New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Stanley Kubrick Archives... - Page 4

post #91 of 161
5/18/05 at 10:21am
I got mine last week. I absolutely love it so far. And after worrying that I'd end up with several frames of a starfield or the MGM logo, I was pleasantly surprised by my film strip: I got a nice shot of Dave in the pod as he's turning to blast himself into Discovery's emergency airlock.

I thought the audio interview with Kubrick was fascinating, especially his thoughts on editing. And Kubrick's personal notes on composing for 1.85 but protecting for 1.33 finally offer some "gospel" insight into the framing of his films, especially in later years. The way Kubrick obsessively typed out those notes on tiny filing labels and then laid them out, almost serial killer-style, was nearly as disturbing as Jack Torrance's "All Work And No Play..." pages. (Kubrick: "BAD BAD BAD.")

This is truly an essential book for all Kubrick fans. Very highly recommended.
Reply
post #92 of 161
5/18/05 at 12:22pm
But my problem comes with Mr. Harris' post:

Skipping to the Spartacus section, the film which I know best, I immediately came away with a factual error. Not something that bodes well for what should be a highly researched tome which will stand as a testment to the filmmaker.

The fact that it ignores Fear and Desire entirely is also quite odd. A filmmaker not liking something is one thing. Making believe that it doesn't exist, as part of his work, is another.


An error in fact? And, of course, ignoring Fear and Desire altogether? Not what I would want in some sort of "definitive" discourse on one of the greatest filmmakers of all time.
Reply
post #93 of 161
5/18/05 at 1:20pm
Quote:
An error in fact? And, of course, ignoring Fear and Desire altogether? Not what I would want in some sort of "definitive" discourse on one of the greatest filmmakers of all time.


Well, I'm not sure what the factual error is regarding "Spartacus," so I would love to hear from Mr. Harris what the book got wrong.

However, "Fear and Desire" is not ignored. There's a 3-page subchapter devoted to it in the Early Work section of Part 2: The Creative Process (Pages 274-276.) It includes production notes, anaylsis and other commentary about "Fear and Desire," along with rare photos, movie posters and script pages from the film. Given short shrift in relation to his other films? Clearly. Ignored? Not at all.

I haven't absorbed every single page yet, but so far, I find the book overwhelmingly satisfying.
Reply
post #94 of 161
5/18/05 at 9:26pm
I got my book this week. My strip is an ungloved hand in a red spacesuit arm touching some controls. It's been a little while since I watched the film, so I'm not sure exactly when it occurs in the film.
Reply
post #95 of 161
5/19/05 at 8:26am
That would be when Frank Pool is making his EVA to replace the AE-35 unit in the Discovery's antenna -- just before HAL kills Pool.
Reply
post #96 of 161
5/19/05 at 8:30am
My strip is a medium-closeup of Dave Bowman in the pod either going out to retrieve Frank or heading back to the Discovery. Not classic but certainly better than what some people seem to be receiving.
Reply
post #97 of 161
5/19/05 at 9:17am
Jack, not correct--Frank's EVA was yellow, Dave's was red, after he forcibly re-entered Discovery when HAL refused to open the pod bay doors. The slide Joe has is probably Dave gaining entry to HAL's memory-chip room.
Reply
post #98 of 161
5/20/05 at 12:14am
Rather fabulously, there was a book signing here in London yesterday, so my copy of The Stanley Kubrick Archives is now autographed by Mrs Kubrick herself!!, Jan Harlan and Alison Castle!!

Felt very awstruck when I met Christiane.
Reply
post #99 of 161
5/20/05 at 3:13am
I think I got the same strip as Evan and RAH. I really can't make out what it is. Gary Tooze is so lucky. Besides this dissappointment, I'm happy with the book (wife not).

