It is strange watching how he knows he has audience like putty, the moments, the timing, like a stand-up routine. The bad part is that comedy lectures like this aren’t very insightful they’re just “entertainment” for attendees to pretend they learned from a celebrity.
@@AquaticMammalOnBicycle I think he provided much more than just entertainment here. And in other clips of him speaking I saw. But sure, it was not some MasterClass level of education.
Crazy ass funny... Reminds me Dustin Hoffman, during the filming of Straw Dogs, asking "What's my incentive?" To which Peckinpah responded "The paycheck you're getting."
The difference: Peckinpah seemed to relish in being a disagreeable smartass, whereas Friedkin was more utilitarian. It seems they both got frustrated by the same sort of actor, though. The story really reminds me of another Hoffman story, where he stayed up all night in preparation for the torture scene in _Marathon Man,_ and when Lawrence Olivier asked him why he was so burnt out, and Hoffman told him, he gave him the now infamous quip, "Why don't you just try acting?" When you boil it down, though, it really amounts to different strategies of psyching a person into giving you what you want to see. Different people require different things to get there.
This is one of my favourite Friedkin stories. He was such a great raconteur. Could listen to him talk shop for hours. He will be missed as a talent and as a person.
Greatest director in terms of personality and raw honesty. He enjoyed reminding people actors are literally his puppets, whilst still respecting the grafters like Tommy Lee Jones. Friedkin could’ve been a standup, superb storyteller. RIP Billy
Kevin James has one of my favorite Nick Nolte stories. When Nolte was approached to play the gorilla in The Zookeeper, he came back with sounds and studies from all sorts of gorillas from silverbacks to mountain gorillas and asked Kevin which one he should do. To which Kevin replied “can you do a gorilla that talks?”
@@andrewhudson7108 That's hilarious, whenever I think of Nolte I think of Tropic Thunder. In the special features there is an interview where he says, "my job is basically just to show up and tell everyone that they're a pansy, which they all are.".
John Carpenter told a similar story on a DVD commentary but I forget which actor was the one filling in needless background. I think it was Donald Pleasance lol
That approach worked perfectly for Nolte's character in Thin Red Line. His voiceovers were Nolt'es own condensed highlights of Malick's long poetic passages. They probably got along famously on set.
@@BULL.173no, I’d be willing to be that earth life is the best story ever told. To the folks up in the bleachers, we are probably incurably interesting.
This is so refreshing to hear. I was an actor for 30 years and the onus was always on me to have all this backstory crap worked out just in case the director asked me something. I felt like I was being tested constantly it was awful. I'd much rather have worked with a director of this mentality. Just tell me what you want me to do and how you want me to play the scene. You've already cast me, you know what I can do so just tell me what you want and let me just get on with it. Most directors I worked with, admittedly in mainly theatre, would sit around in a circle with the other actors and talk and talk crap FOR HOURS, writing stuff up on the walls around the rehearsal room, and I always thought can we just get on with it because the audience don't care about any of this but they will care if I've not learnt my lines in time, just get on with it!!
@TimelordUK - When younger I would have annoyed you, because of my curiosity and asking too many questions. Now? I understand. Your candor, bluntness, calling out of BS, and humor on the topic make sense! LoL. "Get on with it!" Amen to that. There's something valuable in getting the scene done, the actor / director / staff using their skills efficiently, and moving on. Clint Eastwood comes to mind in how he shoots films. So, do NOT overthink it. ( Which I can be guilty of. ) Maybe it's not as hard as some make it out to be. Cheers from Across the Pond!
@@machtnichtsseimann I enjoyed reading your comment. Let's 'workshop' this, then try some hot seating, then when there's one day left, we'll get it on its feet and woe betide anyone who is not 100% off the book!
There's a balance. You need to know your character well enough to play the scenes. Going over the text ("tablework") before beginning blocking is useful for many plays. But you don't need to work out what the character had for breakfast (unless it has something to do with the scene). A lot of it also has to do with the script and what type of piece it is. A deep, complex drama requires more understanding of character than a light bedroom farce does. Some directors, especially in film, don't really understand acting and don't direct actors well. They're focused mostly on the technical side of things - lighting, composition, editing, etc. So the acting in their movies varies in quality, because the actors have to do everything on their own - some actors can get by without a director who understands character, but some can't. A great director (like Martin Scorsese, for example) can work on the technical end of things as well as the more creative and character-based side. You need both for many movies, although you can sometimes get by without the character stuff when making a thriller, farce, action movie, or horror story. Although good character stuff can improve work done in those genres too - for example, Alien would be a solid sci-fi horror film without the amazing cast, but that cast and the groundedness they bring to their performances makes it an even better film.
