pull-back zooms in Lyndon
Andrew
movie almost every establishing shot seems to be the camera pulling back
with a zoom lens? It happens more often in the beginning but it continues in
many parts of the movie..
Anyone have any ideas on a possible purpose behind that?
- Andrew
Greg Lowry
integral to the fluid visual style of the movie. I don't think its any more
complicated than that.
On 12/8/02 7:56 PM, in article at148n$9bie$1...@netnews.upenn.edu, "Andrew"
<yac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
--
Your Pal Brian
> SK decided that was how best to tell the story. And the slow zoom outs were
> integral to the fluid visual style of the movie. I don't think its any more
> complicated than that.
Also give the sense of them being trapped in and by their lavish environment.
Didn't Scorsese say something about this in Life in Pictures?
Brian
Lek Dorm
"Andrew" <yac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:at148n$9bie$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
It isn't just Barry Lyndon. Kubrick was doing this often in the 70s; this
practice of opening scenes on a close-up and reverse zooming to a wide shot.
You can find many examples of it beginning with the opening shot in A
Clockwork Orange and continuing throughout The Shining. When he stopped
working with cinematographer John Alcott, the incidence of these shots
diminished greatly. I don't know if it was mainly Alcott's suggestion to
shoot things this way, or if Kubrick finally got tired of relying on it as a
way of introducing scenes.
Greg Lowry
Yz4J9.2041$EW6.76...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com, "Lek Dorm"
<no...@none.com> wrote:
Actually, the opening shot of ACO is a dolly move, not a zoom.
Part of the reason why these zoom shots were possible is the introduction of
super-smooth, variable speed zoom motors in the early 70s.
SK actually had a 20 - 1 zoom lens built for BL by Cinema Products, before
such a zoom was widely available.
>
>
--
Lek Dorm
"Greg Lowry" <greg...@hd3dmovies.com> wrote in message
news:BA1A1910.2FC80%greg...@hd3dmovies.com...
Actually, it's both a dolly back with a reverse zoom, but the aesthetic
choice is the same: start on a close-up of an object or person in the scene
and pull back to reveal the entire setting.
> Part of the reason why these zoom shots were possible is the introduction
of
> super-smooth, variable speed zoom motors in the early 70s.
That might have been a factor, but Kubrick used zoom lens shots as far back
as Paths of Glory.
Boaz
> Yz4J9.2041$EW6.76...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com, "Lek Dorm"
> <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Andrew" <yac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:at148n$9bie$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> >> Just watched Barry Lyndon... anyone else notice that in the beginning of
> the
> >> movie almost every establishing shot seems to be the camera pulling back
> >> with a zoom lens? It happens more often in the beginning but it continues
> in
> >> many parts of the movie..
> >>
> >> Anyone have any ideas on a possible purpose behind that?
> >>
> >> - Andrew
The effect is like looking at a particular detail in a painting, and
then moving back to see the image as a whole, not unlike filming a
painting with an animation camera that pulls back from a detail (e.g.,
a close view of a person in the painting) to show the whole painting
itself. This was to keep within Kubrick's intentions to show how many
of the characters in the film likened themselves to those figures
romanticized and immortalized in paintings. It was also used to a
certain degree of irony, since all too often the people behaved in a
way that was diametrically opposite to what would be considered
"proper" behavior as interpreted from viewing a painting from that
era.
> > It isn't just Barry Lyndon. Kubrick was doing this often in the 70s; this
> > practice of opening scenes on a close-up and reverse zooming to a wide shot.
> > You can find many examples of it beginning with the opening shot in A
> > Clockwork Orange and continuing throughout The Shining. When he stopped
> > working with cinematographer John Alcott, the incidence of these shots
> > diminished greatly. I don't know if it was mainly Alcott's suggestion to
> > shoot things this way, or if Kubrick finally got tired of relying on it as a
> > way of introducing scenes.
If you understood Kubrick and his dominance over the camera you would
know that Alcott had nothing to do in influencing Kubrick's visual
style. Quite the opposite, Alcott learned a great deal from Kubrick
about exposures, source lighting and composition, which he took with
him on other projects with other directors (e.g., "Greystoke," "Under
Fire"). The same goes for Doug Milsome, who moved up from the ranks of
1st assistant cameraman to operator to director of photography ("Full
Metal Jacket"). Milsome was the guy who had to pull focus on "Barry
Lyndon," and he really had his work cut out for him when pulling focus
on the candlelight scenes, where such focusing work was critical, as
the lens used was opened at f/0.7, having absolutely no depth of
field.
There might be some directors who will allow a cinematographer to
influence the use of a camera angle and even employing a zoom in lieu
of a dolly, but Kubrick was not one of them. Alcott once said in an
interview regarding TS that if Kubrick wasn't a director he would be
the most sought after cinematographer in the world.
If the visual style of Kubrick's films changed with each film it was
because Kubrick was going after a style that was fitting to the film
he was making at the time, not some need to repeat certain techniques
for their own sake. Kubrick's use of the zoom lens, as were any
involving prime lenses (standard, closeup and wide angle), were all
aesthetic choices, not like some directors, especially those who
worked in TV in the '70s, who used a zoom as a way to work faster, but
ended up making lazy looking shots.
> Actually, the opening shot of ACO is a dolly move, not a zoom.
It looks to be a little of both. I think there is a slight zoom back
from the CU of McDowell as he raises his glass of moloko, but for the
most part the shot is a reverse dolly, as you pointed out.
> Part of the reason why these zoom shots were possible is the introduction of
> super-smooth, variable speed zoom motors in the early 70s.
This is true. It was a double-edged sword in that some directors used
the zoom very creatively, allowing them to expand their way of
covering a scene (e.g, Altman was another director who used a zoom for
more than just to knock off a shot quickly), but it also became a
crutch for others, especially those working in TV.
(Then you have foreign directors, like Luchino Visconti, who really
beat to death the use of the zoom lens, most especially in "The
Damned," and with a bit of more restraint in "Death in Venice" but not
too much.)
In addition to zoom lenses and zoom motors, in the late '60s, more and
more Mitchell studio cameras were retrofitted with reflex viewing,
enabling the director, cinematographer and operator to actually see
the scene while they looked through the viewfinder and while they shot
the scenes. Panavision came out with their PSR-200 cameras that were
already reflexed viewing, Arriflex came out with a lightweight blimp
that allowed the use of the 2C camera to film while recording sound.
Then in '72 or '73 Arriflex came out with the 35BL, which Kubrick used
to film all the scenes in "Barry Lyndon" that didn't involved candle
light scenes (that was done with a non-reflexed Mitchell), and
Panavision came out with the Panaflex. Optics were also improving, as
were film stocks, and it gave more creative freedom for the director,
who was now not anchored down with a large non-reflexed camera using a
prime lens. (Also, the development of the crystal synch motor made
shooting synch sound on location much easier and faster, an off-shoot
of cinema-verite documentary work that found its way over to feature
filmmaking, since some of the directors working had also come from
documentaries.)
> SK actually had a 20 - 1 zoom lens built for BL by Cinema Products, before
> such a zoom was widely available.
Ed DiGiulio of Cinema Products (who engineered the Zeiss lens on a
non-reflexed Mitchell for Kubrick to shoot the candlelight scenes in
BL) did make such a lens, and he talks about it in the March, '76
issue of American Cinematographer, but he didn't get it finished in
time for Kubrick to use in BL. Those shots were done with a 25mm to
250mm Angenieux zoom lens. I don't think Kubrick used the 20 to 1 lens
in TS, as I didn't see any zoom shots that had such a major difference
in focal lenght. I think it was used in FMJ, at the firing range
scene, where Hartman goes into his speech about "the hard heart"
necessary to kill, and we start with a close shot of a target, then
the lens zooms back a long way to show the targets as tiny figures in
the distance while Hartman paces within the circle of Marines,
listening to his speech. The lens has an opening of only f/8, so it is
a very slow lens to use for interiors, and for exteriors it would have
to be at a reasonable time of day, even if one is using film stock
rated at 800 ASA, to get a decent exposure. Also, having a lens that
goes from 24mm to 480mm means a helluva lot of glass elements that
have to shift back and forth, and so the sharpness in the picture is
diminished compared to using a fixed lens with a 480mm focal length,
which would require less glass elements.
Boaz
Matthew Dickinson
I think he wanted the characters to feel somewhat unaccessible to the
audience. It was a way of making the audience recognize these were
people unmarked by history, lost and obscured by the march of time,
which is of course what will happen to most of us, as well. The
landscapes, buildings, costumes and furniture were beautiful
backdrops, drawfing the characters who reside in them. Barry's story
is a shallow one - he believed the meaning of his life was to obtain
this high status or level of existence, and the same might be said of
many of the other characters in the film or of the time period itself
- and he learns the hard way that the true joys in life are not found
in these expensive backdrops, but in love, families, relationships.
Besides Nora Brady at the beginning, his only real love was that of
his real son, and you'll notice these scenes are the most emotional
parts of the film because they are the most tragic and revealing of
the societies he lived in.
Matthew
Rod Munday
This is not true. Kubrick used reversed tracking in the films you
mentioned not reversed zoom. In reversed zoom, the backgound does not
move in relation to the camera movement, this results in a flattening
out of the image which gives a more painterly feel to the images of
barry Lyndon. In tracking, the background moves in relation to the
camera's pulling back, and there are all sorts of perspective shifts
within the frame. The opening shot of ACO (which is both a track back
and zoom out) is a good example of this, and also I think of the
ambition of these shots.
regards, Rod Munday
Lek Dorm
> > It isn't just Barry Lyndon. Kubrick was doing this often in the 70s;
this
> > practice of opening scenes on a close-up and reverse zooming to a wide
shot.
> > You can find many examples of it beginning with the opening shot in A
> > Clockwork Orange and continuing throughout The Shining. When he stopped
> > working with cinematographer John Alcott, the incidence of these shots
> > diminished greatly. I don't know if it was mainly Alcott's suggestion to
> > shoot things this way, or if Kubrick finally got tired of relying on it
as a
> > way of introducing scenes.
>
>
> This is not true. Kubrick used reversed tracking in the films you
> mentioned not reversed zoom. In reversed zoom, the backgound does not
> move in relation to the camera movement, this results in a flattening
> out of the image which gives a more painterly feel to the images of
> barry Lyndon. In tracking, the background moves in relation to the
> camera's pulling back, and there are all sorts of perspective shifts
> within the frame. The opening shot of ACO (which is both a track back
> and zoom out) is a good example of this, and also I think of the
> ambition of these shots.
>
> regards, Rod Munday
No, it actually is true. As I explained in an earlier reply to someone else,
yes the opening of ACO is a combination of dolly and zoom. There are optical
differences between dollying and zooming but your explanation is confused.
Here are some examples. Zoom out from a close-up of TV news warning of snow
to reveal a bedroom. Zoom out from close-up of Halloran's face to reveal him
lying on the bed opposite the TV. Zoom back into Halloran's face for
close-up as he receives Danny's psychic warning. Open on close-up of Danny's
face and zoom out to shot of him throwing darts in the play room. Close-up
through mirror on Jack asleep in bed and zoom out to Wendy entering with
breakfast cart and zoom back in to close-up of Jack in bed, all in one shot.
Zoom out from the close-up of Jack's unattended typewriter as he throws the
ball against the wall. Close-up of Wendy opening canned fruit and zoom out
to Wendy in the kitchen watching TV weather report.Close-up of Danny's toy
cars on the carpet and zoom out to Danny playing with them and the
mysterious rubber ball rolling to him. Not a dolly shot in the bunch. There
are many more examples but I'll stop here. Some of Kubrick's zooms may have
had accompanying camera movement to mask the severity of the zoom or to
adjust position to create a better composition at the opening or closing of
the shot but he rarely, if ever, used solely a dolly out for these kinds of
shots. The dolly in and out rather than zoom is more of a Spielberg
trademark.
M4RV1N
writes:
>> This is not true. Kubrick used reversed tracking in the films you
>> mentioned not reversed zoom. In reversed zoom, the backgound does not
>> move in relation to the camera movement, this results in a flattening
>> out of the image which gives a more painterly feel to the images of
>> barry Lyndon. In tracking, the background moves in relation to the
>> camera's pulling back, and there are all sorts of perspective shifts
>> within the frame. The opening shot of ACO (which is both a track back
>> and zoom out) is a good example of this, and also I think of the
>> ambition of these shots.
>>
>> regards, Rod Munday
>
>No, it actually is true. As I explained in an earlier reply to someone else,
>yes the opening of ACO is a combination of dolly and zoom. There are optical
>differences between dollying and zooming but your explanation is confused.
His explanation is correct. The primary aspect of the opening shot of ACO is a
backwards tracking shot. It begins with a minor zoom out and smoothly changes
to a track back. The psychological effect of this is that the audience has a
sense of retreating from something without taking their eyes off it--as though
it is a threat, or a powerful subject worthy of respect. Some film critic
mentioned in regard to the ACO shot that it is like a servant of a king who
backs away and keeps his eye on the king all the while. This technique is also
used in "The Shining" after Jack tells Wendy to "Start right now and get the
fuck out of here," and the camera tracks back away rather quickly. A similar
psychological effect is when the camera tracks back and the subject pursues (as
when Bowman marches toward HAL's brain room, or Jack chases Danny in the maze,
or Bullingdon searches for Barry at gaming lodge, etc.). Many other
back-tracks also.
>Here are some examples. Zoom out from a close-up of TV news warning of snow
>to reveal a bedroom. Zoom out from close-up of Halloran's face to reveal him
>lying on the bed opposite the TV.
