"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.
@@Naturegurl124 your "argument" loses all validation when you use the word cap. Use better english my young friend. But yes, this film is not a masterpiece, I agree. No cap bruh
@cornonthejacob668 LOL oh excuse me I'll speak boomer real quick then..." In my humble opinion this was a masterfully crafted film that had an ending that made me question my own life existentially and the choices we make. And while this is a great film that I appreciate, I'm not sure that I would label this film a "masterpiece." Is that better for you bruh? I mean sir.. lol
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 liked the movie, but I don't think I could stomach the content 10 more times. Its very intense and uncomfortable to watch with the subject matter, but very moving.
I've watched it a good few times and you never get used to the extreme violence, but that is the entire point of this movie. I don't know if anyone could have done a better job on this movie. I feel if he had his way the movie would have been way to intense to be a great moviebas he really likes to color outside the lines and be provocative. He was the most inexperienced one on the cutting room floor. Clearly the editors and production team didn't like his vision of the movie.
I see it a bit like Kaye: it's a good movie with an amazing performance. In my mind, I think it's over-the-top, but not really in the violence so much as the fearmongering over 80s/90s militia-style groups, which was present both in American & British films. For some reason I have a feeling that Kaye's vision was going to ramp that up even more... while diminishing to the point of eliminating the whole growth of Norton's character. For some reason, I'm guessing it was just going to be another foreigner repudiating this country. Which, alright, it can have some value, but we don't need more of it. I'd be very curious what his cut would've been, especially with the extra couple months of filming. I'm sure it would've been _very_ different.
Norton's ego is notorious in Hollywood amongst set crew, but there'a no denying he's a good actor - this glaringly hamfisted communist propaganda piece aside.🙄
@Davedarko In a way sort of I guess? If that's all it was, he essentially contributed $500k towards a $20 million dollar movie. That's not exactly "paying for it".
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
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
It's true, but plenty of critically acclaimed movies were "found" in the edit, so it's not like there's no precedent for using the production process itself as a way of sharpening how the narrative and themes are presented in the final cut. It's obviously not desirable from the perspective of the studios who are financing the project, but the film industry is predicated on precisely this kind of gambit; you give someone creative a bunch of money in the hopes that they can make something with it that will make that money back with a healthy profit on top. The rest is risk mitigation. I mean, look at David Fincher during Alien 3. The difference is that he was able to resist the impulse to burn every bridge in sight over how he was being treated. Maybe Kaye lacked the talent or temperament to be in the same league as Fincher, but the parallels aren't easy to totally ignore.
@@Siledas I imagine any movie that was "found" in the edit had some key element that allowed it to move forward (an untouchable director, a visionary producer, a horrible first draft, etc). And I imagine there are plenty of other '"found" in the edit' movies that still ended up as flops. This movie obviously didn't have any of the required ingredients to let it be reshot. A fully-formed and obviously good-quality movie already existed, as evidenced by the outcome. And the director would have needed a monumentally successful pitch to convince the producers otherwise. But given his antics during the initial shoot, I suspect he was not only low on good-will with them, he probably also failed to articulate his salespitch in a way that was compelling.
@Siledas You bring up an interesting point. It may be that often the bit that makes a movie special is "found in the edit". That something memorable is put together in post, starting from a more typical, maybe even stereotypical film. In those cases, the director made a perhaps a horror film with a solid but not amazing plot, good but not spectacular acting, etc. Which is different from "I didn't even know what I was trying to make." Like a really great sauce on top of a typical, but well-made entree. That's different from if the cook doesn't even know what entree they are trying to make.
We need to see the director's cut because then we can judge his ability. Tony, I'm looking forward to seeing your new movie. And I hope you get a chance to edit your version of your movie.
Doesn’t exist. He went to the producers with the demand to reshoot the whole movie, when all they wanted was a cut movie. That’s why they went with Edward Norton‘s cut, not even because they didn’t like his cut.
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 had an original cut that Norton didn’t like, but overall it does sound like Norton had a much clearer vision for the film and the final version of the film he edited was great.
