Dr. Strangelove

[Dan Goulder]

Does anyone know what lenses were used on the movie "Dr. Strangelove", especially for the wide angle shots? Thanks. (As composition has been the topic of a recent thread, I'd recommend this movie as a great example of superb shot composition.)

[Max Jacoby]

I believe it was a Cooke Speeds Panchro set, with a 14.5mm Angénieux and a 28mm Schneider thrown in.

[Guest Glen Alexander]

I believe it was a Cooke Speeds Panchro set, with a 14.5mm Angénieux and a 28mm Schneider thrown in.

 

Come on Max, you need to list serial numbers as well. :lol:

[Max Jacoby]

That should be quite easy, just go to the Stanley Kubrick exhibition. Don't know where it is at the moment, but they have all his lenses on display there ;) Also some contiunity reports from Dr. Strangelove where the 14.5mm was being used.

 

The lenses are in a display, but the boxes are there as well. I opened one of them. Whereas in a regular box you'd find one of these anti-humidity packs, here there was at least five!

[Michael Lehnert]

Just double-checked the exhibition catalogues (Zürich edition) and you are of course right, Max. As if... :D

 

 

(envy you for touching the stuff... I only got soo close... damn; hmm, "Raiders of the lost Lenses")

[Christian Appelt]

from www.stanleykubrick.de :

 

Currently plans are in the works to take Stanley Kubrick to London in 2008. All information concerning the tour will as usual be published on www.stanleykubrick.de.

A redesign of the exhibit, now starting its fifth year, is definitely planned. After London, our goal is to show Stanley Kubrick in at least two locations in the United States, before travelling to Asia.

 

If someone wants to know places and dates to see Kubrick's film equipment (and write down all serial numbers...), you can subscribe to the Stanley Kubrick Newsletter here:

 

SK Newsletter

[Guest Glen Alexander]

from www.stanleykubrick.de :

 

 

 

If someone wants to know places and dates to see Kubrick's film equipment (and write down all serial numbers...), you can subscribe to the Stanley Kubrick Newsletter here:

 

SK Newsletter

 

interestingly they left out "A-I", will the real story of how kubrik and spielberg clashed ever be told?

[Max Jacoby]

It would have been very hard for them to 'clash' since Kubrick died before the film was made.

[Guest Glen Alexander]

It would have been very hard for them to 'clash' since Kubrick died before the film was made.

 

i read/recall that originally they were collaborating on the film, big clash of ego, spielberg left, whatever, when kubrik died during production, spielberg stepped back in to finish it.

[Max Jacoby]

Kubrick died during the post-production of Eyes Wide Shut. AI was going to be his next film, in fact he initially wanted to make it before EWS, but then decided that he had to wait a bit, to let the CGI catch up with what he had in mind. Spielberg stepped in after his death, not sure who asked him, probably Kubrick's family, but the reason is that previously already Kubrick had suggested that he produce the film and Spielberg direct it. Nothing came of that, Spielberg only accepted to do the film after Kubrick's death. I wish he had kept his hands off it though.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

From what I heard, it was at the behest of Kubrick's wife that Spielberg stepped back in, but I could be mistaken on that.

[Guest Glen Alexander]

From what I heard, it was at the behest of Kubrick's wife that Spielberg stepped back in, but I could be mistaken on that.

 

you believe Kubrik couldn't deal with all of the computer cgi and wanted spielberg to direct? the movie had no real 'kubrik' feel at all.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

IM sure Stanley could've handled the special effects. I mean, c'mon 2001! It's just that He died before the film could be shot, and Spielberg took it over. He probably realized for what he wanted the technology was not quite right; but all of this is just guestimation. There are some mentions about it on the special edition DVD of AI if memory serves?

I agree the film has no stanley feel to it which saddened me greatly. I still enjoy the movie for what it is, though and as I look primarily at the cinematography, i am impressed with what Mr. Kaminski did on the piece (especially in the house set).

I think nothing, recently really, can compare to the cinema we used to have, but that's a whole other discussion.

[Guest Glen Alexander]

IM sure Stanley could've handled the special effects. I mean, c'mon 2001! It's just that He died before the film could be shot, and Spielberg took it over. He probably realized for what he wanted the technology was not quite right; but all of this is just guestimation. There are some mentions about it on the special edition DVD of AI if memory serves?

I agree the film has no stanley feel to it which saddened me greatly. I still enjoy the movie for what it is, though and as I look primarily at the cinematography, i am impressed with what Mr. Kaminski did on the piece (especially in the house set).

I think nothing, recently really, can compare to the cinema we used to have, but that's a whole other discussion.

 

2001 effects were really 'simple' physical effects, models, matt paintings, lighting, Dave Bowman tripping on acid ha ha ha. AI much more cgi, flying spacecraft in atmosphere lights flashing, robots walking/talking, much more. kubrik shelved AI off and on (I read) until he saw jarassic park then decided to try to make AI.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

True, but i'd not call the effects exactly simple. From what I recall they were the most expensive until that date (10mil? i think).

As for AI, it's a sad thing that Mr. Kubrick didn't live long enough to make it himself; though personally I'm more interested in the rumored Napoleon script he had done.

[Michael Lehnert]

2001 effects were really 'simple' physical effects, models, matt paintings, lighting, Dave Bowman tripping on acid ha ha ha.

 

Ehrm... is that sentence for real or one where a big laughing smiley has been forgotten or unclearly substituted with "hahaha"... if not, then sorry, Glen, but this would win the "most inept post of the week" award!

 

Christiane and Steven Spielberg have been as close as Stanley and him. According to a chat with Jan Harlan, it was at his and her bequeth that Spielberg took custodianship of the project. You can clearly see how the first roughly third of the movie has a somewhat Kubrik'esque dimension which breaks into a Spielbergian style when he clearly took ownership of the film project. AI was originally scheduled for 1993, indeed after Stanley saw JP (which was the last old school "sense of wonder" blockbuster from Hollywood and Spielberg, too -- until today, with Indy IV, I guess), but was shelved because CGI was then unable to provide realistic reproductions of liquid qualities (i.e. water, flows, rain etc). That's how Kubrick re-opened his interest in Freudian psychoanalysis and Schnitzler's Traumnovelle, in light of our current lifestyle quite a über-appropriate topic! AI was supposed to then be scheduled for production in 2001 according to Stanley's agenda... unfortunately, that did not occur.

[Guest Glen Alexander]

Ehrm... is that sentence for real or one where a big laughing smiley has been forgotten or unclearly substituted with "hahaha"... if not, then sorry, Glen, but this would win the "most inept post of the week" award!

 

well since there is no more Monty Python, the Poms don't have any sense or humor or else your post is the verbal equivalent of a bad Benny Hills episode. if there were any good ones...?

Edited May 22, 2008 by Glen Alexander

[Michael Lehnert]

*sigh of relief*

 

puh, that was a close shave with a big machete. now back to watching my complete DVD collection of Benny Hill follies, only interrupted by briefly switching over to the BBC for the all-night Crewe by-election coverage... live... from Crewe... all accompanied by a bottle of finest wine. Blue Nun, of course, not some Médoc...

[David Auner aac]

2001 effects were really 'simple' physical effects, models, matt paintings, lighting, Dave Bowman tripping on acid ha ha ha.

 

Well, I'd call the effects in this movie quite about anything BUT simple. These are some of the most elaborate, complex and most beautifully executed FX in movie history!

I think you should read up on "old-school" effects techniques like traveling mattes and other optical printer tricks to appreciate the marvel they achieved in that movie. Most of the contemporary CGI loaded movies will never look as beautiful as 2001! (And yes, CGI is way superior to older methods, but nowadays only so many CG laden movies are really well made. Most of it is cheap "look what I can do" stuff and not "the story needs it, so we do it well"!) Along with Stars Wars (IV) and Blade Runner 2001 is really the pinnacle of optical Sci-Fi FX!

 

Cheers, Dave

 

PS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space...Special_effects

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_printer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_effects

[Guest Glen Alexander]

Well, I'd call the effects in this movie quite about anything BUT simple. These are some of the most elaborate, complex and most beautifully executed FX in movie history!

I think you should read up on "old-school" effects techniques like traveling mattes and other optical printer tricks to appreciate the marvel they achieved in that movie. Most of the contemporary CGI loaded movies will never look as beautiful as 2001! (And yes, CGI is way superior to older methods, but nowadays only so many CG laden movies are really well made. Most of it is cheap "look what I can do" stuff and not "the story needs it, so we do it well"!) Along with Stars Wars (IV) and Blade Runner 2001 is really the pinnacle of optical Sci-Fi FX!

 

Cheers, Dave

 

PS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space...Special_effects

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_printer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_effects

 

 

 

how about these?

 

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/gaffe.html

 

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=Va...mp;cs=1&p=0

 

i actuall 'get' all the aspects of 2001, to me, it's not the holy grail of art or film making. there's no real humanity, no real emotional context, it's a complete story of rationalization of "MAN" but it is a true form of "Science" and "Fiction". i don't, can't watch it, the story bores me beyond comprehension.

 

what was the original thread?? ha ha ha

Edited May 23, 2008 by Glen Alexander

[David Auner aac]

i actuall 'get' all the aspects of 2001, to me, it's not the holy grail of art or film making. there's no real humanity, no real emotional context, it's a complete story of rationalization of "MAN" but it is a true form of "Science" and "Fiction". i don't, can't watch it, the story bores me beyond comprehension.

 

No problem with that. You're not the only one who will disagree with me liking the story as well. But you can't dismiss the technical quality on grounds of taste.

 

Cheers, Dave

[Guest Glen Alexander]

No problem with that. You're not the only one who will disagree with me liking the story as well. But you can't dismiss the technical quality on grounds of taste.

 

Cheers, Dave

 

agree, technically there are some very good aspects that kubrik pushed to the frontier of making a film. clockwork orange to me was his best work, as it good in front of and behind the camera, inventive, original, great casting.

[joshua gallegos]

Did anyone watch the Dr. Strangelove special event by Turner Classic Movies? It was a nationwide release by Fathom Events. I saw the film tonight, and it's the first film I've seen in a theater since forever, and I quickly erupted in tears as the film opened, I don't even know why that happened, but maybe it's because I've been resentful of movies for the obvious reason that it was my dream to make them someday. It was sad that only four people showed up for the screening, considering the movie house had a capacity of 300 people, it just shows you that very few people treat cinema as an art or have any respect for the classics. Film lovers are something of a deep minority; when I saw the film again I just appreciated it even more, that first close-up of Sterling Hayden was breathtaking, I just needed such an experience in my life again.

Edited September 22, 2016 by joshua gallegos

[Tyler Purcell]

Time to get a BluRay player, some movies and setup a decent home theater. :)

[joshua gallegos]

Time to get a BluRay player, some movies and setup a decent home theater. :)

There's no substitute for an actual movie theater. A massive movie screen DEMANDS your attention. Watching a movie at home is deeply distracting, your tempted to do something else, it's not the same experience.