DF: Since we are on the topic of contentious debates, another issue for fans has been the lack of anamorphic enhancement of the 1.66:1 titles. Since it is possible to "windowbox" a 1.66:1 title and anamorphically encode it on DVD, and it would render slightly improved resolution (on 16x9 monitors) versus a straight 1.66:1 non-anamorphic letterbox transfer, why not do it?

LV: 2001 is the only title that is "16x9 enhanced." With the 1.66:1 titles, it is simply because it (anamorphically encoding them) alters perception.

DF: How so, exactly? I think this might be a hard concept for some to grasp...

LV: How can I explain this? Well, here's an analogy. Very early on - and you'll see this in the documentary (A Life In Pictures) - on one of the very first features Kubrick made, Killer's Kiss, he had an argument with his director of photography on the film, Lucien Ballard. Stanley had set up a tracking shot with a 25mm lens and told him what he wanted. Then he later he came back and the tracks had been moved back, quite a ways from where he set them up, and he asked Lucien what he was doing. Lucien said he was "giving him exactly the same coverage you wanted, but with a 50mm lens which makes my job quicker and faster." But Stanley said, "What about this change in perspective?" And Lucien's reply was that t it doesn't matter that much. Which is wrong. Maybe perspective doesn't m after much to someone who is just watching a movie for fun, but for Stanley, that slight alteration, that change, means everything. It is the same as those who get angry because The Shining or Clockwork Orange aren't being displayed in 1.85:1. Well, he didn't want that, he wanted 1.66:1, or full frame. End of story. (laughs)

And originally (when video transfers were done) there was no windowboxing or anamorphic, so it would have been speculation on my part if I had done that, anamorphically encoded the 1.66:1 titles. I stuck to everything Stanley wanted according to his exact specifications all the way through our working relationship.

DF: So what you're saying is that, in a way, windowboxing a 1.66:1 image thus forces the image to occupy a different space within the video frame, thereby altering a viewer's relationship to the composition?

LV: 2001 is another example. In the cinema, by keeping the original aspect ratio of 2001: A Space Odyssey at 2.20:1, it gives you the height you wouldn't have had at 2.35:1. And we wanted to keep that original height just the way Stanley shot it, even if it may seem so minor to some people. Better that than squeeze it down to 2.35:1. These are choices Stanley was quite clear about, so there was no question at all about them in my mind.

DF: When preparing these new remasters, are you going "all the way" in terms of high def? If I understand it, the full frame titles like The Shining and Full Metal Jacket are being transferred in high-def, too. Meaning, a 1.33:1 image is being centered in a 1.78:1 frame, and there are not alternate 1.78:1 "matted" high-def transfers being made. With high-def broadcasts becoming more common, is there a chance we'll see these new Kubrick titles in full high-def resolution? Or a theatrical re-release?

LV: You know, I don't know. The work has been done with all the titles with a view towards a smooth transition to high-def. All have been transferred that way. So far as we're concerned, there is nothing that anybody needs to do more to these movies one way or another, whether for a theatrical re-release or the video and broadcast markets.

But I will say one thing, he (Kubrick) did look forward to the day when there would be a thing called a "dry lab" as opposed to a "wet" one. (Editor: One based on a chemical process like film.) Digital projection was something he was very interested in. And although he loved film, wet laboratories are very unpredictable - you can time something and put it through say a printing process and it can change it. It can make it more heavy, more dense, more dark, too light, too washed out, or the reds can come out too strong, or what have you. So he was very excited about the idea of digital projection, because you could work with much more precision. That is why we had to check every print that came out of the laboratory to make sure it was correct, which was very time consuming.

LV: When The Making Of The Shining was shot, I think you can honestly say you hadn't seen a documentary the making of the film in that way, in that form or that style. I think it still stands up.

DF: Along with his presupposed hatred of widescreen and surround sound, did Kubrick also hate supplements? (laughs)

LV: Well, Stanley wanted to do this originally - well, I was going to say just before he died but everything is just before he died - around November of 1998. Warner came to him and asked him if they could use "The Making Of The Shining" because it had been around for years, and it was one of those things were Stanley suddenly realized it was there, and it had not been released in video format. It was originally done for British television. I suppose you could say part of the reason he agreed was for posterity, and because his daughter (Vivian Kubrick, who directed it) is very talented. But he also wanted to release it because he realized it was a good little film. If it hadn't been good, he would never have let it go out on the DVD.

DF: It is interesting, because some other studios aside from Warner are now starting to "load up" their Kubrick titles with extras, though they didn't seem to have involved Kubrick directly...

LV: We did not like what they call "supplementary material." Stanley was aware that people don't go into a store and refuse to rent or buy a video because there isn't extra stuff on there. They buy or rent it because they want to see the movie. And he didn't feel that any of his movies needed anything more - the films spoke for themselves. If they did then people would go back and look at it again and again, and if they didn't, well then some people just wouldn't get it, and well, too bad. (laughs)

As far as other special editions such as Criterion's Spartacus, Stanley was only involved when they were restoring the elements. And in actual fact it was more a question of theatrical. I know when they were restoring Spartacus they were ringing him and asking him what he felt about what they were doing. Stanley offered guidance in terms of technical things, which they took, so he was contacted on that point of view, but Stanley had no involvement with the documentation of it. But it has already been well documented that Stanley never really felt like it (Spartacus) was really his film. So he wasn't really involved.

DF: Well, my cue is coming to wind this up with one last question, which is always the hardest. Can you tell me what your first meeting with Kubrick was like?

LV: I first met him in 1973. My first meeting with Kubrick I auditioned as an actor for what would become Barry Lyndon. You never met Stanley on auditions; he would send you text you had to learn and videotape it and it would be sent back to him. It was only after four or five months after I was told that I had gotten the role that I went over to shoot. We had gotten to the hotel and it was packed, and I had a tap on my shoulder, and I turn around and there's this guy, vary quiet, and he says "Hi, I'm Stanley." And that was it. (laughs) No fanfare, no sort of buildup, no cloud of smoke. He was very gentle, very natural.

Of course not. But it was during that time that I think I worked on four or five movies, but it was only after working with Stanley that I began to realize that I'd rather work in production. I had seen 2001, I had seen A Clockwork Orange, so I was a huge fan. To get to work as an actor in Barry Lyndon was a dream come true. To get to meet the man who, if I asked a question, took the time to explain to me about lenses, about cameras, all that sort of thing. I just got so interested that I decided to work in production. And it was after that he offered me a job in The Shining.

DF: I bet, way back then, you never thought you'd be here, doing this today and talking to me...

LV: No, absolutely not!

Special thanks to Ronnee Sass and all at Warner Home Video, and Karen Penhale and all at Carl Samrock PR. And very special thanks to Leon Vitali and Jan Harlan. All Images courtesy Warner Bros. All rights reserved.