Stanley Kubrick Explains The Real Reason Why he did SO MANY TAKES 

Whole story is about sense of trust and ability to act in the moment. I disagree in the way that actors are melting out under the director's visions if powerful enoght for the actor's intelligence or skills. Well...

lol

Not really. He realizes "it is what it is" and he deals with it.

@@thunderpooch yeah. still had to be frustrating tho

And a man holding a very particular secret about the moon.

ahahahah

yes, I read that Tom Cruise had to walk through the doctor's door 100 times in Eyes Wide Shut. says a lot there 😂. EYS never got the analysis or credit it deserves, just swept under the carpet....nothing to see here ..move along .ahem

Considering some of the onset diva's we hear about, what he's saying actually makes sense.

I remember him saying that he only had to do like… maybe 3 or 4 takes when shooting scenes of dialogue with R. Lee Ermey, where the only thing the other actors are saying is “SIR YES SIR!” while Ermey delivers a literal rainbow of vulgarity and abuse at high volume and speed

@@Carlos_________ maybe Fincher is less smart but also has less issues. Letting an actor with zero lines walk through a door with zero direction other than "do it again" has got nothing to do with "smart". I say that as an educated actor. Being in a Kubrick movie sure is cool though. Many still wouldn't/didn't want to do it (Dennis Hopper, Gary Oldman etc.)

Thinking the exact same thing! Maximum savage.

Shelley found out that she got the part of Olive Oyl in the Popeye movie while shooting the movie. #funfact

He was very nice to Shelley. She said so herself. The whole thing is a fake news story.

"Ahh Madeline missing and presumed dead across the iron curtain. With the emphasis on dead "

My first thought too

​@@anotherjewishsharpnicholas9425 Is not Fake LMAO she said hersefl

And yet Jack Nicholson had no problems with Kubrick and vice versa.

He was literally saying part of the job is going home and practicing your lines instead of going out. That still applies.

You clearly never learned lines for anything

​@@toastedt140 Jack threw the new scripts away 😂 Because he knew Kubrick will have rewritten it as new when he has learned the last one (said it himself). He only memorized it after knowing it was for sure the last one, Kubrick wrote thru the day. Also Jack didn't have no problem to memorize a page, dude could do that in a matter of minutes if he really wanted to. You have to also memorize that he is the Jack goddamn Nicholson... then again he is Kubrick and will expect a very high level of tolerance from you. Everyone knew what they were stepping into.

Agreed. Like, as a professional actor, the “not having lines memorized” is actually a real concern and it’s true you can’t act until you have the script burned to memory (so you don’t have to think about it, and can just play in the scene). Buts that’s not what happened with Kubrick. He invoked that as an excuse or shield to hide behind, when in reality his films were so constantly changing and evolving the actors couldn’t POSSIBLY get familiar with the material, and therefore couldn’t possibly get comfortable enough to just stop thinking and play. Also, he’s lying here, he did in fact actually do 100 takes very often (and they were usually stupid things like an insert or non-speaking actions like walking down a hallway, or opening a door, not a dramatic dialogue scenes).

Which is not a laudable quality in a director

@@mistersydster I meant it as a criticism. I wonder if those 72 that upvoted my comment thought I was praising him.

That's the line between genius and just an asshole. Stanley was probably both of them at the same time.

Yeah bro that was also my experience with Kubrick we're so lucky to have worked with him

@@thegoodgeneral I had a feeling that that's how you may have meant it but I couldn't tell for sure

director (noun) - a person who is in charge of an activity, department, or organization. Kubrik's right. The director is in charge of every aspect of film production and its direction, but they should not be responsible for constantly guiding an actor that hasn't prepared themselves for a role. A director should not be a babysitter to the actors. There are storyboards, scripts, sets, and sometimes novels for an actor to understand what they're supposed to be doing. They should be able to connect with and embody a character, learn the lines, and understand how the character would respond in situations and interact with other characters. Just watch Samuel L. Jackson's master class in acting. He says that when he gets a role, he takes all information provided to create a full life for his characters. He explains how an actor should be professional and prepared in all aspects by the first day of filming and considers an actor that relies on a director for guidance to be a failure of the actor, not the director.

