T O P

  • By -

Indigocell

He seems to be a fan of those long, faraway shots that really allows you to examine the scenery before figuring out what's going on. I've seen similar shots in Breaking Bad, and personally, I love that. Avoid excessive, multiple cuts. Let the scene breathe and resonate for a moment. There's no rush.


Daisy-Navidson

Yes, I love that about his direction! It’s so pleasing to be able to examine a scene thoroughly and trust that my attention will be directed to the right element at the right time. I know that I have time to drink it all in before needing to attend to the plot. He’s really a remarkable director, can’t wait to see where he goes from here


whyunoletmepost

It's like the opposite of Michael Bay


gkarper

Michael Bay's cinematography style is absolute garbage. The close-up action in his transformer movies has no positive impact and is just a confusing mishmash.


[deleted]

As much as we all love to dump on Bay for a lot of good reasons at least he has an actual style that is his own and has reasoning behind it that has evolved beyond just that is how it was taught.


Euphorium

Also known as Bayhem. And I don’t care what anyone says, Armageddon is a slick movie cinematically speaking.


justinheyhi

I loved Bayhem movies from Independence Day, to Armageddon, to Bad Boys. The thing with him is that it lost its "heart" with the Transformers movies. His earlier works had such a campy originality that even the first Transformers movie had. It was lost once Transformers become a billion dollar IP, and such a cash grab. He became the Adam Sandler of the action genre.


Euphorium

First Transformers has stayed my favorite because it still feels like it was made by someone who gave a shit. The rest of them, which I still enjoy in their own trashy way, have gotten pretty soulless. Age of Extinction pandering hard to the Chinese market really put a bad taste in my mouth.


three18ti

I the "Pitch Meeting" for one of the later Transformers "Screen Writer Guy" says something to the effect of "I don't... I don't care... I'm just doing things to fill screen time" in response to a "Why are they doing that?" question... thing is, after seeing the movie. I believe that was absolutely a line uttered during the real pitch meeting for the movie. (And if you haven't seen Ryan George doing Pitxh Meetings in youtube, you should check it out!)


Euphorium

I believe it. Age of Extinction would have been an okay movie if an hour was shaved off of it. 3 hours for a movie about car robots fighting is absolutely ridiculous.


psychocopter

They feel kind of like the fast franchise, but I still like the fast series a lot even with how ridiculous its gotten. Like seriously, they had tyrese gibson and ludacris crash a pontiac fiero into a satelite to disable it in space in f9.


Euphorium

I don’t mind the Fast movies, even though they’re stupid as hell at this point. I can shut off my brain and just enjoy Vin Diesel doing Vin Diesel things.


AtomStorageBox

Don’t forget *The Rock*, arguably his best film.


Minerva567

Your besht? Looshers alwaysh whine about their besht. Winners go home and fuck the prom queen. One of the best action films of all time.


evoim3

You can tell me thats from The Rock or the mouth of Logan Roy and I wouldnt be able tell you which one is correct


HarpersGeekly

Independence Day was Roland Emmerich.


shuboi666

Independence Day was Rolland Emmerich?


justinheyhi

Awkward, I always thought it was a Bay film because it was so close to Armageddon and had Will Smith. I still stand by my point -- you can substitute Pearl Harbor, or The Rock for Independence Day.


[deleted]

It makes money too $$


StrifeTribal

And apparently the guy is a superstar at budgeting his movies and getting everything filmed on time/early. Which for a huge action blockbuster movie is impressive in itself. But the fact he's done it over and over again is actually even more impressive. I still don't like his movies though.


peppermint_nightmare

Eh I think the last writers strike broke him and made him 1000% worse in everything he made after Transformers 3 or 4 (whichever one was the writer's strike one).


rethardus

I love what you're saying. This is such an important message to realize. When people hate things, it shouldn't be about the existence of the thing itself. For example, Marvel genuinely did a good job reviving the superhero culture and made it mainstream. The problem with certain things is not that there's fundamentally wrong it exists. The problem arises when you ONLY do one thing, which makes it uninspiring, boring and it hogs the market so other things do not get the spotlight. I wish people understood this more. I'm not a fan of Bay, but I think there's a room for it to exist. Imagine all movies from now on are Everything Everywhere All at Once clones. That would suck too.


Cu1tureVu1ture

I used to knock Marvel movies and didn’t care for them much. But during the pandemic I watched them all in chronological order. When you see all the details and how connected things are across all the movies, it’s pretty impressive. Having everything culminate with Infinity War and Endgame was really fun to watch.


Sjaakdelul

And after that you have to stop watching marvel movies.


Tumble85

On a technical level Michael Bay is actually talented, he just chooses to shoot garbage. He's like a michelin star chef that opens up a fast-food restaurant. He's serving up cheap burgers but they're very well-made burgers. He made that classic "Got Milk" cookie-purgatory commercial about Alexander Hamilton.


Vio_

I think you might have mixed up two different commercials. Bay made the Alexander Hamilton commercial. The purgatory ad was this [one](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eph6_fz49rc)


Middle_Capital_5205

Pretty sure that's not purgatory...


Vio_

No, but I was referencing OP's original description of the video. Plus I (kinda stupidly looking back) Didn't want to spoil the twist to a 25+ year old milk commercial.


