way it could have been shown that way theatrically since you cannot change projector mattes in mid-screening (although it could be shown in Academy 1.37 and various hard mattes could appear in the image, cropping it to 1.66 at times -- however, Academy 1.37 had pretty much become obsolete as a projection format in most theatres by the 1960's.) I saw it projected to 1.85 at the Cinerama Dome and the framing looked fine; it was a little "tight" so I suspect that 1.66 would look perfect.

"Clockwork Orange," probably should only be shown in 1.66.

"The Shining," Steadicam operator Garrett Brown has claimed that he was asked to frame for 1.85, but Kubrick since then has preferred that the home video versions be full-frame TV (basically Academy 1.37).

I think that "The Shining" and "Full Metal Jacket" would all look fine if projected at 1.66, even though I suspect that the original U.S. releases of both shown in the 1.85 format.

On  visual-memory.com there is a section claiming one of Kubricks innovations was:
Designing a film for the Steadicam
The Steadicam was first used in Hal Ashbury's Bound For Glory in 1976. But The Shining (1980) was arguably the first film that could not have been made without the device. Garrett Brown, the inventor of the Steadicam, developed special modifications to his camera for the film, such as the "low mode" that enabled Kubrick to capture Danny's tricycle rides around the Overlook Hotel in such a memorable way.
________

The kubrick archive proves this to be only a partially true statement. The film wasn't originally designed around the steadicam.

There is a letter from Jan Harlan writing to Stanley during Pre-Production of The Shining, telling him about the steadicam - included is a picture on set with garret brown (with steadicam) and director haskell wexler. In the letter Jan describes the rig and says that we may be interested in aquiring one for the Shining.  

You get the sense that the film was designed and moving forward without the Steadicam and Jan is pretty much saying - this may be an easier and more cost effective way of executing tracking shots.

It's debatable however - One could argue that hte modifications and design of the shots could be imagined but not aquired with out the Steadicam - furthermore, Kubrick very well may have changed his plans once having learned such technology exisited.