I think there's a storytelling function here, to get the audience to pay
attention to the content of the news (weather), and then to concentrate on
Hallorann's thoughts.
Zoom back into Halloran's face for
>close-up as he receives Danny's psychic warning. Open on close-up of Danny's
>face and zoom out to shot of him throwing darts in the play room. Close-up
>through mirror on Jack asleep in bed and zoom out to Wendy entering with
>breakfast cart and zoom back in to close-up of Jack in bed, all in one shot.
>Zoom out from the close-up of Jack's unattended typewriter as he throws the
>ball against the wall. Close-up of Wendy opening canned fruit and zoom out
>to Wendy in the kitchen watching TV weather report.Close-up of Danny's toy
>cars on the carpet and zoom out to Danny playing with them and the
>mysterious rubber ball rolling to him. Not a dolly shot in the bunch.
Each of these has various content and style points, but none of them are for
the unique tableau effect of the zoom-outs in "Barry Lyndon." Two primary
differences are the extreme distance and the detailed content of the zoom-outs
in the latter film. These specifically place the human beings into a context
of period and social structure (as revealed by the surroundings). It's also a
duplication of the way people look at tableau paintings--the pick a small
subject and then look at it in comparison with all the remaining content in the
frame.
There
>are many more examples but I'll stop here. Some of Kubrick's zooms may have
>had accompanying camera movement to mask the severity of the zoom or to
>adjust position to create a better composition at the opening or closing of
>the shot but he rarely, if ever, used solely a dolly out for these kinds of
>shots. The dolly in and out rather than zoom is more of a Spielberg
>trademark.
There are many tracks back and forward in SK film. After visual symmetry, the
tracking shot is the primary visual motif in his work.
Mark Ervin
Lek Dorm
"M4RV1N" <m4r...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021210171555...@mb-ck.aol.com...
> >Lek Dorm
> writes:
>
> >> This is not true. Kubrick used reversed tracking in the films you
> >> mentioned not reversed zoom. In reversed zoom, the backgound does not
> >> move in relation to the camera movement, this results in a flattening
> >> out of the image which gives a more painterly feel to the images of
> >> barry Lyndon. In tracking, the background moves in relation to the
> >> camera's pulling back, and there are all sorts of perspective shifts
> >> within the frame. The opening shot of ACO (which is both a track back
> >> and zoom out) is a good example of this, and also I think of the
> >> ambition of these shots.
> >>
> >> regards, Rod Munday
> >
> >No, it actually is true. As I explained in an earlier reply to someone
else,
> >yes the opening of ACO is a combination of dolly and zoom. There are
optical
> >differences between dollying and zooming but your explanation is
confused.
>
> His explanation is correct.
No, it isn't, sorry. "The backgound does not move in relation to the camera
movement" is not a clear description of the visual effects of either
dollying or zooming, though I think I know what he's trying to say. Even
though the distance between SUBJECT and camera does not change in a zoom
shot the way it does in a dolly shot where the camera physically moves, the
background "moves" in the sense that more of it becomes visible as the shot
progresses, and also, in a reverse zoom the background will change in that
it is usually out of focus because of the narrow depth-of-field a telephoto
lens creates, and will come into focus as the lens zooms out and the
wide-angle range of the lens, with a much wider depth-of-field, takes over.
His description might better apply to the Hitchcock "Vertigo" effect of
zooming out while equally dollying in in order to maintain the framed
composition while allowing the compression effects of telephoto vs.
wide-angle lenses to distort spacial reality within the frame, but that is a
completely different effect.
> The primary aspect of the opening shot of ACO is a
> backwards tracking shot. It begins with a minor zoom out and smoothly
changes
> to a track back. The psychological effect of this is that the audience
has a
> sense of retreating from something without taking their eyes off it--as
though
> it is a threat, or a powerful subject worthy of respect. Some film critic
> mentioned in regard to the ACO shot that it is like a servant of a king
who
> backs away and keeps his eye on the king all the while. This technique is
also
> used in "The Shining" after Jack tells Wendy to "Start right now and get
the
> fuck out of here," and the camera tracks back away rather quickly. A
similar
> psychological effect is when the camera tracks back and the subject
pursues (as
> when Bowman marches toward HAL's brain room, or Jack chases Danny in the
maze,
> or Bullingdon searches for Barry at gaming lodge, etc.). Many other
> back-tracks also.
Yes, I never said Kubrick never used a backward or forward dolly shot, but
we were talking about a specific shot used at the beginning of a scene.
