ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ย. 2024
- David Fincher, director of Se7en and Fight Club and much more, is notorious for making his actors do a relentless number of takes on set. Despite the rigorous nature of his filmmaking process, actors are usually quick to praise him profusely.
This video explores David Fincher's demanding approach, why he likes to work in this way, and what his actors think of it.
Definitely a testament to Fincher that the caliber of actors here are singing his praises despite how hard the process is
@@noodle123ify yes. Im having some interesting back, and forth about it. Ppl wanting to push it as a binary. Choose between more or less takes being better, and im in the middle, trying to be nuanced lol! Saying obviously you shouldnt do the eastwood one take on everything, but whether or not youre doing too many entirely depends on the director. Fincher is involved, and collaborative with the actors. Kubrick was a prick, who often didnt give any direction more than "do it again". Point being, the actors loving fincher is why its ok for him to do 1k takes, and them universally praising him is what changed my mind from being against crazy amounts of takes. Cos the only other reference point i have is kuprick, and no actor has ever said anything nice about his process. Only that the end result is good.
Kubrick left the chat
Hey
Saving Kubrick for the 'When the director makes the actors need therapy' video.
Kubrick asked for another take of the video.
@@Mal_Freeman0451lies, lies and... more lies.
@@DTDrac0_ fr!
Fun fact: They've done 99 takes for the first scene of the social network, for some reason, Fincher just didn't want to make it a hundred. lol.
I can SORTA see why Fincher demanded so many takes for The Social Network. It's a talking head movie. There is SO little action in the film. The scene where Andrew Garfield smashes a laptop is basically the most action-packed the movie ever gets. That's why they used Garfield's angry walk in the trailer. There's literally nothing else to look at except for people sitting around talking or people typing on keyboards because they work at Facebook. There are some good performances in the movie but I can see why the deposition scene would require a lot of takes. There are like eight or nine actors in that one room and you need them all to deliver on the same take. That seems time consuming. But filming a bunch of shitless dudes grappling with each other in a poorly lit basement? Doesn't seem like it would require over 80 takes. Brad Pitt looks as good shirtless and bloody on take five than he does on take fifty.
Let's get this to 99 likes, and not one more than that
@@betterdaysareatoenailaway he wanted to strip out all earnestness. Fincher HAAAAATES actors being earnest.
There is just so many reasons he does it 😅 Like Ruffalo said that sometimes it's just so background extras move just in right time thru the camera so it looks.. kinda composed you know. Say someone stops a sentence and just then a background dude goes off frame and so on.
I think this is a misunderstanding of Kubricks incessant takes. He spent hours upon hours, sometimes at the annoyance of the crew, to sit and talk with the actors about character and performance. Fincher goes into the shooting knowing what he wants to the n'th degree, whereas Kubrick didn't have shotlists and often was rewriting the script on set. Kubrick did a hundred takes because he wasn't sure what he wanted and had to explore until he saw it. Fincher knows what he wants and is going to shoot until he gets it.
You nailed it. And touched on the basic misunderstanding the person who made the video has.
All of Fincher's stuff lacks a human element.
At some point you have to analyze outcome and quality...
Great insight
You’re missing an important insight though: Kubrick was also writer for the film, not just a director. Fincher is adding the implicit bits to the script in the same way Nolan does with minimal scripts. I wouldn’t assume he’s fully realized his vision prior to the first take when he realizes what he doesn’t want
@@alexcoleman2735 the difference is Nolan and Fincher don't really understand dialogue or character. It's why their work is ultimately limited and sterile. They're kind of like commercial directors.
@@jgallagher1359 sterile might be a bit harsh but I don’t deny they lose some of the fluidity/humanity by being unbudging
I prefer Ridley Scott's opinion on film takes. Sure, not everyone has to do things this way, but it seems like a TERRIBLE waste of resources, efforts, hours, energy, budgets, etc. to attempt 30-60 takes for things you COULD have achieved in 3-6 if everyone had simply come prepared. To me, that's the sign of a professional: preparation extraordinaire.
