"A Hard Day's Night" (1964)

Below: the fab four on the run from screaming tweens in "A Hard Day's Night" (1964)

Good ole' bewildered Paul.

In 1964, at the height of Beatlemania, Richard Lester directs the fab four in their first feature film, "A Hard Day's Night", and what a charmingly clumsy, entertaining, and musically satisfying romp it is. I had seen a decent chunk of the picture nearly ten years ago at my buddy's band's studio, and viewing it a second time confirmed all the delightful, ahead of its time aspects that I had originally picked up.

The second time around, being even more familiar with the Beatle's history and their work, I was initially pleasantly surprised and impressed with their acting ability. Granted, they were just being themselves, but trust me, when you're put on the spot, surrounded by crew and under harsh studio lights, and the director yells, "Action!", even that isn't as easy as one might think. I don't know if others feel the same (as they probably dug Lennon's droll, deadpan Brit wit), but I felt the star of the show was Mr. McCartney. His boyish, goofy charm and overall energy and charisma was a joy to watch, and I was very impressed. Not a lot of members of a band that become the biggest in the world can pull that off on the big screen. These guys were truly special, no doubt.

In regards to the film being ahead of its time, just compare "Hard Days" to just about any other picture that had been released in '64. By and large, other films of the time just weren't shot in quite the same way, and the overall "speed" of the picture in general is more akin to what we're accustomed to today. Three major filmmaking aspects: cinematography, lighting, and editing, are what made the film really standout and take it just slightly ahead of the curve at the time. The pacing, rate of succession of shots, artful camera angles, use of the zoom, are all examples of why. I also noticed a couple scenes where a helicam was used. I believe that that and the zoom are facets of the art that haven't been commonplace until the end of the decade, into the seventies. The first quarter of the picture, which takes place on a train, gives you a sense of claustrophobia, with the quarters being tight and the shots just as so, with many closeups (you don't see that many a succession of closeups in an early 60's film) and canted angles. Other techniques I picked up were scenes that were undercranked (for fast motion) and overcranked (for slow motion). The musical numbers in the film are definitely a precursor to what we have known since the early 80's: the music video. The intercutting of the band members playing (replete with extreme closeups) to gyrating girls and starstruck fans dancing excitedly are the rudimentary aspects of a music video. I was pleased with not only the quality of these early Beatle's songs, but of the sound quality during these scenes in general.

"Hard Days Night" would not only more than please Beatles fans, but of any fan of film and music in general. It set the stage for the customary music videos to come, and even the now all familiar "rockumentary". The picture has a joyously chaotic and relentless energy to it, with a wit and sharp humor that felt fresh to me even today. "Hard Days" doesn't feel dated, despite its subject matter from a dated era and with it obviously being over forty years old. I dug the clever, humorous writing, the amiable charisma of the band members, and its capturing of that epochal time, at the peak of Beatlemania. I certainly recommend.

Stanley Kubrick's Photography-Aesthetic Analysis

There have been many great cinematographers and film directors with a sharp photographic eye for lighting and composition. I have always felt that Stanley Kubrick was a cut above the rest. He could photograph a scene that is lighted with dull, mundane overhead fluorescents and manage to make it look interesting and original. I have always said that if you start playing a Kubrick picture, I defy you to take your eyes off it. I know I can't.

Below is a still from "The Killing" (1956). This shot is a prototypical, hard example of chiaroscuro (even bordering on cameo) lighting. The illumination is selective, the background predominantly dark, and there is a high contrast between the lighted areas and their attached shadows, accentuating and intensifying the noir-ish, gangster vibe of the picture. The harsh, angled lighting further illustrates the three dimensionality of the subjects, ie, the arm of the man far left of frame, with the very fast falloff on the creases of his jacket.

This is an early photograph from Kubrick. It employs chiaroscuro lighting in the vein of Rembrandt; the lighting is again, selective, and generally low-key. The background is illuminated, but the fairly high contrast between light and shadow creates a density and three-dimensionality about the woman standing in lingerie in the foreground, and the woman sitting at the desk in the middleground. The source of illumination is directional, making many lighted areas of the woman abruptly convert into dense attached shadow.

Below is a classic image from "The Shining" (1980). Note that the hallway is fully lit and just shy of high-key; opposite of what you'd expect from a horror movie. Kubrick's ability to successfully defy normal conventions and break new ground in such an understated manner is evident in this film. The scene is brightly lit, yet the twin's faces manage to have a fast falloff, particularly on the eyes, giving them a ghostly, unsettling appearance. Kubrick proved here with his adaptation of "The Shining", that subjects in a horror picture do not always have to be done up in a classically macabre manner and lit low-key to be disturbing.

This is another early one from Stanley's excursions with Look Magazine in the 40's. The photograph has an angular, yet predominantly horizontal composition. The placement of human subjects naturally leads the eye from left to right. As it is quite dense on the left portion of the frame (headed by the bold, heavily shadowed waiter in the foreground) the well lit chef to the right of frame balances it out, almost providing a reverse value framing for the folks sitting at the table. The key light in the shot is definitely the prominent and driving light source, with very little effect from any back or fills.

This is a still from Kubrick's breakthrough feature, "Paths of Glory" (1957), which is a good display of a deep focus shot with an ideal potential for a rack focus. Stanley always liked to use a long lens to shallow the depth of field (in my films, I zoom in quite a bit to essentially the same effect) which gives everything a flatter, painting-like look. Again, Kubrick's photography is analogous to an artist painting a canvas. His canvas was the camera frame, and his means of painting in it was the meticulous manipulation of light and shadow, field depth, and of course, the positioning of the subjects. Kirk Douglas's focus can easily be pulled here to the soldier behind him, left of frame, and pulled right back to Kirk; a basic, prototypical setup for pull/rack focusing.

Below, is a still from "A Clockwork Orange" (1971), and a decent example of silhouette lighting, in which the background is fully lit and the subjects in front of it aren't lit at all. As a result, the features of the gang of troublemakers cannot be made out, as they appear as mostly dense shadows. And, since the strong light source is coming from behind, long, dense cast shadows are created by the subjects, stemming from their feet in the midground, extending all the way to (and way past) the foreground.

Kubrick was a master of the art of visual symmetry. This shot, from Kubrick's epic scifi masterpiece "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968), is a fine example of this. The negative/positive values of the white and black portions of the ship hull create a forced and archetypal one-point perspective, and its lines literally shoot out at you from the octagonal hatch that they begin from. And the protagonist's placement at the very center, almost one step ahead of midground, balances out this symmetry perfectly.

In this early shot of Stanley's from his Look days, there is much leading room from the jaded woman on the left. If it weren't for her large message written on the wall, this would have left the photo with tremendous negative space, in turn making it appear unbalanced and dull.

Back to "Paths of Glory". This is a wonderful shot because it employs much of the lovely craft and aspects of photography. The man is framed a medium close up, fairly left of frame, and with a decent amount of head room. This creates the sense of the space, the vastness and openness of the room. We can tell that the ceiling is very high, in that the soldiers in the mid and background have a tremendous amount of space above their heads. The weight of the shot, in regards to the man in the foreground, is balanced out nicely by the cluster of men to the right of frame in the mid ground. The other factor that further communicates the epicness of the space in the size of the room, is Kubrick's use of the short lens. With a short lens, you get a very deep depth of field; the subject is highly in focus and very separated from the background, and in turn gives it a much more three dimensional look (as opposed to the other shot of Kirk Douglas from earlier). This shot could also be an example of Rembrandt lighting. The background is lit, but the lighting is more selective and not completely omnipresent and evenly distributed. The attached shadows on the man are mostly transparent, and in some areas, there is fairly fast falloff (particularly in the man's eyes and under his nose). You can tell that the main light source (the key light) comes from the front of the man and slightly above, and there is enough fill to render all areas visible. Overall, there is a density and volume here, and most of all, a broad sense of depth.

Below: simply a great, classic, symmetrical closeup from "2001".

Stanley Kubrick-the Photographer

Most people recognize the late great Stanley Kubrick as the obstinately meticulous, reclusive film director responsible for cinematic classics such as "The Shining", "A Clockwork Orange", and "2001: A Space Odyssey". What most people don't know is Kubrick's roots in photography. In the 1940's, the young New Yorker developed a near genius affinity for chess (becoming quite the little hustler) and subsequently, still photography, after receiving a Graflex camera as a gift from his father. He soon grabbed the attention of Look Magazine, after selling some of his photos to the company. Stanley subsequently became an apprentice photographer for the magazine, and within no time, promoted to a full-time staff photographer.

Below: A still from "Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" (1964)

Kubrick's work as a photographer ultimately led him to directing films, and anyone who knows his work, knows that the imagery in his films are unique and unparalleled. Kubrick's canvas, is what ultimately shows up within the frame. His roots in still photography are written all over his work. Once he made a name for himself, he was able to attain great, and eventually (by "2001" in '67) full artistic control over his films, and it shows in the overall look, editing (he was one of the few film directors in the history of the medium to have final cut), meticulous pacing, and shot composition. Below, is a B&W still from "The Shining" (1980), from the infamous hotel hallway shot of the Grady Twin ghosts. His talents as a photographer, in regards to his ability to light and compose his subjects and environment within a camera frame to create such simple, yet brilliantly startling images, is undeniable, and one of the reasons he is among the greats of filmmaking.

Below: Stanley doing what he does best