comment #1

le corbeau says ...

Every actor bitching about crazy directors should keep in mind the fate of Anthony Michael Hall, who turned down working with Stanley Kubrick to make License to Drive.

comment #2

Daniel Tayag says ...

"Pain is temporary. Film is forever." I forgot where that was from.

comment #3

MilkMan says ...

Mgmax is incorrect. AM Hall turned down Full Metal Jacket to do Out of Bounds, not License To Drive, which, as we all know, starred the two Corey's.

FMJ would have been a completely different movie with AM Hall, not a better movie, since M Modine is a solid actor, but just different, since it's hard, for me at least, to look at M Modine and feel that he is frail or susceptible to harm, especially since he has the build of a jock, a role he was perfectly cast as in Vision Quest. Kubrick had great instincts to cast AM Hall, or, the AM Hall circa Sixteen Candles, although, I think that by the time they would have got around to shooting FMJ AM Hall was already starting to beef up, a look that would reach it's peak when AM Hall starred in the bizarre Johnny B. Goode, directed by Downey Sr., so, I guess, Kubrick wouldn't have had the Farmer Ted factor going for him. But when I think about an alternate version of FMJ, one that stars Farmer Ted as Joker, I think about a movie much more nightmarish, more twisted.

BTW: If anyone has ever wanted to see a high school movie directed by Kubrick, I strongly recommend checking out Keith Gordon's The Chocolate War. I'm sure all of you have already seen it, but watch it again, because Gordon deftly incorporates some wonderful Kubrick homages into the film, like the slow zoom out starting on a characters passive face (Emile Janza, at home, talking on the phone to Archie) and the scene where Obie and Archie meet in the empty school gym/stage, which is an obvious reference to Clockwork, when the Droogs fight another gang. I had to show The Chocolate War all week long at the school where I'm teaching, so I watched it three times a day for five days, and I really think it's the most politically and philosophically sophisticated movie ever made about what it's like to be a teenager. It's shares with Kubrick a fascination with failed contingency, and Wally Ward is great. So is John Glover. Great movie.

comment #4

Mike Schaefer says ...

MilkMan: John Glover is another example of a great unsung actor whose career should've been SO much bigger. After some stellar early-'80s TV work (An Early Frost, etc) he tried to move into films but something went wrong somewhere. I remember seeing him in a supporting role in Scrooged, and -- as much as I love Bill Murray -- I came out thinking what a great Scrooge Glover would've made. He's currently playing Lex Luthor's dad on Smallville...

comment #5

le corbeau says ...

Glover's hilarious in Gremlins 2, which is only about 12 billion times better than Gremlins 1.

comment #6

tholl-yung says ...

This is why I'm astonished actors don't beg to see themselves in the editing room while the editor pieces together a performance from shitty line readings ill matched and performed to tempo. Who's the bigger bitch? Maggie or Jake? Below The Line says save the date for Zodiac 3/6.

comment #7

romeoisbleeding says ...

Great article Wells. Thanks for putting it up here. Am I the only person who does not know what garrote means? I have read that Downey loves to watch the History channel.. here is the meaning of garrote. By the way.. the gulag reference is priceless.

Garrote.. a method of execution formerly practiced in Spain, in which a tightened iron collar is used to strangle or break the neck of a condemned person.

comment #8

Devin Faraci says ...

I imagine it was Gyllenhaal Downey was talking about when I interviewed him for A SCANNER DARKLY:

Q: How is that with someone like David Fincher, who I understand is tough on actors?

Downey: He’s very tough on technique. If you’re a technically proficient actor, you’re going to survive. If you’re not, you’re going to hate him.

I love him!

http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=interviews&id=7082

comment #9

tholl-yung says ...

No doubt Devin.

This part of the article I like best is Gyllenhaal about Fincher:

"...we’d do a lot of takes, and he’d turn, and he would say, because he had a computer there" -- the movie was shot digitally -- "'Delete the last 10 takes.' And as an actor that’s very hard to hear."

