The Insane Planning That Went Into Full Metal Jacket’s Unique Cinematography
► ►►Try MUBI Free for 30 Days: mubi.com/cinematyler
* With the support of Creative Europe - MEDIA Programme of the European Union *
In this video on the cinematography of Full Metal Jacket, we take a look at Kubrick’s unique lighting process, how he used models of the sets to prepare for shooting, the meticulous camera movement and composition, as well as a look at the cinematography of the Barracks Set and Pyle’s Death scene.
BONUS AUDIO [Patreon-Exclusive]: bit.ly/3hzDRYz
BONUS PDF [Movie Location Trivia] ($1): gum.co/gtmFm
BONUS PDF [FMJ Trivia] ($1): bit.ly/2FLftD4
*Free for $5 Patrons!
Support this channel on Patreon: / cinematyler
Twitter: / cinematyler
Facebook: / cinematyler
#Kubrick #FullMetalJacket
Sources:
[FMJ Diary] Full Metal Jacket Diary by Matthew Modine - www.fullmetaljacketdiary.com/
Behind-The-Scenes Photos by Matthew Modine
Cinephilia & Beyond - Run Through the Jungian: Stanley Kubrick’s ‘Full Metal Jacket’, a Phenomenological Treatise on War - bit.ly/3fconoP
[AC] Interview with Douglas Milsome by Ron Magrid - American Cinematographer (Sep ‘87)
imgur.com/a/r8lyO
Transcribed in cinephiliabeyond.org/full-met...
[Milsome Interview] Cinematographers on Cinematography: bit.ly/3i6zO4X
[Siskel] Candidly Kubrick, by Gene Siskel, 1987 From Chicago Tribune 21 June 1987.
[theultimaterabit] Matthew Modine Shares Stories About the Making of ‘Full Metal Jacket’ - bit.ly/3wBiyd9
[Memphis Belle Wiki] bit.ly/3r3XRpb
[Movie Geeks] Douglas Milsome Interview - bit.ly/3AUKPPb
[Peta Pixel] Don McCullin - bit.ly/2U1I4Lv
[Henderson's Film Industries] bit.ly/3wA3jBn
[Robert Capa Wiki] bit.ly/3kezvHQ
Clips:
Stanley Kubrick's Boxes (2008 dir. Jon Ronson)
Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures (2001 dir. Jan Harlan)
Kubrick Remembered (2014 dir. Gary Khammar)
Dr. Strangelove (1964 dir. Stanley Kubrick)
Eyes Wide Shut (1999 dir. Stanley Kubrick)
A Clockwork Orange (1971 dir. Stanley Kubrick)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968 dir. Stanley Kubrick)
Barry Lyndon (1975 dir. Stanley Kubrick)
The Shining (1980 dir. Stanley Kubrick)
Making ‘The Shining’ (1980 dir. Vivian Kubrick)
Music
Artlist.io
8:10 _They could only shoot when the sky was overcast_ ...but as they were filming on location in Britain, they were able to shoot every single day.
My friend went to London for 3 weeks and he didn't see the sun for all 3 of them.
@@nobody-tj1mv London's problem is more pollution than genuine clouds. True nonetheless though.
@@tipi5586 maybe 50 years ago
It's not that bad ! I'm sure the sun came out last year at least twice.
The uk sky looks like the uk sky if you know what I mean, sky's wrong doesn't look right
Kubrick being a photographer before getting into cinema is 100% one of the reasons his cinematography is so insane. Every shot could be an amazing still photo
"100% one of the reasons" - so like 100% of 20%? lol
I’ve always thought photography is way harder than doing video. If you’re a great photographer, you’ll probably be great with video - not so much vice versa.
Every frame’s a painting
I never knew Kubrick was a photographer before doing cinema, but yeah, it shows.
Yeah, definitely man, Kubrick being a photographer *first* is as integral to his film-work as being a *painter* first is to Lynch.
All your videos are so good that they could be extras on the Blu Rays of these films.
