This is helpful. Haven't directed anything (yet) but my inital plan is to just make them be as comfortable as possible and create am environment where actors and actresses can do what they do best.
If David Fincher is known for doing soooo many takes, then surely his films are scheduled to accommodate that, with producers and studios happy to oblige. But, it must take all day just to do one scene with his methods?
@@Alan_Wigz Digital technology is key here. And multi-cams, which allow him to maximise his days. His shoots are certainly longer than many - I think 70 or so days last time I heard. Or could be more like a 100.
Luca guadagnino is a truly fantastic and passionate director. He's one of the most collaborative directors out there, his work with his actors, especially in call me by your name, is as much a piece of work by the actors as it is by the director. His ever growing collaborations with Tilda Swinton is proof in itself of how open and giving luca is.
I'm always fascinated by this aspect of filmmaking -- the interaction between the director and the actors -- so much that I wish I could sit in the corner of a movie set and watch it happening.
I like how this video didn’t show you a “right way” to direct because that’s certainly not the way but it encouraged you to find your own voice. Great video !
I don't care what their method is. Bullying a woman relentlessly is unacceptable in any scenario. I don't care if it's for creative purposes, she's a fucking human being, and that SHOULD trump everything else.
@@VultureClone overreacting white knight... fyi you know nothing about actors or paying attention to a video for that matter. It's not for "creative purposes" it's their meaning for life aka reason to live despite all the suffering and difficulties. So I am pretty sure she didn't mind a few rough sentences = a little suffering when she gets an antidote for it in the form of a meaningful life. Oh and then there's the giant cheques and bonuses and awards... I suggest you stop this charade, mr knight.
i think its amazing that we have so many great directors with different styles throughout the history of film, cos no way is the right way. in addition i can think of directors like ingmar bergmann, tarkovsky, kurosawa, ozu, miyazaki and many others who are all different but create impactful art in their own way. great essay
I love Kubrick so much but the way he treated Shelley Duvall in the Shining is absolutely shitty. The result wasn’t even that amazing and he gave her a horrible time for it. The best thing you can go for is using positive reinforcement to make your actors feel great, like Lynch. Great vid!
I agree what Kubrick did was fucked up. But the end result was that amazing. One of the best performances in one fo the best films of all time. I’m not saying that justifies what Kubrick did to her, but it was an amazing result.
I was listening to an interview with Julianne Moore the other day and she said the best directors don't speak much to the actors during shooting unless it was really important, she was specifically talking about PTA.
Hearing this fills my soul. She’s one of my favorite actresses and he’s my favorite director. I’m a new director and I want to make great things and this is a good thing to hear from
I'm starting to agree with that: there's an extent to which an outside influence on how an actor is portraying a character will just fragment the cohesiveness of their arc... like as they try to fit what the director is saying they might lose sight of the actual character
This is such a well made and well structured video, honestly, every one of your videos is so well thought out and special, there are so many analysis channels out there that don't really go anywhere with their analysis, but yours is really special. Well done.
Does anyone know where I can find the full video of Fincher working with the actors on the set of The Social Network? I've found it valuable when I see directors in action just working with the actors. Would pay a 1,000 bucks just to see one full day of Fincher, Tarantino, Nolan, Anderson etc working on set.
I think we don't give enough flack to Kubrick (or Hitchcock, for the matter) for how they treated their performers. I think pushing toward potential -- even if the actor doesn't want to -- is one thing. That's not what Duvall went through. That was psychological abuse at the expense of an artist's obsession with perfection, and that's not what making movies needs to be about. The only person an artist has the right to harm is themselves, beyond that is deplorable.
I have no clue where you get off saying you know "what making movies needs to be about," but I'm sure it has a lot to do with how nice it feels to morally police others.
You don't hear any other actors with Kubrick that complained about his treatment. Duvall was just a weak actor that must've been frustrating to work alongside
Definitely agree here! I’ve worked with quite a few actors and my approach varies but certain things are consistent. It’s very reliant on what film I’m making.