Yes, finally, storage costs create decisions on the set.

comment #10

MilkMan says ...

All directors like Kubrick are trying to do when they make an actor do 90 takes is flatten out the tone of the line readings. They're trying to approximate how people act naturally, i.e., when someone is not trying to indictate how they're feeling inside, which is what most of us do all day long, or maybe it's just me. Most of the people I (inter)act with during the day are not interested in how I'm feeling; what they want from me, usually, is information. Normal human communication, I think, resembles a feedback loop, and actors, most of them, don't understand this. By take 90 they give up on showing you how they feel and just say the lines with as little energy as possible, because they have none. And that's when the words become important, when the information flows easier, because it's not smothered beneath an angst pancake. Most actors, especially the American breed, are too interested in their emotions and don't realize that they are but pieces that help complete the image. Instead, they think they are the image, and I don't blame them, especially actors like Downey and Gyllenhal, who have probably been told their entire lives, day after day after day, how attractive and interesting they are. Bresson and Kubrick, and now directors like Denis and Haneke and Reygadas, understand that most people, with the exception of performers, move through the social theatre with a certain decorum, a lack of affectation that serves as a defense mechanism. It's nice to hear that Fincher is starting to undertstand this too, as it portends to a future maturity in his filmmaking. And I'm not shocked to hear what Downey has to say on the subject. Discipline and restraint are not words I would use to describe him.

comment #11

SHR says ...

right, Fincher's Eyes Wide Shut is something to really look forward to.

comment #12

Doug says ...

I like Fincher's work, but 90 takes? Aren't you supposed to DIRECT the actors?

Clint does fine with two or three takes.

comment #13

MilkMan says ...

Each time he goes out, he takes his thoughts with him, and during his absence the room gradually empties of his efforts to inhabit it.

Paul Auster, The Invention of Solitude, 1982

comment #14

tholl-yung says ...

Four stars, MilkMan. SHR, Doug, get a clue. BTW, great milkman hero http://www.reidfleming.com/rf01.html

comment #15

JD says ...

This myth that a director is somehow better because he does many takes is ridiculous. Isn't it possible that, anticipating 50 takes, an actor may be less likely to give 100% during takes 1-49? And has anyone ever really been impressed with the acting in Fincher's films? I'm not saying it's bad -- it's perfectly respectable -- but there's nothing surprising or spontaneous about those performances. In fact, at times, it feels overthought, overchoreographed, and over-rehearsed. Maybe that's what he's going for.

comment #16

malibugigolo says ...

the mailbu gigolo remembers, fondly, that Hal Ashby did many takes too (Coming Home esp.)

Jake feels the words too much instead of saying them, but he much like most American actors doesn't have the experience of the stage, and can't control his voice, and to become "serious", he simply mumbles lower.

and

lower and lower...

ala Mr. Pitt

comment #17

bmcintire says ...

Take a look at Million Dollar Baby and watch the performances of Hillary Swank's family (especially the mother, an otherwise fine actress) and tell me again that Clint does fine in two or three takes. Over the top cartoonish bullshit.

comment #18

le corbeau says ...

"All directors like Kubrick are trying to do when they make an actor do 90 takes is flatten out the tone of the line readings."

Well, I doubt that's ALL Stanley Kubrick was trying to do, but I can see where it would be part of it. Interestingly, Jack Webb achieved the same thing on a TV schedule for Dragnet in the opposite way-- he wouldn't give the actors their dialogue ahead of time, then he'd give them one line and shoot it. They were preoccupied with remembering it and wouldn't act too much; it wasn't until a third or fourth take that they'd start to act, and there was no third or fourth take.

Somewhat on the same subject, Ben Affleck was talking about Hollywoodland on Fresh Air yesterday and made much the same point-- in 50s movies, everyone sort of kept up a front and talked real fast and snappy (he then let fire a bunch of improv'd dialogue along the lines of "Say Buddy, how's it goin', care for a smoke?") and it took some effort for modern actors used to sort of whining their feelings in every line (not EXACTLY the way he put it) to get used to talking in a way that was hiding, rather than revealing, your inner state.

comment #19

mutinyco says ...

