@@P2501-y6u is that a prequel to CITIZEN KANE? Shout out to the man, Orson Wells. A great Wisconsin boy, a “self-confirmed Badger”, and the World’s Greatest Film Maker.
I read all the comments and I think this... When I saw the movie back in '98 I liked it so much I must have watched it over 10 times since then. Judging by the end result, If Edward Norton was ultimately responsible for this masterpiece then congratulations to him, no matter what his ego is. A job VERY well done.
"I'm fully aware that I'm a first-time director, but I need the same autonomy and respect that Stanley Kubrick gets." That quote alone killed his whole case in the eyes of every craftsman, regardless of the profession. Respect is earned, not claimed.
The problem with that is, when you’re a creative that is hired for their creativity, that’s your respect earned. Tony Kaye wasn’t _really_ a first time director. He had a resume and credits to his name, albeit commercial work. But that commercial work is what earned him his way into these meetings with producers, who would eventually hire him because they wanted his creativity to make them money. So, I understand his frustration. You came to me, I didn’t come to you. So, why aren’t you trusting me to do what you hired me for???
@@Palendrome and yet he didn't want Ed Norton for the film, when his performance is a huge element of why that film works. If it wasn't for his performance people wouldn't have an idea who the director even is.
@@TheNeverists666you don't know that because nobody else shot it without Norton. I can tell you that any film with Norton in it won't get a dollar outta me. Ive always hated the way he acted, ever since I was a teen or before I found out Norton is painful to work with.
@@eyespy3001 True, to an extent. But naive. Ultimately you're paid to do a job. Whoever pays you is your boss. They often hire you to do something fast and cheap, not to do it "the right way" or however you want. Your expertise doesn't matter to them. They just want that rising star that, hot new name in the credits. _That's_ what makes them (short term) money. Long term be damned, 'cause they usually only think about the next fiscal year anyway. And in the end, it's their movie. They can do whatever they want with it. Crying, "I'm THE creative one! It's MY movie, my baby. Look how they massacred my boy," while throwing a tantrum just shows how incredibly naive he went into this. That, combined with his hubris and backed up with his ego makes him the idiot of the story.
Another example of why no one cares about or goes to movies anymore. The movie industry turns everyone who works on everything, even a public service announcement, into a self centred “lovey” and this clown is no exception.
It’s not that he simply didn’t know what he wanted-it’s that he couldn’t trust what he had envisioned anymore since there was so much fighting about what he should be and the director wasn’t listened to.
He wanted Norton to turn skinhead again at the end just like in the book. This would change the meaning of the movie dramatically and would make it too dark that's why they refused to do it.
@@martiendejong8857 well then the director was understandably annoyed. I guess he didn't expect the level of fuckery by Hollywood that he got exposed to
In Edward Norton‘s defense, he was the one playing a neo Nazi in a very controversial film at the time. Not handled the right way it could have absolutely ruined his career.
@@goblinbollocks2838I could see other directors and producers being hesitant to cast Norton in other parts because of the popularity of this film. Like they could only see him as this kind of character. Or he could have gotten typecast in roles like this. Happens to actors all the time.
@@TheoConwayMilky survived in This Is England. Have you watched the sequel series? There's TIE 1986, TIE 1988, and TIE 1990. Combo and Milky are in all of them.
@@g7924 ironically Norton stopped being cast because he was too controlling and pulled the same crap on other sets. He's still one of my favs, but he's a dick.
It's a real shame Tony's ego got in the way. If the movie had turned out badly, he would've been okay throwing a fit; but since it was so good, he should've just taken all the credit for it and said to himself "I'll never work with Norton again," like a lot of people have done.
Spoken like a person who has never invested their soul on a project to have it turn into an abomination. The movie wasn't "good" it was mediocre and forgettable. I read the original script, and it was original and creative, but Norton and the others turned into another boring hollyweird abortion.
As much as I like American History X, I completely understand the artists frustration of their work being changed without their own input. I'm sure the thought has crossed his mind thousands of times since the movies inception, but his art was changed and he has the backbone to stand against that. He was hired for his creative mind and turned it against him.
Edward Norton spoke about this recently in person at a Q&A in Dublin. He had nothing but good things to say about Tony. He said the studio was beyond frustrated with Tony waiting for a final edit and had to step in to get the film finished in time. Norton was on hand and took over the edit and finished the film at the studios request.
Of course he has nothing but good things to say, because he got everything he wanted from the movie, he got it his way. There’s no reason for him to say something bad. But You know Norton has built a reputation for being hard to work with and condescending towards others. If he doesn’t have it his way he bad mouths and doesn’t promote the movie
Isn't it funny that this whole vid was from the perspective of the director, and could hardly be more sympathetic to him, yet everyone is still like, "yeah dude, you were nuts, you should have listened to your actor". You have to be pretty darn kooky for people to take sides with the Hollywood studios over you.
@@russelljackson8153 i have a feeling he gets a bad rap because not only is he talented, he's disciplined and obsessed with the craft. Meanwhile it's well known creative people tend to be lazy & procrastinate, pretty sure it's not different in Hollywood. These people get paid insane salaries, yet always complain about having put effort into their work.
@@Moviefreak893 It's hard to picture the film having a worse ending. Even when I was 13, it felt like something straight out of a manipulative after-school special. I still cringe every time Furlong's narration kicks in.
When the producers called the flim a child and Tony an abusive parent it really cements the point that to an artist their creations ARE their child. Tony was in tears over this, do you think a single j producer gave a shit about anything other than money?
I think the point of this video wasn’t necessarily to indicate that being nuts and arrogant automatically precludes you from being a good artist though does it? I’m not entirely sure how stellar your career has been.
ok but the quality of the production was soo good that even a version that wasn't the directors cut was still good. Sort of a testament to Kaye and crews ability.
When a TH-cam psychologist thinks he figured out two complete strangers identity from watching a 14 minute video despite never meeting either in person…
Kaye was given a shot at an unusual project, but had zero chill about collaboration, compromise, or the business of it. Norton has since developed a reputation as an auteur/cranky child, but he still gets regular work and the film that he helped shape was stunning. I did see it in the theatre.
Well, Norton has the benefit of producing respected and beloved works while having a reputation as a auteur/cranky child. I mean, even though he got fired from the MCU, everyone at Marvel did basically acknowledge that he saved the Incredible Hulk movie by coming in and rewriting the script at the last minute/while shooting. He has more than one reputation, one being hard to work with, and another being that produces results. It's why he still gets regular work and people who seek him out to work with. And at least he's also able to poke fun at himself taking on some of the roles he does like in Birdman.
The problem here is that if Kaye had just accepted what he couldn't control, collaborated with Norton and even just let him edit the film, he would have been given the full autonomy he wanted in later films. But because he chose to throw a tantrum, he lost the battle and the war. Someone who can't see the benefit of a short term concession, or the consequences of fighting a losing battle, shouldn't be a director.
Exactly. Think about what hiring a lawyer to sue and try to put “Directed by Humpty Dumpty” on the film you were responsible for signals to every potential future collaborator.
the problem is he is who he is, it's a whole thing, it's bound, if kaye had been ''smarter'', he wouldn't be making any of these films cuz that would be another person
Yeah you can tell by listening to him speak that he cared more about getting his way, than just rolling with things and being a part of this great movie.
I saw this movie when it came out in theaters. I had NO idea any of this had happened. None. This wasn't the time of social media. It is interesting how much the internet has completely redefined our relationship with entertainment... I think it was way better pre-internet. We went in to see a movie CLEAN, likely having only seen a trailer and maybe an actor or two appearing on a late night show to promote it. There wasn't all this NOISE surrounding everything and getting in the way of the experience of watching the movie.