Spielberg once said we can waste another 10 takes to get you to be 10% better or I can go do something else that with that time that can improve the film much more as a whole
But every other Ridley Scott film is legitimately terrible. While having some excellent movies in his library, it's a coin toss as to whether it's going to be good or not. Fire every gladiator there's a Robin Hood, for every blade runner a house of Gucci. Fincher is exacting, and I think that's why his filmography had a much higher bar.
@@BrennanMartin While it´s true that Ridley Scott has got anything from rubbish to masterpiece in his sleeve, i personally think Fincher is in decline for the last 10 years now. His last great movie was Gone Girl.
It's interesting to me because even though these actors complain about the number of takes, you also hear from so many other actors looking back at past performances how they see their mistakes or wish they had done it better or differently or how it even makes them cringe, and so Fincher gives them the opportunity to not have any of those regrets.
Agreed. Most of those actors are paid millions, and many of them are aware of their privilege that it’s to have their job. So a lot of them actually enjoy to feel that pressure, the feel that they’re hard working professionals and their job is really demanding of their talent, and that they earn that privilege.
Lol bit of a difference between 2-3 takes and 99 takes….
I think Gary Oldman is experienced enough to know though that 100 takes might be enough and it´s maybe more Fincher´s ego than anything else to keep on going and test everybody´s patience
A praise about how this particular video was created: keeping your voice disembodied is a great choice. It adds more power to your argument.
Fun fact: In Fight Club when The Narrator and the henchmen leave the social event, Meatloaf's pants fall down and you can see the fatsuit.
Fincher said that it was the only good take of them all exiting so he kept it in.
I worked on Benjamin Button & The Social Network. Despite his reputation he was really easy to work with and we had very few revisions on our shots. His notes were specific and extremely clear. But I would also argue, that like Hitchcock, the best performance he ever got out of an actor was portraying a cold blooded psychopath and that every other actor he's worked with has done better performances in other films. I don't think he's great with actors at all, but he speaks a certain cinephile language.
yeah that's probably why his films about regular people are not as critically appealing. I don't see anything sincere about his characters, especially when they are shot in such a stylized version.
@@MsTriangle A good director is probably the least sincere person on the project, and a good writer is the most sincere.
Honestly, "Seven" and "Fight Club" (when he hadn't yet worked up the nerve to do 100 takes) had as good performances as any of his later works, if not in fact better. So whatever philosophy or justification you apply to it, it's as much BS as method acting. The result is literally the same. And I feel the same applies to Kubrick: it did not bring out anything particular in the actors, if anything they felt more rigid. Just look at the interactions in "Full Metal Jacket". After the intentionally mechanical opening, the 2nd half has some of the most absurd acting I've seen in a non-amateur film.
It’s truly great to see someone else share this sentiment.
Yeah, I agree. Just feels like he does it because he can, sort of an ego thing.
If your not getting it by the 10th take, then either the actor doesn't know what you want, or you don't know how to direct.
Would be interesting to see one of those 100 take scenes how different they really were or was it just repeat after repeat where something different / special was expected to happen for some reason.
I agree with you on Full Metal Jacket. Outside of the famous "i AM in a world of shit" scene, I don't think the acting is very good.
@@samik83 Kubrick did SO MANY takes on Eyes Wide Shut, I seriously doubt he was using the best ones. When you do over 60 takes, is there REALLY a huge difference between take 52 and take 53?
Tom Cruise's best acting is in Magnolia, and he did the deathbed scene in ONE take. It's the greatest thing Cruise has ever done, dramatically.
Method acting is bs? How? It's what works for some best. Daniel day Lewis is not considered good in your eyes?
Dude, your channel is literally gold. 💕
I'd love to have an editor mark a scene with which take finally used for each shot; if the 101st take was actually the golden take, or in the edit bay they found out 34 was perfectly fine.
Interesting fact remains that his best movies were the early ones where he couldn't do so many takes.
this!
to be fair, I work on film sets and boom shadow is a real issue. As a gaffer I always try to give the boom guy a heads up as to what direction my lights beam angle is and the best spot for them to stand with their boom. They always give me a hard time like im trying to tell them how to do their job, like no, im just being polite and kindly helping you to succeed. Then the shot goes up and then you hear the director yelling "BOOM! BOOM SHADOW IS IN THE SHOT!" Once the shot is done I always find my way back to the boom guy and tell him "Told ya so bro, next time listen and you'll go a long way." This has happened more times than I can count on my fingers. Boom guys have an ego for sure.
Boom guys are the problem...not Fincher 🤣
In an interview for the "Side by Side" documentary (it´s about film x digital), Fincher says that Robert Downey Jr. would piss inside glass jars and leave them on the set, as a protest for never having time to relax and go to his trailer.
All great and everything. But a fair criticism of his recent work is a sense that perfection is lifeless. Every single frame of the image's life has been engineered, fiddled, and labored out. This has the same result on the viewer, and there must be balance. This is the paradox when directors like Fincher exert such control, and have no pushback from their creative departments. He just went and did an 8K restoration of Se7en, watch that film's perfectly imperfect grain elusion, camera bumps and sense of place be erased for a more exacting, "labored over" result. I'll take the old version anyday.
Zodiac was when I started to drift away from Fincher, so the account in the video here would make me square up with what you say, indeed. I've always been fascinated with how much people love Zodiac, and am curious to revisit it, but it did strike me as awfully clinical and sterile.
In addition to all the things said here, I was amazed when I saw someone drawing attention to the unbelievably meticulous synchronising of the camera movement with the actors' movements in Fincher's films. It's such an astonishing attention to detail that I can believe that that is a major factor in him demanding so many takes. And again, very impressive technically, but very sterile.
Unpopular opinion alert: I feel that lifelessness in all of his movies (apart from the social network), he is so sterile and cold as a director that I can't really connect with any of his work
Well said
I like Gone Girl well enough, but Fight Club and Se7en are fucking amazing. I DO really like Zodiac though.
@@ianlarsen Zodiac is great for very different reasons. I believe collectively it's his best-acted movie ever.
I did not know of Fincher's affinity for takes. Love his films even more now. Thank you for the great video.
Why would you love his films more because you found out he did ridiculous amount of takes?
@@MediaBuster His obsession comes through in the finished product. Did you watch this video?
@@damienscott919 Do you think Se7en or Fight club would have been more amazing with 10x more takes.
Like are some of the scenes leaking because back then he did less takes?
Honestly if you're not getting it by the 10th take, then either the actor doesn't know what you want, or you don't know how to direct.
@@samik83 Fincher talking about the cost of sets, crew and wanting the actor to perform like they are normally in the particular space with their movements for the shot and repetition can catch wonderful moments. You're right, he doesn't know how to direct.
I love Se7en and Fight Club and asking me what I think they could have been if Fincher did this then is silly. Nothing is leaking or lacking. He's just able to work in a way that suits him now.
I get it. You guys don't like all the takes. I am with Jared Harris on this one. I'd rather be on set instead of sitting in the trailer.
@@damienscott919 I'm just thinking that if a director has a clear vision and can communicate that vision + theres a capable actor, then it should take that many takes.
Just my 2 cents
Very well-researched and edited video! One of the best video essays I've seen in a while
Fincher and Cronenberg are my two favorites probably. I just enjoy literally everything they’ve done. Fincher is insane but an absolute master of his craft.
Maybe not alien 3 lol
Alien 3 is good, not better than 1 & 2 though@@christophervanasse9911
@@christophervanasse9911 to be fair, He disowned that project outright due to studio interference. It is a terrible movie for sure. The only cool thing is Ripley's sacrifice a the end... which they undo in the next movie haha.
