Comments on: The Film Talk – Part 53 – The Films of Stanley Kubrick

By: Stanley Kubrick in ‘Inglourious Basterds’ | The Film Talk - Movie Review Podcast

Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:46:13 +0000

[...] On the left, Stanley Kubrick. [...]

By: The Film Talk » Tomorrow’s Podcast – A Stanley Kubrick Retrospective

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 04:09:17 +0000

[...] TFT 53 – The Films of Stanley Kubrick Podcast [...]

By: The Film Talk » Less is More: Or How to Make Your Films More Interesting with the Help of the Easy Surreal

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:55:45 +0000

[...] course Stanley Kubrick is another one who knew there was no need to tell us everything – he was famous for [...]

By: The Film Talk » Stanley Kubrick in ‘Inglourious Basterds’

The Film Talk » Stanley Kubrick in ‘Inglourious Basterds’ — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:47:18 +0000

[...] On the left, Stanley Kubrick. [...]

By: The Film Talk » The Film Tak – Part 80 – The Man-Ape of 2001 – An Interview with Dan Richter

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:48:00 +0000

[...] The bone throwing man-ape of 2001, Dan Richter, is interviewed on what it was like working with Stanley Kubrick, the meaning of 2001 and the counter-culture experiences of the [...]

By: The Film Talk » ‘Voices from El-Sayed’ - Documentary as Drama and the Marginalisation of ‘Staged Cinema’

Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:49:24 +0000

[...] the delight that comes from processing thematic resonances, (as seen in decades of staged cinema: Kubrick was great as this – see ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ for a superb example of dialogue that is both [...]

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 03:37:13 +0000

Was interrupted about three minutes from the end of the program and almost didn't return to it. Glad I did though because I thought that Gareth's comment about many of these films being ones that you admire rather than warm to rang very true for me. There is a significant difference films you admire and films you love (what Gareth once described as 'comfort films').

Haven't seen The Shining for a long time and as a young adult it never really disturbed me, I just admired the atmospherics. After your comments I'm now wondering that if I return to it now it'll completely freak me out!

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:37:13 +0000

By: Jett Loe

Jett Loe — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:10:26 +0000

I agree that Eyes Wide Shut would have been assumed to be exhibited in a wide-screen format. But on the DVD, (at least the I viewed), there was a message saying it was full frame 'as Kubrick intended'; thus the 'camera shadows'!

ah well, I still like the idea that it was a homage to Lee Friedlander! ;)

By: Toby

Toby — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:02:38 +0000

Regarding aspect ratio: it's worth pointing out the era in which Kubrick made his films and the formats that were prominent. With this in mind, 1.66 was and is the dominant European aspect ratio, which is somewhere in between 1.85 (or 16x9 if you prefer, though not exactly) and the Academy ratio of 1.37 (or full frame), a format which was more or less defunct in practical purposes by the time 1960 came around. Though most of his films - save the cinemascope epics - have the full frame intact (with or without unintentional objects) as would have been natural, he certainly knew how they would be seen in theaters which, contrary to Warner Bros' questionable post-mortem DVD proclamations, is the ultimate goal of the filmmaker in an era void of home video formats.

Do you remember how fast those Kubrick box sets came out after his death? It wasn't months. It was weeks. Could it be said that, in the favor of the quick and dirty box set (void of great transfers by the way), that speed was substituted for diligence, content and research? I submit that the aspect ratio question could possibly have been answered the same way. Don't get me wrong: the photographic eye is there no matter how you crop it. Just sayin'...

Consider, say, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. It has the full frame intact on the prints, but could arguably have been made with a British audience in mind considering the cast and source material. Most likely meant to be seen in 1.66... Counter that with EYES WIDE SHUT, consider its cast, setting and target celebrity-obsessed audience and the fact that no cinema (save ones like us) don't even have an Academy lens in their booths much less a 1.66, and you can successfully argue that Kubrick knew that the vast majority of his audience would see the film in the 1.85 aspect ratio.

So, flubs? Great for a studio with a big question on their hands who just wants to rush a product out there: just scan the negative, dont worry about cropping it and just get it out there.

Just saying...don't know...just saying