Why Kubrick did so many takes in Full Metal Jacket
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 06. 2024
- ► ►►Try MUBI Free for 30 Days: mubi.com/cinematyler
* With the support of Creative Europe - MEDIA Programme of the European Union *
Perhaps the technique Stanley Kubrick is most known for is the seemingly endless amount of takes he would shoot. Many think that Kubrick’s purpose for shooting many takes was that he was a ‘perfectionist’-a label that Kubrick rejected. In this video, we’ll take a look at Kubrick’s reasons behind using this technique on Full Metal Jacket and the situations in which actors found themselves spending an enormous amount of time and effort getting their performances the way Kubrick wanted.
BONUS AUDIO [Patreon-Exclusive]: / bonus-audio-show-47146994
BONUS PDF [Movie Location Trivia] ($1): gum.co/gtmFm
BONUS PDF [FMJ Trivia] ($1): bit.ly/2FLftD4
BONUS PDF [Becoming Joker] ($1): bit.ly/31ts99S
*Free for $5 Patrons!
Support this channel on Patreon: / cinematyler
Twitter: / cinematyler
Facebook: / cinematyler
#Kubrick #FullMetalJacket
Sources:
Behind-The-Scenes Photos by Matthew Modine
Cinephilia & Beyond - Run Through the Jungian: Stanley Kubrick’s ‘Full Metal Jacket’, a Phenomenological Treatise on War - bit.ly/3fconoP
[Pollak Interview] Kevin Pollak Chat Show (307 Vincent D’Onofrio) - bit.ly/3lWL4AJ
[FMJ Making] - • Video
[Herr, Vanity Fair] “Kubrick” by Michael Herr - Vanity Fair article, April 2000 - bit.ly/3tkQj1U
[Commentary] Full Metal Jacket - Audio Commentary
[Ciment] Kubrick: The Definitive Edition by Michel Ciment
[ACO Commentary] A Clockwork Orange - Audio Commentary
[AC] American Cinematographer: Full Metal Jacket - by Ron Magrid - bit.ly/3fconoP
[FMJ Diary] Full Metal Jacket Diary by Matthew Modine - www.fullmetaljacketdiary.com/
[Den of Geek] Den of Geek - Full Metal Jacket and Its Troubled Production - bit.ly/2ZJvFfb
[Pinewood Dialogue] bit.ly/3fNPBmS
[Rughani] Stanley Kubrick New Perspectives
[Filmmaker] Filmmaker Magazine - bit.ly/3cB3shq
[Howard Wiki] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arliss_...
[Oppenheimer Wiki] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robe...
[Clines 175] New York Times - nyti.ms/3czOo3z
Clips:
Stanley Kubrick's Boxes (2008 dir. Jon Ronson)
Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures (2001 dir. Jan Harlan)
Kubrick Remembered (2014 dir. Gary Khammar)
Dr. Strangelove (1964 dir. Stanley Kubrick)
Eyes Wide Shut (1999 dir. Stanley Kubrick)
A Clockwork Orange (1971 dir. Stanley Kubrick)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968 dir. Stanley Kubrick)
Barry Lyndon (1975 dir. Stanley Kubrick)
The Shining (1980 dir. Stanley Kubrick)
Making ‘The Shining’ (1980 dir. Vivian Kubrick)
Music
Artlist.io - Zábava
So he gets offended at being called a perfectionist because it doesnt perfectly describe him...lmao
it’s honestly be a piece of dark comedy if the whole time we were praising kubricks “genius” and he actually had a tragically intense case of OCD
@@andrewstephens5885 All the best things were made by mentally unstable individuals lol
@@dolorousjohn5499 *Adolf Hitler has left the chat*
@@Lambullghini Man made some nice paintings, you cant take that away from him. lol
@Marc Dumont I’m wheezing lmao
Drill sergeant was probably the best casting ever. Can't imagine anyone else in that role.
Every drill sergeant is playing the part of drill sergeant. That's why hiring a real one worked so well.
Tim Colceri (the door gunner) was originally cast as the drill sergeant and Lee Ermey was a technical advisor instead. Eventually Kubrick switched them. Colceri talked about it a lot in interviews you can find, it's a pretty interesting story.
All of the casting was perfect
he was just gonna be the advisor. but then he ended up convincing kubrik he should get the role
I've heard Woody Allen was the first choice for drill sergeant, but in some ways I'm glad they went this direction instead.
I appreciate your insights on Kubrick. Here's a funny story related to *this* video, specifically. When Kubrick announced that he was open to seeing audition tapes from anyone -- practically unheard of -- I happened to be the manager of a big video store in Philadelphia. So this guy comes in one day, asking if we duplicate VHS tapes. Now, we just sold/rented video... but there was something about this guy (probably 17 or 18) that had a weird sensibility... part hope and desperation. So I said "yeah, we'll do it. Come back in an hour." I took his tape to the stock room and set it up. Some of the staff drew near. We couldn't believe what we were seeing! Of course you probably know who he was by now: the infamous Brian Atene, whose acting demo clip appears in your current video. What puzzles me is how this tape wound up on youtube. We thought it was so funny, we made a copy for our own amusement. That copy never left the store. It was like an initiation rite to watch it over and over. Well, eventually the bottom fell out of the video market. The store shut down. I assumed that tape was thrown out. But somehow it ended up on youtube.
Wow!
Easier to torture some poor unknow, oh how impressive.
someone made another copy. and took it home. duh.