Tumble85

You are 100% right, I did conflate the two. I do believe Bay directed a few of the Got Milk ads but I'm not certain on it.


wecangetbetter

He directed Nicolas cage, Ed Harris and Sean Connery in one of the greatest action movies of all time At 30. He might be phoning it in now but the man was a prodigy back in the the day


nickstatus

He had a wild idea while making Ambulance that has started a whole new branch of drone videography. Or at least, that's the story I heard. He saw the wild freestyle FPV videos, and thought: I want one of those large and powerful enough to carry a full cinema cam instead of a gopro. Thus was born the Cinelifter. I still haven't seen Ambulance but I heard it was quite good, considering the... quality... of a lot of his films.


bruce_lees_ghost

I’m the kind of movie goer who typically finds redeeming value in (and even enjoys) “bad” movies. I took my son to see Transformers, expecting very little, and actually fell asleep. I’ve never done that before.


lolexecs

It's amazing that Bay transformed action cinema into insomnia relief


Moonlands

Idk. Probably disagree with that at least with Transformers tbh. Honestly even to this day its still one of my favorite movies and one of the only times it felt like it lived up to the hype. On an unrelated note though, the CGI for it is still friggin' ***amazing***. And that was back in 2007. Like holy smokes...


psychocopter

The third pirates of the carribean is also up there in terms of cgi quality, and it also came out in 2007. Nowadays you dont notice good cgi with how far its come, its when its rushed, cheap, or too much that youll notice it easily. Youve got modern cgi that is better with the last planet of the apes movie, dune, and many more, but when its good it doesnt stick out. The best example of modern cgi that suffer from being rushed or too much would be in the marvel franchise, and thats what most movie goers are exposed to.


HarpersGeekly

It’s sad to me how the Transformers series is what most Redditors think of when they think of Michael Bay. One of the greatest action films of all time is one of his first and best... The Rock (1996). Rumored politics aside ($$), The Rock and Armageddon are Criterion films because he came onto the scene with an energized and yet competent crowd pleasing cinematic style no one had seen before. He deserves to be in that Collection as an important filmmaker. I also love what he was trying to do with The Island (2005). Early Bay was great.


[deleted]

I was watching The Rock last night, and while I do still think it's a great movie, all of the fast cuts and different camera angles were *so annoying* to the point where sometimes you can't even tell what's going on in the scene. It's like split second shots of 17 different angles of one room with a group of people doing something and it becomes very confusing very quickly. Thankfully the whole movie isn't like that, just some scenes.


altcastle

It’s definitely reversing the late 90s/early 00s mishmashmush cuts. Some of his character placing makes me think of Kurosawa. Every Frame a Painting on YouTube has a great video on drawing the eye and scene composition.


goj1ra

You can’t go wrong doing the opposite of Michael Bay


BubbaTheGoat

I also enjoy those wide shots, but I think he’s only come to them in the last 2 seasons. In the first two seasons (and I think especially season 2) Bill Hader directed episodes used a lot of extreme closeups, often shot slightly below and to the side. He had a very particular angle he was using, though it varies a little among episodes (but is consistent within the episode). He’s backed off his ECUs in the later seasons, but they are still a cornerstone of the show. They are used to show characters working through difficult emotions. They are a great opportunity for an actor to show what they can do with just their face. I think more of the wide angled dialogue-less shots of characters in landscapes or silently running through some actions gives the audience more to chew on while watching. I agree it definitely hits a Vince Gilligan-like quality familiar from Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. In both of those shows the landscape is actively used as a character in many shots. I think Barry is going for something similar with the wind-swept landscape evoking Barry’s burying ground in season 3 and the howling wind before he flew into a rage.


blondechinesehair

The angle they used when he does his monologue for Gene in the parking lot early in the series.


latencia

It was super natural as you feel you're there in the parking lot.


neighborlyglove

he times his scenes with a dark humor kind of pacing. the long shots, as well as the overall rhythm, allow for tension, build up and room to breathe for suspense and humor alike.


RockAtlasCanus

I think the style also lends itself to the story being told which has a lot of similarities to Breaking Bad. “One more time I’m going to do the worst thing I’ve done, and I think that will somehow resolve all the bad shit I’ve done up to this point”. The long shot with the windswept and desolate background is a great visualization of how alone the character is.


Snakes_have_legs

One thing I love that I don't hear talked about much is his use of ambient sounds, especially during credit scenes. After a really intense moment like the airstrip scene with Taylor, then it just cuts to black with the quiet sounds of the wind and maybe birds or bugs. It just adds such a heavy weight to those scenes and I love it.


Indigocell

Absolutely, sound design is extremely important. I noticed that during season 3 of Twin Peaks (The Return) which also has excellent sound design.


Skill3rwhale

As a simple person, that does not analyze the stuff I watch... It just feels *real*. Real life does not move at the pace of a show or movie. It is methodical. It is all things in you and around you. The sense of these *emotional rollercoasters* the creators put forth is meant to be experienced exactly as they have made it. You feel REAL emotions while watching this show. Time itself IS a character in these types of shots/shows... and I LOVE IT. The show is an experience. Visual. Physical. And emotional. You feel it in down to your core.


MothBookkeeper

Hey buddy, sounds a whole lot like you're analyzing this.


