ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.ย. 2024
- Eyes Wide Shut, directed by Stanley Kubrick, holds the dubious record of being the longest-running continuous film shoot in film history. The fairly basic screenplay took 400 days to shoot, as lead actor Tom Cruise was required to do up to 100 takes per set-up. Cruise ultimately became deeply frustrated by the process.
I recently watched "Eyes Wide Shut" after many years, and this time paid close attention to the pacing and the slowness of the dialogue delivery. I also noticed the way characters move, the pauses before they respond, and even the hesitation before answering a phone call. The stiffness in their walking, and the stillness of the voyeurs. It seems Kubrick worked hard to strip away any extra movement and noise, that might explain his many many takes. This end result was a kind of vacuum, an eerie setup that captures the entire film.
He could have done that with less takes for sure with an actor of Tom Cruises caliber. 😅
@@theinnerlight8016💯
@@theinnerlight8016 that is the great "what if" for lots of Kubrick's works; He obviously believed if he directly told his actors what he wanted it wouldnt feel natural, and he did it to their detriment. Others believe a director should be able to communicate these things in a way that works with the actors to achieve what they are looking for, and honestly thats how it should be.
Realistically, we will never know if movies like The Shinning or Eyes Wide Shut would have been as good with a different approach, so the best we can do now is acknowledge the bad decisions and practices behind the scenes and advocate for it not being like that
And obviously better, less stress inducing approaches do work, movies like Everything Everywhere All At Once prove that
(i went on a little tangent oops lmao, just really love film)
it's a mediocre film at best. Cruise is dreadful and Kidman is worse. Personally, I think Stanley wanted to destroy their marriage. And he did.
It was a drinking game for my friends. Anytime someone repeated what someone else JUST said, take a drink.🍺 Anytime Nicole hiccup-laughed, drink. 🍺Anytime that stupid two-note piano started, drink. 🍺It was the only way to survive watching this. 😊😊😊
rest well shelley duvall ❤
❤
...great now shes up - kubrick
Yes indeed. 😔 ❤️
RIP 😢
I’m with Harvey Kietel. I would have quit on Day One. 70-80 takes isn’t about getting the best take. It’s a control methodology designed to break an actor and turn them into a piece of malleable clay.
There should be a limit on how many takes should be done - 3 good takes on average, so let's say, about 5 maximum.
@@OnafetsEnovap I'd say 40 max
That’s what happens, and they signed up for it.
He was basically doing what drill instructors do in the Marines.
Jack Nickleson said he never had a problem!
Harvey Keitel‘s diagnosis of Stanley was probably the most accurate.
@@Steve-ym9qg 6:45. He's not wrong.
That interview is legendary because that was the day Opie, Anthony and Jim all found out Patrice Oneal died, so they were choking their way through that Gary Oldman interview.
He was crazy, but then his movies are unparalleled imo.
@@slartibartfast7921But it's dumb though, because anybody can make their perfect movie if they're given the same freedom as Kubrick. Kubrick is just a sadist
@@stellviahohenheim “It’s dumb though” People in glass houses…. Kubrick did what he needed to, and the ends justified the means. Would I have wanted to work with him? Probably not, but he was responsible for the greatest movies of the 20th century imo. Tom Cruse can be challenging too I’ve heard, so it was probably an experience he needed. Overall though saying anyone can make their perfect movie when given enough freedom may be smarter than you intended it to be…. Neil Breen has complete freedom, so I guess you’re right?
The contrast between someone like Kubrick and someone like Clint Eastwood is wild. Because theyve both directed incredible films. And Eastwood famously does one take and as long as there were no glaring fuck ups, they move on. And Kubrick does hundreds in pursuit of perfection. And the truth is that on any given day, id rather watch an Eastwood movie. They may not be as artful, or deep with meaning. But they seem to have more heart and are undeniably entertaining.
Shinning and 2001 are cool but Unforgiven is one of my all time favorites
Not really on the same level to be honest. Thats like comparing a 3 michelin star resturant with Mac donalds you might enjoy a big mac more but its not better than a meal at the 3 michelin star place.
Well and i like both for various reasons. And I respect both a LOT and also what they have done for Cinema.
@@108noonoo I think a lot of Eastwood's films are comparable. Especially his later stuff. He's a great director. Maybe not entirely as accomplished on that front as Kubrick, but there is nothing to sniff at either. Mystic River, Gran Torino, Million Dollar Baby, A Perfect World, and Letters from Iwo Jima are great films!
@@108noonoo if you wanna compare Eastwood's filmography as a big mac....you know nothing....man made number of incredible films that stands shoulder to shoulder with Kubrick.
You have to admire Tom cruise being an absolute professional here. May be Stanley Kubrick wanted the expression of frustration from Tom. But it would have been better to just ask him to give those expression rather than endless takes. Because this Tom Cruise, he is also a madman like Kubrick when it comes to making movies, and mission impossible movies are a testament of it. As for people who doubt Tom Cruise acting, well I suggest you watch COLLATERAL.