They literally just said that this guy spent $100k on newspaper ads badmouthing Norton and the film, so people definitely knew, even without social media. It’s weird how people trick themselves into thinking that things were different than they actually were before social media. Information still got around just fine.
@@dewilew2137 I had no clue about any of this and was mid teens when it came out.. But comparing information we had in the 90s to the info we have today is kinda insane 😂 If we didn’t see it on tv, or hear it from a friend it didn’t exist. Nothing like today. Of course some people saw it in newspapers but not 10% of who would hear about it if it came out today.
The problem is that now movies spend half a year doing Promo leading to a big release where all the actors and the studio do their best to make you hate them before watching the movie. That's the real problem. The Internet has taken us from knowing Actors only for their roles to being unable to avoid the actor's actual personalities.
Tony Kaye should’ve taken the john avildsen route. john avildsen directed the 1970 film “Joe” starring Peter Boyle. I think it was his first film but was either fired half way through production or fired during post. But either way, his name was on the film and didn’t bad mouth the producers or anything. He gets hired by Jack Lemmon for the film “save the tiger” because john avildsen did a great job on “Joe” despite being fired. He then gets hired to direct “Rocky” and we all know what happened there.
Tony Kaye was literally about to get fucked up by me and some locals for shoving an old woman who wanted a picture with him (she didn't know who he was, just start struck with a person whom people wanted pictures with). This happened way back in 2017 in Tangier... I, and the rest of lads got arrested and spent 48 hours in a holding cell when Tony didn't have a scratch on him (ZERO basis for a lawful arrest), I still hate the cops because of that, one of the cops spoke English and could understand all the nasty shit he was saying and STILL took his side... DO NOT EVER COME BACK TO MOROCCO TONY!!! So glad this video got recommended to me so I could share this little story.
honestly, the last big story to come out of morocco was two white girls being raped and decapitated by a band of moroccons on the backpacking trails. nobody is 'coming back' to morocco anytime soon. nobody is immigrating there. you're all just leaving your hellscape. in 2017 tony kay was old too. something tells me in morocco its more than common for men to shove women. why would that be? because it is. so tony kaye, an old man in 2017, shoving an old woman, not uncommon. get over yourself. nobody cares.
Norton has a reputation for taking over edits. I completely understand Kayes frustration and heartbreak. After all is said and done, the film is amazing. It’s a great topic for debate over if Norton was right or wrong for editing w/o Kaye, but i think we can at least all agree the film is wonderful. I feel bad for Kaye i really do. I wish we had his cut to compare with, but i can’t help but love what we got. It is a very hard movie to watch at points and i think it came out perfect. Rather than say who is right or wrong i’d just wish we had 2 cuts I will say the way he reacted DID hurt his future, but I can’t argue with a man who put his heart and soul into a project that should have made him, but was shot down
If the dude just bit his tongue and went along with the film that everyone (critics, audience, and the suits) liked, he would have had an amazing feature film debut and plenty of later chances to make more films with more autonomy. Very rarely is your first foray into a field your best. Instead his ego sunk him and signaled to everyone that he was going to be a massive liability.
@@robvdmit was far from "hard to watch" unless you're easily offended by drama.. requim of a dream is tough, Bad Ltnt is tough, but imo the 1st part is excellent and then takes a woke turn where he's SHOCKED that a black guy (like the one he curb-stomped) is in prison for stealing a 📺 and suddenly he's woke?! 1 guy who told him what was common knowledge already and "whaaaat?? That does it, I'm growing my hair back and having a heart to heart with my brother to teach him that "racism is bad" and turn this into a Disney/Lifetime film. I understand both arguments and maybe we'll get an uncut sequel. In black n white. lol
The trouble is tony did not have a vision for that film. He had a vision for a different film that was made from parts of that film. That was never going to sell. Norton for whatever he did or whatever ego he might have had, had some idea of what to do with what they already had. From the sound of it, the director got behind the wheel and had no idea where he was driving. So when someone else kept the car from crashing he should have been grateful and shut up.
Results matter. The film, as edited and influenced by Edward Norton, was good. No one cares about the unproven novice who wanted to sabotage the film due to ego. Humpty Dumpty indeed.
I actually am okay with this for a couple reason. Edward Norton has IMPROVED his character arc more so than he's destroyed it. The problem with Hollywood is the formulaic over substance cliche. This of course doesn't change the fact that he's difficult to work with, but if someone gets a shit script and sees a gem in it by a few adjustments, I'm all for it. I'd rather have that than the Snow White and Marvel slop.
Tony Kaye was one crazy dude. Norton was hard to work with, but I don't think he ruined director's vision since he didn't know what he wanted in the first place.
Is that what it is? Something felt off to me about him. Particularly the end. I mean I know Ed Nort can be difficult to work with. And admittedly I've YET to see the film...But towards the end of this video, something about him felt off... slightly delusional..?
@@based-ys9umIt's totally subjective. I think the majority of people that have seen it would call it a masterpiece and/or an incredible movie. For me it's a strong 8.5/10.
It’s kinda funny that Kaye was saying “nobody would listen to me or do what I wanted” Well maybe they were right not to listen cause the film turned out perfect. And he was realllly wrong about casting Norton because I can’t see anyone else playing that part better.
I agree it was an amazing film, and I thought Norton was brilliant in it - but Kaye himself says that Norton did a great performance, it's just that he wasn't looking for a performance. He wanted to make a different film than the one you saw and while Norton was perfect for that role, he may still not have suited the film that Kaye would have ended up making if he were allowed to finish it
The film is ok, even good by Hollywood standards but as Kaye said he is driven to bring something completely different. He wanted to produce a seminal work and while the film is decent it’s not a masterpiece
This man might be an artistic genius. But with his career being cut short makes him across as a lunatic. But Ed Norton has a history of over stepping boundaries.
Its actually a shame considering he did a great film called Detachment in the late 2000s and i dare say it had the same emotional weight as American History X. I love AHX i think its one of the greatest films of the late 90's and Detachment was fantastic so i definitely think he deserves a chance in spite of his arrogance.
It's here on YT? Well damn! That's tonight's viewing sorted. Perfect New Year's Day hangover movie. Thank you for letting me know and have a very Happy New Year mate.🍻👍🏻
The director's cut is straight garbage. It undoes all of the lessons Derek learned, and it tells the audience that hate isnin fact the way. Some people already take that from the film, and Tony Kayes version would have solidified it. It would not have been a great or commendable film, it would have been white supremacist propaganda.
it’s not his movie it’s the studios movie. Unless you’re the executive producer it’s not your money, your an employee who directs the cast and crew to fulfill the studios film. If he produced it independently he could have done whatever he wants but instead he made public statements disparaging his employer who funded an attempt at his vision with no features on his track record. He’s a spoiled brat with a big ego, and the movie is probably better without his final vision if his behavior is any indication of his thought process
Considering one of the biggest discrepancies between what Kaye wanted and what we got was that the last scene was going to be Derek reshaving his head after Danny dies making the entire movie pointless, I agree with you.
@@eeyorebenji2836all those valuable lessons learned in prison would have been pointless if he just went back to his old ways. So yeah, it'd be a stupid ending.
@eeyorebenji2836 The entire arch of the story is based on personal growth, that ending implies that Danny dying would make him forget everything that already happened to him. While I understand the point it's trying to make, it's not even realistic, I mean, I don't even see a world where the character we see Derek become tries to get revenge for Derek, by what? Killing a kid? Or the gang members surrounding the kid? The entire point of the movie was about letting go of hate and baggage that can accumulate as a result of traumatic events and a morally questionable upbringing. I'm not saying there isn't a man in the world who wouldn't be hateful after their brother was killed even in Derek's circumstances, but the idea that he would just become a Nazi again because the kid who shot his brother was black is kind of insane.