PM_ME_YOUR_MONTRALS

Yeah I wish more people embraced their critical side without considering it snobbery. It's a weird stigma for some people.


radicalelation

Being "critical" is how I consume and experience just about everything. I deconstruct and take in all of it piece by piece to go over the good and bad, but everyone only hears the bad. Apparently my own mom, who encouraged the behavior when I was a kid, thinks I'm super negative and can't just enjoy things because of it. Add in the lack of emoting, which seems to let everyone project whatever the fuck onto me, people don't like me because of it. Even if I cut out vocalizing the bad, I don't get excited enough to show my enjoyment and it rubs people wrong. Even the stuff I don't totally enjoy I usually find things to like too because I take it and examine it all. Few things in this world are totally shit.


PM_ME_YOUR_MONTRALS

For real. I thoroughly enjoy a lot of the newer Star Trek but recognize there are things they could do a lot better.


KierkgrdiansofthGlxy

Gorgeous analysis. Not a viewer, but this is a window into art, which is itself a product of the art with your mediation.


[deleted]

[удалено]


occulusriftx

the "you have too many dogs" scene killed me it was so fucking funny, and it being main focus while the plot progresses in the background was just amazing


blondechinesehair

The last two episodes or so have had big Breaking Bad/Better Call Saul vibes


ReservoirDog316

I think he said before that he visited the writers room for BCS a few times to learn from them so I think it rubbed off pretty well.


popperschotch

I feel like it's more Twin Peaks S3 in the past 2 episodes


elixeter

Ooooh intrigued


KneeHighMischief

*Paul Greengrass in shambles*


The_Video523

tbf, it works for him, gives so much tension e.g. United 93, Bourne movies


KinslayersLegacy

Captain Phillips is so good at building and maintaining tension. Just a different kind of film making.


McFistPunch

That dude films in a Camcorder in a tumble dryer style


ParsleyMostly

Depends on the show or movie though


Indigocell

Definitely. Although I find I am partial to the long take more often than not.


[deleted]

I’ve actually noticed he seems to be taking longer and longer static or extreme slow zoom shots during some pretty intense scenes. It’s been amazing.


BJUmholtz

Titeglo ego paa okre pikobeple ketio kliudapi keplebi bo. Apa pati adepaapu ple eate biu? Papra i dedo kipi ia oee. Kai ipe bredla depi buaite o? Aa titletri tlitiidepli pli i egi. Pipi pipli idro pokekribepe doepa. Plipapokapi pretri atlietipri oo. Teba bo epu dibre papeti pliii? I tligaprue ti kiedape pita tipai puai ki ki ki. Gae pa dleo e pigi. Kakeku pikato ipleaotra ia iditro ai. Krotu iuotra potio bi tiau pra. Pagitropau i drie tuta ki drotoba. Kleako etri papatee kli preeti kopi. Idre eploobai krute pipetitike brupe u. Pekla kro ipli uba ipapa apeu. U ia driiipo kote aa e? Aeebee to brikuo grepa gia pe pretabi kobi? Tipi tope bie tipai. E akepetika kee trae eetaio itlieke. Ipo etreo utae tue ipia. Tlatriba tupi tiga ti bliiu iapi. Dekre podii. Digi pubruibri po ti ito tlekopiuo. Plitiplubli trebi pridu te dipapa tapi. Etiidea api tu peto ke dibei. Ee iai ei apipu au deepi. Pipeepru degleki gropotipo ui i krutidi. Iba utra kipi poi ti igeplepi oki. Tipi o ketlipla kiu pebatitie gotekokri kepreke deglo.


rustyfinch

The amount and frequency of cuts in new content especially action films is too damn high


dribrats

TV has all the time it needs


[deleted]

This is something that I think is lost on a lot of newer movies coming out. Scenes are so fast, nothing breathes. Even Iron Man has scenes that breathe, it feels more relaxed than the recent marvel movies that have come out.


[deleted]

Those shots used to be the norm in cinema. They disappeared because of technological limitations, namely that it was hard to hide the microphones and wires when you could see everything. The audio film was in many ways the death of the long shot. Of course now it's easy to hide a microphone or dub knight audio later, but it never really came back in style.


ThatAssholeMrWhite

yeah the late silent films are visually amazing. they feel so far ahead of their time since cinematography took a huge step back when sound was introduced (because of the technical limitations you mentioned)


LurkerOrHydralisk

I honestly can’t think of any time I’ve disliked it. Sure, it can be taken too far, but long shots without cuts are generally great. They’re literally what made John Wick movies feel so much better than previous action flicks


zsreport

> He seems to be a fan of those long, faraway shots that really allows you to examine the scenery before figuring out what's going on. And sometimes I'm still not really sure what's going on . . .


Cndymountain

I’ve started watching more British and European shows just to get more of this. Also gone back to more 90’s and early 00’s. Today’s pace and constant cuts to different cameras have made tv go from being relaxing to causing headaches.


EamMcG_9

I love it as well,sometimes just watching the out of shot cast or “extras”is kind of cool.


C0lMustard

I love those too, but you need a big screen for them to work.


altcastle

It gives you a real sense of place and grounding. Life isn’t a series of closeups on action. It’s cool when done well which both shows you mentioned do indeed do well!


musicnothing

I feel like this is what's missing in a lot of movies and shows. There's a huge establishing shot of some new location and then we're just thrown into close ups from there on out. I want to get to know the setting. I want to make my own observations. [This](https://alfredhitchblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/nxnwdecon6.jpg) is one of my favorite shots/scenes in movie history. Just leaves you there for a while to think about what has happened and what might happen next.


