Jump to content
anthony le grand

Kubrick and Eyes Wide Shut

Recommended Posts

Really gets on my tits i want a stock i can shoot after years of doing correctly in camera then a photochemical finish , not in the hands of Colorists !!! who will say i can turn this into anything you want . Might as well shoot on RED !!!!!!!!!!!!! . Stuff that .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think there are benefits and pitfalls to both. I like having a colorist I can speak with and work with. After all, the film will be scanned/converted/corrected sooner or later, even if just for DVD and the like. But that's just my logic. I certainly understand and see your's Mr. Holland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, sorry guys. I always asks question to which I already know the answer. This case is a matter of testing.

I just like discussing things with you people, you seem to hold so much wisdom! I won't get into an embarrassing

confession here, but you're all just so god damn lovely.

 

Tought that maybe I've missed some stock on the way, what is this deal with Vision3 anyway? When did they introduce this?

I've just shot on Vision2 as far as I know.

Edited by Hampus Bystrom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hampus i am sorry but i dont know where you live ? which country i mean I a havent shot anything with Vision 3 . But do shoot a lot of Fuji Eterna , looked into that ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

V3 was earlier this yr. If you check the kodak site they tell you all about it. The number is 52/7219 and it's a 500T. They had a demo DVD of it in an issue of InCamera a bit ago. Looked good to me. If I still had an extra I'd mail it out to you.

It costs more than the V2 stock by a bit, but there are 'ends/recans around for less. Perhaps get some from film emporium or the like and give her a go!

 

Main improvements are in grain and latitude, holding truer in the highlights. There is also a richer color, from what I've seen, in the skin tones.

I haven't shot that much of it yet, though, but it behaves much like the '18 stock, just a bit more information/finer grain-- to my eye at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, I live in Stockholm, Sweden. I would like to try some Fuji but my "sponsors" have a deal with Kodak so I get 46% discount on all 16mm Kodak stocks!

Pretty, pretty good as Larry David would have put it.

 

Adrian, if you can find any test or something just holler, would really appreciate it.

I'll snoop around myself some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You had a demo DVD looked great !! . I have DVDs of say "The Great Escape " 1963 that looks great , in fact looks better than most things today , sorry a DVD is no way to make a choice of which stock you shoot with .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well maybe you're right, however! If you give me some great looking Vision3 examples I'll be really excited and work superduper hard and get all inspired!!

It needn't be that accurate, but don't come rain on my parade! As long as I get really excited about a stock, I'll make the most of it.

You bloody damper! (Sounded like some kind of english slang so I thought I'd throw it in.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Johnny" how dare you !! :rolleyes: Yes it is a bloody awful look alike video flat stock anyone can shoot it even my 87 year old mother .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would counter that while a DVD can in no way inform you of all the data you get with film, as after all DVDs are SD and no home TV is perfect, they're a good guide. They can show you where to look more closely. This was all I was referring to. The only way to really know which stock is right is to shoot a test and take it all the way through your work flow to it's destined output. Sometimes that's out of budget, of course, but as far as you can get it is the only way to make the best informed choice.

V3, and most of the neg stocks out now, are very flat natively. They're concerned more-so with the color correction process thereafter, IMHO. Now this is either a blessing or a curse, again, depending on your workflow/budget/camp. I enjoy it, the color session that is when I dial in the final look, though one should always get as much on the negative as is economically/reasonably possible.

The only neg stock I can think of which really has a "look," anymore is the new Fuji, whose name escapes me, stock and of course your reversals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ "Johnny": share your views despite me not having tits. Also apologies for mentioning grainless film. Forgot that it induces cardiac arrests with veteran DoPs.

 

@ Adrian: I think DVDs are good to get an impression of what the film stock can look like, esp. in times where the "tube" becomes the major output for films, but in the end, there's nothing like shooting a personal test reel - I envy you "veteran 35mm DoPs" as you were able to shoot all those film stocks I am restricted to enjoy... well, on DVDs of back-catalogue films.

 

@ Hampus: I have the Vision3 DVD from Kodak, and don't need it anymore. Before I throw it in the bin, I might as well post it to you. Could give it to Royal Mail for Stockholm on Monday if you PM me your address.

 

-ML

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EWS is so gorgeous, I'm gonna red the ASC article again.

 

London is boiling, it's so sudden after all the bad weather that my body doesn't seem to accept the heat yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
" Johnny" how dare you !! :rolleyes: Yes it is a bloody awful look alike video flat stock anyone can shoot it even my 87 year old mother .

 

Why do they sensor our F-bomb but you Brits can get away with using "Bloody"? It's taxation without representation all over again! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do they sensor our F-bomb but you Brits can get away with using "Bloody"? It's taxation without representation all over again! ;)

 

The word bloody isn't really that offensive in Britain. It is almost an filler word for people. I wouldn't equate bloody with fu**ing.

 

it is interesting to see how some words in the American vernacular or harmless but quite offensive in Britain. In America the word fanny is quite a nice way to say ass. But down right offensive in Britain.

 

UPDATE:

 

KARL: I now understand. I just saw the server "bleeped" fu'cking.

