I noticed a helicopter shadow in The Shining, is this a mistake?
"This is probably the single most often-asked and most irritating question to recur over and over again on alt.movies.kubrick.
The opening titles of The Shining consist of long, dreamlike, sweeping shots of the Rocky Mountains, as Kubrick explained to Michel Ciment (1): "It was important to establish an ominous mood during Jack's first drive up to the hotel -- the vast isolation and eerie splendour of high mountains, and the narrow, winding roads which would become impassable after heavy snow."
The helicopter footage was filmed by Greg McGillivray and Kubrick was apparently very pleased with his work: "He spent several weeks filming some of the most beautiful mountain helicopter shots I've seen." While the grace and scope of these shots is hypnotic, there is a moment, just before a low fly-by pass of the yellow VW car, where the shadow of the helicopter filming the scene is clearly visible in the lower right hand corner of the picture.
So, why is this such a hot topic on the newsgroup? Kubrick has a reputation as a perfectionist, and this is something of a very apparent gaffe. It's generated no end of commentary, mostly facetious, as to why Kubrick had "clearly" left the shot in. Some say that, if the film was projected through a widescreen gate (2) - as it would be in a cinema - the shadow would not be visible, although members of amk have refuted this. For instance Mark Ervin noticed the shadow on The Shining's third showing at Mann's Chinese Theater May 23, 1980 and he has "never failed to see it since."
AMK is lucky to have as an occasional contributor Gordon Stainforth. Gordon was an assistant editor on The Shining (he took over from Ray Lovejoy when he became ill) he actually cut the title sequence. Here's what he has to say. "I want to try and put at rest the interminable [helicopter shadow] debate re. an apparent mistake in The Shining. I cut the title sequence, so I speak with some authority. I've said quite a lot about this before, so I hope this really is the last time! While I did the first cut, it is just possible that Ray Lovejoy made some alterations to the picture when he was finalising the front titles and credits - I have a distinct recollection of him asking me for the trims - but I think not. But I do have a recollection that at one stage in the movie some of those cuts were going to be dissolves. It is just possible that when we changed that mix to a straight cut we went back slightly beyond the centre point of the dissolve to get the absolute maximum length out of the shot. Musically and emotionally I remember we needed absolutely every usable frame of that first long shot with the titles.
OK, some key facts:
Although The Shining was shot with the full academy aperture, it was designed and composed entirely for the 1.85:1 ratio, and that is the only way it should be projected in the theatre.
All the Steenbecks in the cutting rooms accordingly had their screens marked, or even masked off, with the 1.85:1 ratio. The 6-plate Steenbeck in Stanley and Ray's main cutting room was masked off with black masking tape, because you cannot cut a movie properly unless you can see the frame exactly as it will appear in the cinema.
However the helicopter shadow IS almost certainly visible for about 4 or 5 frames at the edge of the 1.85:1 masking. But it was NOT visible on any of the correctly marked-up Steenbecks, or in the main viewing theatre at Elstree, at least, not as the first version of the film left Elstree in 1980. I think now that this mistake may have crept in very late during the editing of the movie when the first caption-title 'The Interview' was shortened by 8 frames on 23 April 1980 and the Main Title/credit sequence was lengthened accordingly by 8 frames, since the music could not be shortened. (This information is based on my original cutting room notes)
Every one of the show prints of the first 6 interpositives for the American release of The Shining was personally checked in the viewing theatre at Elstree by Stanley himself. IF the helicopter shadow was fleetingly visible, either Stanley did not notice it, or it was so trivial that it did not bother him.
Unfortunately the masking and racking in many theatres is incredibly inaccurate. [...] I therefore suspect that people who have seen this "awful" shadow for any length of time on the cinema screen must have seen it projected at completely the wrong ratio (probably 1.66/1!), or incredibly badly racked, or both. Or of course they've seen it on the video, where it's visible for just over a second!
Incidentally (or not so incidentally!), Stanley was NOT at all bothered by the vague shadow of the rotors at the top of the frame in the last shot of the main titles."