@@BadseedGarden It IS insane, and it happens. It's not entirely unrealistic for someone to fall back into that way of life, both after having to experience such an event and the fact most people he knows are nazis. A movie doesn't nullify itself because the "hero" goes back to square one, it's based on the real world and unfortunately that type of shit happens. Mind you I like the movie and it's ending but the alternative isn't inherently a bad one either.
Imagine going to the bank and telling them "I need a $250 million loan for a business idea I have!" And then the bank says "ok, what's your idea? Do you have a business plan to show us?" And then you just say "No, IDK what it is yet, but just trust me!" What a psycho. The guy is better suited behind bars than behind a camera.
The problem with American History X - the idea that a rascist goes to prison and comes out not rascist... no way, you go in not rascist and you come out rascist.
Muccini just gave an interview on an italian podcast on how the producers in America have in general way too much control that it makes it very hard for any director to work. He was lucky in his first American movie bc in his case he had the actor's Will Smith "shield" from the anti-productive control of the producers. He said too many directors in these situations are unfortunately called just to give camera directions as a sort of "ghost" of a director.
@@TheGourdKing Sounds like he blacklisted himself. Right or wrong, know your role if you're a first time director. He's got his integrity. And no other movies
I think a lot of people forget that despite Norton’s star power he had only been a major actor for about two years at this point. The fact the studio was willing to let him get into the edit speaks to a fact that Kaye was really overplaying his own hand whereas Norton, despite being difficult himself, kinda knew what he was doing. It also speaks to Kaye being so wild and weird that the studio trusted an actor who’d only been a star for maybe two years to handle the edit on their new film; that kinda pull is usually only reserved for Hollywood royalty who are firmly ingrained in the system. Norton was essentially still a ‘flavor of the month’ with just as much potential to peter out as Kaye and they still gave him the editing power.
Edward Norton has built a reputation in Hollywood for being condescending and always butting heads with directors. What happened here is Kayes knows he’s talented, but since it was his first film, the studio had much of the control, and the studio hired a controlling actor that wanted it his way.
Saw your vids for the first time just a few hours ago, please please please don’t stop making these videos, they are clear, informative, and concise! I’m captivated and fully invested! I will absolutely be checking in weekly for updates 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
I absolutely luv this channel. Especially since I’m a screenwriter. There’s a lot of movie info on this little channel that I never knew. And the narrator sounds a lot like my other film channel favorite: Robot Head! 👍
the original cut was supposed to focus more on the little brother's arc, nortons character was mostly relegated to the black and white flashbacks. they added more scenes with norton durring the reshoot, and norton moved the focus to his character durring his edit of the movie. the original cut was supposed to focus on the redemtion of furlongs character while writing about his brother's crimes. instead norton's edit focuses on his his character's attempted redemtion and consequences of his influence on his brothers life.
@@liquifex It would be like the first half, a dark fucking masterpiece, the second act is GARBAGE, like really, the whole tone of the movie changes to being this childish condescending crap.
As much I like the movie, I understand his frustration. Norton's meddling in every movie he's in is well known at this point. Norton later developed a reputation of being difficult to work with. Norton's career didn't really end up being as great as was thought at the early to mid 90's. Kaye might be an arrogant jerk but so was young Edward Norton. Norton has since mellowed out a bit. Lake of Fire is a great documentary!
His most notable performance recently was birdman for this reason I think. I hate the fact that Michael Keaton basically became what that movie was parodying.
Very true. And Norton cannot carry a box office. I remember around this time girls being into Edward for this film and I was like the guy who's a skinhead and now a skinny wimp? Hulk was a huge failure and Fight Club was great but he is relegated to small support now. He'll probably win an academy award for this recent Bob Dylan movie, who knows, not watching that thing.
I worked with Tony Kaye in 1997 in Brintmister England. He was chill with cinematography but when it came to actors final cuts, he was absolutely atrocious in his whit and magnitude.
Tony Kaye's version, or vision, is impressionistic (you can see some of Kaye's choices in Norton's version) . We really need a director's cut of this as a two disc release of this masterpiece
Always loved Edward Norton but this video makes me think that the reason his performance in Birdman was one of his best ever is because he was being himself.
Could anyone imagine American History X NOT centered around Norton/Derek? It wouldn't even make sense. Also, Tony said he wanted Norton's character to revert back to his former white supremacist ways after Edward Furlong character's death... But that also would undercut everything that came before it, and it would really have left the film feeling entirely pointless.
It would have undercut the silver lining of the ending and moral of the story. But it would have been gritty and realistic. A man in his situation could swing either way.
@@Glocktologist I don't think so... Not with the story we were shown. First off, you get the sense that Derek never believed in any of that stuff and was driven by anger... And we see and he recognizes how that anger impacted his life. And beyond that, he got to see the other white supremacists and that they didn't stand for anything. Not only was be brutally assaulted by his own people, but he was abandoned by them and left to get killed... WHICH 100% WOULD HAVE HAPPENED had his black friend/workmate not vouched for him. So how would his brother being killed push him back that direction? I'd say it's far more likely to play out how it did, and Derek would mostly blame himself for what he did and the heat his actions drew on him and his family, and for leading Danny down that path to begin with... A path he knows was wrong and never truly believed in. But ultimately, we don't get to se what comes next. So he very well could have gone back towards being a white supremacist... But the movie did not have to show the audience that, and was better for leaving the story where it did. The best quote I can think to speak to this point is; _"There are fine things, old boy, which are more brilliant when unfinished, than when finished too much."_
"I'm aware that Im a first time director, but I need the same autonomy and respect that Kubrick gets" Is beyond parody. Its literally the kind 9f thing I would expect to see on /tv/ taking the piss out of him.
American History X is one of the most brilliant movies I've ever seen. Maybe not 100% this director's vision but by God, he really should be happier with how it came out.
I bet he and A24 would work well together. They have a great reputation of staying out of the way of a production or buying projects that have been completed and then releasing them unaltered. They've been around for like 12 years and have had so many academy award winning films in that time, specifically because of this business model.
Im so glad when yt decides to recommend me an actual good channel for once. Great video. I see you only upload every other month, but your vid essays are excellent.
Well obviously Norton's decisions were right. The movie has an insane impact. The director just didn't like Norton so he tried to cutt him as much as possible
Dude basically said he had 'no idea' what he wanted to do with the film himself and that he would need another 6-10 weeks of shooting. No studio is going to just be like, 'Yeah, dude, you take another 6-10 weeks on our investment to figure out your vision, take your time.' And he even knew that himself
Yeah, Kaye may have been foolish in many ways but there's no director on the planet who would be happy to hear that one of their actors was coming into the editing room to guide the film to completion.
@@cinedome1let me ask you something AND genuinely asking because I just can't tell but what foolishness did he convey in regards to AHX? PLEASE, I swear this is not a rhetorical question. I'm legit not seeing it
Well, I don't think any director attempting to play the Hollywood game can be called sensible when they punch walls in the post-production house, bad-mouth their collaborators in the press, take an entire year to re-edit the movie after receiving notes on the first cut (before asking for 4+ weeks of re-shoots to make a "wholly different film"), and then try to have their name on the credit replaced with Humpty Dumpty when they don't get their way. I am sympathetic to Tony's cause from a creative perspective, but he repeatedly played a bad hand after delivering his so-called "95-minute diamond of a picture." There's nothing intelligent about deliberately being a nightmare to people who are depending on you (and have paid you well) to deliver something they're happy with.
Norton has notoriously been one of the hardest actors to deal with. That’s why he hasn’t done much lately. All the way down to the bottled water on set is his choice. I heard Joaquin Phoenix was the other option for the film but Norton truly killed it
I get where Tony is coming from, but at the end of the day, He only really shot himself in the foot. He gave up the opportunity to create many more amazing movies, I hope it was worth it.
