| Author |
 Topic  |
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
 Posted - 11/20/2013 : 22:54:45
|
quote:
I think we're all agreed on Kubrick's greatness. He has two in my Top 100 and three more in my next 100, so they're all what I call 'great'. The other six (from THE KILLING up to EYES WIDE SHUT) I've scored 8/10 (which I call 'pretty damn good', not quite 'great').
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by randa14
And you "never had a problem" with Patrick Magee in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and BARRY LYNDON?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Magee was OTT in CLOCKWORK ORANGE (I see no problem there, most characters in that movie were OTT, they were 'characters' rather than 'people'). It was such a long time ago I saw BARRY LYNDON (probably 30 years) that I don't recall him in that at all.
I think it's time to de-hijack the GRAVITY thread and talk seriously about my favorite director.
Yes, Magee literally hyperventilates for Kubrick in CLOCKWORK. This is clowning. Stanley Kubrick, my favorite director of all time, has trouble with actors. There, I said it. It was mitigated late in his life [he allowed R. Lee Ermey to be the force of nature he already was], but it's still there.
I can't believe I'm starting this thread on a down note, but I just needed to get it out from under GRAVITY. |
Edited by - randall on 11/20/2013 22:56:28 |
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/20/2013 : 23:49:44
|
Well, all I can say is whatever problem Kubrick had with actors isn't one I ever noticed. Yes, I do recall Magee's OTT character in CLOCKWORK ORANGE, but maybe that's a good thing? I've only seen the movie twice, last time was 10 years or so ago, I'm assuming the scene you mean (my foggy memory) is the one where he's going red in the face with rage/hate (and hyperventilating I guess) when McDowell is in the room and he remembers him as the destroyer from some years ago? If so, I don't have a problem with it. If it was the kind of overacting that Kubrick demanded in order to create a memorable character then I'm fine with it.
Kubrick's movies are full of OTT and 'unrealistic' or extreme performances. Was Peter Sellers OTT in DR STRANGELOVE? Yep. No problem. The drill sergeant and Pyle in FULL METAL JACKET? Yep, fine. Jack in THE SHINING? Fine again. Keir in 2001 (character is arguably OTT coldly-clinical professional)? Also fine.
I'm chuckling over the fact I'm defending your favourite director's use of actors in his movies.  Generally when I put a director/writer etc into the 'great' category (where Kubrick squarely sits) then I give them leeway to do whatever the hell they like, i.e., whatever they do is right (and if I identify a 'flaw' then it's me that's wrong and not them). But in this case (Kubrick and his 11 movies from THE KILLING onwards) I have never identified anything he has ever done with any of his actors as a flaw, in other words, I cannot imagine improving any of it, i.e, I would not want him to do or have done anything different with any of his actors. |
 |
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 11/21/2013 : 00:33:22
|
| Everyone/everything about Dr. Strangelove is OTT. The film is an obvious satire. Maybe we should look at most of his films as satire. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/21/2013 : 00:58:03
|
Admittedly I've got a professional bias when it comes to bad, mediocre, or zilch film acting. Just sayin - I know what it feels like to be on the "process" end.
Even when we work with directors who don't acknowledge our creative contribution, or, even worse, when they subvert it, good actors always try to remain true to the moment.
But so many people whose work goes into the finished film can fuck up what actors may want to do. Arrogant auteurs, even genius ones like Kubrick, are often so myopic about their creative vision, they fail to leave room for those moments so treasured by Sergei Diaghilev when he ordered dancers: "Surprise me!"
So, yeah, I resent that approach to a profession I dedicated many years of my life to. It amazes me that young directors - particularly in the UK, and whom I used to teach at the National Film and Television School - have such a skewed and let's face it, insulting expectation of what actors can bring to the screen.
Honestly I think there's no excuse for bad acting. But it's even more infuriating when a performance that shows up as bad turns out to be the result of the ego of a director or bad choices by an editor.
Thankfully there are some directors who do respect and even understand what actors do to create the illusion of a believable person who isn't themselves. Who understand that a script is a blueprint and the cast and crew make equally important contributions to fashion a film.
I've worked with both kinds of directors - some truly great ones in each category. I know which I prefer as a creative artist.
And yes, of course, there are some dipshit actors who are extremely confused about what their process is.
I honestly believe Kubrick would have been even greater had he allowed himself to trust what really good actors might offer to help him achieve his vision. Sadly - and I know this from people who knew him - he couldn't care less about them. His loss.