What are you talking about? It seems the director struggled with his vision. He eventually had his eureka moment, but it was too late, Hollywood needed a film. Norton had a cut to make a beautiful presentation, while the director claimed to have a better vision, but required more time, shooting, rework, etc. The studio threw up their hands and went with the logical and pleasing business solution instead of giving the chaotic and inexperienced artist who was in way over his head more time and money to gamble.
@@michaelscott-joynt3215 Agreed here. Classic battle of the friction between art & business. You get the luxury of doing reshoots and reworking (at your casts' & crew's expense) when it's your own money. Not when there are conglomerates, financiers and distributors behind you. Better yet, don't shoot an unfinished/underdeveloped script.
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.
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.
An indictment of one isn't an endorsement of the other. Working with other people, even unreasonable people, is part of any job but especially in entertainment. Almost all directors have had this happen, especially early in their career, but most don't react like this. Kaye probably has some really good points but that doesn't mean his prescribed solutions would have been any better.
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…
I knew nothing about this. Thank you for your video. AHX is one of my favourite movies. God only knows what his cut would look like, but I’m glad to have what I know and love.
Yep, bringing a visual flair to car commercials is nothing like trying to tell a full-blown, coherent story that pulls nuanced, powerful performances out of actors. In almost every case I'd take the director's side in a conflict like this, but here by Kaye's own admission it sounds like he was out of his depth and floundering, so I'm giving Norton the benefit of the doubt.
Yep, he said he didn’t even know what kind of movie he was making at times and then decided to fundamentally change the movie after it had already wrapped filming. Then, this psycho bringing a bunch of priests in to beg for ten more weeks of filming? wtf? The studio much have been pulling their hair out before Norton took the job (let’s face it, he was probably chomping at the bit to take the reins).
It's telling that there isn't a directors cut anywhere. You would imagine the studio would want one as it would gain huge attention and get lots of eyes on it. So why doesn't it exist? Perhaps it wouldn't turn out as good as he wants everyone to think
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.
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.
@@silverserpent420plenty of people have connections. But at the end of the day, people won’t sign up for months-long shoots with you if you’re a pain in the ass to work with. There must be something redeeming about nortons character if people are still excited to work with him despite the reputation.
@@trashmyego He is def an asshole but in Hollywood if that's all you are then you are doing good. He is an amazing actor and apparently a fantastic director/writer too so we can hate but he gets it done and gets it done well.
When an unstoppable a-hole meets an immovable a-hole. Both the Director and Norton sound like a nightmare to work with. Put them together, and they actually somehow made something beautiful.
Not sure about a-hole as Edward Norton does good things for others but he's very particular and focussed about the films he works in and his performances. People may complain but his work speaks for itself and he's brought success to table they eat from.
Norton, by all accounts, doesn't seem to be a nightmare to work with, just very dedicated to his craft. When you have a director pretty blatantly state that they have no clue what their vision for a movie even is while shooting it and not getting a final edit done, stepping in and doing it himself definitely was the correct call.
@@Nr4747 and apparently the production company asked Norton to step in to get things moving and meet deadlines. This video should have included that fact.
@@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.
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.
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.
Random, but I accidentally saw this film when I was 8 years old. My dad and his ex girlfriend were just starting the movie when I woke up on the couch. I didn’t move because I knew they’d send me to my room, so I remained in the same position during the entirety of the movie. Even though I was only 8 years old, I knew what I was seeing even without having been informed. It became one of my favorite movies that night and it remains one of my favorite movies to this day. Anywho, I hope Tony’s cut sees the light of day one day. I found out he & Edward re-edited the film and also learned about all the drama when I was 17 years old and I’ve always wanted to see his cut. A 4K Blu-ray double disc would be nice.
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.
The truth is Hollywood needs greater tolerance for such disagreements. If everyone is too positive everyone gets too deferential and the end result is underwhelming. The fact that they care so deeply they have to debate it out and rationalize there perspectives is essential and heightens the output. Arguments are healthy, I'd say. The result here was brilliance.
It's hard to side with Tony when he himself had no idea how his vision will ultimately end up. I love how the film was put together and now wondering what could've been. if only he could show us what was the vision he was aiming for then maybe i could get behind him.
