Stanley Kubrick

Discussion and info on people in film, ranging from directors to actors to cinematographers to writers.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
who is bobby dylan
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:50 am

#26 Post by who is bobby dylan » Thu Nov 24, 2005 4:12 pm

To me, Kubrick is the most economical filmmaker in all of cinema history.
The Shining had a reported shooting ratio of 102:1 by no stretch of anyone's imagination is Stanley Kubrick the most economical director in the history of the cinema. Good yes. Economical no.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

#27 Post by Gregory » Thu Nov 24, 2005 4:36 pm

I'm, pretty sure he's saying that the final, edited cuts are the most economical of films, in an aesthetic sense. It's silly to take economical to mean shooting as little extra footage as possible beyond what you need to put the final cut together. By that definition, Edward D. Wood would beat most or all of the great filmmakers due to his sloppiness and lack of funds.

User avatar
who is bobby dylan
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:50 am

#28 Post by who is bobby dylan » Thu Nov 24, 2005 4:57 pm

It's silly to take economical to mean shooting as little extra footage as possible beyond what you need to put the final cut together.
No. A movie cost money and one shot at a shooting ratio of 102:1 cost more than the same movie shot at a ratio of 15:1 or 5:1. Next, in no way did I specify shooting as little extra footage as possible. I simply pointed out that it's silly to call a director who shoots 7 to 20 times the average shooting ratio the most economical director in the history of the cinema. Even if we limit it to aesthetics, why separate the making of the film from the made film, making a film is still aesthetics. Obviously someone who shoots at 102:1 has wasted many shots and is very self-indulgent. I'm not saying that shooting a lot is bad or a little good. Simply that shooting 102:1 isn't (the most) economical. I don't see why you disagree.

Next, so what if the standard meant that Wood was the most economical director ever? I think one of the good things about cinema, is that because it includes so much a good director or a good film can do some things well and some poorly and still be good (or bad for that matter). Kubrick does many things well, however making the most economic films (ever) isn't one of them. Also, if you want a standard without using Wood. There is Godard. Breathless 3:1 ratio.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

#29 Post by Gregory » Thu Nov 24, 2005 5:31 pm

I simply pointed out that it's silly to call a director who shoots 7 to 20 times the average shooting ratio the most economical director in the history of the cinema. Even if we limit it to aesthetics, why separate the making of the film from the made film, making a film is still aesthetics.
I still think you're equivocating on "economical," which in critical discussions of films usually refers to a film's ability to communicate with minimum filler, obviousness, elaboration, extraneous dialogue, and the like. It's an aesthetic term that describes the clarity and precision of a film after it has been edited, which is the form in which critics and other viewers see and appreciate films, thus the separation. I don't know what you mean by "making a film is still aesthetics." Would we be applying aesthetic criteria to, say, Kubrick's decision to shoot 30 takes of a scene rather than use one with which he was less satisfied, or would they be applied somehow to all the takes themselves, or what?
Obviously someone who shoots at 102:1 has wasted many shots and is very self-indulgent.
I don't think that's obvious or even true. If actors are repeatedly failing to perform something the director wants to capture, I don't think it's all the director's fault for being meticulous. It also doesn't leave a lot of room for radically different ways of conceptualizing or re-conceptualizing the production of a film, nor does it allow for often endless difficulties that arise during an ambitious production. I think films and the people who make them should be judged on their own merits, not by how closely they adhered to filmmaking norms such as the 5:1 to 15:1 window, which exists mainly for budgetary reasons.

User avatar
who is bobby dylan
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:50 am

#30 Post by who is bobby dylan » Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:06 pm

You're right. It's silly to take economical to mean shooting as little extra footage as possible beyond what you need to put the final cut together.

You're right. I was wrong to criticize someone for calling Stanley Kubrick the most economical director in the history of the cinema, because he had a shooting ratio on The Shining of 102:1. 7 to 20 times the average.

You're right. My standard for the word economical would lead to a world where Edward D. Wood would beat most or all of the great filmmakers due to his sloppiness and lack of funds.

You're right. Instead of using economical in a broad sense, we should limit it to the narrow sense of critical discussions where it usually refers to a film's ability to communicate with minimum filler, obviousness, elaboration, extraneous dialogue, and the like.

You're right. Aesthetics apply only to a made film and not the making of a film. It's silly to think of applying the same judgement to an action as to its effect.

You're right. It's neither obvious nor true that someone who shoots at 102:1 has wasted many shots and is very self-indulgent. It's probably the actors fault and a director cannot be criticized for being meticulous.