I had to see this in an art house theatre near the University of Illinois. Not a lot of movies of that time had anywhere near the impact of American History X. I consider it an acting masterpiece from Norton and surprisingly from Furlong. If only he could have pulled it together for Terminator 3...
They broke the mold after Tony. You could be furious with him one moment and then on the floor laughing at some completely absurd thing the next. Those memories are priceless to me
It's a shame that guys like him have to deal with executives in a board room. If his career would have started in the 70s, he'd probably be a household name, but unfortunately he started in the early era of suits and numbers.
I had to go out of my way to see this movie. Had to drive into the main city, and find this tiny little independent theater, where the screen was maybe twice the size of a big screen TV at home. Mind you, this is in the Washington DC area. It wasn't in the middle of nowhere.
I couldn't imagine AHX as anything different. I used to throw it on in the background every day when I was a teenager. It was such a great redemption story with a tragic end. I can understand Tony's perspective especially with the reputation of Norton being a control freak in editing but it doesn't sound like he even knew what he wanted the film to be.
i'm usually one to stand by auteurs but i think you're right on the money here. an artist knows which battles to pick and when. humpty dumpty just wanted all of the attention to be on him, including up to the point of sabotaging his own art. norton shares some blame here, but by kaye's own admission he had a stronger sense of the film and a greater capacity to communicate that idea. ambition and conviction mean nothing in a collaborative field if you can't even convince the crew of your own vision.
I didn't know about this controversy until years later, but it answered my nagging suspicion that this movie WAS tinkered with and edited to make the story understandable. Great film overall IMO, it stands the test of time, yet it's not without it's flaws.
This guy has some personality disorders obviously but probably also a talented artist but even the most talented artists need to play along and compromise with the people who offer them patronage. Nobody would know the name of Michelangelo if it were not for the Medici family and various popes that commissioned his work.
I still don't get why this film gets so much praise, outside of Norton's performance. To me it felt cliche, even in 98. Maybe I need to rewatch it, it has been over 20 years, but I remember scratching my head when leaving the theater.
That’s an interesting take. I had an opposite reaction to it. I was so shocked by it that still to this day. I watch this movie and I am left impressed with the character performances and the storyline.
You’ve only seen it once in theaters? Which would’ve been 26 years ago. Yea you typically need to watch a movie two or three times to get a really good feel for it.
A rabbi, a priest, and Tibetan monk all walk into a film producer's office...
When they found out what the movie was about, they walked out...
😂😂😂
This should have more likes 😂
😂
... producer takes one look and says: 'Get the hell outta here.'
He compares himself to Kubrick and Van Gogh but his vision is to make Transformers 12
lol
😅
@@P2501-y6u is that a prequel to CITIZEN KANE? Shout out to the man, Orson Wells.
A great Wisconsin boy, a “self-confirmed Badger”, and the World’s Greatest Film Maker.
LOL! He ain't no Kubrick, that's for sure! He might not even be an Uwe Boll :D
@@genghiskhan7041 “seven, six, two millimeter, Full Metal Jacket…”
Great performance from Daniel Day Lewis in this wacky director role
1/10 troll attempt
😂😂
@@gumpk48overly critical judgement. 1/10
This made me smile
They absolutely destroyed the movie, the first half is a masterpiece, the rest is pure condescending garbage.
I read all the comments and I think this... When I saw the movie back in '98 I liked it so much I must have watched it over 10 times since then. Judging by the end result, If Edward Norton was ultimately responsible for this masterpiece then congratulations to him, no matter what his ego is. A job VERY well done.
lol good point.. awesome job from Edward Norton!
"I'm fully aware that I'm a first-time director, but I need the same autonomy and respect that Stanley Kubrick gets."
That quote alone killed his whole case in the eyes of every craftsman, regardless of the profession.
Respect is earned, not claimed.
The problem with that is, when you’re a creative that is hired for their creativity, that’s your respect earned. Tony Kaye wasn’t _really_ a first time director. He had a resume and credits to his name, albeit commercial work. But that commercial work is what earned him his way into these meetings with producers, who would eventually hire him because they wanted his creativity to make them money. So, I understand his frustration. You came to me, I didn’t come to you. So, why aren’t you trusting me to do what you hired me for???
@@Palendrome and yet he didn't want Ed Norton for the film, when his performance is a huge element of why that film works. If it wasn't for his performance people wouldn't have an idea who the director even is.
@@TheNeverists666you don't know that because nobody else shot it without Norton. I can tell you that any film with Norton in it won't get a dollar outta me. Ive always hated the way he acted, ever since I was a teen or before I found out Norton is painful to work with.
@@eyespy3001 True, to an extent. But naive. Ultimately you're paid to do a job. Whoever pays you is your boss.
They often hire you to do something fast and cheap, not to do it "the right way" or however you want. Your expertise doesn't matter to them. They just want that rising star that, hot new name in the credits.
_That's_ what makes them (short term) money. Long term be damned, 'cause they usually only think about the next fiscal year anyway.
And in the end, it's their movie. They can do whatever they want with it.
Crying, "I'm THE creative one! It's MY movie, my baby. Look how they massacred my boy," while throwing a tantrum just shows how incredibly naive he went into this.
That, combined with his hubris and backed up with his ego makes him the idiot of the story.
Another example of why no one cares about or goes to movies anymore. The movie industry turns everyone who works on everything, even a public service announcement, into a self centred “lovey” and this clown is no exception.
Norton sounded like the only one who knew what the movie should be. He even admitted he didn't know what he wanted until he wanted to do reshoots
It’s not that he simply didn’t know what he wanted-it’s that he couldn’t trust what he had envisioned anymore since there was so much fighting about what he should be and the director wasn’t listened to.
@@thegoodgeneralya I think the director was right tbh
I watched the entire video and i still dont know wtf Tony Kaye's view of American History X would've looked like. Bla-bla-bla
He wanted Norton to turn skinhead again at the end just like in the book. This would change the meaning of the movie dramatically and would make it too dark that's why they refused to do it.
That ending makes sense, but the ending in the film makes more sense.
@@logangodofcandy Wishful thinking. The reality is more like in the book.
@@baskenmannzwei1234 and thats why we go to the movies. Not to simply watch reality
@@martiendejong8857 well then the director was understandably annoyed. I guess he didn't expect the level of fuckery by Hollywood that he got exposed to
In Edward Norton‘s defense, he was the one playing a neo Nazi in a very controversial film at the time. Not handled the right way it could have absolutely ruined his career.
Theoretically, how would that have actually played out?
Stephen Graham plays a nasty skinhead who kills a black man in a fit of rage in This Is England. has gone on to have an amazing fruitful carreer
@@goblinbollocks2838I could see other directors and producers being hesitant to cast Norton in other parts because of the popularity of this film. Like they could only see him as this kind of character. Or he could have gotten typecast in roles like this. Happens to actors all the time.
@@TheoConwayMilky survived in This Is England. Have you watched the sequel series? There's TIE 1986, TIE 1988, and TIE 1990. Combo and Milky are in all of them.
@@g7924 ironically Norton stopped being cast because he was too controlling and pulled the same crap on other sets. He's still one of my favs, but he's a dick.
*When ego ruins director's career before it even starts* would be a better title for this video.
rare case where both titles are accurate
You sound like a studio employee.
Hello Mr. Norton
Studio's fault. Let the artist work
@slartibartfast7921 you sound like a sheep
It's a real shame Tony's ego got in the way. If the movie had turned out badly, he would've been okay throwing a fit; but since it was so good, he should've just taken all the credit for it and said to himself "I'll never work with Norton again," like a lot of people have done.
Agreed. Take the win. He was trying to get into Hollywood not some obscure European independent film festival.
Spoken like a person who has never invested their soul on a project to have it turn into an abomination. The movie wasn't "good" it was mediocre and forgettable. I read the original script, and it was original and creative, but Norton and the others turned into another boring hollyweird abortion.
