| |
Sir Sydney Samuelson and Real Picture Quality
A Conversation with Sir Sydney Samuelson. Recorded in London, Monday 17
October 2011 + 28 January 2012 | Read more at in70mm.com The 70mm Newsletter
|
Interviewed by: Thomas Hauerslev.
Transcribed for in70mm.com by
Brian Guckian. Proofread by Sir Sydney Samuelson and Mark Lyndon for
accuracy. Images by Thomas Hauerslev, unless otherwise noted | Date:
26.08.2013 |
Stanley and Joe
| |
Joe
Dunton in Bradford, 2011
So that’s a bit of scuttlebutt about Stanley
Kubrick...who was a unique character. I think I did tell you that we were
quite good friends, in a detached kind of way – not good friends like I was
with say – dropping a big name out of the sky – I was truly close with David
Lean – and I’ve got a
still upstairs of David and I, and David has his arm through mine – Stanley
Kubrick might shake hands with me, but he wouldn’t go any further than that
[Laughs] – and that wasn’t just me, he was very detached. I would say he was
a bit weird – it was very difficult to – I don’t think he had really close
friends – I think he and his wife had an affectionate family. As far as his
relationships with technicians, he respected knowledgeable people. Do you
know the name of Joe Dunton? – well Joe, who’s a brilliant technician in his
own right, was the one, I would think probably in the last ten years of
Stanley’s life, Joe Dunton was his man, would make special stuff for him –
or have it made. He would find special stuff, would phone him up and might
say, “I’ve heard that a Nikon lens has come out, and I think it could be
adapted, and it would do whatever it might do that Nikon had brought out”
[Laughs] – and Stanley Kubrick would probably say to Joe, “Well get one, and
put an Arriflex adaptor on it, and let’s see what it can do”. He had that
relationship. It was Joe who built Stanley’s viewing theatre, in his own
home...and it had the best, the best of everything. And in fact, after
Stanley died, I don’t know whether Joe bought the equipment from the viewing
theatre, but Joe set up a post-production house and the projection in it –
the 35mm projection – was from what was the viewing theatre in Stanley
Kubrick’s home.
Anyway, I can’t say Stanley was an important customer to me – he was clearly
an important person – he used my company, and our activities, but hardly as
a customer – in so much as he was always very friendly – I don’t mean
affectionate, that kind of friendship – but he was never like a producer
client. Have you ever heard of Michael Winner? Stanley was nothing like
Michael Winner, who swears at you and who’s rude, and picks on young people
who can’t answer back – just a terrible man – Stanley was nothing like that.
But he would phone me up, and say, “I want to be able to hand-hold a camera
and shoot sync sound...I hear that Arriflex have just brought out a blimp”
(we’re going back a good way here). He said, “Can you hand-hold it? I
understand it’s small, only 400 feet, when a Mitchell is 1000 feet”. I said,
“You can’t really hand-hold” – he would say, “Well can I come and see it?”
And I’d say, “Of course you can” – and he would probably always say, “Will
you be there yourself?” – “Of course I will, let’s fix a time”. He didn’t
ever come during daytime; he would come at 10 o’clock at night – really
strange. And I would go back to the office, and whatever it was he wanted to
see, or he’d heard about, I would show him, and I’d have one of my technical
people if it needed detailed explanation of any kind, especially when
complicated electronics came into our industry – but he would never say,
“Well for the next picture I’d like to rent that for 10 weeks”. If he wanted
that item, he would find out where it came from, and buy one for himself. He
must have been quite wealthy – he’d had some very successful films, hadn’t
he, and he had this special deal with Warner Bros. Imagine this, his deal
with Warner Bros was that he submitted the script – if they approved the
script, and gave him the money to make the film, part of the contract was
they were not to be in touch with him at all until he showed them the
finished movie. How many Producers, Directors, could ever have that clause –
that the money people can’t say, “Well we’ve had a look at your workprint
and we don’t think it’s going well” or, “It’s going to be too long” or,
“It’s dull” or, “Who will ever pay money to see that?” – “Why would young
people ever want to see that?” – or whatever else they might say. They would
have the right to say in effect, “It’s our money, and we want this, that or
the other changed”. And if the Director said, “No I’m not going to change
this” they would then pay him off, and take on another director to finish
the project. It happens all the time.
And I always think one of the most interesting things in the old Halliwell
Film Guide – sadly no longer produced; it used to come out every two years –
it was updated – each film would have all the most important front-of-screen
credits – a bit about the story of the film – a bit about what two or three
critics said, if it was an important film, or a popular film – and then it
would often say who the preferred original actors were, but who were not
available. It’s always interesting as to when you’ve subsequently seen the
film, whichever stars played the parts, to be able to say, “Oh how
interesting – they actually wanted John Wayne to play that part...I wonder
what he would have been like?”
- but he wasn’t available, didn’t like the script, not enough money on
offer, or whatever it was. Anyway, back to Kubrick: he was entirely
self-indulgent. What was his last film?
TH: "Eyes Wide Shut" -
Sir Sydney: "Eyes Wide Shut" – with that little actor – American –
big star –
TH: Tom Cruise –
Sir Sydney: ...Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman – I think that was certainly
Kubrick’s last picture. I think they shot for over a year – it was made at
Pinewood, it was a studio picture – over a year! And I don’t think it was
much of a success...even after spending all that time. And he only used the
very best people on it...I never saw that film, but I believe it was
pretty sexually explicit, a serious film, but I don’t think it did that much
business! [Laughs]
I don’t think anyone ever says to me, when we’re talking about enjoyable
movies, I don’t ever remember anyone saying, “Gosh, did you see "Eyes Wide
Shut"? - Stanley Kubrick” – I don’t think anybody said that to me. But there
are quite a lot of successful Directors and Producers about who you have to
say, “But his last five or six films didn’t work that well”.
I don’t know if it’s a case of whether directors simply lose their touch,
get too old, or they don’t understand how the main audience - the main
cinema audience – is younger, and they think in a different way. But you get
people like one who I knew very well – Otto Preminger – he was a terrible
man as well – used to shout at junior people – if a young actress or actor
was having difficulty with their lines, and they did take after take after
take, he used to scream at them – which of course doesn’t help! He was
just...just awful on set. This kind of material we’re talking about, Tom, is
it of interest?
TH: Yes – we’re going around –
Sir Sydney: You need to bring me back!
|
CHAPTERS
• Home: A Conversation with Sir Sydney
Samuelson
• Cinema was always in my Family
• Panavision, Bob
Gottschalk and The Answering Machine
• Stanley Kubrick,
"Tom Jones" and one point
• Dickie
Dickenson, David Lean and British Quota Film
• Takuo
Miyagishima, Robert Gottschalk and a 20:1 Zoom
• David Lean and
The Friese-Greene Award
• Thunderball,
Zhivago, Techniscope, and Fogging a roll of film
• Ken Annakin,
"Grand Prix", James Bond, Helicopters
• How lucky can
you be
More in 70mm reading:
•
The Importance
of Panavision
•
A Message from
Freddie A. Young
•
Stanley
Kubrick
•
Shooting
"Lawrence of Arabia"
•
Memories of Ryan's Daughter
•
Joe Dunton
•
Ken Annakin
•
70mm in London 1958 - 2012 •
The editor Receives BKSTS
award
Internet link:
•
George Berthold "Bertie" Samuelson (1889 - 1947) (PDF)
•
Samuelson Film Service (reunion)
• samuelson.la
•
The Argus
•
British Film Industry Salute
•
Wikipedia
YouTube/Vimeo
•
'Strictly Sydney'
•
Clapper Board Part 1
•
Clapper Board Part 2
•
St. Mary's 1963
|
"2001: A Space Odyssey"
| |
TH: I would like to bring you back to the
thread of 65mm and "2001" – last time we ended with Stanley Kubrick
getting the equipment and taking all the measurements he needed – can you
remember from the actual shooting of the film – did you have any contact
with him and his crew...about the equipment?
Sir Sydney: Only complaints! And some of them might have been justified, but
I’ll tell you the kind of complaint – it wasn’t the lenses (“the 75mm lens
is not good enough”) – they did these four weeks of tests, and of course the
fact it was 65mm negative running through the camera, when they were doing
the tests, if there was any lens that Kubrick thought was not as good as it
could be – it may not have been that it wasn’t as good as it could be – just
he thought it wasn’t as good as it could be. Maybe he didn’t think the focus
scale was accurate; he thought that it was sharper when the focus was on 10
feet, if you had that scale on the lens at 10 foot 6 inches – I mean that
kind of complaint. And being 65mm, we had to bring in every item of camera
equipment from Los Angeles – we didn’t stock 65mm Panavision – there wasn’t
enough 65mm Panavision for us to be able to hold a stock in London, and to
have it waiting on shelves. There wasn’t a great amount of 65mm – there
wasn’t a great call for 65mm – Panavision couldn’t afford to build gear, and
not have it used. I would think that Panavision had enough 65mm probably to
do two major movies at the same time – to shoot them both at the same time.
It may be that there was a third film where they only needed one (wild)
camera to get some coverage of something before they started the main shoot.
Panavision would be able to supply them with just one camera and some lenses
to go to say, the Himalayas, to get some preliminary material. But as far as
providing three cameras – an average would be three cameras for any major
film – I doubt they could cover more than two major 65mm productions at
once.
So when we came to do 65mm out of our own premises, serviced from us, first
of all, the gear had to be shipped from Los Angeles. We used to get the list
from the crew of what they wanted, and then we would all order it and it
would be shipped in by Panavision. But it wasn’t as if, when they wanted to
change an item, that we had six of them on a shelf – if a cameraman said,
“I’m not really happy, Sydney, with the 35mm lens”, or, “We’re having a bit
of trouble with the sync motor...we think it’s hunting a bit – you know,
it’s not running smoothly [Imitates noise of mechanism] – seems to be
alright on the rushes, but we would like you to change it...give us another
motor and let us try it” – that kind of thing, with the complexity of the
mechanics, such problems happen all the time. With 65mm, with Kubrick at the
helm – he was so unbelievably fussy – I had to rely on the common sense and
the friendship of his camera crew people. Cameramen as an example of this,
the cameraman on "2001: A Space Odyssey" -
TH: - was Geoffrey Unsworth.
Sir Sydney: Yes. Geoffrey was one of the nicest people you could ever
imagine...and so indeed was Johnny Alcott – who was like a whizz-kid because
of his longtime association with Kubrick. I would think that Johnny probably
was permanently on Kubrick’s staff...he probably got a regular wage – not a
Lighting Cameraman’s wage, when they were not actually shooting, but I can’t
remember Johnny doing anything much for anyone except Kubrick in his latter
days. And then the poor fellow had a heart attack and died very young, like
40, that kind of age.
TH: He did "Greystoke", didn’t he?
Sir Sydney: He did "Greystoke", yes –
TH: That looked beautiful in Super 35 –
Sir Sydney: Yes, you’re absolutely right – yes, wonderful music on "Greystoke"
as well. Didn’t do much business – I thought it was a fascinating story, and
I thought the actor, who played the difficult main part where he’s hopping
about like an ape [Chuckles] – I thought he was excellent!
TH: Christopher Lambert -
Sir Sydney: Yes –
TH: How many years did they shoot "2001"? More than two years, wasn’t
it?
Sir Sydney: Was it?
TH: I think so –
Sir Sydney: I don’t know – and I don’t know where I could look that up
because it’s not a normally required statistic –
TH: There are many books explaining the background -
Sir Sydney: Of course, a film like that – but if you said to me, “How long
did they take to shoot "Bunny Lake is Missing?"” – or you know, a
run-of-the-mill film, I don’t know where you would find that
statistic...unless you knew the production manager, or one of the camera
crew who had a good memory and he could say, “Oh yeah, we were out in
so-and-so and we were there about 6 weeks, and then we did 3 weeks back in
the studio”. So you then knew they shot it in a normal 9 or 10 weeks. But
extraordinary films – you might also know of some of those – like it’s
legendary how long it look to shoot "Eyes Wide Shut", and how much it
must have cost Warner Bros...they just sent the money, on demand, as it
were.
TH: Can I finalise "2001" by asking, "2001" had a lot of
special photography, well done in 65mm by the special effects team – do you
have any recollection of their cameras, because they might not be Panavision
cameras, they could be any 65mm camera –
Sir Sydney: I think they were all Panavision cameras – it was a very big
assignment for us – I would think they had about five cameras. And
Panavision’s 65mm cameras, they even had a hand-holdable 400 foot loading
version – a 65mm camera that went on your shoulder – and they had a kind of
a midway camera – by that I mean it was a 1000 foot camera, but it wasn’t
blimped, so you couldn’t use it if you wanted to get sync sound. But it
probably went up to a higher speed than the normal sync camera would – a
normal sync camera is made to shoot at 24 or 25 frames – it might go up –
you might be able to put a wild motor on it, like a Mitchell – and speed it
up to 30 frames, but you couldn’t go at 120 frames say, with a Mitchell BNC,
because all the design was into making it a quiet camera. And you couldn’t
put a motor on it that was going to want to turn everything over – all the
gears were fine, and tuned, but not designed to go at high speed.
Panavision had this 1000ft kind of standard camera that I think went up to
120 frames per second – which is not ultra-high speed, but it’s five times
normal speed. When shooting anything at sea they always overcrank – instead
of 24, they shoot at about 36 frames, because it smooths out the movement of
the sea. If they were in a tank, and they’d got some wave machine creating
disturbance in the water, if you shot that disturbance at high speed, it
then had all the more effect of being the real thing, particularly with
models – so that if you had a model of the Titanic and it was actually only
30 feet long, over-cranking the Titanic going through the water in the tank
in Malta made it look bigger [Laughs] – made it feel bigger. So Panavision
had two or three maybe of those versatile midway cameras which the special
effects people would invariably use. And it was probably designed also to go
at normal speed, high speed, to overcrank, and because you were not worrying
about how much noise it made – because you weren’t attempting to shoot sound
at the same time – it was an ideal camera for the special effects unit, for
the action unit, for the aerial unit – whatever.
So Panavision – and I’m just estimating this – it would probably be able in
my day to service two full-scale 65mm feature films, together with some
ancillary cameras for special effects, etc. just as you said. I think the
Special Effects man (on "2001") was a chap called Wally Veevers...and
he was a great techie and a really nice man.
One of the problems Tom, is that nearly everybody’s died now! I look at the
credits rolling up, and I used to know person to person pretty well. This
will sound terribly pompous, but I knew pretty well all the British
cameramen – any credit that went up, and said “Gil Taylor”, I knew Gil, I
knew all about him, I knew how difficult he was, I knew what a good
cameraman he was, and I knew many of the American cameramen. I didn’t know
them all personally, but I got to know them because I saw so many movies,
and I would know for example in the great MGM days, starting with before the
War, and going on to what – 15 years after the War – they were the big
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer days. And so I would notice that their Senior Cameraman
seemed to be a guy called Joe Ruttenberg...and I think he maybe is still the
only Cameraman that’s won three Oscars, for Colour – or maybe not just for
Colour...there was another one, called James Wong Howe, whose grandfather
came to Los Angeles as a Chinese labourer, building the railway that ran
from the East Coast to the West Coast. He came over with thousands of
Chinese – they called them Coolies – his grandfather was a Coolie – but
having reached San Francisco (it was actually from Chicago – Chicago to San
Francisco) – I think they called it the Union Pacific Railway, where they
built it from both ends – you’re a railway man, you know much more about
this than me – but the rivet where they joined the two ends of track in the
mid-West, ran a thousand miles in either direction, it was a golden set of
rivets they used to mark their achievement –
TH: Spike – The Golden Spike
Sir Sydney: The Golden Spike – yes it’s not rivets, it’s spikes! Well, James
Wong Howe’s grandfather was a labourer, and the reason that San Francisco
has such a huge Chinese population to this day is because all those
labourers were allowed to apply for permanent citizenship. And why would
they go back to China when they could stay in America, marry, have their
children, and have their children educated to the same standard as
non-Chinese, non-minority children? And it applied also, as you probably
know, to the Japanese – it was a bit later with the Japanese, and I don’t
think that they came as labourers to build railways...but they came in large
numbers, and first of all it was part of the ethic of Japanese life that
whether you can afford any luxuries in life at all, it didn’t matter – the
first thing was to educate your children. And I can tell you that for the
immigrant Jewish families, it was the same. Even if you could only afford to
give a really good education to one child, invariably the eldest son, if
there wasn’t enough money – if the father was slaving away at a sewing
machine, they would do their best to educate at least one child and get him
a qualification. From then on, that poor innocent fellow would be expected
to support all the brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and everybody
else, because he was the one who got the education (Laughs) – I’m talking
Tom about a hundred years ago, or more. My grandparents came to this country
about 1860...and my father was one of five. Four only survived – in other
words, one died in infancy – the eldest one became a Chartered Accountant.
None of the others did, but they all got on their feet in different ways.
But the one who had a profession, and was educated – had what we call higher
education – not University, but accountancy – accountancy college – that was
the eldest one. But the Japanese were such wonderful technicians...and in
Bob Gottschalk’s day – sorry, I have to tell you a little story about this –
Bob found that the best people in his design department were of Japanese
family origin.
| |
• Go to next chapter:
Takuo
Miyagishima, Robert Gottschalk and a 20:1 Zoom
• Go to previous chapter: Dickie
Dickenson, David Lean and British Quota Film
• Go to full text: Sir Sydney
Samuelson and Real Picture Quality
• Go to home page: A Conversation with Sir
Sydney Samuelson
| |
| | Go: back - top - back issues - news index Updated
28-07-24 | |
|