Well its absolutely no surprise to all astrologers that David is a Sun and Mercury in Virgo. Virgos are perfectionists and the most detail oriented. Then he has a Moon in Leo. I have researched directors and a lot of them have Leo placements. Leo = extravert, social and often in leader positions.Then he has a Venus in Libra which is very outgoing and social. This helps him as a director. Because Virgo is more introverted and nervous and anxious. Leo and Libra get him out of that in order to be a detail oriented director
Where did this channel come from?! Excellent though, can't wait for more. Thank you😊
His best films were done when he wasn't doing over hundred takes. Something to ponder about...
You are my new favourite person on TH-cam.
Thank you, that's amazing to hear.
@@cinedome1100k soon keep it up
Yeah first video on this channel and i think i am going to stay
It's about those happy accidents. Those things that infuse real life and authenticity into the performances.
Fincher's best work is "cradle of love" by Billy idol.
love that video! His best IMO
Yeah both Fincher and Kubrick do (did) a lot of takes, but Fincher does his takes on digital and Kubrick did it on a fortune of celluloid
I'm certainly appreciative of this video because it highlights a director I hadn't been noticing. But comparisons often do a disservice to both parties which are being compared. Sure, make snide remarks about Kubrick not being an actor's director.. but Kubrick is legendary for good reason. And Fincher's work isn't elevated by dismissing Kubrick's approach.
wait till you read about his editing demands. for example he'll have them (Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall often) edit words from one take into the visuals of another, so the editor is putting together pieces of sound and video from these hundreds of takes.
I enjoyed this! Would have watched it if it were three times as long.
You have 10k subs is criminal. You're a talented created,. You'll be at a million+ in no time, I have no doubt.
Thanks a lot! I don't know about 1 million, but I'd be delighted to hit 100k in the next year or so. Appreciate your comment man.
Would love to see someone take the FIRST FIVE takes of all the scenes Fincher shot and recut one of his movies. I'll BET A LOT the result would be better than the version where he abused his actors.
That explains why I don't like the newer fincher films. There is something off. They feel so unnatural.
I was bored out of my mind with his last two movies. The first 15 minutes of The Killer were okay but i don´t plan to rewatch them ever. Very, very dissapointed.
I have demons you cant even imaging.
- David Fincher
David Fincher is HIM
"You know that thing ain't coming off without that dome's gonna come off with it"
"I think what's Gambit trying to say here is that is going to be hard to take Juggernaut's helmet"
dialogue between two fictional characters from the movie "Deadpool and Wolverine"(2024)
Peace Next
Ermmm, did you post this comment under the wrong video?😂
Its a shame his filmography is only slightly above average
One could argue that Seven was one of his best films and now that he's got the power to do 100+ takes, his more recent films have gotten boring.
Edit: Everyone's a critic tho, right.
100,000%
Seven had a very small cast. One of the criticisms of Seven is that there's almost no evidence of an outside world in that movie. It's very insular and claustrophobic. I don't think it even comes close to Zodiac, but everyone has a fav Fincher movie.
Seven definitely is one of his best films and it has a sense of rawness that even Fight Club doesn't have, and I guess that comes from his looser approach to directing. It's still very strictly choreographed but not to the almost clinical, dance-like feel of his newer films. But, my favourite Fincher movies are Gone Girl, The Social Network and Zodiac. Newer Fincher movies are less interested in the excitement of the plot, but in the behaviour of the characters and his direction is very much locked in with that behaviour, the actions and reactions. His filmmaking has an observant quality that might not come off as raw or exciting but also isn't too clinical and joyless. Seven is intense the way thrillers are intense. Newer Fincher films tend to be intense the way chess games are intense.
@@ken__2526 I think Zodiac is his best. Maybe he hadn't yet gone off the deep end with hundreds of takes by that point, or maybe it just worked for that movie. I love it though. I've seen it WAY too many times.
Gone Girl is great too. I read the book before I saw the movie and at first I thought Ben Affleck was horribly miscast, but he was actually great. Tyler Perry was terrific too.