@@michaelavolio sure, but Ridley Scott wouldn't indulge that method nonsense for 5 minutes, lol. The cast were professional and did what they needed to do to prepare on their own.
You should see the interview where he tears a hole in Al Pacino it ought to be framed in American broadcasting. It’s priceless. YES ! He’ll be sorely missed. He was ONE of kind.
This is so brilliant. What a great director. He did what needed to be done to get the best of the his actors. He didn’t have to understand it, but he figured it out. Love this
His comic delivery was perfect. Had he been younger, I could see him following a Kevin Smith style path and doing a number of podcasts. Every interview he did was endlessly entertaining.
@@markbo1957jeezus, I also had to do a double take also. comparing Kevin Smith to one of the finest and most provocative directors of our time to the guy that brought us Mallrats! 😂
I love these interviews with Mr. Friedkin. His anecdotes/stories and his knowledge about films and filmmaking are what I loved the most about William Friedkin.
I was a server and had to recommend wines for people now and then. I would consider their meal, of course. I would also often ask them something like "do you prefer white, milk, or dark chocolate?", or "If I brought you vanilla ice cream in a cup right now, would you prefer it with chocolate, caramel, fresh fruit, or toasted almonds?" The answers would in fact influence my suggestion, but mostly it just made the person think it was especially suited to their preferences.
@@hhiippiittyy "reasonably priced" is a wholly relative term. Thus, your "reasonable price" is my "exorbitant price". Remember though: thumbs up for your direction!
@@RonJohn63 Nah dude it was fair. You woulda agreed unless all restaurants were exorbitant to you. Decent wine in clean glasses in a nice atmosphere for the price of boxed wine from a low priced chain. We had more expensive stuff too, but I always recommended at least two less expensive options.
I believe it was for Marathon Man where Dustin Hoffman was telling Lawrence Olivier that he was up all night trying to get into character and Olivier said; why don’t you try acting my boy ? It’s so much easier.😂
The time Tommy tried something different we got his TwoFace in Batman Forever, so I can see why he sticks to playing old farmers and old sheriffs/detectives. It’s like how Clint Eastwood played either a cowboy or a homicide detective and sometimes a marine.
Everyone jerks off "method" actors, but I always think, who's the better actor? The guy who needs to write a novel's worth of back story and stay "in character" the whole time, or the guy who can just come in and do it, then go to lunch?
Yep 'method acting'is just marketing. The whole point is that its acting, you arnt trying to be exactly natural, you have to exaggerate some things and play others down, and most of this stuff is fiction, i.e its not meant to be real. None of the Shakespearean greats of the 20th century indulged in this crap.
There are good and shitty actors who do it both ways lol And method acting in america is pretty much a dude bro exaggeration of what the method originally was. A lot of the stories about actors getting so into character they just had to do dumb shit or had episodes where they couldnt escape their character or whatever is definitely mostly nonsense thats just there to build an actors brand and market a movie.
I also scoff at the notion that so called "method" actors are automatically superior. At the end of the day, it's all about sincerity. Do you believe what that person is saying? Doing? Feeling? James Stewart, Spencer Tracy, Henry Fonda, they were plain and honest. They just did it, and I will take them over the likes of these p*ssy a** theater students who want to be the next James Dean.
When Laurence Olivier heard that Dustin Hoffman had stayed awake for several days in order to play the torture scene in Marathon Man, he asked whether Hoffman had tried acting instead.
I could envision William Friedkin in front of a microphone doing Jerry Seinfeld-like routines, only actually funny. "What's the deal with actors and opinions?" (said in the worst, nasally Jerry impression)
The actors should read the script in its entirety. You want to write a whole novel and back story in your head? That’s fine. You want to write it down on paper, that’s fine. But in that case discuss the general idea with the director when you meet to see if you’re in agreement. Let it come out in the read through and in rehearsal. No surprises.
David Dortort, the producer of Bonanza, said something similar. Occasionally, actors would demand explanations and rewrites. To appease them, Dortort would go through the motions and discussions, and often end up right back at the original lines. “I gave him a cookie and he went away,” Don Rickles might have said.
I’ve done some acting in community theater. I don’t really do “method,” though I have some Meisner training. My “unusual” technique is to have a “moment before” going onstage. I’ll make up a little silent scene, so then I have a mood and context for when I actually go onstage. My only questions for Fredkin would be A) Why am I coming into this room? and B) What was I doing before I came in? Stuff like what the character did as a boy isn’t important; it’s what the character is trying to achieve now that matters, and playing it in a way that’s believable to the audience.
I get why you need or want that, but then it's your job to know the why, not his. A director has a lot to manage and just wants to keep the studio happy by delivering solid dailies and wrapping on time and on or under budget.
@@Kinesiology411 Maybe, but Freidkin himself was infamous for being a controlling dictator in many of his other movies. For directors like those, trying to work out what his vision is would be crucial.
@@magicaltour1 it's literally a director's job to be in control of every aspect of the project. And it's literally the actor's job to show up prepared. If they need method bs, fine, do it in your trailer and when you're called to set, do your job, like everyone else there
I love how this is not only (rightfully) ripping "method acting", it's also so damn relevant to the way major movies have been made for the last decades: prequel this, spin-off that, shared universe here. Every little bit of imagination has to be sucked out, everything needs to be explained and "canonized" and it makes our favorite narrations not bigger, but smaller, because we're constantly getting hit over the head with how our theories and ideas about a movie had been "wrong" until we don't even bother to wonder anymore in the first place. Just consuming and waiting for the director/studio to churn out the inevitable sequel/prequel/TV series spin off that will answer all those questions instead of letting us come to our own conclusions.
Nah, I don't think so. I don't think William was disrespecting any of the actors he mentioned. He just didn't respond to how some of these guys operate.
Exactly, the “can’t I be lying on the floor?” is the kind of actor you want for fear and loathing. Nicholas Cage is obviously a little bit like that with left-field ideas that are fresh on screen. It’s a bit insulting that Friedkin calls Tommy Lee Jones version “Brilliant”/smart/intellect but is implying that Del Toro’s approach isn’t equally brilliant in a different way. One is just straight practical, the other is art
One of the many reasons Billy is my hero. The guy simply refused to be bothered by stupid shit. A 300 page backstory about Nick Nolte’s character in Blue Chips? Nope, in the trash, moving on.
He was probably the only actor that he’s ever worked with that didn’t give him a hard time. Many actors had a problem with william friedkins directing style including Gene Hackman and Al Pacino.
I hate to be a centrist but there's plenty to criticize on both sides here. He's right that Benecio doesn't need to know what his character was like when he was 12 for that scene but suggesting it would be better if his character was on the floor is categorically different. Actors can improve the movie by doing things the director didn't think of so it's weird to mock him for that and implies he always knows better. Someone like Tommy Lee will offer the film fewer creative directions compared to Benecio which is only a good thing if the script and director are already perfect filmmakers. At the end of the day what really matters is if the actor's suggestions are good, and he was basically cherry picking the bad examples.
I like how both Friedkin and Laurence Olivier had the same dismissive attitude towards method acting, or rather the actual problem with it. There's nothing wrong with an actor genuinely caring about their role -- which most directors would kill for -- but when they start obsessing over details that don't even matter, then it just comes off like they're trying to prove something rather than just give a good performance.
@@sleuthentertainment5872 He wasn't a real actor. Didn't really know how to act but Friedkin needed a reaction from him and wasn't getting it so he slapped him!
Funny thing is though, and I say this as a fan of a lot of Tommy Lee Jones roles, Del Toro is a far more versatile actor. So while TLJ may be easier to work with in some regards you're limited to what roles he can convincingly handle vs someone like Del Toro who can take on almost any character and make it work. So there is a method to the madness that is method acting but only for those who are actual method actors and not wannabe hacks like Jared Leto for instance.
Well, I like Tommy Lee Jones, but his portrayal of his character in this movie (The Hunted) is exactly the same as his character in The Fugitive. And that's what you get when you have a director like this, not asking anything from their actors.. Just an average performance of a flat character. Friedkin arguably made 2 great movies, in one (The French Connection) he worked with Gene Hackman, a method actor, which not only won Gene an Oscar, but also put Friedkin on the map as a director. So I guess he changed his position on method acting later in life.
No, directors almost all find method acting tiresome in its process, even if they respect the actor and result. They have a lot to manage and they ideally want an actor to show up prepared and get the job done with as little hand holding as possible.