Now my questions is, what do they do with all the hundreds of takes that didn't make it? Do they get saved them in a ton of SD cards? Do they record over them? Do they erase them after they decide to redo a take or scene? I would like to imagine that there is a room somewhere stuffed with discs, drives, and memory cards full of all the scenes that they had to make and record. I would love to watch them.
One of the better video essays I've seen in a while. I resonate with this deeply. I'm often mocked or thrown side glances for not having a clear "system" for a given project, but in the end the work speaks for itself. I view film a lot like a jigsaw puzzle. Often we don't know where the big blue blob of pieces fit yet, we just know they work well together and eventually will be a part of the whole picture.
I understand an actor's job to bring a character to life through their performance. But they can only do so within the confines of the direction and the script.
He's not quite that bad, he didn't drive anyone to suicide. But similar attitudes I agree. It's no wonder that Fletcher got comparisons to Hartman from Full Metal Jacket. In fact Hartman could be considered a Kubrick stand-in.
I never knew exactly why Kubricks films gave me such a weird feeling when I was watching them, but now I perceive that there's something about the distress that the actual actors are going through that makes its way out of the screen and touches me directly. This is why I generally avoid Kubrick now, haha, even though he is an amazing filmmaker.
His actors and his films often feel very cold and emotionless. Thats because he was so strict on sticking to the script and doing so many takes without giving much direction. It almost creates a soullessness, calculated performance. That's obviously what he wanted or he wouldn't have done it that way. It works great in films like A Clockwork Orange and The Shining and even Eyes Wide Shut where everything is supposed to feel just a little bit off and surreal or haunting. The reason Full Metal Jacket feels like 2 different movies is because Lee Ermey actually had free range to ad lib, which basically no one else ever had, except maybe Peter Sellers. I trust Robert Duvall on acting more than about anyone and he always said Kubrick was not good with actors because of how bad and cold the perfomances always came out. He was right, but that directing method is also why his films feel so timeless and stick out even among the greats. I'm positive that's how he wanted his films to feel. But he also shouldn't have tortured actors the way he did. He basically accelerated the breakup of Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman's marriage because of this. And I think he enjoyed it.
Shit, that’s a good observation. As I make more films myself, I’m more attuned to this. I can sense when there’s something wrong with the mood on set in the final product and it gives me a weird feeling.
Oh god thank you so much for this video. I'm a young director with a few shorts under my belt and I always stress over whether I'm directing 'right' or not. I care very deeply about my character's inner lives and I've fluctuated between (almost, not quite) micro-directing little gestures and expressions, and leaving it almost all up to the actor and have it be a process of discovery. And I can tell that my indecisiveness over my approach sometimes has a negative effect: fragmenting scenes so that one actor's emotional reaction doesn't quite match another's. I'm still figuring it out. I think I just need to trust myself more. Ah, sorry for ranting, but it's really nice to watch a video that shows how any and all approaches to directing can create great movies. I'm hoping that this realisation can help me let go of my perfectionism and need to control.
Kubrick is no doubt one of my all time favorite directors, but if you ask me what were his weak points was that he never got along with actors and thus they refuse to work with him. I mean, many of my favorite directors worked with same actors in a lot of movies like Hitchcock/Stewart or Grant, Scorsese/De Niro or DiCaprio, and Kurosawa/Mifune. But Kubrick stands out because he never really had that actor to work with more than twice. I know he worked with Kirk Douglas and Peter Sellers twice, but that's it. I highly doubt it's coincidence. Sorry, I know saying something bad about Kubrick is a crime and I should be shame. But only mentioning facts with theories. He's still one of my favorites and 2001 is in my top 10 of all time.
