DF: When you started to work on remastering the soundtracks for surround, what elements did you have to work with?

LV: We tracked down all the original elements that we recorded. With 2001, we found one track which he used in the film that had been recorded by a Bavarian radio orchestra and found the original source tape, and we had a lot of source tapes which came from the record company and the people he (Kubrick) recorded with. So that is basically how we did it - knowing where the source material was and getting it together.

Then, once we acquired all the elements, we took them to a place called Chace (in Burbank, California) who did the stereo imaging, as well as going through and eliminating the pops and crackles wherever they could. Then, when those tracks were done and cleaned up, we went to Todd-A-O and worked with Chris Jenkins and remixed them. And what we did was, we used the original mono - that was our guide - and every time we remixed a new stereo or surround effect we played it against the mono to ensure we got the balance between the music, effects and the dialogue right.

DF: Did you have access to separate dialogue, music and effects "stems?"

LV: Yes, we had three track DME (Editor: Dialogue, Music and Effects) stems, even though they were mono.

DF: So, if I understand correctly, the surround mixes are actually "imaged," for lack of a better term, and which is becoming quite common now. Since the original stems are in mono, and you don't have access to the original sound elements themselves, you then use modern digital processing techniques to achieve surround imaging? In other words, the DMEs are already mixed in mono, so you never recreated or re-recorded any sounds or music....

LV: Yes, what we were able to do was balance the new surround mix and the processing with the original source material, against those original DMEs. So there was a constant "match" going on - we weren't "enhancing" anything, and we weren't diminishing anything that was in the original tracks.

DF: Could we take The Shining as an example? That film really uses music and eerie sound effects beautifully. In the case of the music, did you have at least stereo masters to work with to help with mixing for surround?

LV: Well, I'll tell you, now it (the sound) is almost like a character in itself. A lot of the (music) tracks were recorded in stereo, and we mixed them down to mono. So we were able to find the original stereo tracks. It is rather like his picture negatives, if you want to log out the density, the feel of it, the color or the contrast, the way he used to time the original elements (Editor: To "time" means to specify and set picture and/or parameters), it tells you how it should be. I used it (Kubrick's specifications) as a guide for every element of the picture and sound.

DF: Did he leave very detailed notes for all of the timing or other such instructions?

LV: I worked with him for over sixteen years, and I did a lot of the work in the laboratory with all of his titles for the past ten years. The first time his titles were telecined was back in 1988 or 1989, and I supervised those as well. (Editor: These masters were also used for the previous Kubrick Collection DVD release.) I have a very thorough background working with him, and I had all his approved elements, the approved timings on the original negatives, and having worked with him for so long I knew them. And there was no speculation at all, which is a good way to work. We didn't have to say "Well, I think it should like this," or someone else saying "Oh, I think it should go like that." There was never a question of having to do that.

DF: When it came time to do the transfers, did you use the old elements or did you go back and strike new prints? Did you do any restoration to the original materials?

LV: I'll tell you what we did, we effectively killed two birds with one stone. We took the original negatives, some of which - and I'm sure you can understand by their age - were badly battered. We took them to a lab called Y/C Cinema where they actually worked through the each title frame by frame. And where they could remove the dirt and blemishes, they'd remove it. Then we projected it and made a "check print," looked at it, then I would time the negative so we get the correct color balance, contrast and density. Then, what I would do was make a new interpositive element, which timed correctly to the timings that should have been on the original negative.

Then we took that interpositive and scanned it in on a Spirit (telecine.) The beauty of it (the Spirit) is that because it is not a "tube" (Editor: An old analog type of telecine) it is digital, and you only had to put the element up once. Thus, you did not risk have to risk damage by putting it up repeatedly, which you had to do with the tube, like a Rank telecine or other such systems. So that is the beauty of this whole thing, that once it has been scanned in, I can work with it as I did in the digital realm dozens and dozens of times without ever having to risk that element going up again. Then we put it on to high-definition tape, and aside from (authoring) the DVD, it is ready for high-def and doesn't have to be done again.

DF: Well, now on to the question of aspect ratio. This is by far the most contentious area of debate among our readers. Many are confused between the aspect ratio Kubrick shot his films in, how they were exhibited theatrically, and how they are shown on home video...

LV: Very often, well, if you go back to Dr. Strangelove, for example, he shot that in the camera basically "full frame,." (Roughly 1.37:1) But you will see if you look at the film that very often, there will be mattes (Editor: Black bars on the top and bottom masking off a portion of the image to achieve a wider aspect ratio) in one shot, then in the next shot there will be no mattes. Then the next shot there will be, then the next shot there won't. With A Clockwork Orange, it is basically 1.66:1, and that is how he shot it in the camera, but from time to time you'll see that there is a slight shift in his aperture (thus slightly affecting the aspect ratio.) And that is just how he shot it, and what Stanley had always wanted was a video version of his film as he shot it in the camera, not necessarily how it was projected. That was very important to him. And he did not particularly like 1.85:1.

DF: Well, to take The Shining as an example again, many are distracted in the opening sequence by the infamous "helicopter blades." Because the video is not matted, you can see the helicopter blades at the top of the shot. Some have taken this to be "evidence" that Kubrick's preferred compositions were not be transferred properly to home video. To be honest, I, too have often wondered about this and am distracted by those helicopter blades! (laughs)

LV: That's just how he wanted it. And the helicopter blades, for him, well...for him, they were totally inconsequential. If I can just say to you, that for Stanley each shot, each scene, stood for itself as a composition. And if he liked something in that shot, he would use it regardless of aspect ratio. I could probably catalogue for you plenty of things like the "helicopter blades syndrome" which are in his films. But if he liked the acting, or let's say there was a particular sound that he liked, if there was some kind of extraneous noise and it was just there and there wasn't anything you could do about it but he liked the actual take, he would use that anyway. And that is how he approached his work.

With A Clockwork Orange, now in multiplexes - and I think it is terrible - you can only really project it in 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. If you project A Clockwork Orange in 1.85:1, it kills it, it really does. It was composed for 1.66:1 and that is how it should look.

DF: I think some confusion is due to the fact that films like The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut were shown theatrically in 1.85:1...but not on video.

LV: That is because at the time (of The Shining) 1.85:1 was becoming an industry norm in the United States, so what he did was, he shot his original negative, then he made the interpositive, then for theatrical release he would mask the interpositive, which meant he still had the original negative in full frame. (Editor: This is sometimes referred to as "soft matting," where you only mask prints or matte a full frame film via the projector, instead of "hard matting" the original negative.) This was also very important to Stanley. He was very conscious of the fact that you lose I think 27% of your picture when it is matted to 1.85:1. He hated it, he didn't find it satisfactory. He liked height. (laughs)