Kubrick's F0.7 lens

Fascinating links. I love how the camera designer praises Kubrick's technical knowledge regarding optics, especially his comment "how rare it is for modern directors".
And on Wiki, there's a shot of Stanley and his Leica III......
 
denishr said:
Re. Barry Lyndon - I agree it may not be the most "exciting" of the Kubrick movies, but visually - it's a definite masterpiece. I don't think anything as visually appealing has ever been filmed - either before or after... (including the "2001 - Odyssey"!).

(I don't care much for "Eyes Wide Shut"....)

BTW, "Dr. Strangelove" is also my favourite ;)
Click to expand...

For me "Paths of glory" as well. So great a war movie that it was forbidden in French cinemas for 25 years.
 
I'm not much into Kubrick. "Barry Lyndon" was visually somewhat impressive, but is also an antidote against excessive use of shallow DOF. "Eyes wide shut" is overrated. "A Clockwork Orange" is a mediocre, chaotic film version of a great book. "2001" is good, but personally I still found it easier to watch when stoned, when watching the DVD chapters in random order, or both. "Dr Strangelove" has left the most positive impression on me.
 
Kubrik was certainly a patchy film maker. One can easily see why he preferred to work outside the system and to his own rules. Like the post below, I think his best works include Paths of Glory - very powerful and gut renching and Dr Strangelove.

I am not however a great fan of some of his other efforts. 2001 a Space Oddessey was OK in its day but I dont particularly think it stood the test of time. (Do space films ever - they look so dated so quickly?) His last film, Eyes Wide Shut, was OK but really it was not so thought provoking (which I think is what he was going for) as to remain in my thought processes for long after viewing it. (Never did really figure what that damn title meant either.)

As for offbeat filmakers who like Kubrik tended to be loved or hated, I think I prefer Robert Altmann over all.
 
I don't get it. You have an entire lighting and grip crew at your disposal, yet you choose to work with an f0.7 lens and have your crew and cast work around ITS limitations. :confused:

Weird. The film is beautiful, but I don't think the lens had much to do with it.
 
crawdiddy said:
I wouldn't mind seeing Lolita again. He plays the guy who is Humbert Humbert's undoing, right? Clare Quilty?
Click to expand...

Right!

Sellers was a clown... sometimes a really great clown... but Quilty is a different kind of character, mysterious... and Sellers transforms him in a clown too...

It is a good movie, but it fails.

Barry Lyndon is one of the masterworks of Kubrick. He reminds me Stravinsky, in some way. Colorful russian-inspired ballets, neoclassical period, dodecaphonic... operas, oratoriums, mass, concertos... but in all those different cases that powerful intelligence and easy to recognize style. Kubrick was a very creative, deep and intelligent mind. Even "silly" stories like that of The Shining, are great visual spectacles...
 
photogdave said:
No love for Full Metal Jacket??!!
Click to expand...

I would rank FMJ as among Kubrick's best. I'll put it up there with Dr. Strangelove. Although, it's really 2 films. The first is absolutely brilliant. The second is good, but not as good.
 
It's not just the lens, but the whole available light aesthetic, which is antithetical to most studio film-making. I don't think Kubrick necessarily began w/the idea that he was going to shoot w/a super fast lens, but rather that he was going to shoot a film using available light & w/the existing film emulsions that were available, he needed a f/0.7 lens to pull it off.

That said, I agree w/those arguing that Kubrick, like Ridley Scott, was a better cinematographer than a director per se (yes, he worked w/cinematographers later, but always put his own visual stamp on things). I think that's why I prefer his earlier work, like The Killing, made before the typical director megalomania kicked in.

kevin m said:
I don't get it. You have an entire lighting and grip crew at your disposal, yet you choose to work with an f0.7 lens and have your crew and cast work around ITS limitations. :confused:

Weird. The film is beautiful, but I don't think the lens had much to do with it.
Click to expand...
 
Nemo said:
Right!

Sellers was a clown... sometimes a really great clown... but Quilty is a different kind of character, mysterious... and Sellers transforms him in a clown too...

