Stanley Kubricks films get a new print!
Sean
print (so they will look a million times better) The are currently being
shown at the National Film Theatre on the South Bank of the Thames in
London. The schedule for September is as follows:
The Killing: 1st, 8th & 23rd September (New Print)
Lolita: 2nd & 11th September
Paths Of Glory: 2nd, 11th & 29th September (New Print)
The Shining: 3rd, 7th & 20th September (New Print)
Spartacus: 5th September
Full Metal Jacket: 6th, 12th & 22nd September (New Print)
Dr. Strangelove: 9th, 17th & 18th September (New Print)
Barry Lyndon: 9th, 19th & 30th September (New Print)
Eyes Wide Shut: 10th September
2001: A Space Odyssey: 16th & 19th September (New Print)
You can phone the NFT box office on 0171-928-3232 if you want to reserve
tickets.
--
Sean
DVD Web Editor
http://www.dvdweb.co.uk
Win The Matrix at DVD Web!
Mr. Movielover
Sean skrev i meddelandet ...
>Most of Stanley Kubricks new films have been given a brand new theatrical
>print (so they will look a million times better)
Let's pray to Kubrick that R2 (and hopefully re-issued R1) discs will be
made out of these prints. Widescreen and 16x9 all around, please.
rober...@my-deja.com
"Sean" <se...@dvdweb.co.uk> wrote:
> Most of Stanley Kubricks new films have been given a brand new
theatrical
> print (so they will look a million times better)
impression that the film stock used is extremely grainy. I haven't seen
a film stock that grainy since back in the 80's. Was this intentional,
to give the film a older feeling. I don't recall the recent showings of
Full Metal Jacket and Shining to have any grain...Or was it a problem
in the tape transfer?
Roberto
===============================
UK paid to surf Resource Centre
http://PaidAsYouSurf.spedia.net
===============================
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
David Mullen
>Did anyone notice the adverts for Eyes Wide Shut on TV gave the
>impression that the film stock used is extremely grainy. I haven't seen
>a film stock that grainy since back in the 80's. Was this intentional,
>to give the film a older feeling. I don't recall the recent showings of
>Full Metal Jacket and Shining to have any grain...Or was it a problem
>in the tape transfer?
It WAS grainy -- intentionally. Kubrick has varied his approach to shooting
each film, partially depending on how low a light level he wants to film in.
"Barry Lyndon" was shot on slow 100 ASA film stock (5254) pushed to 200 ASA.
He worked at moderate light levels except for candlelight scenes, which
required a special high-speed lens to be used due to the incredibly low
light levels.
"The Shining" was shot on slow 125 ASA film stock (5247), which is
fine-grained, at fairly high light levels at times. The look was meant to
be more pristine than "Barry Lyndon", hence why no push-developing was used.
By the beginning of the 1980's, faster film stock was introduced by Kodak,
giving filmmakers some options.
"Full Metal Jacket" was shot on 400 ASA film stock (5294) pushed to 800 ASA
under low light levels at times. The image was slightly soft & grainy.
"Eyes Wide Shut" was shot on 500 ASA (5296) pushed to 1600 ASA under
extremely low light levels at times. The image was noticeably grainy. The
idea was to use small practical fixtures to light most of the movie, thus
allowing him to use an extremely tiny crew for a long shooting period at
lower costs (and creating a certain intimacy on the set due to the small
crew.) It also allowed him to film some scenes lit mostly with just
Christmas tree lights. Although it would have been possible to use slower
film stock or less push-developing (and thus getting better grain) by just
switching to those super-sensitive lenses that he shot "Barry Lyndon"'s
candlelight scenes on, it would have made shooting less flexible. For those
candlelight scenes in "Barry Lyndon", he was stuck with using only two
lenses, no zoom lenses, and having to use a non-reflex Mitchell camera.
"Eyes Wide Shut" was shot on conventional high-speed lenses and zoom lenses
even for extremely low-light scenes -- he had more flexibility in shooting
due to his pushing the film so much.
He probably also liked some of the effects to the image that the
push-developing was causing -- certain odd color saturation at times (sort
of what can be described as "polluted colors") plus the extra grain.
David Mullen
FrMerrin
wrote:
>
>Sean skrev i meddelandet ...