The notion that dramas should aim to suspend our disbelief goes right back to Aristotle's "Poetics," where it was first articulated. However a similar jarring "mistakes" were deliberately employed as effects by the playwright and drama theorist Bertolt Brecht (3) in the 1930s. He even had a name for them: 'alienation effects,' (Verfremdungseffekten) and they crops up in many of his plays. Brecht used alienation effects because he wanted shatter audiences suspension of disbelief, so that they would think about the issues raised by his plays dispassionately, instead of merely being swept away by the drama. So is the helicopter shadow a Brechtian alienation effect?
Well, to assert that we'd have to identify other points of similarity between Brecht and Kubrick. And as it happens, there are a few: Brecht was accused by his critics of being cold, and intellectual (sound familiar?) and there are examples of many 'alienation effects' in Kubrick's films. For instance, in Lolita 'Quilty,' played by Peter Sellers, refers to Kubrick's previous film when he says: "I'm Spartacus. Did you come here to free the slaves?" and in Full Metal Jacket. there is a sequence of a film director (who physically resembles a young Kubrick) filming one of the battle scenes. So it seems fair to say that a Brechtian sensibility is detectable in Kubrick's filmmaking, and furthermore not outrageous to suggest that, if he had seen the shadow, he might have left the it in. This is not to say he DELIBERATELY CONTRIVED the helicopter shadow to be there: just that he wasn't concerned enough about concealing the artifice in his art to reject such an amazing shot.
I think the bottom line of this whole debate is that it says more about Kubrick fans than Kubrick himself. The myth about his absolute perfectionism is pervasive, but like every myth about Kubrick, it can't ever be the whole truth.
Personligt synes jeg det er en fænomenal åbning. Passende til den fænomenale film :)
Alle har et fradrag, Helle hun har to ... Helle ... havets tournedos
Jeg har lige fået set denne film, og jeg kan ligeså godt sige det med det samme. "Paris, Texas" er et fantastisk mesterværk. Det er min kun anden Wim Wenders-film, hvor den første var "Himlen over Berlin". "Himlen over Berlin" er en fremragende og visuelt smuk film, som dog først rigtigt fangede mig sent i filmen. "Paris, Texas" fangede mig derimod fra sine allerførste scener. Det er en enormt smuk film og jeg er nærmest forelsket i den visuelle stil som filmen har. Hver og en scene er smukt filmet og filmens brug af farver er helt fantastisk. Harry Dean Stanton er helt sublim som Travis. Man kan se følelserne i hvert et blik. Han udtrykker nærmest mere i denne film, end mange skuespillere formår at udtrykke igennem hele deres karriere. Hans forhold til sønnen Hunter føles så autentisk, at man ikke kan lade være med at smile hver en scene de er sammen. Scenerne sammen med Jane, spillet af den gudesmukke Nastassja Kinski, er også ligeledes fantastiske. Dean Stockwell, som broderen Walt, og Aurore Clément, som broderens kone Anne, er også absolut forrygende. Barneskuespilleren Hunter Carson, som spiller sønnen Hunter, er også meget imponerende i forhold til de fleste barneskuespillere, og han fungerer perfekt i filmen.
Udover den fantastiske visuelle side og de fantastiske skuespilspræstationer, er det også værd at nævne det fremragende underlægningsmusik af Ry Cooder, som er med til at gøre stemningen endnu mere fantastisk. Jeg kan ikke rigtigt rose denne film nok, og mine ord kan slet ikke beskrive hvor fantastisk denne film er. Det er en film der formentligt ryger direkte ind på min top 20 over favoritfilm, og yderligere gensyn vil muligvis skubbe den endnu højere op.
10/10
Jeg kunne i øvrigt godt tænke mig at høre nogle anbefalinger af andre Wim Wenders-film fra nogle af de mere Wenders-erfarne filmz-brugere :)
"Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye."