@@Kinesiology411 That's one way to do it, but I think great directors are only concerned with the result, and not about having an easy time creating it.
funny and amusing though it is it’s actually this that’s turned me back on to method acting. to me this is like someone saying drinking and smoking and staying out late is bullshit and how much better life is in the morning feeling sober and eating eggs and bacon, and I’m nodding and agreeing because they’re making good points but meanwhile I’m thinking about how awesome it’s going to be to get blind drunk that night and have a lazy day tomorrow.
Most directors are juggling a lot and they're like managers. Stopping to hand hold and babysit a method actor takes precious time, and on a film shoot time it quite literally money.
@@Kinesiology411 I buy that reasoning overall but not as an excuse for him. The guy was famously abusive to cast and crew, and the level of pettiness was like a teenager. A director is meant to set the tone on set, this is film school 101 stuff. He's an example of what not to do.
@@xav645 "abusive" lol You mean professional and with the Chicago attitude? I can handle that. I prefer that. Only little precious snowflakes had a problem with him. A director has a million things to oversee on any given project. Show up prepared and do your job well, no problems. When any one person doesn't do that, the director gets the heat from the studio.
If it helps an actor to study, then great, but they shouldn't expect anyone else to read it. There is no right way. TLJ is a good actor but he's always exactly the same so there's little reason for him to do deep character work, he's playing himself. Would Friedkin have had a problem with Daniel Day Lewis or De Niro?
This is typecasting. I absolutely adore Bill Murray in Lost In Translation. Friedkin wouldn't cast Murray in that movie because it's not a funny character. That's a mistake. Sometimes doing the work, learning what range an actor has and how to draw it out of them, is the director's job. Friedkin was used to television, where schedules and budgets are tight. This can make a great director, it's how he could make The French Connection with all its complexity. But it can also mean taking a lot of shortcuts like typcasting people. It's not all roses.
Being an actor is weird. If you’re an extra you get treated like you’re an inmate with a PA as your strict babysitter, and lots of directors that don’t understand actors or sick of the few that are nutcases (that ruin it for the rest) decide that they hate actors. James Cameron said that he isn’t a fan of actors. It really is a miracle that any good project makes it from the writer to the screen.
He's not suggesting typecasting as much as casting the right person. He wouldn't make Lost in Translation anyway, which is actually a very funny film, btw.
Not sure about that example, since Lost in Translation was written for Bill Murray and Sofia Coppola didn’t really have a second choice in mind for the part.
What a piss poor example Tommy Lee Jones character in The Hunted was a basic carbon copy Plaid flannel wearing Marlborough man hes played in ever movie for 3 decades. Benicio del Toro's had to play a multi-level, ruthless killer war veteran with ptsd trauma Who's become disillusioned with the organizations he's pledged his loyalty to while losing his grip on reality & his humanity.
I disagree. I have worked with several men who were the real-life version of the character Tommy Lee Jones played in The Hunted, and he absolutely nailed the part. He also excelled at conveying the pain he felt for Benicio's character, and his character understood the PTSD trauma you reference better than anybody else in that movie.
I agree 100%. Del Toro also did so many more interesting projects than Jones and is overall a better actor in my book. He is incredible and one for the history books.
@@Dan210871 I'm not saying he didn't nail it, he did the roll well because it's been His bread & butter character since The Fugitive. I'm saying it's not that complicated a roll, especiallyfor him & nowhere near as complex as what B.D.T had to bring alive
@@YeLizardLords I appreciate the reply and I do agree that Benicio Del Toro executed an extremely complex role remarkably. I disagree that Jones' role in this movie is comparable to Sam Gerard (in The Fugitive and US Marshalls). They are both in law enforcement, but that's where the similarities end. Sam is all bluster and colorful turns of phrase, the epitome of forward motion without a single ounce of self-doubt. Bonham is tired, full of regret, questioning whether his life's work actually resulted in a better world overall. If anything, Bonham resembles Sheriff Tom Bell more closely than he resembles Gerard. That he can play all three roles, go beyond the superficial similarities and show us the much more subtle differences among them is Jones' strength and remarkable talent. Thanks again for the conversation.
Yeah it’s kind of insulting that Friedkin equates Jones’s straight practicality to “brilliant”/smart/intellect, while acting like Del Toro’s artistic thoughts are “stupid.” Jones is great but we all know he has in no way rivaled what Del Toro has put on screen multiple times. Jones just acts like fast-talking “realistic” guy every time (or bad-acting crazy in Batman and Under Siege).