Edited by Arni Heimir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Arni. LOL. Nice apostrophe. Thanks for the lesson in linguistics. "Next time" I'm in London, I'll be sure to put it to good use! ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is unfortunate that Stanley died of course, as is that he was unable to do those last interviews regarding EWS.

At age 70, it really is too early. He would have been 80 by now, and turning 81 this year.

He should have naturally died a long time into the future from now. He really did need 20 more years in this exsistence.

I have not yet been fortunate enough to experience a Kubrick film on 35mm in a cinema. I only know the films by watching them alone on DVD and now Blu-Ray.

I live in a city where there is no cinema that shows old films. I wait to be able to.

I've heard this talk about the grain and blacks of the 35mm print of EWS, and the 'awful' dull soft DVD release. I suspect this might also be a similar case with Clockwork, but nonetheless, I have warm memories of the DVD's of Kubrick's films, even though I havent seen them projected.

But still, 35mm film is the intended medium and I confess my love of film.

I would love to hear more about the filming/cinematography of EWS, and the thoughts from those of you who have experience in filmmaking, film stock, lighting etc

The sensation it gives is lush.

 

There is no longer a sort of grandfather or father of cinema now since Stanley has died. You have those like Woody Allen and Eastwood to a degree among others I dont remember at the moment.

But there is no one that reaches that peak of pushing cinema to its boundaries like Kubrick did, and continues to do. And I dont just mean the boundaries as in the term 'experiemental', as even that is a somewhat ambiguous way of thought. 'Filmmaker'. Everyone dreams of that same unbelieveable output/artwork with that anonymity.

I feel no one can ever explain it, other than joyfully reminisce and theorise intellectually, and ultimately enjoy what Stanley gave to us, a sort of set of collective and parallel personal experiences.

But these are still all words, words, words.

Stanley was a maker of images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Kurosawa and Kubrick had both died, there really were not any masters left around. Giants of cinema. One might argue that Terrence Malick is that sort of figure, but Malick is even more reclusive than Kubrick! He doesn't have the large public persona of a Kubrick or Kurosawa. Scorsese maybe fits this role to a certain extent. Lucas and Spielberg are too closely tied to popcorn movies to be taken as pure cinema masters. They are too commercial. Coppola is too washed up. I might also argue that Hayao Miyazaki fits the description of master, but then again, he's not well known in much of the world, especially the US.

 

So yes, when Stanley died, it was a huge, huge loss to cinema.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When Kurosawa and Kubrick had both died, there really were not any masters left around. Giants of cinema. One might argue that Terrence Malick is that sort of figure, but Malick is even more reclusive than Kubrick! He doesn't have the large public persona of a Kubrick or Kurosawa. Scorsese maybe fits this role to a certain extent. Lucas and Spielberg are too closely tied to popcorn movies to be taken as pure cinema masters. They are too commercial. Coppola is too washed up. I might also argue that Hayao Miyazaki fits the description of master, but then again, he's not well known in much of the world, especially the US.

 

So yes, when Stanley died, it was a huge, huge loss to cinema.

 

Well come on now, there's a lot of giants left in my honest opinion. Béla Tarr is definitely a giant in my book, David Lynch is also one. Maybe you're talking about a different kind of giant, which I suppose these two directors doesn't fit. I've always admired Kubrick's ability for mainstream success but at the same time remaining true to his art.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well come on now, there's a lot of giants left in my honest opinion. Béla Tarr is definitely a giant in my book, David Lynch is also one. Maybe you're talking about a different kind of giant, which I suppose these two directors doesn't fit. I've always admired Kubrick's ability for mainstream success but at the same time remaining true to his art.

 

You think Béla Tarr has the same status as a giant of cinema as Kubrick or Kurosawa? Probably 99% of people around the world have never heard of him. That's not the only test, but it's one of them. I'm talking about legends like Hitchcock. I love David Lynch, but would not consider him to be a giant of cinema either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You think Béla Tarr has the same status as a giant of cinema as Kubrick or Kurosawa? Probably 99% of people around the world have never heard of him. That's not the only test, but it's one of them. I'm talking about legends like Hitchcock. I love David Lynch, but would not consider him to be a giant of cinema either.

 

Yeah I thought it might be that angle you were looking at, and I'd agree with that. But then, if the criteria for greatness is how many know of you, then Paris Hilton would be a giant amongst actresses according to Google. Of course that was a facetious remark, but my idea of cinematic genius isn't contingent on consensus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but of course we are talking about directors who are both A ) a genius and B ) known and loved as legends of cinema.

 

The quality of the work has to be of the highest artistic order. Paris Hilton does terrible acting work, so there is no chance she would be a "giant." That would be Merrill Streep, perhaps, to make a comparison.

 

IMO, there are several living directors who have the talent to be giants, but who are too unknown to qualify.

Edited by Tom Lowe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Tai Audio



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Abel Cine



    Serious Gear



    Visual Products



    Wooden Camera



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    FJS International



    Ritter Battery



    Paralinx LLC



    Metropolis Post



    G-Force Grips



    CineLab



    Just Cinema Gear



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Glidecam



    The Original Slider



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc


    Cinematography Books and Gear
×
×
  • Create New...