The Stanley Kubrick Archives... (1 Viewer)

[Geoff_D]

This is a lovely book. The stills from the films are superfluous for the most part, but it's kinda nice to have access to some of the most iconic images ever recorded on celluloid at the flick of a page.

The archival stuff is just beautiful though; there are interviews galore, tons of wonderful photos and tantalising glimpses of Kubrick's abandoned projects. I feel giddy just flicking through it!

I even got me a strip of film from the stargate sequence. And (on a related note) when the 2001 SE was asked about in the Warner chat, they cooly replied "SE of 2001 is targeted for 2006, with other Kubrick SEs". OTHER KUBRICK SEs! Joy!

Oh yeah, my copy came with a catalogue for Taschen's other books that features an. . . interesting photo on the cover. You'll see what I mean. :b

 

[Duncan_N]

 

[Gary Tooze]

Beautiful photos Duncan... thanks so much for posting. May I put a few on my webpage ?

What is on your film strip ?
Best,
Gary

 

[Duncan_N]

My film strip is from the 'byehal sequence'.

It's a stunningly beautiful book. Yes, it's expensive and indulgent. But, once you have got it in your hands there is no way you would feel ripped off.

I've spent the last 3 evenings just pawing over it - it's possibly the most beautiful thing I own.

Feel free to use whatever photos you like Gary.

 

[James Luckard]

Is there anything about "Aryan Papers," Kubrick's aborted Holocaust movie, based on the novel "Wartime Lies" in the Archive book?

I read the novel and, knowing that Kubrick had bought it, I could totally see his film as I read. From what I understand, he had a script ready, had picked Bratislava as a location, and had cast Joseph Mazello from Jurassic Park as the lead, when "Schindler's List" came out and he abandoned it.

There's a very brief mention of it in the great "Stanley Kubrick: A Life In Pictures" documentary, which basically says what I said above, as well as having Christiane Kubrick say she was glad he dropped the project, because it was depressing him so much.

Though it's never mentioned in relation to Kubrick, I think it's also interesting because her uncle was Veit Harlan, director of some of the worst anti-Jewish propaganda films the Nazis made, including Jud Süss.

 

[Duncan_N]

There is a short essay in the appendix written by Jan Harlin on 'Aryan Papers'. It includes some photographs of Kubrick's own copy of Wartime Lies and a couple of costume fitting photographs of Johanna ter Steege.

There is rather more extensive discussion of A.I. and Napoleon.

 

[James Luckard]

So was Johanna Ter Steege meant to play the other lead, the boy's aunt? I read somewhere ages ago that Uma Thurman and Julia Roberts were both possibilities, but I don't know how trustworthy the sources were. If Ter Steege made it all the way to costume fittings, the project was even closer to being filmed than I ever thought.

I remember her vaguely from "Immortal Beloved" as the title character, Beethoven's sister-in-law, I think.

 

[Duncan_N]

Johanna was down to play the lead, Tania.

Interestingly on the photograph of Kubrick's copy of Wartime Lies in the Archives book you can clearly he has scribbled down 'Meryl, Mia, Annette Benning, Ellen Barkin and Thelma and Louise' on the front page.

 

[Mark_vdH]

I have taped an interview with Johanna Ter Steege just after Kubrick died, and (from memory) she said that shooting had already been scheduled, but was delayed by one month for several times, and after about eight months Kubrick canceled the project. He had his eyes on her because of watching The Vanishing BTW.

 

[JulianE]

The archives book also once and for clears up the big aspect ratio confusion in Mr. Kubrick´s own words and writing.

There is a photo of a SK drawing of potential shots for The Shining - he made it for his DPs second unit crew for outdoor shots.
Now... lo and behold, as opposed to what Warner driven by Kubricks´s assistant Leon Vitali want us to believe, it clearly states there in SKs handwritten note that all shots shoul be COMPOSED for 1.85:1, but PROTECTED for 1:33:1. Vitali and Warner for years have claimed that Kubrick composed Shining, FMJ & Eyes Wide Shut for 1:33:1 and thus they should be presented that way going forward.