It is a good movie, but it fails.
Click to expand...

Agree 1000% percent. Sellers ruins that movie. Nothing against Sellers. Worst miscasting - ever, imo.
 
crawdiddy said:
I would rank FMJ as among Kubrick's best. I'll put it up there with Dr. Strangelove. Although, it's really 2 films. The first is absolutely brilliant. The second is good, but not as good.
Click to expand...
I agree. The basic training part was just so well done and intense. When they go to war it's more like they typical Nam films of the day.
An actor friend of mine got to work with R Lee Ermy and says he's just like his drill sgt character in real life!
 
photogdave said:
I agree. The basic training part was just so well done and intense. When they go to war it's more like they typical Nam films of the day.
An actor friend of mine got to work with R Lee Ermy and says he's just like his drill sgt character in real life!
Click to expand...

That's kind of what I've heard as well. Typecasting. Doesn't matter though. That performance is one of the most intensely unforgettable of all time.
 
photogdave said:
An actor friend of mine got to work with R Lee Ermy and says he's just like his drill sgt character in real life!
Click to expand...

Perhaps it is because he actually WAS a Marine drill sgt in "real life", before Kubrick pulled him out of retirement ;)

BTW, I got that tidbit from the documentary ("Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures"), included in the DVD set I bought recently... I saw that documentary on TV once, and basically purchased the whole set just because of it. :)

The documentary states that Lee Ermy basically improvised in front of the camera (inventing those juicy bits, since those were not in the script), and had problems when asked by Kubrick to do it all over again (the famous Kubrick's endless re-takes...).
 
More Trivia/Rumor/Urban Lengend: Lee Ermy was hired as technical advisor to Clint Eastwood. Clint bailed so Kubrick put Lee into the role.

Agreed. Full Metal Jacket is great. Right along side Dr. Strangelove. Full Metal Jacket is on my very short list of all time best war movies with Bridge on the River Kwai and Blackhawk Down.
 
furcafe said:
That said, I agree w/those arguing that Kubrick, like Ridley Scott, was a better cinematographer than a director
Click to expand...

That is true for Scott, but not for Kubrick. Kubrick was a cultured artist, Scott is not. Scott is a good craftsman. If you give him resources, a good screenplay, etc. he films the story with good taste and pulse. But Scott is incapable of good subject selection and treatment. He is a rough person, from which I infer from interviews. Kubrick was a different thing: very cultured, intelligent, great technician... he became an expert in all the subjects he worked on...
 
I don't know enough about Scott to really argue w/you about him, but my point is that Kubrick's intelligence & expertise, as great as they were, didn't always translate into a good movie, or rather, as good of a movie as he was capable of making (IMHO, of course).

Nemo said:
That is true for Scott, but not for Kubrick. Kubrick was a cultured artist, Scott is not. Scott is a good craftsman. If you give him resources, a good screenplay, etc. he films the story with good taste and pulse. But Scott is incapable of good subject selection and treatment. He is a rough person, from which I infer from interviews. Kubrick was a different thing: very cultured, intelligent, great technician... he became an expert in all the subjects he worked on...
Click to expand...
 
I'll be more blunt and say that Kubrick's "intelligence and culture" didn't make him a great director. He is, IMO, one of the most over-rated film directors of all time.

I'd agree with the poster who said that he's more a photographer than a director. His movies are almost always beautiful to look at, but weak in other regards. The acting in his films is almost uniformly mediocre, or worse. In addition to the awful job Ryan O'Neal did in "Barry Lyndon," you can add the bizarre Cruise/Kidman performances in "Eyes Wide Shut," which is a film so 'serious,' and so bad, it borders on camp.

High production values don't make art.
 
Ridley Scott is capable of great work, I would argue. And wildly divergent, like Thelma & Louise, Bladerunner and Gladiator. He seems to be more of a collaborator than someone like Kubrick, who seemed to be very much the auteur of his films.

Of course, Thelma & Louise is great. I also lliked White Squall very much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom