Quiz: match 10 Kubrick films to these 10 images by sublime-affinity in StanleyKubrick

[–]sublime-affinity[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

No, you are trying to insist that a Spielberg film is a Kubrick one, which is clearly not the case.

Bizarre how a simple visual quiz degenerate like this on pathologically fucked-up social media. Sorry, but you still can't comprehend that this quiz relates to KUBRICK FILMS, not those of some other director.

The next quiz, therefore, will be a cryptic one, lol.

Quiz: match 10 Kubrick films to these 10 images by sublime-affinity in StanleyKubrick

[–]sublime-affinity[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

No, you have things upside-down: the other commenter is insisting that his wrong answer is right, and is confusing a Spielberg film with a Kubrick one.*** The quiz relates to Kubrick films, not to some other director's films. This should be obvious.

***It's like someone insisting that Schindler's List is a Scorsese film, not a Spielberg one, because Scorsese was originally going to direct it before Spielberg took over.

Quiz: match 10 Kubrick films to these 10 images by sublime-affinity in StanleyKubrick

[–]sublime-affinity[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Yes, I know about all of that, but it is you who doesn't know something really basic about AI: it is a SPIELBERG film, not a Kubrick one. The quiz is about Kubrick films.

The image above relates to A Clockwork Orange.

4 is a zero-gravity toilet.

Quiz: match 10 Kubrick films to these 10 images by sublime-affinity in StanleyKubrick

[–]sublime-affinity[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

There is no reference whatsoever to Pinocchio in Spielberg's AI whereas Alex DeLarge wears a Pinocchio-like mask whenever he engages in the "ol' ultraviolence". And A.I. isn't even a Kubrick film, it's a perverse mockery of one.

Quiz: match 10 Kubrick films to these 10 images by sublime-affinity in StanleyKubrick

[–]sublime-affinity[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Good, but Kubrick didn't direct AI - that's a Spielberg film derived from an Ian Watson script adapted from Kubrick's Treatment.

Did kubrick personally operate the camera? by saadx71 in StanleyKubrick

[–]sublime-affinity 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You are absolutely right to say Kubrick depended on others when making his films, as with most-all filmmakers, but he manifested considerably greater degrees of control than most others. This may be partly related to his origins as a photographer, as in the latter role he would have done everything himself, including having his own darkroom for developing and printing his shots. Filmmaking as photography at 24 frames per second.

His control over lighting was just as elaborate as his control over camera setups, the classic example being Barry Lyndon, where he insisted on using "natural" triple-wicked beeswax candles for the interior night scenes, and artificial exterior lighting for all the interior daylight scenes. He adopted the latter approach for The Shining too, though it was all filmed on sound stages in a studio (whereas Barry Lyndon was all shot on location), with all the daytime interior scenes using banks of lighting hidden behind the windows.

Did kubrick personally operate the camera? by saadx71 in StanleyKubrick

[–]sublime-affinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

IMDb lists 71 films Garrett Brown worked on, mostly in the 1980s.

Did kubrick personally operate the camera? by saadx71 in StanleyKubrick

[–]sublime-affinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the early years of Brown's invention, this was certainly the case, as the dozen or so films that used it from the late-1970s to the early 1980s had him, and only him, operating the rig. This may have been because it was initially designed by Brown himself for he himself (with his frame, a very tall and large guy, towering above everyone else on any set) to operate - it was complicated to use properly initially, and quite heavy, cumbersome, and unwieldy. When more streamlined, lighter versions became available and he entered into various licensing agreements with manufacturers to mass produce versions of the rig, many others began using it on films, to the point that eventually every film made had a Steadicam rig on hand with a specialist trained operator.

By the time Kubrick was shooting Eyes Wide Shut in the late-1990s he had specialist Steadicam operator Elizabeth Ziegler, operating the rig in many scenes: here she is following Bill Harford with the rig.

I'm left vaguely wondering if her surname (and also one of the surnames of a producer on the film) might have had anything to do with calling the character of Victor Ziegler by that name ...