Please, anybody from Warners, Mr. Vitali, or anybody else involved in the retransfers for the Special Editions, please read Mr. Kubrick´s own writing and frame those movies the way he intended them - in 1:85 : 1 or at least 16x9, it being close enough. The academy ratio transfers can continue to exist as Pan & Scan alternatives with disclaimers, but certainly we finally HAVE proof of what was aesthetically clear anyways when you watched these three moives: They were NOT composed by Mr. Kubrick for 1:33 : 1 and the current representations are not what the director intended

Ron - could you bring this up with people from Warners??

Cheers,

Julian

 

[Mark_vdH]

I really don't understand all the fuss about this. First of all, the transfers for the movies you mention have absolutely nothing to do with Pan & Scan, as they are open matte transfers. Second, and more importantly, regardless of what Kubrick wanted, these transfers perfectly reflect the compositions as they are on the actual film frames. Just as projectors had to obstruct some of the full image in the cinema, you can obtain the theatrical compositions by zooming in or use mattes.

I would buy new 16:9 transfers, though.

 

[nolesrule]

That doesn't mean the full visible film frame is the proper presentation format or that the film was even composed for the whole film frame (which is the point of the post before yours).

Besides, it's not so great to watch it on my widescreen TV. To get the 1.78:1 ratio, I'd have to zoom in, which hurts the resolution, just like watching a non-anamorphic DVD.

 

[Britton]

Man, that is one NICE looking book. So nice that I'd be afraid to even touch it! I can see myself going mad from getting fingerprints on the pages or berating someone else for even looking in its direction.

 

[Anthony Neilson]

You're right, Britton. I'm like Howard Hughes before looking at this one. And the book's so heavy it's almost impossible to avoid minor page damage here and there.

It IS a beautiful book and a must-have for Kubrick fans, though it still annoys me that some of the stills are printed across the centre of the book. It's a stupid flaw in an otherwise immaculately presented book.

It's a tantalising thought that SOMEONE out there has "that" cut as their filmstrip !

 

[Melson]

Doesn't Gary have it?

 

[Michael Boyd]

Finally got mine. The strip of film consists of one frame of the interior of the Discovery with the hibernation chamber and the rest with Dave Bowman's parents parents on screen with the birthday cake.

 

[ArthurMy]

JulianE, I have been saying the same thing for weeks, in other threads where it was once again brought up, ever since I got the book. There it is, in Mr. Kubrick's own writing. There it is in the storyboards and the back projection plate. There it is - frame for 1:85. No one wants to hear it.

 

[ArthurMy]

Here is the link to the thread - you will see several of my posts after just having gotten the book - they mirror JulianE's almost verbatim. And you will see how nobody wants to hear it, or they simply go away without acknowledging what this information means.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...=&pagenumber=4

 

[JulianE]

So what is the best way to alert Warner to this quite conclusive proof.

I am willing to let the issue go for current-gen DVD, but in one rather bizarre interview when the redone transfers came out, Leon Vitali said that even when we move to HD these filams would be shown in 1:33 : 1 (presumably windowboxed on the sides).

Considering SKs own handwriting proof here, to have the final masters for the future in an aspect ratio that neither Mr. Kubrick nor his DPs composed for would be just an utter travesty.

Is there anybody out there who could talk sense into Warner and subsequently Vitali. I assume he has only the best intentions but he is very, very misguided here - as is anybody who still would defend this 1:33 : 1 nonsense as the way Kubrick intended it after we have proof it wasn´t.

Julian

 

[Ray H]

Interesting stuff regarding the framing. I hadn't seen Arthur's earlier posts since I guess I didn't care too much about that thread, but now we have some proof. Is it possible to get a picture of that storyboard you've been talking about? Nothing grabs people's attention more than a good picture.

I've personally just felt that Warner should go ahead and release them in their theatrical aspect ratios for the heck of it. The open matte versions are widely available. Just give people the option.