Although both Kubrick and Fincher are known for high shooting ratios, their use of multiple takes comes from almost opposite creative processes.

With Fincher, everything is pre-planned and storyboarded -- and he's working toward that preconceived idea. This is why he's not so open to on-set ideas -- he doesn't want to be distracted from his vision.

With Kubrick, he never knew how he was going to shoot a scene until he was actually on the set rehearsing with the actors. He was open to ideas, and wanted to fully explore each scene. His process was fluid and about reduction.

There are multiple reasons a director will use multiple takes (technical precision, experimenting, refining performance). I imagine as film gives way to HD -- and more specifically, hard drive-based aquisition like Zodiac -- you'll see much higher shooting ratios.

As for Clint Eastwood, he works much like a television director -- set-up, shoot, move on. You can see his speed very obviously in the fact that he shoots so much of his movies with the Stedicam. And the manner in which he uses the Stedicam. Which isn't for tracking purposes, as most use it for. He uses it in place of dollies, legs, booms, etc. He uses the Stedicam simply to replicate traditional film movements (and non-movement), however, by not actually mounting the camera onto a dolly track or a tripod he's saving time. That said, to me, at least, the fact that a Stedicam can never truly replicate these types of shots, as a handheld/body strapped device is not precise enough, this approach seems cheap and rushed rather than taking the time to do things correctly. But that's just my opinion.

comment #20

jeffmcm says ...

It helps that Eastwood is working with one of the best lighting cinematographers working today in Tom Stern - I hope you don't think his work is also 'cheap and rushed'.

comment #21

dre says ...

90 takes doesn't equal genius, but it definitely worked for Kubrick and it definitely seems to work for Fincher. Looking forward to this.

comment #22

Mr B says ...

Milkman, I understand what you're saying, and yes, natural performances are great. But you say that most people throughout your day don't care what you're feeling, they just want some information. That may be true, but when i watch a movie, I DO care what the character is feeling. I mean, if not, why the heck do i care about watching the movie? Yes, bring down the overacting, but I personally do enjoy actors bringing some unsaid information to the table.

For me, i greatly respect Kubrick's movies, his vision, etc. There are fine performances in his films, but if I were trying to think of examples of great film acting, not sure I'd even run any of his movies through my head at that moment.

But yeah, many directors with different methods all creating great movies, just in different ways, non right, non wrong. Just more in the humanistic Altman, Kurosawa camp myself.

Although i bet Kurosawa could burn through some takes.

comment #23

d manhattan says ...

So if Jake Gyllenhaal feels the words too much instead of just saying them and Fincher hates earnestness so much - Why did Fincher cast him then?

A "Gyllenhaalesque", emoting performance might arguable be a good fit for a bright cartoonist turned murder detective, but was Fincher perhaps going into the project intending to overlook Jakes acting style for the sake of financing?

comment #24

le corbeau says ...

That's possible, Dr Manhattan... but it's also possible that he saw what he wanted in Gyllenhall and knew this was how to get it.

comment #25

Josh Massey says ...

As soon as somebody said "Eastwood," I knew the Million Dollar Baby "family" comments would not be far behind. Not that I disagree, mind you.

comment #26

christian says ...

i would argue that the performances in many kubrick films are monotone and rendered null by the incessant takes. that's just fucking with the actor.

i think kubrick (and to a way lesser degree fincher) direct like machines and their style comes from this. but it doesn't usually impel great acting.

i'm heartbroken hearing that AMH turned down kubrick. i had no idea. i always thought AHM was the most gifted young comedic actor of the 80's and would have been perfect in FMJ. damn.

but stage actors get one chance on a stage to give breathtaking performances; film actors should have a few takes but 70? that's about technics, not acting.