connor denning Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 I'd love to know what your take is on what made Stanley Kubrick's shots look so good, even basically composed ones, in very mundane environments. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Jay Young Posted April 2, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted April 2, 2016 A 900:1 shooting ratio? His expert understanding at framing, composition, lens choice based on format and extensive testing? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Dunn Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) 900? What? Sixty takes was quite rare. I don't think it is that, but it does rather sound as if we're being invited to write a student's essay for him. Edited April 2, 2016 by Mark Dunn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Field Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 Yeah no his shot composition was extremely tight, payed very close attention to detail. However on the majority of his biggest pictures, he worked with cinematographer Jon Alcott. I've always wondered what percent of the visuals were Kubrick's input. Â Images like this give a rough idea of how high a level the duo was thinking: Â Also not sure if this is an unpopular opinion but I wish the first 45 minutes of FMJ were just their own short film. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Jay Young Posted April 2, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted April 2, 2016 900? What? Sixty takes was quite rare. I don't think it is that, but it does rather sound as if we're being invited to write a student's essay for him. I agree, However Doug Trumbull states at least 900:1 for the vfx stuff, and since he shot them I'm inclined to agree. But he could be exaggerating... I wish I could afford to shoot 60:1!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Bill DiPietra Posted April 2, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted April 2, 2016 Remember, Kubrick was a stills photographer before he was a film-maker. So he most likely mastered the art of composition long before he touched a film camera. If you look at Paths of Glory (1957) - the first film of his that I feel evoked a style that would eventually be called "Kubrickian" - you can see the care that he takes with the mise-en-scene, the blocking and the frame in general. Â But he also knew the emotional limits of the camera, in that he used the camera to depict a kind of distance between the protagonist, the audience and the overall message of the film - a very fine line to walk. In the end, the main character is the subtext of the film. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Dunn Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 I agree, However Doug Trumbull states at least 900:1 for the vfx stuff, and since he shot them I'm inclined to agree. But he could be exaggerating... I wish I could afford to shoot 60:1!! Fair enough for vfx, what with all the separate elements. I was thinking of Tom and Nicole, or Jack and Shelley, getting up near 4 figures on the take number!. Murray Melvin tells a story of getting spooked by a number in the 30s, so Kubrick just went back to take 1, which spooked him all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Dunn Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) If you look at Paths of Glory (1957) - the first film of his that I feel evoked a style that would eventually be called "Kubrickian" - you can see the care that he takes with the mise-en-scene, the blocking and the frame in general. Â Â .such as when the camera is following Dax and (I think) Richard Anderson's character, up a staircase, talking, and they stop, and the camera doesn't, not for a second or so, and pulls you right into the scene. By the ears. Breathtaking. Edited April 2, 2016 by Mark Dunn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshua gallegos Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 One of Kubrick's underrated films is definitely 'Eyes Wide Shut', it's obviously a very strange film about the occult. I always felt Kubrick knew a deeper truth about this world, it's why his films are so mysterious. He doesn't bog down his vision with exposition as many modern films do, you either keep up or you don't , which is why I think he never pleased critics. Sure his composition is part of that Kubrick allure, but his understanding of color theory is also substantial element of his aesthetic. What I gather from most of his films is that he presented a distorted, deeply deformed view of mankind, but made it artful. The bizarre orgies depicted in 'Eyes Wide Shut' are not too farfetched to believe, even the founding fathers of America were freemasons, Benjamin Franklin himself was an occultist and part of many elite secret societies, in fact many modern-day politicians are involved with the occult. Â Obviously, Kubrick was anti-Hollywood, in the sense that he didn't make films that followed structural traditions in storytelling, they were moving portraits- a most puritan form of cinema not seen since the silent age of filmmaking. There's more to Kubrick than just beautifully-framed shots, it's just everything- his sense of space and time, movement, he was plain and simply a man with a unique vision. Â I remember watching 'Eyes Wide Shut' late at night, and I was pleasantly shocked by this sequence, which is the ritual sequence. It's mesmerizing, this is what cinema is, you don't explain what it is, you just show it, and let the viewer decipher it, take it all in. Absorb it. Film is a medium of emotion and fragmented memory, and his use of sound and music is still unsurpassed. Â https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTwRRwUb4IE&nohtml5=False Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hrishikesh Jha Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 I often wonder how much film stock hed pay for before shoot? The price of the whole film process would have been similar back then (right?) So he'd be spending a lot even if he were averaging 40 takes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted January 29, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted January 29, 2017 Back then you tried to buy a large enough batch from the same manufacturing run for consistency's sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hrishikesh Jha Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Is there a list of most film shot for a feature film? I've heard Apocalypse Now has some record related to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 ON these productions, bear in mind that compared to the star's fee and other costs, the film stock is a relatively small percentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted January 29, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted January 29, 2017 There is no list of stock amounts shot per feature. Occasionally a movie will be touted in the trades as having shot something like "2 million feet of film", often a Warren Beatty movie like "Reds" or "Dick Tracy", but there have been others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now