>>Most of Stanley Kubricks new films have been given a brand new theatrical
>>print (so they will look a million times better)
>
>Let's pray to Kubrick that R2 (and hopefully re-issued R1) discs will be
>made out of these prints. Widescreen and 16x9 all around, please.
Why would you want a widescreen version of "The Shining" or "Full Metal Jacket" or "Barry
Lyndon" or "Clockwork Orange". They were all shot in 1.66:1 and that's how they were
intended to be seen.
Mike
"You know, "Blood Feast" is like a Walt Whitman poem.
Neither of them are any good, but they are the first of
their kind, so they're important."
H.G.Lewis on his most famous film.
Pete Briggs
> It WAS grainy -- intentionally. Kubrick has varied his approach to shooting
> each film, partially depending on how low a light level he wants to film in.
Did anyone else here see the REALLY TERRIFIC Channel 4 documentary on
Kubrick last week? (Apparently, there's a LONGER version of it playing
on Channel 4 Premiere, or whatever that digital channel's called,
tonight.)
I was fairly gobsmacked to see guys liked Semel, Spielberg, Cruise, etc
being fairly candid about their recollections. And, VERY nice to see
others like Brian Aldiss and a number of his unsung collaborators giving
their memories about the writing process with him.
(Not to mention all the stuff with his wife and kids...and the shots of
the "pebble grave" in his garden.)
Outstanding. Warners should licence this, and put it on a DVD
somewhere!!
Michael Brooke
> Sean skrev i meddelandet ...
> >Most of Stanley Kubricks new films have been given a brand new theatrical
> >print (so they will look a million times better)
>
> Let's pray to Kubrick that R2 (and hopefully re-issued R1) discs will be
> made out of these prints. Widescreen and 16x9 all around, please.
This would be a bit pointless given that more than half Kubrick's films
were shot in aspect ratios narrower than 16:9.
For all the debate about the 4:3 versions of 'The Shining' and 'Full
Metal Jacket', I'd rather have those than versions actually *missing*
picture information!
Michael
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PARADISE GROVE - a film about life, death and the bit in the middle
starring Ron Moody, Rula Lenska, Lee Blakemore and Leyland O'Brien
http://www.filmsite.co.uk/paradisegrove
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Couzens
Michael Brooke wrote in message
<1dy0lwi.fpr...@everyman.demon.co.uk>...
>Mr. Movielover <kalle...@gamma.telenordia.se> wrote:
>
>> Sean skrev i meddelandet ...
>> >Most of Stanley Kubricks new films have been given a brand new
theatrical
>> >print (so they will look a million times better)
>>
>> Let's pray to Kubrick that R2 (and hopefully re-issued R1) discs will be
>> made out of these prints. Widescreen and 16x9 all around, please.
>
>This would be a bit pointless given that more than half Kubrick's films
>were shot in aspect ratios narrower than 16:9.
>
>For all the debate about the 4:3 versions of 'The Shining' and 'Full
>Metal Jacket', I'd rather have those than versions actually *missing*
>picture information!
>
Shining", "Eyes Wide Shut") over the last couple of weeks have all been
projected at 1.66:1. In each case, there's a fair amount of headroom in the
compositions, so I suspect these could be shown in 1.85:1, especially by the
majority of commercial American cinemas which can't show narrower ratios
than that. However, there's plenty of evidence that Kubrick preferred
1.66:1, hence the NFT's decision.
By the way, in case anyone missed my previous post, the new print of "The
Shining" that the NFT are showing is the *long* (144 minute) version.
Gary Couzens
David Mullen
>Shining", "Eyes Wide Shut") over the last couple of weeks have all been
>projected at 1.66:1. In each case, there's a fair amount of headroom in the
>compositions, so I suspect these could be shown in 1.85:1, especially by
the
>majority of commercial American cinemas which can't show narrower ratios
>than that. However, there's plenty of evidence that Kubrick preferred
>1.66:1, hence the NFT's decision.
Yes, I believe that is also the case; they were framed for 1.85 release but
Kubrick prefers them being projected for 1.66, and in the case of "The
Shining" and "Full Metal Jacket" being shown on TV full-frame 1.33.
