Jump to content
anthony le grand

Kubrick and Eyes Wide Shut

Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

 

I'm really surprise to see a message here again!

 

I think Malick is the only "giant" now, a true artist who brings cinema to the highest level.

Coppola is not a myth like Malick, but very faithful to his art. "Tetro" seems to be very ambitious and "youth without youth' is very underrated I think. There are not a lot of "old" directors like Coppola who are as faithful as him to the idea they had of cinema.

 

Maybe Hou Hsiao Hsien will considered like them in a few years or James Gray in 30 years...

 

Oh, and to go back to the original topic, I saw Eyes Wide Shot in a theatre a few weeks ago. It was REALLY grainy, and some colours, especially the blue and red were very saturated. Strangely, the green weren't as saturated.. But every shot of the movie was gorgeous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Malick is the only "giant" now, a true artist who brings cinema to the highest level.

Coppola is not a myth like Malick, but very faithful to his art. "Tetro" seems to be very ambitious and "youth without youth' is very underrated I think. There are not a lot of "old" directors like Coppola who are as faithful as him to the idea they had of cinema.

Firstly; yes Malick is a myth, and this is absolutley essential. Each film he or it has done, in some way, either discreetly and/or audciously sets a new, higher benchmark in the making of cinema in the present. Only we dont know it. Wait another 12 months when Malick is going to both A: finish the editing(soul of cinema process) of Tree of Life and the IMAX version/Voyage of Time, plus the 3rd version if not a rumor. and B: turn cinema upside down on its head, reaching another peak in filmmaking and cinema-experience, this time in the widest expanse of screens and audiences seen yet.

 

Oh, and to go back to the original topic, I saw Eyes Wide Shot in a theatre a few weeks ago. It was REALLY grainy, and some colours, especially the blue and red were very saturated. Strangely, the green weren't as saturated.. But every shot of the movie was gorgeous.

secondly; I am very jealous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's great to see all the love for Malick here.

 

Indeed, Tree of Life and Voyage of Time have the potential to change cinema. It would not even be humanly possible to be more excited about a forthcoming film than I am about these from Malick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firstly; yes Malick is a myth, and this is absolutley essential. Each film he or it has done, in some way, either discreetly and/or audciously sets a new, higher benchmark in the making of cinema in the present. Only we dont know it. Wait another 12 months when Malick is going to both A: finish the editing(soul of cinema process) of Tree of Life and the IMAX version/Voyage of Time, plus the 3rd version if not a rumor. and B: turn cinema upside down on its head, reaching another peak in filmmaking and cinema-experience, this time in the widest expanse of screens and audiences seen yet.

 

Do you have any informations showing that it could be such a new experience? What is this 3rd version? Will the ''voyage of time'' be included in Tree of life or be something different? I heard it would be this fantasmatic prologue about the creation of the world.

 

I remember myself, waiting for the first screening of The New World. I was scared of being disappointed cause my expectations were extremely high. From the 1rst shots I knew I wouldn't be. And the last 5 minutes confirmed me that The New World was everything I expected the cinema to be. Definitely the most moving experience I had in a theatre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing The New World in the theater was probably the most magical experience I've had in a theater since I was a little kid watching Star Wars The Empire Strikes Back.

 

The opening moments of The New World:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

I know that it's not the case for all of you, but Eyes Wide Shut is one of my favorite cinematography ever. Also, I'm asking myself questions about the colors and contrasts in this film.

Larry Smith said that they pushed the 5298 by 2 stops and underexposed it by only 1 1/3 of a stop.

 

Even if the film was pushed, the colors are not so saturated and the contrasts are quite soft, especially for the blacks.

Do you know how that was achieved? Is it only a result of the overeposure of the film or is there something else?

Did Kubrick used lon con filters like in Barry Lyndon (he also pushed the whole film by one stop and it's very soft)? Low con print stock?

 

Cheers!

 

Sorry for bringing on an old subject like this, but I'm also fascinated with cinematography in Eyes Wide Shut. Interior light in that film are simply perfect. I just adore those natural lights of lamps and Christmas bulbs, those soft yellow colors are amazing.

 

I tried to recreate that atmosphere in one shot I made recently, so I wanted to ask your opinion ( even though it is still photography ). It is self-portrait with Yashica Mat 124G and Kodak Ektar 100 ASA, shot at f/5.6 and 1s shutter time.

 

5334732262_3f6a5fe46e_o.jpg

In the scenery of Eyes Wide Shut with little parallax error by *Antonov*, on Flickr

 

Here is still image from the movie.

 

bscap0003an.jpg

 

I would appreciate your opinion. Thank you in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for bringing on an old subject like this, but I'm also fascinated with cinematography in Eyes Wide Shut. Interior light in that film are simply perfect. I just adore those natural lights of lamps and Christmas bulbs, those soft yellow colors are amazing.

 

I tried to recreate that atmosphere in one shot I made recently, so I wanted to ask your opinion ( even though it is still photography ). It is self-portrait with Yashica Mat 124G and Kodak Ektar 100 ASA, shot at f/5.6 and 1s shutter time.

 

Here is still image from the movie.

 

 

I would appreciate your opinion. Thank you in advance.

 

Hi Anton,

 

Quite a long time that I have not been here and I was suprised to see this old post!

 

Your picture seem quite similar in the lightning, going with practicals and I think that was the idea of Kubrick, looking natural and most important being able to set the lights like that and shoot easily with this existing light. Having practicals in the frame and overexposed parts feels really nice I think.

