AS11-44-6550 and AS17-134-20384

[JayUtah]

Edited to add: Looking at it some more, I think the mirrors are all carefully but only slightly out of alignment, just enough to keep the camera out of the shot.

Yes, that's how they did it.  The back wall mirror segments are both angled to camera-left.  The last two segments of the side wall mirrors are also angled to camera-left.  The reflect the space to the camera's left, which is presumably part of the dressed set.  It also looks to me like the second-farthest segment on the side wall has also been tipped forward.  The seam with its neighbor is inconsistent.  You would want to tweak the mirror angle as best you can to keep the reflected perspective lines consistent -- e.g., the cove lighting.  For the back wall segments you can see they weren't really that concerned; the reflected lines are wildly off.

Edit:
The actors I've talked to who worked with Kubrick say he was very much a cinematographer and not always much of an actor's director.  Apparently he had a tendency to frustrate actors by obsessing over the visual aspects of a shot and give them no direction whatsoever.  Then when he did his famous multiple takes, they'd never know if it was a retake because of some visual thing or because of what they were doing or not doing.  In talking with Kubrick's people, I got the impression that Kubrick just hired actors he knew were good and could work without a lot of direction.  I can see how that frustrates actors because film acting is a technical pursuit, unlike stage acting.  Film acting is much more about nuances in performance while doing things like maintaining eyelines and hitting your marks.

[JayUtah]

Thanks. I do sometimes wish it hadn't been a one-off job for me. It was hard work, but a lot of fun.

Work on set is typically a one-off for me too.  As I said elsewhere, I'm doing a lot more conceptual design and fabrication these days and I'm considering it as fun retirement career.  (I've discovered that people who have actually worked on spacecraft designs are somewhat in demand for designing fictional ones.)  We have three full-time full-scale production companies in my area.  The kid who played Bobby Brady is a camera operator for one of them.  But many of the stage crews I work with are also grips.  They do film grip work during the day and then run stage shows at night.  I have yet to figure out how they do it.

But yes, grips are the hardest-working people in Hollywood.  You hear actors complain about early-morning call times for makeup and such.  But that's what time the grips get up every day.  And they have to stay late too.  The Aquabats! sometimes shoot their show in my neighborhood and some of their grips are people I've worked with for years.  They score me stuff from the craft services table.

That's why I find it very difficult to imagine that all the Apollo visuals were shot on a stage and not one single grip has come forward over the decades to brag about working on the set.

[Sus_pilot]

A great example, for the layman, of the amount of work in a production is in C.B. deMille's scenes in Sunset Boulevard. Wilder and Paramount used the working set of Samson and Delilah as a film-within-a-film.  The sheer number of bodies  is impressive. 

To Jay's point, all of these people consider themselves at least craftsmen, if not artists, and take great pride in their work.  Someone, somewhere, would have said something if Apollo had been faked on a soundstage.

[JayUtah]

The reboot series of Battlestar Galactica used something like that, often combined with an unsteady frame that pans back and forth as if "searching" to get the spacecraft in centre frame.

Yes, it's a shooting style that seeks a particular brand of honesty, as if the shots weren't really planned and you're watching raw footage from a journalist cameraman who was just trying to get something on tape that he could edit later.

The style quotation is intentional; Battlestar Galactica contracted the same visual effects studio that did Firefly.  In the early 2000s the style was fresh and groundbreaking, and not a lot of people were doing it.  Thankfully the style got quickly overused and burned out early, at least for live action.  I think some people were just using the dynamic camera because it was stylish, not because it conveyed the look that was appropriate to the work.

The reason it worked early on is because previous effects shots had to be carefully planned.  The hero models weighed hundreds of pounds and the photography required multiple passes -- beauty pass, internal lighting pass, shadow pass.  These passes had to be repeated frame-perfect by the motion-control rigs of the time, which had limited degrees of freedom.  With limited angles and motions, you pretty much had to telegraph what to look at and when.  And from an editorial standpoint, the photography around these VFX shots had to match the style, otherwise it becomes a jarring contrast.  As ordinary cinematography became more fluid, the locked-down look of effects shots started to lose its appeal and its convincing power.

In Battlestar Galactica, the "camera" shakes with the concussion of guns firing and nearby explosions, just as you'd expect it to.  The camera isn't sure what to look at, as if the action were unfolding chaotically.  Sometimes shots are deliberately set up with cruddy lighting such as strong backlights and lens scatter.  In the space exterior tracking shots you get the idea that the pilot of the camera ship is struggling to follow the subject.  In other words, the camera behaves as if it's part of the shot in ways that a real camera would be part of the shot.

But yes, I also agree Zoic Studios went overboard in places and overused some of the things they could do.  But it was part of the overall effect that, according to some, made Battlestar Galactica the best example of modern television production.

[JayUtah]

To Jay's point, all of these people consider themselves at least craftsmen, if not artists, and take great pride in their work.  Someone, somewhere, would have said something if Apollo had been faked on a soundstage.

Our grips for the National Geographic documentary were explicitly taken from the grip crew for From the Earth to the Moon, precisely for that expertise.  They wouldn't shut up about it, and I didn't really want them to.

The outward appearance of the typical grip would lead you wrongly to conclude that he was little more than hired muscle.  He is not.  Not only do they consider themselves both artists and craftsmen, they think of themselves as a sort of high priesthood of it.  And they constantly demonstrate it.  The typical grip wears outdoor hiking shoes (soft soles, good tread, and strong ankle support), jeans and a T-shirt (very utilitarian), a baseball cap (often from Chapman -- I think they must give those hats out for free), and a well-provisioned tool belt with the ubiquitous roll of gaffer tape.  They have to be familiar with a wide range of mechanical and electrical equipment.  They have to fabricate stuff on short notice in record time, and that fabrication may have to hold or protect equipment worth tens of thousands of dollars.  (A used 35mm Arri body runs you about $40,000).  Quite a few of them also have rigger's certificates.

As an engineer, I'm awed by the simple vehicle known as the "grip truck."  It's typically a generic 20,000-lb truck whose cargo section is a mobile workshop, and it's typically towing a location generator.  Well-organized and packed to the gills, it provides practically everything you'd need to build anything.  Give me two grips and their truck, and I think we could build a working flying machine on location anywhere in the world.

Grips are well aware of their key role in the success of a motion picture production, and they take an enormous amount of pride in simply getting things to work smoothly.

[gillianren]

The actors I've talked to who worked with Kubrick say he was very much a cinematographer and not always much of an actor's director.  Apparently he had a tendency to frustrate actors by obsessing over the visual aspects of a shot and give them no direction whatsoever.  Then when he did his famous multiple takes, they'd never know if it was a retake because of some visual thing or because of what they were doing or not doing.  In talking with Kubrick's people, I got the impression that Kubrick just hired actors he knew were good and could work without a lot of direction.  I can see how that frustrates actors because film acting is a technical pursuit, unlike stage acting.  Film acting is much more about nuances in performance while doing things like maintaining eyelines and hitting your marks.

From what I've read, Kubrick explicitly wanted to wear all emotion out of his actors, so that's why you'd get literally dozens of takes.  He'd also emotionally abuse his actors.  He was a brilliant technician, but "not an actor's director" is kind of an understatement.  It's why I can always tell that HBs don't know anything about Kubrick when they say he directed the Apollo missions--they would have looked very different.

[JayUtah]

From what I've read, Kubrick explicitly wanted to wear all emotion out of his actors, so that's why you'd get literally dozens of takes.

I've heard that too.  I've also heard Kubrick say he himself wasn't sure what he wanted, but he knew what he didn't want.  That would lead to doing it over and over again until something clicked.

He'd also emotionally abuse his actors.

In all fairness I hear both copious praise and criticism from actors he's directed.

It's why I can always tell that HBs don't know anything about Kubrick when they say he directed the Apollo missions--they would have looked very different.

And Kubrick would have pissed off somebody badly enough for them to blab.

[Sus_pilot]

And Kubrick would have pissed off somebody badly enough for them to blab.

I don't remember if it was Playboy, but one national magazine, after interviewing Kubrick just prior to the release of 2001 and not getting a thing out of him about the movie, published two full pages that had nothing but the repeated phrase (including the slug line):  "We just spent eight hours interviewing Stanley Kubrick!"

[gillianren]

I've heard that too.  I've also heard Kubrick say he himself wasn't sure what he wanted, but he knew what he didn't want.  That would lead to doing it over and over again until something clicked.

Which . . . I don't know.  Just indicates to me that the story aspect of filmmaking really didn't interest him much.

In all fairness I hear both copious praise and criticism from actors he's directed.

I'm just saying, you know, Shelley Duvall praises him now, but she was actually losing her hair from stress during The Shining.  He was great to the kid, but not so much the adults.  And the reason Alex has a snake in Clockwork Orange is that Malcolm McDowell was afraid of snakes.

And Kubrick would have pissed off somebody badly enough for them to blab.

And for "somebody," I'd suggest "probably Buzz."  Or "quite a lot of people."  Besides, the filming style of Apollo doesn't feel like Kubrick!

[Luke Pemberton]

And Kubrick would have pissed off somebody badly enough for them to blab.

Quite. The Kubrick argument rather defeats the compartmentalisation argument too. I do wonder if the HBs have ever seen the credits to a film and the sheer number of individuals involved in a production. So were they in on the secret too?

[JayUtah]

Which . . . I don't know.  Just indicates to me that the story aspect of filmmaking really didn't interest him much.

I think that's why he always adapted someone else's story.  Maybe he had no interest in thinking up original stories, but he recognized how important it was to start with a good one.  But on the other hand he wrote or co-wrote all or most of his screenplays.  That's generally not something I'd expect from someone uninterested in the story.  I think his interest in story and character was sophisticated enough, but it didn't conform to how others developed stories.  While we think of Stanley Kubrick as a visual artist, I have to concede that those who worked with him appreciated his writing talent.

Much of contemporary western cinema sort of slaps you in the face with the typical elements of plot, conflict, and characterizations.  I think Kubrick wanted to leave a lot of that ambiguous so that each viewer would find it in his own way.  So you can consider a Kubrick film to be a meticulously crafted exercise in ambiguity.  He scrupulously avoided interpreting his own films. 

I'm just saying, you know, Shelley Duvall praises him now, but she was actually losing her hair from stress during The Shining.

Yeah, some of the behind-the-scenes stuff has her dropping f-bombs all over.  But see, that was just more of Kubrick's genius (wink, wink).  Her character was supposed to be coming unraveled, so why not unravel her for real?

I think that's why some of the actors think more kindly of him in retrospect.  Part of it is likely just the nostalgia of remembering their collaboration with a celebrated director, especially now that he's passed away.  And part of it may be realizing what he did in order to extract from them a performance worthy of their talent and of his film, even if it involved animosity and drove them nuts.

I think, despite his abusive approach, Kubrick genuinely respected his actors.  For some scenes in Dr. Strangelove, Kubrick knew that all he had to do was point the camera at Peter Sellers and hold on for dear life.  Especially in the Dr. Strangelove character, Sellers would deliver these brilliantly eccentric performances, probably partly improvised.  That's why you see the rest of the cast basically doing nothing in those scenes.  Their job was to be human props and avoid interfering with the magic that Kubrick and Sellers were casting.  Kubrick wrote his screenplays but didn't always stick to them.  I think he believed that no matter how much you wrote and rehearsed, the real work happened with the camera rolling.  One other interpretation of his infamous shooting ratio is that he wanted his actors to get bored enough with the rote elements of the scene that they were motivated towards spontaneity.

I think Kubrick trusted people, but only after you proved that you were on his wavelength.  Kubrick gave Douglas Trumbull carte blanche for the stargate sequences in 2001, which probably led to more LSD consumption worldwide than any other single factor.  And as I said earlier, he didn't give a lot of specific direction to his actors; he worked out general themes and concepts with them in collaboration prior to rehearsals, but he didn't direct the final performance in detail.  He hired and fired actors as the production developed.  I'd interpret that as an ensemble-theater approach to story and character.  But more importantly it establishes that if he was yelling at you, then he knew the performance he wanted from you was somewhere inside you.  If he didn't think you could deliver what he wanted, he just fired you.

And for "somebody," I'd suggest "probably Buzz."  Or "quite a lot of people."

...or everyone.  At least every astronaut.  All the astronauts I've met are ruthlessly pragmatic people who have little tolerance for mind games and foofaraw.  The image of Buzz slugging Stanley Kubrick instead of Bart Sibrel does make me smile a bit.  But I'd have to single out Pete Conrad as the astronaut most likely to respond to 70 takes for a scene with an entirely uncensored tirade of f-bombs and similarly well-articulated profanity.  I honestly cannot see Conrad getting along at all with Stanley Kubrick, and probably coming to blows with him.

My correspondence with Anthony Frewin, Kubrick's long-time assistant, has been most enlightening.  Frewin's general take on the whole idea of Kubrick directing the hoaxed Moon landing films is exactly that those people obviously don't know Kubrick very well at all.  And that's not surprising.  Many people clearly know of him, but only a comparative few knew him and worked with him.

NASA was enthusiastic about 2001.  But there's a difference between enthusiasm over the finished product and tolerance of the means by which Kubrick produced it.  I don't see NASA being especially tolerant of Kubrick's maverick style and controlling personality.

Besides, the filming style of Apollo doesn't feel like Kubrick!

Agreed, but what does Kubrick feel like?  Even Kubrick didn't know what his style was.  He simply approached each project with a sort of intuition.  This is something I debate endlessly with other film fans.  Kubrick is very much "I know it when I see it," but you can't easily list the characteristics of a prototypical Kubrick film.  In practically every category of ways in which you can talk about film, Kubrick exhibited surprising variation.

We should probably ask LunarOrbit to move this to a less Apollo-hoax-related section of the forum since we've ventured ever so far afield.  Interesting discussion, but probably off-topic.

[ka9q]

The actors I've talked to who worked with Kubrick say he was very much a cinematographer and not always much of an actor's director.  Apparently he had a tendency to frustrate actors by obsessing over the visual aspects of a shot and give them no direction whatsoever.

So then how did he get along with his cinematographers if he's doing their jobs?

But I'd have to single out Pete Conrad as the astronaut most likely to respond to 70 takes for a scene with an entirely uncensored tirade of f-bombs and similarly well-articulated profanity.

Somewhere I read that Conrad begged for a tape delay on the A/G audio. The NASA PR guys held firm and I don't think Conrad slipped even once during his actual missions.

I think, despite his abusive approach, Kubrick genuinely respected his actors.

Including George C Scott? There's the famous story about Kubrick conning him into his over-the-top performance by promising him that he wouldn't use it, and Scott vowing never to work for Kubrick again. I wonder if Kubrick was deliberately lying, or if he changed his mind after seeing Scott's performance. I think Scott/Turgidson as a young boy in a general's body ("...frying chickens in the barnyard!") is the highlight of the movie, or at least one of its highlights. I can't imagine Turgidson any other way.

Speaking of Kubrick and his alleged direction of the Apollo lunar EVAs, somewhere I read him comment on the impossibility of accurately reproducing sunlight with artificial lighting on a large set. But I can't remember where. Has anybody else seen this? When I saw this I was already citing the lighting as one of the most compelling aspects of the Apollo footage (especially the 16mm films from the moving LRV) and being able to quote Kubrick himself say the same thing could be very helpful.

[JayUtah]

So then how did he get along with his cinematographers if he's doing their jobs?

Actually very well, since he spoke their language and was, essentially, one of them.  As do many directors, Stanley Kubrick worked only with a handful of carefully chosen cinematographers who shared his vision.

There's the famous story about Kubrick conning [George C. Scott] into his over-the-top performance by promising him that he wouldn't use it, and Scott vowing never to work for Kubrick again.

I don't think that's out of character for Kubrick.  Yet another explanation for the infamous shooting ratio is that Kubrick considered the early takes for any shot merely to be filmed rehearsals.  It is reported he felt like actors had a different mindset in rehearsals than when shooting, so he blurred the distinction between a rehearsal and a take.  And that's coming more into vogue these days, again because the recording medium is cheap and shooting ratios have climbed.  So it would have been entirely in character for him to say, "Give me a couple of over-the-top takes, George, and then we'll settle into it."

And it would have been in character for Kubrick secretly to have planned to use those takes all along.  When I say I think Kubrick respected his actors, I mean that in a way that doesn't preclude him tricking them into giving him a performance they didn't necessarily agree with themselves, but which is better overall for the picture.  So I wouldn't cry foul if you cited this as an example of disrespect.  And I wouldn't begrudge any actor who refused to work with Kubrick after being treated that way.  But whatever G.C. Scott thought of Kubrick and of the character he portrayed in Dr. Strangelove, I think we all agree it's a masterful performance.  Kubrick did the right thing, and we give kudos to Scott for it, probably the way Kubrick intended.

I can't imagine Turgidson any other way.

The character works very much, right down to the compulsive gum-chewing.  The "fryin' chickens in the barnyard" scene works so well because Scott has so far to deflate at the very end of it.  Without Kubrick goading him to inflate it, I think it would lose effect.

Let's be honest:  none of the characters in Dr. Strangelove is particularly mainstream or credible on his face.  But the film works because it's a mulligan stew of comically misshapen people in a carefully seasoned narrative broth.  I had some friends over the other day and the topic of Sterling Hayden came up.  I played the famous scene from Dr. Strangelove (which none of the guests had seen) that ends in "...to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."  I think it was a great scene, well acted by Hayden and well lit by Kubrick.

Speaking of Kubrick and his alleged direction of the Apollo lunar EVAs, somewhere I read him comment on the impossibility of accurately reproducing sunlight with artificial lighting on a large set. But I can't remember where. Has anybody else seen this?

I'd like to find it too.

[BazBear]

I'm not sure how much of this is apocryphal, but I've read that in Strangelove, Sellers was originally slated to play Maj. Kong, and had worked hard with Terry Southern (one of the screenwriters and an American from the south) on getting down a southern U.S. accent. Before filming the bomber scenes, Sellers injured himself and couldn't move around in the cramped cockpit of the set (I guess he wasn't that keen on trying to pull off a fourth character in the film in any case), so they needed another actor. Supposedly John Wayne was offered the role, but he declined it because it was too pinko or some such, so they went with Slim Pickens. I simply can't imagine that film without Slim Pickens.

[ka9q]

All one really needs is geometry to show the impossibility of artificially lighting a huge set as the sun would. But hearing it from Kubrick -- who supposedly did just that for NASA -- is the icing on the cake.

I've also heard that story about Sellers originally playing Kong, but I don't think I've ever seen it authoritatively confirmed. And yeah, I can't imagine anybody but Pickens in the role.