Jump to content


Photo

quick question


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Ckulakov

Ckulakov
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 193 posts
  • Student
  • Washington D.C.

Posted 21 August 2006 - 10:51 PM

Where the interior scenes in eyes wide shut shot with just practical lights because to me the overesposure/white on the lamps looked like they where the only sources present, not to say that they didnt look natural/beautiful/realistic? Also the blue in the scenes coming in from the windows was it real daylight with real sky exposed through the window or sound stage set windows with hmi's or other lights outside? Thanks.....the cinematography in this movie really impacted me....
  • 0

#2 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 August 2006 - 02:30 AM

The practicals were a big part of the lighting, but that doesn't mean that they didn't use any other cinema lights.

As for the blue light, are you referring to the night scenes in the appartment? The appartments was a set as far as I know and therfore all lit. I don't think there is any interior scene in the film (be it day or night) that was shot with real daylight coming in from the windows, simply because Stanley Kubrick took ages to shoot each scene and lighting contiunity would have been all over the place if they had relied on real daylight.
  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 22 August 2006 - 09:57 AM

The practicals were a big part of the lighting, but that doesn't mean that they didn't use any other cinema lights.


Behind-the-scenes photos in the huge coffee table Tachen Kubrick Archives book show Chinese Lanterns were used a lot to augment the practical tungsten lamps in the shots. But yes, Kubrick likes the practicals to do a lot of the work and exposes for their output, which is why they are so hot in frame.
  • 0

#4 Evan Winter

Evan Winter
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 22 August 2006 - 12:27 PM

isn't it kinda strange that we often give credit to the director or very heavily associate the director with decisions that are typically the work of a dp? i mean, we're talking about eyes wide shut's cinematography and we're talking about how kubrick likes to expose for practicals and so he sets his stop accordingly...but then where do we leave room for larry smith?

now, i know that kubrick is much more heavily involved in lighting than the typical director and oftentimes directors are looked at like (bad analogy warning) the star quarterback so lots of 'team' work are attributed to them but on a forum for cinematography isn't this unusual?

i'm not trying to pick on anyone, or troll, or anything - i'm guilty of doing this sort of thing myself but i just picked up on it as i was reading through the posts and started wondering...

evan
  • 0

#5 Joe Anderson

Joe Anderson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York, NY

Posted 22 August 2006 - 01:00 PM

There is another photograph in the Taschen book of Kubrick holding a light meter.
  • 0

#6 Keneu Luca

Keneu Luca
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 440 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 August 2006 - 03:31 PM

I think if a director sticks to a certain visual style throughout all or most of his films while usuing different DP's in each film, then it is not unusual to credit that director with that style.

However, I havent checked on how often Kubrick used the same DP, if he even ever did.

Edited by Keneu, 22 August 2006 - 03:33 PM.

  • 0

#7 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 August 2006 - 04:29 PM

I think in Kubrick's case it's widely accepted that he pretty much lit his films, except maybe 'Spartacus' where he was hired after the shoot started. Don't forget that he started out as a stills photogrpaher and got cinematogrpaher credit on his first short films and 'Fear and Desire'.

He only worked with John Alcott more than once (A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining).
  • 0

#8 Evan Winter

Evan Winter
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 22 August 2006 - 09:27 PM

it must have sucked to be a dp on one of kubrick's films since, as max points out, 'in Kubrick's case it's widely accepted that he pretty much lit his films'. i wonder why he even bothered hiring a dp and i'm sure some of his dp's wondered why they did the job if all their expertise, effort, skill, and work on set was just going to go down as kubrick having lit the project anyway.

doesn't this all seem a little disrespectful to the people who spent years of their lives getting to the top of their respective fields, then working with some of the best directors in film only to be dismissed as automatons under the creative and visual genius of said director?

what's most surprising is that this is happening on a cinematography forum.

evan
  • 0

#9 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 22 August 2006 - 09:59 PM

what's most surprising is that this is happening on a cinematography forum.


I think you're overworking this angle....

OK, Kubrick and Larry Smith, his gaffer that he promoted to lighting cameraman, lit "Eyes Wide Shut" -- are you happy now?

Believe me, if there is any director who deserves more credit for the lighting in his films, it's Kubrick. It's not like we routinely credit all directors with lighting their movies here on this forum. Kubrick is an exception to the rule.
  • 0

#10 David Sweetman

David Sweetman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Student

Posted 23 August 2006 - 12:02 AM

isn't it kinda strange that we often give credit to the director or very heavily associate the director with decisions that are typically the work of a dp?


You're talking to a member of the ASC! Of course he knows who does what! And if he gives credit to Kubrick for a particular element of the visual style, it's probably accurate...
  • 0

#11 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 August 2006 - 12:51 AM

I didn't mean to give short shrift to the talented DP's who have worked for Kubrick, but it's not inaccurate to say that Kubrick "lit" his movies, even though it was in collaboration with his DP's and Gaffers. When I talked to R. Lee Ermey on the set of "Solstice" many of his stories were about Kubrick lighting and operating shots on "Full Metal Jacket", even though Douglas Milsome of course did a lot of work too. But even Ermey said "Kubrick spent a week lighting and shooting tests of the bathroom for the moonlit murder scene before he said 'OK... now we can shoot it.' " He was pretty adamant that nothing on the set happened that wasn't controlled by Kubrick personally.
  • 0

#12 kentemporary

kentemporary
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Producer

Posted 23 August 2006 - 12:57 AM

Kubrick is an exception to the rule.


here here ^_^
  • 0

#13 Andy_Alderslade

Andy_Alderslade
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1055 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London, UK

Posted 23 August 2006 - 05:25 AM

isn't it kinda strange that we often give credit to the director or very heavily associate the director with decisions that are typically the work of a dp?


People who love Wong Kar Wai, rarely talk about the story, or storytelling or even the pretty decent acting, they always rave at the amazing images.

Cue a great DP and Production Designer.
  • 0

#14 EricUlbrich

EricUlbrich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Orange, CA

Posted 23 August 2006 - 05:36 AM

listen, Stanley is probibably the greatest filmmaker to walk the earth. Sheerly from and ateur standpoint the guy did everthing and he did everything well. I actually just finished working on a feature (the last sin eater) with Gavin Alcott, Johns son. We got to talking and eventually the topic came up about how his dad felt about lighting Stanley's movies. I came to the conclusion that just to be labeled as a dp or lighting cameraman on a Kubrick shoot was good enough. Stanley hired DPs who knew what they were getting into, and on top of that they were ok with it. Still it doesnt mean that John had any less work to do, film is a collaborative effort, and sometimes people collaborate better with themselves, but people still need to help them realize or bring their vision to life. Anyway, thats my two cents.
  • 0

#15 Andy_Alderslade

Andy_Alderslade
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1055 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London, UK

Posted 23 August 2006 - 05:43 AM

listen, Stanley is probibably the greatest filmmaker to walk the earth.


Well perhaps, but my vote would go to Hitchcock, Powell, Hawks, Ford, Truffaut, Rosselini, Chaplin, Ozon and Kurosawa ;)

Edited by Andy_Alderslade, 23 August 2006 - 05:43 AM.

  • 0

#16 EricUlbrich

EricUlbrich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Orange, CA

Posted 23 August 2006 - 05:58 AM

yeah....no.
  • 0


Abel Cine

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

Opal

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Opal

The Slider

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc