The Stanley Kubrick Archives... (1 Viewer)

[ArthurMy]

I have the strongest feeling that the next release of these films on DVD (which I have been told is coming sooner than you might all think) will include widescreen transfers of all the films that should be done that way, i.e. The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut. I also think we'll finally see anamorphic transfers of Barry Lyndon, Clockwork and Lolita.

As I said in the other thread that I linked to - no one wants to hear it. They either completely ignore what's being said, or they stick to the "But Stanley said" business. What Stanley said in 1990 had specifically to do with 4.3 televisions, laserdisc and VHS and broadcast showings of these films. Mr. Kubrick was a filmmaker - he made films for the cinema. He didn't, as an afterthought, frame them for 1:85 even though he allegedly preferred Academy ratio. He knew exactly how his films would be projected and, as an artist, he framed for that aspect ratio - his cameraman has said it, his editor has said it, someone who was in the editing room on The Shining and who has posted here has said it, and now this book offers irrefutable proof in diagrams, storyboards and notes in Mr. Kubrick's own writing. There is no more argument.

 

[ArthurMy]

You see what I'm saying, JulianE. The silence is deafening - and predictable.

 

[Geremia P.]

Weren't Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut projected at 1.33:1 outside of North America during their initial releases?

I'm sure I've heard that somewhere.

 

[ArthurMy]

Not as far as I know. Very few cinemas are equipped to properly show films at Academy ratio. Since these were proper theater releases, they were shown at theatrical ratios here and abroad. Again, once these storyboards and diagrams in this book have been seen, no one will question this stuff again.

I wish I knew how to do pictures here, but I don't.

 

[Robert Harris]

Received my copy via Amazon.

At 13 pounds, the cost works out to just under $10 per pound.

Good value. Very Pretty pictures.

As a strip of film, I received an almost entirely black frame, with a tiny (possibly 2mm) image of what may be someone in space. I've a feeling someone at Taschen knew this copy was coming my way. There are certain strips of film which should go immediately into the trash.

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.

The major problem with this huge book is that it flexes under its own weight, and will, of necessity, have to be stored horizontally -- possibly supported by at least two monoliths.

RAH

 

[John Hodson]

Did they miss a marketing opportunity there?

'My God. It's full of words...'

 

[JulianE]

I saw Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut in Germany and they certainly were not projected in 1 : 1.33. Both were 1 : 1.85 in Germany and most likely the rest of Europe.

 

[Geremia P.]

I think my memory was a little faulty. I believe both were projected at 1.66:1 in some countries, but that could probably be said about countless 1.85:1 movies.

I just hope that with the next release of these, they include fullscreen and widescreen transfers to make this whole issue moot.

 

[Melson]

Robert, can you tell us what the error is?

 

[Evan Case]

Well, it finally arrived. Leafing through it, it seems to be nearly worth the $130 price tag.

Only issue I have pretty much mirrors what RAH said. In fact, I think I probably got a strip from the same segment of film he did--all black with a millimeter-sized white blob in upper right corner that may or may not be a pod/Frank Poole. Utterly useless.

You would think that for that price, they could at least use film strips that come from recognizable moments in the movie. I'd be more happy with a shot of those funky red space station chairs than with what I got.

Great book, but shame on whoever chose the strips.

Evan

 

[Charles de Lauzirika]

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.

 

[Jack Briggs]

But my problem comes with Mr. Harris' post:



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.

 

[Charles de Lauzirika]

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.

 

[nolesrule]

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.

 

[Jack Briggs]

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.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

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.

 

[Travis Brashear]

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.

 

[Duncan_N]

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.

 

[Tom Oh]

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!

 

[Michael Boyd]

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?