As much as I like American History X, I completely understand the artists frustration of their work being changed without their own input. I'm sure the thought has crossed his mind thousands of times since the movies inception, but his art was changed and he has the backbone to stand against that. He was hired for his creative mind and turned it against him.
@@jacktheaviator4938 Agree. Some people in these comments are calling it "one of the greatest films of all time.". oof.
@@eeyorebenji2836 I 100% get that. I think if I were in his shoes I'd be mortified.
Edward Norton spoke about this recently in person at a Q&A in Dublin. He had nothing but good things to say about Tony. He said the studio was beyond frustrated with Tony waiting for a final edit and had to step in to get the film finished in time. Norton was on hand and took over the edit and finished the film at the studios request.
Very slick.
Of course he has nothing but good things to say, because he got everything he wanted from the movie, he got it his way. There’s no reason for him to say something bad. But You know Norton has built a reputation for being hard to work with and condescending towards others. If he doesn’t have it his way he bad mouths and doesn’t promote the movie
You have to be skeptical about people who have "nothing but good things to say" about someone.
@@Crowcatcinemahaha like when Kevin Nash says "I never had a problem with him"
Yeah he had nothing but good things to say except that the studio hated him and wanted him dead
The theory is Edward Norton saved this movie from being a straight up, incoherent piece of shit.
Apparently without Norton the ending would have ruined the whole movie
Isn't it funny that this whole vid was from the perspective of the director, and could hardly be more sympathetic to him, yet everyone is still like, "yeah dude, you were nuts, you should have listened to your actor". You have to be pretty darn kooky for people to take sides with the Hollywood studios over you.
Ed gets a bad rap but he's mad-talented and does good work.
@@russelljackson8153 i have a feeling he gets a bad rap because not only is he talented, he's disciplined and obsessed with the craft. Meanwhile it's well known creative people tend to be lazy & procrastinate, pretty sure it's not different in Hollywood.
These people get paid insane salaries, yet always complain about having put effort into their work.
@@Moviefreak893 It's hard to picture the film having a worse ending. Even when I was 13, it felt like something straight out of a manipulative after-school special. I still cringe every time Furlong's narration kicks in.
Worked with Tony Kaye. He's nuts and arrogant. His ego from being mostly a TV commercial director is beyond belief.
Ed Norton also has a mega ego, not a good combo to put them together
When the producers called the flim a child and Tony an abusive parent it really cements the point that to an artist their creations ARE their child. Tony was in tears over this, do you think a single j producer gave a shit about anything other than money?
Well Ed Norton is a notorious prima Donna. He calls himself a genius so....
I think the point of this video wasn’t necessarily to indicate that being nuts and arrogant automatically precludes you from being a good artist though does it? I’m not entirely sure how stellar your career has been.
I worked with greasyfilms. the ego on this dude, when all he films is step sister corn. smh.
:P
ok but the quality of the production was soo good that even a version that wasn't the directors cut was still good. Sort of a testament to Kaye and crews ability.
When a covert narcissist works under an overt narcissist this happens.
@@KristianSkylstad Hollywood in a nutshell
No. Making the film you want when you're the director isn't narcissistic. Buy a dictionary
@@raymond9642 yeah, I don't think you get that high up the ladder without being able to step on a few necks without feeling bad about it. icky
When a TH-cam psychologist thinks he figured out two complete strangers identity from watching a 14 minute video despite never meeting either in person…
This comment really is the only one needed.
Edward Norton was fantastic. The movie was great exactly the way it was.
Kaye was given a shot at an unusual project, but had zero chill about collaboration, compromise, or the business of it. Norton has since developed a reputation as an auteur/cranky child, but he still gets regular work and the film that he helped shape was stunning. I did see it in the theatre.
Well, Norton has the benefit of producing respected and beloved works while having a reputation as a auteur/cranky child. I mean, even though he got fired from the MCU, everyone at Marvel did basically acknowledge that he saved the Incredible Hulk movie by coming in and rewriting the script at the last minute/while shooting. He has more than one reputation, one being hard to work with, and another being that produces results. It's why he still gets regular work and people who seek him out to work with. And at least he's also able to poke fun at himself taking on some of the roles he does like in Birdman.
“When an Actor Saves a Film From a Director’s Horrible Ego” fixed your title.
Thank you.
🎯🎯🎯
Movie was ass
@@matthickman3492 nah
Movie was technically decent.
The problem here is that if Kaye had just accepted what he couldn't control, collaborated with Norton and even just let him edit the film, he would have been given the full autonomy he wanted in later films. But because he chose to throw a tantrum, he lost the battle and the war. Someone who can't see the benefit of a short term concession, or the consequences of fighting a losing battle, shouldn't be a director.
Exactly. Think about what hiring a lawyer to sue and try to put “Directed by Humpty Dumpty” on the film you were responsible for signals to every potential future collaborator.
the problem is he is who he is, it's a whole thing, it's bound, if kaye had been ''smarter'', he wouldn't be making any of these films cuz that would be another person
@@ohIfvkingwish Well said.
Yeah you can tell by listening to him speak that he cared more about getting his way, than just rolling with things and being a part of this great movie.
He may he an egomaniac, but so is Ed Norton. it's unheard of for a director to give up all his power over the film to an actor.
Tony comes across as completely unhinged
Because he dares to go off the NPC script download and have a mind of his own?
@@jhpfdijtuiweruot more like because he rants like a lunatic
But that’s what makes him so compelling, to me. He has his own warped vision, that I’d love to see. His films are all unique.
I think it’s refreshing to see someone so passionate about the artistic integrity of his work.
would hate to see how u are
I saw this movie when it came out in theaters. I had NO idea any of this had happened. None. This wasn't the time of social media. It is interesting how much the internet has completely redefined our relationship with entertainment... I think it was way better pre-internet. We went in to see a movie CLEAN, likely having only seen a trailer and maybe an actor or two appearing on a late night show to promote it. There wasn't all this NOISE surrounding everything and getting in the way of the experience of watching the movie.
Never heard of this either
George has a line on Seinfeld talking about going in CLEAN to movies. Lol
They literally just said that this guy spent $100k on newspaper ads badmouthing Norton and the film, so people definitely knew, even without social media. It’s weird how people trick themselves into thinking that things were different than they actually were before social media. Information still got around just fine.
@@dewilew2137 I had no clue about any of this and was mid teens when it came out..
But comparing information we had in the 90s to the info we have today is kinda insane 😂 If we didn’t see it on tv, or hear it from a friend it didn’t exist. Nothing like today.
Of course some people saw it in newspapers but not 10% of who would hear about it if it came out today.
The problem is that now movies spend half a year doing Promo leading to a big release where all the actors and the studio do their best to make you hate them before watching the movie. That's the real problem. The Internet has taken us from knowing Actors only for their roles to being unable to avoid the actor's actual personalities.
Tony Kaye should’ve taken the john avildsen route. john avildsen directed the 1970 film “Joe” starring Peter Boyle. I think it was his first film but was either fired half way through production or fired during post. But either way, his name was on the film and didn’t bad mouth the producers or anything. He gets hired by Jack Lemmon for the film “save the tiger” because john avildsen did a great job on “Joe” despite being fired. He then gets hired to direct “Rocky” and we all know what happened there.
What happened?
@ he ends up winning the Oscar for best director and movie wins best picture.
@@quarantinebored1427 I thought he was gonna get fired too
💯 op, problem is ego. Tony Kaye self destructed his own career for nothing.
Karate Kid 1,2 and 3 happened
0:32 the director acts like Edward Norton's Character in the movie.
My man seems extremely unhinged here
Keep in mind there's an overt narcissist and cover narcissist waging war, here. Don't just pay attention to the loud one.