@CinemaTyler Do you lot really NOT know Kubrick's output significantly declined after 2001: A Space Odyssey? Full Metal Jacket isn't close to its spiritual brother, Paths of Glory. A Clockwork Orange manages the neat trick of often being a savage bore. (Watch it again and pretend it's by a director you've never heard of---you'll see what I mean. Some splendid scenes and a lot that doesn't really work.) The Shining has interesting _ideas,_ but it's not a particularly interesting _movie._ Then there's the obvious decline of Eyes Wide Shut and Barry Lyndon. As for Lolita (before 2001, granted), it's a ghastly failure, woefully, completely miscast and misunderstood except for Sellers. Kubrick is one of the greats, clearly, but half of his films are far from greatness. That's how difficult it is to make great films: Even Stanley Kubrick missed about half the time.
None of this should be surprising. Most great art is created by artists before they're fifty years of age. Kubrick's not the exception.
By the way, you know what other directors call a hundred and twenty seven takes?
A "table read."
=== An aside: 12:19: Reminds me of Kubrick's process in 2001, where in addition to mulling his own ideas he commissioned an extraordinary number of concepts and artwork for the aliens before going with the work of Douglas Trumbull.
@@johnstrawb3521 Sir, this is a Wendy's.
Kubricks Vietnam movie is also quite different from other major Vietnam movies just by the fact that there's really no jungle scenes. Jungle was always a token but not here.
And what is also different to other Vietnam movies is that the entire "Full Metal Jacket" movie (every single scene) was filmed in the UK. So, no Jungles. They could of made one in the studio, but, would it have passed the Kubrick seal of approval?
"IT LOOKS TERRIBLE, RIP IT ALL DOWN AND START AGAIN, THIS TIME MAKE IT MORE INTERESTING!!!"
"How? Give me ideas, give me a idea of your vision and I will gladly create it for you."
"YOU'RE THE SET DESIGNER, IT'S YOUR PROFESSION, NOT MINE, OR DID I MAKE A MISTAKE IN HIRING YOU!?
"😭"
"I DON'T PAY YOU TO SOB, GET DESIGNING!!!"
Well most of the Tet Offensive was based in urban settings to begin with, this movie (the second half) is based on the Tet Offensive and the recapture of the Citadel in Hue, Vietnam. Though it's often the case that battle was done in the jungle or around some hamlet or village, the history with this particular point in the Vietnam conflict is based solely on the city of Hue during the Tet Offensive.
However, this affects the film, in my opinion. The few Palm trees shown look really limp and fake. It's jarring. Sometimes you just don't "feel" like it's Vietnam.
@@Mario_N64 I agree..yet I think that was Stanley’s intention. He didn’t want his ‘Nam setting to look like the Vietnam depicted in Apocalypse Now and Platoon. He opted for a more dampened look for the setting. This is similar to how the continuity errors in some of his pictures were intentional as to keep the viewer slightly off balance at a subliminal level. Genius.
Thing is, everyone is obsessed with banging on about what a 'genius' Kubrick was and glossing over the many shite things about him. They jump through convoluted hoops to find meanings and hidden metaphors and such in their analysis which are not there at all. Yeah you can say his film gets a message across that 'war is horrible and chews people up' or 'war is disturbing and weird', but seriously, who the fuck doesn't know this anyway? What's so good about taking two hours to point this out? Might as well make a two hour film to come to the conclusion that the sky is blue and water is wet.
Moreover, loads of people were critical at the time of the production decision to film what was supposed to be Hue, on London's Docklands, simply because they were undergoing a lot of demolition so had lots of busted up buildings available. Yes it meant they didn't have to travel far from Pinewood and Soho, and didn't need to build damaged building sets, but almost everyone told Kubrick it would look shit, which it does. The architecture and layout is all wrong for an SE Asian city in '68. Frankly, they might as well have filmed at Blackpool Pleasure Beach and it couldn't have looked any less like it was Vietnam. But to make matters worse, the set dressing is abysmally bad. At no point does anything look even remotely like a recently-shelled Colonial French building which still has furniture and such in it, it looks exactly like what it is: Old completely empty factories and warehouses in the London Docklands which are halfway through demolition that has been temporary halted to facilitate filming a vastly overrated war film from a vastly overrated director.
Sticking a few palm trees here and there, which look exactly like they've been stuck there two minutes earlier, only adds to how embarrassingly amateurish the whole movie is visually. But Kubrick wouldn't listen. And there is no excuse either, he is the one checking the shots, directing stuff, and so if it looks crap, he is the one who should make a decision to change that. In the end it doesn't matter how many takes Kubrick insisted on, the film looks laughably shite, and so I'm inclined to think that rather than showing a desire for perfection, all those multiple takes point to, is that he couldn't get a shot in one take because he couldn't direct an actor to give him what he was after on the first or second go at it, which when you are paid lots of money to do that job, is allegedly what you are supposed to be able to do. And clearly he was fucking useless at production design to be wanting to film a Vietnam war movie in the East End of London in spite of all the excuses people make for this being a deliberate visual choice to make it not look like Vietnam, which it clearly was not, it's just shit production and shit location choices.
There are a number of reasons why every other TV and film production crew goes to the Philippines or Hawaii to shoot their Vietnam War movies, and one of the rather fucking obvious ones is because it doesn't look like the East End of London with its shitty overcast cloud base at 3,000 feet not bouncing the light around like light bounces around in SE Asia with its dusty atmospherics and clear skies. When someone is supposed to be a good film-maker, you would think they would know this, because it isn't exactly rocket science.