Greaaaaaat video essay. Really...... you know? Raising my spirits. Pushing to make something. All the examining of the conceptions of actors according to different film makers, that was so good and speaks volumes about the subjectivities of film making. Thanks
Like every other aspect of filmmaking, I think the best way to handle it is just to figure it out for yourself, and see which style of directing works best for you, based on the kind of film you're making. As someone who's currently in film school, one of the things I hate most, is being told constantly what's the "right" way to work with actors versus the "wrong" way. We're always told to never directly tell your actors what to do, but to merely suggest feelings and ideas for them to work off of. The obvious drawback to this though, is that you will never get a particularly precise performance out of your cast. Granted, telling them how to do things exactly always isn't inherently good either, as no one will ever be able to replicate the exact expression, tone, body language, or inflection you had in your head. Both approaches have their pros and cons, but to favor either as the correct default for professionals is just narrow-minded and silly.
I really appreciated this. I have always wonder if directors micro-managed the actors. Maybe some do but the real skill is casting the right people and being able to use them to their greatest potential.
I think I like Hitchcock's method the most. It's more immersive. I feel like the main actor in his films, so it makes sense why he would want to give me as much information as possible. Him and Martin Scorsese are my favorites.
I think a strong story and subject material will help an actor more than messing with their mind in order to get a Great performance. If you have to be a jerk to get your actor to perform than you prolly need to talk to your casting director.
12 Angry Men and Dog Day Afternoon prove this fact The entire cast of these movies is fantastic He extracted the best performance of Al Pacino's career, imo
I love how the background music seems to get dark and terrifying when he begins talking about Kubrick lmao. That guy must have been difficult as hell to work with.
I like to see in as a mix of Clint Eastwood, David Fincher and Mike Leigh, I've always liked the characters to know their bits, and not exactly everything for the others onscreen so that they can develop a real reaction in the moment
I think Eastwood and Fincher are pretty close in their vision of the actors. They are looking for an actor who "is" already very close to the character. That way the actor has less distance to travel to be the character. - When to play Richard Jewell Eastwood chose Paul Walter Hauser as actor it is because he is already fat. The actor does not have to transform and gain weight. He "is" fat naturally so he doesn't have to think "I'm fat". When to play Sully he chooses Tom Hanks it is a "natural" choice. Tom Hank represents what the character of Sully is. -Fincher is also in there. When he takes Norton to play a character with a split personality are roles that Norton has already played. Brad Pitt easily represents the "masculine ideal". etc.
Great video! Thanks for sharing. I try to tell my students that there are many ways to approach acting. It's what works for them that matters. Shelly's comments make that image the most clear "we had the same end point, but just used difference means".
There is actually one wrong way to direct. 6:30 if abusing people into an emotional performance is the only way you know how to get what you want out of them, you need to either cast better and/or learn how to direct actors better in an ethical way. There's no excuse for being an asshole on purpose. it is not necessary.
m night shyamalan is more "plot twist" and Christopher Nolan is more "mind bend" in my opinion. i.e. Inception, Tenet, Interstellar (also all have fascinations with time)
Bogdonavich is such a tool. He got lucky once, made an okay movie, took more credit than he deserved and followed it up with a handful of shit movies. Suddenly Mr. Magoo is the expert on how to make a film. I really don't see why he shows up in so many docs about film, other than he's not working and he always agrees to be interviewed.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Be interested to hear if people have thoughts on any of the methods.
This is helpful. Haven't directed anything (yet) but my inital plan is to just make them be as comfortable as possible and create am environment where actors and actresses can do what they do best.
If David Fincher is known for doing soooo many takes, then surely his films are scheduled to accommodate that, with producers and studios happy to oblige. But, it must take all day just to do one scene with his methods?
@@gabrielidusogie9189 Sounds like a good place to start.
@@Alan_Wigz Digital technology is key here. And multi-cams, which allow him to maximise his days. His shoots are certainly longer than many - I think 70 or so days last time I heard. Or could be more like a 100.
Luca guadagnino is a truly fantastic and passionate director. He's one of the most collaborative directors out there, his work with his actors, especially in call me by your name, is as much a piece of work by the actors as it is by the director. His ever growing collaborations with Tilda Swinton is proof in itself of how open and giving luca is.