1000% yes!
This is an accurate statement
I could totally see them on criterion releases
It’s definitely possible, the now abandoned KZhead channel “Every Frame a Painting” has done documentary features for Criterion releases.
What is a blu ray?
To clarify about pushing the film stock: in the case of 5294, it was rated at 400 ASA, so they pushed a stop, by exposing it at 800. You then compensate in the development of the film, by leaving it in longer in the developer. This is also why it’s crucial to note on the film cans when film has been pushed, as if it’s developed incorrectly, it would be way too dark. This essentially allows you to get twice as much light, but with the downside being you get more grain, less saturation and blacks take on a greyer quality, all something Kubrick wanted.
This also has the side effect of shifting your dynamic range, favoring highlights. There’s also the opposite of pushing, which is pulling the film. This is when you purposefully overexpose the film and then light it less in the development, to compensate. This has the effect of giving you less grain and a dynamic range favoring shadows.
Kubrick used 5294 and got the grain he expected your brain is sexy
@@gabrielledebourg2487 I hope you teach because you explained that very concisely.
But to me (as a professional stills photographer of forty years), when you see the movie it doesn't look like it was shot "wide open" and it doesn't look like the stock was pushed. What am I missing? Especially (as far as I know) as cinematographers always shoot negative film and then create a "print" by making what I would call an "interneg" which loses you about half a stop and some dynamic range. Happy to be educated.
@@BoredOfBills totally agree. They shot everything wide open for “more depth of field” was stated in this video. Um that would be less depth of field. How did they get the razor sharp focus in foreground and back? I don’t think he used split diopters. An f1.4 50mm lens isn’t going to focus at 6 ft and infinity. Unless it’s stopped way down.
Spielberg said something similar about Kubrick when he visited the set of The Shining. He had a custom periscope made that he could put inside the model of the hotel and show people how it was supposed to look on camera with lighting, production design, etc. Apparently Steven was very impressed.
I was unsure if it was Kubrick that got the idea from Spielberg while he was preparing for 'Raiders', or vise versa.
Spielberg visited the set of the Shining?
@@reinforcedpenisstem yes they were friends. Kubrick gave the movie a.i to Spielberg. Kubrick had been working on it for years and he trusted Spielberg with bringing the vision to life. I don't care what anyone says that movie is great and the effects have aged so well.
Toilets facing each other is EXACTLY the latrine setup in the wooden barracks made in the 1940s at Fort Benning, GA and Fort McCoy, WI.
Kubrick made art in his own vision. An absolute master at his craft. As an audience member I appreciate his work ethic and attention to detail as it makes the overall experience of his movies so much more than what we get today with the garbage being made
When I was in boot camp, all of the toilets faced each other. They were separated by stall wall on the sides, but they had no doors. So you had to watch and be watched during a shit. You got used to it pretty quickly.
Ha! How many millions of us from draft days remember that toilet experience!
They only had toilets on one side of the room when I was at MCRDSD in '75, with side walls but no door.
I remember being in Basic Training, on an FTX and the outhouse just had like a plywood surface with toilet seats bolted to the holes cut out in the wood. For some reason, in that setting, it wasn't weird look another man in the eyes talking about our up coming hike doing our business. Lol.
That was probably the old barracks, all the newer barracks have them on both sides, in the last week we move to the old barracks on the other side of the parade deck and they has stalls only on one side
MCRDSD 1969 1Btn. Our heads were face to face, no bulkheads between "seats".
Even as a young kid I knew that this movie was different. I was shocked by it of course because I was only twelve but I loved the look of it. And the switch to Vietnam halfway through is like an entirely new movie. Still one of my favorites.
Vietnam was an entirely different world than what Americans left behind.
Perfect representation of drafting
8:50 Apparently, he also set random fires in a war zone that were sparse enough for actors, but large enough to light the scene. No one even thinks "that weird. Fires don't usually rage in a contained fashion in a warzone" because of how well it was set up.