Mange tak for uddybningen, og man kan vel kun sige, at det er yderst mærkelig. Jeg kan personligt ikke helt finde ud af, hvad jeg synes om scenen. På den ene side er det nogle rigtig smukke billeder, som også viser isolationen meget godt, men samtidig synes jeg der er nogle underlige ting i selve optagelsen...
#9433 Forklaringen med aspect ratio lyder rigtig. Kubrick var vant til sit foretrukne 1.66:1 aspect ratio og han har sikkert haft en kamp med at komponere 1.33:1 negativet til 1.85:1 for Shining, som jeg mener var første gang han skulle arbejde med det format. Og så sker der "sådan noget" i kampens hede.
Alle har et fradrag, Helle hun har to ... Helle ... havets tournedos
Apropos Martin Scorsese, så er [url= [/url]bommert fra Casino ikke særlig heldigt. Synes alligevel at filmen er rigtig fed, til trods for at det er en åbenlys filmfejl. :)
Jeg var pjattet med "Shaun of the Dead". Om muligt synes jeg endnu bedre om "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World", og nu har jeg så også set Edgar Wrights "Hot Fuzz". Det falder mig svært at beskrive hvor fed jeg finder denne film. Klipningen, humoren og actionen er brilliant. Hvor "Shaun of the Dead" var fed fordi den både var en effektiv zombiefilm, og en virkelig morsom film. Er denne ligeledes virkelig morsom, og en virkelig effektiv actionfilm. Sidstnævnte hovedsageligt fordi den meget bevidst får gjort grin med de fleste af actiongenrens konventioner.
Virkelig, virkelig underholdende og stærkt overraskende film. Gang på gang havde jeg trang til at udbryde: "WHAT THE FUCK?" Og det tror jeg måske er den mest beskrivende sætning for visse af denne films pludselig udfald. Det er dog udelukkende positivt ment, for fortællemæssigt er filmen stramt opbygget og fungerer fremragende. Det er selve indholdet der til tider er så sært at man undre sig over det hoved hvori disse ideer er opstået. Jeg var absolut og aldeles pjattet med denne film.
"You can't please everybody. In fact sometimes I don't please anybody" - Oliver Stone
#9431 Bruce 14 år siden
I noticed a helicopter shadow in The Shining, is this a mistake?
"This is probably the single most often-asked and most irritating question to recur over and over again on alt.movies.kubrick.
The opening titles of The Shining consist of long, dreamlike, sweeping shots of the Rocky Mountains, as Kubrick explained to Michel Ciment (1): "It was important to establish an ominous mood during Jack's first drive up to the hotel -- the vast isolation and eerie splendour of high mountains, and the narrow, winding roads which would become impassable after heavy snow."
The helicopter footage was filmed by Greg McGillivray and Kubrick was apparently very pleased with his work: "He spent several weeks filming some of the most beautiful mountain helicopter shots I've seen." While the grace and scope of these shots is hypnotic, there is a moment, just before a low fly-by pass of the yellow VW car, where the shadow of the helicopter filming the scene is clearly visible in the lower right hand corner of the picture.
So, why is this such a hot topic on the newsgroup? Kubrick has a reputation as a perfectionist, and this is something of a very apparent gaffe. It's generated no end of commentary, mostly facetious, as to why Kubrick had "clearly" left the shot in. Some say that, if the film was projected through a widescreen gate (2) - as it would be in a cinema - the shadow would not be visible, although members of amk have refuted this. For instance Mark Ervin noticed the shadow on The Shining's third showing at Mann's Chinese Theater May 23, 1980 and he has "never failed to see it since."
AMK is lucky to have as an occasional contributor Gordon Stainforth. Gordon was an assistant editor on The Shining (he took over from Ray Lovejoy when he became ill) he actually cut the title sequence. Here's what he has to say.
"I want to try and put at rest the interminable [helicopter shadow] debate re. an apparent mistake in The Shining. I cut the title sequence, so I speak with some authority. I've said quite a lot about this before, so I hope this really is the last time!
