Search results

Indeed - Kubrick and his lighting cameraman designed that look by intentionally underexposing the negative on set, and then pushing it two stops during processing. I loved doing similar tricks in my high school and college film days, when I was either processing 35mm still photography myself...

Can’t speak to the matting on the prints, but I do have a 35mm trailer that’s not matted.

I don’t really think of Hitchcock’s use of process photography and mattes to have any deeper meaning. He just came up at a time when that was how you did things, and never really changed even when new techniques came into vogue.

I remember one film school professor explaining to us in a class how the director was emphasizing how far apart two characters were in their personal relationship by cutting back and forth between them rather than framing them in a two shot. The only problem with this theory was that the film...

If you count the sound of breathing, that’s him doubling for the astronauts on their spacewalks in 2001.

No, but you know any label putting it out on disc would call a new 4K scan a “restoration” for marketing sizzle!

Yeah, the mirror thing was clearly an error, and I don’t see anything wrong with fixing it. I only had a day at the Kubrick Archive - I’m lucky I was able to fit it in on the London trip - and you have to make your selections of what to view in advance so you can’t really do spontaneous. My...

Another take on this: Eyes Wide Shot was photographed in a somewhat unique way. Every shot on set was underexposed on purpose, and then pushed during processing to compensate. This was done to give the film a grainy and almost dreamlike texture to it which looked beautiful in the original...