Oi vey
Tony Kaye was literally about to get fucked up by me and some locals for shoving an old woman who wanted a picture with him (she didn't know who he was, just start struck with a person whom people wanted pictures with). This happened way back in 2017 in Tangier... I, and the rest of lads got arrested and spent 48 hours in a holding cell when Tony didn't have a scratch on him (ZERO basis for a lawful arrest), I still hate the cops because of that, one of the cops spoke English and could understand all the nasty shit he was saying and STILL took his side...
DO NOT EVER COME BACK TO MOROCCO TONY!!! So glad this video got recommended to me so I could share this little story.
I swear everyone in the UK knows each other. Funny how several people here have Tony Kaye stories lol
@azbacnikorange I'm a Moroccan in Morocco, telling a story that happened in Morocco.
Or did I misunderstand your comment??
Cap
Lies
honestly, the last big story to come out of morocco was two white girls being raped and decapitated by a band of moroccons on the backpacking trails.
nobody is 'coming back' to morocco anytime soon. nobody is immigrating there. you're all just leaving your hellscape. in 2017 tony kay was old too. something tells me in morocco its more than common for men to shove women. why would that be? because it is. so tony kaye, an old man in 2017, shoving an old woman, not uncommon.
get over yourself. nobody cares.
In all honesty Hollywood hands out checks for hack directors for 100 and 200 million nowadays like they’re giving out Halloween candy.
Yup. And all that $ is for shitty actors (or they just don't care), and cgi junk that looks faker than 1980s claymation lol
The hack directors are there to oversee the money, not to make "their" movie but the studio's
Norton has a reputation for taking over edits. I completely understand Kayes frustration and heartbreak. After all is said and done, the film is amazing. It’s a great topic for debate over if Norton was right or wrong for editing w/o Kaye, but i think we can at least all agree the film is wonderful. I feel bad for Kaye i really do. I wish we had his cut to compare with, but i can’t help but love what we got. It is a very hard movie to watch at points and i think it came out perfect. Rather than say who is right or wrong i’d just wish we had 2 cuts
I will say the way he reacted DID hurt his future, but I can’t argue with a man who put his heart and soul into a project that should have made him, but was shot down
If the dude just bit his tongue and went along with the film that everyone (critics, audience, and the suits) liked, he would have had an amazing feature film debut and plenty of later chances to make more films with more autonomy. Very rarely is your first foray into a field your best. Instead his ego sunk him and signaled to everyone that he was going to be a massive liability.
Well said.
@@robvdmit was far from "hard to watch" unless you're easily offended by drama.. requim of a dream is tough, Bad Ltnt is tough, but imo the 1st part is excellent and then takes a woke turn where he's SHOCKED that a black guy (like the one he curb-stomped) is in prison for stealing a 📺 and suddenly he's woke?! 1 guy who told him what was common knowledge already and "whaaaat?? That does it, I'm growing my hair back and having a heart to heart with my brother to teach him that "racism is bad" and turn this into a Disney/Lifetime film. I understand both arguments and maybe we'll get an uncut sequel. In black n white. lol
The trouble is tony did not have a vision for that film. He had a vision for a different film that was made from parts of that film. That was never going to sell. Norton for whatever he did or whatever ego he might have had, had some idea of what to do with what they already had. From the sound of it, the director got behind the wheel and had no idea where he was driving. So when someone else kept the car from crashing he should have been grateful and shut up.
Results matter. The film, as edited and influenced by Edward Norton, was good. No one cares about the unproven novice who wanted to sabotage the film due to ego. Humpty Dumpty indeed.
Edward Norton has a history of being controlling over the characters he played. That’s why marvel fired him from the hulk series.
An actor reads the script before he acts in a film. Making corrections after the film is shot is not right.
@@GANRIK thats what they always do though. you dont want to have static actors, they have to make the role their own.
I actually am okay with this for a couple reason.
Edward Norton has IMPROVED his character arc more so than he's destroyed it. The problem with Hollywood is the formulaic over substance cliche.
This of course doesn't change the fact that he's difficult to work with, but if someone gets a shit script and sees a gem in it by a few adjustments, I'm all for it. I'd rather have that than the Snow White and Marvel slop.
The script isn't what goes on screen. Whatever the director tells you is what goes on screen.
His Hulk was a Banner film. Very low rewatch value.
A first time feature film director is not going to get the same protection a Stanley Kubrick gets. It’s crazy Tony Kaye said that out loud.
It sounds like he fell victim to his own hubris, and we were graced with one of the best films of the generation.
Tony Kaye was one crazy dude. Norton was hard to work with, but I don't think he ruined director's vision since he didn't know what he wanted in the first place.
The fact the movie is top 50 on IMDB vindicates anything Ed did lol. Director seems insane.
The fact that he still dismisses this masterpiece of a movie speaks volumes about the level of narcissism he's at.
Is that what it is? Something felt off to me about him. Particularly the end. I mean I know Ed Nort can be difficult to work with. And admittedly I've YET to see the film...But towards the end of this video, something about him felt off... slightly delusional..?
It's not a masterpiece though.
@@based-ys9umIt's totally subjective. I think the majority of people that have seen it would call it a masterpiece and/or an incredible movie. For me it's a strong 8.5/10.
@@grahamclarke846 masterpiece and underrated is used too tightly these days.
@@based-ys9um what movies would you consider to be masterpieces then?
"I'm an Artist."
-Danny Kaye, director of commercial slop and one third of a good movie
It’s kinda funny that Kaye was saying “nobody would listen to me or do what I wanted”
Well maybe they were right not to listen cause the film turned out perfect. And he was realllly wrong about casting Norton because I can’t see anyone else playing that part better.
Yeah, it seems like Norton should be credited for making an incredible movie.
I agree it was an amazing film, and I thought Norton was brilliant in it - but Kaye himself says that Norton did a great performance, it's just that he wasn't looking for a performance. He wanted to make a different film than the one you saw and while Norton was perfect for that role, he may still not have suited the film that Kaye would have ended up making if he were allowed to finish it
Ed is good at playing mean, angry, and belligerent.
The film is ok, even good by Hollywood standards but as Kaye said he is driven to bring something completely different. He wanted to produce a seminal work and while the film is decent it’s not a masterpiece
@@PkTwothousandit's not decent. It's great. Its your opinion and it's a wrong one lol You can't argue it's success.
"Would've been great"??? Has he seen the finished product?? I loved that film. It was an eye opener for me as a teen. 👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽
It really was a Great Film
it's a great movie with the right ending
Terrible ending, otherwise film was good
@@user-xu4kr6nw7o what do you think was wrong with the ending?
This man might be an artistic genius. But with his career being cut short makes him across as a lunatic. But Ed Norton has a history of over stepping boundaries.
Ed Norton is an habitual line stepper.
The fact that he wanted Denzel Washington instead of Edward Norton was quite troubling.
Its actually a shame considering he did a great film called Detachment in the late 2000s and i dare say it had the same emotional weight as American History X.
I love AHX i think its one of the greatest films of the late 90's and Detachment was fantastic so i definitely think he deserves a chance in spite of his arrogance.
Is the director's cut available anywhere? I'd be interested to see this other version.
Yep! It’s on TH-cam.
Director’s cut > Norton cut btw, but Norton wins in the basketball scene at least 😅
It's here on YT? Well damn! That's tonight's viewing sorted. Perfect New Year's Day hangover movie. Thank you for letting me know and have a very Happy New Year mate.🍻👍🏻
@@Wulfyrthe comment section gem of 2025.
The director's cut is straight garbage. It undoes all of the lessons Derek learned, and it tells the audience that hate isnin fact the way. Some people already take that from the film, and Tony Kayes version would have solidified it. It would not have been a great or commendable film, it would have been white supremacist propaganda.
4:30
I thought the exact same! As soon as he said that I could fully see the sequence of events that occured.
it’s not his movie it’s the studios movie. Unless you’re the executive producer it’s not your money, your an employee who directs the cast and crew to fulfill the studios film. If he produced it independently he could have done whatever he wants but instead he made public statements disparaging his employer who funded an attempt at his vision with no features on his track record. He’s a spoiled brat with a big ego, and the movie is probably better without his final vision if his behavior is any indication of his thought process
Considering one of the biggest discrepancies between what Kaye wanted and what we got was that the last scene was going to be Derek reshaving his head after Danny dies making the entire movie pointless, I agree with you.
@@BadseedGarden Pointless how?
@@eeyorebenji2836all those valuable lessons learned in prison would have been pointless if he just went back to his old ways. So yeah, it'd be a stupid ending.
@eeyorebenji2836 The entire arch of the story is based on personal growth, that ending implies that Danny dying would make him forget everything that already happened to him. While I understand the point it's trying to make, it's not even realistic, I mean, I don't even see a world where the character we see Derek become tries to get revenge for Derek, by what? Killing a kid? Or the gang members surrounding the kid? The entire point of the movie was about letting go of hate and baggage that can accumulate as a result of traumatic events and a morally questionable upbringing.
I'm not saying there isn't a man in the world who wouldn't be hateful after their brother was killed even in Derek's circumstances, but the idea that he would just become a Nazi again because the kid who shot his brother was black is kind of insane.
@@BadseedGarden It IS insane, and it happens. It's not entirely unrealistic for someone to fall back into that way of life, both after having to experience such an event and the fact most people he knows are nazis.
A movie doesn't nullify itself because the "hero" goes back to square one, it's based on the real world and unfortunately that type of shit happens.
Mind you I like the movie and it's ending but the alternative isn't inherently a bad one either.
Very interesting. I had no idea all this drama had occurred behind the film. Thanks for the content.
You can’t lie this is like Narcissist director VS Narcissist actor 😂
Imagine going to the bank and telling them "I need a $250 million loan for a business idea I have!" And then the bank says "ok, what's your idea? Do you have a business plan to show us?" And then you just say "No, IDK what it is yet, but just trust me!"
What a psycho. The guy is better suited behind bars than behind a camera.
Oh bullshxt ..... dumbest comment on here
Bullshxt.......... Dumbest comment on here.......
That’s a little strong, no?
@@frimports maybe a little.
The problem with American History X - the idea that a rascist goes to prison and comes out not rascist... no way, you go in not rascist and you come out rascist.
i don't get how is this the movie's problem, and why the other idea can't also be true, especially given the context of this movie
Exactly.
That has happened. It's not too common but it does.
Bullshit. People in prison change. They see the ugly side of the world. There’s countless stories of racists coming out changed people from prison.
Nice little well rounded vid, learned a bit and was engaged the whole time. Well done.
Muccini just gave an interview on an italian podcast on how the producers in America have in general way too much control that it makes it very hard for any director to work. He was lucky in his first American movie bc in his case he had the actor's Will Smith "shield" from the anti-productive control of the producers. He said too many directors in these situations are unfortunately called just to give camera directions as a sort of "ghost" of a director.
The movie turned out amazing, Kaye has done bugger all since except direct shitty pop music videos and honestly the guys kind of an out of date hack.
It did not turn out amazing and btw if it did, he filmed it, not Norton.
Did you miss the part where he was blacklisted?
@@TheGourdKing Sounds like he blacklisted himself. Right or wrong, know your role if you're a first time director. He's got his integrity. And no other movies
@@blurredlenzpictures3251 make your mind up
@@blurredlenzpictures3251you're an idiot. It makes top movie lists. Tony is a hack.
Now i want to see what the directors movie would have been
The irony of all of this; it's still an amazing movie. A classic.
As has been quoted in the video, it feels like a movie centering around an amazing performance more than an amazing film.
😂😂 nah he fumbled the bag 😂😂 and has no one to blame but himself
it shows he cares about film, about his work, that's a real artist there.
Nope. You don’t know him. Kaye is such a prick.
The director sounds like a douche, I'm team Norton that movie was dope
Apparently Norton's desire to change things to his own liking is what killed his career in the MCU.
I think a lot of people forget that despite Norton’s star power he had only been a major actor for about two years at this point. The fact the studio was willing to let him get into the edit speaks to a fact that Kaye was really overplaying his own hand whereas Norton, despite being difficult himself, kinda knew what he was doing. It also speaks to Kaye being so wild and weird that the studio trusted an actor who’d only been a star for maybe two years to handle the edit on their new film; that kinda pull is usually only reserved for Hollywood royalty who are firmly ingrained in the system. Norton was essentially still a ‘flavor of the month’ with just as much potential to peter out as Kaye and they still gave him the editing power.
Edward Norton has built a reputation in Hollywood for being condescending and always butting heads with directors. What happened here is Kayes knows he’s talented, but since it was his first film, the studio had much of the control, and the studio hired a controlling actor that wanted it his way.
I appreciate his passion, but I’d be afraid to hire him to walk my dog even.. I can’t imagine the drama and stress around him.
This is the same old story. Most people that have worked with him have said they would never do it again.
What would his version of American history x be like, it's such a great movie
I absolutely love your style of storytelling. Really entertaining and informative while breezing by with an electric fast pace. Love all your content!
Saw your vids for the first time just a few hours ago, please please please don’t stop making these videos, they are clear, informative, and concise! I’m captivated and fully invested! I will absolutely be checking in weekly for updates 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
I absolutely luv this channel. Especially since I’m a screenwriter. There’s a lot of movie info on this little channel that I never knew. And the narrator sounds a lot like my other film channel favorite: Robot Head! 👍
*AMERICAN HISTORY X ("as is") IS EASILY ONE OF MY ALL TIME FAVORITE MOVIES!!! Nearly perfect.*
I’d love to see his cut of the movie and even what his final vision would have been.
I would too. But that doesn't mean it would be better. It might have had some really bad choices. But i'd like to see, just for comparison.
the original cut was supposed to focus more on the little brother's arc, nortons character was mostly relegated to the black and white flashbacks. they added more scenes with norton durring the reshoot, and norton moved the focus to his character durring his edit of the movie. the original cut was supposed to focus on the redemtion of furlongs character while writing about his brother's crimes. instead norton's edit focuses on his his character's attempted redemtion and consequences of his influence on his brothers life.
@@thejoker420xpThey are both good ideas honestly
@@pupusaslordking5617 i agree. i like the movie the way it released, its one of my favorite films but a directors cut would be pretty cool too.
@@liquifex It would be like the first half, a dark fucking masterpiece, the second act is GARBAGE, like really, the whole tone of the movie changes to being this childish condescending crap.
As much I like the movie, I understand his frustration. Norton's meddling in every movie he's in is well known at this point. Norton later developed a reputation of being difficult to work with. Norton's career didn't really end up being as great as was thought at the early to mid 90's.
Kaye might be an arrogant jerk but so was young Edward Norton. Norton has since mellowed out a bit.
Lake of Fire is a great documentary!
His most notable performance recently was birdman for this reason I think. I hate the fact that Michael Keaton basically became what that movie was parodying.
Very true. And Norton cannot carry a box office. I remember around this time girls being into Edward for this film and I was like the guy who's a skinhead and now a skinny wimp? Hulk was a huge failure and Fight Club was great but he is relegated to small support now. He'll probably win an academy award for this recent Bob Dylan movie, who knows, not watching that thing.
@slartibartfast7921 a highly overrated film imo. But at least we got more Keaton.
@@blurredlenzpictures3251 That’s your opinion. I hope you enjoyed that new Batman garbage… because… more Keaton.