Regarding Kubrick's thoughts about actors: OK, much to my surprise, I've never heard anyone talk about this before, and, assuming I may be right, and other's pick up the idea, I'll lose credit for pointing this out, but ... consider Kubrick's use of books in his movies. As meticulous as he is, one might suspect that he picks the prop book for very specific reasons, up to and including which page is shown on screen. Now, consider a scene, early in The Shining, where Wendy is talking to Danny at the table while reading a book. (CZcams: "The Shining Scene: Wendy talks to her Son, Danny"). The book she is "reading" is The Catcher in the Rye. During her conversation with Danny, Duvall seems to intentionally let the page she is reading be seen by the camera, even holds the book open rather than closing it, as if it were directed. If nothing else, Kubrick certainly frames it in the shot, both the cover and the page. Interestingly, the corner of the opposite page she is reading is turned down, and it is the ONLY page marked like that, suggesting the possibility that Kubrick wanted Duvall to have the book open to that specific page. So I pulled out my copy of Catcher, and, based roughly on where the book was opened, and the arrangement of the paragraphs, I looked for the page to see what might be on it that could be relevant to the story or to Kubrick. Here is the passage I found: "I hate actors. They never act like people. They just think they do. Some of the good ones do, in a very slight way, but not in a way that's fun to watch. And if any actor's really good, you can always tell he knows he's good, and that spoils it." One caveat to this proposed possibility is that my copy of Catcher is the 19th Bantam printing, printed somewhere during or shortly after 1967, and the copy Duvall is holding appears to be slightly larger than my copy, suggesting that it is one of the other 52 printings made during or prior to 1967, or perhaps a printing post 1967. As such, the size and location of the paragraphs on the page may differ between the two copies, which opens up the possibility that the passage I found is just a coincidence.
WOW! you, sir.. are the fucking man. thankyou for sharing that.
Very interesting
Good dig. I expect you're right.
That novel plays a huge role in Kubrick's films in general and especially so with 'The Shining.' The "Unreliable narrator" is a key theme in almost every film he made... Actually, it's fair to say that all of them have some sort of take on this. 'The Killing' and 'Barry Lyndon' both have misdirection and lies in the narration. In 'ACO', Alex himself is completely unreliable. Hal and Floyd in '2001', anyone in 'The Shining', Bill in 'EWS' and in 'FMJ', a key theme is the military and it's misdirection of information to the public. Kubrick was very keen on the ideology that people put on facades every day of their lives and he expressed it in some form or another his entire career. Even 'A.I.' is littered with the fact that what we see(Or how we see it etc is all bullsh*t.) When it comes to actors, I think there are obviously multiple reasons why Kubrick was so meticulous and took as many takes as he did. I think a big reason is also a very simple one. Kubrick, as well as many great filmmakers, used the editing room to create his story. You can film something 100 times and never really get the same result. One roll of the eyes, suggestive hand movements, or a step in a particular direction can change an entire scene, whether its emotionally or physically. Kubrick knew this as well as anyone because of his experience as a photographer. You take 50 pictures of the same thing and you get 50 different results. So apply that to filmmaking and it's not a hard connection to make. The smallest detail can impact each and every scene. But, with actors moving and talking, Kubrick forced them to get past the point of what they "believed" the scene was about and it was crucial to how he wanted to tell HIS story with 24fps. Maybe on take 43 they let their guard down, maybe on take 61... Who knows. I don't think Kubrick even knew until he sat down and started editing the film. But with all of those takes, somewhere amongst them was the "Right One" and only Kubrick knew it when he saw it. So, using that scene in combination with the that same process for the previous scene etc, a film was constructed. He was building with visuals, not the dialog. To me, that's what Kubrick truly cared about. Dialog was a small part to his process of filmmaking. The set design, music, cinematography and editing were more important because you can tell a story with just those things. Some people find it boring of course, while others find it fascinating. I'm of the latter group. I think about his work and IMO, the amount of memorable visuals he created is 2nd to none.
His love of 'incidental' props has been pointed out by a few other film analysts. Very often, they point to a hidden theme in the movie. The books on the writer's shelve in Clockwork Orange is a good example. Another is the newspaper article Bill reads (about the death of the actress and model). This is a fine catch regarding the Catcher In The Rye. I have not seen that one pointed out before.
This is the video to send to your friends when they say they don't know about Kubrick. Excellent work that should get a million hits.
You are too kind! Thanks!
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
am i in 2003? tf is a hit brov..
@troll-man YET Haha! Lucky there's no time limit on my statement! 692.000 and counting...
David Fincher is another director who makes no apologies for doing endless takes. In Fincher's mind, he has spent a couple of years working on the film, getting everything in place, so he has no intention of rushing when he finally gets to put all that prep to work and shoot his film.
Rooney Mara said how she loved that when working on TSN.
Funny how hes probably the last of the directors who actually have a fully recognizable style.
Imagine wanting to see something but you can't quite put your finger on what it is you want to see.
Imagine if you had the resources to keep trying until you saw this elusive thing.
Now imagine being the actor(s) tasked with creating this unknowable thing.
you're getting millions of dollars for months of "work". put up or shut up.
@@pyametra They did, and it was hard. That’s why the movies are good
That must have been incredibly frustrating for everyone working with him. It sort of implies a lack of artistic vision it’s weird
@@DanFury1 Not really. I think it's just acknowledging that you have a lot of vision in one area but maybe not as much expertise in another. Keeping a low budget would require tapping everybody's potential. The same thing happens when an editor gets to make creative decisions the director couldn't possibly have predicted. Is the director just supposed to say no to a good idea? If not -- what's the harm in wanting people you hire to give you everything you need?
@@theoriginaltommysteward nah it’s the directors job to have an overall vision and steer the film. Saying ‘I’ll know what I want when I see it’ instead of knowing roughly what you want is the difference between listening to a bunch of songs until you find one you like and actually having the artistic ability to write the song from scratch in the first place.
Kubrick when commissioning an artist: "Now draw her giving birth."
"Do it again, this time make it more interesting!"
It would be fun to see him as a midwife, though. He'd probably just end up shoving the baby back in a couple of dozen times.
"Shading's off, the depth of field is totally wrong, what tablet are you using? It's awful. Do it again. Do it better."
"Now draw her making love"
"Yeah, it's real. But it's not interesting."
That last conversation between Kubrick and Arliss Howard really sums everything up. Excellent job again with this chapter, my deepest congratulations for these series about FMJ.
Thanks!
I knew a couple of technicians who worked on FMJ. The news cameraman who appears in the film is John Ward who was the Steadicam operator on the movie. I assisted him on quite a few film jobs back in the day. He told me that towards the end of one day, light-wise, there was a protracted disagreement between Kubrick and Milsome the D0P, about how taking the #85 filter off, to gain an extra 2/3 of a stop, and consequently more time for shooting, would effect the ASA rating of the tungsten film stock they were shooting with. Someone else told me that the film got through quite a few focus-pullers, one of whom, having taken in Kubrick's view, an inordinate time to get the many focus points needed for a long lens shot, was fired after 5 takes.
I subscribe to a channel called Stanley and Us. It is made up of short videos with anecdotes by people who worked with him. Some are from people on one side of the camera, others by people behind the camera. One anecdote is about an argument Kubrick had with his dubbing editor over how many frames of silence there were between the rings of a telephone. Long story short, Kubrick could tell that the gap was 88 frames (he wanted 100) just by watching the film. The dubbing guy argued this and insisted it was 100, so Kubrick asked the reel to be measured. Turns out Kubrick was on the money. Kubrick would only argue his point when he knew he was right, so if he began to correct you over a technical detail, chances were you were finishing second in the contest!
Interesting! Thanks for the info!
I worked on FMJ and the steadicam operator was Jean Claude as i looked after the steadicam.....and if anyone should have been fired it was me....and Stanley did not say a word he just grinned as only he could..due to my constant mistakes in front of Stanley. stew fmj crew.
@@stewartbloomfield8035 Obviously my bad. I was always under the impression that John was Steadicam op, him being both on the film and an S/C operator. I was told the focus-puller story by one I met on a multi-camera shoot a year or two later who said he had been one of the sharpers sacked.
@@CinemaTyler The only downside is they don't add new material. I only found the channel a year or two ago, but it strikes me as something that was put together when the Kubrick Archives were opened.
That is just one story told. There is another in the same video about cameras and lighting and upping the 'stops' to cram in a few more minutes filming at the end of a shooting day, but that stuff goes over my head! lol
ps, Kubrick won that arguement too!!
I was never in one of his films, so I'm not a position to complain about how many thousands of times he had me open a door or set something on a table. The thing is, when I watch a Kubrick film, I know that no matter how many squillion takes he did, the one I'm seeing is the one he saw as being the best of the lot.
And had you been in one of his films and sweated for a few hours, wouldn't seeing people discuss your work decades after you actually did it be rewarding? Of course it would!
@Corpsefoot Gaming Acting eye? 😕
@Corpsefoot Gaming Oh. I see. 😐
That's...true of all takes? That's a takes purpose.
"I don't do alot of takes when it's good." - Kubrick
I do so appreciate the fact the you annotate the referenced sources on-screen.
Now I like Kubrick even more, the 'miss me' part nailed everything i love about his style of filmmaking
I really like most of his movies. Certainly not all of them. As for the man himself : even put in context , he's an ahole. People were just tools to him. Very little empathy.
I agree that he seemed like an Ahole . He demands the whole cast overstays their contracts because he couldn’t get it done in the window …160 takes ? You know who took that many takes and wasted rhems of film stock Howard Hughes , and he was crazy and used people too.
He was a jerk. A talented, sociopathic jerk.
That "miss me" story hurt... It's a classic gaslighting tactic. "Even though I couldn't answer your questions about what I wanted, that's actually not a weakness on my part and you should assume anytime a director doesn't ask for 30 takes, it means that you're acting bad."
@@davidbjacobs3598 Exactly.
This is literally the first time in long, long time I watched a document about the back-end of making movies where every minutes feels meaningful. It appears to me you look at movies as an artist, more from audience perspective. I found it thoughtful and intersting. It's the first time I use the words to describe a movie review.
It’s like he put all his director skill points into being a cameraman and screenwriter so he‘s still just Level 1 at working with actors. Hence telling them, “I don’t know, I’m not your acting coach, just work it out.” He can tell what performance does or doesn’t make a good shot, but has no sense of the craft of acting
A director of his competence does know, he just doesn't want to put his imprint on the performance and instead chooses to put the faith in the actor and allow him to arrive at where he needs to be on his or her own.
