In technical terms, Kubrick is asking him how he exposed for the cigar. This is a time before video monitors [for film cameras], let alone a digital viewfinder. Precise exposure was accomplished with a light meter. You only watched your footage after it was chemically processed into dailies, often a day later. So Kubrick is asking how he knew he had it in the moment, when he couldn't actually see the final result. Optical viewfinders can really fool you. And a source as small and dim as a cigar is difficult if not impossible to measure with a light meter too. So if your goal as a cinematographer is to expose for the glow of the cigar you need to create conditions that allow you to make the cigar seem brighter. This means you want to shoot wide open (widest possible aperture). To do that while not over exposing, you need to shoot at dusk so that when you open up, you're going to maximize the ambient light without blowing everything out. This is extra difficult if you can't use additional lighting. The only film lighting in this scene is at the end where the left side of his face receives a kick from a light off to the right of the camera. Without this technical context Kubrick sounds neurotic, or almost foolish. Really Kubrick is asking something very specific. He's about to go shoot a whole film lit by candles, and he's scrounging around for tips and tricks. The fact that Altman shot it himself further explains the conversation as well. If it was a cinematographer's job to get this shot, he would probably not have winged it. Because if it didn't get the shot he would have been responsible for wasting resources and would look incompetent. But as director Altman didn't have that burden, his level of effort reflected the level of importance he put on the intended effect, which clearly was relatively small. It was a little touch, not a big deal. This shows Kubrick's level of hands on technical experience and hunger for knowledge, not neurosis. This is a magician asking another magician how he did a trick, in this case Altman is basically saying "I improvised and lucked out."
perhaps wont hurt to elaborate on their diff., just for film std purposes.. whereas, one moveslowly, being instinctively driven, confident aSticking true, (keeping loyal to film aesthetics, ie howhen feeling fine being aligned to responding honestly human, not pretending so as to fit a role model or anyone’s expectations), the other, a mentalist maestro, w what firm grip on the baton, orchestrating the audiovisual passage tw the emotional Δ: ie where built up emotion empties into the existential river, ‘joining’ the viewer’s past anDelivering catharsis.
One of my favorite films ever! Shot outside the town where I now live. I have a custom made wooden bench made by the son to one of the set builders who helped build the in-film town and sets. I figured that relationship out after I got the bench made, from videos and articles on the inet. All based around the location of the Maplewood mud Flats on the Vancouver north shore.
Kubrick was a control freak, and Altman was more 'whimsical'. So, obviously Kubrick had a hard time understanding how Altman could just leave things to chance without knowing for sure they got the shot. The truth is, this shot looks so beautiful in this film because it is an Altman film where some other shots (and even sounds) do not seem so perfect. In a film like 'Barry Lyndon', that kind of a shot would hardly have stood out, since every shot in that film is like a painting.
I've read many books about Kubrick and they never really delved into his obsessiveness on doing an absurd number of takes and this comment by Robert Altman makes me wonder if the theories that he might have had some neurological disorder that would cause this sort of behavior. I only started hearing these rumors recently and they are unsubstantiated by any real evidence, but for him to marvel at this simple sequence and unable to understand that it can be achieved with relative ease seems to suggest that he suffered from something. Being a very reclusive person I imagine few saw him at home and how he behaved. Was he this obsessive in his personal life? He was a complicated man who left his mark in the history of cinema.
I read someone suggest he had autism or something like that. I'm pretty sure he was at the least a reclusive type. Regardless people love his movies and he seemed to have a techincal prowess that would exhaust most people working like that. Altman here sounds a lot like how I think myself. Maybe kubrick just had anxiety
he wasn’t reclusive, he just lived in Britain because his kids were going to school there and he enjoyed the working environment. he would invite people to his house constantly. the reclusion story is made up by the american press because he didn’t enjoy doing interviews. you can find all this in several documentaries.
Hmmm Altman got it with relative ease and Kubrick choked the life out of the art...two different auteurs...Kubrick was in disbelief that it could be done quickly and perhaps without so much obsession.
No, he got it because he and the (absent) cinematographer were consummate professionals who cared greatly about doing good work. He brought craft, technique and intuition to the specific task at hand. His greatest films -- of which MCCABE AND MRS MILLER is one -- have a unique combination of naturalness and directorial guidance.@@StreetHierarchy
In technical terms, Kubrick is asking him how he exposed for the cigar. This is a time before video monitors [for film cameras], let alone a digital viewfinder. Precise exposure was accomplished with a light meter. You only watched your footage after it was chemically processed into dailies, often a day later. So Kubrick is asking how he knew he had it in the moment, when he couldn't actually see the final result.
Optical viewfinders can really fool you. And a source as small and dim as a cigar is difficult if not impossible to measure with a light meter too. So if your goal as a cinematographer is to expose for the glow of the cigar you need to create conditions that allow you to make the cigar seem brighter. This means you want to shoot wide open (widest possible aperture). To do that while not over exposing, you need to shoot at dusk so that when you open up, you're going to maximize the ambient light without blowing everything out. This is extra difficult if you can't use additional lighting. The only film lighting in this scene is at the end where the left side of his face receives a kick from a light off to the right of the camera.
Without this technical context Kubrick sounds neurotic, or almost foolish. Really Kubrick is asking something very specific. He's about to go shoot a whole film lit by candles, and he's scrounging around for tips and tricks. The fact that Altman shot it himself further explains the conversation as well. If it was a cinematographer's job to get this shot, he would probably not have winged it. Because if it didn't get the shot he would have been responsible for wasting resources and would look incompetent. But as director Altman didn't have that burden, his level of effort reflected the level of importance he put on the intended effect, which clearly was relatively small. It was a little touch, not a big deal.
This shows Kubrick's level of hands on technical experience and hunger for knowledge, not neurosis. This is a magician asking another magician how he did a trick, in this case Altman is basically saying "I improvised and lucked out."
Thank you. Perfect explanation.
thanks for this!
Much obliged for the context!
I love how this simple conversation shows a crucial difference between two great filmmakers.
perhaps wont hurt to elaborate on their diff., just for film std purposes..
whereas, one moveslowly, being instinctively driven, confident aSticking true, (keeping loyal to film aesthetics, ie howhen feeling fine being aligned to responding honestly human, not pretending so as to fit a role model or anyone’s expectations), the other, a mentalist maestro, w what firm grip on the baton, orchestrating the audiovisual passage tw the emotional Δ: ie where built up emotion empties into the existential river, ‘joining’ the viewer’s past anDelivering catharsis.
@@ellefirogeni4624it hurts
@@ellefirogeni4624
Put simpler, I'd say that if Altman was free jazz improvisation, Kubrick was a crystalline classical concerto.
How much money would you pay to eavesdrop on a phone conversation between Stanley Kubrick and Robert Altman?
Very cool analysis between two of the ultimates.
One of my favorite films ever! Shot outside the town where I now live.
I have a custom made wooden bench made by the son to one of the set builders who helped build the in-film town and sets.
I figured that relationship out after I got the bench made, from videos and articles on the inet. All based around the location of the Maplewood mud Flats on the Vancouver north shore.
Kubrick was a control freak, and Altman was more 'whimsical'. So, obviously Kubrick had a hard time understanding how Altman could just leave things to chance without knowing for sure they got the shot.
The truth is, this shot looks so beautiful in this film because it is an Altman film where some other shots (and even sounds) do not seem so perfect.
In a film like 'Barry Lyndon', that kind of a shot would hardly have stood out, since every shot in that film is like a painting.
HeyBob,Stanleyhere.Howd'youknowthatshotofWarrenonthebridgewasgood?Whoshotit?Youshotit?Wow!Notbad!Soyoucanoperateacamera?
Stanley was scouting DPs for "Barry Lyndon" and was considering hiring Altman...
Where is this commentary from? Is it from the criterion special features?
Yep, it’s really great too. Features Altman and David Foster
My dvd standard DVD copy has the commentary.
Looks like an iMovie incompatibility issue.
I've read many books about Kubrick and they never really delved into his obsessiveness on doing an absurd number of takes and this comment by Robert Altman makes me wonder if the theories that he might have had some neurological disorder that would cause this sort of behavior. I only started hearing these rumors recently and they are unsubstantiated by any real evidence, but for him to marvel at this simple sequence and unable to understand that it can be achieved with relative ease seems to suggest that he suffered from something. Being a very reclusive person I imagine few saw him at home and how he behaved. Was he this obsessive in his personal life? He was a complicated man who left his mark in the history of cinema.
Why does everyone want to diagnose everyone with a something nowadays. We’re all different & nobody is the same.
I read someone suggest he had autism or something like that. I'm pretty sure he was at the least a reclusive type. Regardless people love his movies and he seemed to have a techincal prowess that would exhaust most people working like that. Altman here sounds a lot like how I think myself. Maybe kubrick just had anxiety
@@mellifont96 He was a perfectionist with a very high IQ. A lot of very smart people have been reclusive over the years.
he wasn’t reclusive, he just lived in Britain because his kids were going to school there and he enjoyed the working environment. he would invite people to his house constantly. the reclusion story is made up by the american press because he didn’t enjoy doing interviews. you can find all this in several documentaries.
@@truthhc He lived St Albans & kept himself to himself, but he had friends & family. A lot of people are like that
In other words, Kubrick should have called the film's cinematographer instead.
OCD is a terrible disease.
Hmmm Altman got it with relative ease and Kubrick choked the life out of the art...two different auteurs...Kubrick was in disbelief that it could be done quickly and perhaps without so much obsession.
Basically, Altman got it by accident.
Perks of being a stoner...
No, he got it because he and the (absent) cinematographer were consummate professionals who cared greatly about doing good work. He brought craft, technique and intuition to the specific task at hand. His greatest films -- of which MCCABE AND MRS MILLER is one -- have a unique combination of naturalness and directorial guidance.@@StreetHierarchy
@@StreetHierarchy Maybe. On the other hand, he had, by that point, been making films and TV shows for 20 years.
Altman is way more hit or miss than Kubrick, though, and he never reached the same heights.