 

But I see some differences as well. Eyes wide shut was shot on a much grainier film stock than the recent Ektar AND was pushed 2 stops. So shooting with medium format and ektar you'll have a negative that is way sharper than Kubrick's negative and you'll have very small grain compared to it. it will result in a less dreamy aspect. And the ektar is maybe too saturated for that... but then that's just a matter of taste.

Also I think you need to use a blue filter to balance a bit the color temperature.

 

If you want to keep 120 film (and your nice Yashica 124G :)) you could try to shoot with portra 400nc or fuji 400h, maybe push it one stop and shoot wide open? I've done that before with the fuji stock and printed up, the blacks were weak but nice and the grain beautiful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Anton,

 

Quite a long time that I have not been here and I was suprised to see this old post!

 

Hi Anthony, and thanks for reply! I hope you were nicely surprised. :)

 

Your picture seem quite similar in the lightning, going with practicals and I think that was the idea of Kubrick, looking natural and most important being able to set the lights like that and shoot easily with this existing light. Having practicals in the frame and overexposed parts feels really nice I think.

 

By practicals you mean available light, If I understood you good? Yes, I really like that lighting and especially those Christmas decoration lights, I would be very happy if I could find out exact wattage of light bulbs or brand he used.

 

But I see some differences as well. Eyes wide shut was shot on a much grainier film stock than the recent Ektar AND was pushed 2 stops. So shooting with medium format and ektar you'll have a negative that is way sharper than Kubrick's negative and you'll have very small grain compared to it. it will result in a less dreamy aspect. And the ektar is maybe too saturated for that... but then that's just a matter of taste.

Also I think you need to use a blue filter to balance a bit the color temperature.

 

Thank you for your remarks, I appreciate them! Yes, that thing bothered me. I have DVD and I know it is little grainier and you have good point there. Ektar was with me at that moment, and I didn't know that the hotel ( that was taken in hotel ) would have that kind of lights. The moment I saw them, I had to try to take some atmosphere from there. Room I was in, had three of those lamps, beautiful, like in the movie in which every room has, kinda, at least five of those lamps. I was excited about that, because I watched film four days earlier ( this was taken on 5th January 2011 ), as I watch it every year in Christmas/New Year time. If I go to that hotel next time, I will definitely bring some 400 ASA professional films with me.

You think picture itself is maybe oversatureted? And when you mention blue filter, do you think that I have too mach orange/red cast ( carpet was red, so it gave also some reddish tones to it ). Also, this is not out of the scanner version offcourse, I added lot yellow in color balance in Photoshop.

 

If you want to keep 120 film (and your nice Yashica 124G :)) you could try to shoot with portra 400nc or fuji 400h, maybe push it one stop and shoot wide open? I've done that before with the fuji stock and printed up, the blacks were weak but nice and the grain beautiful.

 

Yes, offcourse. I shoot 120 mostly, more then 135. I also have one roll of 400H in fridge, so I will definitely try it. Do you have maybe some of your examples of this what you mentioned?

Edited by Anton Papich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

By practicals you mean available light, If I understood you good? Yes, I really like that lighting and especially those Christmas decoration lights, I would be very happy if I could find out exact wattage of light bulbs or brand he used.

 

Thank you for your remarks, I appreciate them! Yes, that thing bothered me. I have DVD and I know it is little grainier and you have good point there. Ektar was with me at that moment, and I didn't know that the hotel ( that was taken in hotel ) would have that kind of lights. The moment I saw them, I had to try to take some atmosphere from there. Room I was in, had three of those lamps, beautiful, like in the movie in which every room has, kinda, at least five of those lamps. I was excited about that, because I watched film four days earlier ( this was taken on 5th January 2011 ), as I watch it every year in Christmas/New Year time. If I go to that hotel next time, I will definitely bring some 400 ASA professional films with me.

You think picture itself is maybe oversatureted? And when you mention blue filter, do you think that I have too mach orange/red cast ( carpet was red, so it gave also some reddish tones to it ). Also, this is not out of the scanner version offcourse, I added lot yellow in color balance in Photoshop.

 

Yes, offcourse. I shoot 120 mostly, more then 135. I also have one roll of 400H in fridge, so I will definitely try it. Do you have maybe some of your examples of this what you mentioned?

 

Hey,

Yes by practicals I mean available lights, that are part of the set. But don't have any idea of the wattage sorry. I think it's low though for all the christmas lights because very often there's a lot of them in the frame and he was rating the negative at around 1200 asa and shooting wide open.

For the saturation I think it's more a matter of taste. If I remember correctly the movie, sometimes it was extremely saturated. Especially blue lights at night and red lights later and in the orgy scene. But it seemed kind of natural as well. Maybe because the contrasts were lower and the blacks very weak. But to me in your photo the orange are too saturated that's why I told about a correction blue filter.

 

I have no examples of my pics here unfortunately, but I definitely recommend fuji 400h. Those pics I told you about were in a very dark place with the light coming only from one direction, soft and warm. Like when you're in a dark flat with the sunset light coming from a small window and exposure made for this light. I printed up the negative a bit and liked the grain it gave me in the dark areas, very soft and natural. But you're right 120 helped a lot :) Not sure it would look the same in 35mm....

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



    FJS International



    CineLab



    G-Force Grips



    Abel Cine



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Visual Products



    Ritter Battery



    Paralinx LLC



    Just Cinema Gear



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Wooden Camera



    Metropolis Post



    Rig Wheels Passport



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Glidecam



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Serious Gear


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