I'm always fascinated by this aspect of filmmaking -- the interaction between the director and the actors -- so much that I wish I could sit in the corner of a movie set and watch it happening.
Same.
I like how this video didn’t show you a “right way” to direct because that’s certainly not the way but it encouraged you to find your own voice. Great video !
Everyone has their method. Everyone has their story. And that makes everyone right.
Except Bernardo Bertolucci
I don't care what their method is. Bullying a woman relentlessly is unacceptable in any scenario. I don't care if it's for creative purposes, she's a fucking human being, and that SHOULD trump everything else.
VultureClone Henceforth you don’t care.
@@VultureClone who?
@@VultureClone overreacting white knight... fyi you know nothing about actors or paying attention to a video for that matter. It's not for "creative purposes" it's their meaning for life aka reason to live despite all the suffering and difficulties. So I am pretty sure she didn't mind a few rough sentences = a little suffering when she gets an antidote for it in the form of a meaningful life. Oh and then there's the giant cheques and bonuses and awards... I suggest you stop this charade, mr knight.
i think its amazing that we have so many great directors with different styles throughout the history of film, cos no way is the right way. in addition i can think of directors like ingmar bergmann, tarkovsky, kurosawa, ozu, miyazaki and many others who are all different but create impactful art in their own way. great essay
You forgot ,Satyajit Ray
I love Kubrick so much but the way he treated Shelley Duvall in the Shining is absolutely shitty. The result wasn’t even that amazing and he gave her a horrible time for it. The best thing you can go for is using positive reinforcement to make your actors feel great, like Lynch. Great vid!
I agree what Kubrick did was fucked up. But the end result was that amazing. One of the best performances in one fo the best films of all time. I’m not saying that justifies what Kubrick did to her, but it was an amazing result.
I'm sure she got over it
@@aptonymic3014 Doesn't make any less fucked up
@@aptonymic3014 She didn't.
@@aptonymic3014 did she? Lol
Hitchcock's cattle quote was just 😂😂😂
I thought he was going to say something like "I would never insult cattle like that"
I was listening to an interview with Julianne Moore the other day and she said the best directors don't speak much to the actors during shooting unless it was really important, she was specifically talking about PTA.
Hearing this fills my soul. She’s one of my favorite actresses and he’s my favorite director. I’m a new director and I want to make great things and this is a good thing to hear from
@@people235 did you shot any films or short film?
I'm starting to agree with that: there's an extent to which an outside influence on how an actor is portraying a character will just fragment the cohesiveness of their arc... like as they try to fit what the director is saying they might lose sight of the actual character
This is such a well made and well structured video, honestly, every one of your videos is so well thought out and special, there are so many analysis channels out there that don't really go anywhere with their analysis, but yours is really special. Well done.
Does anyone know where I can find the full video of Fincher working with the actors on the set of The Social Network? I've found it valuable when I see directors in action just working with the actors. Would pay a 1,000 bucks just to see one full day of Fincher, Tarantino, Nolan, Anderson etc working on set.
Ron Howard teaches a class like that on Masterclass, which is $200 or something for a year.
@@jordanhenshaw Appreciate the reply but I think I’ll pass.
2:46 i thought he was gonna say "i would never say such a rude thing to cattle"
I think we don't give enough flack to Kubrick (or Hitchcock, for the matter) for how they treated their performers. I think pushing toward potential -- even if the actor doesn't want to -- is one thing. That's not what Duvall went through. That was psychological abuse at the expense of an artist's obsession with perfection, and that's not what making movies needs to be about. The only person an artist has the right to harm is themselves, beyond that is deplorable.
Marlon Brando raped a 19 year old woman on set for getting some "real" acting on film. Now is that ok?
I have no clue where you get off saying you know "what making movies needs to be about," but I'm sure it has a lot to do with how nice it feels to morally police others.
He didnt care, she didnt care, we shouldnt care.
You don't hear any other actors with Kubrick that complained about his treatment. Duvall was just a weak actor that must've been frustrating to work alongside
You should see Kubrick fantards justify him to death
Definitely agree here! I’ve worked with quite a few actors and my approach varies but certain things are consistent. It’s very reliant on what film I’m making.
Now my questions is, what do they do with all the hundreds of takes that didn't make it? Do they get saved them in a ton of SD cards? Do they record over them? Do they erase them after they decide to redo a take or scene?
I would like to imagine that there is a room somewhere stuffed with discs, drives, and memory cards full of all the scenes that they had to make and record. I would love to watch them.
One of the better video essays I've seen in a while. I resonate with this deeply. I'm often mocked or thrown side glances for not having a clear "system" for a given project, but in the end the work speaks for itself. I view film a lot like a jigsaw puzzle. Often we don't know where the big blue blob of pieces fit yet, we just know they work well together and eventually will be a part of the whole picture.
This was an eye opener! Definitely needed! Thanks
I think Bresson's way of working with non-proffessional actors was the purest and, at the end, most profound.
i couldve played for him, i am dead outside
I understand an actor's job to bring a character to life through their performance. But they can only do so within the confines of the direction and the script.
Kubrick is the Terrence Fletcher of directors. Pushing performers past the limits of expectation. Amazing video. You just earned a subscriber👍
He's not quite that bad, he didn't drive anyone to suicide. But similar attitudes I agree. It's no wonder that Fletcher got comparisons to Hartman from Full Metal Jacket. In fact Hartman could be considered a Kubrick stand-in.
Kubrick = Fletcher
Duvall = Nieman
@@TomEyeTheSFMguy hahaha true
Great Study of working with actors - such a remarkable piece of work - thank you sir!
I never knew exactly why Kubricks films gave me such a weird feeling when I was watching them, but now I perceive that there's something about the distress that the actual actors are going through that makes its way out of the screen and touches me directly. This is why I generally avoid Kubrick now, haha, even though he is an amazing filmmaker.
His actors and his films often feel very cold and emotionless. Thats because he was so strict on sticking to the script and doing so many takes without giving much direction. It almost creates a soullessness, calculated performance. That's obviously what he wanted or he wouldn't have done it that way. It works great in films like A Clockwork Orange and The Shining and even Eyes Wide Shut where everything is supposed to feel just a little bit off and surreal or haunting. The reason Full Metal Jacket feels like 2 different movies is because Lee Ermey actually had free range to ad lib, which basically no one else ever had, except maybe Peter Sellers. I trust Robert Duvall on acting more than about anyone and he always said Kubrick was not good with actors because of how bad and cold the perfomances always came out. He was right, but that directing method is also why his films feel so timeless and stick out even among the greats. I'm positive that's how he wanted his films to feel. But he also shouldn't have tortured actors the way he did. He basically accelerated the breakup of Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman's marriage because of this. And I think he enjoyed it.
Shit, that’s a good observation. As I make more films myself, I’m more attuned to this. I can sense when there’s something wrong with the mood on set in the final product and it gives me a weird feeling.
omg same
Im currently studying to become a film director someday, Ive always struggled when it comes to this area, this video helped immensely thanks
Another great video!!
That was a fast twelve minutes. Awesome video!
Oh god thank you so much for this video. I'm a young director with a few shorts under my belt and I always stress over whether I'm directing 'right' or not. I care very deeply about my character's inner lives and I've fluctuated between (almost, not quite) micro-directing little gestures and expressions, and leaving it almost all up to the actor and have it be a process of discovery. And I can tell that my indecisiveness over my approach sometimes has a negative effect: fragmenting scenes so that one actor's emotional reaction doesn't quite match another's. I'm still figuring it out. I think I just need to trust myself more. Ah, sorry for ranting, but it's really nice to watch a video that shows how any and all approaches to directing can create great movies. I'm hoping that this realisation can help me let go of my perfectionism and need to control.
dope vid... its crazy bc your intro mentioned something i just recently put in my book!! ... i had to rewind that back a few xs lol...