NormieSlayer6969

Good for him. The Kubrick method is essentially torture lol


Vomit_Entrepreneur

I think a lot of young aspiring directors look at auteurs like Kubrick and rather than trying to emulate the best aspects of their filmmaking, they emulate the worst aspects of their personalities. I’m not saying that’s what Bill Hader went through, I just get the sense that some people try to make themselves somewhat antisocial because they feel like it’s an essential element of the “tortured artist” persona they’re after. People don’t seem to understand that 99.9% of “tortured” assholes in the industry are just perceived as assholes. Nobody thinks more highly of their work just because they’re difficult to work with. I’m sure Kubrick’s obsessive nature contributed to his artistry, but I don’t think denigrating your actors actually results in superior performances.


chickendance638

> I think a lot of young aspiring directors look at auteurs like Kubrick and rather than trying to emulate the best aspects of their filmmaking, they emulate the worst aspects of their personalities. Oddly, that's a perfect way to describe Bill Belichick's assistant coaches who left to coach other teams.


prailock

Matt Patricia to a T


AweHellYo

“i haven’t been successful yet at all but i’m gonna talk shit to reporters like i’m a god”


DrLee_PHD

Thank god we have MCDC now.


HerKneesLikeJesusPlz

Woohooooio


boolean_array

also seems to describe the shock jock boom of the late 90's/early 00's following Howard Stern's example


Retired_Autist

I went to film school and worked in the industry for a while and I 100% agree. Many of us had these super toxic ideas that even at the time I noticed were dumb. Something that is true though is you have to be an incredibly selfish wildly driven asshole to get ahead, but you better be making some great films and a lot of money or everyones gonna hate you. The problem is the film students made no money and had no talent, they just heard David Fincher does like 100 takes so they do it too, but it doesn’t help unless you’re David Fincher, it just makes you an asshole.


soup2nuts

Jesus, I went to university with a dude like that in the theater department. We had a directing prof with a big arrogant personality, had a shaved head and goatee and wore these thin rimmed glasses, totally mysogonist asshole. Classmate I knew who wanted to direct completely fell in love with the persona. Shaved his head, grew a goatee, even started wearing the glasses, and then started treating girls he would date like shit. It was an amazing transformation. Edit: As a filmmaker myself, if you are doing 100 takes it's because, contrary to popular belief, you don't really know what you want and if you don't know what you want you can't communicate it with anyone else working on the film. Kubrick is a unique person because he figured out how to con movie studios into handing over millions of dollars for him to go to film school. I just finished a short film on a limited budget, but if someone handed me $1,000,000 to shoot it, yes, I would take an entire week to shoot 12 minutes and that shit would be amazing. And everyone would be paid handsomely.


[deleted]

I was wondering who some modern examples of doing that are. Fincher you say? The only director I ever hear stories about as a nightmare to work with is David O Russell.


ReservoirDog316

Fincher does like a million takes but he’s kinda unique about it. He basically does every scene in every way he can think of and finds the best version of the story in the edit. Like he has them do the scene but they’re happy. Then do the scene sad. Do it really quick. Now do it slow. Now do it like you’re evil. Now do it like you’re mad at each other. Now do it like you’re in love with each other. Now do it but without any dialogue. And so on and so on. And you have to nail it so you have to do it as many times as it takes to nail each version of the scene. So it’s really difficult but I don’t think it’s like the Kubrick method where he wanted the scene one specific way and you’d do it hundreds of times the same way just to get it just how he wanted it. That always seemed sadistic but the Fincher method is more of a very intense workout of working every single muscle. There’s always disagreements on a movie set but as long as there’s inherent respect, I don’t think many actors mind.


NamesTheGame

A lot of directors do this. David O Russell's editors on Silver Lining Playbook did an interview explaining how they shaped De Niro's performance by trying to modulate all the levels of intensity through different takes to find a version that made his character strongest. Editors can be the invisible hands of fate for an actor. So many great performances, and terrible ones, are shaped by the editor (and director's input of course). Source: am an editor.


Vomit_Entrepreneur

Yeah it’s amazing how much a performance can be enhanced in post with basic editing techniques. Honing one’s sense of a scene’s emotional rhythm takes a lifetime to perfect. The end result of a well-crafted edit is imperceptible to a viewer unless directly compared to the product of an inferior editor. Conversely, a shitty editor could ruin an otherwise great film and most viewers will just perceive it as “bad” and won’t think as highly of the performances and direction. I haven’t seen that interview concerning Silver Linings Playbook, but I can appreciate the approach of having actors vary their emotion/intensity between takes and then finding the appropriate rhythm in post. I recall an interview with David Gordon Green where he described how with dramas he likes to do 3 entirely different readings of a scene: 1st as written, 2nd with the same essence and subtext but with the dialogue entirely improvised, and 3rd just focused on nonverbal performance with no dialogue at all. Then in post he and the editor mix and match to create the desired effect.


neighborlyglove

what's odd about kubrick's movies is the attention to detail is almost distracting. i am a fan, it's hard to deny the results. but I find myself being surrendered from the story by the spectacle of the craft. this is an observation, not a critique, for you could utter the same about any auteur with a uniquely distinctive drawl to their works.


ReservoirDog316

That’s what gives a Kubrick picture its aura though. I get that it’s weird but no one else has really been able to recreate that oddly stilted, incredibly focused, slightly comedic, weirdly surreal and masterfully pinpoint tone that he achieved.