Tarentino did. He was just headstrong enough with a good enough vision that he could get that treatment. Getting a star on board before getting funding helped.
@@69nites Tarantino also most likely said that at the beginning of the project while discussing terms. It sounds like Tony said it after already losing control during filming lol.
@@69nites as a rule of thumb, never give anybody who claims to be the best of all time a chance. 999,999 times out of 1,000,000 they're a fraud, or are deluded
@@69nites Even Tarantino had to sell True Romance/Natural Born Killers to get in the door. And Reservoir Dogs was very low key and low budget and easy to hand off, Tarantino was low risk.
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.
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.
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.
He really tried the "Dude, trust me, I'll make a great BLANK" card, after all that he did... A Tony Cut of the movie would probably be very neat, but I doubt it'll happen.
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.
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.
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 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.
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! 👍
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
@@illegalnumber That's the 2nd cut, the 2nd version of Tony's cut. The workprint that leaked is not the original version that Tony screened. Tony originally screened a longer version, it allegedly was well-received by screening crowds. Then he made a much shorter version to be screened again, and that shorter version is what the leaked workprint is. The original version that was screened first, has never leaked.
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.
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.
No it doesn't. He wasn't the director and had no right to basically do a hostile takeover of the directors film, even if it turned out good in the end. It perhaps could have been better or worse in the end but isn't the point, it still would have been the directors choice.
@@Naturegurl124 The director openly admitted he didn't know what he was doing and wanted serious time and cash to reshoot lol, the studio has every right to take control when he exposes himself as incompetent.
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.
@@BenjiHunter01all 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.
We all watched this in the Late 90s, everyone raved on about how Amazing it was and It is a good movie but I wasn't so sure about its greatness. I couldn't put my finger on it but new that the movie could have been significantly better. It wasn't until many years later that I read about the feud and how it had been butchered in the editing room. I would off loved to see the directors version. Im sure it would of been better than the way it ended up.
@@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
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.
So if I'm understanding this correctly, the director couldn't articulate his "vision", had no idea really want he wanted, expected the production company to just give him unlimited time and money to "figure it out" as he went along, and on top of that had extreme narcissistic control issues which led to him being infuriated that anyone else deigned to collaborate on "his baby," leading him to throw a massive crybaby hissy fit after production had wrapped and attempt to sabotage the debut of the film. No wonder he was blacklisted. And on top of all that, he has the gall to complain about how "the film would've been great if he had been allowed to do it HIS way" when the film is ALREADY a classic. He sounds like a total prima donna with an out-of-control ego.
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 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.
0:46 aww the ol guy comes up with good story gets deal then thinks he can shove 6+ hours of ideas into a 2 ish hour movie. Movie came out great those changes needed to be done so they can get the movie out and it's good. I bet whatever he had was all over the place making the movie people step in so they don't lose more of their millions. I don't care who you are if you're playing with millions of someone els money they're gonna come stand over your shoulder at some point. You could have took this and started a man for yourself work on a few movies then make what you want to make how you want to make it with your own money. Why would you go out on the street crying to random people who doesn't even care hahahah.
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.
This movie was absolutely amazing. If the majority of Norton's scenes were cut out, then I'm sorry, they cut out the main reason this movie was so powerful in the first place.
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.
When an unstoppable ego meets an immovable ego
more like when talent meats Rome. the sellouts look great in the history.
When a super hero movie isn't made for small children.
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.'
"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.
If a director can't articulate his vision for a film, he doesn’t have one. The movie is a masterpiece. Thanks, Ed Norton.
It's not a masterpiece bruh stop the cap 😂
@@Naturegurl124 your "argument" loses all validation when you use the word cap. Use better english my young friend. But yes, this film is not a masterpiece, I agree. No cap bruh
That's a load of shit.
@cornonthejacob668 LOL oh excuse me I'll speak boomer real quick then..." In my humble opinion this was a masterfully crafted film that had an ending that made me question my own life existentially and the choices we make. And while this is a great film that I appreciate, I'm not sure that I would label this film a "masterpiece." Is that better for you bruh? I mean sir.. lol
It's good. But not a masterpiece. The supporting cast was really great too- Stacey Keach, Fairuza Balk, and Edward Furlong
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.