As a fledgeling Writer/Director this was so informative and insightful to me. Thank you so very much for this,.
Kubrick is no doubt one of my all time favorite directors, but if you ask me what were his weak points was that he never got along with actors and thus they refuse to work with him. I mean, many of my favorite directors worked with same actors in a lot of movies like Hitchcock/Stewart or Grant, Scorsese/De Niro or DiCaprio, and Kurosawa/Mifune. But Kubrick stands out because he never really had that actor to work with more than twice. I know he worked with Kirk Douglas and Peter Sellers twice, but that's it. I highly doubt it's coincidence.
Sorry, I know saying something bad about Kubrick is a crime and I should be shame. But only mentioning facts with theories. He's still one of my favorites and 2001 is in my top 10 of all time.
This might be my favorite video on UA-cam. My friend, well done. Film lover to film lover, cheers.
Greaaaaaat video essay. Really...... you know? Raising my spirits. Pushing to make something. All the examining of the conceptions of actors according to different film makers, that was so good and speaks volumes about the subjectivities of film making. Thanks
Like every other aspect of filmmaking, I think the best way to handle it is just to figure it out for yourself, and see which style of directing works best for you, based on the kind of film you're making. As someone who's currently in film school, one of the things I hate most, is being told constantly what's the "right" way to work with actors versus the "wrong" way. We're always told to never directly tell your actors what to do, but to merely suggest feelings and ideas for them to work off of. The obvious drawback to this though, is that you will never get a particularly precise performance out of your cast. Granted, telling them how to do things exactly always isn't inherently good either, as no one will ever be able to replicate the exact expression, tone, body language, or inflection you had in your head. Both approaches have their pros and cons, but to favor either as the correct default for professionals is just narrow-minded and silly.
this channel deserves the youtube film essay recognition
I really appreciated this. I have always wonder if directors micro-managed the actors. Maybe some do but the real skill is casting the right people and being able to use them to their greatest potential.
very insightful..thank you!
“You don’t even know how’s it’s going to end for you, why do you have to know how it’ll end for them?” damn that’s deep lol
This is the first video I’ve seen in your channel. For all I know the other videos could be trash but I like this video so much I’m subscribing anyway
What a fascinating video essay! Thank you!
I think I like Hitchcock's method the most. It's more immersive. I feel like the main actor in his films, so it makes sense why he would want to give me as much information as possible. Him and Martin Scorsese are my favorites.
This was a beautiful essay. Thank you.
love your work so far, 3 videos in
Very meaningfull and instructive analysis. Thanks for it! 👏🏻👏🏻
You know a method actor if scenes are filmed wide, edits are few, and blocking is simple. It's a trade off of using the camera to help tell the story.
Stanley Kubrick and Jack Nicholson have the same eyebrow shape.
no wonder they worked well together😄
Yeah, most of the actors in Kubrick's films have the same kind of eyebrows.
@@shamayitabhattacharya3392 It's called the stare.
Editing is brilliant here! Thank you!
Thoroughly enjoyed this mate
Thank you for bringing up Robert Bresson ♥
It would be really interesting if you leave some of the books, articles, videos you investigated before making your video. Nice job, by the way
"just have fun with the script" = just write the film for us
67k subscribers... criminally under-appreciated.
Spread the word, mate. Spread it far and wide.
Loved this video! Need to see some more female and POC directors in the industry
Yes!! I didn't realize how little the female demographic takes up in film directing until my sister asked me to name my favourite female director
Bravo. Enjoyable few minutes well spent. (Please excuse me for pointing out the typo on Imelda). Great work.
Thank you for this video. Very much needed! :)
Incredible essay! A very broad topic covered beautifully.
Super helfpul! Thank you for posting! Subscribed.
with content like this.. this channel is going to blow the F up. it's only a matter of time.
I think a strong story and subject material will help an actor more than messing with their mind in order to get a Great performance. If you have to be a jerk to get your actor to perform than you prolly need to talk to your casting director.