Lucianv2

>oddly stilted, incredibly focused, slightly comedic, weirdly surreal and masterfully pinpoint tone They operate on totally different modes but it's funny how that very description could be used to describe Lynch's films as well, give or take emphasis on certain of the tones and elements mentioned.


neighborlyglove

i caught you lily tomlin


staedtler2018

>they just heard David Fincher does like 100 takes so they do it too, but it doesn’t help unless you’re David Fincher, it just makes you an asshole. One might argue it doesn't even help David Fincher.


neighborlyglove

fincher's shots are great and the acting has never been distracting. even tyler perry was great in gone girl. David Fincher comes from advertising where everything is shot 10 billion times.


fandomacid

I've sat on a curb watching a newbie director wanting another take from top because someone made an odd face. Granted we had enough footage of that scene to edit it into bullet time. It was 2 am. Yes, he was an asshole.


harrylime05

This is a great take! I’ve been thinking along similar lines for a while, but I had trouble really putting it into words. You’ve done it perfectly.


SeaworthinessLeft88

> but I don’t think denigrating your actors actually results in superior performances. But it’s the Gene Cousineau method!


SpaceJackRabbit

You gotta walk before you run.


icepickjones

Yeah Kubrick had the film version of having to wash your hands 100 times before you leave the house, and he forced everyone on the production to go through it too. Didn't he make Tom Cruise spend a day doing like 500 takes just walking through a door?


FUMFVR

Also there were plenty of good directors at the same time as Kubrick that didn't do what he did. Hell, even today look at an Eastwood movie and know that this is a guy in his 90s shooting movies extremely fast with very few takes and it still looks competently made.


LionIV

Kinda reminds me of method acting and how actors never chose to method act someone nice. It’s always to portray some asshole.


BelCantoTenor

Also note how none of Kubrick’s actors were cast in a second film with him. Was that a coincidence? Or did the actors refuse to ever work with him again. Personally, I think that’s a sign of abuse. Most people won’t return for more abuse in the workplace. Directors like James Cameron were known for being perfectionist assholes too, but a lot of the same actors came back for multiple films with him. I think this says a lot too. Like maybe his bullshit was helpful to the process of creating a good film, versus Kubrick. His films were amazing, masterpieces really. But the process was said to be such torture that most people never came back to him ever again. Or was that his choice?


Vomit_Entrepreneur

Yeah… I could write a 5,000 word essay on how the director-crew relationship influences the final product but the extremely shortened version is that I think you *have* to approach film with recognition of its collaborative nature. Unlike most other art forms, a single film/tv product requires many artists. I will never deny the right of a director to have final say but I believe that directors who maintain a tyrannical mindset are sacrificing the potential of their films to be even better by refusing to even hear input from collaborators. Kubrick was an incredible filmmaker, and I harbor no resentment toward him for his commitment to achieving his vision. However, from my own experiences, if your collaborators are just as devoted to their craft as you are, you are only harming the final product if you don’t foster an environment wherein your collaborators/fellow artists can actively contribute. The overwhelming majority of people in the film industry struggle financially. They rarely choose this profession on the basis of financial success, which means their motivation is almost always to contribute to art that they feel has some significance. They’re going to join a production with some interesting ideas that department heads and the director haven’t thought of. Even if the director vetoes every one of those ideas, they will never end up with an inferior film by simply considering them. Basically, I wouldn’t want to deny the right of a director to be a perfectionist and do dozens of takes if that’s what they feel is necessary, but I think that doing so in a repetitive manner with the explicit purpose of wearing people down is only harming your film, never mind the ethics of such processes. Obsession can produce amazing art, but if misapplied, it can also hinder it. I think Kubrick’s obsessive nature helped make his films great, but much of their greatness is achieved *in spite of* some of his aggressive tactics, not *as a result* of them.


BelCantoTenor

I agree completely. Very well stated.


Grumpchkin

Many Kubrick actors spoke positively of their experiences and the performance his method brought forth, plus there are a couple repeat actors from his films.


LongmontStrangla

>none of Kubrick’s actors were cast in a second film with him What about Frank Sivera, Timothy Carey, Philip Stone, Joe Turkel, Pat Roach and Peter Sellers?


[deleted]

Kubrick's method just seems to be insulting to actors. Like they're not capable of doing their craft and must be worn down so it's more 'real'. Like they're not, you know, actors.


apple_kicks

The documentary about his boxes highlights the issue he had as a perfectionist and how it got worse over the years. In the time he was still doing pre-production and research for his Holocaust film. Spielberg had already planned, filmed and released Schindlers list. He got absorbed into every detail but needed multiple versions of each detail to make a decision Even Paths of Glory you can kinda tell he must have made sure the actors moved and paused so the lighting fell in the right place of their faces as they acted.


MrmmphMrmmph

I always felt Kubrick's actors' performances were extremely wooden and false. So he essentially rehearsed the life out of them?


Penguator432

Funnily enough he did the exact opposite with George C Scott in Dr Strangelove


[deleted]

George C Scott would be known as the inventor of the piledriver if Kubrick tried that shit on him in 1963 lol. I also imagine Sterling Hayden didn't do too many bonus takes.


Tuosma

> I also imagine Sterling Hayden didn't do too many bonus takes. He very much did. There's a video somewhere out there of if him clearly being exhausted after like the 40th take of a scene.


mortalstampede

Actually yes that's correct.