Bill, I know how much you were influenced by “Citizen Kane”, calling it a masterpiece. Well, I think “The Exorcist” is YOUR Citizen Kane, because it is without a doubt, a masterpiece! Rest easy son, you done good!
This guy was a stand up comedian moonlighting as a film director. Great stuff.
It is strange watching how he knows he has audience like putty, the moments, the timing, like a stand-up routine.
The bad part is that comedy lectures like this aren’t very insightful they’re just “entertainment” for attendees to pretend they learned from a celebrity.
For sure. Theres a great bit where this guy Nic Refn heckles him & gets roasted big time
@@AquaticMammalOnBicycle I think he provided much more than just entertainment here. And in other clips of him speaking I saw. But sure, it was not some MasterClass level of education.
@@BUKUDI I need to watch that!
@@AquaticMammalOnBicycle it is insightful though, it's showing how you deal with different actors when directing.
Crazy ass funny...
Reminds me Dustin Hoffman, during the filming of Straw Dogs, asking "What's my incentive?"
To which Peckinpah responded "The paycheck you're getting."
The difference: Peckinpah seemed to relish in being a disagreeable smartass, whereas Friedkin was more utilitarian. It seems they both got frustrated by the same sort of actor, though.
The story really reminds me of another Hoffman story, where he stayed up all night in preparation for the torture scene in _Marathon Man,_ and when Lawrence Olivier asked him why he was so burnt out, and Hoffman told him, he gave him the now infamous quip, "Why don't you just try acting?"
When you boil it down, though, it really amounts to different strategies of psyching a person into giving you what you want to see. Different people require different things to get there.
"My dear boy, why don't you just try acting?"
- Laurence Olivier to Dustin Hoffman
This is one of my favourite Friedkin stories. He was such a great raconteur. Could listen to him talk shop for hours. He will be missed as a talent and as a person.
"My subscription to Jugs magazine just ran out."
william you were a legend. rest in peace, buddy
@ahmedd346
Ick.
For a stand-up comedian, he was one hell of a director.
I’m so glad he was at least documented. I love listening to him talking about movies
Greatest director in terms of personality and raw honesty. He enjoyed reminding people actors are literally his puppets, whilst still respecting the grafters like Tommy Lee Jones. Friedkin could’ve been a standup, superb storyteller. RIP Billy
1:53 Billy Friedkin stopping himself from saying “this is bullshit!”
Probably by far his most used word in life
According to Frank Grillo, Nick Nolte still does that lol.
Kevin James has one of my favorite Nick Nolte stories. When Nolte was approached to play the gorilla in The Zookeeper, he came back with sounds and studies from all sorts of gorillas from silverbacks to mountain gorillas and asked Kevin which one he should do. To which Kevin replied “can you do a gorilla that talks?”
@@andrewhudson7108 That's hilarious, whenever I think of Nolte I think of Tropic Thunder. In the special features there is an interview where he says, "my job is basically just to show up and tell everyone that they're a pansy, which they all are.".
John Carpenter told a similar story on a DVD commentary but I forget which actor was the one filling in needless background. I think it was Donald Pleasance lol
@@kalkella8822Ahahaha thats great. Especially cause its true
That approach worked perfectly for Nolte's character in Thin Red Line. His voiceovers were Nolt'es own condensed highlights of Malick's long poetic passages. They probably got along famously on set.
Great story from a great director. He's on the other side now checking life's rushes. RIP Mr. Friedkin.
He's haunting David Gordon Green because of Exorcist: Believer
Even in heaven Friedkin couldn’t be bothered to watch it.
@@BULL.173no, I’d be willing to be that earth life is the best story ever told. To the folks up in the bleachers, we are probably incurably interesting.
This is so refreshing to hear. I was an actor for 30 years and the onus was always on me to have all this backstory crap worked out just in case the director asked me something. I felt like I was being tested constantly it was awful. I'd much rather have worked with a director of this mentality. Just tell me what you want me to do and how you want me to play the scene. You've already cast me, you know what I can do so just tell me what you want and let me just get on with it.
Most directors I worked with, admittedly in mainly theatre, would sit around in a circle with the other actors and talk and talk crap FOR HOURS, writing stuff up on the walls around the rehearsal room, and I always thought can we just get on with it because the audience don't care about any of this but they will care if I've not learnt my lines in time, just get on with it!!