I found a typo in the book. On the 1st page of the Part 2 (The Creative Process) for SHINING, the year of release is 1957!
Reply
post #100 of 161
5/20/05 at 4:50am
Quote:
Rather fabulously, there was a book signing here in London yesterday,


How many people were there buying the book? It seems like such a niche market that it wouldn't be worth having a signing. But hell what do I know?
Reply
post #101 of 161
5/20/05 at 4:57am
Wasn't that busy - a load of press though and the signing was only 1 hour long. She was kept busy for the whole hour though.
Reply
post #102 of 161
5/20/05 at 11:18am
I ordered the book online and received it two weeks ago. It's a lovely book. I believe the strip included with mine is from the Dawn of Man, but I can't tell and I don't want to damage the film by pulling it out of the sleeve!

Am I the only one that noted the full summary of Kubrick's version of A.I.? When I first saw that film, I had thought that Kubrick had only worked out the first half and that Spielberg had not been able to work out a good second half. In reading the book, I found that Kubrick actually went FARTHER than Spielberg in the sentimentality of the ending, and Spielberg actually dialed it back. Who would have ever thought that Kubrick would top Spielberg in that department?
Reply
post #103 of 161
5/20/05 at 11:58am
Out of curiousity, what is the full summary of A.I.? I'm a fan of the movie and its origins have always fascinated me. Unfortunately, I don't have the means to shell out the cash for this set.
Reply
post #104 of 161
5/20/05 at 3:08pm
Well, I've now gone through the entirety of 2001 and I simply cannot find the shot my strip was taken from. It looks less and less like a pod and more like a white blob. I can't make out any stars, but that is probably because they are so tiny on a 70mm film strip.

I've taken a few photos, but they didn't really come out that well. Nevertheless, I'll try and post them to see if anyone else has a theory.

Otherwise, the book is definitely worth it. There is enough material beyond the film stills to justify the price. And those images, which I initially felt would be superflous, are merely the icing on the cake.

Evan, who can't believe Jack doesn't have this yet.

P.S. Is the Spartacus error related to the use of some stills from the Anthony Mann-directed slave labor scenes?
Reply
post #105 of 161
5/20/05 at 3:32pm
Two shots of my film strip. Wish I knew how to get in closer on the blob without losing focus.





And as an aside, it would've been nice to have had this book when A.I. came out and we had to endure a rash of complaints about how Kubrick would never have had "aliens" at the end and would have ended it during the blue fairy sequence.

According to the book, these storyboards/sketches were from the mid-90s.



Evan
Reply
post #106 of 161
5/20/05 at 7:14pm
Most of the AI treatment by Kubrick is pretty close to what Spielberg did. But the very end is extended.

If you haven't seen the movie or don't want to know, don't read below...



From p.507 of the book:

"One day, some two thousand years after it was trapped by the Ferris wheel, the amphibicopter is uncovered by robots performing excavations in the ice. Upon discovering the two robots inside, a robot exclaims: 'These robots are two thousand year old originals. They knew living people when people crowded the Earth. What a treasure!' A lock of Monica's hair that Teddy had kept in his pouch allows the robots to resurrect her. David soon finds himself with Monica in a virtual environment created from his memory to resemble exactly the houe they had lived in. After an idyllic day, Monica finally falls asleep, telling David the words he has been waiting two millenia to hear: 'I do love you, my sweet little boy. I have always loved you.' Holding her in his arms as she sleeps, David hopes for a miracle. The next morning, his wish comes true: Monica wakes up. The robots search for an answer to why, for the first time, a resurrectee has survived more than one day: 'Was it the love of a robot child? No other resurrectee had someone who loved them to hold onto them.' The treatment ends as Monica waltzes around the room with David 'as she had done the day of his imprinting.'"
Reply
post #107 of 161
5/21/05 at 3:46am
Quote:
And as an aside, it would've been nice to have had this book when A.I. came out and we had to endure a rash of complaints about how Kubrick would never have had "aliens" at the end and would have ended it during the blue fairy sequence.

I think the Kubrick version has the advantage because in it these beings so very OBVIOUSLY are NOT aliens.
Reply
post #108 of 161
5/21/05 at 8:46pm
People still seem to make that mistake. And for some reason, I doubt the people who hate the movie even care.

And Evan, could the shot be from when Dave is in the pod holding on to Frank's body when HAL won't let him back in (just a few seconds before he lets Frank go)?
Reply
post #109 of 161
5/22/05 at 7:38am
That's what I thought, Ray, but it isn't it. I went over all of the pod segments basically frame-by-frame, and that shot never appears.

