If you’re interested in this article / Kubrick, I highly recommend you watch the documentary Filmworker[0], which is a beautiful portrait of Leon Vitali [1], Stanley’s long term assistant quoted in this article.
He was cast in Barry Lyndon in 1974 and, after experiencing Kubrick’s genius and work ethic up close, gave up a promising acting career to devote his life to helping him achieve his vision— at great personal sacrifice. It’s moving, and helps explain the true cost of artistic excellence.
I often hear that this director or that film was genius/groundbreaking/important and upon watching it fail to understand what I was supposed to be looking for. To those of you who are better versed in this sort of thing than I am, how did you come to know what you know?
For example, I had a friend a few weeks back tell me that a particular scene in the movie we were watching was the first time a cinematography technique (whose name, along with the movie in question, I've now forgotten) was used. Knowing the history of it might simply be an exercise in good trivia retention, but understanding the technique and even knowing its name would seem to be something very different. How do you learn that?
I think by just watching some good cinematography and paying close attention to details. Eventually you start seeing patterns and certain techniques used everywhere, then you start noticing movies intentionally trying to be meta and subverting those patterns and techniques, and that’s where the big eye openers start.
A bit less visual, but that’s how it happened to me with music. There was even some guy on reddit who decided to go through the entire history of hip hop and listen to every single influential album chronologically [1]. From what i remember him describing, it was a completely different experience listening to newer hip hop after going through all the earlier works, as a lot of it was built through the same techniques of self-referencing and trying to be meta.
I like reading history, so I sometimes know such details.
I love Lucy was the Star Wars of its era in terms of revolutionizing the industry technologically. It's why you see it so much in reruns: It's the very first show filmed with archival quality materials such that you can watch it over and over.
Before that, two TV shows a day were broadcast live, one for the East Coast and another three hours later for the West Coast. The two time zones in between got a low quality recording.
Lucille Ball was an actress. Her husband, Desi Arnez, was a musician. She was past 40, wanted to have children and their careers were making that impossible.
TV schedules were so grueling, it was less work to revolutionize the industry. Desi had a home office and worked evenings and weekends a lot, but it allowed them to have kids, have dinner with the kids, tuck them in bed, etc.
I love Lucy invented a lot of modern staples of TV, including filming with three cameras and the rerun. They began playing reruns to accommodate Lucy's pregnancy. As an older woman with a first-time pregnancy, she couldn't keep the schedule they set.
It turned out to be a huge benefit to the show because the show was gaining in popularity and it allowed latecomers to see the earlier episodes. It was so successful, it rapidly became a TV staple to just broadcast reruns in the off season, etc.
The show seems campy and the black and white film is boring to most people today, but it was as exciting at the time as the special effects of Star Wars. It was groundbreaking technically and in many other ways.
Its likely that most people watch a movie with an aim towards tracking the plot, so that the movie makes sense. Still, you get a sense for the director or cinematographer's talent/style by watching a film even more broadly. It takes a few examples and then you are sensitized to the idea.
Consider the opening shot from Boogie Nights (1997) which is available here [0]. If you watched it and came back here, would you have noticed that it was done all in one take (without a single cut, until the one right before the end of the video) aka the 'long take' technique. Apart from the fact that it was a crane and a steadicam being used, think of the immense work required to coordinate all the actors and crew so that a minimum of takes were required to achieve this desired outcome. (And, that director Paul Thomas Anderson was about 27 when it was shot.) This is the stylism of the director shining through.
One blog's assessment of the best movies openings is in [1] and might offer some insight as well...
Like any field it takes study. If it's something you care about and is important (because you want to break into the field), you're probably more likely to remember and apply yourself than if it's just a passing interest and something you wish you knew.
Acknowledging that all the elements in a scene aren't accidental and are deliberate is the first step - timing, lighting, framing... People did this. People who have dedicated a whole career to their fields considered all the elements (theme, setting, mood, plot etc) and drew on their experience in applicable techniques (or innovated upon these) to decide where to put the camera, how to move it, how to focus it, what kind of lights to use, makeup, costume, props, words, sound effects, music etc. Things you wouldn't think of in post production like using 10 rapid-fire high-exposure photos in a transition instead of just cutting or fading to the next scene, colour grading, etc.