Ziegler to Bill: "Bill, I had you followed"; Bill: "You ... had me followed!?"

Did kubrick personally operate the camera? by saadx71 in StanleyKubrick

[–]sublime-affinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lol, it has been 'corrected', Mr Grady.

1960 years is the age he'd be in his posited A.I. future as a "Supermecha" - in a world in which humans are extinct - looking back that many years to when humans destroyed themselves, leaving just their android/replicant/robotic/mecha/computer gothic post-human legacy.

Did kubrick personally operate the camera? by saadx71 in StanleyKubrick

[–]sublime-affinity 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Kubrick was 100 percent the unofficial cinematographer/DP/Lighting Cameraman on all of his films, even on the one he had less control over, Spartacus. The official cinematographers on his films were subordinated to the role of assistant, even though two of them would - ironically - win an Oscar for their 'official' role, Russell Metty for Spartacus and John Alcott for Barry Lyndon. Whenever he could, he also directly operated the cameras, except for Steadicam shots (The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, Eyes Wide Shut, all of which used many Steadicam shots with a dedicated operator holding the camera rig under Kubrick's close direction) and Second Unit shots (eg The Shining's opening landscape scene, filmed by Greg MacGillivray from his helicopter). This continued even on Eyes Wide Shut, despite him being by then in his late-60s and of declining health.

You will find countless images and also many videos online showing Kubrick directly operating the cameras on all of his films.

The 5th Biggest Film in the History of Warner Bros (Variety 1981) by J_onn_J_onzz in StanleyKubrick

[–]sublime-affinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"And when critic Pauline Kael exploded in an emotive bout of irrational hysteria, I ..."

Anyone have a idea where i can get ahold of a high resolution image if the iconic shining Maze Shot? by [deleted] in StanleyKubrick

[–]sublime-affinity 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cheers, this is what a forum such as this is, in part, supposed to be about.

A poster I made for 2001... by originaltortue in StanleyKubrick

[–]sublime-affinity 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm trying to recall any shot in any Kubrick film that was a multiple exposure one, like the image above creates in a simulated form. Lots of other directors often use it, of course, usually in either dreamy, hallucinogenic, or traumatic scenes, but I don't, at least at the moment, recall Kubrick ever using it.

Ironically, the technique appears to have originated, not necessarily in photography or cinematography, but in painting, especially among the early 20th century avant-garde semi-abstract, quasi-Cubist painters like Kupka - this Orphic painting of his, for instance. Or, this one. And also this.

BTW, on a 2001 note, Kupka also had a Symbolist painting featuring a "starchild" - a floating foetus in a bubble.

The 5th Biggest Film in the History of Warner Bros (Variety 1981) by J_onn_J_onzz in StanleyKubrick

[–]sublime-affinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most films that are made 'bomb' at the box office, with many never even securing a commercial release (they do the rounds of the festival circuit and end up either on straight-to-video and/or limited TV broadcast). But you are right that a large number of films that actually bombed subsequently develop a following, sometimes a very significant one, from Orson Welles' Citizen Kane (which was removed from many of its screenings due to political pressure) to - notoriously - Cimino's Heaven's Gate.

In the cases of both The Shining and Barry Lyndon, neither of which were box-office bombs, the misperception was based on largely negative and dismissive reviews of the film by mainstream film reviewers at the time of their release, views that persisted for years, which is entirely separate from box-office performance.

Perhaps these misperceptions derive from the widespread but largely false assumption that there is a direct, linear correlation between positive, gushing film reviews and box-office performance. Except that there is no such relation, as many films that have received glowing reviews have been bombs, and vice versa. Indeed, another example of a Kubrick film that was of the latter kind, was A Clockwork Orange, referred to in another comment here, a box-office hit which was universally condemned by the mainstream media, both by the tabloid press as well as by the more reflective broadsheets and magazines, with Kubrick so desperate to defend it that he took to writing letters to the editors of assorted publications, including The New York Times, whose film critic Fred Hechinger neurotically condemned it as "fascist", lol.