The directors I worked with loved actors like you. Know your lines, hit your marks, take direction well and get it done. Old school.
@TimelordUK - When younger I would have annoyed you, because of my curiosity and asking too many questions. Now? I understand. Your candor, bluntness, calling out of BS, and humor on the topic make sense! LoL. "Get on with it!" Amen to that. There's something valuable in getting the scene done, the actor / director / staff using their skills efficiently, and moving on. Clint Eastwood comes to mind in how he shoots films. So, do NOT overthink it. ( Which I can be guilty of. ) Maybe it's not as hard as some make it out to be.
Cheers from Across the Pond!
@@machtnichtsseimann I enjoyed reading your comment. Let's 'workshop' this, then try some hot seating, then when there's one day left, we'll get it on its feet and woe betide anyone who is not 100% off the book!
There's a balance. You need to know your character well enough to play the scenes. Going over the text ("tablework") before beginning blocking is useful for many plays. But you don't need to work out what the character had for breakfast (unless it has something to do with the scene).
A lot of it also has to do with the script and what type of piece it is. A deep, complex drama requires more understanding of character than a light bedroom farce does.
Some directors, especially in film, don't really understand acting and don't direct actors well. They're focused mostly on the technical side of things - lighting, composition, editing, etc. So the acting in their movies varies in quality, because the actors have to do everything on their own - some actors can get by without a director who understands character, but some can't. A great director (like Martin Scorsese, for example) can work on the technical end of things as well as the more creative and character-based side. You need both for many movies, although you can sometimes get by without the character stuff when making a thriller, farce, action movie, or horror story. Although good character stuff can improve work done in those genres too - for example, Alien would be a solid sci-fi horror film without the amazing cast, but that cast and the groundedness they bring to their performances makes it an even better film.
@@michaelavolio sure, but Ridley Scott wouldn't indulge that method nonsense for 5 minutes, lol. The cast were professional and did what they needed to do to prepare on their own.
Not just a genius, but also a very funny man.
that was laugh out loud funny!
You should see the interview where he tears a hole in Al Pacino it ought to be framed in American broadcasting. It’s priceless. YES ! He’ll be sorely missed. He was ONE of kind.
I don't give a flying fuck through a rolling donut about watching that.
This is so brilliant. What a great director. He did what needed to be done to get the best of the his actors. He didn’t have to understand it, but he figured it out. Love this
What a treasure he was & so talented.. God bless
His comic delivery was perfect. Had he been younger, I could see him following a Kevin Smith style path and doing a number of podcasts. Every interview he did was endlessly entertaining.
Please
Don’t mention William F in the sand breathe as Smith
It’s not right
Amateur vs
Professional
For Christ’s sake man
Get a grip
@@markbo1957Yeah The Exorcist was a way better comedy than any of Kevin Smith's movies
@@markbo1957
I can't stand Smith either but I will say this: He is an excellent racounteur.
@@markbo1957jeezus, I also had to do a double take also. comparing Kevin Smith to one of the finest and most provocative directors of our time to the guy that brought us Mallrats! 😂
What a grotesque comparison between two directors.
I love these interviews with Mr. Friedkin. His anecdotes/stories and his knowledge about films and filmmaking are what I loved the most about William Friedkin.
The ending was hilarious. RIP
I was a server and had to recommend wines for people now and then.
I would consider their meal, of course.
I would also often ask them something like "do you prefer white, milk, or dark chocolate?", or "If I brought you vanilla ice cream in a cup right now, would you prefer it with chocolate, caramel, fresh fruit, or toasted almonds?"
The answers would in fact influence my suggestion, but mostly it just made the person think it was especially suited to their preferences.
IOW you made customers feel that the grossly overpriced wine was worth the exorbitant cost. :thumbs_up:
@@RonJohn63
It was very reasonably priced, actually.
You're too cynical.
Be skeptical instead.
@@hhiippiittyy "reasonably priced" is a wholly relative term. Thus, your "reasonable price" is my "exorbitant price".
Remember though: thumbs up for your direction!
@@RonJohn63
Nah dude it was fair.
You woulda agreed unless all restaurants were exorbitant to you.
Decent wine in clean glasses in a nice atmosphere for the price of boxed wine from a low priced chain.
We had more expensive stuff too, but I always recommended at least two less expensive options.
I cried...you gotta make sh*t up....i cried....i would of loved working on set for him...even if it was making him cups of coffee....legend...LEGEND.
would of
This was great..great sense of humor from a great director!🙏💜
Absolute genius, could listen to him talk all day.
I believe it was for Marathon Man where Dustin Hoffman was telling Lawrence Olivier that he was up all night trying to get into character and Olivier said; why don’t you try acting my boy ? It’s so much easier.😂
Tommy was is brilliant. Tommy doesn’t need… He plays the same character every movie.
There's a difference between being unpretentious and playing the same character.
The time Tommy tried something different we got his TwoFace in Batman Forever, so I can see why he sticks to playing old farmers and old sheriffs/detectives. It’s like how Clint Eastwood played either a cowboy or a homicide detective and sometimes a marine.
Will was a "meat and potatoes" director so it stands reason that he wouldn't care about actors losing themselves in character.
That's funny. He made some great ones.
Everyone jerks off "method" actors, but I always think, who's the better actor? The guy who needs to write a novel's worth of back story and stay "in character" the whole time, or the guy who can just come in and do it, then go to lunch?
The second kind
Yep 'method acting'is just marketing. The whole point is that its acting, you arnt trying to be exactly natural, you have to exaggerate some things and play others down, and most of this stuff is fiction, i.e its not meant to be real. None of the Shakespearean greats of the 20th century indulged in this crap.
There are good and shitty actors who do it both ways lol And method acting in america is pretty much a dude bro exaggeration of what the method originally was.
A lot of the stories about actors getting so into character they just had to do dumb shit or had episodes where they couldnt escape their character or whatever is definitely mostly nonsense thats just there to build an actors brand and market a movie.
I also scoff at the notion that so called "method" actors are automatically superior. At the end of the day, it's all about sincerity. Do you believe what that person is saying? Doing? Feeling? James Stewart, Spencer Tracy, Henry Fonda, they were plain and honest. They just did it, and I will take them over the likes of these p*ssy a** theater students who want to be the next James Dean.
When Laurence Olivier heard that Dustin Hoffman had stayed awake for several days in order to play the torture scene in Marathon Man, he asked whether Hoffman had tried acting instead.
stand up comedy by my favorite director.
I could envision William Friedkin in front of a microphone doing Jerry Seinfeld-like routines, only actually funny. "What's the deal with actors and opinions?" (said in the worst, nasally Jerry impression)
I think Method Acting has it's uses. It allows Some Actors to Create Characters (Tones, Mannerisms, etc.) for The Role.
The actors should read the script in its entirety. You want to write a whole novel and back story in your head? That’s fine. You want to write it down on paper, that’s fine. But in that case discuss the general idea with the director when you meet to see if you’re in agreement. Let it come out in the read through and in rehearsal. No surprises.
David Dortort, the producer of Bonanza, said something similar. Occasionally, actors would demand explanations and rewrites. To appease them, Dortort would go through the motions and discussions, and often end up right back at the original lines. “I gave him a cookie and he went away,” Don Rickles might have said.
He was legend. RIP sir.
One of my favorite stories!
Love this guy
I’ve done some acting in community theater. I don’t really do “method,” though I have some Meisner training. My “unusual” technique is to have a “moment before” going onstage. I’ll make up a little silent scene, so then I have a mood and context for when I actually go onstage. My only questions for Fredkin would be A) Why am I coming into this room? and B) What was I doing before I came in? Stuff like what the character did as a boy isn’t important; it’s what the character is trying to achieve now that matters, and playing it in a way that’s believable to the audience.
No one cares.
I get why you need or want that, but then it's your job to know the why, not his. A director has a lot to manage and just wants to keep the studio happy by delivering solid dailies and wrapping on time and on or under budget.
@@thefonzkiss O, sit on it.
@@Kinesiology411 Maybe, but Freidkin himself was infamous for being a controlling dictator in many of his other movies. For directors like those, trying to work out what his vision is would be crucial.
@@magicaltour1 it's literally a director's job to be in control of every aspect of the project. And it's literally the actor's job to show up prepared. If they need method bs, fine, do it in your trailer and when you're called to set, do your job, like everyone else there
I love how this is not only (rightfully) ripping "method acting", it's also so damn relevant to the way major movies have been made for the last decades: prequel this, spin-off that, shared universe here. Every little bit of imagination has to be sucked out, everything needs to be explained and "canonized" and it makes our favorite narrations not bigger, but smaller, because we're constantly getting hit over the head with how our theories and ideas about a movie had been "wrong" until we don't even bother to wonder anymore in the first place. Just consuming and waiting for the director/studio to churn out the inevitable sequel/prequel/TV series spin off that will answer all those questions instead of letting us come to our own conclusions.