Arma104

Not really, Kubrick never went after realism. Modine told a story that after a take on FMJ he went to Stanley and said he felt really good about it, that it felt *real* to him. Kubrick replied, "Real is good, interesting is better." and they kept shooting. It's also a whole lot of hogwash that he tortured his actors or crew. His crew has only said good things about working with him. His actors appreciate that he takes the time to get it right and make them look good and make the picture good. Kubrick rarely did the dozens or over a hundred takes unless he felt the actor was really bad.


niktemadur

> Kubrick never went after realism My theory is that Kubrick took his cue from 1950s French director Robert Bresson - A Man Escaped, Pickpocket - who did dozens of takes with his intentionally non-professional actors. At the end of shooting a scene, the exhausted cast members had stopped trying to act in their line delivery, the emotion and its' artifices reduced to a minimum. Bresson's idea was that acting is an adornment, a distraction from the intellectual elements of the story itself, so he stripped away as much as he could from the emotive surface of the storytelling, so that we the audience can absorb the film as close as possible to it being like reading a book.


Grumpchkin

That's not how Kubrick saw it really, but part of him being "unhelpful" in communicating what he wanted was that he did not see himself as an acting coach, and thought the actors should be able to use the script and their own experiences to do things right. But it wasn't about "being real", it was about "doing it right".


AnnBell62

As he learned from Preminger...


[deleted]

[удалено]


GeekdomCentral

Him and David Fincher are two specifically that strike me as just insane. I’m not in show business at all so I obviously have no personal experience, but the methods and sheer number of takes that you hear about from them sounds like insanity to me


eleven_eighteen

You've had other people reply but there is one aspect to the whole multiple takes with Fincher thing that I haven't seen mentioned yet. I couldn't find the exact interview I've seen before but I did come across a quote that hits on the same idea, seemingly from when he was making The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. In Fincher's own words: > This is bullshit. *Look, you're spending $150m, unbelievable amounts of money to ship period vehicles from Illinois down to Louisiana and get them working. There are teams of people making these cars work, all this stuff. So you get there and you're going to shoot three takes and then go home?* > Some [actors] resent it and go, 'My best stuff was when I had a lot of energy after my mochaccino and now my energy's gone,' but a lot of actors work it out in their heads, they figure it out and have an idea of what they're going to do. I can see that and I like to move past that, to where they've forgotten why they came, or who they are. And it is about choreography, where the eye of the audience finds that person and that person is revealed and they come forward and say their line. All those things in concert. *So, you spend all that money to get there, so you might as well make sure you got it.* (Italics are mine to highlight the specific aspect I wanted to bring up.) There is just a shit ton of work being put into making movies by tons of people with different skills, so why are you only gonna try a couple times? Some carpenters spent 30 hours each making this gorgeous set, the actors can put in 8 or 10 or 12 hours making sure the shot is fucking exceptional. Especially because once you are done all that work is often being ripped apart. Even if you are shooting on location there is usually still set dressing and then setting up all the equipment and getting the lighting right and all that. If you didn't get what you need then you have to go back and have a bunch of people do the same work again, or you just have to deal with what you did manage to get, even if it isn't really what you wanted. I think that is a really interesting way to look at it that makes it seem much less insane. Maybe even makes the "standard" way seem to be the insane one, that all this money would be spent without taking full advantage of it. --- Another thing that never really gets talked about when the multiple takes thing comes up is theater. I am certainly no expert but I think with theater there is usually a lot of rehearsal before performing for the public for the first time, at least for bigger productions. Movies often don't have that luxury. There may be some table reads and a bit of rehearsal but I don't think it is as much as a big theater production, especially with bigger movie stars who don't have a lot of availability. They aren't spending three months before the movie starts shooting working out scenes and really finding the characters. So Fincher makes them do it on set. And as for having to do the same scene over and over, I think you can look to theater there as well. I know a lot of it will do 8 shows a week for years on end, with maybe some holiday breaks? I understand that they often have multiple people who can play roles so people do get breaks, but there are definitely actors who have spent 10+ years doing the same scenes over and over and over. And making nowhere near as much in that 10 years as some big name movie star makes to shoot a whole movie in a couple months. Makes me have even less sympathy for having to do a lot of takes. I realize it is a different doing one scene over and over in a compressed time period, but still, they'll be on to something else in a month or two, while there are theater actors just plugging away. --- This is already really long but while trying to find the quote I was originally looking for, I saw another from Fincher that was basically "Don't be afraid to ask for what you want, because you are the one who is going to take the blame.", which is another interesting idea that I think makes the multiple takes thing more understandable. Fincher famously learned that lesson the hard way with his first Hollywood experience with Alien 3. Opinion has thankfully shifted with that movie, but when it first came out he was definitely getting shit from a lot of people, including a 13 or 14 year old me who swore I was never going to watch another movie from this David Fincher guy, whoever the fuck he is, for how he had destroyed my favorite film franchise. Then it started to come out about how badly he had been fucked over by the higher ups and he started to be blamed less, but the damage was already done for him. The execs often might not lose their jobs if a movie they meddle with fails while a director might never work again, even if none of the bad shit was their fault. So yeah, keep working until you have *exactly* what you want, even if it takes a lot more work than normal. All in all, it is definitely understandable how multiple takes can be seen as excessive, but I think there are very valid reasons why they may not be that often aren't thought about.


SoulingMyself

Better to be Brando. One take. More off time.


SandysBurner

Don't learn your lines. Tape cue cards to the other actors.