After 12 min i still don't know "How Directors Work With Actors"
You have a new subscriber. Great content! :)
Excellent Video
Thank you for sharing this.
Beautiful! Congrats!
That was a very interesting video!
Wackeen Phoenix is almost as good an actor as Joaquin Phoenix.
Nah dude Joaquin Phoenix ain’t got nothing on Wackeen Phoenix Wackeen is the better actor
Great video. Great message
Lumet is a director that isn't discussed enough I think. A great actor's director.
12 Angry Men and Dog Day Afternoon prove this fact
The entire cast of these movies is fantastic
He extracted the best performance of Al Pacino's career, imo
I love how the background music seems to get dark and terrifying when he begins talking about Kubrick lmao. That guy must have been difficult as hell to work with.
Great work!
Love the video! You just earned a new subscriber. This is pure snacks for us film nerds! :) Will absolutely check out more of your videos.
I like to see in as a mix of Clint Eastwood, David Fincher and Mike Leigh, I've always liked the characters to know their bits, and not exactly everything for the others onscreen so that they can develop a real reaction in the moment
I think Eastwood and Fincher are pretty close in their vision of the actors. They are looking for an actor who "is" already very close to the character. That way the actor has less distance to travel to be the character.
- When to play Richard Jewell Eastwood chose Paul Walter Hauser as actor it is because he is already fat. The actor does not have to transform and gain weight. He "is" fat naturally so he doesn't have to think "I'm fat". When to play Sully he chooses Tom Hanks it is a "natural" choice. Tom Hank represents what the character of Sully is.
-Fincher is also in there. When he takes Norton to play a character with a split personality are roles that Norton has already played. Brad Pitt easily represents the "masculine ideal". etc.
"Before Fincher, the obsessive, multi-take king was, of course, Stanley Kubrick" *intense music plays* Haha, love that.
Great video! Thanks for sharing. I try to tell my students that there are many ways to approach acting. It's what works for them that matters. Shelly's comments make that image the most clear "we had the same end point, but just used difference means".
This is good. Thank you.
thank you for this vid!
There is actually one wrong way to direct.
6:30 if abusing people into an emotional performance is the only way you know how to get what you want out of them, you need to either cast better and/or learn how to direct actors better in an ethical way.
There's no excuse for being an asshole on purpose. it is not necessary.
Thank You
Amazing video !
Excellent videos as always.
Can you start putting movie titles on each scene you show? Thanks! Great video btw
what a terrific video
Greatly knowledgeable video.
7:50
Hey! I found another great Channel dedicated to Cinema but why so underrated !?
I've always wonder how my method would be if I directed... I think I'd go for the benevolent dictator... Thanx!!!
m night shyamalan is more "plot twist" and Christopher Nolan is more "mind bend" in my opinion. i.e. Inception, Tenet, Interstellar (also all have fascinations with time)
What's the name of the Bresson film at 3:43?
The Devil Probably
@@TheDiscardedImage thanks
What is the movie at 3:44?
I give thumbs up, because better acting is good, because it translates to being more real in life.
Fantastic video.
That Adam Sandler scene is really touching.....
Great vid
Love your videos
Beautiful. Subscribed. : )
this is a good one
How about Alejandro Jodorowsky? The process with his actors for The Sacred Mountain is worth mentioning.
Bogdonavich is such a tool. He got lucky once, made an okay movie, took more credit than he deserved and followed it up with a handful of shit movies. Suddenly Mr. Magoo is the expert on how to make a film. I really don't see why he shows up in so many docs about film, other than he's not working and he always agrees to be interviewed.
Superb video.
"Take one? Why'd we want more than one take? Shoot..." -John Ford
A director is a coach and the actors are the players
3:17 I saw that 👏🏻👏🏻
*There's 3 types of directors, directors of actors, directors of scenes and bad directors*
As a director myself, I feel the most aligned with Joon Ho, Spielberg, Hitchcock ... where composition reigns king above all else.