While I did the first cut, it is just possible that Ray Lovejoy made some alterations to the picture when he was finalising the front titles and credits - I have a distinct recollection of him asking me for the trims - but I think not. But I do have a recollection that at one stage in the movie some of those cuts were going to be dissolves. It is just possible that when we changed that mix to a straight cut we went back slightly beyond the centre point of the dissolve to get the absolute maximum length out of the shot. Musically and emotionally I remember we needed absolutely every usable frame of that first long shot with the titles.
OK, some key facts:
Although The Shining was shot with the full academy aperture, it was designed and composed entirely for the 1.85:1 ratio, and that is the only way it should be projected in the theatre.
All the Steenbecks in the cutting rooms accordingly had their screens marked, or even masked off, with the 1.85:1 ratio. The 6-plate Steenbeck in Stanley and Ray's main cutting room was masked off with black masking tape, because you cannot cut a movie properly unless you can see the frame exactly as it will appear in the cinema.
However the helicopter shadow IS almost certainly visible for about 4 or 5 frames at the edge of the 1.85:1 masking. But it was NOT visible on any of the correctly marked-up Steenbecks, or in the main viewing theatre at Elstree, at least, not as the first version of the film left Elstree in 1980. I think now that this mistake may have crept in very late during the editing of the movie when the first caption-title 'The Interview' was shortened by 8 frames on 23 April 1980 and the Main Title/credit sequence was lengthened accordingly by 8 frames, since the music could not be shortened. (This information is based on my original cutting room notes)
Every one of the show prints of the first 6 interpositives for the American release of The Shining was personally checked in the viewing theatre at Elstree by Stanley himself. IF the helicopter shadow was fleetingly visible, either Stanley did not notice it, or it was so trivial that it did not bother him.
Unfortunately the masking and racking in many theatres is incredibly inaccurate. [...] I therefore suspect that people who have seen this "awful" shadow for any length of time on the cinema screen must have seen it projected at completely the wrong ratio (probably 1.66/1!), or incredibly badly racked, or both. Or of course they've seen it on the video, where it's visible for just over a second!
Incidentally (or not so incidentally!), Stanley was NOT at all bothered by the vague shadow of the rotors at the top of the frame in the last shot of the main titles."
The notion that dramas should aim to suspend our disbelief goes right back to Aristotle's "Poetics," where it was first articulated. However a similar jarring "mistakes" were deliberately employed as effects by the playwright and drama theorist Bertolt Brecht (3) in the 1930s. He even had a name for them: 'alienation effects,' (Verfremdungseffekten) and they crops up in many of his plays. Brecht used alienation effects because he wanted shatter audiences suspension of disbelief, so that they would think about the issues raised by his plays dispassionately, instead of merely being swept away by the drama.
So is the helicopter shadow a Brechtian alienation effect?
Well, to assert that we'd have to identify other points of similarity between Brecht and Kubrick. And as it happens, there are a few: Brecht was accused by his critics of being cold, and intellectual (sound familiar?) and there are examples of many 'alienation effects' in Kubrick's films. For instance, in Lolita 'Quilty,' played by Peter Sellers, refers to Kubrick's previous film when he says: "I'm Spartacus. Did you come here to free the slaves?" and in Full Metal Jacket. there is a sequence of a film director (who physically resembles a young Kubrick) filming one of the battle scenes. So it seems fair to say that a Brechtian sensibility is detectable in Kubrick's filmmaking, and furthermore not outrageous to suggest that, if he had seen the shadow, he might have left the it in. This is not to say he DELIBERATELY CONTRIVED the helicopter shadow to be there: just that he wasn't concerned enough about concealing the artifice in his art to reject such an amazing shot.
I think the bottom line of this whole debate is that it says more about Kubrick fans than Kubrick himself. The myth about his absolute perfectionism is pervasive, but like every myth about Kubrick, it can't ever be the whole truth.