Collateral is an incredible role for Cruise. Say what you will about his personality in real life, he dedicated himself fully in that movie and never slipped up once.
Magnolia also
Try Interview With A Vampire, Cruise was so good that Anne Rice bought a newspaper ad, telling people to go see the movie for his performance. She was against his casting, but the results is he made her character far more memorable than what she wrote IMO.
Stanley Kubrick was simply an obssessive-compulsive control-freak of a director. He was also an editor, and all these hundreds of shots are more to do with having more materials for editing, than "perfection" than non-creatives tend to believe.
@@Account.for.Comment I understand having the material ... but on average (regarding film stock quality) it's approximately $1/second of film at 24fps. So expenditures go way up if the director is doing 30-40-50-60-70+ takes.
Lets say a shot is 5 seconds long in the script, but that's what's kept. What's filmed is usually twice that. So that shot is 10 seconds of film, so $10 of film. Now do that 70 times. That's $700 in film alone. Now do 70 takes, per shot, for the entire movie. With a movie at approx 90 minutes, that's 5,400 seconds of KEPT footage. Now double that for shot footage. We now have 10,800 seconds of film in a "per shot" total of sorts, which was done 70 times.
I think you can see where I'm going with this.
Having THAT much material is just a massive waste of the budget which could definitely have been spent someplace else.
@@Soldier4USA2005 yes. But Kubrick did not finance his film with his own money, did he? Film stocks would have been a very common material in the massive studios that finance his work. He was a giant in his field, and most of his works are not made in the era of bean counters and massive special effect.
In Dr Strangelove, the George C. Scott comedic scenes are supposedly to be never for production. So basically, he throw all of the "real" scene, and being happy with the equivalent of bloopers.
Kubrick was a genius. But sometimes, you gotta just point at the obvious answer: dude had a massive ego. Stanley probably loved playing mind games with Tom Cruise.
Kubrick was crazy. It worked sometimes and it didn’t other times.
All geniuses are arguably mad, Kubrick was a genius, that is my subjective opinion.
Kubrick is one of the top movie producers / directors ever.. he has some of the best movies - for me personally the Space Odyssey is unparalleled. However, he also had some really abhorrent movies. I feel with Kubrick it is the two extremes - either poop, or the best movie ever.
He was obsessed but not crazy. Big difference.
it worked more than it didnt but yeah he was batshit crazy and prob thats why his movies are so good i dunno
Give an example of where it didn't work. The only one I thought blew was Barry Lyndon
perfectionism is also counterproductive.
It resembles more a OCD than a real try to make the scene better
"perfect is the enemy of good"
Kubrick himself often regretted that he was too slow in his movie making. Mostly due to his intense pre-production. This man always came well prepared. But that also consumed sooo much time.
@@PEDRELVIS yep, or even maybe loss of confidence and a desire to reach past achievements.
but V€Ry giömetttriCK ^ ^
I read somewhere that Kubrick was only impressed with Nicholson. That he did almost everything from the beginning, improvised and they became good friends. There is that documentary about Shining where you can see that Nicholson is enjoying himself while the other actors are not. I think Kubrick saw something in Nicholson, his pain that he carried because of his mother and his grandmother and what he went through.
stan got into tom's head, and stayed there, forever
I do have to disagree with the ending conclusion - Tom went and made alot more drama films - Vanilla Sky, Collateral (Id argue Last Samurai is a more period piece than action film), Lions and Lambs, Valkyrie and Rock of Ages. Its was more the Scientology thing bursting and questions around his career that caused him to basically just do the hits and control his stuff. He also basically did his big career goal of working with the best directors working. Its insane the people he worked with, And by 2013, he had done everyone really...
@@andrewbaskett8581 Movies of which do not suck by Tom, Minority Report, Oblivion, American Mage.
@@lordarchontitus I even like the first Jack Reacher. He's made a ton of great films. I struggle with supporting him because of the scientology stuff, but damnit, the dude really knows how to make a great movie.
@@andrewbaskett8581 Yes, bro, this is it! Spielberg with Minority Report, one of Cruise's best roles, then War of the Worlds, in which he has many heavy moments, can counter what the video essay teaches us.
But also, I think, through this movie, Kubrick's last, Tom Cruise developed an understanding of Hollywood, something broke him, and he placed entertainment (which both Spielberg's films are) over Art.
Also, parting ways with Nicole Kidman, which in the 90s was arguably the most beautiful woman in American cinema (see Batman Forever), makes no sense to me, a 30 year old male, now with two children, and I still believe she is gorgeous and a keeper for every sane man. When Tom lost it, he lost Nicole, or the other way around. That is why he is a workaholic, Hollywood, closed-circuit cults, and NOT Kubrick, is what broke him.
^Just my two cents in the vast pond of TH-cam comments^
Hugs
@@andrewbaskett8581 i did not say i did not like many of his films, he has made many good films
I remember seeing "Eyes Wide Shut" when it came out in 1999, and thinking that a future generation Will really understand and get this film... And so now we just happening, because when "The Shining", first came out it got a Razzi award... Now it is appreciated as a masterpiece, and slowly and surely it is happening with "Eyes Wide Shut"..... In time it will be regarded as a masterpiece.... Mark my words!