You're not right. When you say:
It also doesn't leave a lot of room for radically different ways of conceptualizing or re-conceptualizing the production of a film, nor does it allow for often endless difficulties that arise during an ambitious production. I think films and the people who make them should be judged on their own merits, not by how closely they adhered to filmmaking norms such as the 5:1 to 15:1 window, which exists mainly for budgetary reasons.
First, in no way have I stated economical (in my broad sense) as the ultimate or only standard by which to judge a film. In fact I was quite clear when I said that:
I think one of the good things about cinema, is that because it includes so much a good director or a good film can do some things well and some poorly and still be good (or bad for that matter).
Obviously and truly this view specifically allows for radically different ways of conceptualizing and re-conceptualizing the production of a film, because it allows a director or film to self-determine what aspects of filmmaking they focus on. It allows for a system of judgement that takes the different possible aspects of filmmaking into account. Second, in what way am I not judging Kubrick or The Shining on their own merits? Did I say Kubrick was a bad director or The Shining a bad film? No, I simply said that Kubrick was a good, but not economical (in my broad sense) director. Isn't one of Kubrick's merits, his choice (which I saw as self-indulgent) to shoot at 102:1? Isn't that an aspect of The Shining? Afterall, it's not an aspect of Godard or Breathless. When talking about Godard would it be silly to say that his aesthetics (or how he made the film) extemporaneous had an affect on the made film Breathless? Is it really so silly to say that the making of a film has something to do with the made film?

Economical is not an aesthetic term. It's an economic term adopted by critics and in my opinion they and you use it narrowly and incorrectly. Also, I don't think it is true (especially of critics or people on this forum) that films are seen and appreciated only in their finished form. I think many people like to see and appreciate films in their full form. From reading about the director, actors, source material, to the pre-production of a film, its production and post-production. To say nothing of the historical or political context in which a film is first released or how that context is altered by time. What we're really talking about here is the meaning of the word economical. You can think a word means whatever you want as can I, but whose definition is better? A narrow concept that limits economical to include only the final, finished cut of a film. Or a broad concept that allows it to include how that film is made, the time, money and style of the production itself, which of course has an influence on the finished cut of a film. Atleast my concept, can be measured. The shooting ratio of The Shining is 102:1. What about your standard? What is the measurement of the obviousness, elaboration, extraneous dialog of The Shining? Or its clarity and precision?

If Che-etienne had said that Kubrick, was the best director editor or even that his films had the least obvious, elaborated, extraneous editing I would still have disagreed with him, but it would have been an argument about taste, not truth. Instead he used the word economical. It means something other than what he does and so I disagree with him. What is still unclear is why you disagree with me? You have either misconstrued or mis-understood my arguments and I've gone to the trouble of correcting you twice now. You introduced an argument without any facts (Ed Wood) which I answered with facts (Godard) and you ignored it. The logic of my argument. Godard is more economical than Kubrick. My opinion they're both good directors. The logic of your argument, because Kubrick is great, it's okay to use economic in such a narrow sense, that not only can he be a good director in general, but that it's possible to consider him also the most economical director in the history of the cinema. Why not consider him the tallest director in the history of the cinema too? Based on the subjective tallness of his films?

You're right a 5:1 or 15:1 window exists for budgetary reasons, but so does a 102:1 window.

From imdb.com:
Stanley Kubrick ordered more than 120 takes in the scene where the camera simply slowly zooms in on Scatman Crothers as he "shines" in his bedroom. Kubrick originally wanted approximately 70 takes of the scene where Halloran gets killed by Jack Torrance, but Jack Nicholson talked Kubrick into going easy on the 70 year-old Crothers and stopping after 40. At one point during the filming, Crothers became so exasperated with Kubrick's notorious, compulsive style of excessive retakes that he broke down and cried, asking "What do you want, Mr. Kubrick?"
I'm not saying that Kubrick shouldn't have been able to make films the way he wanted, but that his way of making films was very self-indulgent in comparison (remember the discussion began with a comparison of Kubrick and Tarantino) to most other filmmakers.

User avatar
exte
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

#31 Post by exte » Fri Nov 25, 2005 5:13 pm

who is bobby dylan wrote:Crothers became so exasperated with Kubrick's notorious, compulsive style of excessive retakes that he broke down and cried, asking "What do you want, Mr. Kubrick?"
Wow, I wish I was there to have seen it. I really wonder how Kubrick reacted to this, and the rest of his crew. Was he really thrown back, or agitated by his performer...