Starting on a detail in close-up and zooming out to reveal the setting. Like
the close-up of the bottle of booze which zoom's back to reveal the tramp
lying in the underpass in ACO. The next scene begins on a close-up of a
painting above the stage in the derelict casino and pulls back to reveal the
whole room. That makes the opening three scenes of ACO shot by starting on a
close-up and zooming back, the same technique Kubrick used so often in Barry
Lyndon (though not in the first two scenes). I feel they gave the film as
much of an other world/other time tableau feeling as did their use in Barry
Lyndon.
I'd argue that the tableau effect may be more obvious in Barry Lyndon
because of its painterly compositions throughout, but the same tableau
effect can be found in ACO, as I mentioned above, such as the opening scenes
or later on when Mr. Alexander and the conspirators are posed so precisely
as they blast lovely Ludwig Van up from the billiards table. Another reverse
zoom, btw, starting on a close-up of Alexander's twitching face and zooming
back to reveal the entire scene.
> There
> >are many more examples but I'll stop here. Some of Kubrick's zooms may
have
> >had accompanying camera movement to mask the severity of the zoom or to
> >adjust position to create a better composition at the opening or closing
of
> >the shot but he rarely, if ever, used solely a dolly out for these kinds
of
> >shots. The dolly in and out rather than zoom is more of a Spielberg
> >trademark.
>
> There are many tracks back and forward in SK film. After visual symmetry,
the
> tracking shot is the primary visual motif in his work.
Yes, but now we're talking about two different uses of the tracking shot. As
noted above, I didn't say Kubrick never used a dolly, but this thread was
started by someone asking about the specific technique in Barry Lyndon of
establishing shots using a reverse zoom, starting on close-up and somehow
ending the shot on a wide angle using a zoom lens. I merely pointed out that
Kubrick had done this in other films as well. In these cases Kubrick almost
always used a zoom rather than dolly. He may have sometimes used a
combination of dolly with the zoom, but I don't think he ever just dollied
back. The effect is one of a zoom, not a dolly. Of an optical change, not a
3-D spacial move . The camera preceding the psychiatrist wheeling her table
down the hospital corridor in ACO is certainly a backwards dolly shot but it
does not begin the scene in close-up and then pull back to reveal a wider
composition. It's pretty much a wide shot from beginning to end. The same
with Danny riding the big wheel though the Overlook and many other examples.
Yes, Kubrick tracked a lot and it is a primary visual in his works, but I
was specifically talking about moving in and out of close-ups. I mention
Speilberg because he frequently dollies into close-ups of actors during
dramatic moments, such as people looking up to the sky in Close Encounters.
I don't think Kubrick ever resorted to anything quite so melodramatic.
Lek Dorm
As
> noted above, I didn't say Kubrick never used a dolly, but this thread was
> started by someone asking about the specific technique in Barry Lyndon of
> establishing shots using a reverse zoom, starting on close-up and somehow
> ending the shot on a wide angle using a zoom lens. I merely pointed out
that
> Kubrick had done this in other films as well. In these cases Kubrick
almost
> always used a zoom rather than dolly. He may have sometimes used a
> combination of dolly with the zoom, but I don't think he ever just dollied
> back.
All right, I correct myself here. The third scene of Barry Lyndon where
Barry and Nora are playing cards, does seem to be a dolly back from a
close-up of the statue and not a zoom, but it's the only instance I can
think of.
Rod Munday
> "The backgound does not move in relation to the camera
> movement" is not a clear description of the visual effects of either
> dollying or zooming, though I think I know what he's trying to say. Even
> though the distance between SUBJECT and camera does not change in a zoom
> shot the way it does in a dolly shot where the camera physically moves, the
> background "moves" in the sense that more of it becomes visible as the shot
> progresses, and also, in a reverse zoom the background will change in that
> it is usually out of focus because of the narrow depth-of-field a telephoto
> lens creates, and will come into focus as the lens zooms out and the
> wide-angle range of the lens, with a much wider depth-of-field, takes over.
> His description might better apply to the Hitchcock "Vertigo" effect of
> zooming out while equally dollying in in order to maintain the framed
> composition while allowing the compression effects of telephoto vs.
> wide-angle lenses to distort spacial reality within the frame, but that is a
> completely different effect.
I maintain that I am right about tracking shots. Imagine for instance,
a camera tracking down a long corridor with other equally long
corridors leading off. As the camera passes it would catch glimpses of
all these other corridors. Their vanishing points would move with the
camera, so a viewer would get these vaulted impressions of looking
into long empty spaces. All of this is part of the tracking aesthetic.
The only thing I did as a kid was draw so I know all about vanishing
points and how they change if the point of view changes.
regards Rod