Kubrick's "Paths of Glory"

[Guest Ian Marks]

I watched a DVD of "Paths of Glory" last night and was wondering if anyone had specific information about how it was shot. IMDB lists its year of release as 1957, and I'm curious as to what the original aspect ratio was (the DVD I watched was not letterboxed), what kind of cameras and lenses were used, etc. The film has some truly wonderful black and white images and innovative (for 1957) camera moves - I'm particularly curious about a long reverse tracking shot early in the film in which a general (not the Kirk Douglas character) moves through the trenches inspecting his troops. The audio for the shot didn't seem to be looped, but I would have thought that recording synchronous dialogue along with such extensive movement would have been nearly impossible back then.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

All I know is that it was shot very wide for it's time - that's part of the look. Except for maybe Gregg Toland you just didn't do it that way back then. Great movie, isn't it?

[David Mullen ASC]

It was shot in 1.37 Academy but by 1957, most theaters would have projected it cropped to widescreen, matted from 1.66 to 1.85 (it was a time of change). Kubrick wanted it transferred unmatted to 4x3 video as he did some of his other films released theaterically for 1.66/1.85, such as "The Shining", etc.

 

"Clockwork Orange" and "Barry Lyndon" are mildly matted on DVD, probably because they were shot with camera hard mattes. "Dr. Strangelove" has some shots matted and others not, and Kubrick wanted it left that way on 4x3 video even though in theaters it would be projected in one widescreen aspect ratio. Recently a new DVD of "Dr. Strangelove" has come out that is letterboxed consistently, to 1.66 I think. Kubrick never really explained his reasons for not matching the video versions to the theatrical versions but one theory is that he liked the old 1.37 Academy ratio and saw 4x3 TV as one arena to create that look, even though he shot those films with theatrical cropping in mind. Don't know if Kubrick would have persisted in this approach if TV had all switched over to 1.77 (16x9).

 

His only two truly widescreen movies, "2001" (2.20 Super Panavision) and "Spartacus" (2.35 Super Technirama) were transferred to video in their theaterical ratios according to his wishes (not that he had much control over "Spartacus" anyway.)

[Guest Ian Marks]

Ack! Now I'll have to seek out a letterboxed DVD of the film to see the way it was intended to be seen.

 

BTW, I was absolutely blown away by the look of "Twin Falls Idaho" - I actually remember telling someone how much I admired the cinematography. "Northfork" was an extraordinarily gorgeous film too.

[Guest Ian Marks]

Oops - I guess I *did* see it as intended (4:3).

[Ben Schwartz]

An interesting sidenote about the shooting of this film...Kubrick's DP on the film, George Krause, was a respected German professional who became increasingly incensed over the 28-year-old director's insistence on guiding every aspect of the photography -- frame, lens, movement, even lighting! Krause eventually had enough and quit mid-picture, leaving SK to finish the film as his own DP. The famous Attack on the Anthill scene, easily one of the 5 greatest battle scenes in film, was filmed with Kubrick in the DP role. He actually operated the handheld camera that zooms in and out from Kirk Douglas.

 

28 years old. Kind of humbling, no?