Stanley Kubrik and THAT lens

peterm1

peterm1

Veteran
Local time
9:42 AM
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
8,148
View My Gallery
Yesterday while driving back from helping a mate do some maintenance on his yacht, I stopped by a coastal shopping strip for a bite of lunch and in a small store selling old vinyl records and CDs together with some DVDs, I found a copy of Stanley Kubrik's "Barry Lyndon".

I had been looking for it for a while as while I have seen it years ago on TV I did not own a copy. (I am a film buff and probably own about 600 DVDs of movies). And apart from anything I wanted to view the scenes shot with the famous f0.7 Zeiss lens which had been built for NASA and sequestered by Kubrik who was intent on getting the film's "look" just so! Many will already be familiar with the story that Kubrik specifically wanted to use this rare lens to film candle light scenes in the movie. I had not previously realized it but as it turns out, pretty well most indoor scenes which are illuminated by candles in various scenes are really illuminated by candles in the film - with this lens doing the heavy lifting. I had thought there was only one or perhaps two scenes of this type. The result is fabulous and sumptuous.

Then I went searching for more info and, courtesy of Mr Google, found this Youtube video in which some people who were involved in the original filming talk about the events leading to his choice of lenses. Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmSDnPvslnA#t=206

Some other articles/ videos on the subject.

http://www.urbanglass.org/glass/detail/glass-curiosities-a-nasa-lens-becomes-a-filmmakers-obsession

http://filmmakeriq.com/2012/10/deconstructing-the-cinematography-of-barry-lyndon/

http://www.cinematographers.nl/GreatDoPh/alcott.htm
 
When I saw that movie in the theater I knew something was different, but couldn't figure it out. At the time I was into my f1.4 Super Takumar 50mm and shooting everything I could wide open. Thanks for giving us a look into this lens.
 
En Grisaille

En Grisaille

Very interesting, however, I still have a hard time understanding what Kubrick's goals were. Was it capturing low natural light or emulating the medium and techniques of the day?

Way back when I was in art school, and from what my father had taught me, there was always the notion that art progressed exactly at the same rate as technology.

Chiaroscuro and en grisaille are often confused. The former being light out of dark (i.e. as an image lit by candle light), and latter a technique of painting.

At the root of both is the technology of the day. At that time artists made their own paints, their formulas were kept as trade secrets.

The materials for pigments, and many of the oils and varnishes and driers, were very expensive. Rembrandt's paintings show no blue because he couldn't afford the lapis lazuli, which in the day was a gem stone.

So, glazing techniques were use whereby earth tones (cheap), where covered with thin glazes of color (expensive).
The painting was drawn tonally in umbers, blacks and siennas and ochres. This was followed glazes of any pigment that approached spectral hues. Tube paints and aniline dyes didn't appear until the time of Van Gogh.

I suppose a fast lens would provide both the look and soft focus he was trying to achieve.
 
How can I get such a lens ....
This was my second thought after reading up on this topic. The first thought was "this is beautiful".

Thanks for posting this thread.
 
Probably not the NASA lens, but have a look at the scenery and the transition from focus point to unsharp far distance in the scene were Barry's niece is courted by the English officer.

I've always considered that image rendering almost large format lens-like, and of stunning beauty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHCwzsFEJyw&spfreload=10
 
And a great movie beginning to end as well. Pay attention to the story, and you will be rewarded to an even greater extent than from only these (albeit fantastic) candlelit scenes. ;-)
 
"Very interesting, however, I still have a hard time understanding what Kubrick's goals were. Was it capturing low natural light or emulating the medium and techniques of the day?"

I think it was more of the latter.

From what I read over the past few days in particular as I read about this film, Kubrik was a man who was almost insane (the words of one commentator) for authenticity. He insisted that the clothes be authentic in every detail for example. They used the correct fabrics and buttons and so forth of the day. All of which had to be manufactured. If you look at the colors in the uniforms for example they are not the bright reds we use today. In the 18th century, they did not have bright synthetic (aniline) dyes in those days, as these were not discovered till the industrial revolution in the mid 1850's perhaps almost 100 years after this film was set. So the dyes used were plant or animal based, probably cochineal (from an insect) which is the authentic color used by people in this era.