@@thepaleprinceofruins9203 Hows it putting a imprint on the actors when its just letting them know how he wants it done. I love kubrick but its a directors job to be on the same page as an actor and to let them know how they want them to play a scene. To not say where the final destination is is being unfair.
@@paulelroy6650 whether his methods were conventional or not, it always worked.
@@noelv1976 This comment isn't working for me.. do it again.
I really respect that he just stays in his lane lmao
Kubrick is such a giant genius... the more you dig into his films, the deeper they get. Rob Ager of Collative Learning is a great analyst of the hidden themes in Kubricks' films, there's layers and layers of brilliant stuff.
I don’t agree , he was blessed with the the very best resources in the acting scripts and studio backing …give me those and I’ll make a classic too. He was just very fortunate to have been in the right time and place . Shooting in winter time in England for an environment that was tropical ? Passive aggression I think …
@@coolcat5714 bullshit
@@coolcat5714 sure thing lmao
This reminds me of a choir conductor I have sang under for a few years. He'd hammer us over and over for 2 hours to get the pitch right, well beyond the point where any of us could hear a slightest difference in each take we sang.
Funny you mention the Godfather, because I've sometimes wondered how Kubrick would've directed Brando (and his cue cards for "spontaneity") had they worked together.
Either top 10 best or top 10 worst movies of all time material I suppose 🤷
They actually planned to work together but the idea was scrapped
They did work together on One Eyed Jacks and got into fights so Kubrick walked off
Really high quality docs you're making, in-depth and well put together... Keep up the great work.
Yo finally catching one of these when it's still new. Great videos man, I'm a huge fan.
Thanks!
It's no coincidence that so many good artists are absolutely insane
Kubrick was an acting coach, he just didn’t realize it. His practice of re-filming a shot over and over is very reminiscent of the Meisner technique.
@Rowland
Yes sir! It’s one of my favorite acting exercises.
It always gets deeper emotions to rise to the surface.
As an actor it would be an honor to work with Kubric. Every director I've ever worked with moves on too early, they're controlled by their schedule instead of the quality of their product. Too many directors worry about everything but creating something real.
I can’t wait till the day you get to Eyes Wide Shut. Another great video Tyler!
I'm going to sleep now but this video is the first thing i'm going to watch tomorrow morning for sure! Your content is always awesome!
I would like to have heard about the early casting ideas - using actual late-teens (instead of 25-30s) and starring Anthony Michael Hall. A friend in LA recently talked to one of Kubrick’s people who told him the problem was not the star but trying to find so many other good teen actors to fill out the movie.
Wow, totally missed the fact that Adam Baldwin was in FMJ. I saw the film so long ago, and there was such a gap between that and my discovery of Firefly... that I just didn't connect the dots. This happens to me a lot.
Love the research that goes into these videos. I am always eager for new episodes Tyler!
Thanks!
“Okay, cut. Stop. Beautiful. Absolutely perfect. Shoot it again.”-Big Daddy Kubrick
honestly great work doing this reasearch/making every second presentable. This adds to my understanding of kubrick so much and you did it in a very rounded, sound way. Idk who needs to say this but you are beyond qualified being a film/ video journalist. I'll keep watching.
Thanks so much! You are too kind!
Thankful that you bless us with these. Every single one is your personal magnum opus.
You are too kind! Thanks so much!
Another great video Tyler. Always love it when I see you've done another one.
Glad you like them! Thanks!
12:27 How Kubrick wears his mask during a pandemic
I really miss Stanley too :(
The film industry of today really needs somebody like him. A lot of movies coming out are a joke.
@@zeronightex It'll never happen.. maybe in 20 years when we've matured enough again... The audience of today wouldn't have the attention span or mental capacity even for a Kubrick film these days... although I did see 2001 in a theatre a few years ago with a pretty good mix of audience... young and old... and the audience picked up on the cues, it was fantastic.
Talent that great simply doesn't come around that often. No one makes movies like him and his influence is still clearly felt. I love how Paul Thomas Anderson constantly alludes to him in his films, for example. He wasn't just a film maker. For me at least, he was the greatest visual artist of the last century...and yes, I am including Picasso, Salvidore Dali etc when considering that!
@@covert0overt_810 with today's fools cancelling anything that offends them I doubt we'd have any decent topics to cover in movie's, just more lame superhero and horror movie's with bad scripts.
@@davidlean1060 Completely agree, Although i wouldnt call kubrick "underrated" -- but he's one of those artist "under the radar" that happened to get through... im sure if he wanted the fame he could have gotten it, but with the extra fame -- he probably wouldnt have been so daring in his pictures...
more kubricks? i will never complain about that
The actor Patrick MacNee said in his autobiography that he attributed much of his success, particularly in the United States, to always showing up the first day with all his lines memorized.
Particularly competing against American actors, who would need more takes for even a TV commercial, an actor who saves takes and production time sticks out as someone you want to hire again.
R. Lee Ermey was a SSGT. while in our beloved Corps. He was promoted to Gunny after the making of the film. He definitely “ walked the walk.”
I'm glad somebody clarified this. Thanks. To add to that...He received an honorary promotion to GySgt in 2002, by then Commandant of the Marine Corps, General General Jones
One of your best episodes. You really get into the guts of things here. Glad I found your channel!
That's one of the most difficult aspects of attempting to find the truth of an idea, and that is the breakthrough. To breakthrough all the stuff that distracts from from the truth of the scene, art piece, song, film, etc. And Kubrick knew this, learned about it, and honed his craft towards this truth. A single artist can have all the time in the world to discover this breakthrough, however a filmmaker and a cast and crew is a whole different beast to steer towards this goal.
I think you have dabbled in the arts as there is some insight here into 'the creative process' that uncreative people just can't understand.
Many thanks for all the wonderful videos you've been making on Kubrick and cinema in general.
Keep on the good work!
Thank you!
I gotta say your channel is fantastic. By far one of my favorites on CZcams any genre. Keep it up.
That is one best thing I learned from Kubrick, listen to everybody point of view and ideas. Think critically about those ideas. Then make your own decision.
If there was a mass outage at a Google server bank wiping every video from CZcams, your channel is the only one I would be worried about. Thank you for existing and spending your time understanding these masters.
Thanks so much for the kind words!
You don´t need to be an excellent football player to immediately recognize a beautiful combination of passes or an extraordinary goal shot from an undoable angle.
And the same goes for spotting players who won´t ever be able to score like that. The simple man from the street can see it.
Kubrick was not an actor but he had he had the eyes to recognize an optimum performance and the patience to wait for it popping out of the actors.
My dad introduced FMJ to me when I was about 6. Still my favourite film of all time. Kubrick is a master of his craft.
What a great video! Congrats CinemaTyler. I really enjoyed this and you did a Kubrick "perfect" job! For sure gonna watch more!
I always find Stanley Kubrick and his movies to be way more interesting to study for cinema, than Orson Welles with Citizen Kane
or any Tarkovsky movie
@@FrenchToast663 Nah, but your opinion though, so that's still fine. Oh yeah, btw whilst you're here, I'd suggest you to read Tarkovsky's criticism against Kubrick's 2001. That's very opening
@@jsuisdetrop Poor Tarkovsky, literally died making Stalker, and most of the crew with cancer .... shooting near chemical plants and staging in hazardous environments... :(
@@jsuisdetrop With respect to the great Russian director, he wasn't around long enough to really understand what was happening in 2001. The film had to look sleek and shiny because Kubrick was essentially mocking technology. The shinier the sets looked, the more it spoke to the egos of the film's consultants, like Nasa and IBM and it was that pride in their creations Kubrick wanted to mock, if you follow me.
Any chance we could get a series about how Kubrick made Eyes Wide Shut? Very underrated film, and the 7 part 2001 series was amazing.
i like the story alan cumming gave about kubrick being like "WELL YOU WERE AMERICAN ON THE TAPE!" and he replied "...uh yes i know, i'm an actor"
They edited it on him and then he passed away unexpectedly
"Eyes Wide Shut" is a "very underrated film"? Not on the planet I live on. You might be confusing it with "Fear and Desire." That film IS very underrated because, you know: it's embarrassing and amateurish - but well-photographed, nonetheless. :)
@@TheStockwell your planet sounds nice. i only know one person who loves EWS, and one whos made it through Barry Lyndon. both pretty misunderstood and loathed by "casual moviegoers". Same goes for most of his other movies Ive tried showing to people.
@@tonywords6713 "Barry Lyndon" is slowly catching on. In another forty years, I'm sure it'll be a masterpiece. 😉 Maybe it needs a few ridiculous conspiracy theories to make it acceptable. As to "Eyes Wide Shut," I'm a serious Kubrick enthusiast but I keep putting off seeing it. Everyone says it's a stunningly cinematic achievement - when it's not being a tedious, crashing bore in serious need of an editor. I keep hearing how the scene in the costume shop is completely pointless and how it's there only because it's in the novel.
The good news is that someone committed heresy by patiently explaining the dozens of edits that would make the film work better - and carried those edits out. His website is called "Eyes Wide Cut." In his edit, Tom Cruise rings the buzzer at the costume shop, explains his urgent need for a costume, and is told he'll be let in. Next shot: Cruise sitting in a taxi with the costume in a box on his way to the spooky ol' party.
Yes, my planet is a nice, happy one. Too many adorable kittens, maybe, but on my planet there are only the first three Star Wars films - no sequels or prequels - and pizza is free. Have a safe and interesting year! 🐧
Great video, big fan of your series and glad I got to catch one of these when it’s new.
Thanks so much!
Omg!! Another upload of Kubrick by CinemaTyler. I'm gonna cry, I love your channel
Thanks so much!
It’s a GREAT DAY when there’s a new Cinema Tyler video!
This is an amazingly created mini doc (would you call it that?) On Stanley Kubrick. I would say im a new fan starting from following the movies to actually discovering what the director was actually like. Thank you Cinema Tyler.
You've earned yourself a new dedicated subscriber 👍
Long before this film, I remember the scenes in Dr. Strangelove, showing the soldiers attempting to overthrow the insane Ripper. The handheld camerawork was astonishing. Looked like the actual footage from combat. Kubrick knew his stuff.
That last line about missing Kubrick really hits home. I do miss Stanley. There never will be another director like him.
Especially these days with the crop of weak, entitled actors that proliferate the industry. SK would be reported for abuse in the first day of shooting.
insanely good as always Tyler, it's a little bit of a flex just to say I am subscribed to your channel!
Thank you!
My god, this video is everything a Stanley lover wants... And the editing is beyond belief. A lot of subtle things, Kubrick would be embarassed and proud at the same time.
Thanks, Tyler... Amazing.
This is amazing ! Great work Tyler.