The Killer was a bit of a snooze.
I just right now found out that Andrew Garfield is English.
Another great video!
If he shot on 70mm film, he’d measure twice before cutting once.
I don't think he'd approach it any differently, I recall him saying in one of the BHS featurettes on Fight Club that he always made sure they had the time and budget for doing a lot of takes. If he shot 70mm he'd still shoot a lot of takes.
@@CraigBickerstaff I swear I will fight club you right now Bickerstaff! xo
@@CraigBickerstaff IMAX costs around 2000 bucks a minute to film, he'd have to make a short film and even that short film would enter the "Most Expensive Movies Ever" list 😂
"Magical Mistake"
The concept of endless takes like Fincher and Kubrick is just total BS... 10% difference is is akin to the mp3 320 v. wav sound debate. It is practically unnoticeable and that is assuming they got 10% better performance which is extremely unlikely.
Spielberg said it best, he won't waste his time keep going to get something maybe 10-15% better, when he has other shots to do.
It doesn't even make his movies better, his last film was awful (The Killer). He just heard Kubrick did it, so it's cool for him to do it.
10% is the differene between a good director and great director. The difference between an athlete finishing first in a race or second. The difference between a 1 star restaurant and a 2 star restaurant. If you want to be the best 10% is a big difference.
@@jj112499 Art is not measured the same way track and field is. I made my point. I would test 100 people to watch take 5 against take 76 and see how many could tell how many takes were in between them. I guess zero.
Jack Nicholson was amazed that Kubrick used the takes he ended up using in The Shining. Jack is mugging and overacting the entire freakin' movie. Kubrick did the same thing to George C. Scott in Dr. Strangelove. He kept saying "do a really crazy and cartoonish take and then we'll do a more serious one." Then Kubrick used all of Scott's cartoonish takes, which is why his performance is so unhinged. I like Scott's performance in that movie, but Scott was PISSED. He vowed never to work with Kubrick again.
Kubrick's endless takes didn't really make the acting any better in Full Metal Jacket. Aside from the one famous scene ("i AM in a world of shit") I don't think the acting is very good.
@@betterdaysareatoenailaway Filming someone mugging around or when they don't know it and then using it in the film is a far cry from doing 100 takes. One has nothing to do with the other. BTW I never heard that about Jack in the Shining.
@@MediaBuster I can't remember where I read the George C Scott thing but I think it's common knowledge that Kubrick tricked George C Scott into playing the role of Gen. Turgidson far more ridiculously than the actor wanted to. He then talked Scott into doing over-the-top "practice" takes as warm up for the "real" takes, and then used the practice takes in the movie.
You need to make more videos!
You should hear what his family says about their yearly christmas card photo.
Here is how I feel about talent or prodigies. We tolerate a great deal more from a super-talent (not necessarily synonymous with superstar) or prodigy provided they keep producing what we want. Think of a genius mathematician. University admin or whoever looks the other way when they are drunk or haven't showered in a week or mouth off to random passersby PROVIDED they are bringing value. A prodigal musician is tolerated so long as he doesn't fuck up. A teenager gets a lot of passes if he's got straight A's and doesn't harm everyone around him. If FIncher starts making dogshit films (unlikely), then people will tolerate arduous or questionable overtime and exertion. If he starts making shitty films, his credit begins to drop off precipitously. We can't see all the strings being pulled behind the scenes and maybe it's not as cut and dry as that, but he's got a very respectable list of films with a score over 8 on IMDB, I've seen almost all of them and concur with the general opinion he is a man to watch, his films, if anything, are underrated. Give him a truly incredible script and he will make history.
What happened to his supposed perfectionism on his last film? The Netflix one, with Fassbender as hitman? Utter crock of shit.
his last movie with fassbender was just bad.
As long as you don't raise your voice or act abusively. Which many directors do.
That's why Mann and Fincher make the best movies IMO. Cheers!