@@englishmasterywithmark2757 The “department” film directors are in charge of is actors’ performances Kindly try not to lecture people about something you’re not aware of. General definitions from a dictionary are no replacement for centuries of conventional knowledge from a hyper-specific industry

@@englishmasterywithmark2757 Directions for Cruise: You are an awkward stumble bum, nothing like any role you ever played before. I want to embarrass you. Directions for Nicole: You are an unlovable, lazy, complainer who married Tom, I mean Bill, for his money. You don't really care about him and are going to divorce him in the near future.

What an idiot... this is a bad director in my book

​@@englishmasterywithmark2757or more likely stan is justifying and down playing what his problem is which is asking somthing of an actor but not telling them what it is becaude he doesnt really know whst it is which he has admited to several times infact the reason he made shelly so mousy in his adaptation of the shinning is because he didnt like her dirrection and delivery which he never gave so he abused her on set and still asked her to film the stairs scene over a hundred times. To be clear the shinning is my favorite horror film and i do respect kubrick but the thing to agknowlege is he is an arrogant asshole who does things more so because he is just ocd. The reason why some actors ask for dirrection is because the dirrector has a vision of somthing and small differences of the same lines lead to differences in messageing Stan is good at regonizing takes but not at dirrscting people and he has this ocd where an entire group of veteran dirrectors can say idk what was wrong with most of these. Some actors obviously have an idea of how they want to dirrect themselves but its not a failure when an actor asks for dirrection. It gets into why stan is an enigma he is so hard to understand and yet still makes great movies but he is basically justifying what he says by giving you a peice of true informstion and telling you what he wants you to think.

Exactly. I like Kubrick but he put Scatman Crothers through the ringer so many times, not only for lines, but for just walking down a fucking hallway.

Easily summed up by saying he was a jerk.

Yup.

They open the door in the wrong way :P

​@@charliekelly735 wtf who is named scatman

Try to enjoy the greatness that we have today. I know I’m going to savor every bit of Oppenheimer when it comes out

They were both working in the industry for like a 15-20 year overlap. It just didn’t happen

They would 100% get into a fist fight, make amends, make a masterpiece, lose their sanity, then become supervillains together.

they would make a marvel or star wars movie together..

I’m happy he got to make a a film with tom cruise tho. Two legends together, eyes wide shut is amazing.

"I pay people to say the n word" - Tarantino, probably.

@@harold3165 lol

"I pay women to let me stare at their feet" - Tarantino

Zach Galifianakis: Do you say the 'n word' more in Django Unchained or in real life? Christoph Waltz: More in real life

Here we go again. 🙄

Shelley after the 127th take: "Bruh" For real though, Kubrick was actually a decent guy from everything I've read about him. He made other actors do a bunch of takes like for instance Tom Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut, where he made Tom do dozens and dozens of takes of him just walking around the city and Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket where he made him do a couple dozen takes of him belittling a soldier while holding a donut. Very shortly before getting the role of Wendy in The Shining, Shelley broke up with her boyfriend and she had to move far away from home so she could live close to the studio. All that stuff accumulated to what happened to her during the making of The Shining and years later. Kubrick wasn't an evil man like some people make him out to be. Jesus christ.

​@@GojoTorrance He was a garbage director. He has an incredible talent for creating beautiful images, he should've been a cinematographer. However, he would make actors do a scene over a hundred times whether they knew lines or not. Harvey Keitel was doing a scene in Eyes Wide Shut where they were just walking into a room, simple as that but Stanley kept making them do it and with no direction on what he wanted. He doesn't know what he wants, so he used the actors as guinea pigs to find what he wants for him. In the editing room, he probably used one of the first five takes every time he pulled this shit

@@logantotman1574 Didn't Keitel get fired or just quit and walked off because of it?