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/21/2013 : 01:32:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycautXIV
Everyone/everything about Dr. Strangelove is OTT. The film is an obvious satire. Maybe we should look at most of his films as satire.
I'm not sure about 'most', but I'd certainly put CLOCKWORK ORANGE into the satire category.
quote:
Originally posted by 14Babe
But so many people whose work goes into the finished film can fuck up what actors may want to do. Arrogant auteurs, even genius ones like Kubrick, are often so myopic about their creative vision, they fail to leave room for those moments so treasured by Sergei Diaghilev when he ordered dancers: "Surprise me!"
I don't doubt that there are numerous occasions when an actor adds something of their own to a role to make a scene/movie even better than what the director imagined. But I also don't doubt that there are numerous occasions when it's the other way around, i.e., the director is a genius, the actor is an actor, and the end result is best if the actor does what the director tells them to do.
I recall seing a documentary once about Hitchcock; in one scene (forgotten the movie and actress) he was telling her how to act and to look, he ended up manipulating her face with his fingers and said "There, hold it like that" and he was right. The end result was perfect once the genius director had manipulated the actress like she was a plasticine model on a claymation set; he made her look like an even better actress.
Another example... Bill Murray at the 2004 Oscars hinted at an actor rebellion on the set of LOST IN TRANSLATION, they thought Sofia Coppola had lost the plot and needed replacing, fortunately she got her way. When they (the actors) saw the end result they realised that her way was the right way. [BTW I never read or heard anything further about this dispute.] Rather than demanding overacting (or OTT performances) from the cast she was coaxing underacting and subtlety from them that they didn't understand at the time, and she was wholly correct.
quote:
I honestly believe Kubrick would have been even greater had he allowed himself to trust what really good actors might offer to help him achieve his vision.
You may be right, but I suspect not (well, not if Kubrick's objective was to have his actors acting the way I want them to be).  Nobody will ever know of course. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/21/2013 : 11:52:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Originally posted by 14Babe
But so many people whose work goes into the finished film can fuck up what actors may want to do. Arrogant auteurs, even genius ones like Kubrick, are often so myopic about their creative vision, they fail to leave room for those moments so treasured by Sergei Diaghilev when he ordered dancers: "Surprise me!"
I don't doubt that there are numerous occasions when an actor adds something of their own to a role to make a scene/movie even better than what the director imagined. But I also don't doubt that there are numerous occasions when it's the other way around, i.e., the director is a genius, the actor is an actor, and the end result is best if the actor does what the director tells them to do.
I recall seing a documentary once about Hitchcock; in one scene (forgotten the movie and actress) he was telling her how to act and to look, he ended up manipulating her face with his fingers and said "There, hold it like that" and he was right. The end result was perfect once the genius director had manipulated the actress like she was a plasticine model on a claymation set; he made her look like an even better actress.
Another example... Bill Murray at the 2004 Oscars hinted at an actor rebellion on the set of LOST IN TRANSLATION, they thought Sofia Coppola had lost the plot and needed replacing, fortunately she got her way. When they (the actors) saw the end result they realised that her way was the right way. [BTW I never read or heard anything further about this dispute.] Rather than demanding overacting (or OTT performances) from the cast she was coaxing underacting and subtlety from them that they didn't understand at the time, and she was wholly correct.
quote:
I honestly believe Kubrick would have been even greater had he allowed himself to trust what really good actors might offer to help him achieve his vision.
You may be right, but I suspect not (well, not if Kubrick's objective was to have his actors acting the way I want them to be). Nobody will ever know of course.
Thanks for your thoughts, Sean. And of course you're entitled to your opinion, but oh how I wish I could have some face time for a Socratic dialogue about the creative process in acting, especially film acting.
I'd never question your process as an astro-physicist - or whatever it is you work at - but your comments seem to imply a conviction that actors don't have a creative role in the process of turning a play or film script or story-board to something an audience can relate to. I could be wrong - and that wasn't your implication.
I believe the Hitchcock story is semi-apocryphal - and may even have come from one of the two Hitch flicks from last year. I don't share your admiration of Sofia Coppola whose films seem quite jejune conceits to me and whose vision seems grounded neither in an arresting intellect nor an expert enough understanding of cinema technique. Unlike her dad, who's in my top 10 US directors - and whose respect for actors and confidence to include them in the film-making process is well documented.
Directors as directors were fairly recent additions to the team. If there were a creative vision in the early days of European and Asian drama it was generally one of the playwright or actor/manager - or even religious leader in the case, for example, of the peripatetic performances of Egyptian myth.
Ever since those early days, we've seen centuries of cultural evolution - encompassing acting techniques involving the main tools that actors work with: namely the body, the voice, and the intellect & emotions.
These are honed on a whetstone of voice placement, projection and control, mastering accents and dialects, singing; muscle strength and control, physical stamina, fencing, ballet/dance, mime, sense memory, movement from various "leading centers"; parsing verse, reading and analysis of plays & screenplays, dramatic criticism as an academic discipline, understanding the difference between interpretation and personalisation; camera and microphone technique; adjusting film performances to camera lens size ... oh I could go on.
The very best actors take most of the above into the development of both their art and their craft. If a director tells or heaven-forfend shows an actor what to do - it only proves a weakness of a director. It's like a conductor teaching the first violinist how to play.
If you engage really good actors, you trust them. You engage with them. You realize they might have something to offer that you never even thought of. Or not. But you respect that possibility.
Can there be good even great performances without a director? Well, yes. I won't go into all the details of the touring company I co-founded with my late husband which drew rave reviews all over Europe and NY, and which was conceived and structured as a collective of creative equals. We performed both plays by authors and those we developed ourselves from our intensive workshopping.
The point is that an actor's creative role is to make an audience believe they are watching a fully-dimensional real human being in the context of a fictional scenario. S/he must become the personification of words on paper, or a character derived from improvisation, as overseen -- possibly -- by a director.
The result is to make the familiar seem unfamiliar, and the unfamiliar seem familiar. By which I mean, for example - what the audience may witness in a shot or series of shots each taken from a decision by a director or editor to print and splice into the whole - let's say of a teetotal actor playing a character who gets drunk within a scene - the unfamiliar for that actor is the believable process of drinking alcohol and its effect on a character. Audiences will only get to see a believable result that is familiar in the context of their own lives.
It's an extremely complex process and an audience only gets to see a moment of a choice - or I should say of an amalgamation of choices. Not always the director's either.
OK - lesson over!
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 11/21/2013 : 12:15:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
Well, all I can say is whatever problem Kubrick had with actors isn't one I ever noticed. Yes, I do recall Magee's OTT character in CLOCKWORK ORANGE, but maybe that's a good thing? I've only seen the movie twice, last time was 10 years or so ago, I'm assuming the scene you mean (my foggy memory) is the one where he's going red in the face with rage/hate (and hyperventilating I guess) when McDowell is in the room and he remembers him as the destroyer from some years ago? If so, I don't have a problem with it. If it was the kind of overacting that Kubrick demanded in order to create a memorable character then I'm fine with it.
Kubrick's movies are full of OTT and 'unrealistic' or extreme performances. Was Peter Sellers OTT in DR STRANGELOVE? Yep. No problem. The drill sergeant and Pyle in FULL METAL JACKET? Yep, fine. Jack in THE SHINING? Fine again. Keir in 2001 (character is arguably OTT coldly-clinical professional)? Also fine.
I'm chuckling over the fact I'm defending your favourite director's use of actors in his movies. Generally when I put a director/writer etc into the 'great' category (where Kubrick squarely sits) then I give them leeway to do whatever the hell they like, i.e., whatever they do is right (and if I identify a 'flaw' then it's me that's wrong and not them). But in this case (Kubrick and his 11 movies from THE KILLING onwards) I have never identified anything he has ever done with any of his actors as a flaw, in other words, I cannot imagine improving any of it, i.e, I would not want him to do or have done anything different with any of his actors.
I can respect, even admire Kubrick without worshiping him.
Magee achieves OTTness in that low-angle hyperventilation shot and never lets it go: in the following spaghetti-dinner scene, in the pool-table shot where he's listening to Alex's agony at hearing the Ninth, for the rest of the movie. You can play angry, even monomaniacally vengeful, without playing crazy. There are other cartoonish performances in CLOCKWORK [Michael Bates, Aubrey Morris], but this one's off the scale, even the one stretched by this particular movie.
I've never been a Marine in basic training, but my friends who have been tell me that the Lee Ermey character wasn't OTT at all: that's pretty much how it goes. So much so that Kubrick uncharacteristically allowed Ermey, a former drill sergeant in real life, to improvise, which is, after all, what he used to do in front of real recruits.
Kubrick is just not an actor's director, like, say, Kazan or Lumet. But he makes these gorgeous paintings that you can't stop watching. Again, I can thrill to any of his movies beginning with PATHS OF GLORY [to me, a major cinematic step forward from THE KILLING] without having to claim perfection. He's the best, but he ain't perfect.