In the LoBrutto Kubrick biography, there is a passage about "Clockwork
Orange" in which Kubrick tells the people at Cinema Products that he needs a
1.6X adaptor to convert a 16mm zoom lens for 35mm shooting. When CP
complains that this will not be enough enlargement -- the standard would be
to use a 2X adapter -- Kubrick said that he only had to fill the 1.85 frame,
not the 1.37 Academy frame. Garret Brown, the steadicam operator, has told
various people in conversation, that his camera was marked to frame "The
Shining" for 1.85.
However, I recently saw "Dr. Strangelove" projected in 1.85 and while it was
not badly cropped, it would have looked nicer projected in 1.66 -- sometimes
the image got too "tight" in 1.85.
But to confuse the issue more, in the Ciment book on Kubrick, a Warners
Publicity person remembers that for "Barry Lyndon" Kubrick had 1.66
projector masks shipped to certain theaters in France and Germany that only
had 1.85 masks.
I suspect that Kubrick knew that these films would get projected in 1.85 in
many places, but when he could, he insisted that they be projected in 1.66.
It probably would have been easier to control the release of "Barry Lyndon"
compared to the probably larger print release of "The Shining".
David Mullen
Dom
fr.m...@virgin.net (FrMerrin) writes:
>On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 07:35:10 +0200, "Mr. Movielover" <kalle...@gamma.telenordia.se>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Sean skrev i meddelandet ...
>>>Most of Stanley Kubricks new films have been given a brand new theatrical
>>>print (so they will look a million times better)
>>
>>Let's pray to Kubrick that R2 (and hopefully re-issued R1) discs will be
>>made out of these prints. Widescreen and 16x9 all around, please.
>
>Lyndon" or "Clockwork Orange". They were all shot in 1.66:1 and that's how they were
>intended to be seen.
>
>Mike
You could quite easily place the 1.66:1 image within a 16:9 (1.77:1) frame
and make that anamorphic. Purists may say that 4:3 TV owners will get black
bars down the side as well as the top and bottom, but most TVs overscan by a
brief amount (accounts for about 0.1:1 of a film's aspect ratio on my WS TV)
so the films will actually be seen properly by everyone!
I read Full Metal Jacket was shot at about 1.44:1 (13:9) which is a bizarre
ratio, but then Kubrick wasn't the most conventional film-maker. I watched
some of it on TV last Sunday and the 4:3 open-matte presentation still looked
good when zoomed into 16:9 on a WS TV, in terms of picture composition.
Dom
/* http://www.sonicstate.com/dom/reviews.htm --->> Dominator's Reviews <<---
/* 132 DVDs, 141 laserdiscs, 34 games, 26 videos, 12 cinema films & 2 CDs
/* >> apollo 13, jason & the argonauts, river wild, psycho 98, psycho 60
/* >> out of sight, f1 racing, opposite of sex, nutty proffesor, blade
/* Reviews + DVD, widescreen VHS & Laserdisc lists & release schedules online
Dom
pe...@camshaft.demon.co.uk (Pete Briggs) writes:
>David Mullen <dav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> It WAS grainy -- intentionally. Kubrick has varied his approach to shooting
>> each film, partially depending on how low a light level he wants to film in.
>
>Did anyone else here see the REALLY TERRIFIC Channel 4 documentary on
>Kubrick last week? (Apparently, there's a LONGER version of it playing
>on Channel 4 Premiere, or whatever that digital channel's called,
>tonight.)
I missed the documentary, but if they are showing an extended version of it
that's exclusive to a pay-TV channel (Film Four, available on analogue
satellite as well), then that's really off-putting because it makes it all
sound so elitist, which it clearly isn't as it was introduced by Johnny Smirk.
philip_s
Pete Briggs wrote:
> David Mullen <dav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > It WAS grainy -- intentionally. Kubrick has varied his approach to shooting
> > each film, partially depending on how low a light level he wants to film in.
>
> Did anyone else here see the REALLY TERRIFIC Channel 4 documentary on
> Kubrick last week? (Apparently, there's a LONGER version of it playing
> on Channel 4 Premiere, or whatever that digital channel's called,
> tonight.)
>
Jon Thompson FBKS
to Declan Quinn as a possible cameraman for some time. He also talking with Mike
Figgs about how he shot the film.As well as look at super 16!! He tested the
fuji high speed 500 ASA stock for some time. He used Super Speed Zeiss lens on
Eyes Wide Shut, I don't think he used the zoom, he might have used some of the
Vari-primes!
It was a one stop push with a 1/2 stop under exposure corrected in the printing
to give him the grain he wanted!
He was one of the first if not the first to try Cross processing in the late
60's Early 70's for the tests he did of Napoleon.
Kubrick was working on the fact that he needed 3 1/2 foot candles to give him T2
on the super speeds. This is very very low light for a feature film.
Jon Thompson FBKS
David Mullen wrote:
> >Did anyone notice the adverts for Eyes Wide Shut on TV gave the
> >impression that the film stock used is extremely grainy. I haven't seen
> >a film stock that grainy since back in the 80's. Was this intentional,
> >to give the film a older feeling. I don't recall the recent showings of
> >Full Metal Jacket and Shining to have any grain...Or was it a problem
> >in the tape transfer?
>
> It WAS grainy -- intentionally. Kubrick has varied his approach to shooting
> each film, partially depending on how low a light level he wants to film in.
>
POD Ž
it. I have a widescreen TV, but I don't have this overriding desire to have
it set in 16:9 at all times. I just want to see the firl as it was intended
to be seen. I don't want the sides cut off and I don't want the top and
bottom matted out either.
I do wish that firms would get the correct ratio when released on VHS or
DVD, I have a tape of Slueth with Sir Lollie and Michael Caine, and it has a
widescreen sticker on the cover, but when you play it, you get the two
thinest bars top and botton. A big disapointment at first, but now I say,
hey, at leaste I am seing it all, every last bit of frame. But how many
times with those slivers be cut from either side to make the picture 4:3?
As long as the case says "original theatrical aspect ratio" I'd be happy,
don't bother me it's not 16:9
Thank you kindly
POD
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻齯滌`
"Since the affairs of men rest still uncertain,
Let's reason with the worst that may befall."
SHAKESPEARE
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻齯滌`
Pete Briggs
> If anybody has a copy of this documentary, I'd be glad to purchase it from
them.
I have ONE copy on a rotten VHS tape. The recording is less than
stellar, but perfectly watchable. It's also in PAL, so you'll have to
deal with that. I was out at the time, and left the timer running, so
there's ad breaks also. (Just gets better and better!)
If I KNEW it'd be so good, I'd have cracked open a fresh tape and stayed
in!
But, if anyone wants it (with the above criteria), it's theirs.
Alasdair Allan
> Mr. Movielover <kalle...@gamma.telenordia.se> wrote:
>
> > Sean skrev i meddelandet ...
> > >Most of Stanley Kubricks new films have been given a brand new
theatrical
> > >print (so they will look a million times better)
> >
> > Let's pray to Kubrick that R2 (and hopefully re-issued R1) discs will be
> > made out of these prints. Widescreen and 16x9 all around, please.
>
> were shot in aspect ratios narrower than 16:9.
No it does matter.
It is much preferrable to get a 1.66:1 film in an anamorphic form with very
thin pillarbox bars on a widescreen TV. However, as I don't rate this
director it only really matters for 1.66:1 prints for films I want.
In any case. No-one seems to complain that the extreme edges are cut off
1.85:1 films for the vast majority of anamorphic DVD transfers, so losing a
tiny slither top and bottom wouldn't be particular concern. Especiall when
its obvious the framing takes 1.85 projection into account.
--
Alasdair Allan, Ibrox, Glasgow |England - Country where Marx developed
x-st...@null.net | the basis of Communism
X-Static's Rangers Webzine |Scotland - Country where Smith developed
http://www.x-static.demon.co.uk/ | the basis of Capitalism
FrMerrin
wrote:
>Michael Brooke <mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk> wrote
>> Mr. Movielover <kalle...@gamma.telenordia.se> wrote:
>>
>> > Sean skrev i meddelandet ...
>> > >Most of Stanley Kubricks new films have been given a brand new
>theatrical
>> > >print (so they will look a million times better)
>> >
>> > Let's pray to Kubrick that R2 (and hopefully re-issued R1) discs will be
>> > made out of these prints. Widescreen and 16x9 all around, please.
>>
>> This would be a bit pointless given that more than half Kubrick's films
>> were shot in aspect ratios narrower than 16:9.
>
>No it does matter.
>
>It is much preferrable to get a 1.66:1 film in an anamorphic form with very
>thin pillarbox bars on a widescreen TV. However, as I don't rate this
>director it only really matters for 1.66:1 prints for films I want.
Brave words. Last time I said a word against St. Stanley, I was sent intimidating e-mail
by some of his "fans".
Douglas Bailey
> FrMerrin <fr.m...@virgin.net> wrote
> > Last time I said a word against St. Stanley, I was sent intimidating
> > e-mail by some of his "fans".
>
> To be honest he is one of the poorer directors who made a hash of 2001 (not
> the greatest of novels) and messed up a number of other good works of
> fiction....
> At most he was an adaptist, did he actually do an original work? Maybe.
Without meaning to be "intimidating", I'd like to point out that 2001
(the novel) was written by Arthur C. Clarke from the outline of the
film script that he helped Kubrick write. So that film, at least, is
an original work, if a collaborative one.
(This should also put paid to the notion that Kubrick "made a hash" of
the novel, since it was his story -- as well as Clarke's -- in the
first place.)
That's all. I'm not trying to change your opinions about Kubrick: if
you don't like his work, it's no skin off my arse. I'm just trying to
correct the one factual error in your post. Please don't be
intimidated. :)
doug
--
--------------douglas bailey (trys...@ne.mediaone.net)--------------
this week dragged past me so slowly; the days fell on their knees...
--david bowie
Alasdair Allan
> On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 13:36:37 GMT, "Alasdair Allan"
<posth...@x-static.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >No it does matter.
> >
> >It is much preferrable to get a 1.66:1 film in an anamorphic form with
very
> >thin pillarbox bars on a widescreen TV. However, as I don't rate this
> >director it only really matters for 1.66:1 prints for films I want.
>
intimidating e-mail
> by some of his "fans".
Hmm, I guess I'll find out on Monday when I return to work.
To be honest he is one of the poorer directors who made a hash of 2001 (not
the greatest of novels) and messed up a number of other good works of
fiction. But to each their own, I guess he is "the great pretender" the
sort of artist who succeeds not in doing things well but in doing then
"differently".
At most he was an adaptist, did he actually do an original work? Maybe.
All I can say is his films are mindnumbing in the extreme.
Skoal
>Without meaning to be "intimidating", I'd like to point out that 2001
>(the novel) was written by Arthur C. Clarke from the outline of the
>film script that he helped Kubrick write. So that film, at least, is
>an original work, if a collaborative one.
This critical point has been much neglected. And, unlike most of
Clarke's literary work, the novel is vastly inferior to the film.
Vastly.
Stan
Bailey <trys...@ne.mediaone.net> wrote:
> postm...@x-static.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > FrMerrin <fr.m...@virgin.net> wrote
>
> > > Last time I said a word against St. Stanley, I was sent intimidating
> > > e-mail by some of his "fans".
> >
> > To be honest he is one of the poorer directors who made a hash of 2001 (not
> > the greatest of novels) and messed up a number of other good works of
> > fiction....
> > At most he was an adaptist, did he actually do an original work? Maybe.
>
> Without meaning to be "intimidating", I'd like to point out that 2001
> (the novel) was written by Arthur C. Clarke from the outline of the
> film script that he helped Kubrick write. So that film, at least, is
> an original work, if a collaborative one.
Well, not quite.
The screenplay was in fact based on an even earlier short story by Clarke
called "The Sentinel," although the screenplay added quite a bit to the
story, which--if I remember correctly--ended with the discovery of the
mystery slab on the moon.
--Stan
Dan Brusca
>Without meaning to be "intimidating", I'd like to point out that 2001
>(the novel) was written by Arthur C. Clarke from the outline of the
>film script that he helped Kubrick write. So that film, at least, is
>an original work, if a collaborative one.
To a certain extent the novel was actually a Kubrick/Clarke
collaboration to start with, running alongside the film's production.
Kubrick gradually lost interest though...
Dan Brusca
----------------------------------
d...@bruscanet.f9.co.uk
ICQ: 50935916
07971 174244
Livin'it large in Breaston
----------------------------------
Doug Pippel
: On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 23:54:35 -0400, Douglas Bailey
: <trys...@ne.mediaone.net> wrote:
: >Without meaning to be "intimidating", I'd like to point out that 2001
: >(the novel) was written by Arthur C. Clarke from the outline of the
: >film script that he helped Kubrick write. So that film, at least, is
: >an original work, if a collaborative one.
: To a certain extent the novel was actually a Kubrick/Clarke
: collaboration to start with, running alongside the film's production.
I thought that the films screenplay was inspired by a Clarke short story
entitled "The Sentinel", which was worked into the screenplay for 2001
by Clarke and Kubrick. The novel was then born from the screenplay.
DP
M. Stanley Bubien
> : >Without meaning to be "intimidating", I'd like to point out that 2001
> : >(the novel) was written by Arthur C. Clarke from the outline of the
> : >film script that he helped Kubrick write. So that film, at least, is
> : >an original work, if a collaborative one.
>
> : To a certain extent the novel was actually a Kubrick/Clarke
> : collaboration to start with, running alongside the film's production.
>
> I thought that the films screenplay was inspired by a Clarke short story
> entitled "The Sentinel", which was worked into the screenplay for 2001
> by Clarke and Kubrick. The novel was then born from the screenplay.
>
> DP
From a Science Fiction class I took in College, you are right DP.
Sentinel-->Film-->Book.
Clarke, apparently unhappy with the various unexplained events in the
film wanted Kubrick to change them. Kubrick preferred the mystery.
Kubrick won. Clarke, however, decided to write the book because he liked
things explained. Or so my SF teacher said...
-Mark
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Stanley Bubien | ** STORY BYTES ** | Story Bytes better
bub...@cerfnet.com | <http://www.storybytes.com> | than sound bites
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
A mailing list of *very* short stories (2 words and up) sent weekly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Pippel
> > : To a certain extent the novel was actually a Kubrick/Clarke
> > : collaboration to start with, running alongside the film's production.
> >
> > I thought that the films screenplay was inspired by a Clarke short story
> > entitled "The Sentinel", which was worked into the screenplay for 2001
> > by Clarke and Kubrick. The novel was then born from the screenplay.
>
> Actually, Kubrick and Clarke both wrote the screenplay for the film
> (although it was mostly Kubrick). Clarke wrote the novel all himself.
Uh, that's what I said. The idea for the SCREENPLAY came from a short
story written by Clarke called "The Sentinel". Clarke then wrote the
"novelization" of the screenplay in book form.
DP
JB
posts with a subject line that is NOT misleading? This seems like a cheap
way to get people to read a post that they normally woudn't have ANY
interest in.
>
>
Dan Brusca <d...@bruscanet.f9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:37f75b43...@news.f9.net.uk...
FrMerrin
>Clarke, apparently unhappy with the various unexplained events in the
>film wanted Kubrick to change them. Kubrick preferred the mystery.
>Kubrick won. Clarke, however, decided to write the book because he liked
>things explained. Or so my SF teacher said...
The problem being that Kubrick's film can be interpreted in several ways, while Clarke
prosaically pins it down.
Mike
"Wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then."
Dan Brusca
Errr...I didn't write that....
okeydoky
wrote:
So most likely you luck Brits will have pristine,maybe even 16x9
Widescreen transfers on DVD in a few months...
> Most of Stanley Kubricks new films have been given a brand new
> theatrical
> print (so they will look a million times better) The are currently
> being
> shown at the National Film Theatre on the South Bank of the Thames
> in
> London. The schedule for September is as follows:
> The Killing: 1st, 8th & 23rd September (New Print)
> Lolita: 2nd & 11th September
> Paths Of Glory: 2nd, 11th & 29th September (New Print)
> The Shining: 3rd, 7th & 20th September (New Print)
> Spartacus: 5th September
> Full Metal Jacket: 6th, 12th & 22nd September (New Print)
> Dr. Strangelove: 9th, 17th & 18th September (New Print)
> Barry Lyndon: 9th, 19th & 30th September (New Print)
> Eyes Wide Shut: 10th September
> 2001: A Space Odyssey: 16th & 19th September (New Print)
> You can phone the NFT box office on 0171-928-3232 if you want to
> reserve
> tickets.
> --
> Sean
> DVD Web Editor
> http://www.dvdweb.co.uk
> Win The Matrix at DVD Web!
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
okeydoky
Gary Couzens
>and i presume the aspect ratio on the new print of THE SHINING was 1.66?
>
but judging from headroom etc., it was designed to be shown in 1.85:1, even
if Kubrick preferred it in 1.66:1.
Gary Couzens