I remember Tom Cruise saying that Stanley takes you, as an actor, into places you never thought you'd go.
I feel he was very misunderstood as a Director.
But it's funny the number of actors that worked with him multiple times.
Which ridicules the idea that he was such a tyrant. I have only heard two actors complain. Duvall, let's start with her. I'll play devil's advocate and say she was clearly a very needy woman to begin with. Stanley lived in a house full of women. He understood them very well and quiet frankly, I think he had Duvall figured out. In any case, without The Shining, I can only think of a pretty forgettable performance as Olive in a Popeye movie. A few months hardship next to a few generations of film fans knowing who you are...that's not a bad trade off.
The other is Malcolm McDowell. He only seems to be pissed off because he really liked Stanley and thought they would be pals after their movie. His pride was hurt, but there again Clockwork Orange is the best thing he ever did. If is good, but more often than not, the guy is bordering close to hamminess. Kubrick has made the man immortal in cinema.
@@davidlean1060 First, I love your movies. Now, with that out of the way, while Malcolm McDowell was mad after the fact, he loved working with Stanley during the making of the film.
I have seen the footage of Stanley and Shelly and I truly believe he was trying to agitate her to get a better performance out of her -- and it worked. Not sure of the motives but the results show. Knowing what I know of him, I doubt he would have had her in the movie in the first place if he didn't want her and didn't feel she could do it.
@@SaturnCanuck That's what I mean. McDowell grew fond of Stanley and who wouldn't? He would be around at is house frequently and seeing Stan hold court in his kitchen would have been such a pleasure. Far from being cold etc, when he was with his loved ones, he was warm, funny and entertaining. I don't blame him for missing that, but on the other hand, no one likes sour grapes.
I concur with your thoughts on Duvall. She was right for the part and Stanley knew it. I think his frustration with her was she would go out of her way to be needy. I have met people like that and it always strikes me as a waste of their energy. As Stan says to her in the making of 'it doesn't help you', ie you know you are better than this. In any case, it did work. I can't imagine the film without her anxiety drenched performance. I can't remember who wrote the poetic line 'pitch past pitch of grief', but when I think of that line, I think of Duvall's portrayal of Wendy.
@@davidlean1060 forgettable performance as olive? 😂 she as close as to a real life olive that we have
@@SaturnCanuck from what i've seen it probably wasn't the best way to agitate. duvall was perhaps weakly acting. perhaps agitating caused required anxiety for the role. but then, you end up with an actor in a nervous breakdown- there are other ways to method act than abuse from the director about the way your acting skills are, besides ethics or consent to that or anything, abuse ends up just being abuse no matter what means to an end it is... I think she was accurate in saying she'd have different means to that end, when admitting she wasn't quite at the 'end' she'd have liked either.
the flaw of the shining is Duvall's acting though. being over-the-top, over-anxious, all of it...and it sounds like director's choice?
Kubrick was an unbelievable perfectionist and a genius.
That soldier who stabbed himself in the leg before he was found is the lead singer of Living Color "Corey Glover"
Magnificent research Tyler, as always! that end quote was superb and made me think how many mediocre movies we got cuz of that idea of "lets move on" Laziness is a plague!
Excellent video, thank you. I've added it to one of my playlist, for future reference....
Stanley was a photographer turned cinematographer and filmmaker.
He never studied directing, never worked in the theater, never honed the craft of developing actors.
Most top tier actors don't want to be shown how to do a part.
They don't want it acted for them, they want direction.
Being told to just "do it better" is not direction.
Taking many takes hoping you'll stumble on something is not directing.
If your cast ain't cutting it, you picked the wrong cast--or they have the wrong director.
Casting is everything.
But he still has the best filmography that every director can dream of. Why? I think the video explains it well, the actors after that many takes came to a point that they were acting unconsciously, making those scenes great
I don't think you are aware that Kubrick has an off screen part as "Murph". His voice sounds just right for the role. I think he could act.
Part of me thinks you need a basic understanding of how acting works and how to be a good actor in order to direct performances in a film.
Totally reminds me of Scorsese as the dispatch voice in 'Bringing out the Dead.'
@@CinemaTyler ..or Copolla playing the part of a tv director telling Willard to run past the news camera in Apocalypse Now. There is a name for that too, when the creator puts themselves in their work. A great example is Kurt Vonnegut appearing to Kilgore (who is a surrogate for Vonnegut to begin with) in Breakfast of Champions. The last line of the book is hilarious. I'm giving nothing away, but rather than be shocked to find out he is a fictional character, Trout asks Vonnegut to 'write me young' in the future!
Love it! Keep up the good work Tyler!
I just couldn't stop watching. Really enjoyed your video
He didn't knew how to direct actors. Which meant that, by some strange token, that pushed them to find themselves and become the best actors possible (for that movie...even perhaps the rest.of their carreers)
This perfection with lines of dialogue explains Kubrick's relatively simple camerawork, locked-off, static shots and straight, linear dollies. Can you imagine this level of dialogue perfection with Spielberg's virtuoso camera moves?
Great, great job mate. Thanks for putting in the effort :)
Great work. Valuable as an insightful into Kubrick's world. Cheers.
Shelley Duvall, both as a person and her career, were destroyed by the stress he put her under. She never recovered.
Tired opinion. She was high maintenance and ridiculous before they even stepped on set.