By the way, I can believe that Sofia Coppola story. It's happened before. For example, Donald Sutherland and Elliott Gould unsuccessfully tried to get Robert Altman fired off M*A*S*H because they didn't understand what he was doing: wild sound and all, etc. When they saw the finished picture, they Got It, and have publicly admitted they were wrong. |
Edited by - randall on 11/21/2013 12:31:53 |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/21/2013 : 14:59:23
|
Sorry, chaps, but regarding acting ... you're just both wrong.
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 11/21/2013 : 15:31:32
|
| I know what acting is, Baffy. I've both acted (stage and tv) and directed (stage), and I understand the dynamic between script and performance. |
Edited by - randall on 11/21/2013 15:33:02 |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/21/2013 : 16:13:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by randa14
I know what acting is, Baffy. I've both acted (stage and tv) and directed (stage), and I understand the dynamic between script and performance.
You're still wrong!  
No, seriously, I'm just not convinced you really do get the process based on the comments you've made. To be fair, most directors, and many actors don't either.
If you like, gimme a precis of your prep and process for - oh, any recorded role you're most proud of.
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 11/21/2013 : 18:25:43
|
I don't like. And yes, I appreciate the fact that [most good] actors don't like being "spoon-fed," or asked for mimicry instead of interpretation. Neither do good authors or good violinists. But there is such a thing as direction, just as there's such a thing as editing, such a thing as conducting. That's very nice about your non-directed theater troupe, but I have to take your word regarding the end result; you can also publish an unedited book or play a symphony without a conductor [assuming there's a concertmaster to start you off]. I leave it to you to judge the result.
What exactly have Sean or I said about acting that's "wrong"? Your description of what acting is was very lovely, but are you saying that only an actor can understand? By that logic, you'd better quit commenting on cinematography or makeup design -- or screenwriting, for that matter. I truly do not get what you're trying to say and would appreciate some help. |
Edited by - randall on 11/21/2013 18:27:59 |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/21/2013 : 19:00:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by randa14
I don't like. And yes, I appreciate the fact that [most good] actors don't like being "spoon-fed," or asked for mimicry instead of interpretation. Neither do good authors or good violinists. But there is such a thing as direction, just as there's such a thing as editing, such a thing as conducting. That's very nice about your non-directed theater troupe, but I have to take your word regarding the end result; you can also publish an unedited book or play a symphony without a conductor [assuming there's a concertmaster to start you off]. I leave it to you to judge the result.
What exactly have Sean or I said about acting that's "wrong"? Your description of what acting is was very lovely, but are you saying that only an actor can understand? By that logic, you'd better quit commenting on cinematography or makeup design -- or screenwriting, for that matter. I truly do not get what you're trying to say and would appreciate some help.
I know how you hate being challenged. I promise I'll try to explain more better when I have a bit more time. Not tonight, Josephine.
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/21/2013 : 22:03:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by 14Babe
I'd never question your process as an astro-physicist - or whatever it is you work at - but your comments seem to imply a conviction that actors don't have a creative role in the process of turning a play or film script or story-board to something an audience can relate to. I could be wrong - and that wasn't your implication.
Correct, you're wrong and that wasn't my implication. I'll just paste my comment from my previous post which you may want to re-read:-
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
I don't doubt that there are numerous occasions when an actor adds something of their own to a role to make a scene/movie even better than what the director imagined.
Hopefully that's cleared that one up. There are countless examples of movies where actors are given virtual free-reign to 'create' their own character and perhaps ad-lib heavily, to the great benefit of the final product.
quote:
Originally posted by 14Babe
I believe the Hitchcock story is semi-apocryphal - and may even have come from one of the two Hitch flicks from last year.
Not apocryphal, and I saw it about a decade ago (I believe it was on DVD extras). The actress herself demonstrated Hitch's manipulation of her face from a smug grin position (which she was then required to 'drop' when her co-star spoke a line). If I have the time/inclination I'll hunt for it. Watching that was one of those "Holy shit, this guy is a total control freak, and that's why his movies are so good" moments.
quote:
I don't share your admiration of Sofia Coppola whose films seem quite jejune conceits to me and whose vision seems grounded neither in an arresting intellect nor an expert enough understanding of cinema technique.