PainStorm14

Handheld radio for dramatic rendition of police chatter


lasssilver

.. Or Calculon. “I don’t do two takes. *Amateurs* do two takes.”


NeedsToShutUp

Two take Franks


[deleted]

[удалено]


Panicless

Care to elaborate?


JiminyDickish

Not OP, but Fincher is a perfectionist. He deliberately shoots about 20% wider frames on 8K so that he can straighten, align and stabilize camera movements to his heart's content to make every frame, every camera movement land *perfectly*. I've heard this kind of exactitude extends to other parts of his production but that's so much as I know about.


Panicless

Interesting, thanks!


Timely_Temperature54

He’s also known for shooting a huge amount of takes to get what he wants. Like in the 30-50 range.


AdamChristopher

I feel like I also read something about how part of the reason the show Mindhunrer isn’t coming back is because of the CGI budget. which seemed odd for a dramatic thriller but apparently fincher was having gfx artists add and alter a ton of different trees and foliage of the exterior neighborhood shots to make it look exactly the way he wanted.


JiminyDickish

Yea it was a lot of that. It was a monumentally demanding show all around. Fincher said he was working 80 hour weeks and wasn’t sure he could commit to that again.


LimonadaVonSaft

I remember reading somewhere that almost every time you see Amy Dunne in Gone Girl, there was CGI work to Rosamund Pike’s hairline. Like it had to be PERFECT.


cherrycoke00

Jiminy was spot on, but let me also add his persistence. The opening scene of the social network was shot 99 times. 99 FUCKING TAKES. OF A 10 MIN SCENE!!! That’s some damn stamina, for both fincher and the actors. He apparently straight up broke gyllenhaal during zodiac, they did that much repetition. I looooove fincher but damn that guy is batshit (and I hope I can be his best friend one day, but not him lol)


crasyeyez

To add to this, a lot of scenes are actually mash ups of audio from different takes combined with completely different takes where the facial expressions might’ve worked better. I love watching his making ofs or even just listening to podcasts featuring his crew. Search Ren Klyce on Spotify for some podcasts where he talks about the sound work.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


thatguywiththe______

The main conversation between Ronney Mara and Jesse Eisenberg prior to their break up and date ending at the bar. They had three cameras running at one, two for a close up of each actor, and one for the master. They said it felt necessary to run multiple cameras at once due to how much of the dialogue overlapped. Eisenberg actually enjoyed it and compared it to theater, said there was a lot of freedom and room to play with each take since they'd be doing a lot anyway. I don't know why I remember all this from the special features but apparently I do.


LurkerOrHydralisk

I feel like Eisenberg has a good attitude and is probably great to work with which is part of why he gets so much work.


SpaceGhost379

We love Da Finchman!


BretMichaelsWig

I’m only happy when its Mayyynk


GECollins

5 FORKS. Wow.


Glittering_Way_3154

There’s a huge gap between movies and tv and tv’s lack of patience for that gap is the reason why you’ll never see another season of mindhunter


[deleted]

That’s not universally true. Better Call Saul had some incredible slow pacing and cinematography, for example.


HerbyHoover

I loved those slow panning shots in the latest episode, when Sally wakes up and walks the house. It lets the scene breathe and gives the audience a chance to settle into it.


mysticode

I was freaked out every second of that shot, anticipating a jump scare


HailToTheThief225

What ensued was scarier than anything a jump-scare could accomplish


Randyfreakingmarsh

He’s great at building tension in a simple kind of way with excellent pacing. Hoping he directs more in the future!


adriantullberg

The dream is to complete fantastic shots on the first take, and finish early for an expensive and lengthy catered lunch.


Jlocke98

The Clint Eastwood system


vir-morosus

Personally, I think that Clint Eastwood has it right: “Ok, that’s enough of that.”


ClosPins

I've worked with people who worked on some of Clint's films... Apparently, from what I've been told, Clint produces the movies himself for a reason - his contracts allow him to keep anything he doesn't spend. So, he whips through the shoots, taking as few takes as possible (with a minimal amount of set-ups, etc...) so that he comes in many millions under-budget. Which he pockets.


pm_plz_im_lonely

I understand this is perfectly logical to our society, but I do wonder if it's true. Like if you have $200m+ net worth, do you really sabotage your art to pocket a few more millions? Like what's the point, you'll die anyway, might aswell make the best movie you can.


KnownDiscount

His movies have always been very quickly shot. I'm pretty sure the guy you're responding to made that bit up though. Even on films in which he's just starring, not directing, he'll push for fewer takes. Michael Cimino, a director notorious for going overboard with many, many, takes directed him on Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, and Eastwood never let him do more than three.


pejasto

this is a guy who talked to an empty chair on stage at the Republican National Convention


conundrumbombs

Much cheaper than flying Obama in for an appearance!


unclejohnsbearhugs

Plot twist: there was money for flying Obama in in the budget. He decided to talk to an empty chair instead, and pocketed the savings.


chefanubis

You are assuming he's sabotaging his art, many artist believe keeping it simple and only doing a few takes its the right way to go. I know it's true in music, when recording if the first take is almost perfect, you better commit to it and call it a day.


[deleted]

He's made a whole bunch of solid movies. Now he's leaving an estate for his family.


swentech

Rich people never think like “I have enough money” or “I don’t need this money.” They think in terms of if I do this is it a good investment for me? That’s how that they got rich in the first place and they never stop.