@slartibartfast7921 no it's highly overrated. And I didn't see him in The Batman.
I worked with Tony Kaye in 1997 in Brintmister England. He was chill with cinematography but when it came to actors final cuts, he was absolutely atrocious in his whit and magnitude.
Tony Kaye's version, or vision, is impressionistic (you can see some of Kaye's choices in Norton's version) . We really need a director's cut of this as a two disc release of this masterpiece
You can watch the entire cut on YT
Always loved Edward Norton but this video makes me think that the reason his performance in Birdman was one of his best ever is because he was being himself.
Could anyone imagine American History X NOT centered around Norton/Derek? It wouldn't even make sense.
Also, Tony said he wanted Norton's character to revert back to his former white supremacist ways after Edward Furlong character's death... But that also would undercut everything that came before it, and it would really have left the film feeling entirely pointless.
It would have undercut the silver lining of the ending and moral of the story. But it would have been gritty and realistic. A man in his situation could swing either way.
exactly, the ending where Norton's character shaves his head again undermines his character arc and the dramatic effect of the movie
@@Glocktologist I don't think so... Not with the story we were shown.
First off, you get the sense that Derek never believed in any of that stuff and was driven by anger... And we see and he recognizes how that anger impacted his life.
And beyond that, he got to see the other white supremacists and that they didn't stand for anything. Not only was be brutally assaulted by his own people, but he was abandoned by them and left to get killed... WHICH 100% WOULD HAVE HAPPENED had his black friend/workmate not vouched for him.
So how would his brother being killed push him back that direction? I'd say it's far more likely to play out how it did, and Derek would mostly blame himself for what he did and the heat his actions drew on him and his family, and for leading Danny down that path to begin with... A path he knows was wrong and never truly believed in.
But ultimately, we don't get to se what comes next. So he very well could have gone back towards being a white supremacist... But the movie did not have to show the audience that, and was better for leaving the story where it did.
The best quote I can think to speak to this point is;
_"There are fine things, old boy, which are more brilliant when unfinished, than when finished too much."_
"I'm aware that Im a first time director, but I need the same autonomy and respect that Kubrick gets" Is beyond parody. Its literally the kind 9f thing I would expect to see on /tv/ taking the piss out of him.
American History X is one of the most brilliant movies I've ever seen. Maybe not 100% this director's vision but by God, he really should be happier with how it came out.
When an unstoppable ego meets an immovable ego
I bet he and A24 would work well together. They have a great reputation of staying out of the way of a production or buying projects that have been completed and then releasing them unaltered. They've been around for like 12 years and have had so many academy award winning films in that time, specifically because of this business model.
Im so glad when yt decides to recommend me an actual good channel for once. Great video. I see you only upload every other month, but your vid essays are excellent.
Thank you, John!
Still baffled that someone attached to a film as emotionally powerful & resonating as American History X would want to be credited as "Humpty Dumpty."
Well obviously Norton's decisions were right. The movie has an insane impact. The director just didn't like Norton so he tried to cutt him as much as possible
Dude basically said he had 'no idea' what he wanted to do with the film himself and that he would need another 6-10 weeks of shooting. No studio is going to just be like, 'Yeah, dude, you take another 6-10 weeks on our investment to figure out your vision, take your time.' And he even knew that himself
Ed Norton is the reason that know one wants to work with Ed Norton. No actor should be editing a film unless they directed the movie.
Yeah, Kaye may have been foolish in many ways but there's no director on the planet who would be happy to hear that one of their actors was coming into the editing room to guide the film to completion.
@@cinedome1let me ask you something AND genuinely asking because I just can't tell but what foolishness did he convey in regards to AHX? PLEASE, I swear this is not a rhetorical question. I'm legit not seeing it
Well, I don't think any director attempting to play the Hollywood game can be called sensible when they punch walls in the post-production house, bad-mouth their collaborators in the press, take an entire year to re-edit the movie after receiving notes on the first cut (before asking for 4+ weeks of re-shoots to make a "wholly different film"), and then try to have their name on the credit replaced with Humpty Dumpty when they don't get their way. I am sympathetic to Tony's cause from a creative perspective, but he repeatedly played a bad hand after delivering his so-called "95-minute diamond of a picture." There's nothing intelligent about deliberately being a nightmare to people who are depending on you (and have paid you well) to deliver something they're happy with.
Norton has notoriously been one of the hardest actors to deal with. That’s why he hasn’t done much lately. All the way down to the bottled water on set is his choice. I heard Joaquin Phoenix was the other option for the film but Norton truly killed it
A director, a priest, a rabbi, and a monk walk into a bar- I mean, a producer's office... That had to be the goofiest thing this guy had ever seen! 😂
I get where Tony is coming from, but at the end of the day, He only really shot himself in the foot.
He gave up the opportunity to create many more amazing movies, I hope it was worth it.
I had to see this in an art house theatre near the University of Illinois. Not a lot of movies of that time had anywhere near the impact of American History X. I consider it an acting masterpiece from Norton and surprisingly from Furlong. If only he could have pulled it together for Terminator 3...
They broke the mold after Tony. You could be furious with him one moment and then on the floor laughing at some completely absurd thing the next. Those memories are priceless to me
It's a shame that guys like him have to deal with executives in a board room. If his career would have started in the 70s, he'd probably be a household name, but unfortunately he started in the early era of suits and numbers.
Wrong. His bad attitude did him in.
I had to go out of my way to see this movie. Had to drive into the main city, and find this tiny little independent theater, where the screen was maybe twice the size of a big screen TV at home. Mind you, this is in the Washington DC area. It wasn't in the middle of nowhere.
I couldn't imagine AHX as anything different. I used to throw it on in the background every day when I was a teenager. It was such a great redemption story with a tragic end. I can understand Tony's perspective especially with the reputation of Norton being a control freak in editing but it doesn't sound like he even knew what he wanted the film to be.
Well he did know, he explains it in this video. He needed one more month to do some reshoots, and then he needed autonomy in the editing room.
i'm usually one to stand by auteurs but i think you're right on the money here. an artist knows which battles to pick and when. humpty dumpty just wanted all of the attention to be on him, including up to the point of sabotaging his own art. norton shares some blame here, but by kaye's own admission he had a stronger sense of the film and a greater capacity to communicate that idea. ambition and conviction mean nothing in a collaborative field if you can't even convince the crew of your own vision.
I didn't know about this controversy until years later, but it answered my nagging suspicion that this movie WAS tinkered with and edited to make the story understandable. Great film overall IMO, it stands the test of time, yet it's not without it's flaws.
This guy has some personality disorders obviously but probably also a talented artist but even the most talented artists need to play along and compromise with the people who offer them patronage. Nobody would know the name of Michelangelo if it were not for the Medici family and various popes that commissioned his work.
Imagine Crying over making a film
Funny that a child handled the situation more professionally, and more courteously, than any if the grown men involved. Props to john connor.
let see the director's cut we can make up our own minds
I still don't get why this film gets so much praise, outside of Norton's performance. To me it felt cliche, even in 98. Maybe I need to rewatch it, it has been over 20 years, but I remember scratching my head when leaving the theater.
That’s an interesting take. I had an opposite reaction to it. I was so shocked by it that still to this day. I watch this movie and I am left impressed with the character performances and the storyline.
You’ve only seen it once in theaters? Which would’ve been 26 years ago. Yea you typically need to watch a movie two or three times to get a really good feel for it.
What a mess of a Director. Super egotistical. I wouldn’t trust him.
Kaye is mad as a box of spanners.
Box of frogs? A bag of spanners means ugly. 🙂
I never comment but man you did great with this video. Great job
I will always and forever be with Kaye on this matter.
I really enjoyed this. Subbed.
It's an over rated, cliched film but Norton is good in it.
This was beautiful thankyou for making this ☺️