@@mikespearwood3914 Yeah, he quit because he was so sick of doing a scene where it's just Tom Cruise walking into a room over and over again. Kubrick gave no direction to any of them the entire time

But context matters. They could have different approaches, but it doesn't take away from what Stanley said. Clint doing one take =/= actors being disciplined or doing a good take They've even gone on record to say Clint will do more than one take if he has to, meaning if the take was that bad. Which only further proves what Stanley is saying.

And Stanley’s films are better and have deeper meanings than Clint’s.

@@lewstone5430 Better is subjective, and deeper depending on the movie.

Don't forget "Two Takes Frakes."

@@XXIIXIIIXXXIXXXIX That's rather objective, at least in some 73% of subjective criterias.

right. and lets be honest, actors in general are overly dramatic about a lot of stuff. its in their blood, they’re actors

@@poindextertunes true

This comment tho 👏 🏆 😃

Ur mom

@@celticqueen9762 ur mom

You suck

yeah but still... he did *something* wrong.. maybe it's multiple things, he fvcked the girl next door, left the toilet seat up and went out drinking with his buddies..

Or the mother-in-law from hell.

"If you don't know, then I'm CERTAINLY not going to tell you!"

this “take my wife, please” shxt is so old. if you don’t like your wife, end it and find someone else. You are who you attract

It’s not even close to “every actor” on his films.

​@@danielplainview2584 But it's enough, and it's with actors that don't have that problem woth other directors. Say what you will about Tom Cruise, but his work ethic is exceptional and he always prepares a lot for his roles. Yet Kubrick has him walk through a door for over 90 takes. You can't put that on anyone but Stanley himself.

Ur mom

@@DerMoerplerdo you know TC personally? If he really prepares like you say he does, then he is the worst actor of all time. the guy is literally just playing himself in every movie.

@@poindextertunes Tell me you only watch mainstream blockbusters without telling me you only watch mainstream blockbusters. Watch Magnolia, Eyes Wide Shut, Born on the Fourth of July, Rain Man, Tropic Thunder, Collateral, Interview with a Vampire, Jerry Maguire and A Few Good Men and tell me again how they're all the same character as his action hero persona. Besides that, I think you severely underestimate how difficult good "action" acting actually is. I don't know him personally, but I'm going off of what other people have said about him in interviews and of behind the scenes material.

Yeah, I think that would be a better reason to say he needs a ton of takes. But I don't like that he blamed the actors. I think the Coen brothers' movies have some of the best acting but I've never heard them bullying actors like that. I have a lot of respect for Kubrick, but no respect for how he treated actors.

When you put it like this, I almost get the feeling Kubrick liked the challenge of sorting out the best takes.

It's simple, if the work is good, then move on, if it isn't then do it again.

What on earth are you talking about.

Your analogy makes no sense Emily. On the other hand, you sound like you’re satisfied with mediocrity. Good for you, but please don’t hate on perfectionists.

@@lewstone5430 Doing 30 takes of a guy giving a hanshake sounds deranged.

Ur mom

Yes, but Kubrick had R. Lee rehearse his lines over and over, with an assistant tossing him oranges he had to catch and toss back, over and over! He wanted an actor's lines to be as fluid and natural as unrehearsed speech, and with some actors he succeeded beautifully! R. Lee was one of those, but he had good coaching!

@@MalcolmBrennerR Lee didn’t have to learn lines bcuz most of what he said were real insults from his days as a sargent in the armed forces. the oranges were stanley’s way of testing an actor on his first film as R Lee started as an advisor and took upon himself to mail stanley his screen tests

Maybe Kubrick is just shit at directing actors

Difference between having a life and being undisciplined

Ur mom

@@jonmorrison5280 ur mom

"Physically abuse" is a lie, and if they didn't like it they should have quit. Man up pussy

Or maybe he was a lazy entitled douchbag that wouldn't memorize lines

that was more toward the end of his career. by that time he was done with the industry and didn’t care about his craft

Eastwood was like stop-motion animator Ray Harryhausen, who famously went with his first take whenever possible, not for artistic or theatrical reasons, but simply to SAVE $$! He made famous films like "Jason and the Argonauts" on budgets that wouldn't buy the coffee cups for a modern movie, and Tom Hanks calls Jason "The best film of all time," with which I (mostly) agree!