This FMJ series is great and really insightful. I'd love to see a similar series for Eyes Wide Shut once your done with FMJ!
my favorite kubrick film ♥
Kubricks only flop even with a nude Nicole Kidman. lol
19:23 One thing I like about this particular scene is it gives you a feeling of following down an arrow. Not sure how to explain it, but as the camera moves with Hartman, the entire scene is moving with him and the camera is getting closer to not only him, but the focus of the point (being private Joker). I can picture a big arrow pointing to private Joker as the scene moves. Most directors would have either just moved the camera or zoomed or done a jump cut, but Kubric gives us multiple motions and they all come to a nice pin-point right at the end, like we're zeroing in on the target with Hartman. I also like the dolly work at the beginning when he's doing his introductions, following him around the entire barracks as if to say "I'm all encompassing, this is all me". I'm not well versed in the works of Kubric, but that's how I interoperate it :D
I remember seeing this film in the Cinema. The scene right after Private Pyle (sp?) utters the film's namesake - that transition with the next scene was so extreme that I won't ever forget it. You could hear a pin drop - the audience was in shock.
He was a photographer first. He wanted his movies to look like animated versions of his black and white journalism photos that he learned his craft on.
This is true. The content within any given composition of a shot is why we watch his films, not plot or character development; elements Stanley was not much interested in. This was why Stephen King disliked the adaptation of his book, and why the director received little recognition for his films by The Academy during his lifetime. Actually, we don’t “watch” Kubrick films so much as we “view” them.
@@kramalerav Totally. King should be recognized by his flair for character development, on the other hand. I’ve always greatly respected the both of them.
Every frame is a still photograph.
I just rewatched this movie for the thousandth time less than a month ago, but you have sparked the desire to see it again. It’s one of the “perfect” films
Some of those outdoor shots you showed while stating they were shot wide open seem to have a lot of the fore and background in focus, which indicates that the lens is stopped down. The plane of focus should be much more narrow if it's wide open.
I think that the lenses were telephoto so while wide open they were also far away so everything looks flat
@@benisrood Technically correct. But perception is a bit different if you have a wide angle the perceived depth field it larger because object are distorted and large and the background is perceived as further away. Telephoto lenses would compress the background and foreground thus eventuating any difference in focus
This. None of the outside shots are wide open by any definition. It's nonsense.
Also the hyper focal of those wide angle lenses would render everything in focus beyond that point.
This series is absolutely awesome and I would say Kubrick himself would be enthusiastic about its attention to detail and meticulous research. Well done, Tyler.
You are too kind! Thanks!
This is one of the most professional, informative documentaries of it's kind. Great job to all involved!
11:15 -- I elect to believe that these are actual 'behind the scenes' shots of the FMJ crew moving the bus-mounted lights to meet Kubrick's exacting requirements.
This has been one of my top five favourite movies for like 20 years now. Very well made video man!!
Didn't expect this deep dive into the actual cinematography of the movie. Great video!
Kubrick's films look so natural I never even considered what went into the lighting before. Thanks!
Super trivial correction: Lee filters makes 216. The Rosco equivalent is “Tough White”. A DP or cameraman is more likely to forget the exact nomenclature. They would just tell the grips, “cover those windows with 216”. When I gripped, we generally liked the Lee diffusion better because it was easier to identify by numbering. Full is 216, Half is 250, Quarter is 251. We still used Rosco Opal Frost for our thinnest diffusion.
😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
What do you do for a living?
1200 amps for lights? That is so big, it sounds like a misprint.
That's very interesting about the film stock and the apertures. The majority of the shots you showed were definitely stopped down to get pretty large DOF. Now I have to go watch the movie again to pick apart the apertures in every shot - thanks for that :)
Well most of the focal lengths were probably between 21mm and 35mm, so shooting wide open on them would still have plenty of DOF.
@@garrettschwindt7478 even so, unless they’re naturally very slow lenses, a lot of these shots are stopped down 100%
@@garrettschwindt7478 look at the shot at 8:16 for e.g. That looks to be around a 28mm. The subject is pretty close to us yet everything is in focus. That’s shooting at T8 at a minimum.
Should have said 28mm at the widest. Bit hard to tell with this composition but it’s not wider
@@garrettschwindt7478 But not that much DOF. That kind of DOF in the shots he referenced looked like they were on the higher range - both foreground and background had decent focus...so f11 at a minimum. Just not a lot of light from what was described...odd.
Kubrick never ceases to amaze. Genius through and through.
The toilets facing each other do, at least currently, face each other at MCRD San Diego. I remember this quite vividly because it took some getting used to taking a dump while facing another person. This of coarse became completely normal as time went by and full conversations would be had mid-poop.
That was really interesting and really shows how much Kubrick really took a lot of care into every little thing. Well done!
@CinemaTyler I worked for Stanley on FMJ. We were at Delta Sound and to aid Stanley in selecting individual frames to make publicity stills I had the answer print. Reel one was on a six plate Steenbeck. I was advancing the reel under Stanley's direction when he asked me to stop. I flipped the lever into reverse instantly snapping the print. It broke exactly on a frame break. Stanley was remarkably cool about it. He chuckled and said "I bet you never fo that again." I didn't.
This series has provided me with further insight on Full Metal Jacket (which I've seen more than once). I have also been enjoying the videos on Apocalypse Now which I haven't seen, but I don't feel has been spoiled for me (it's been a part of popular culture for so long now).
The "special viewfinder" you refer to @ 14:37 is known as a "director's viewfinder." They are fairly common and allow the user to adjust the focal length (zoom in, zoom out, wide angle, telephoto, etc.). Since Kubrick was a "gadget guy," perhaps he did have a "special" viewfinder which was slightly different from a standard director's viewfinder, but I would bet it was just a regular director's viewfinder. Anyway, this an excellent video, CinemaTyler -- keep up the good work.
A "Director's Viewfinder" is a small device with a FIXED LENS and an eyepiece. What Stanley had made, was a device which can accept the exact lenses that he would then put on the camera. The typical director's viewfinder can zoom in or out ,and give you wide an telephoto but that is not the same . Prime lenses, look completely different than a zoom lens, which makes what Stanley made, completely new. That's why HE had to have it made for HIM.
Your Kubrick videos are soooooooo well done. Super interesting, thoroughly researched and well put together. Thank you for making them. Kubrick was such an inspiring filmmaker for so many of us, thank you for sharing his stories and processes.
When I was younger I was in the army cadets, I stayed at Bassingbourn multiple times and I will say all of the people stationed there are very keen to mention/reference fmj at every possible opportunity.
Correction at 8:30 mate! If you keep the aperture wide open you have less depth of field and a narrow focal zone; so less detail is recored before and after the set focus point. I think what he meant to say or he was quoted wrong was by having the lack of depth of field this made shell casings and dirt stand out due to the lack of depth of field since the background details didn't get in the way of foreground material in the focus point area. However I'm just some bloke that's actually worked in cinema for over 30 years... Cheers & Peace
I love that you give attribution to your sources and cite each source. It lends great credibility to your video essays and sets you apart from others who behave like scavengers. This video, aside from technical specifics, is so wonderful. Love it. Way interesting.
wow. i never would have imagined appreciating this film any more than i already did. this was mind blowing. instant subscribe!
The first half of FMJ is easily one of my favorite movies of all time. The second half scares and saddens me. Taken together, it adds up to a profound experience.
I remember watching this during Army basic training, we thought it was a comedy, all the singing whilst marching and crap like that.
The monolith in 2001 symbolizes man's capability for transformation. When Cowboy is dying, what's in the background? A burning monolith. The whole film is man-centric. Maybe women are the answer. No. The sniper at the end is a woman. DEVASTATING FUCKING MOVIE. I LOVE IT.
With this much talent, it's no wonder they hired him to shoot the Moon landing
Another great essay. Just to clarify (from what I remember) FMJ was shot on 5294 (a film stock normally rated at 400 ASA/ISO), and pushed one stop to 800 in the lab. Eyes Wide Shut was 5295 (I think) rated at 500, and pushed two stops to 2000. I also believe Kubrick fired at least one Steadicam operator over the battle footage. I met Doug Milsome and his wife in 1990, and they were both very friendly and personable -- but I was too nervous to ask him any questions! As I'm sure you are aware, his technical proficiency was first rate (he pulled focus on Barry Lyndon, and shot the helicopter footage for The Shining -- after the original team was "replaced").
replaced and corrected ;)
Fun fact. ASA is an acronym for American Standard Association. Film sensitivity is based on how immersed the stock is with silver halide crystals. That is why the theater experience is often referred to as the silver screen. So American Standard Association makes perfect sense.
Wow, I now know everything I ever wanted to know about Kubrick and how he lit his films. Very in-depth and very interesting also. Thanks for this.
21:43 When I was in boot camp at Paris Island in 2002, the toilets at the weapons battalion barracks were intact on both sides of the room facing each other. No stalls, just a room full of toilets.
The amount of research and preparation Kubrick and his key specialists put in never cease to amaze me.
What studios want today: you make a film exactly to their shareholders' parameters and specifications--and you pay for it.
Cheers Sir! Your content is much appreciated as a Kubrick enthusiast... very well done
This is a great breakdown of the cinematography and lighting of FMJ. I would love to see similar breakdowns of other films. Great work.
I always liked this movie because of how smooth, real, and just ascertric the performance and picture feel. You made me appreciate this film way more, thanks.
You make videos about things that no content movie creator really talks about which is why i love you. Its excusive to you
Thanks so much!
"Pushing" film is intentionally underexposing the film, then compensating by over developing it. This leaves you with a usable image but with more grain and contrast than film exposed and developed normally. This helps with shooting in low light too.
Every film stan made was a masterpiece
FMJ looks like it was shot yesterday, the film simply doesn't age.
I went through basic at Knox in '84. The lighting for the barracks and natural settings shot are spot on. Well done Mr. K.
Another excellent video. I discovered your channel a few days ago and rapidly binged through most of it. Kudos and keep up the great work!
Thank you!
I just found your channel and have been binging the Kubrick episodes for days. What a great and interesting channel!
Thank you Tyler, such amazing work, research, and detail like always!
Thank You for creating & sharing this, CinemaTyler
This series is brilliant. Thanks for making it.
This is the best video I’ve seen on the entirety of KZhead in a very, very long time. This should be an actual series on an actual streaming service. Very well done :)
I am always excited when I see you have a new video. Great job
Watched this for 20 seconds and subscribed. Thanks brother man, hope you keep it going.
I swear that set for the boot-camp open-bay barracks was spot-on. I was in the Navy, not Marines, but I swear that set is perfect. I think the only difference is that the floor at my boot-camp company was white tile. The floor in the FMJ barracks doesn't look like tile, it looks like concrete that was painted with the same heavy maroon paint that my Navy ship used for its engine room bilges and exterior surfaces below the waterline. The wall paint looks spot-on with my boot-camp barracks and Navy ship interior (I was on an aircraft carrier), which was a very light green that resulted from mixing one part dark hunter-green and 5 parts white paint.
Again, your rechearch time must be through the roof! What great insight! Thanks!
So much info in here 😽 great work!
Very excellent, a close friend was responsible for all the vehicles, he spent a year getting everything together and then best part of 8 months on set keeping everything going and arranging the vehicle for scenes, he talked a lot about how they would shoot very late into November just with natural light and the amount of prep and rehearsal on video before the a take would be tried , there’s some very interesting pieces on here called Stanley Kubrick’s boxes witch was his daughter filming him on 16mm , my friend was one of the few with a mobile phone so she would ring him to see what her father was up to , the shot with the tank firing and recoiling took some doing I’m told
The audiobook of modines diary is amazing
I hope you never stop making videos about this movie.