That's one tiny example of Kubrik's insistence on authenticity. Kubrik's determination to use natural lighting was his reason for using that lens as without this lens there was no way to get the natural lighting he wanted onto film. I gather he had heard about the lens earlier in his career and made inquiries about it for this purpose. When he got his hands on one it would not mount on the cinema camera he was to use as the register distance was all wrong - the lens was designed to have a tiny register distance to the film plane. So they had to basically destroy the camera (which was rare and worth many, many thousands of dollars) and rebuild it to create a mounting for this lens. Afterwards the camera would not have been able to be restored to its original condition.

He is also quoted as saying he wanted the images in his masterpiece (and it is a kind of masterpiece) to look like paintings of the day. I think the camera would have originally been a reflex camera (not sure about this) so the mirror box would have to go so the lens could be mounted at the correct distance from the film plane. In any event the camera needed huge modification and with it would have gone the means of focusing the lens accurately. Imagine being the focus puller and being called upon to focus an f0.7 lens wide open with a sliver of a sharp focusing zone and having no way to do it. So they had to accurately measure distances and position actors accordingly in the scene. The slightest movement would throw the focus out with no way of knowing focus had been missed until the rushes were viewed. And that would mean reshooting another day. You will notice that all the scenes in which the lens was used tended to be very static ones.

As an aside here is another example of his manic nature and quest for authenticity. In "The Shining" at one point the mad character (a writer) played by Jack Nicholson was found to have typed over and over and over the words "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" on hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages of paper. Most directors would have had someone type this down a single page as many times as it would fit, then photocopy as many pages as needed. Not Kubrick. He made his assistant sit in front of a typewriter and type these words over and over all day every day for months and months to get the number of pages required. Apparently he felt it gave authenticity, even though no one in the world would have known or noticed or cared for that matter. That's the kind of director he was. That's why he used this lens.
 
When Shelley Duvall flipped through those pages, with the tension building, with the psychotic (but playful) typings, and Jack coming right around the corner..........

Very very scary. An absolute powerhouse. It's attention to detail.

I'm a great fan of Kubrick. Have his entire collection on DVD. And the documentary that your youtube clip came from.
 
I adore this movie, my favourite scene is when the chevalier playing card with prince of Tübingen.. the way how the room lit, seems simply setup.. but won't happen without the lens.. imo
 
yesaroos said:
I adore this movie, my favourite scene is when the chevalier playing card with prince of Tübingen.. the way how the room lit, seems simply setup.. but won't happen without the lens.. imo
Click to expand...

There are lots of great scenes in the movie - even the little inconsequential ones. For example just after Barry Lyndon marries Marissa Berenson's character, a very rich widow of noble birth, they are riding in carriage and he is smoking a pipe which is obviously distressing her. She asks him quietly and politely if he will stop at least for a while. At which he blows smoke in her face. Instantly I thought "This is not going to end well for anyone". You knew exactly where this film was heading with that one tiny detail which revealed his character.

The other scene amongst many that really spoke to me was early in the movie with his first love in Ireland, when he was still innocent, before he became debauched. It captured exactly memories of my own first love - intoxication, nervousness, desire, headiness. I have never before seen this level of passion captured in a movie in a scene in which almost nothing happens. It is all suggested. That is great movie making. WOW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

boojum
Still vs Motion picture technique
Replies
15
Views
2K
Out to Lunch
O
A
What is the MOST gear you've ever carried on a trip?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
Ray Vonn 2023
Ray Vonn 2023
peterm1
A night time walk with a Leica Summarit 50mm f1.5
Replies
1
Views
453
Richard G
Richard G
raydm6
Help ID’ing Camera, Lens, and Tripod
Replies
2
Views
192
Photar
Photar
C
Mamiya Press lens retraction issues
Replies
0
Views
74
craigiest
C
Back
Top Bottom