If you have to rewrite your script after you start shooting then you are not prepared.

Yet both Eastwood and Scorsese cite Kubrick as a great and an inspiration. So you should wait before you make such judgements

@Anand Nair You think both are inspired by what part of Kubricks proccess exactly? His abuse of actors? Don't be foolish, I'm certain most directors find inspiration from parts of Kubricks creation proccess but that doesn't mean he isn't an abuser. But I reckon you knew that already..

You have said that Kubrick's treatment of actors was wrong, because he could have done things in lesser takes like Scorsese and Eastwood. Yet both these directors cite him as a master and much above their own selves, so when Kubrick does deliver the result with his directing style (as confirmed by both the directors you have referred to) then on what grounds is he to be criticized ? Only way we can know if Kubrick could have had his actors deliver the same level of performances in a more meek manner would be in two ways : a.) if someone directed the same script in a easy going manner and delivered a better movie than Kubrick, or b.) if we run the course of history again and have Kubrick be a "nicer" guy. Since neither of these can be done, your criticism is worthless

@Anand Nair No, Kubrick was a known abuser, abuse is bad.. its not rocket science, the fact that your desperately trying to defend abuse of any kind is very telling of the kind of person you are. Abuse doesn't need to be a prerequisite of a good finished product.. unless your Stanley Kubrick of course. Your argument is weak, because you are defending abuse..

​@@bencooper6983 I support abuse if the final work is that good, even kill or shred to pieces the damned actors if necessary but make a damn fine movie.

Are you inspired by Asperger’s lol

@@corpsefoot758 lol no I just think in our culture we deify actors too much. Kubrick just saw actors as means for realising his vision and didn't treat them with kid gloves.

@@bokehintheussr5033 I think you deify Kubrick too much. One of his favorite films was The Godfather, and yet Robert Duvall called Kubrick “the enemy of actors”. That’s really all I need to hear

Why? Are you socially disabled too

And you are a master cinematographer if course

@@dwinosam not at all relevant.

​@@dwinosam i dont know how to talk with women. if i see a guy who murders his wife, i still say "that dude did it wrong".

Ur mom

Yeah you can. Name three great performances from Kubrick’s work

Braindead@@corpsefoot758

Kubrick was actually supposed to direct him in One-Eyed Jacks (1961) but Brando ended up replacing him as director.

They were talking about doing it. After working with Kirk Douglas on "Spartacus," Kubrick was wary of working with another actor-producer. Because Brando already had strong ideas about what his film was going to be like, Kubrick diplomatically stepped aside, suggesting Brando direct the film himself. Problem solved.

I actually meant the way Brando prepared for good roles. He never learned dialogue, but preferred to tape it to his co stars

George Pal made a sci-fi movie like that in the 1950's, it was called "When Worlds Collide!"

She gave her best performance thanks to the rough treatment.

​@@maxichamberlain1021 That's not something to value over rough treatment.

​@@maxichamberlain1021 I hope you don't have a boss with the same mindset

Bunch of wussies shouldn’t watch Kubrick films 😂

​@@maxichamberlain1021 Yeah, that's kinda fucked up

“Greatest of all time” according to you, maybe It’s very strange watching people pass off their own opinions as universal fact

Although, that conflicts with literally every other great director who didn't need to do this. Apparently, actors learn their lines when working on any other director's movie.

@@TheLockon00 Stanley used "not knowing their lines" as an example, "TheLockon00". Stanley's films required precision. Unlike, say, Hitchcock's, they really did.

Oh really? Kubrick’s films are known for their incredible acting, are they?

@@corpsefoot758maybe you’re too retarded if u dont see that

The thing is, I like movies precisely because of the cinematography and the technical aspects. The story itself is obviously important, but to me, story exists to augment the pictures on the screen. Not the other way around. If you selected a frame at random from, say, Paths of Glory, odds are it’s going to be evocative and artistically meritorious all on its own. There aren’t too many directors who can do that- Kubrick was one of them.

@@-dash Sure, but I was saying that its likely that Kubrick's issue with actors could have been because of him. Just because he was good at many things, it doesn't mean he was good at everything.

I'm sure he was kind of an high functioning autistic or had OCD, that would explain a lot of things.

As that epic misogynist Alfred Hitchcock famously told Jean-Luc Goddard, "Actors are cattle." That didn't win him any fans with the bovine population either, being compared to actors like that!

I hope you enjoy being exploited at your job. I guess by the same logic you support the slave labor that went into building the Qatar world cup stadiums

@@GlitzPixie who gives a shit about making some product? We're taking about art and film here. Show me ANY warehouse or retail job where you have something as good as a film starring you to show off at the end of it. Go on. Show me.

@@CharlieBrown20XD6 how the fuck is this even a rebuttal? I think Catholic cathedrals are beautiful works of art, but I don't support the slave labor or exploitation that went into building them. Show me a single cool thing YOU'VE made dumbass if that's your standard for considering someone's opinion valid. Abuse is not necessary for the creation of art

@@GlitzPixie so we're comparing a director asking for a lot of takes to slavery now lol what were you a PA and someone yelled at you on set once? Poor baby. Pretty insulting to slaves to compare that to actual slavery.

No. It matters how he got there.

The idea that Kubrick bullied Shelley Duvall into psychosis is so ridiculous on it's face, and honestly quite sexist and infanilizing. Nevermind the fact that Shelley Duvall herself has personally dispelled this rumor and has been on record saying that she enjoyed working with Kubrick, and the despite being quite tough and challenging on set, was always very kind and personable in private. I wouldn't be surprised if this idea was being pushed by the studio in order to create an aura around the film. "We made this horror movie so scary that it literally drove the actor's insane".

@@jamesoakes1819 There are entire documentaries debunking this desperate fanboy routine you’re going on about here

No he didn't. Stop repeating this nonsense. Her hair got caught in the window when they were filming the Here's Johnny scene. That scene is taken out of context.

No, it's literally just Keitel. Even Tom Cruise said that working on that film was "everything an actor could ever want".

Hear, hear. He was a domineering scumbag with visual talent … that’s it

But Scorsese does lots of takes sometimes. Also, awards don't mean nothing

And yet here you are talking about Kubrick and interjecting Eastwood into the convo and not vise versa. No disrespect to Eastwood but his films are no where near as good as kubricks. he’s not very creative either. Eastwood films are very vanilla as far as premises go

​@@poindextertunes as personal taste go, yeah.. i also do prefer kubrick films over eastwood's. but let's not pretend like his notorious hundred takes is the best way to get the best performance out of an actor. kubrick film are best known for invoking feeling through ideas, not necessarily performance driven. many talented directors dont succumb their actors to such length to get the best result. eastwood as a director have sent many actors to win best actor oscars. that's why the term an actor's director exist. kubrick is never known to be one.

Stop projecting your values from a time with horrible movies onto this dead guy who made re-watchable films.

@@r4x2 I don't think social-emotional competency is the reason today's movies suck lol

you realize some ppl are literally unable to develop social skills? when millions are on the line do you think studios really care about social skills? we both know they dont. terrible take

@@poindextertunes Technically _some_ people are literally unable to learn social skills... but should they be leading massive teams if that is their reality? Kubrick understood people, on a profound level: if he didn't, he wouldn't have been capable of the art he created. He just chose to be antisocial is his role as a manager. It was an acceptable sacrifice to him. Maybe he needed intermediaries, so that he could delegate sensitive communication tasks through someone who understood his vision and process, but with more patience than he could summon. To him, that would probably seem like a pointless convolution. You do raise an interesting point though about the budget though, for which Kubrick was notoriously one of the most fastidious, even micro-managing, of directors. If the scale of a studio's financial investment determined (or even excused) the severity of a director's methods, I would expect to hear JJ Abrams is the most feared director in Hollywood. David O Russell abuses his actors for a fraction of the cost. So does Lars von Trier. But they're _auteurs_ so it puts a different shine on things. 🙄 Money is not the issue. Being an asshole is. I want a great piece of art as much as the next guy, but I remain unconvinced that any bad behaviour is necessary, any more than the artist's own misery is necessary.