Watched it again last night after watching reviews like this and it is mind boggling!
This video deserves way more views. So well presented!
Hello Bhai I watch your videos 😅
jammy is here 😂
With Sydney Pollack saying he didn't need to do that many takes himself- I wonder if Kubrick was wary of being too hard on a fellow director, heh, especially an A-lister like Pollack. And I'll take Pollack's word when he says he doesn't see why Cruise had to have so many takes, considering he directed Cruise himself a few years prior (in The Firm), and also because he guided quite a few actors to winning Oscars with his directing.
Stanley was not a perfectionist. He was a sociopath. Legit.
I have wondered that as well recently.
Not true at all. David Fincher sometimes goes to 70 takes.
@@orangewarm1 we never said he has exclusivity rights to being a sociopath
I think he was both. Like most people he's an amalgam of good and evil. In some ways there is no Pepsi or coke there is only cola.
Yes...I know im an idiot lol.
Genius often looks sociopathic to idiots
I'm with the actor that quit after Kubrick asked him to walk through the door for the 70th take. To say that they movie would have not have been as good if Kubrick didn't ask his actors to do 70 takes, that is absolutely nonsense. Nonsense. I think Kubrick is a good filmmaker, but he doesn't need 70 to 100 takes, especially from an actor like cruise. Honestly, it sounds like it's just Kubrick's ego making people do ridiculous things..
So....?
The director can do whatever he wants....thats why he's the director and mot just some idiot actor with an over inflated opinion of themself.
I guess Kubrick was pushing Keitel to leave.....
Kubrick's work speaks for itself. He obviously was demanding. But he was a Chef, not a fastfood joint manager. Movies can be done quick and easy and they can still be very very entertaining. But his movies were different, weren't they?
Yeah, Kubrick's movies have this eerie feeling of delusion, like absolutely nothing was real. They're like believably unbelievable.
I really wish people would stop being Kubrick apologists. The man obviously suffered from some type of compulsive disorder that he projected onto others with a sadist’s desire to dominate. I think the man’s methods speak to his own insecurities rather than any short comings of an actor’s performance. And despite what Kubrick fanboys may believe, he would have gotten better performances out of his actors if he treated them like professionals rather than props.
I wish people like you would stop being random haters. What is your creative output exactly? Nothing? Also you’re projecting all of that onto him. And you e got zero idea why he did what he did. You know how many iconic films he made? A ton. You know how many anyone in the comments made? Exactly zero. You’re making all of that up and you aren’t the end all be all judge of if an actor did well or if Kubrick had a reason for what he did. And clearly based on is immense success, his process worked.
Also many directors have and that view of actors. Ford was rough with some actors and Hitchcock had joked that actors were like cattle. But quite clearly he got what he wanted in making these films.
@@ComeAlongKay I worked with actors and on screen talent hundreds of times and had the opportunity to see others at work as well. You get your best performances when people are treated professionally - it's that simple. That said - I am not a Kubrick hater - I just feel his methods were more a reflection of his own insecurities and not some genius directorial method. I find it interesting that actors never wanted to work with him again. One and done for every single one of them.
@@fpdima For me kubrick is Terence Fletcher in whiplash, not a good teacher. But he knows what he's doing.
I agree. I don’t think there’s a single performance in any Kubrick film where the character is a believable human being. It’s all just overdone.
That last part is very true. Cruise solely is an action star now, it’s incredibly disappointing.
He knows what he's doing. He keeps making this big stunts because he's in great shape, but I'm sure he's lining up projects for an imminent future that have nothing to do with Mission Impossible.
This movie straight up broke Cruise's and Kidman's relationship.
Scientology did.
@@MsTriangle Bro did the character too hard and actually joined a cult
@@MsTriangle and cruise being a closeted gay man
@@jannivannibellthat’s the rumor
@@jannivannibellWhy on earth would any actor need to closet himself in the 90s? It’s not Rock in the #50s.
I love your style. Shorter than most but packed with context and industry insight. 🎉🎉🎉 keep doing it!
Thanks dude. More to come.
We never got the true version of EWS. Warner lied at the time (I remember) stating that Kubrick had finished the film. Look into Kubrick’s history - no way the film was done. But now we know that even the music wasn’t right in the cut - it was finished based on his notes. With a director like Kubrick who knows what he would have wanted. It’s a fascinating film, but it’s not finished, Stanley’s death ensured that.
I've never come across this idea, and in the world of today's Internet if Warner lied at the time the rumour should be a lot more common if not confirmed by now.
I think the simplest answer is probably the correct one - the film was complete, and Kubrick was old. Kubrick died two days after finishing editing the film, because it had taken a heavy toll on him at age 70 and now he could finally relax. Sudden death after completing a psychologically arduous task is common among old people - it's like their mind has given their body permission to let go.
