Stanley Kubrick Limited Edition Collection - Page 5

A little addition to the aspect ratio debate for Lyndon: there's a shot at the 17 minute mark where Cora's father toasts her engagement to Captain Quin, and he raises his glass of wine towards the edge of frame. In the 1.59 aspect, it never leaves the frame but the camera angle is moved upwards quite a bit anyway. In the 1.78 version, the raised glass goes beyond the frame before the camera is shifted upwards to compensate, holding it perfectly thereafter.

It's by no means a definitive answer to this issue - or even an answer at all - but I thought it worth mentioning.

caps-a-holic DVD comparisons for Barry and Lolita:
http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...rgleich=lolita
http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...h=barry_lyndon

Nothing of value lost by slimming off the top and bottom of Barry to 1.78:1

Some of those DVD shots of Barry Lyndon are cropped on all 4 sides. Look at the last grab where the BD shows a lot more info. Now that I've watched the whole BD though, it's hard to complain about Barry Lyndon. It's a gorgeous looking BD.

Guys, I know this isn't a review thread but....
I have the Kubrick DVD collection and Barry Lyndon did not do much for me.
I haven't watched it in years so my memory may be faulty, I know my memory is faulty but it doesn't strike a chord like knowing that I don't like Clockwork.
I'm thinking that I'll buy the BD simply for the transfer and the cinematography but if you don't mind, what are your thoughts on the film itself.

My 2 cents:

Lyndon is one of Kubrick's finest IMO. I recently read a description that said it was more about pushing the art of filmmaking than anything, but that does it a disservice. Barry is another one of Kubrick's anti-heroes to be sure, yet he's still got more warmth and humanity to him than a tosser like Alex from Clockwork Orange, or Strangelove's collection of misfits, or the pathetic social ineptitude of Lolita's players, or the hysterical inhabitants of the Overlook. And the most human character in 2001 is the computer! Not until Pvt Joker came along did we get someone to root for once again.

Sure, the technical prowess of Lyndon is a major part of the appeal, but it serves the story rather than the other way around. Those mesmerisingly slow reverse zooms turn intimate close-ups into much broader tableaux, highlighting the loneliness and isolation of the characters, or showing us the crux of the scene and then the setting it takes place in, all in one shot (like Barry's duel with Captain Quin).

The narrative appears to take its sweet time but the languor is quite deceptive, because rarely is it that nothing's actually happening. Indeed, from the opening scene the story is set in motion and maintains a constant rhythm throughout. And even if nothing of note is occuring on-screen, the wonderful voice over gives us enough information to make the bridge from one scene to the next (which Kubrick thought vital in order to condense Thackeray's book for the screen).

It'd all be for nought if we didn't care for Barry himself, and while Ryan O'Neal isn't as electric a performer as, say, Malcolm McDowell, he still does a great job IMO. The scene where he's crying his eyes out at [SPOILER!!!!] his dying son's bedside [SPOILER!!!] is an intensely emotional moment which almost set me off blubbing.

I discovered Lyndon in the 90s on VHS and Laserdisc and thanks to a fledgling interest in all things Kubrick. Even in it's most horrible AV presentation the movie grabbed me as one of Kubricks truest explorations of the human condition, while also being the only period piece ever that dared to recreate the vastly different experience of time and speed of the pre industrial revolution era.
It is deeply cynical overall but not without compassion for the players inhabiting it's world, something that can't be said for many of Kubricks films. I have seen it often on DVD and even once in a cinema and for me it is an absolute masterpiece, just like 2001, Strangelove, and moreso than Clockwork.

Regardless of the aspect ratio, I'll be in heaven when the Kubrick collection arrives tomorrow.

Thanks guys.
I'm a big fan of some of his movies.
I think more than anything when he picked a decent story to tell he was great, but Clockwork, The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut leave me totally cold.
I really wish he had made the Napoleon bio-epic and Artificial Intelligence.

In reading about Barry Lyndon, I came across something that was interesting(to me anyway).
People have described the interior scenes as "flat looking".
I read that the special camera lenses were very limited in their depth of field and the actors had to carefully choreograph their movements so as not to go out of focus.

I agree that Barry Lyndon is an underappreciated masterpiece. Although I have never known what to expect from Ryan O'Neil, I thought Barry Lyndon was one of his best performances.

Given Kubrick's pace on Eyes Wide Shut, I agree to the theory that he wasn't interested in directing A.I. because the boy would have aged too much during the shooting and the retakes.


