Robert Harris

Probably 40 years.

Isn’t Metropolis Jack Rizzo?

Yes, dailies dirt would be white/clear. I’m wondering if like some others who try to make a digital record look like film, if the source may have been a combined IP with both 35/8 and 35/4. That would achieve proper black dirt. Then there were the flash frames.

AFAIK, the 70mm prints were derived from a recorded 65 neg, in turn derived from the daily rolls. One persons opinion, whom I trust, felt that the dirt was purposely left in for “artistic intent,” which to me shouts, “Look, mom, they’re letting me shoot film!” As someone whose lifelong artistic intent has been to avoid and eradicate dirt on film, I really don’t know what to say. As far as the film itself, a quality screenplay would have been nice, if you’re asking me to sit through a crappy epic length film.,

I viewed The Brutalist in 4k on a 37 foot screen, and generally despised everything about it. The whole VVLA thing up front, big, proud and overbearing, when the system was used for how many shots? But worse than the film was the seemingly idiotic concept of a “filmmaker” trying to explain to me what “film” is, and by that I mean the stuff that generally comes out of Rochester, and is loaded into gadgets that are affixed to what we call cameras. And here is my greatest dislike for the filmmaker’s concept of fillum, of VVLA, of lab work and of the art of our industry. It comes down to a single word - something that I’ve fought against my entire life working with film. DIRT. This “filmmaker” seems to have felt that to have an audience understand and appreciate his art as a “filmmaker,” he needed to retain/perpetuate DIRT throughout the process of creating a print - be it analogue or digital. If the audience didn’t see DIRT they would not understand that they were viewing something based upon that product from Rochester. I can just imagine a Memo from DOS, telling Technicolor that he needed MORE YCM DIRT, especially in those big close-ups of Leigh. ”Not enough dirt! How will my audience know it’s film?”

From my understanding, camphor was on the pads, and that kept the film pliable.

The 3M material, the transparent circular mount for the floating pen, et al, would not have been seen on prints in 1968. Our printing (and duplicating) stock has cone that far, especially with the arrival of 5243 in the mid-‘80s, via which the entire first run of dupes were struck. Any time that we return to a fx ladden original today, we must be very aware that certain original photography anomalies must be digitally massaged.

I also enjoy Chris’ work. As to how he handles black levels on his own films, I’d have to disagree with you, as his look should be his look. I always enjoy seeing how someone affects film and printing. But just down try to list the blacks on a Willis film. Same thing with 2001. The reason why I don’t feel that the Nolan version should be seen, is that the studio apparently already had a proper full-scale restoration ready to go, along with UHD files. And my perception is that a better product, far closer to what would make Stanley smile, could have just as easily done the tour, inclusive of Cannes, and in 70mm, if so desired. The new prints derived from the 1999 IP, along with a new dupe - mixing stocks - was a needless exercise. Just my opinion, of course... But most important to SK was image quality, closest generations to original, and perfect blacks. The new prints don’t deliver, on any basis.

Same film stock. Used to create duplicating positives (IP), from an OCN or dupe neg, and from which a dupe printing neg is produced, in turn. First to be reasonably transparent, was 5243. I’ve improved, allowing multiple generations with extremely minimal affect on the projected image

Nor do I. If the print was new in 2001, it might have been made at CFI.

No absolute means of knowing. Depends upon age of print, lab that struck. It would be derived from IP #1 and dupe #1. Color timing, densities, ???

Respectfully... Your post has me a bit confused. Splice, dupes cut in, odd grading choices? Raised blacks, which are acceptable because the film is not by Kubrick, but rather by Chris and Hoyte? The same "dirty" shots tell you that they're either dupes or damaged originals printed through 4 or 5 generations before landing on a print, but those go back to the condition of the OCN. No cue marks? And it's film? But let's (please) return to the raised blacks. The one absolute that Mr. Kubrick demanded, were that his blacks be absolutely black. Back in 1967-68, when he was shooting the film, and doing final grading, which was very specific, Chris Nolan had not yet been conceived, and Hoyte's parents may have not yet even met... But their sensibilities come to the fore instead of the filmmakers? Stanley created two sets of 65mm separation masters. The first set, which represented the earlier cut of the film, had problems registering. And those problems existed, because he ordered the exposed stock to be processed warmer than usual. Why? To make absolutely certain that if and when dupes ever had to be struck for shots involving the sky in space, that there be no exposure in those areas. He wanted clear negative, which would yield black blacks. The new prints of 2001 are an embarrassment, to all but those involved in their creation, and tell the wrong tale of what the film looked like in 1968. The sooner they're destroyed, the better. Apparently, this has all occurred for two reasons. First, Chris is an analogue fetishist, to a point of distraction, and second, he has no concept as to how digital technology works, or how it interrelates with the analogue world. I'm fearful that he may have gotten his hands on the digital masters, and screwed them up, as well. Which will leave 2001, not through the eyes of its filmmakers, but through the eyes of someone who never saw an original print of the film in its full glory. It is only by proper use of digital technology, that we have a chance of closely replicating those original prints. Via newly stuck 70mm, with the best shots at fourth generation, and the worst at sixth... Not a chance. Just sayin'... And understand, these comments come from someone who loves film. RAH

There was no "post-premiere trim," per se. It was a re-cut with scenes, both deleted, as well as added. RAH

Depends upon where it was. There was a 3 pop between the MT and 1A of Lawrence from day one, until it was removed, along with parts of the audio, by Chace, about 12 years ago.

How would one perform chaneovers without cue marks?