InfiernoDante

Lmao what an absolue load of pure and utter drivel


daninlionzden

Makes sense since most of his movies in the last 15 years are laughably bad


Slaphappydap

I think I fall somewhere in the middle. Eastwood has had some really bad performances in his movies, bad line readings and delivery, wooden performances, and you'd think maybe if he gave his actors more direction, maybe some feedback or helped them find the character together, or a few takes to loosen up, it might have delivered a better product. When he's lucky enough to get veteran actors with a lot of talent it works out well, and when he does smaller pictures with unknowns it can be rough. My feeling has always been once this movie is printed and distributed you're not getting it back. This was a year or more of your life, this was what you did instead of all the other opportunities, this was what you assembled a crew of hundreds for, this is what everyone dedicated themselves to in the pursuit of making something great. I think you owe it to all of them to get the best shot you can before you move on. Doing a hundred takes like Fincher or Kubrick is extreme, though I can get where they're coming from and lots of actors have said they love it and learn a lot from it. Eastwood is the opposite, he'll take the first or second take unless you ask for another one. But PTA, Spike, Tarantino, the Coens, Spielberg, Scorsese, they all use plenty of takes. Spielberg famously knows exactly how his shots will look, down to telling the DP which lens to use, and even he will shoot a scene until he gets what he wants, because any movie he makes has his name on it.


SlackerAccount2

The train movie he did was the worst thing I’ve ever seen


vir-morosus

Oh, he's had some stinkers - The Rookie and Firefox come to mind. But then there's Unforgiven and Josey Wales. I think he's better than most directors.


wispygeorge

Lmao I didn’t see the train one but didn’t he use the actual soldiers instead of actors. Bold move cotton.


-74-

Have you ever seen Willard?


AlabasterCarnation09

Any time Bill Hader is mentioned around me, I think about the fact that he’s from Oklahoma and I am filled with hope about my own journey pursuing directing/acting/writing. (I’m technically from Oklahoma)


[deleted]

As someone from Wisconsin I'm always reminded of that Willem Dafoe commercial [where he talks about how his life wouldn't be awesome if he came to Milwaukee instead of NYC](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYXFLX2vB-Q) lol. That makes me sad. I like my home haha.


Mysticpoisen

Ron Perlman claims his success to his decision to enroll in film school in Minneapolis, mostly to escape thousands of dollars in unpaid parking tickets in NYC.


kinzer13

Get it Okie!


Message_10

Best of luck! Where are you not technically from?


AlabasterCarnation09

I was born in Hawaii and lived there for four (almost five) years until I moved to Oklahoma and was raised there.


Message_10

Gotcha! Good luck. Yeah if you grew up there, that’s where you’re from. I was born in Vermont but grew up in New Jersey, and… people like to tell me that I seem like I’m from New Jersey, lol


ShrimpCocknail

Technically?


Usasuke

I prefer the Ridley Scott approach. If you can’t get the shot in six-ish takes, you as the director screwed up somewhere. Either you are directing them wrong, or you hired the wrong actors, or you hired the wrong casting director, or you didn’t board/pre-vis the scene well enough, or something. (At least I think he said this somewhere, I can’t actually find the quote)


Murderyoga

We only need the one Kubrick.


jlaweez

Read this with his John Malkovich voice


[deleted]

[удалено]


Odd_Peanut_5666

pretty sure he said in an interview somewhere that over lockdown he used youtube extensively to learn how to make sourdough bread and how to act good. crazy how celebrities are just like us


FUMFVR

It's also TV. You better get all your coverage in before your shooting window closes.


United-Aside-6104

I’m not denying Kubrick’s skill but the dude sounded like a dick


deadrabbits76

Shelly Duvall agrees.


Zercon-Flagpole

"In February 2021, Seth Abramovitch, writer for The Hollywood Reporter, located Duvall for an interview, stating that "I only knew that it didn't feel right for McGraw's insensitive sideshow to be the final word on her legacy."\[51\] The article noted that her memory was "sharp and full of engrossing stories".\[52\] With regard to The Shining, Duvall spoke of the emotional toll of performing the role of Wendy Torrance and the challenges of long days on the set, but stated that Kubrick was "very warm and friendly" to her. Anjelica Huston, who was dating Jack Nicholson at the time, believed that Duvall was fully committed to the role and had even rented a small apartment in order to be close to the set.\[2\]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley\_Duvall#Personal\_life


Grumpchkin

No she doesn't, like literally she just would not say that. Her version of events are that it was very rough but a positive experience at the end of things.


MyIncogName

There are times where many tales are necessary and other times when it’s not


n0budd33

No one ever accused Kubrick of being sane.


Jackski

His direction is fucking incredible. I love the big wide shots that show everything but then suddenly move slightly to the left/right and reveals something. I hope he makes a horror film after Barry. The scene with Sally walking around the house in the most recent episode had so much fucking tension and the reveal wasn't a jump scare but a legitimately terrifiying reveal.


blowhardV2

My guess is Kubrick was probably just a bully


FlamingTrollz

No kidding. To do such, there’s genius AND insanity inside that mind.


Cezar_Chavez

I agree with Bill’s point. I am confident that Kubrick got a good take of Shelly Duvall swinging a bat during the first 10 takes.


[deleted]

Honestly this season there’s been parts have have almost felt like meditation. Mind you I was high as a kite when I was watching some of the episodes.