No they don't
@@Jonathan-jc4ef you do know what "IMO" stands for?
I thought Kubrick was the weirdo with all the takes?
00:38
Fincher respects the actors. Kubrick doesn't
Great video
He is one of my favorite directors. I just rewatched Zodiac for the fourth time and I enjoyed it as much as all the other times. I do wish we had another season of Mindhunter instead of Mank though; that movie was pretty boring, in my opinion.
There's definitely not one way to do it. For me it would make more sense though to do less takes, cause I just think it would be more organic that way. I don't quite get him saying let's start after seven takes. Seems kind of like a waste of everyone's time. I mean 100 takes is ridiculous. Love his films though. One of my favorite directors.
The Fincher acting style: exasperated
The amount of takes has more to do with being a control freak than anything. I get it’s his art form and he wants for it to be what he wants. But he is working with the best actors in the world. There’s probably dozens of takes before the one he picks that would serve the movie just the same.
More doesn’t equal better by default. And I think he is also over estimating the audience. There’s a scene in The Abyss where the camera man wipes the lens during the final take that made it into the film. No one even noticed it.
Does anyone think some of this is just drummed up “lore” to get people talking?
Ever heard of rehearsals, Fincher?
I feel bad for the editor 😅.
It’s always cringe to hear actors talk about acting
He was WAY BETTER when he had to move fast.
How can you say that when social network, zodiac, and gone girl are undeniable.
@@boysoul2075
Se7en, The Game, Fight Club - plus all his great music videos and commercials. Even Alien 3 is better than anything Fincher has directed in the last two decades being obnoxiously over pedantic and precious on his inferior digital format. Mank and The Killer just flat out both suck.
This method sounds exhausting and frankly wasteful
I'm with Clint Eastwood lol
It's not confidence it's power.... Good movies but kubrick ego push
Eh, Eastwoods philosophy bothers me. Going to the complete opposite of the spectrum isn’t necessarily the answer either. It sounds great until there’s a dreadful take that makes its way into the film. Bad takes happen, there needs to be redundancies to avoid laughable scenes. Think of the baby in American Sniper. Give another skilled director that scene (and more takes) and few would have realized the baby was not real.
@@puddy107 Should have had a real baby or no baby.
@@BonzoKilbourn I agree. However it absolutely could have worked with more takes, angles, and a little editing. Is dedicating time for that better than opting for your solution? Not sure, but clearly neither of these thoughts crossed Eastwood’s mind.
He’s a fantastic filmmaker but I find some of his habits careless.
[1:21] Sweat the assets :-) I wonder how he gets around the union rules for time on set and rest days, etc :-)
Continuity matters a lot, and Scorsese has publicly said he doesnt care about it, js.
Because there are things that matter more and in the end not many people will notice lack of continuity, when you have strong emotion. In the editing process, if you don't have perfect take and you have to decide if you should go with better delivery of emotion or continuity, every experienced filmmaker will go with emotion
@@tomaszzak3897 theres a difference between what you describe, and having continuity as such a low priority that you have jolting takes like the cigar thing referenced here. Its insane lol! Do a pickup shot. Hire someone to maintain continuity on set if youre gonna ignore it that much. Use a less perfect take. Itd be a better decision than using THAT edit. The emotion in Scorsese products are usually shit anyway. Cept anger. I know. Blasphemy.
*Clint Eastwood spits on the ground and squints harder*
SUPERB channel, I look forward to seeing more vids (preferably many, MANY more please? Haha!)
Love his movies, which maks me conflicted, cos ive always said directors who need that many takes are bad at their job. That they should know exactly what they want, and its their entire fucking job to convey that to the actors.
9:22 and thank you for resolving that conflict in my heart lol good shit man
Sorry but that's just not a good way to look at it, especially considering how many legendary directors have notoriously done a lot of takes. It's not just about knowing what you want, getting what you want on set requires patience and sometimes that means doing a lot of takes.