@@squamish4244 th-cam.com/video/qFB1ApdW2u4/w-d-xo.html
@@squamish4244 Bullshit. Kubrick is Nick Nightingale, and the elites ended him, and re-edited his film.
I believe it was finished but they cut 23 mins out and off'd him
The biggest rumor is a scene at the orgy with a pentagram was cut. This lends to suspecting what got cut exposed the elites’ sex magic. And since Epstein it all kinda makes sense doesn’t it ?
this film and the lore around it are so fascinating
Fun fact: he turned down movies like enemy of the state because he was still filming eyes wide shut.
@@totallybored5526 Or maybe you just aren't fun?
@@totallybored5526 but that’s what makes it fun 🤣😁
but that movie sucked
@@rubbersoul420 it wasn’t a good movie at all. Plus it was basically the same film as “the firm”. But it makes you wonder what other films he had to turn down because of eyes wide shut
1:16 - Bro is arguing with a woman holding a knife 😂 also RIP both a yas
.....it's a fake knife bud.
@@sooperd00p Yeah, and also 1) they filmed it in England and not Colorado, 2) it's a series of sound stages and not a hotel, and 3) all the snow is fake. Bunch of fakery in this here thing.
I’ve just watched all your videos, I haven’t watched a film video essay in forever but you’ve got me hooked again. Please upload more!
Christopher Nolan filmed the whole of The Dark Knight Trilogy faster than Stanley Kubrick shot this film. I am dead serious
There is no way this film should have taken this long to shoot
The thing is Nolan works in the System with the benefit of having a lot more liberties than others. Kubrick was never really a Studio director but mostly stayed outside as much as he could. Kubrick never wanted to be part of the whole machinery but his movies were always very successful for Warner Brothers, which is why they granted him a lot of liberties such as full creative control and in return he always wanted to earn this trust with making movies that would be financially successful for Warner. He was an actual Filmmaker that had his own style and paste. Nolan's movies are really just Hollywood and also let's not forget that today you have a lot more possibilities than around the time Kubrick was shooting his movies. As much as i like and respect Nolan, he never comes anywhere close to Kubrick in terms of aspiration.
That’s indeed true but Nolan is definitely up there with Kubrick to me, not only because of his box office success but because he is the true meaning of an Auteur. He literally makes the movie from scratch, he fully writes most of his movies and directs them. Kubrick wrote and directed almost all of his movies but all were referenced from books.
Because he is someone who takes time
@@andreimcallister1365”wastes time”
Clint Eastwood is famous for usually taking ONE take and no one says his movies are anything but great film making. Taking 100 shots of a single scene is actually bad film making. 100 takes isn't about what's on film, it's about psychological control. If the only way you can get the shot is to be psychologically abusive to your actor get another actor .......or go to work in Silicon Valley where they worship vile assholes like Steve Jobs.
BTW...Don't care about anything that comes out of Crazy Tom Cruise's mouth. He worships at an alter (scientology) that rewards abusive behavior so he really doesn't get it.
Nailed it. I respect Cruise's professionalism, but he's a terrible person.
I had No idea the film took that long to shoot, that really explains a LOT!
Despite all the problems and insanity it’s an incredible film
Average at best!
I disagree…I think it was one of his worse films.
I just found it boring. I remember seeing in in a theater when it came out an the audience was just kind of deflated from watching it. Maybe I will try watching it again thoguh.
meh
While I respect Kubricks work and The Shining is in my top 3 films ever, I agree with Ridley Scott.
I remember hearing somewhere Kubrick said "I know what I don't want.", which also means you don't know what you want.
The first half of that quote is Kubrick literally saying "I don't always know what I want..."
I think it was because he didn't want to finish his vision of the film until the very last moment of editing so he wanted a million different takes in case he changed his mind on something
Ridley Scott isn't in Kubrick's league. He's close though. What's the difference? I think Kubrick had a very sly sense of humour, he would put the audience on just a little. Scott not so to me, but I haven't seen all his movies.
@@FamiliarAnomaly sure but that makes him a bad director.
A football team coach who says “I don’t know what plays I want us to run on Sunday, so we’ll just practice a hundred variations of every play then I’ll pick the one I want on Sunday” is a coach who will never win a game.
To me Kubrick has one film I enjoy; the shining. I also enjoyed the first half of Full Metal Jacket. But beyond that, I think Kubrick is a terrible director who could have been replaced by just about anyone and the films would have been better.
applying that logic, i guess he wanted to take as many takes as humanly possible, eliminate what he doesn't want from those and he'll end up / be left with what he likes, so wanted to increase the number of takes he thinks he 'can' like...!?
I think it’s just a bunch of directors being pompous. I work as a VFX artist and the more you work and research the more you realise that directors don’t know shit.
I wonder if this is part of the reason why Tom Cruise flipped the script and became an action star after he did "Magnolia" (1999).