LOST IN TRANSLATION is in my Top 10 Movies Of All Time list. It's one of the very few I can re-watch and re-watch. I understand that there are those who 'don't get it', they're tuned in on the wrong frequency (which could be because they don't know how to tune in, or simply are not interested in tuning in). The argument between those who love it and those who don't is always much the same: "It's shallow, boring, vacuous, simple, pointless" (choose an adjective or two... or three) vs. "Sorry, but you missed it, it was profound and unique and a subtle directorial triumph that few would dare aim at, it hit that target that few even knew existed prior to this movie, and the actors on set were not even aware of where the target was until they watched it on completion." By the way, Bill Murray rates this his favourite movie in which he has appeared.quote:
The very best actors take most of the above into the development of both their art and their craft. If a director tells or heaven-forfend shows an actor what to do - it only proves a weakness of a director.
Either that or the strength of the director. Perhaps the director has a vision and won't let the fact that the actor fails to understand the vision from stopping him achieving the desired result.quote:
It's like a conductor teaching the first violinist how to play.
I've played in orchestras, and believe me, the conductor sometimes does need to tell the first violinist how to play. If the conductor understands the piece being played better than the first violinist then (s)he will require direction. Of course it won't be "straighten your fingers" or the like, it'll be "hold that high note" or "softly softly". It's the conductor's job to understand the piece as a whole and give the audience what (s)he thinks is best. I know that our best performances came when the conductor was a fussy bastard (some would say control freak).
quote:
If you engage really good actors, you trust them. You engage with them. You realize they might have something to offer that you never even thought of. Or not. But you respect that possibility.
I completely agree.quote:
The point is that an actor's creative role is to make an audience believe they are watching a fully-dimensional real human being in the context of a fictional scenario. S/he must become the personification of words on paper, or a character derived from improvisation, as overseen -- possibly -- by a director.
I agree that usually this is the case. But sometimes it isn't. How about a future dystopia where the humanity has been bred/poisoned out of people and the 'humans' have become automatons? In this case it would be the director's job to remove signs of humanity from the actors that perhaps they can't help showing. To a much lesser extent, this is what I believe Kubrick probably wanted from his actors in 2001. Too many cooks can sometimes spoil the broth.quote:
It's an extremely complex process and an audience only gets to see a moment of a choice - or I should say of an amalgamation of choices. Not always the director's either.
Yep.
All I care about is the end result, and I don't care how they get it. Kubrick gave me what I wanted from his movies, and any problem I may have had with his movies wasn't the acting performances. Sometimes the star of a movie is the movie itself. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/21/2013 : 22:18:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by randa14
Magee achieves OTTness in that low-angle hyperventilation shot and never lets it go: in the following spaghetti-dinner scene, in the pool-table shot where he's listening to Alex's agony at hearing the Ninth, for the rest of the movie. You can play angry, even monomaniacally vengeful, without playing crazy. There are other cartoonish performances in CLOCKWORK [Michael Bates, Aubrey Morris], but this one's off the scale, even the one stretched by this particular movie.
One of the good things about these kinds of discussions is they force me to think about a movie in a different way. I'm in no hurry to re-watch A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, but if I do I'll have a more critical look at the acting, in particular Magee. But you know what? I'm guessing I'll think it was just perfect. I'll be watching 2001 before then, it's been a while.quote:
By the way, I can believe that Sofia Coppola story. It's happened before. For example, Donald Sutherland and Elliott Gould unsuccessfully tried to get Robert Altman fired off M*A*S*H because they didn't understand what he was doing: wild sound and all, etc. When they saw the finished picture, they Got It, and have publicly admitted they were wrong.
That's good to hear that the Best Man won in this case, as was the case for LIT (OK, Best Woman!) I can imagine that sometimes actors need to trust the person on the outside of the set looking in. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 11/21/2013 : 23:13:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Originally posted by randa14
One of the good things about these kinds of discussions is they force me to think about a movie in a different way. I'm in no hurry to re-watch A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, but if I do I'll have a more critical look at the acting, in particular Magee. But you know what? I'm guessing I'll think it was just perfect. I'll be watching 2001 before then, it's been a while.
I watched the first :40 just last night, to hear that divine "spacey" welcome-in music again and to let the goddam space phallus penetrate the space vagina. Then, when William Sylvester hit the screen, I realized it was very late and I shut it off. |
Edited by - randall on 11/21/2013 23:15:09 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/22/2013 : 01:08:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by randa14
I watched the first :40 just last night, to hear that divine "spacey" welcome-in music again and to let the goddam space phallus penetrate the space vagina. Then, when William Sylvester hit the screen, I realized it was very late and I shut it off.
I have the DVD (but not the BD), I guess I'll have to have a look for that one at some stage, curious about that spacey music. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Stanley Kubrick