These days there's a huge amount of techniques and the understanding of how these influence viewers' perceptions of a piece constantly improves. Long gone are the days of straight landscapes for exposition and close-up shots for dialogue.
Really if you want to get into the field, you'll have to fully immerse yourself in it, join forums, ask questions, watch movies with a critical eye, etc. Join local film clubs, take a course, etc.
I think the trick is to watch a film you like that is also critically acclaimed. The elements of a film that don't need any education to be followed are screenplay, dialogues and music. Films like "The Godfather" or "Schindler's List" can be appreciated without much knowledge in film, but learning the technical know-how behind some of the shots can double the level of appreciation.
These are usually elements of cinematography like lighting, composition etc or element of direction (framing a shot, blocking the actors etc). Video essays such as "Every Frame a Painting" usually have comparisons where they pick up the same plot device from two different films, one shot normally and the other using the innovation, and delineate the difference between the two.
I think part of the issue is that we don't necessarily consume media in the same chronological order as it was created.
ie, if you've seen a hundred movies that utilize a specific technique it seems far less consequential when you see film in which that technique was used for the first time.
Yep, this. I was 12 when the original Star Wars came out. The opening sequence blew my mind straight out the to the sidewalk (people invariably watched movies in theaters back then). But nowadays it doesn't look like anything particularly special.
Beyond YouTube, you might start with something like "A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies".
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112120/
There is a lot that goes into a film. Cinematography which includes lighting which is itself a huge subject. Screen writing, acting and directing actors, music, vfx. Everything in post production which is huge. Color alone is a big subject.
Since you're asking about cinematography specifically, this is a great start to understand some techniques and where they originated:
"Cinematography: Theory and Practice: Image Making for Cinematographers and Directors" by Blain Brown.
I'm a newbie exec producer on a film which just completed production, entering a few festivals. Also did the color for the same film. And about to start shooting shorts for fun. Aspiring DP.
I think the answer is "passion". People remember such details in a specific field because they have a passion for it. The same person remembering techniques used in movie making probably know very little metallurgy.
Most people find some topics that just resonate with them and things just "stick" better. It's hard to force it and if you lack that "perfect fit" (or an incredible memory) those details will still be lost once you put the book down. You'll still have the broad strokes which is still very interesting knowledge to have in a conversation.
Near the very end of a decidedly lame duck film Babylon A.D. there is an incredibly beautiful and serene scene. The camera pans through ruins in the middle of still creeping wilderness, and stops in an open room where a deer is drinking water from a pool.
The scene feels so out of place, it's like from another movie.
It is. The sequence is a carefully done adaptation of the deer scene in Tarkovsky's S.T.A.L.K.E.R - itself an absolute masterpiece of slow, visual storytelling.
The guy has impressive storytelling, video editing and narration skills; so he can make you believe in things that are not there. But I usually do see what he is showing and it all seems to be very reasonable (and interesting).
He discuss other subjects, not only movies, but all cool stuff
Besides the great references others have made here, I'll add that you need to have a certain mindset when watching movies that you -choose- to analyze for deeper meaning. Often I'll get there on a 2nd / 3rd watch. More often I'll need a little help from online research. The Leftovers (HBO 3-season series) is a great example. I watched it twice, then sat down and just wrote about it. To myself. Things came out that I didn't expect, then I researched what others were saying online. That introduced new wormhole to explore.
I worked on a student film set for a few weeks, as a favor to a friend. For months afterword I couldn’t stop seeing the decomposition into shots, recognizing dollies, jibs, etc. Just standing on set watching the sequence of events, connecting the image to what the camera is doing (very often moving on some apparatus), seeing the repetition of shots for correctness and multiple camera angles, the laborious dragging around of lights on C stands, etc. provided a great introductory education to film.