It may be part of it. Cruise doesn't even call himself an actor anymore. He states that he's an "entertainer." You can see that he's lost the self-seriousness that he had about acting in the 90s. And I think he's better for it overall, even if his great acting days are gone. Some people take filmmaking way too seriously. Cruise is correct in that regard. It is just entertainment.
Many were surprised he didn’t win the Oscar for magnolia even Michael Caine acknowledged him in his speech that supporting was too small an award for him and that he’s a leading man Tom looked accepting of it but Miramax clearly campaigned so hard that Caine got it at the end and was happy he finally got it on stage after he skipped his first Oscar win.
Harvey Keitel walked off set, calling Kubrick nuts!! LOL
In 50 years, people will still be debating the films by Stanley Kubrick, as they are now 25 years after he died.... In 50 years many people will be asking who isHarvey Keitel ....
Kubrick is beyond overrated. Hearing how sadistic he was further solidifies this opinion for me.
After 80 takes I’d ask for another one just to mess with Kubrick
Makes me want to watch this.
For Star Trek II, Nicholas Meyer got repeated takes from Shatner. Because Shatner tends to mug for the cameras. Meyer would make him repeat until he dropped the act and Meyer for a more natural take.
Tom Cruise for a lot of his movies has only played Tom Cruise. He's another one who mugs for the cameras. I can believe this was Kubrick s way of getting Cruise to drop his usual "you can't handle the truth" type energy and deliver something more natural.
This happened with Jamie Foxx on Django Unchained. It was difficult to act like an actual uneducated mumble mouthed slave because he was so used to performing his cool suave guy persona from 99% of his other films.
Some people think Tom Cruise is a great actor because he can act better than Stallone or Steven Seagal, which is true but won't cut it for Kubrick.
Maybe Kubrick had to frustrate him because he couldn't act the frustration.
Harvey Keitel’s reaction is the greatest thing ever LOL
My parents switched the film off when they realised it was going to be freaky and twist our poor child minds haha. Guess I'll have to make up for it by watching it now.
Tom Cruise is a great actor when HE'S IN CONTROL. He's not an actor that will give it all up completely to a director, that's why it took so long, Kubrick was trying to break down Cruise and the result is that you can see an actor on film struggling, not just the character, the person, he is struggling in every single scene, the character is struggling, the entire movie is a struggle and the result is that Cruise would never, ever, be put in that situation again.
Really well put- I know my opinion isn’t favourable but it’s actually one of my favourite Cruise performances. You get sucked into his mysterious journey not knowing where it’s going to end up.
Cruise's character in that movie is so weak, fragile, cowardly - which is the opposite of what he's usually doin. Also the movie goes nowhere, there is no victory, no resolution. It's just painful to watch.
Tom Cruise can't act. He always plays the same character: Tom Cruise the cocky asshole.
Tom Cruise's problem is that he always has to be 'in control'. He got that from his cult. He's a psycho.
@@kennydolby1379 It is a very bizarre film that just seems to exist. Yet we're still talking about it 25 years later, so I guess it was effective. Probably partly for reasons that Kubrick did not intend, as the effect of shooting the same scenes over and over forever can make the acting appear stilted and 'off'. Well yeah, because the actors are exhausted.
The movie is not only different from any other movies, but vastly different from Kubrick’s own work. It was a masterpiece
I disagree that Kubrik needed all those shots. Taking 70 shots doesn't change the costume or lighting. It might slightly slightly tweak the acting, but I don't think it would make such a big difference.
Bullshit, Tom Cruise has repeatedly said he enjoyed the process even though it was rigorous.
He was being professional
That's the answer his PR consultants recommended he give
I'm not a fan of Cruise BUT I think he was sincere with his praises of Stanley Kubrick . Sir Ridley Scott was as picky with shots for Bladerunner as Stanley was by the way .
@@BruceStephan Cruise even narrated the stanley kubrick memorial documentary made after his death.
It can be both.
I know it's not live theater but that many takes will turn ANY performance wooden.
Some directors are visual directors, some directors are story directors, some directors are character directors, and some directors are actors' directors. Kubrick was not an actor's director.
The complete opposite of him is Clint Eastwood, known for often doing only one take.
I will not "bargain" with the devil
bargain = an agreement, an arrangement between two people, a contract, a deal
Peace Next
Kubrick was a prick
Most geniuses are
@@crazyralph6386 Nah, doing that many takes isn't genius, it's insane. Directors far better than him never needed that many takes. He was selfish & overrated.
@@nebulous6660 I beg to differ. Almost all of his work has withstood the test of time, in terms of cinematography, dialogue, costumes, score and direction. Nobody has ever come close.
@@crazyralph6386 Oh plenty have surpassed him
Saying TC performance was stronger in MAG vs EWS is subjective
ridiculous and such a waste of $. $ that could have fed a starving country
I heard that the reason why Stanley Kubrick did so many takes is because he would wait for something truly interesting to happen.
Stanley Kubrick was a genius but the way he inflicted trauma towards Shelley Duvall was terrible.
Rest in peace Shelley Duvall.