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

#32 Post by Gregory » Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:00 pm

My main point all along is that there is equivocation going on here. I thought it was pretty clear that che-etienne meant that The Shining is economical beacuse not a single shot in the finished cut is extraneous. You can define the word "economical" however you like, but when you use a different definition of a word than someone else in order to dispute their statement, that's rhetorical sleight-of-hand and it's accepted to be a logical fallacy.
Of course, fallacious arguments are nothing new around here but all the ones you've used make for a very tedious discussion, which I no longer want any part of. A barrage of sarcasm certainly doesn't make me want to wade through a lengthy post. I also think you're attributing arguments to me that I never made. Also, you make red-herring statements, like the thing about Breathless proving a "standard without Wood." Simply giving another example doesn't get rid of the example I noted in order to show the consequences of a definition that states that lower shooting ratios are preferred over the wasteful, self-indulgent vice of those that far exceed industry standards. Also, I never denied that the making of a film has something to do with the made film, and I didn't say that aesthetic judgments have nothing to do with the making of a film, I simply statment about the normal scope of critical inquiry and asked a question about exactly how it would be extended.

yukiyuki
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 10:06 am
Location: Jakarta
Contact:

#33 Post by yukiyuki » Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:02 am

anyone knows why did Kubrick make Dr Strangelove in Black n White?
thx

User avatar
godardslave
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:44 pm
Location: Confusing and open ended = high art.

#34 Post by godardslave » Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:54 pm

yukiyuki wrote:anyone knows why did Kubrick make Dr Strangelove in Black n White?
because it looks nice and pretty.

User avatar
Godot
Cri me a Tearion
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Phoenix

#35 Post by Godot » Wed Dec 07, 2005 9:38 pm

anyone knows why did Kubrick make Dr Strangelove in Black n White?

I don't have his interviews or biographies in front of me, but I would propose:
1. It was less expensive, and Kubrick was budget-conscious.
2. It suited itself to the subject matter and the writers' approach: darker, less realistic (which, as Kubrick pointed out, conversely made the film more realistic than if they had filmed it in a "realistic" manner, because those types of films are so phony by their exclusion of "the banal, the absurd, and the incongruous; in the context of impending world destruction, hypocrisy, misunderstanding, lechery, paranoia, ambition, euphemism, patriotism, heroism and even reasonableness can evoke a grisly laugh" (from Thomas Nelson's Inside a Film Artist's Maze). The film is not a "spectacle" after all (unlike the earlier Spartacus (which had already begun filming when he joined, and he had less say in the production details) and all his subsequent films). Some analysts have commented on how Kubrick used the high key lighting (and low-angle framing) to enhance the sinister and grotesque appearances of Ripper and Turgidson, surely more difficult to pull off with color at the time.
3. Kubrick, a former Look photographer, loved the high contrast of monochrome and ability to use available light for his compositions. Many of the scenes in DSoHILtSWaLtB have light sources only native to the surrounding (the cockpit and claustrophobic plane environs, the war room, the base offices ... note the first scene with Mandrake turning off the lights). Kubrick would not perfect how to use low light for color film until he invented the proper camera equipment for Barry Lyndon.
4. He could more easily incorporate documentary film images (and those he shot to appear as if they were documentary) such as the opening plane fueling, the attack on the base, and the final explosions. This both saved money and enhanced the "realism" which makes the humor more biting.

User avatar
NABOB OF NOWHERE
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Brandywine River

#36 Post by NABOB OF NOWHERE » Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:05 pm

3. Kubrick, a former Look photographer, loved the high contrast of monochrome and ability to use available light for his compositions. Many of the scenes in DSoHILtSWaLtB have light sources only native to the surrounding (the cockpit and claustrophobic plane environs, the war room, the base offices ... note the first scene with Mandrake turning off the lights). Kubrick would not perfect how to use low light for color film until he invented the proper camera equipment for Barry Lyndon.

I can in some way back this proposition up. I used to work with Gil Taylor (the DOP on Strangelove). He told me that Kubrik was adamant that they should use practical lighting as the primary source. This coupled with Kubrik's admiration for Gil's B&W work(Ice Cold in Alex,Cul de Sac etc.) would seem to be the most feasible answer.