Maybe I can contact Taschen, claim they sent me a filmstrip that doesn't appear in the movie (unless it's from the deleted EVA scene!) and demand they send me a new one, like, say, HAL's eye, old Dave pointing at the Monolith, monkey beating bones, starchild, or that wideshot of the spaceplane docking with the spacestation. Think that would work?

Evan
Reply
post #110 of 161
5/22/05 at 9:41am
Likely response:

"I'm sorry, Evan, but I can't do that. You know I have the greatest enthusiasm for the mission..."
Reply
post #111 of 161
5/23/05 at 4:37am
I'm aware that F & D receieved a few pages in the early section, but as a completed production, this little seen film, which has been heavily discussed over the years, might have been given a bit more space.

The tome is, undeniably, a beautifully produced book, and a necessity for all Kubrick addicts.

As far as design goes, I do have problems with photographs which disappear into the spine...

and its weight.
Reply
post #112 of 161
5/24/05 at 2:16am
And the errors in the SPARTACUS chapter? We're all very curious here...
Reply
post #113 of 161
5/24/05 at 6:45pm
Robert A. Harns was probably listed as the restorer.
Reply
post #114 of 161
5/25/05 at 12:08am
Quote:
Jack, not correct--Frank's EVA was yellow, Dave's was red, after he forcibly re-entered Discovery when HAL refused to open the pod bay doors. The slide Joe has is probably Dave gaining entry to HAL's memory-chip room.


Actually, Dave was fully suited at that point. This shot is gloveless, which narrows it down to Dave going after Poole unprotected.

In fact, a quick look at that part of the film shows it is the shot of Dave's hand pulling the safety cover off the pod's emergency hatch release buttons.
Reply
post #115 of 161
5/25/05 at 7:32am
True dat, true dat...well, at least I was correct that it wasn't Frank...
Reply
post #116 of 161
5/25/05 at 3:51pm
Yeah, that helped me narrow it down before I started looking. Once I read your comments last night, I popped in the DVD and found the shot in about 3 minutes (fast forwarding, and it was at the end of the whole pod sequence).
Reply
post #117 of 161
5/25/05 at 4:32pm
I ordered the book. This almost didn't happen as Amazon went up to $200 for a few days before dropping once again to $126.00.

I wonder how much the book would be going for without the 70 mm film strip?

However, the more I study Kubrick's films the more I'm interested in his work.
Reply
post #118 of 161
5/26/05 at 10:53am
rich - the film strip is just a bonus item that comes with the first print run. once that's been sold (god knows how many taschen printed - they aren't the most organised of people!) and it gets reprinted, it'll still be the same price but minus the film strip

ali
Reply
post #119 of 161
5/26/05 at 12:19pm
Quote:
rich - the film strip is just a bonus item that comes with the first print run. once that's been sold (god knows how many taschen printed - they aren't the most organised of people!) and it gets reprinted, it'll still be the same price but minus the film strip.

My winking icon was supposed to indicate some measure of humor/humour in my question. My observation, mere commentary on the discussion of the strips compared with the content of the book. We are all boys with toys.

However, on a serious note, retail price means nothing. The price of the book is what you pay for it. And that will depend on demand (as with demand there is virtually no limit on supply).

I have no idea how well the book is selling. But it seems a good bet that a high-end book – sold without the high-end frills – would be a tougher sell.
Reply
post #120 of 161
5/26/05 at 12:23pm
Jeff Well's column today at Hollywood-Elsewhere points out an error in the Spartacus section:

Quote:
All those details, all that minutae...and she and the Taschen editors only got one little thing wrong. I'm referring to a photo taken on the Spartacus set that identifies costar Rudy Bond (who played a loud-mouthed gladiator, although for some reason this role isn't listed on his IMDB page) as the film's producer, Edward Lewis. There's a very slight chance I'm wrong about this (Lewis may have been a dead ringer for Bond), but I doubt it.


Perhaps this is what Mr. Harris was referring to.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DVD