She put up with it for some reason.
@@The_Mosaic She was contractually bound. And walking away would've ended her career.
Ya know that was literally proven to be false right? Kubrick didn't abuse Shelley
@@andykwwhe did this to everyone and others saw it as an experience that bettered them mostly I think. I think people just care here because a woman was affected and people don’t care if a man was. The dude in clockwork orange was almost literally tortured and the guy in full metal jacket did a million takes on stuff also like he ran people down to see what they were made of I’d guess or get them to be in a certain headspace. It’s just here it was a woman so people don’t like anyone being harsh there, you can only do that with dudes and have people be okay with it.
Eyes wide shut was a masterpiece but underrated and a classic one of my favourite movies and favourite director
He knows what he wants but he's unsure of what he's doing
4:13 "I don't do a lot of takes when it's good", that is essentially true for R. Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket, we all know he was a retired drill sargeant who served during Vietnam War (ending up with PTSD), he also wrote some of his dialog, resulting in what's probably the best performance in any Stanley Kubrick film (not taking anything away from James Mason, Peter Sellers, George C. Scott, Malcolm McDowell, Jack Nicholson or Vincent D'Onoffrio), even Kubrick said Ermey was one of the most disciplined actors he ever worked with, to the point he only shoot each of his scenes twice or 3 times, that's what Kubrick was looking for.
When you think about it, that's method acting at it's finest, Ermey didn't even have contact with the rest of the actors playing the Marines Corp outside the film. It's even unfair the Academy didn't nominate Ermey for best supporting actor.
P. S: isn't strange that Tom Cruise hasn't talked about EWS or Stanley Kubrick for over almost 3 decades? Nicole Kidman did, she even spoke about a Kubrick film where he would have revealed powerful people and p3d0ph1l3s.
The film she talked about is Eyes Wide Shut, right??
Ermey wasn’t acting
Kubrick is Nick Nightingale. They ended him, and re-edited it in post-production.
In his later years I played in a celebrity golf tournament where Ermey was the host. During the round he sat in a jeep and was filming a commercial and had to do the thing at least 30 times before I walked on and didn't see him finish. He didn't seem to tire but loved every minute of it. Maybe that's why Stanley and Ermey got along so well.
Kubrick was a bully with method, and there are so many directors who get stronger performances without resorting to this.
This helps explain the many emotionless, stilted scenes in Eyes Wide Shut that are certainly not intended. A lot of scenes just feel 'off', as if they were just filmed over and over until the actors were worn out.
I think there is a lot of merit to the retrospective diagnosis of autism in Kubrick. It seems exactly like the thing an autistic person would do - not realize that Take 15 was probably more than enough.
Also, Kubrick put Shelley Duvall through absolute hell on the Shining, but was very kind to the five-year-old child actor, and did most of his takes as boring or funny ones and only a few as serious ones. He also told Jack Nicholson to act goofy between takes. Autistic people tend to communicate very well with and understand children.
I thought Cruise and Kidman were a poor choice for this, despite the fact they were actually married they didn't feel like a couple on screen, they both felt stilted. The scene where they get stoned felt like someone filmed a rehearsal.
@@boing615 If you had to do something 100x over, you'd come off like that too.
Kubrick comes off like an insecure megalomaniac.
Cruise was also preparing to divorce NK during this shoot
A hundred takes isn't film making. It's masturbation.
You should put that on your tombstone
No bro. It’s cinema
Then Kubrick produced the best porn I've ever seen.
What’s your filmography?
who doesn't like masturbation...?
I wonder how a Sydney pollack also being an Oscar winning director felt of Kubrick style and if Tom would have just preferred a change of director or even script
Love Tom Cruise to the max, but it is noticeable that he never worked with another director who challenged him in the way that Kubrick did. Since 2010, he seems to have become an action movie actor rather than a dramatic actor.
He is working with Alejandro G. Iñárritu for his next film.
Great video! As suggested, I think maybe Kubrick was trying to use real life frustration to influence Cruise's preference, as he arguably did with Shelley Duvall. And she actually defended Kubrick's method and said it did actually bring here to a different level of acting.
While I can certainly see why one would be tempted to say that doing that many takes is ridiculous, it's hard to argue with with Kubrick's impact. Pound for pound I think he was far more significant than Ridley Scott. Scott has countless forgettable films.
Yeah but that being true that’s not as fun as judging and being an armchair critic. People who’ve made nothing love to attack others. This comment section is full of them as if they’ve made anything if artistic value,
@@ComeAlongKay Indeed, plenty of _Monday morning quarterbacks_ on the internets
I miss the Tom Cruise that had more "artistic" ambitions as an actor, I always thought he had way more potential then he explored
Superb analysis, marvelous essay, without saying too much at a time or being to in love with your voice, skill or style, which is rare, to have modesty!
Yes, I think the Tom Cruise, a 60 year old action superstar we have today, has been changed by the neverending shoot and unravelling of Eyes Wide Shut, a movie I personally have never been able to finish, and I am a great admirer of cinema. He saw, learned, felt and understood something about Hollywood, that changed him as a human being: an artificial experience pays better than a philosophical reflection of the sins of modern civilization. A sugar-rush of frenetic fight sequences pays better than an allegory of good, evil and the soul-consuming price of sins.
A Mission Impossible 15 is better, at 70 (probably), suitable and pays better than being involved, for a long, long time, in the creation of a mythological opus of a misunderstood genius - Kubrick, and that faith in movement, physical dedication to roles and perseveration washes years of sinful mistakes.
I see you took a two year break, this was really good and hope to see more.
Thanks man - I hope to make another before too long.
Just found your channel. Really great video, thank you.
I start to mail it in after 3 takes. I remember one time on a low budget film during an argument scene the director wanted a 3rd take. I asked: "any notes?" "Naw I just like watching you guys work."
The way people act in Kubrick movies is like no other... No movies are like his.. What other film maker is talked about over and over like him?.. I mean YT videos about Kubrick are an entire genre unto itself.
Clearly his process of filming had deep reasons behind it and yielded fantastic unique results.
4:34 would you believe this shot was done on a treadmill and a green screen?
Disagree on the Kubrick having to be this way and take this many takes to make a Kubrick movie around 7:06. I think its ego and a lack of willingness to truly be self aware.
Several directors have been accused of this very same thing, including James Cameron and Michael Cimino.
Some directors have crazy reputation for no good reason. I found the Kubricks movies just okay. Yeah way ahead of their time, but as movie they are just okay, nothing extraordinary.
There's no question that Kubrick had "his own process" and that it was often laborious. And sure, if you have 60-120 takes of shot X, scene Y, or close-up Z, I'm pretty certain YOU HAVE IT. You have whatever you were going to get. But RIDLEY SCOTT NAILED IT when he stated that unless a shot is monstrously complicated and involved dozens of key elements (especially for action shots), 3-6 takes should be all any reasonable director would want or need. And Ok, Ok, maybe 6-12. MAYBE. But Kubrick must've convinced himself that more was almost always better, and "more than more" would eventually yield something the actor hadn't previously revealed. As an actor myself (decades of work)... I think that's a mistake. Kubrick may have become pretty stuck on believing ALL actors were going to be barely prepared, barely competent, barely talented. That only happened with a certain amount of the folks he'd hired. AND KEITEL WASN'T ONE OF 'EM. Neither was Cruise, and neither was Kidman. #Duh
the truth is, once you work with perfection, something always wants perfection
1:19 does Kubrick say "MOOG MUSIC"? Lol
Almost the same amount of time it took Peter Jackson to film three Lord of the Rings movies
I always thought Shelly Duvall was such an odd casting in the Shinning. The role required a naive doe eyed actress, which Duvall portrayed, but it was far beyond the scope of her acting sensibilities, so Kubrick must have known that he was going to have to shape a square peg into a round one to make it work. I theorize it was Duvalls look in the sense that there's something about her eyes and her look that enhances fear to the point where one could even flip the script and make her the assailant in a roll. She could just as easily be the chick who comes out of the well and kills you.
i personally think that Stanley Kubrick is a genius and no other director can compete with him but the films that he directed must need his method and Ridley Scott is another genius director as well but they are different 2 different person 2 different styles 2 different directors and different movie creators .
his 2001 a space odyssey is just something i mean really from the future that time he created those things now we use it or see it or now its been created.
Kubrick was mentally unwell and took multiple TC performances away from us with this overly long shooting, all for one of his worst films and mediocre performances from everyone involved. Funny how Tom delivered the best acting of his career after he was out of this hell. Magnolia, Vanilla Sky, Collateral, all performances that will be studied for decades to come. NOT THIS ONE
it's always a shame when figures like him weight their decisions based off what their fans want, which I think factored into his choices to no small degree. but to be fair the window of movies that lent themselves to actorly ambition was beginning to close around this time, and nobody would have better insight to that than Cruise. auteur films were risky for a number reasons, whereas genre films to an extent allowed Cruise to co-author the movie rather than be completely subservient to someone's vision. and at this point in his career he had already worked with the best of the best. there's really no point in carrying on in that vein if you're already dissatisfied with the results
Every shot is stunning in this movie. ❤
yeah, but this movie isn't remembered for its stunning shots.
the orgy's not even memorable. it wasn't intriguingly staged and shot...it was...there's an orgy with Tom Cruise walking thru it.
the story's....meh.
i think Kubrick was like this due to the people in the industry, including Cruise, were too in awe and enabling of his madness.
they'd call him a "perfectionist"....
while that may be true about him, on some of his other movies...
on this and The Shining...I call BS.
well, with Shelley...I think I kinda get what he was tryinna do to her. her "madness" on screen wasn't up to his standards, thus, he "pushed" her to...literal madness.
I remember I was highly underwhelmed by Eyes Wide Shut.... and they didn't need to shoot it for FOUR HUNDRED DAYS...!! lol
@@isuriadireja91 Mediocre, pretentious and boring film from an overrated director.