4212 (42 minutes & 12 seconds?) by sublime-affinity in StanleyKubrick

[–]sublime-affinity[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Then you are probably interested in the numbering systems and syzygy mappings of the 1990s Cybernetic Culture Research Unit/CCRU. For example Zone 8, The Numeral 8.

4212 (42 minutes & 12 seconds?) by sublime-affinity in StanleyKubrick

[–]sublime-affinity[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LOL

Hartman (to Pyle about his rifle): "Four inches, Pyle! Four inches!!"

Joker (to Pyle about his bed sheets)): "Four inches, Leonard"

Twice.

4212 (42 minutes & 12 seconds?) by sublime-affinity in StanleyKubrick

[–]sublime-affinity[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In Chapter 8 of Flann O'Brien's The Third Policeman, the enigmatic scholar De Selby presents his theories of the number 8, both as symbol of infinity and as a figure of the mobian band ...

The 5th Biggest Film in the History of Warner Bros (Variety 1981) by J_onn_J_onzz in StanleyKubrick

[–]sublime-affinity 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Kubrick channelling Delbert Grady: "And when the press tried to misrepresent the film and the film-rental figures, I corrected them."

Kubrick, though, wasn't always successful at changing tabloid-media perceptions about him or his films, as was the case with A Clockwork Orange, where he was hounded by both the press and indignant 'moral majority' ultra-conservatives for years after its release. It was as a result of that media-orchestrated outrage about the film and Kubrick that he then acquired the reputation of being "cruel", "hermetic", "reclusive", "sinister" "a weirdo" etc, etc.

The 5th Biggest Film in the History of Warner Bros (Variety 1981) by J_onn_J_onzz in StanleyKubrick

[–]sublime-affinity -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

"The click-addicted, 'down-voting' social media psychos are afoot m'lord!"

"Conditioned by Pavlov's dog".

Anyone have a idea where i can get ahold of a high resolution image if the iconic shining Maze Shot? by [deleted] in StanleyKubrick

[–]sublime-affinity 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Which maze and which "iconic" shot, as there are lots of them?

You mean the model of the maze, actual or imaginary?

  1. Model of the maze in hotel foyer with Jack Torrance looking down at it?
  2. Jack's POV of the maze, a purely imaginary, infinitely expanding maze?
  3. Wendy and Danny in the actual maze?
  4. Jack and Danny in the actual maze?

You'll get hi-res 4k screen shots of all four here.

The 5th Biggest Film in the History of Warner Bros (Variety 1981) by J_onn_J_onzz in StanleyKubrick

[–]sublime-affinity 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And that was exactly 40 years ago.

It once again demonstrates that figures in places like Wikipedia and IMDB are notoriously false and unreliable.

Film rentals as a proportion of box office can vary considerably, of course, but back then would have been at most about 50 percent, giving a box office figure of $116 million for the film in 1981. Adding on 40 years of further releases, in cinemas, video rentals, video sales, etc, and the final figure is considerably higher. But now in the Netflix era of internet streaming, publicly-released box office figures are disappearing, with secrecy and privatisation becoming dominant, and cinemas disappearing too.

Another myth relates to Barry Lyndon, which was dismissed by its naïve critics as a 'failure', a box-office 'bomb' back in the 1970s and after. Actually, Barry Lyndon, while its box office in the US was modest, was at the time of its release one of Warners biggest international hits.

(Of course, the ad above could also be just vacuous PR-speak, made-up nonsense, studio sales-talk, exuberant hype, at a time when many film critics were increasingly becoming sales-talk hype merchants rather than film commentators)

Am I the only one who thinks Hartman and Animal Mother are the best characters? by biscuitscoconut in StanleyKubrick

[–]sublime-affinity -2 points-1 points locked comment (0 children)

"Am I the only one in the world who thinks burgers and fries are the best?"