Eyes Wide Shut has no Cinematographer or DoP?

[Manfred Lopez]

I was doing some research and stumbled across the fact that Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut has no DoP or Cinematographer credit. Instead Larry Smith is credited as "Lighting Cameraman". The movie gives him top billing in the credits, but IMDB buries his credit deep inside the camera department. Apparently Kubrick didn't allow any studio lighting on this 400-day-shoot except for ocasional china balls. I'm intrigued why this way of shooting would preclude a proper credit for Cinematographer. Does anyone know if there are rules that say you must use studio lighting to get a DoP or Cinematographer credit? Or am i missing a back story that I don't know about?

 

[Brett Harrison]

It's because Stanley Kubrick directed the photography with Larry Smith.

He started out as a Photographer and controlled all the lighting of all his his sets as much as possible - moreso after Spartacus - there's stories of him having run-ins on even his very first funded film, The Killing, when he asks for a 25mm lens and the highly experienced DP just goes and moves the track back a bit and uses a 50 telling him it's the same thing. According to Kubrick producer Harris, he told the DP to do what he said or get off the set (see A Life in Pictures documentary - great watch)

 

[Manfred Lopez]

It's because Stanley Kubrick directed the photography with Larry Smith.

If that's the case shouldn't there then be a shared credit or something? Even Barry Lyndon has a "Photographed By" credit, and that movie used mostly candle and natural light. As a side note, I just listened to a very interesting interview with Larry Smith on how he got hired for Eyes Wide Shut and the working process. But after listening to that I still don't understand why there is no "Cinematographer" or "Photographed by" credit. "Lighting Cameraman" just seems so far off.

Here is the interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ey21jU_LfY

 

[Peter Lyons Collister ASC]

I was at Pinewood when they were shooting Eyes Wide Shut. Kubrick always was pushing the edge. On that film they lit so much with Christmas lights and built in lighting. What Stanley did with Larry was push the chemistry of 35mm film to the edge. He owned his own densitometer and he and Larry would shoot and then study the actual negative on the densitometer .
Stanley knew more about film chemistry than most people. Much as he did with John Alcott on Barry Lyndon with fast NASA lenses and shooting under candlelight he pushed film to the limit.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I was at Pinewood when they were shooting Eyes Wide Shut. Kubrick always was pushing the edge. On that film they lit so much with Christmas lights and built in lighting. What Stanley did with Larry was push the chemistry of 35mm film to the edge. He owned his own densitometer and he and Larry would shoot and then study the actual negative on the densitometer .
Stanley knew more about film chemistry than most people. Much as he did with John Alcott on Barry Lyndon with fast NASA lenses and shooting under candlelight he pushed film to the limit.

This is why I love Kubrick so much, not just because of his films, but because of his meticulous skills with filmmaking and experimentation. He didn't settle for "what the industry provides" as most filmmakers do today, but he "opened up" things and made sure the technology fitted him, not the other way around. I really miss this kind of filmmaking today and filmmakers who look at their technology and goes "how can we modify and improve all this for our work?".

 

[Phil Holland]

I was at Pinewood when they were shooting Eyes Wide Shut. Kubrick always was pushing the edge. On that film they lit so much with Christmas lights and built in lighting. What Stanley did with Larry was push the chemistry of 35mm film to the edge. He owned his own densitometer and he and Larry would shoot and then study the actual negative on the densitometer .
Stanley knew more about film chemistry than most people. Much as he did with John Alcott on Barry Lyndon with fast NASA lenses and shooting under candlelight he pushed film to the limit.

One man, eye, and mind I truly wish was around a bit longer.

 

[Nick Morrison]

This is why I love Kubrick so much, not just because of his films, but because of his meticulous skills with filmmaking and experimentation. He didn't settle for "what the industry provides" as most filmmakers do today, but he "opened up" things and made sure the technology fitted him, not the other way around. I really miss this kind of filmmaking today and filmmakers who look at their technology and goes "how can we modify and improve all this for our work?".

Totally agree. Love his ethos!

 

[Brett Harrison]

I was at Pinewood when they were shooting Eyes Wide Shut. Kubrick always was pushing the edge. On that film they lit so much with Christmas lights and built in lighting. What Stanley did with Larry was push the chemistry of 35mm film to the edge. He owned his own densitometer and he and Larry would shoot and then study the actual negative on the densitometer .
Stanley knew more about film chemistry than most people. Much as he did with John Alcott on Barry Lyndon with fast NASA lenses and shooting under candlelight he pushed film to the limit.

Thanks Peter for that tidbit about the densitometer - doesn't surprise me at all.

Just guessing but I think the idea is that if you name the lighting cameraman as such, then by deduction, Kubrick has directed everything around that topic including the photography as a whole - and that the lighting camera man is akin to the camera operator or gaffer position, i.e. one level down from the DP.

The thing I appreciate about most of Kubrick's films is that they have the appearance of reality but also contain so much expression without breaking that veneer of reality. And the fact they are all so unique is partly because he was a technician par excellence.

 

[Brett Harrison]

The ASC article is a great and interesting read https://www.theasc.com/magazine/oct99/sword/pg1.htm

 

[Manfred Lopez]

I was at Pinewood when they were shooting Eyes Wide Shut. Kubrick always was pushing the edge. On that film they lit so much with Christmas lights and built in lighting. What Stanley did with Larry was push the chemistry of 35mm film to the edge. He owned his own densitometer and he and Larry would shoot and then study the actual negative on the densitometer .
Stanley knew more about film chemistry than most people. Much as he did with John Alcott on Barry Lyndon with fast NASA lenses and shooting under candlelight he pushed film to the limit.

Thanks for sharing that, Peter. I'm fascinated by the whole process. So now I wonder why Kubrick didn't get a Cinematographer credit. Is it considered bad form if one is also the director? Is it like trying to hog all the candy? It just blows my mind that such a beautifully lit film doesn't have a Cinematographer credit.

The ASC article is a great and interesting read https://www.theasc.com/magazine/oct99/sword/pg1.htm

Thanks for this link, Brett. You are right. It was a great read.

 

[sam karr]

Thanks for sharing that, Peter. I'm fascinated by the whole process. So now I wonder why Kubrick didn't get a Cinematographer credit. Is it considered bad form if one is also the director? Is it like trying to hog all the candy? It just blows my mind that such a beautifully lit film doesn't have a Cinematographer credit.

I remember reading that he had the obligation from the unions to hire a guy, he did and the guy just sat in a corner while kubrick was doing the work.

 

[Manfred Lopez]

I remember reading that he had the obligation from the unions to hire a guy, he did and the guy just sat in a corner while kubrick was doing the work.

hmy: Wow. Now I feel bad for Larry Smith.

 

[Erich Roland]

Loved Kubrick's work on whole, some of my favorite all time movies are Kubrick films. But Eyes Wide Shut.... Omg, I couldn't watch it all the way through.

 

[Elsie N]

Here's a link to an interview roundtable with Ridley Scott and Tarentino et al sitting in, where Scott reveals that the ending from Blade Runner was footage supplied by Kubrick from The Shining.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

It DOES have a cinematographer credit -- "Lighting Cameraman" is an older British term for cinematographer, back when they separated lighting from operating more clearly. The camera operator was called the "Operating Cameraman" and the cinematographer did the lighting and was called the "Lighting Cameraman". But it is generally understood that the Lighting Cameraman was the Cinematographer of the production. As to why Larry Smith took the more archaic title, I don't know. Smith was the Gaffer on "The Shining" and worked as an electrician on "Barry Lyndon" -- he wasn't just some guy who sat in the corner and didn't work!

Kubrick is well-known for being hands-on with the photography and operating, but that doesn't mean he didn't use his cinematographers, that they just sat around. Some were too exhausted after working for Kubrick to want to come back -- that would hardly be the case if they didn't do any work on the sets.

Look how often you see Geoffrey Unsworth walking around the sets of "2001" in these photos:

http://oneperfectshotdb.com/news/th...s-from-stanley-kubricks-2001-a-space-odyssey/

 

[sam karr]

Well you can find several articles about Kubrick hiring people only because of Union regulations. It seems identical stories happened on many of his movies. He was using them but not necessarily for their initial skills.


"At the time he was shooting scenes for his film ‘A Clockwork Orange’, in an empty apartment in the back streets of London’s Soho. To comply with Union regulations, he required what the film industry called a ‘Stills Photographer’ - which I considered a demeaning description of someone who took photographs on a film set. An assistant director warned me not to disturb Kubrick and as much as possible just remain in the background. I soon realised that Stanley Kubrick liked to do everything himself. Even his cameraman, a key member of any production team, was relegated to taking Polaroid pictures of the lighting set ups which Kubrick insisted on doing himself. Just how Kubrick overcame the Union rules of the day I do not know. Stanley Kubrick was obviously not interested in what I did. Just that I kept out of his way. "

This one is in french sorry (maybe you can google translate).
"La société américaine des chefs opérateurs a obtenu depuis des décennies qu'un directeur de la photo distinct du réalisateur soit toujours crédité au générique et soit officiellement présent sur le plateau. Ça fait partie des conventions des films réalisés conformément à la charte, c'est-à-dire tous les films de studio. Parmi les autres conventions, le monteur et le réalisateur ne peuvent pas être la même personne et il ne peut y avoir qu'un réalisateur de crédité. C'est pour ça que Joel Coen est crédité comme réalisateur, Ethan Coen comme producteur et que Roderick Jaynes (Joel + Ethan) signe le montage. Pour Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick a donné le titre à un des éclairagistes mais c'est un des films pour lesquels il s'est particulièrement occupé de la photo.
Sur 2001, le boulot est attribué à Geoffrey Unsworth (qui a son nom en gros au générique). Ceci dit, Kubrick avait déjà commencé sa collaboration avec John Alcott (qui s'est occupé de la première partie), lequel a ensuite signé la photo de tous les films jusqu'à Shining. Pour Full Metal Jacket, c'est son assistant Douglas Milsome qui a pris la relève. Ce dernier aurait aussi bossé sur Eyes Wide Shut mais les infos que j'ai obtenues à ce sujet sont pour le moins confuses, voire contradictoires.
Pour Eyes Wide Shut, le choix de la dénomination ("lighting cameraman") et d'un sous-fifre à ce poste indique clairement que Kubrick revendiquait la paternité du boulot.
Sur Spartacus, Russell Metty (La Soif du mal, Imitation of Life, Ecrit sur du vent) était en charge de la photo alors qu'Anthony Mann était encore réalisateur. Mann est viré et Kirk Douglas appelle Kubrick. Kubrick s'est vite engueulé avec Metty pour une divergence sur l'éclairage. Résultat, comme on ne pouvait pas le virer, Metty a passé plusieurs mois de tournage installé dans son fauteuil, histoire de pointer, pendant que Kubrick supervisait le boulot lui-même. Et ça lui a valu le seul Oscar de sa carrière !"

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I know that John Alcott didn't do "Full Metal Jacket" because he feared it would be too exhausting (only to later die of a heart attack while on vacation in France). And I've spoken to Douglas Milsome many times about his shooting of "Full Metal Jacket" and he certainly earned his paycheck!

Kubrick obviously took a strong hand in the photography and operated the camera usually, but that doesn't mean the cinematographers were just sitting on an apple box for months at a time.

 

[sam karr]

Well not literally, but I guess the frustration was there.
There is probably exaggeration with time too. And maybe it came mostly from the war between Kubrick and Metty on Spartacus. But for sure Kubrick was a manipulative director.

"Kubrick was meticulous in everything that he did and being a card carrying member of the cinematographer's union, he micromanaged Metty, who complained to Kirk Douglas that Kubrick was taking over his job. Kubrick finally told Metty to sit and do nothing. Metty, frustrated, did just that and Kubrick considered himself the 'real' cinematographer on the film".

 

[Freya]

Yeah, I was about to say that he probably had the title "Lighting Cameraman" because he was British.
David is right.

As to the title being archaic now, that might be becoming true but even eyes wide shut was shot a while ago and I'm sure Larry had been working in the industry for quite some time before that so it isn't THAT odd.

...also, just to upset people further, it's my understanding that "Eyes wide shut" was entirely shot in Britain too.

These things might explain the British terminology.

Freya

 

[Gunleik Groven]

There's a reason I called my RED ONE "Charlie" and my Epic "Stanley".


If I ever get a 8k, it will be named "Akira"