*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
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 liked the movie, but I don't think I could stomach the content 10 more times. Its very intense and uncomfortable to watch with the subject matter, but very moving.
I've watched it a good few times and you never get used to the extreme violence, but that is the entire point of this movie. I don't know if anyone could have done a better job on this movie. I feel if he had his way the movie would have been way to intense to be a great moviebas he really likes to color outside the lines and be provocative. He was the most inexperienced one on the cutting room floor. Clearly the editors and production team didn't like his vision of the movie.
I see it a bit like Kaye: it's a good movie with an amazing performance. In my mind, I think it's over-the-top, but not really in the violence so much as the fearmongering over 80s/90s militia-style groups, which was present both in American & British films. For some reason I have a feeling that Kaye's vision was going to ramp that up even more... while diminishing to the point of eliminating the whole growth of Norton's character. For some reason, I'm guessing it was just going to be another foreigner repudiating this country. Which, alright, it can have some value, but we don't need more of it.
I'd be very curious what his cut would've been, especially with the extra couple months of filming. I'm sure it would've been _very_ different.
Norton's ego is notorious in Hollywood amongst set crew, but there'a no denying he's a good actor - this glaringly hamfisted communist propaganda piece aside.🙄
The context is constantly left out that Norton was PAYING for the movie
That's wild
I've read multiple times that he took a pay cut to be in it, but never that he actually funded the film. Source?
@@kristinaleigh4502 I feel like that's paying for it in a way
@Davedarko In a way sort of I guess? If that's all it was, he essentially contributed $500k towards a $20 million dollar movie. That's not exactly "paying for it".
@@Davedarko Right and a tax cut is a cash bonus.
Watching him sell himself at 12:30 is hilarious, it's like he's realized he could've been a fantastically wealthy eccentric artist but... he blew it
Yes watching a talented artist lament that their personality kept them from achieving and providing us more art to enjoy is "hilarious" 🙄
What's so hilarious about it. You sound bitter
I actually found it quite sad. He knows he'll never be able to direct a huge hollywood film like that because of the way he directs.
0:32 the director acts like Edward Norton's Character in the movie.
My thoughts exactly 😂
Kinda looks like him, too.
It was autobiographical, perhaps?
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.
@@BenjiHunter01 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
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
It's true, but plenty of critically acclaimed movies were "found" in the edit, so it's not like there's no precedent for using the production process itself as a way of sharpening how the narrative and themes are presented in the final cut.
It's obviously not desirable from the perspective of the studios who are financing the project, but the film industry is predicated on precisely this kind of gambit; you give someone creative a bunch of money in the hopes that they can make something with it that will make that money back with a healthy profit on top.
The rest is risk mitigation.
I mean, look at David Fincher during Alien 3. The difference is that he was able to resist the impulse to burn every bridge in sight over how he was being treated. Maybe Kaye lacked the talent or temperament to be in the same league as Fincher, but the parallels aren't easy to totally ignore.
@@Siledas I imagine any movie that was "found" in the edit had some key element that allowed it to move forward (an untouchable director, a visionary producer, a horrible first draft, etc). And I imagine there are plenty of other '"found" in the edit' movies that still ended up as flops.
This movie obviously didn't have any of the required ingredients to let it be reshot. A fully-formed and obviously good-quality movie already existed, as evidenced by the outcome. And the director would have needed a monumentally successful pitch to convince the producers otherwise. But given his antics during the initial shoot, I suspect he was not only low on good-will with them, he probably also failed to articulate his salespitch in a way that was compelling.
Dude needed a patron not a studio.
@Siledas
You bring up an interesting point. It may be that often the bit that makes a movie special is "found in the edit". That something memorable is put together in post, starting from a more typical, maybe even stereotypical film. In those cases, the director made a perhaps a horror film with a solid but not amazing plot, good but not spectacular acting, etc. Which is different from "I didn't even know what I was trying to make."
Like a really great sauce on top of a typical, but well-made entree. That's different from if the cook doesn't even know what entree they are trying to make.
We need to see the director's cut because then we can judge his ability.
Tony, I'm looking forward to seeing your new movie. And I hope you get a chance to edit your version of your movie.