What took so long? Stanley! He was dying he didn't care. He just wanted to explore... whatever aspect of mortality and life.
perhaps the Making of the movie was as much a ritual as the final product was...
HE knew what he was doing.
I object, your honor. Speculation.
Someone who say he could be shooting in 28 days (4 weeks) that took 400 days for Kubrick is either a liar or a fool, and probably both!
There is certainly a problem with Kubrick shooting so much, but what's matter is the result...
And for is known, observable, documented, there are incredibly awesome outcomes. Nobody could deny this.
It's so easy to criticize what a true master of cinema have done, the immortals Chefs d'Œuvres, when you are unable to create a simple feature movie. What makes them so easy in appearance is the master craft, incredible dedication, focus, and obviously talent.
In regard, as much as I love Tom Cruise as an actor, he is not comedian enough for Stanley Kubrick. Too much Tom Cruise.
Tom Cruise is perfect for a Tom Cruise movie, or a role "for" Tom Cruise. Stanley Kubrick wanted more, much more.
In Eyes Wide Shut, the problem was not the genius Director, but the underpart comedian full of itself...
I don’t agree about learning your lines over and over. Brando often hardly read his lines, sometimes didn’t read them at all and he in my opinion is the greatest of them all.
Great video! What I have often wondered is, why did Warner Brothers put up with this insanity?
I thought Tom cruise was better in eyes wide shut then he was in magnolia … maybe I’m alone.
Good point on Cruise’s career post EWS. Dramatic films, mostly up to that point. He did fine work in Kubrick’s film.
Doing many many takes I think is fine but if you don't know why you are doing dozens of takes or if you cannot explain why there is a bit of a problem. Ultimately it comes down to faith and Stanley Kubrick was someone people put faith in. Honestly I don't think Kubrick even knew what the end result would be but he got so much footage of everything that by the end he could make almost any movie he wanted.
Many different ideas what the movie is…I like the one where the whole movie was a dream, nothing really happened…just a dreamscape representing his fears
But getting paid millions for 400 days work? CRY ME A RIVER Tom Cruise...
Finch also talks a lot about this. It's not that you WANT to torture someone by having them do it again and again, it's that often, the most prepared actors are the most stubborn performers. He says acting is "a presentation" and that is always going to be fake and not what you want as a director.
So when Fincher makes someone do 30-40 takes he's letting them "get it out of their system", their plan, their approach to how they were going to do the scene. He wants actors to not be intellectually driving performance but to live the performance.
Going so far as to Kirk Baxter, his editor, saying often you'll get notes with Finch that says throw out the first 10 takes or something because all he was doing is mechanically tiring the actors INTELLECT so they can in their fatigue and frustration, BE REAL.
Fincher being a major Kubrick and Hitchcock fan obviously adapted their approach. Alfonso Cuaron, Inarritu and Malick also have similar processes where they'll sometimes even reshoot entire scenes weeks later just to see what the actors can find differently this time.
Malick's Jesus movie which is likely premiering next year apparently has been in post production for 5 years and shot over 3000 hours of footage.
Cuaron's Disclaimer mini series is 7 hours long and shot for over 280 shooting days nd has been in post for a year and a half. Out in October.
Obviously, safety issues like emotional stress and overtime have gotten more awareness over the decades but I do believe that blatantly saying this type of directing is "TORTURE" kind of misses the point. All art has a process, and some people's process can be very frustrating when you're used to working differently. In a collaborative industry like cinema one must serve the process of the director you're hired. If it's not for you and you wanna leave, nothing is holding you from that but it's never good to disparage and discredit people's work just because you disagree with their methods.
These directors are legends for a reason and their perfectionism and high standards are a big part of that.
Well said 👏, Fincher was always one of the perfectionist compared to Kubrick I would hear about and you can tell in every one of his shots that he takes his time and precision in making each scene. Everyone has their own way of doing things, I just wonder how Christopher Nolan’s method is because he also takes a lot of influence from Kubrick but I never heard he was one to do a lot of takes or take too long to shoot movies, only heard that Dicaprio was hard to work with on Inception. But could be because of use with practical effects and not wanting to waste too much money reshooting countless expensive scenes.
If you have to do something so many times... then there is something wrong. Also if you do something so many times... eventually you are gonnan get it right even if you are bad at something.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Kubrick was a sociopath
True perfection has to be imperfect
There's something kind of funny about this as Tom Cruise has been making Mission Impossible 8 for almost 2 and a half years now and still seems like it's got a couple months of shooting left (granted there was a strike + I am sure they were also doing stuff for Dead Reckoning at the time, but still).
6:50 seems like Keitel left the production on his own, doesn’t sound like he was fired
I know what you mean, but there's an interview featuring Harvey Keitel on TH-cam (which I didn't include in this video) in which he states that he was fired.
I think Keitel was willing to return after his rebellion, but after disrupting Kubrick's day by storming off set, Kubrick no longer wanted him around.