Like many things, it's a product of reviewing a lot of materiel and researching what other folks write on a subject.
In some senses, it's all trivia if you're not making movies, but it can be fun.
There are plenty of textbooks out on the subject, and about any college textbook can give you an overview of the technical stuff and the general history.
Personally, I've read a lot about film criticism and made some movies. Both taught me a lot. I was writing a book for a PhD in literature that focused heavily on film as literature, and took a bunch of graduate classes discussing it. I also made a lot of short films and worked on other peoples' films as well.
Both of those paths can teach you a whole lot about film, depending on what you're interested in.
But that's no different than any other thing that people might know about. I know a lot about web-oriented programming tools, because I have to do it every day. It's just the product of reading a lot of books and daily practical application.
Film just has fewer obvious daily practical applications.
It wont apply to everyone. For people who enjoy most movies that come out, for example the superhero series and wizards and warrior series, this wont apply because your taste is easy to meet (the majority of consumers).
However, if you arent satisfied by these films but want something that provides more in terms of story, originality, verisimilitude, revelation, or some other of a lot of possibilities, youll look out at the hige catalog of films that have been produced and find only dozens that are really something you enjoy. Theyre hard to make, and so theres only a few directors who have made them. When you watch eyes wide shut, you know you cant get ot elsewhere.
Its nerd stuff. Most consumers are just happy something shiny happens on the screen, people kiss, stuff blows up, emotions, subverted expectations, crap like that.
It takes nerds to actually look deeper than lens flares and see all the stupid behind it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SHhySoXDcA
Kubrick films often have amazing optical illusions of the "once you see it, you can't unsee it" form. In EWS, it's the mask on the pillow. Watch the film enough and you'll suddenly realize what Bill really sees when he walks in that room: he sees his wife sleeping with another man (the mask is the other man). Somehow the way the wife and the mask are positioned, you can "see" the entire outline of the other man, even though he's nothing but a mask. And now, you'll never see Eyes Wide Shut as the same movie ever again :)
And yet there is also the fact that "the other man" is signified by the mask left at the party.
I believe there is deeper subtext revealed here by Kubrick related to the tensions between petite bourgeois morality (and "Dr. Bill" is solid Upper East Side petite bourgeois) and the moral position held by "Hungarian" aristocrats who may or may not wear red robes while playing Grand Master in a ritualized ruling elite social gathering.
A tearful and oddly emasculated "admission" by Dr. Bill follows.
No, not that another man was literally there, but that Bill (or the viewer) sees such an impression.
Compare the Dr. Strangelove cover which shows the round table in the War Room [1]. If you squint, you'll realize what you're looking at is actually a mushroom cloud. The table is the main part of the mushroom cloud, the men sitting around it are little explosions at ground level, and the circular light above the table is the ring around the mushroom cloud. This is obviously intentional, but there's no implication that a nuclear bomb literally exploded inside the war room.
This is incongruous with how the book ends — which shows the wife as finding the mask and leaving the mask on the pillow to indicate her understanding.
Kubrick doesn't always stick to the book. In the ending of Stephen King's "The Shining", the Overlook Hotel literally blows up in a giant explosion. I think most people can agree Stanley Kubrick did the right thing by leaving that out of the film!
"The Shining" is, among other things, a giant metaphor of human (and in particular, western) civilization. The constant references to the moon landing (and 2001: A Space Odyssey) can imho be understood as an one of the many illustrations of the great and unprecedented things that came out of a civilization that is masterfully portrayed in the movie as a fading grand hotel built on a burial ground that is trapped in a seemingly eternal winter. Seeing it as Kubrick's confession that he staged the moon landing is not only silly, it doesn't even begin to describe the film's poetic depth. However, I watched the documentary where this clip is taken from (Room 237 [0]) and can recommend it with reservations. But I remember that it "jumps the shark" somewhere around the middle of the documentary.