@@GrantPowers-d1w That is just not true. Coppola, Spielberg, Eastwood, Woody Allen and the list is endless do just a few takes and made great films, in fact very very few directors do a lot of takes. I guarantee you you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between take 4 and take 85.
Or at least do a few rehearsals before hand so that you don't waste crew and footage.
@@MediaBuster eh. That argument never held up in my head, cos Eastwood also has some notoriously bad takes. As does allen. Matt damon said of invictus that he was glad he did so much prep cos he wasnt getting the extra takes he asked for. Not that it was HIS movie. While fincher products are just superior to anything in any of those guys catalogs. Im referring to kubrick, and copolla there too. Id be hard pressed to name a better movie than seven, period, and thats not even fincher at his best. I think the argument in this vid is the best ive heard, hence my follow up comment. Kubrick never gave anyone guidance for the excessive takes, fincher does. Hes not just torturing his actors aimlessly. I presume thats why the all speak highly of him, while kubrick is always "undeniably" great, but ppl dont go on and on about how great he is to work with.
nice nice nice...
nice.
This is just stupid. That they enable his multi-take fetish is ridiculous. Nobody, not even Kubrick, needed so many takes. He's just being an ass.
It is bullshit. Does he use the latest take ? No. I rest my case.
Id rather watch a David Fincher movie than a Quentin Tarantino movie any day . Quentin has implied he's better because he's also a writer .
Nope!
The problem is that Finchers BEST films were his early ones that didn't have hundreds of takes per shot! Fight Club, Seven, Alien 3 (I LOVE this film!) The Game. Even Panic Room was fun. Fight Club is certainly in my top 10 favourite films. But since the 90s and by the sound of it, since the million takes per shot, he hasn't improved. I enjoyed Zodiac, Social Network, The Killer, Gone Girl, Benjamin Burton but I LOVE any of them. They were just good but nowhere near the GREAT/SPECTACULAR/EPIC 90s thrillers/chillers.
The Game is a forgotten classic.
Chris Nolan laughing and crying in the corner 😂 😭😭
not worth it
He hasn’t made a good movie in 15 years. Maybe his self indulgent BS isn’t working.
This title is innacurate and i'm sure you know it. Please, this is history, beware the hiperboles.
To my knowledge, it's not inaccurate. I'm unaware of another director who would demand (or who's gained the trust or resources to demand) that his cast and crew shoot a single scene for four days straight. Aside from Stanley Kubrick, I don't know about any other director who frequently does so many takes.
@@cinedome1 I'm sorry for assuming you were intentionally exaggerating the title. To my knowledge, those really are the ones who do most takes. I just strongly disagree with number of takes being the metric to name somebody "the most demanding director in the history of Hollywood". I find it too heavy of a statement. I think there are worse things to demand, like what the City of God cast went thru for Fernando Meireles & Fátima Toledo, or the making of In the Mood for Love, or the level of commitment Jodorowsky expected from the Dune crew. Granted, none of them american lol i'm just broadening the examples of demand.
@@cinedome1 I sort of agree with him, asking for more takes isn't what I'd call demanding if you believe the stories James Cameron is a much more demanding director than Fincher. Aaron Sorkin has only directed a handful of films but my understanding is that he expects his cast to speak the dialogue exactly as it is written on the page down the punctuation.
@@CraigBickerstaff Exactly man. James Cameron, director of The Abuse, is a great example of this. Never heard of people trying to poison Fincher's food.
Gone girl blows
Nobody GAF, clown shoes.
When you can't stop changing the fucking title
Fincher is like the modern day Kubrick... Only his films are a lot better
Nope, Kubrick is far superior to Fincher. Fincher's a very good but straightforward and conventional storyteller who makes films that are effective but are also very mainstream friendly and relatively safe compared to many other auteurs out there. Stanley was on a whole another level of artistic and storytelling prowess.
i dont think hes made anything recently thats so good that this method rings true, seven and the game however are bangers