The New Stanley Kubrick Remasters: Anyone seen them?

[Mike03]

A poster brought this topic up last week. A number of Kubrick's later works were re-released, including so-called "widescreen" versions of FULL METAL JACKET and THE SHINING, in spite of the protests of a number of people regarding aspect ratios and the desires of (the deceased) Kubrick on whether or not to make these editions available.

I picked up THE SHINING on Wednesday but have not yet had a chance to see it. I'm still debating whether or not to order the entire box or at the very least 2001 and FULL METAL JACKET.

Has anyone seen any of the new discs and, if so, what do you think about them?

Is this worth the money for yet another final and authoritative version of Kubrick's works, or are the enhancements of negligible value?

Comments appreciated!

[darkstar]

1. hey...

Yeah I got 2001 (regular, not bluray or hidef), and to my eye it looks great. I have a Sony Vega crt tv, and the enhanced 16x9 lets me take advantage of the widescreen "squeeze" option on tv (no waste displaying the black at top as all lines of res are dedicated to widescreen area), so just that density alone makes the picture way better for my set up. (Not sure if it had been out in 16x9 before; it was 2nd or third dvd I bought, i.e. before 16x9 was popular.)

But even on laptop, colors have more pop than my old one. And some of the blemishes are gone as well.

[Mike03]

3. That sounds exciting.

Yes, it was your post! I kept kicking it this week but no one seemed to respond. Good to see you!

My local store is supposed to get the new 2001, but it was not there when I checked this week. I live out in the middle of nowhere, and we were probably lucky to get THE SHINING. But that was the only new Kubrick they had.

[gmoney]

15. They took the big hair out of the bone toss scene?

when I bought the "post-mortem" box set, I couldn't believe how dirty the 2001 print was, including a big hair or some piece of crud right in the middle of the scene where the fundamentalist tosses the bone in the air and it cuts to the space station. It's only like one of the 5 most notable moments in film history and all... no sense cleaning it up.

[edbermac]

2. Already got most of his films.

Unless there's something really worthwhile on the new ones, I'll just keep the current DVD's. I don't know about the tech aspects of the rerelease, but I assume Kubrick's family has control over them and wouldn't agree to market them unless they were what SK intended. He was VERY protective of his films.

[Mike03]

4. That's sort of how I feel, except

my recollection is that when I saw THE SHINING in theaters as a young kid, it WAS in widescreen. But Kubrick purists have been scolding me for years, telling me that the film was shot for TV aspect ratio (full screen). It would be satisfying to me to see the rest of the frame, if this wide version is legit. I'm actually positive that I saw a wide version of the film in theaters--numerous times.

[sir_captain]

7. I actually checked on this

after we discussed it. And it was projected at 1.78:1 in the theaters, so definitely wide.

Plus I saw it wide a few years ago at the Brattle theater in Cambridge, MA.

[Mike03]

10. Interesting

I think there is no way to expose a frame of film other than widescreen, so that those film experts who claim THE SHINING was filmed for TV aspect ratio are not being totally honest about the medium itself.

The most convincing explanation I've read about the aspect ratio controversy is that during Kubrick's lifetime, he wanted his films presented in full screen because that was the convention of the time for viewing a feature film on TV.

When he died, we were just getting into widescreen potential for home viewing, and some people argue that had he known about future strides in home widescreen capabilities, he would have been a proponent of releasing his works in widescreen.

Damn, I wish he hadn't died. I really miss Kubrick--not just his work, but knowing he is on this planet, listening to BBC on his shortwave radio, thinking about the ludicrous wars, thinking about the American mentality, thinking about his next movie...

[sir_captain]

11. You've got it mostly right

In fact, the 35mm film he used for all his films except for 2001 is actually a 4:3 ratio, so that is what was exposed. But he did frame the shots for a widescreen ratio (either 1.78:1 or 1.85:1) by literally taping some pieces of cardboard over the viewfinder of his cameras so that he could only see the wide image.

In terms of why his films have been presented on television in the 4:3 format, it's because he hated pan and scan and didn't want to have his films have anything cut off of them. So his compromise was to essentially take off the pieces of cardboard and show portions of the film exposed above and below the theatrically projected image. This is why you can see a boom mike and the helicopter shadow in The Shining, for instance.

And then he died before DVDs and widescreen TVs became prevalent, so it took his estate a while to decide that he would have wanted his films shown properly which is why it has taken until now.

I miss him too--he really was a genius.

[Mike03]

13. Wow, thank you

Your posts are fascinating and helpful.

Over the past few years I've been a member of a number of film sites and the arguments about this seem to be endless. It's really nice to finally get some believable answers on this whole aspect-ratio issue.

Maybe one of the last unanswered questions will be about the final cut of EYES WIDE SHUT. Having seen his attorney in person, I'm not absolutely convinced that he is believable on the status of the final cut. Kubrick was such a perfectionist. Over time, EYES has grown on me, but I still have trouble believing that the released version is what Kubrick would have wanted.

[sir_captain]

14. Yeah, that's a tough one

it's hard to get a really clear answer on this one, but I agree with you. The rumor is that Warner Bros had Sydney Pollack acting in the film basically to keep an eye on Stanley since they thought he had kind of gone crazy and that when he died, Pollack is the one who really cut the final version of the film.

To me, it's like watching an un-polished diamond. I think there's a really brilliant film in there and perhaps we would have gotten to see it had Stanley lived a little longer.

Also, as a note, the high-def re-release of EWS is oddly not nearly as impressive looking as The Shining and 2001 despite the fact that it was made so much more recently. I think the kind of fake-looking NYC sets don't hold up that well when you can see them so clearly (though perhaps this is partially because I'm a native New Yorker so they stick out to me like a sore thumb!)

[edbermac]

22. I'm sure EWS was pretty well set when he died.

SK screened it for Cruise, Kidman and some WB execs, then died a week or so later, so assume the end result was pretty much what he had in mind. Though he did trim some scenes from 2001 and The Shining at literally the last minute before release. As far as Pollack cutting EWS, that is 100% bullshit.

And I think Eyes IS a brilliant film. And here's a link to an excellent analysis of EWS called Unseen Reflections. It also has some imbedded YouTube clips while blogger Rob Ager discusses his theories. I've read a lot of reviews of EWS and this incorporates many of the themes I've read in the other various reviews.

http://www.collativelearning.com/EYES%20WIDE%20SHUT%20analysis.html

[sir_captain]

23. Well, you've got your opinion, and I've got mine

not sure why you feel the need to be so combative about it. I'm also not sure why you would assume that a screening suggests a final cut--this is why the concept of a rough cut exists, after all. I don't know for sure how involved Pollack was in the final release of the film--I specifically suggested that this is a well-circulated rumor.

And since you're clearly into technicalities, Kubrick actually cut the 19 minutes from 2001 in between its world premiere and its general release four days later so some theater-goers actually saw it in its earlier form. And that, sir, is not bullshit.

[edbermac]

24. Combative? I thought I was just being informative.

I thought the rumor of Pollack cutting EWS was crap. And I did point out that there were cuts in 2001. And he cut a custard pie fight from the end of Strangelove. I just think there are some people who don't 'get' the film and feel that EWS was just slapped together after SK died and bears no resemblance to what he intended.

Did you read the analysis of the film at that link? Just curious as to what people's opinions on the film are.

[sir_captain]

25. Actually

you said there were cuts to 2001 before release, and I pointed out that this was not really accurate, as the cuts were technically after release.

You're right about the pie-fight scene too, except that it wasn't really a cut--it was an alternate ending that Kubrick chose not to use.

I skimmed the analysis--it's a little too lit-crit for me, but I do actually quite like EWS, so we are mostly in agreement there and I would certainly never suggest that EWS does not represent the essential idea of what Kubrick had in mind.

Anyway, I just thought you were being a little combative with your use of the word bullshit, but if you didn't mean it that way, that's my bad.

[regnaD kciN]

5. I'm surprised they haven't released Barry Lyndon as part of that series...

...since it's his most visually-striking film, and even the most recent DVD release left something to be desired.

[Mike03]

6. Barry Lyndon is incredibly remarkable

Some people were discussing this film last week on a thread about Kubrick.

It is a tremendously underappeciated work. My eyes and ears are not perceptive enough to have detected anything in particular wrong with the last remaster/remixing, but any time an improved version of this film comes along I will avail myself of the chance to get it.

There's some quality about Barry Lyndon that no other Kubrick film has that I have never been able to describe. It is mesmerizing.

[sir_captain]

8. My take so far

is that The Shining and 2001 on either of the high-def formats are totally revelatory in their image quality. They look fanfrickingtastic. If I were just rebuying on DVD, I might just get The Shining for OAR since the last 2001 disc was pretty good. But I'm all about high-def, so the purchase was totally worth it.

[Mike03]

9. Dumb question

I don't yet have Hi-Def.

What do you need exactly to view Hi-Def and what does it cost?

New TV?
New Hi-Def player?
New sound system?

Is it something that I can attach to my current TV, or do I need an entire new TV?

[sir_captain]

12. You need two things

1) A high-definition display (so yeah, a new tv.) There are a couple of different flavors of HDTVs (720P and 1080P) that refer to the number of lines of vertical resolution. The two competing high-def disc formats are both 1080P, so a 1080p tv is required to see the full resolution of the source material.

2) You need a high-definition disc player of some kind. There are two competing formats, unfortunately--blu-ray and HD-DVD--which complicates the issue, but they're both basically good.

In any case, the difference in image quality of a well-mastered high-definition disc (for instance, BBC's Planet Earth documentary) and a plain DVD is like night and day--completely stunning.

It's not super cheap to get into right now, but I'm too much of a cinephile and just couldn't wait.

[Mike03]

16. I'd be happy to hear your specific recommendations

If you have some. I am old enough (barely) to remember the VHS vs. BETA controversy.

Can I play regular DVDS on a HD unit?

[sir_captain]

17. Yeah, both

formats are backwards compatible with regular DVDs.

I own both formats though I'm more a proponent of blu-ray for various technical reasons.

For HD-DVD players, I have Toshibas HD-A2 player, which can be had for about $200 at Amazon.
Blu-Ray players are a bit pricier though they are quickly dropping in price. At the moment, the best deal (and oddly enough the best player as well) is Sony's $399 model of its PS3 game player, which has a built-in blu-ray drive.

In terms of TVs, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax and is probably largely a matter of personal preference. I've got a 46" Sony Bravia LCD 1080p tv and a Panasonic 720P LCD projector and I really love both of them. All displays need to be properly calibrated for best results, though, and that can be a bit pricey if you don't know how to do it yourself.

[Mike03]

18. Thank you

I appreciate the advice. It sounds as if it is coming from someone who really values the high quality image.

[sir_captain]

19. Ah, yes

I am definitely a died-in-the-wool videophile.

Hope it helps!

[AntiFascist]

21. Very cool!

I'm going to have to get yet a third version of this set, and then a blu-ray player so that I can watch it!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

20. What about Dr. Strangelove and Lolita?

Just wondering.