This is the most reasonable comment in this video.

30 takes is nothing tho? Most directors do that

@@Rlrlrl1962 130 for a chick to walk a flight of stairs? Nah.

@@Tester-sh1mn I said 30 not 130.

@@Rlrlrl1962 Oh no shit Sherlock, really honed in on my main point there. I was ACTUALLY talking about how Shelley Duvall had to do 127 (rounded to 130) different takes for the baseball scene. Most directors don’t do that, surprised I’m sure.

Performers do have to be writers. I actually think that was Kubrick's only film where Stanley wanted to work with Jack more than actors often want to work with specific people of the cinema. And I don't think that this resulted in a good film. I think The Shining is Stanley's worst. Nicholson was a strong picture card in it though.

Ur mom

Kubrick it is alleged, never really knew what he wanted until he saw it. I can imagine how long the editing process would be considering 30- 100 takes on scenes.

I don't think he is "punishing" them for not doing their homework. He is saying that them not doing their homework caused them to not give the performance Stanley wanted, leading to 30 takes

What kind of horribly unprofessional actor are you if you don’t know your dialogue, and how you’re going to act accordingly, in a Kubrick film?!?!?

Legend? Why?

@@TheNowhereMan0 why not?

In terms of acting performances? My ass lol

Jack Nicholson in The Shining.

@@marcok.6734 Yea he seemed to like Jack, vid of him introducing his family.

Peter Sellers, Malcolm McDowell, R. Lee Ermey

George C. Scott got Stanley's high praise for being able to repeat a performance over and over, exactly the same, in "Dr. Strangelove." Peter Sellers, OTOH, would improve, hit a peak, then slide downhill. Different styles and methods of acting, different actors, different dispositions.

Right. He’s making up self-serving lies here, at the expense of attacking actors’ professionalism

In other words: socially disabled

*Couldn't care less

Harvey Keitel quit eyes wide shut after being forced to walk through a door over and over. There were no lines there. Kubrick's reasons explain part of his behavior but the other part is explained by him being obsessive as shit. Was him walking through a door not good enough for Kubrick?

@@bobsandwich3431 That's your explanation. Again, you're out of context. Stanley used "not knowing lines" as a well-known figure of speech and just an example. Actors had to be their characters, they had to perform for the film, not just appear in a frame where everything else was crafted SO WELL. Why let one part fail the others when that part simply just have to fit?

@@GEMSofGOD_com I'm sure the first 30 takes of him walking through a door were perfectly fine. I'm not sure how more prepared the actor can get for a scene involving walking through a door.

@@bobsandwich3431 Makes me think what is... Walking through the door?

Improvising isn’t bad it’s just that sometimes directors do want specific words said. Kubrick is the kind of director who mostly wants specific words said.

That's like saying a football coach has to be able to get on the field and show what he means - because players are too stupid to understand what he wants.

Kubrick did mess up Shelly Duvall soft life on the shining . This is what King said recently “That's what's wrong with [Stanley Kubrick's] The Shining, basically…the movie has no heart; there's no centre to the picture. I wrote the book as a tragedy, and if it was a tragedy, it was because all the people loved each other.Sep 21, 2022

A director's job is to also ensure everyone on that set is okay both physically and mentally. A good director is a leader that doesn't need to become a dictator in order to get things done

@@basicbluetrash wrong

@@basicbluetrash Maybe that only applies to today's world.

Dolores, he is dead. Therapy isn't gonna do much for his rotting corpse

He sounds logical in his complain. Actors are full of themselves and forget a job is a job, they come late, drunk, drugged or don't come at all and expect to be treated like royalty, I'm glad he treated them like the scum they truly are. Rip master Kubrick.

That's weird

Legend? Deserve? Come on...