Doesn’t exist. He went to the producers with the demand to reshoot the whole movie, when all they wanted was a cut movie. That’s why they went with Edward Norton‘s cut, not even because they didn’t like his cut.
He’s working on a new cut
It sounds like he fell victim to his own hubris, and we were graced with one of the best films of the generation.
I kinda feel the same. American History X is an amazing movie.
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
He had an original cut that Norton didn’t like, but overall it does sound like Norton had a much clearer vision for the film and the final version of the film he edited was great.
What are you talking about? It seems the director struggled with his vision. He eventually had his eureka moment, but it was too late, Hollywood needed a film. Norton had a cut to make a beautiful presentation, while the director claimed to have a better vision, but required more time, shooting, rework, etc. The studio threw up their hands and went with the logical and pleasing business solution instead of giving the chaotic and inexperienced artist who was in way over his head more time and money to gamble.
@@michaelscott-joynt3215 Agreed here. Classic battle of the friction between art & business. You get the luxury of doing reshoots and reworking (at your casts' & crew's expense) when it's your own money. Not when there are conglomerates, financiers and distributors behind you. Better yet, don't shoot an unfinished/underdeveloped script.
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.
The director was absolutely correct when he predicted the movie would be remembered as "a performance" and not for the movie itself.
Edward Norton was fantastic. The movie was great exactly the way it was.
maybe it would have been better.
@@krematoryum5533 Maybe it would have been worse
@@reservoirfrogs2177 that was what the original comment implied you're just repeating it lmao
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
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
An indictment of one isn't an endorsement of the other. Working with other people, even unreasonable people, is part of any job but especially in entertainment. Almost all directors have had this happen, especially early in their career, but most don't react like this. Kaye probably has some really good points but that doesn't mean his prescribed solutions would have been any better.
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.
I knew nothing about this. Thank you for your video. AHX is one of my favourite movies. God only knows what his cut would look like, but I’m glad to have what I know and love.
I’m not a huge Ed Norton fan, but he did an excellent job in American History X
He's one of the few "not like us" in Hollywood tbh.
4:30
I thought the exact same! As soon as he said that I could fully see the sequence of events that occured.
Yep, bringing a visual flair to car commercials is nothing like trying to tell a full-blown, coherent story that pulls nuanced, powerful performances out of actors. In almost every case I'd take the director's side in a conflict like this, but here by Kaye's own admission it sounds like he was out of his depth and floundering, so I'm giving Norton the benefit of the doubt.
Yep, he said he didn’t even know what kind of movie he was making at times and then decided to fundamentally change the movie after it had already wrapped filming. Then, this psycho bringing a bunch of priests in to beg for ten more weeks of filming? wtf? The studio much have been pulling their hair out before Norton took the job (let’s face it, he was probably chomping at the bit to take the reins).
a director not directing 🤗
It's telling that there isn't a directors cut anywhere. You would imagine the studio would want one as it would gain huge attention and get lots of eyes on it. So why doesn't it exist? Perhaps it wouldn't turn out as good as he wants everyone to think
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.
Someone gets it.
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.
Norton has connections. Simple.
@@silverserpent420plenty of people have connections. But at the end of the day, people won’t sign up for months-long shoots with you if you’re a pain in the ass to work with.
There must be something redeeming about nortons character if people are still excited to work with him despite the reputation.
American history X is legendary simply because of Edward Norton
@@silverserpent420
@@trashmyego He is def an asshole but in Hollywood if that's all you are then you are doing good. He is an amazing actor and apparently a fantastic director/writer too so we can hate but he gets it done and gets it done well.
When an unstoppable a-hole meets an immovable a-hole.
Both the Director and Norton sound like a nightmare to work with. Put them together, and they actually somehow made something beautiful.
Not sure about a-hole as Edward Norton does good things for others but he's very particular and focussed about the films he works in and his performances. People may complain but his work speaks for itself and he's brought success to table they eat from.
Norton, by all accounts, doesn't seem to be a nightmare to work with, just very dedicated to his craft. When you have a director pretty blatantly state that they have no clue what their vision for a movie even is while shooting it and not getting a final edit done, stepping in and doing it himself definitely was the correct call.
