Kubrick DVDs

[Justan Zimmerman]

Recent posts have me wondering about the Kubrick DVD box set. I've avoided purchasing it because of the complaints about the picture quality when it was first released. I vaguely recall promises that a new edition of the box set with superior transfers would be issued. Did that ever happen?

 

Is it me or do a great deal of "prestige" DVD releases have disappointing transfers? The Godfather collection, Lawrence of Arabia, and Citizen Kane all come to mind (not that I'm not thankful to have them available to watch any time I wish). I'd just hate to plunk down a good chunk of cash on the Kubrick or Herzog/Kinski set only to discover a superior edition is on the way.

 

Justan Zimmerman

[David Mullen ASC]

The Kubrick DVD's were all re-released a few years ago. about two years after they were first released -- I think they all have "DIGITALLY REMASTERED" (blue with white letters) at the top of the box; otherwise the cover is the same as the previous set, which were not as good, being the same transfers as were supervised by Kubrick for the laserdisc release almost ten years earlier. The new DVD's look great.

[Jason Maeda]

my 2001 dvd looks pretty good, but i've avoided the others due to incorrect aspect ratios and general crappiness.

 

jk :ph34r:

[Max Jacoby]

my 2001 dvd looks pretty good, but i've avoided the others due to incorrect aspect ratios and general crappiness.

If you are referring to the fact that 'The Shining', 'Full Metal Jacket' and 'Eyes Wide Shut' are shown in open matte 1.33 ratio and not in the 1.85 of the theatrical release, it is important to note that Kubrick himself wanted the films to be shown in that aspect ratio. He framed these films in 1.33 and only had a 1.85 groundglass so as to make sure that he wouldn't cut off any important information for the theatrical release.

 

This was revealed by his longtime assistant Leon Vitali during an interview concerning the dvd transfers.

[David Mullen ASC]

>He framed these films in 1.33 and only had a 1.85 groundglass so as to make sure that he wouldn't cut off any important information for the theatrical release.

 

I know this is semantics, but I don't think Kubrick "framed" his movies for the TV presentation format (1.33) and "protected them" for the theatrical release! That makes no sense to me personally. And if you look at "Full Metal Jacket" many medium close-ups are framed unusually low -- because they were framed with cropping in mind. In other words, if you take the more-cropped presentation into account when composing, you are defacto composing for that format, not the less cropped format.

 

Take a look at any classic 1.37 Academy movie and you won't see the same excess headroom as you have in Kubrick's films on TV (except for "Eyes Wide Shut" which seems to have had the headroom adjusted in the transfer something Kubrick probably would not have allowed had he supervised that transfer. Unless he composed for a common topline and optically reformatted the release prints, adding a hard matte. That's one theory, unsubstantiated, because the graininess of the release prints suggests an optical step.)

 

I believe that Kubrick preferred 1.37 Academy and protected his movies for 4:3 TV as a way of achieving that look for the TV version. But he composed with the cropping in mind. In fact, when there was a festival screening of his works two years before he died, he suggested that his later films be projected with a 1.66 matte, not in 1.37 Academy.

[Steve Zimmerman]

I saw The Shining on a big screen matted for 1.85 and the compositions were excellent.

none of the excess headroom seen on the current disc. Some of the shots on the dvd are definitely zoomed in to control the headroom -- compared with what I saw projected.

Edited July 6, 2005 by Steve Zimmerman

[Dan Goulder]

>He framed these films in 1.33 and only had a 1.85 groundglass so as to make sure that he wouldn't cut off any important information for the theatrical release.

 

I know this is semantics, but I don't think Kubrick "framed" his movies for the TV presentation format (1.33) and "protected them" for the theatrical release! That makes no sense to me personally.  And if you look at "Full Metal Jacket" many medium close-ups are framed unusually low -- because they were framed with cropping in mind. In other words, if you take the more-cropped presentation into account when composing, you are defacto composing for that format, not the less cropped format.

 

Take a look at any classic 1.37 Academy movie and you won't see the same excess headroom as you have in Kubrick's films on TV (except for "Eyes Wide Shut" which seems to have had the headroom adjusted in the transfer something Kubrick probably would not have allowed had he supervised that transfer.  Unless he composed for a common topline and optically reformatted the release prints, adding a hard matte. That's one theory, unsubstantiated, because the graininess of the release prints suggests an optical step.)

 

I believe that Kubrick preferred 1.37 Academy and protected his movies for 4:3 TV as a way of achieving that look for the TV version.  But he composed with the cropping in mind. In fact, when there was a festival screening of his works two years before he died, he suggested that his later films be projected with a 1.66 matte, not in 1.37 Academy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

HDnet is currently showing Eyes Wide Shut in its theatrical 1:85 aspect ratio. What seems apparent is that Kubrick framed for the theater, and protected the full frame for TV. If you get a chance to see it this way, you'll observe a much different movie, exhibiting a greater presence and intensity to the acting, which is moved more to the foreground. The extra headroom of the 4:3 version seems to make the whole movie seem more remote, as the actors are naturally pushed farther away.

[Sean Azze]

Anyone know a way to get that doc on Kubrick (Life in Pictures I believe its called, something banal like that) without having to buy the entire boxed set?