Directors that shoot a high number of takes

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I'll look around, but I'd love to hear people's takes on it. I'm not a Kubrick basher or anything. I think the guy had lots of great artistic ideas.

I just want to hear someone give me a reason to be a Kubrick fan. I mean even a critic gets down to "opinion".

I think it has to do with how much involvement he had in the 'whole' process, and would demand such involvement, or not do the project.

I think "Eyes Wide Shut"(1999) was not one of his best... in fact, I think the film was weak... further I don't think "Traumnovelle" was one of Schnitzler's better short stories, in fact I think it was pretty weak...

So, two 'weak' elements yield a 'weak' film...

It is claimed that Schnitzler was as 'great' in the sense of depicting the 'underthesurface' elements of human behavior, as Freud. They were viennese contemporaries, and did 'deal' with things psychological.

I think Kubrick should have done a period piece, which in the case of "Traumnovelle" would be in the 1920's or so, even with the same actors, even transposed to New York, and it would have come off far better, perhaps even better than Schnitzlers original, as was the case with several other of Kubrick's adaptations of novellas.

But as for 'why Kubrick', there are a couple of film makers that I can think of, who I would take frame captures from, to study their 'compositional' art. Sure it is the 'cinematographer'... but the director selects, and set sets the tone, and in Kubrick's case, one wonders if the 'cinematographer' of record was really just the camera operator...

Then there's the subject matter that Kubrick chose, and was successful in getting 'Hollywood' of yore to sign up for... "Paths of Glory"(1957), an 'anti-war', and perhaps given the 'strained' relationship between the US and France at the time... an 'anti-French' film... "Lolita"(1962)... even recent adaptations have caused controversy... "Dr. Strange Love:..."(1964)... maybe for some 'you had to have been there'... but the satire on 'Goverment' and 'Government under the threat of eminant attack'... seems still topical... albeit not with super powers fighting it out via rockets and long ranged bombers... but then for 'children' who never had to practice Duck and Cover as the last gasp defense from a nuclear attack... perhaps it seems dated...

Then there's "A Clock Work Orange"(1971) I think this is probably one of the best of the 'anti-establishment' style films of the era... it and "If"(1968), also staring Malcolm McDowell (why do I always confused Malcolm with Roddy McDowall... but I digress...).

Notice I've sort of skipped over "2001"(1968)... but anyway... I think the films about show a trend that I find useful for study...

 

[sean90291]

Eyes Wide Shut is one of my favourite films ever. I think it's definitely one of Kubrick's top 3. But I digress...

The reason why I wondered (in an earlier post) if the editor sees any difference in those 22 takes is because I've discovered that being on set and thinking that I see something different in take number 5 often doesn't translate to the same thing in the edit suite. That is, I get into the edit suite myself only to see that take 5 is actualy indistinguishable from Take 3. Even though I could have sworn it was "better" or "different."

And Circle Takes should only be taken as a guide, in my opinion, again because the viewpoint in the edit suite (which is closer to what the audience will see) is very different from the viewpoint of the director, on-set, in the heat of the process. Sometimes "the best take" isn't the best at all when it comes time to cutting the thing, for myriad reasons: continuity, changes in direction for the scene, pacing, etc. And many directors are happy to get an objective opinion from their editor about which take was best.

 

[Xtopher]

off topic now...

which is why I could never understand why an editor on a project gets sole credit for the editing of a film, when really in most cases, it's the director who's editing while the "editor" is manning the helm, pushing buttons and such. "Assistant Editor" at most should be the appropriate title.

I am excluding the many mega talented editors out there who actually contribute a specific vision to a project; Thelma Schoonmaker being at the top of this list.

Also then, shouldn't the director be called the cameraperson, and the camera person be called the AC and 2 be 3rd, etc etc? its just the title, many times in this business people wear 10 hats and are called 1 thing. just how it goes...

 

[jls4]

I think it has to do with how much involvement he had in the 'whole' process, and would demand such involvement, or not do the project.

I think "Eyes Wide Shut"(1999) was not one of his best... in fact, I think the film was weak... further I don't think "Traumnovelle" was one of Schnitzler's better short stories, in fact I think it was pretty weak...

...

But as for 'why Kubrick', there are a couple of film makers that I can think of, who I would take frame captures from, to study their 'compositional' art. Sure it is the 'cinematographer'... but the director selects, and set sets the tone, and in Kubrick's case, one wonders if the 'cinematographer' of record was really just the camera operator...

...

Then there's "A Clock Work Orange"(1971) I think this is probably one of the best of the 'anti-establishment' style films of the era... it and "If"(1968), also staring Malcolm McDowell (why do I always confused Malcolm with Roddy McDowall... but I digress...).

Notice I've sort of skipped over "2001"(1968)... but anyway... I think the films about show a trend that I find useful for study...

I've never been a big "fan" of Kubrick, however I've always admired his genius especially in the mind of a psycopath. Which is the way I've always viewed him. While I haven't seen many of the "middle ground films' you mentioned, I have seen pretty much all of his most commercial endevors. "The Shining" and "Full Metal Jacket" are my two favorites from him, but After "boot camp" I find myself no longer interested in the rest of "Full Metal Jacket". "The Shining" is great from beginning to end, the mastery of "emptiness' and "cold" was amazing to me, however I've heard people speak of Spike Lee in "Do the Right Thing" and the "heat sequence" giving the same type of feeling.

"2001" while I love the imagry and there are lots of things to take away from the movie cinematically through the cinematography. What I've personally taken from his movies is that he has a mastry of the socially obscure and a mastery of cinematography. And while one can claim "Art vs Business" I think it would be odd not to call Michael Bay a master of cinematography as well dispite what one feels about his ability to direct actors.

And while I can't comment of the 6+ movies I haven't seen out of his 13, it doesn't take much to be a Hollywood financial success - once you're incorporated into the Hollywood mainstream. (I know this last statement will open a can of worms, but I hope a few can understand my point).

Is Kubrick an artist - without a doubt YES. I just see so many artists: Hitchcock, Sodderburg, Speilburg, Lee, Mann, T & R Scott-

Heck even: Foresman :beer: