"2001" behind-the-scenes photos

[David Mullen ASC]

http://oneperfectshotdb.com/news/the-ultimate-trip-100-rare-behind-the-scenes-photos-from-stanley-kubricks-2001-a-space-odyssey/

 

Some great photos of the sets being shot. I've always been fascinated about how fluorescent lighting was often faked with large tungsten units or globes hidden behind frosted panels back in the days of 50 ASA film in the 1960's.

 

The photo of the lighting set-up in the centrifuge set suggests that Kubrick wanted any additional lighting to be bounced - you can see some large mushroom globe bulbs in reflector housings bouncing into white cards, but I suspect in the end, Unsworth had to roll in two 10K's to augment the bounce further for this set-up.

 

[John Holland]

Interesting a Mitchell BFC 65mm which sort of confirms that Todd-AO lenses were used on this .And then on the high shot with the 2 x 10K's a Panavision 65 mm .

[Tyler Purcell]

I think the Mitchell was used for the 35mm insert shots of their discussion which are square.

 

That's my thought on why that camera was there.

[John Holland]

Maybe but I think it would have been easier to shoot everything in the same format .I don't know wish I did hope someone else knows .

[Tyler Purcell]

Well, they did use Todd AO lenses on it for sure. They also absolutely used Mitchell cameras, almost all of the BTS images from the end of the film in that white room, are of Kubrick with a Mitchell body, same with the centrifuge scene.

Maybe I'm mistaken about which shot that is... maybe it's the bug-eye shot of Hal looking back at the two of them? Which would be a Todd AO bug-eye lens.

 

You could be right, the insert of the screen could have just been taken from a 65mm interview.

[Tyler Purcell]

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Todd-AO 65 and Super Panavision are the same format, so I'm not surprised if a mix of cameras were used. I'm sure 16mm and 35mm were used for some material to be projected onto screens, plus tests.

 

Kubrick was also well-known for adapting still camera lenses and I think some medium format lenses that he found were put into use for some shots.

 

I'm surprised there weren't more use of Coops, Fay globes, and PAR64's, etc. but maybe those units were just starting to arrive in the U.K. studios at the time.

[John Holland]

I have never seen that still with the Todd-AO camera and Bug Eye lens thanks .

[Mark Dunn]

I don't think the top one is a BNC- is it a BFC with the mag blimp off? Or maybe as this was the first scene to be shot they hadn't got round to putting the Panavision stickers on.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Mark Dunn

[KH Martin]

 

 

Kubrick was also well-known for adapting still camera lenses and I think some medium format lenses that he found were put into use for some shots.

Jon Alcott, who shot DAWNOFMAN and the whiteroom stuff under the credit of additional photography, used his own Nikon still lenses when it came time to do model photography on DISCOVERY and other ship miniatures. And the photocutouts that were animated for many space scenes were shot using Hassleblads, so the resolution of the photo cutouts would be equal to or superior to the taking-65 cameras.

 

I'm pretty sure most if not all of the RP stuff played back on live-action sets was shot in 35, then reduced to 16 for projectors. RP stuff for the model shots I'm guessing would have been 65, otherwise you'd be undercutting your own credibility.

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

I believe the Dawn of Man RP background plates were also photographed in 4x5, although I'm not sure how they were projected.

[David Mullen ASC]

The Dawn of Man African landscapes were 8x10 Ektachrome slides projected. Kubrick tested 4x5 slides and felt that they were "almost" good enough, so he went with 8x10, but this required a special 8x10 slide projector to be built from scratch.

[John Holland]

Just imagine how many 8x10 Reversal Ektachrome plates must have been to taken to get the perfect exposure to then been front projected on to the very large screen used on that set !.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Just imagine a world where you still had a super high level of film craftsmanship--- though that's another rant.

[Phil Rhodes]

It's time.

 

Most of us could have a reasonable bash at that, on a Kubrick schedule.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

That is quite true; though time is an increasingly rare commodity.

[Tyler Purcell]

Yep, it's all time! What makes Kubrick films so amazing is the fact he spent years developing every detail before shooting, years shooting and quite a while editing. On average it took him 5 years to make a film from conception through finishing and as he got older, it took even longer.

[John Holland]

Yes he did spend loads of time in prep and then shooting not so sure how long he spent on post. The thing is his films never really cost tons of money , small crews the same people he worked with over many years . Adjusting for inflation "2001" must have been his most expensive film .

[David Mullen ASC]

It's time, but it's more than time -- Kubrick had very specific ideas about how the sets should be lit, how the effects should look, etc. Someone else back then with a similar schedule wouldn't have necessarily gotten the same results because they wouldn't have been operating under Kubrick's visual aesthetics. Certainly the movie does not look like most other movies of the day, and it doesn't look like most of Geoffrey Unsworth's other movies either.

[Phil Rhodes]

Nonetheless I do think it looks very much of its period. If someone had done that recently I suspect it would have been a lot moodier. Consider this, which is an attempt to depict a more or less identical sort of environment, or at least equivalent circumstances, in The Martian.

 

 

P

[David Mullen ASC]

I think "2001" doesn't look much like other movies released in 1968 actually. The overexposed whiteness of some of the sets was an aesthetic choice, not a typical 1960's style for lighting sets. The fact that the majority of the lighting comes from practical fixtures on the sets is much more modern than a typical mid-1960's movies. I think what dates the movies is mainly the hairstyles, as usual.

 

Besides, "2001" was released 43 years ago, who is to say that someone watching "The Martian" 43 years from now won't say that it is of its period? You look at some of the moody fluorescent lighting in sets like "The Martian" and the earlier "Crimson Tide" for example, and the "real" spaces on the International Space Station, for example, or a modern submarine, are more flatly lit-up than as portrayed in movies.

 

When I sit in a theater showing "2001" in 70mm and watch the pod slowly move out of the Discovery, it feels more real and immediate -- like I am in space -- than many movies made decades later.

[Tyler Purcell]

I agree David and will say our modern heavy effects films will probably not be seen 43 nears from now. They're just not that interesting and I bet 2001 will still be a must watch then as well.

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

When I saw "2001" on 70mm at the Cinerama dome, I felt the same way - that those shots feel like you can touch space and almost jump into them and be there. I expected a bit of that when I saw "Interstellar", but nothing came as close as the rotating dock shot of Discovery in "2001".

 

I also feel that while Unsworth and Alcott's contribution to those films was great, they're visually far more similar to each other than to than "Full Metal Jacket" and "Eyes Wide Shut" not to mention any predecessor Kubrick work (although most of them were black and white anyway). Granted Alcott's final Kubrick film was right before a new era of film stocks ushered in new approaches to lighting. I always wondered how Alcott would use EXR stocks had he been given the chance to.

[David Mullen ASC]

"2001" wasn't even nominated for its cinematography that year at the Oscars -- look at this list:

Funny Girl -- Harry Stradling

Ice Station Zebra -- Daniel L. Fapp

Oliver! -- Oswald Morris

Romeo and Juliet -- Pasqualino De Santis (WINNER)

Star! -- Ernest Laszlo

Take a look at the trailer for "Ice Station Zebra", one of the cinematographer Oscar nominations, which is much more typical for how a "high-tech" story was shot in 1968:

"2001" is years ahead in terms of the cinematography.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Well, one could say, that's a stark level of difference.