When you take a picture (or shoot a movie), the amount of light that gets caught by the camera is determined by three things: aperture (f=???), exposure speed and film sensibility (ISO).
A "fast" film adds grain (which was obvious and wanted on Eyes Wide Shut) because it's less precsie.
Exposure speed is constrained by the fact you must take 24 fps on film, so there's not much flexibility.
So, if you want to work in low lights, you have to reach a low aperture with the side effect that the lower the aperture is, the narrower the depth of field is.

The "flat looking" scenes were intentionally done that way to give the look of paintings from the 1700's. Many scenes were shot using only candlelight, others were lit conventionally to mimic candlelight, and fast, wide aperture lens were utilized to achieve that "flat" look of a painting.

There is a review on amazon.com that mentions the Limited Edition packaging is scratching discs? Anyone have the same issues? Also I'd like to hear more from people who have the bluray collection!

Andrew

The cardboard pages (sleeves) have a small "nubb" inside that catches the edge of the disc as it's pulled from the sleeve. The first few times, removal requires considerable force. Eventually the nubb is slowly worn down a bit so removal becomes a little easier. I've intentionally worn mine by using a blank disc and working it in and out of the sleeve until the fit is better. But worse than the tight fit is the requirement that every time the disc is removed, you must grasp the top and bottom of the exposed edge, leaving fingerprints on the underside that must be cleaned before playing. It's a very poor design for such an important (and expensive) set.

But, BL does look gorgeous.

I'm totally bummed that Disc 2 of "A Clockwork Orange" two features "Stanley Kubrick, A Life In Pictures" and "O Lucky Malcolm" are both only SD

is the box set the same way?

O Lucky Malcolm should be in HD.

O Lucky Malcolm is in HD, but unfortunately it looks like it uses SD sourced movie clips.

A Life in Pictures was produced in SD. I would've liked to have seen them spend some money and remaster it for HD like MGM did for the Bond documentaries. Or at the least upconvert it to HD (most of the documentary is letterboxed anyway) and edit in HD movie clips.

Once I've watched Lolita proper I'll be selling my set and buying the singles cheap. Warners have new anniversary editions of Lolita and FMJ planned for next year, with 2001 likely to follow the year after, which puts into perspective what a complete and utter cash-grab this set is. At least with the singles I can sell on the titles as and when new ones come out.

Not only that, they announced the news less than a week after the boxset streeted. Hooray for the world's worst PR decisions!

I'm cool with an Anniversary re-release of Full Metal Jacket if it's a new transfer, otherwise I'll stick with my 2007 Deluxe Edition.

In case people still arent sure of the OAR of Barry Lyndon:

Late to the party, but doesn't Kubrick's memo (item #2) show he preferred BL to be shown at 1.66, but could live with it up to 1.75, if there were no alternative?

P. S. I find the tone of the memo fascinating. Kubrick knows all that painstaking work of hundreds of artists and craftspeople is now subject to a single person, the projectionist...who may or may not know what the heck he is doing.

Wow. No it doesnt. His memo states exactly what ratio he shot it in, and that he wants the film to be shown at that ratio.

Thats why Kubrick approved a dvd release at 1.66 in the 90s.

Vitali currently claims:


After kubrick's death, Vitali (and his co-morons at WHV) put out a 1.60 version in 2000 and are now putting out a 1.78 version on Blu Ray.

It doesn't take any kind of super detective work to deduce that Vitali is a complete charlatan and has absolutely no idea about the technical aspect of any of Kubrick's work. And never has.

Then what does "in no event, at less than 1-1:1.75" mean? Why not just omit that?

I get that this memo shows that 1.66 for BL is what Kubrick intended and preferred, and anyone who claims otherwise has to now refute this contemporary memo from Kubrick himself (tall order), but I don't understand why Kubrick added that quoted phrase unless he knew he'd sometimes have to live with it being projected at wider than 1.66.

Then what does "in no event, at less than 1-1:1.75" mean? Why not just omit that?

Possibly because he knew some projectionists were lazy and might project it any old whichaway?

There is (was?) a projectionist's union, and many of them are professionals and perfectionists. Nowadays projectionists seem to double as concession stand operators.

I assume this is the 1999 version? I thought that was around 1.60:1 as well, but I've long since dumped that version so I can't check for sure. (FWIW, Doug Pratt's guide lists both it and the reissue as 1.58:1; the explanation I've heard is the film was shot with 1.60:1 hard matting, so a full 4:3 open-matte transfer along the lines of The Shining, Full Metal Jacket etc. wasn't possible.)

If it's really 1.66:1 it might be interesting to have some caps from the first version, since that would presumably represent the preferred theatrical framing (although cropping the 1.59:1 transfer to 1.66:1 would probably produce the same result).