User avatar
pzman84
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:05 pm

#37 Post by pzman84 » Mon Jan 16, 2006 12:09 am

One thing I find interesting about Kubrick is how he used Spherical lenses. The only film Kubrick used anamorphic lenses was Spartacus but on that Kubrick had no choice. Kirk Douglas was the producer and had used Technorama on The Vikings and decided to use it again. On 2001 he used 70mm but the lenses were nonetheless spherical. Also, with the exception of Spartacus and 2001, all of his films are either 1.33:1 or 1.66:1 aspect ratio (Eyes Wide Shut was released theatrically as 1.85:1 but there is some controversy on what its true ratio is). It appears he was very committed to preserving the Academy frame. Is this just a coincidence or not? I was wondering since he was a still photographer first if he had a commitment to the Academy frame and a distain for anamorphic lenses.

marty

#38 Post by marty » Mon Jan 16, 2006 12:19 am

pzman84 wrote:I was wondering since he was a still photographer first if he had a commitment to the Academy frame and a distain for anamorphic lenses.
I don't think he had a clear disdain for anamorphic lenses but most of his films are in 1.33:1 or 1.66:1 aspect ratio because he didn't want his films to be pan-and-scan or cropped when seen on television. This is what I read in one of his biographies so please correct me if I am wrong and someone else knows the real reason but I am fairly sure I am right.

This seems to be odd since his films are so cinematic and made for the big screen. I would have loved to have seen him direct in 2.35:1 aspect ratio. It would have been brilliant!

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#39 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:32 am

marty wrote:This seems to be odd since his films are so cinematic and made for the big screen. I would have loved to have seen him direct in 2.35:1 aspect ratio. It would have been brilliant!
If memory serves, wasn't Spartacus and also 2001 shot in this aspect ratio?

User avatar
a7m4
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 8:36 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

#40 Post by a7m4 » Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:13 pm

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:If memory serves, wasn't Spartacus and also 2001 shot in this aspect ratio?
Correct me if I am wrong but Spartacus and 2001 were shot on 70mm and they had an aspect ratio of 2.20 and were not shot with anamorphic lenses. Though I would assume that the 35mm release prints would be anamorphic.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

#41 Post by Gregory » Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:54 pm

pzman82 wrote:Also, with the exception of Spartacus and 2001, all of his films are either 1.33:1 or 1.66:1 aspect ratio (Eyes Wide Shut was released theatrically as 1.85:1 but there is some controversy on what its true ratio is). It appears he was very committed to preserving the Academy frame.
That's what I used to believe but further research has made it apparent that he composed his films at a variety of ratios. The early films were academy ratio of course, but later ones such as The Shining were composed for 1.85:1 and screened theatrically at that ratio. However, he wisely "protected" the whole 1.33:1 frame so that they could be shown at home in open matte, without pan and scan and without boom microphones, crew members, etc. This was before widescreen TVs became common, and he may have also felt that letterboxing the image for standard TVs would have reduced the size of the picture in a way that viewers would find undesirable. Now I think the best thing is for home viewers to watch these post-2001 Kubricks (with the possible exception of Eyes Wide Shut) in a wider ratio on a reasonably sized TV or projection so that the compositions are more tightly framed.

User avatar
justeleblanc
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:05 pm
Location: Connecticut

#42 Post by justeleblanc » Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:57 pm

I'm confused. Why does Warner really care about what Kubrick wanted? That didn't stop them from editing the sex scene. I'm sure Kubrick really wanted animated people to block the action.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#43 Post by Andre Jurieu » Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:29 pm

Ivory wrote:I'm confused. Why does Warner really care about what Kubrick wanted? That didn't stop them from editing the sex scene. I'm sure Kubrick really wanted animated people to block the action.
Apparently, the "official" position is that Kubrick planned to block the sex scenes for North American audiences. I have my doubts about that, but if it was what he was planning to do all along then Warners was just simply following his wishes.

User avatar
Doctor Sunshine
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:04 pm
Location: Brain Jail

#44 Post by Doctor Sunshine » Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:42 pm

He agreed to do the CG coverups only to get the R-rating. As important as artist freedom may have been to him, marketing was right up there too. Also, I think if Eyes Wide Shut had come out maybe a year later there would have been no question as to releasing the unrated DVD in North America, that's about when the unrated/director's cut craze caught on.

And Coppola, Lucas and those boys. Altering the DVD release from the theatrical version is an across-the-board gimmick. And if the alteration includes more sex alls the better for the freaky home video racket.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#45 Post by Andre Jurieu » Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:14 am

davidhare wrote:Andre, it's simply inconceivable that Kubrick "blocked" the sex bits for the US release print (I think someone else did that)
Given the fact that I have know first-hand knowledge of the production of the film and the fact that I didn't know Kubrick personally, I can't really say what he intended. All I do know is that Warner states that his choice was to block it for US release to secure the R rating. I have my doubts that Kubrick would have done this, but just because I have my own suspicions and doubts doesn't make my theories accurate. I could conceive a scenario where he would decide to block the scene with CGI, based on the widely held belief that he was a kook and the fact that an R rating would be necessary for the film, but I have no conclusive facts on the matter, so everything is just speculation.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

#46 Post by Gregory » Wed Jan 18, 2006 2:58 pm

We know that the figures were added to secure the contractually agreed upon R rating. Everyone involved understood that something had to be done to appease the MPAA and saw this as the far lesser evil to making actual cuts to the film as Kubrick intended.

rwaits
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:24 pm

#47 Post by rwaits » Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:06 pm

I realize this question is a bit silly, and possibly common knowledge, but I can't find anything on the web. Does anyone here know what films (not including his own) Kubrick considered to be important, inspirational, or his favorites?

User avatar
Oedipax
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:48 am
Location: Atlanta

#48 Post by Oedipax » Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:14 pm

rwaits wrote:I realize this question is a bit silly, and possibly common knowledge, but I can't find anything on the web. Does anyone here know what films (not including his own) Kubrick considered to be important, inspirational, or his favorites?
When the American magazine Cinema asked him in 1963 to name his favorite films, Kubrick listed the following titles:
1. I Vitelloni (Federico Fellini, 1953)
2. Wild Strawberries (Ingmar Bergman, 1958)
3. Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941)
4. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (John Huston, 1948)
5. City Lights (Charles Chaplin, 1931)
6. Henry V (Laurence Olivier, 1945)
7. La Notte (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1961)
8. The Bank Dick (W.C. Fields, 1940)
9. Roxie Hart (William Wellman, 1942)
10. Hell's Angels (Howard Hughes, 1930).
He was also a big fan of Max Ophuls.

Oh, also, I just remembered reading that Kubrick was a big fan of Eraserhead - David Lynch reportedly heard from someone that it was Kubrick's all-time favorite.

Cinéslob
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:31 pm

#49 Post by Cinéslob » Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:16 pm

rwaits wrote:I realize this question is a bit silly, and possibly common knowledge, but I can't find anything on the web. Does anyone here know what films (not including his own) Kubrick considered to be important, inspirational, or his favorites?

From a talk with Jan Harlan here:
What films and directors did Stanley Kubrick admire?

There were many. He loved Woody Allen, Steven Spielberg, Ingmar Bergman, Carlos Saura, Edgar Reitz, Felini. Yeah, lots. Edgar Reitz, he did a film called Heimat. Amazing scenes there. The best thing that came out of Germany after the war. Mind you, very little came out of Germany after the war, but I mean Reitz is great. He loved Carlos Saura, a Spanish director who did a film called Cría Cuervos. Wonderful film. Also Blood Wedding by Saura. Hhe loved Woody Allen and he liked Steven Spielberg films. Oh he liked lots of films. He was very knowledgeable and in fact he saw everything. I also know there were a lot of films he would give up after ten minutes. We had stacks of prints in our projection room and many times he would only see reel one because if reel one somehow leaves you totally cold, the risk is too great to go on and waste another hour and a half. He was an ardent film lover.

And more on the subject of Heimat and Edgar Reitz, from here:
Edgar Reitz

With HEIMAT (1984), the probably most ambitious project in post-war German film history, Edgar Reitz became one of Stanley Kubrick's favorite film directors. It comes as no surprise that the attention to detail and the amazing long narrative breath of the almost 1000 minute long film roused Kubrick's admiration. He saw all of it in his private movie theater and hung his favorite film still (of Maria's coffin on the rainy street in Schabbach) over his desk. Kubrick contacted Reitz at that time to ask him about his set designer Franz Bauer whom he considered for Aryan Papers. When, years later, Kubrick had finished the filming of EYES WIDE SHUT he expressed the wish that all dubbed versions in the most important European countries be supervised by his favorite film directors: in France Patrice Chareau, in Spain Carlos Saura, in Italy Bernardo Bertolucci, and in Germany Edgar Reitz. At that time Reitz was busy preparing HEIMAT III, yet after Kubrick's untimely death he bent to his wish.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

#50 Post by Gregory » Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:38 pm

In addition to those already listed, I've read that he also adored these: Closely Watched Trains, Kieslowski, Easy Rider, Eraserhead, Kurosawa (especially Seven Samurai), Polanski (esp. The Tenant). To what degree these influenced him is very much up for discussion.
I never knew but am glad to hear that Kubrick admired Chereau. It's too bad Kubrick didn't live long enough to see some of his most interesting work.

Post Reply