Subscribed. Amazing videos! Cheers for putting so much time and effort into them
Quality work as always, Thanks!
Another great episode. Thank you!
Love your work. I'm a pretty obsessive Kubrick/ cinema-phile myself, but still find your investigations insightful and thought-provoking. What I find hilarious, in this instance, is that the local advertising preceding the vid was for a supermarket chain (here in Australia) called 'Woolworths' - and they were using a bastardised version of 'Wooly Bully' on the soundtrack!
A brilliant breakdown of a master’s work. Love your style. Keep it coming.
one more great essay, thanks Tyler
You have a hard on for Kubrick, but that’s actually correct. You win at Art.
cinema tyler the GOAT!
As an amateur still photographer, it seems pretty obvious from depth of field that most daylight shots were not shot "wide open". The deep focus looks like at least f 8+ on 35 mm image frame, with ND filters for exposure, much smaller aperture than the widest f 2-3 (actually, T 2-3) that most cinema lenses can manage.
Yeah that did sound weird. The shots shown looked very deep depth of field even tho they are wide lenses
Yeah, exactly what I though. Focusing any of the tracking shots in FMJ wide open would be a nightmare, even for people of their skill.
Well there is one thing to consider though. The longer the lens, the shallower the depth of field when the aperture is open. Inversly, on a very wide angle lens you could have deep focus even while the aperture is wide open. The outdoor shots appeared pretty wide.
Cinema Tyler your insight and expertise shine through. Superb post - again :-)
My evening is saved !! ( I live in Central Europe ). Cinema Tyler is back!! I look forward to another wonderful exercise on film and technique of film-making ! Thanx a lot !!
Thanks for watching!
love how you look into all these fine details bro!
These videos are fantastic, Tyler, thank you!
I've always felt like those not-so-steady Steadicam combat scenes were alarmingly similar feeling to modern first person shooter games. He nailed that feeling almost a decade before Doom.
This is one of the only film video essay channels I'm still subbed to.
The attention to detail is insane because I can honestly say the barracks in the movie looks exactly like Fox Co. 2nd bn in Parris Island.
It’s convincing enough that I’ve always thought it was shot on location.
Fascinating! I'm sure glad that I'm subscribed to this excellent channel! Thanks for all of this hard work!
Glad you liked it!
Glad you liked it!
Kubrick got his start in film making when he watched some art films at the local museum and thought to himself, "I couldn't possibly do any worse."
These always pop up just when I've forgotten about this wonderful series.
You don’t get greater depth of field with a wide open aperture. Leaving the lens open “to see the flying dirt” would not have worked. No other choice but to stop down.
Probably just a bit of crossed wires somewhere in the descriptions, I did think the DOF felt a bit long (for a wide open shot) in the exteriors and wondered if they'd just jotted it down wrong.
I think @CinemaTyler might have gotten mixed up trying to be thorough but brief. His source material was probably referring to having a wide open aperture, a narrow shutter angle and/or a higher frame rate in order to capture those fast moving subjects, but yeah wide open = shallow depth of field.
you did this movie good, thank you it deserves nothing less.
love your in depth information shared..and dig your passion..Hollywood will never be the same due to CGI.
amazing video thank you so much
enthralling ! deserves a whole hour
Dude your videos are simply phenomenal...your voice is very suitable and easy to listen to 🔥
Thanks!
Another great and interesting video. Thanks.
what i learn from these is invaluable
Amazes me these aren’t more popular
Billy Murray insert is gold.
Amazing amazing video essay. I’ve only seen the movie once, like 20-25 years ago, but it was like a thunderbolt. Now I know why. Thank you.
First video who teach me something new about one of my favorite movie - Amazing !!!!
I watched this on Netflix just recently now I’m getting this year old video recommendation. Good job on the back end sharing my data guys.
Love this channel!
extremely well made thanks CinemaTyler
Wicked Awesome! Thank you for this.