Most absurd Kubrick comment ever: "I don't waste money and I don't waste time..." See pretty much every film he made for further details ;D
I forgot your channel and had to search youtube for dude that did full metal jacket breakdown and found it again now subbed
Fantastic video. Fascinating. Amazing job.
I really don't know where you get some of those quotes from Kubrick, I've never heard them before.
And don't forget to check out the closed-captioning for the sources of every bit of info!
I miss Stanley.
That bit about Kubrick acquiring actors for FMJ was hilarious
You makes amazing videos. Keep up the great work!
I covered Kubrick in a leadership class I'm taking for my MBA. he's so fascinating on how he led everyone in the cast and crew of all of his movies to make incredible works of art so concistantly. he clearly knew how to balance the carrot and the stick, energizing actors through their own self-fulfillment, yet also punishing when things weren't going right, Really love to see this nuance in the different styles of actors in this episode on full metal jacket. His vision for each project seems to seep through every individual tied to it. I really hope actors and studios study his craft instead of solely his films.
I totally agree! I find his methods as fascinating as the movies themselves!
He was right that Arliss Howard would miss him, we all miss him.
Loving these videos!
Actually laughed out loud at 4:04 🤣
Question: is this video about how he wanted the actors to get ground down like in the Vietnam war?
Answer: almost
this video was like the perfect subject matter for me... the idea of repetition until pseudo hypnosis reminds me of Werner Herzog's 'Heart of Glass (1976)', in which he hypnotized his actors then filmed them delivering their lines... this was interesting to read:
'People under hypnosis can be taught lines, but sometimes Herzog wanted to bring out their own poetry buried within. An example of one of the ways he did this was as follows. He’d say to the hypnotised person: “You are on a foreign island. You’re the first one who sets his foot now on this island for centuries. It’s overgrown with jungle butterflies, strange birds singing. You’re walking through the jungle and come across a gigantic cliff. Upon closer inspection this giant cliff is made of pure emerald. And a holy monk hundreds of years ago spent all his life with a chisel and hammer to scratch a poem into the wall. It’s hard like diamond so it took his entire life to write three lines of a poem. I said please open your eyes, you’ll be the first to see it, and I’d like you to read it to me”.'
Can confirm parts of this - Arliss Howard (Private Cowboy) directed Our Town at my college. I played George Gibbs so I spent a lot of time with him. Kubrick was one of my favorite directors so of course I asked about him. We also screened Full Metal Jacket with him in our film class. The multiple takes were a mix of actors not knowing lines and getting lighting setups perfect. He also shut down production for a week or more because they accidently blew up a rabbit den.
Kubrick was a very nice, humble, down to earth man who cared about people and his family....what pissed him off was people on the set not committed to work. As said, the sargeant usualy got his wraps in 3 takes. Most of the fame was invented by the media. I would go nuts on Shelley too if I and my crew were freezing in the snow while she wasnt focused.
Modern hysteric moral grandstanding has ruined Kubricks reputation and smeared his character. Lord forbid you ever say anything to anyone that isn’t putting their ego on a pedestal these days.
So you justify him abusing his casting? Huh, I really do wonder how you would react to being in their shoes.
@@emperorpalpatine6239 he never abused anyone, plus they received a very good amount of money, and fame. I walk on Kubrick´s shoes everyday, first one to step on the set, last one to leave, to be abused by self entitled actors. No pitty for them.
@@emperorpalpatine6239 If my boss told me I wasn’t doing good at my job I wouldn’t throw a fit about it. Id do better, or quit. Other people don’t exist just to praise you and pretend you’re doing well even when you’re not. Also, you’re downplaying actual abuse by calling tough perfectionism “abuse”. God forbid you ever wander into the real world-you wouldn’t cut it.
@@Y-two-K You're too far gone if you don't think isolating, berating and overworking your employee to the extent they have an anxiety attack and lifelong trauma is in anyway comparable to your fucking boss asking you to work harder.
I recommend for all humanity to watch the pictures by jean renoir
Really good quote to end on. What an amazing guy Kubrick was.
This is a beautiful essay. Wonderful!
Kubrick the hands down king of cinema 🎥. Imagine making a war movie and the first half has a scene that reflects a horror.. 5 star . The best of the best.
THE CHOSEN ONE HAS RETURNED
It’s sad this channel doesn’t get more attention, high quality
Another great kubrick vid, you are THE spot for Kubrick lovers on youtube
You deserve more views
You make movies even better!
wow that You're gonna miss me part made my jaw drop, hes right, theres something magical about Stanleys films, it has to be the dedication and the search for something that cant be found
That scene with Tom walking and smacking his hands together...heard he made Tom do that 80x before Kubrick himself showed up to film it.
I think the distinction between British and American schools of acting has historically been caused by American directors writing/scripting roles around the actors themselves, essentially reverse type casting the script around an actor that they have in mind, while the British school starts with a story/script and finds actors who they feel can best fill the shoes of the character in the script. American films are generally as popular as the names on the posters in my opinion and are rated by the number of recogniseable faces, which is why I have never been a huge fan of American film making in general (with certain exceptions to the rule of course).
almost all the best American films to come out every year don’t have any super popular actors in them
it’s like judging music by what’s on the radio, massive mainstream outlets are just trying to please the lowest common denominator
there’s good stuff out there, as with all art I guess it just takes a little digging
I heard the difference between British and American acting styles summed up like this. In Britain, actors are trained to speak the line, then feel the emotion, whereas Americans are taught to feel the emotion first and then speak the line.