Personligt synes jeg det er en fænomenal åbning. Passende til den fænomenale film :)
#9432 Kruse 14 år siden
Jeg har lige fået set denne film, og jeg kan ligeså godt sige det med det samme. "Paris, Texas" er et fantastisk mesterværk. Det er min kun anden Wim Wenders-film, hvor den første var "Himlen over Berlin". "Himlen over Berlin" er en fremragende og visuelt smuk film, som dog først rigtigt fangede mig sent i filmen. "Paris, Texas" fangede mig derimod fra sine allerførste scener. Det er en enormt smuk film og jeg er nærmest forelsket i den visuelle stil som filmen har. Hver og en scene er smukt filmet og filmens brug af farver er helt fantastisk. Harry Dean Stanton er helt sublim som Travis. Man kan se følelserne i hvert et blik. Han udtrykker nærmest mere i denne film, end mange skuespillere formår at udtrykke igennem hele deres karriere. Hans forhold til sønnen Hunter føles så autentisk, at man ikke kan lade være med at smile hver en scene de er sammen. Scenerne sammen med Jane, spillet af den gudesmukke Nastassja Kinski, er også ligeledes fantastiske. Dean Stockwell, som broderen Walt, og Aurore Clément, som broderens kone Anne, er også absolut forrygende. Barneskuespilleren Hunter Carson, som spiller sønnen Hunter, er også meget imponerende i forhold til de fleste barneskuespillere, og han fungerer perfekt i filmen.
Udover den fantastiske visuelle side og de fantastiske skuespilspræstationer, er det også værd at nævne det fremragende underlægningsmusik af Ry Cooder, som er med til at gøre stemningen endnu mere fantastisk. Jeg kan ikke rigtigt rose denne film nok, og mine ord kan slet ikke beskrive hvor fantastisk denne film er. Det er en film der formentligt ryger direkte ind på min top 20 over favoritfilm, og yderligere gensyn vil muligvis skubbe den endnu højere op.
10/10
Jeg kunne i øvrigt godt tænke mig at høre nogle anbefalinger af andre Wim Wenders-film fra nogle af de mere Wenders-erfarne filmz-brugere :)
#9433 MMB 14 år siden
Mange tak for uddybningen, og man kan vel kun sige, at det er yderst mærkelig. Jeg kan personligt ikke helt finde ud af, hvad jeg synes om scenen. På den ene side er det nogle rigtig smukke billeder, som også viser isolationen meget godt, men samtidig synes jeg der er nogle underlige ting i selve optagelsen...
#9434 Bruce 14 år siden
#9435 Highland Park 14 år siden
http://www.moviemistakes.com/picture52398
&
http://www.moviemistakes.com/picture3564
#9436 MMB 14 år siden
Det lyder nok som den rigtige forklaring. :)
#9435
Ja ja...
#9437 IK 14 år siden
#9438 MMB 14 år siden
Av, den er ikke så heldig. Jeg må indrømme, at jeg faktisk ikke har lagt mærke til den. :S
#9439 Antlion 14 år siden
#9440 Collateral 14 år siden
Jeg var pjattet med "Shaun of the Dead". Om muligt synes jeg endnu bedre om "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World", og nu har jeg så også set Edgar Wrights "Hot Fuzz". Det falder mig svært at beskrive hvor fed jeg finder denne film. Klipningen, humoren og actionen er brilliant. Hvor "Shaun of the Dead" var fed fordi den både var en effektiv zombiefilm, og en virkelig morsom film. Er denne ligeledes virkelig morsom, og en virkelig effektiv actionfilm. Sidstnævnte hovedsageligt fordi den meget bevidst får gjort grin med de fleste af actiongenrens konventioner.
Virkelig, virkelig underholdende og stærkt overraskende film. Gang på gang havde jeg trang til at udbryde: "WHAT THE FUCK?" Og det tror jeg måske er den mest beskrivende sætning for visse af denne films pludselig udfald. Det er dog udelukkende positivt ment, for fortællemæssigt er filmen stramt opbygget og fungerer fremragende. Det er selve indholdet der til tider er så sært at man undre sig over det hoved hvori disse ideer er opstået. Jeg var absolut og aldeles pjattet med denne film.