@@Nr4747 and apparently the production company asked Norton to step in to get things moving and meet deadlines. This video should have included that fact.
You can’t lie this is like Narcissist director VS Narcissist actor 😂
Except one has lots of success in Hollywood and one doesn't even know what they wanted the movie to be about 😅
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…”
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.
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.
Funny that a child handled the situation more professionally, and more courteously, than any if the grown men involved. Props to john connor.
He seemed like a sweet kid. A shame what happened
Random, but I accidentally saw this film when I was 8 years old. My dad and his ex girlfriend were just starting the movie when I woke up on the couch. I didn’t move because I knew they’d send me to my room, so I remained in the same position during the entirety of the movie. Even though I was only 8 years old, I knew what I was seeing even without having been informed. It became one of my favorite movies that night and it remains one of my favorite movies to this day.
Anywho, I hope Tony’s cut sees the light of day one day. I found out he & Edward re-edited the film and also learned about all the drama when I was 17 years old and I’ve always wanted to see his cut. A 4K Blu-ray double disc would be nice.
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.
Very interesting. I had no idea all this drama had occurred behind the film. Thanks for the content.
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
The truth is Hollywood needs greater tolerance for such disagreements. If everyone is too positive everyone gets too deferential and the end result is underwhelming. The fact that they care so deeply they have to debate it out and rationalize there perspectives is essential and heightens the output. Arguments are healthy, I'd say. The result here was brilliance.
It's hard to side with Tony when he himself had no idea how his vision will ultimately end up. I love how the film was put together and now wondering what could've been. if only he could show us what was the vision he was aiming for then maybe i could get behind him.
Nice little well rounded vid, learned a bit and was engaged the whole time. Well done.
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.
Tarentino did. He was just headstrong enough with a good enough vision that he could get that treatment.
Getting a star on board before getting funding helped.
@@69nites Tarantino also most likely said that at the beginning of the project while discussing terms. It sounds like Tony said it after already losing control during filming lol.
@@69nites as a rule of thumb, never give anybody who claims to be the best of all time a chance. 999,999 times out of 1,000,000 they're a fraud, or are deluded
@@69nites Reservoir Dogs was an independent film dude, Tarantino could do whatever he wanted because it was his movie not some studios
@@69nites Even Tarantino had to sell True Romance/Natural Born Killers to get in the door. And Reservoir Dogs was very low key and low budget and easy to hand off, Tarantino was low risk.
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.
let see the director's cut we can make up our own minds
No one is going to finance the 4 weeks of reshoots that'd take.
great coverage thanks for the video!
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.
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
Quite right, but those hacks need to be spineless yesmen to get such enormous budgets.
2 easy ways they can get it: 1) film capeshit 2) push a woke narrative. Often combined
When you realize that a lot of art is money laundering then things make more sense.
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.
He had a movie with Adrien Brody and an all-star cast later. It bombed. It definitely had a vision, but it was overly bleak in my opinion
I really enjoyed this. Subbed.
He really tried the "Dude, trust me, I'll make a great BLANK" card, after all that he did...
A Tony Cut of the movie would probably be very neat, but I doubt it'll happen.
“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.
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
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.
Awesome coverage
Can we all just agree on how awesome Patrick cc content is!! So consistent and very educational. Love it. 🎉
"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?
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.
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.
What a horrible tragedy. How did he get through such a hard time having someone edit his work?. Hes a hero
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
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.
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! 👍
LMAO the director says he has a vision, yet when he thought the script wasn't good enough he sent the actor to do the rewrites.
He is 100% right. We watch films for the characters, not actors.
His talking about the difference between attitudes for different mediums actually makes him sound pretty well adjusted.
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
@@illegalnumber That's the 2nd cut, the 2nd version of Tony's cut. The workprint that leaked is not the original version that Tony screened. Tony originally screened a longer version, it allegedly was well-received by screening crowds. Then he made a much shorter version to be screened again, and that shorter version is what the leaked workprint is.
The original version that was screened first, has never leaked.
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.
This is the same old story. Most people that have worked with him have said they would never do it again.
Man, Ed Norton done a great job editing that movie, what a masterpiece. I glad that lunatic was kept away from it.
I like to think there is a parallel universe where Seth is actually a really nice guy and helps someone with there list.
I absolutely love your style of storytelling. Really entertaining and informative while breezing by with an electric fast pace. Love all your content!
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.
What is his crime?
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.
Awesome video!!!!!!!
The fact the movie is top 50 on IMDB vindicates anything Ed did lol. Director seems insane.
Kaye is one letter off from being "Kanye" - coincidence?
No it doesn't. He wasn't the director and had no right to basically do a hostile takeover of the directors film, even if it turned out good in the end. It perhaps could have been better or worse in the end but isn't the point, it still would have been the directors choice.
@@Naturegurl124average film nerd. You will never make a masterpiece of any kind. You know nothing lmao.
@BumpTune8462 Ok? And you will never win any kind of medal, in any category in the Olympics lol 🤣
@@Naturegurl124 The director openly admitted he didn't know what he was doing and wanted serious time and cash to reshoot lol, the studio has every right to take control when he exposes himself as incompetent.
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?
@@BenjiHunter01all 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.
We all watched this in the Late 90s, everyone raved on about how Amazing it was and It is a good movie but I wasn't so sure about its greatness. I couldn't put my finger on it but new that the movie could have been significantly better. It wasn't until many years later that I read about the feud and how it had been butchered in the editing room. I would off loved to see the directors version. Im sure it would of been better than the way it ended up.
Still goes down as such a weird Hollywood story
Mainly because it resulted in a successful movie. Clashes of ego and failed productions are dime a dozen in Hollywood.
Is there a Tony Kaye cut available to watch?
"I'm an Artist."
-Danny Kaye, director of commercial slop and one third of a good movie
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.
Apparently Norton's desire to change things to his own liking is what killed his career in the MCU.
As an artist, one of the hardest things to learn is when a piece is done. Perfection is the enemy of good and sometimes good has to be good enough
Narcissistic actor helps complete a great movie despite narcissistic director's tantrum. Thanks Ed Norton
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!
So if I'm understanding this correctly, the director couldn't articulate his "vision", had no idea really want he wanted, expected the production company to just give him unlimited time and money to "figure it out" as he went along, and on top of that had extreme narcissistic control issues which led to him being infuriated that anyone else deigned to collaborate on "his baby," leading him to throw a massive crybaby hissy fit after production had wrapped and attempt to sabotage the debut of the film. No wonder he was blacklisted. And on top of all that, he has the gall to complain about how "the film would've been great if he had been allowed to do it HIS way" when the film is ALREADY a classic.
He sounds like a total prima donna with an out-of-control ego.
It pretty much sounds like he did things out of order. It’s first do a great movie and then become a Prima Donna, not the other way around 😂
Yes but you're not understanding things correctly so you can retract it
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.
This was one of my favorite movies of all time. I’m glad the events transpired the way that it did.
His ego tells him he's an artist but he's not.
Kaye hits on exactly what's wrong with Hollywood nowadays. Every Oscarbait movie is just about the performance, and not about the story.
One day I would like to see Kaye’s cut of the film to judge for myself. I loved the final product.
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.
I never comment but man you did great with this video. Great job
Well done video, had no idea this happened.
0:46 aww the ol guy comes up with good story gets deal then thinks he can shove 6+ hours of ideas into a 2 ish hour movie. Movie came out great those changes needed to be done so they can get the movie out and it's good. I bet whatever he had was all over the place making the movie people step in so they don't lose more of their millions. I don't care who you are if you're playing with millions of someone els money they're gonna come stand over your shoulder at some point. You could have took this and started a man for yourself work on a few movies then make what you want to make how you want to make it with your own money. Why would you go out on the street crying to random people who doesn't even care hahahah.
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.
😂😂 nah he fumbled the bag 😂😂 and has no one to blame but himself
This movie was absolutely amazing. If the majority of Norton's scenes were cut out, then I'm sorry, they cut out the main reason this movie was so powerful in the first place.
Norton is renowned for this behind the scenes, most notably in 2008's The Incredible Hulk.
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.