Kubrick and Zeiss lenses

Thanks for posting this link, Rob. I loved that film, Barry Lyndon. It never got the acclaim it deserved. Also, you've reminded me that there is an exhibition about Kubrick at LACMA (LA County Museum of Art) that ends June 30. I must get up there before then!
 
I thought it was all a load of bollocks until I actually got some Zeiss lenses - now I'm convinced

They definitely have a special look - contrasty springs to mind, but it's more than that I think

2001 - one of my favorite films of all time - The fact that it still looks good today in the era of CGI really shows how far ahead of it's time it was.

They even had iPads!

[video=youtube_share;ZKt9ZyDmA44]http://youtu.be/ZKt9ZyDmA44[/video]

Had not heard of Barry Lyndon until this post - will check it out.
 
Last edited:
I watch Space Odyssey every time it comes on. Never seen Barry Lyndon, though. I think I'm missing something...

You most certainly are.

Ah, 2001. I have lost track of the number of times I have see that film. A masterpiece.

If the exhibition is the same as the one that was touring Europe a few years ago it is worth going to. Fascinating. It is also worth checking out Kubrick's photography. He was helped to get his first break by Weegee and worked as a photographer before going into film. I think it shows in his use of available light. And you don't get any more extreme in cinema than filming a 17th century banquet using only the candelabra as the source of light (f1:0.7!). :)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/stanley-kubrick-photograp_n_1974433.html

http://twistedsifter.com/2011/12/stanley-kubricks-new-york-photos-1940s/

photographs-by-stanley-kubrick-look-magazine-life-in-new-york-40s-1.jpg
 
Oh, that's a GREAT photograph. I feel I'm falling into it! That's the sort of shot that makes you think, "Jeez, I'm crap" [doh]

- - - Updated - - -

And that twisted sifter collection is fantastic. So beautifully exposed.
 
Barry Lyndon was a lesson in how focal length can evoke feeling. Much of it was shot with long lenses from a distance, and through those scenes, you feel distant and unconnected—as an objective observer. Then there is a fight scene, shot with superwides, hand-held, and you are in the middle of it.

The shorter the lens, the more intimate, the long the lens, the more detached.
 
Then there is a fight scene, shot with superwides, hand-held, and you are in the middle of it.

I recall feeling a sensation of how it might have felt, at least a tiny bit, while watching the battle scenes.
 
Chris is you haven't seen Barry Lyndon you don't know what you are missing. It's my favorite film of all time followed closely by The Shining and Full Metal Jacket. It is also the most stunningly beautiful film ever made. You will probably want a to own a copy of Schubert's Piano Trio in E flat after viewing the seduction scene. Get the one by the Mozartean Players on Harmonia Mundi. :D

I still maintain The Shining is perhaps his most underrated film. It is a fascinating study of male pattern violence, the power of the subconscious mind, sexual/artistic frustration, a examination of Western genocide (it manages to reference the Holocaust, the destruction of native Americans, slavery). It's a puzzle without an answer. Same thing with Full Metal Jacket. No easy answers.

Or as Kubrick so aptly stated:

"Sometimes the truth of thing is not so much in the think of it as in the feel of it."

The Shining was also quite revolutionary in it's use of the steady cam for the tracking shots.

In case you were wondering Pete he's my favorite director too. Just unmatched for the complexity of ideas.

A pretty good photographer too.
 
Back
Top