Just to elaborate: I often hear people discredit "The Shining" because it didn't scare them enough, or because they think King's book is better, or because they find Duvall's and Nicholson's performances over-the-top. In my opinion, "Shining" is Kubrick's masterpiece. It is arguably deeper than 2001, has a very high artistic quality (some scenes are staged like a ballet) and at the same time, the movie is constantly entertaining and thrilling (which is a quality 2001 clearly lacks, as I have experienced again and again when I tried to watch it with friends who were unfamiliar with Kubrick's work).
If you want to go down the rabbit hole of "The Shining" interpretations, you should start with the Wikipedia article [1] and end with the shot-by-shot-analysis [2]
It's an excerpt from a feature length documentary called Room 237. Taken as a whole, it's a pretty fun, non-judgmental tour through some colourful interpretations and theories surrounding Kubrick and The Shining. I don't think it's actually intended to convert anybody to moon landing skepticism.
> “I stood staring at all that stuff for weeks while we were shooting in that room. It’s a downhill skier. It’s a downhill skier. It’s not a Minotaur.”
Etc, etc. Room 237 is not only the ravings of madmen, it has a bit right st the start where a guy is talking over The Shining shots, a baby starts crying on the background (of the guy talking) and they stop and discuss that. I turned it off in disgust after that.
The article dismisses the various theories ("Illuminati", etc) about the film by pointing out that powerful people in fact have fairly sordid affairs rather than satanic/black mass/ritualistic events.
It's worth pointing out that Sydney Pollack's character uses this same exact argument in the film (in the billiard scene). "We fucked her brains out, the end." Clearly, that was not what was happening in the movie, and that wasn't the point of the movie either.
The article mentions Jeff Bezos, but they might have mentioned Jeffrey Epstein instead. For instance.
Regardless of what the article posits, the movie was based on actual secret societies. I'm pretty sure Kubrick was trying to tell us something.
Anthony Frewin (assistant to Stanley Kubrick):
I had a friend who lived in the south of France, G. Legman. He supplied us with a lot of information about secret societies and sexual mores in Vienna at the time of Schnitzler. He also sent over a lot of illustrations of secret-society rituals and the Black Mass, mainly from the 19th century. We had a lot of illustrations, contemporary and even much older, of some ceremonies.
That's a tautology. The film involved a secret society with sexual elements, so they lifted the recognisable aesthetics of some secret societies, particularly ones which involved, or purported to involve, naked ladies. There's no philosophy in there, and the costumes and rituals were a lightweight confection from a bunch of different sources. It's not like he was going to have them dress up in giant rabbit outfits and play kazoos.
Unless your point is that he features a monied sex cult so he's saying that they're somehow endemic. That seems rather a stretch.
That's an oddly specific response to something that was never said. My point and the overall arch of what I think Kubrick was implying in EWS is that these people exist and people in positions of power we would otherwise hold in high social regard are no different or ethical than anyone else and more often less so. What's the difference between a corrupt elite "secret society" verses the Mafia and organized crime syndicates? Socially we tend not to view them as morally equivalent because one group is at the top echelon of society while the other are just lowly "criminals" when in fact there is no difference.
Thats what I was responding to. I disagree, because the cult in the film is a device, not the central point of the film. The same logic would conclude that Kubric believes that there are obelisk gateways to hyperspace orbiting Jupiter.
"No Botox, no breast enhancements, anything like that. I made it very clear to everybody who came and their agents. But there were a couple of times when we [agreed to use] somebody and their agents actually made them go out and get breast enhancements. "
Hollywood is vile. "Let us mutilate you because you have a dream that will otherwise die." Yeah they're all adults. It's still vile.
This is a very good point, and I'd like to make a lesser one. For some reason bigger breasts are considered better by the fashion industry and, err, some scummy agents, but as a hetero male I don't find them attractive at all, and talking to other guys I find much the same view in a majority of them (not a big sample thought).
Seems a caricatured femininity has taken over the real thing (and not just in men's minds!) and I never hear it questioned.
Also large boobs hurt. A girl I know in her early twenties has plenty of, and she's considering breast reduction surgery because of back problems.
To be clear here, the issue is not about breasts but stereotypes coming to dominate without question, at a human cost.
(and in a british court I can imagine a case might be construed against those shitty agents for assault)
Theres a similar fashion for males to bulk up their bodies to unhealthy and exagerated sizes in gyms. I don’t know one woman who finds that attractive, and yet insecure men go for it thinking the’d me more attractive. And theres even the implant version where one can implant a 6 pack abdominals made of silicone.
With respect I believe that's a completely different thing. In the case discussed the pressure to boob-up was external; the agents and fashion perception (bobcostas55's comment notwithstanding). With bodybuilders it's AFAIK internal pressure, a misperception of themselves.
I knew a bodybuilder once (2 PhD's, smart guy) who said that you had to be bigger, that you could never be too big. And he understood clearly it was driven by a sense of inadequacy.
> I don’t know one woman who finds that attractive
I do know a very few, but generally yes. When I was younger I just assumed women loved it until I heard a female mate of mine describing large muscles as 'disgusting'. Bit of an eye-opener, that!
I've never watched a Kubrick film I didn't like. I don't think there's another filmmaker I could say the same about.
I even found Kubrick's college-aged first movie he made (Fear & Desire) on BitTorrent, which he later tried to buy up and destroy because he didn't like it, and even that was a nice and very watchable low-budget war story.
> "You know, there’s apparently an Eyes Wide Shut club in L.A. They actually have women there in masks and guys in evening suits who patronize them. I’ve never been. It’s somewhere up in the Hollywood Hills, or around that area. When we were shooting, somebody said — I think it was Tom — “Do you think these places really exist?” And Stanley said, “Well, if they don’t, they will soon.”"
There was more of that sort of thing back in the 1990s. It was never that big. An event organizer once told me that the pool of people who go to things like that in SF was about 400. If you went to the SF Fetish Ball and the London Fetish Ball, you saw many of the same people.
Disappointing that the article doesn't mention the fact that the non-CGI'd version of the movie does exist on DVD, but not Blu-Ray. That scene was beyond-R rating at the time, but in the 20 years since it's certainly not.
Along with the International cut of The Shining, I wish we could get, in the US, what are certainly the best versions of Kubrick's work. In the case of EWS, the CGI people covering the sex is distracting and silly. The movie is meant to be erotic and surreal.
I think the fact that the Blu-ray version is non-CGI has to do with the fact that 1) after years had passed, it was assumed that customers know what they are getting into, and 2) over the first decade of the new millennium, studios began supplying "non-rated" cuts to the home rental market – with raunchy scenes beyond the R-rated cut – and it was not met with much outrage from the morals police.
> I wish we could get, in the US, what are certainly the best versions of Kubrick's work.
I've always like Kubrick's films, but this one was lost on me. I kept looking for some deeper meaning than a big secret get together where rich people have sex and for some reason everyone finds it sinister and titillating.
Everyone in the movie is clearly from one social class or another and is made starkly aware of it.
The men are buying power over one another while the women are literal whores - even the doctor's wife - sex toys & arm candy for whomever they can gather the most status/money from.
Highly recommend the novel which provides the basis for this movie „Traumnovelle“ by Arthur Schnitzler (https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumnovelle). The novel seems to be heavily influenced by Freudian psycho analysis, I also think the location of Vienna at the beginning of the 20th century is very interesting.
I ran in the circles depicted in the movie for a very short while, and although I never attended one, these type of parties definitely do exist. Though I think they use high end prostitutes.
This is my absolute favourite film of all time. For those who enjoy it, I highly recommend 'Lolita' - IMHO it is underwetched and underappreciated. Peter Sellers is absolutely fantastic.
He was cast in Barry Lyndon in 1974 and, after experiencing Kubrick’s genius and work ethic up close, gave up a promising acting career to devote his life to helping him achieve his vision— at great personal sacrifice. It’s moving, and helps explain the true cost of artistic excellence.
[0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PEZ2r1YGKSA [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Vitali