I bet Joaquin would make Friedkin angry
😂😅😂 I had no idea the director of the exorcist was such a great story teller !!! 😅
"Hit your mark and say your lines" Gene Cosineau
_"There are no big roles, only big actors."_
Those celebrities got roasted
Nah, I don't think so. I don't think William was disrespecting any of the actors he mentioned. He just didn't respond to how some of these guys operate.
@@ricardocantoral7672 I disagree. I think it was rude.
God rest his soul....miss you, Billy.
The Movie those two actors (TLJ & Benicio Del Torrro ) were in together was the Hunted
This is hilarious. RIP.
That’s what makes Del Toro so great in Fear and Loathing.
Exactly, the “can’t I be lying on the floor?” is the kind of actor you want for fear and loathing. Nicholas Cage is obviously a little bit like that with left-field ideas that are fresh on screen.
It’s a bit insulting that Friedkin calls Tommy Lee Jones version “Brilliant”/smart/intellect but is implying that Del Toro’s approach isn’t equally brilliant in a different way. One is just straight practical, the other is art
Gonna miss him!
He was a legend 🙌
That is how you tell a story.
One of the many reasons Billy is my hero. The guy simply refused to be bothered by stupid shit. A 300 page backstory about Nick Nolte’s character in Blue Chips? Nope, in the trash, moving on.
Hahaha
Fucking love friedkin! Even if he's an asshole, at least he is real.
He never shuts up about Tommy Lee Jones
Putting respect on TLJ name, I’ve heard similar from someone in the industry.
Many good directors do too. He must be gr8.
I meant no offense he’s great
He was probably the only actor that he’s ever worked with that didn’t give him a hard time. Many actors had a problem with william friedkins directing style including Gene Hackman and Al Pacino.
@@quarantinebored1427
What exactly? I am curious.
Now I wanna know how Christopher Nolan deals with Method actors considering he's like the great attractor for them.
He doesnt have to DEAL with anyone, hes too powerful of a hollywood figure that actors MUST DEAL with HIM
Imagine him on the set of The Exorcist - Ok Satan you come in the door.........
Tommy Lee Jones has a high IQ, it's very apparent whenever he expresses himself.
He is intelligent, you mean
Brilliant! : )
Hahahahaha R.I.P. to the master
I hate to be a centrist but there's plenty to criticize on both sides here. He's right that Benecio doesn't need to know what his character was like when he was 12 for that scene but suggesting it would be better if his character was on the floor is categorically different. Actors can improve the movie by doing things the director didn't think of so it's weird to mock him for that and implies he always knows better. Someone like Tommy Lee will offer the film fewer creative directions compared to Benecio which is only a good thing if the script and director are already perfect filmmakers. At the end of the day what really matters is if the actor's suggestions are good, and he was basically cherry picking the bad examples.
straight up stand up comedian lololol
Amazing that such a loose, funny guy directed one of, if not, the most serious and terrifying movies of all time.
what a god damned hero. Not many left like this...
I like how both Friedkin and Laurence Olivier had the same dismissive attitude towards method acting, or rather the actual problem with it. There's nothing wrong with an actor genuinely caring about their role -- which most directors would kill for -- but when they start obsessing over details that don't even matter, then it just comes off like they're trying to prove something rather than just give a good performance.
This was freakin hilarious.
The Hunted was a great movie.
THE MAN
Brilliant, and funny man.
I hope he tells how he slapped an actor in The Exorcist to make him cry for the scene
That wasn't an actor, it was a real Catholic priest.
@@ElectricLabel And what he is doing in the film?
Is he not... acting?.....
@@sleuthentertainment5872 He wasn't a real actor. Didn't really know how to act but Friedkin needed a reaction from him and wasn't getting it so he slapped him!
@@sleuthentertainment5872Wait till you hear about stuntmen
Why is it directors are the only people in showbiz worth listening to?
"Make stuff up?" That's called "writing" and that is not what I'm paid to do.
Tommy Lee Jones just plays himself
TLJ would be brilliant. He went to Yale
Funny thing is though, and I say this as a fan of a lot of Tommy Lee Jones roles, Del Toro is a far more versatile actor. So while TLJ may be easier to work with in some regards you're limited to what roles he can convincingly handle vs someone like Del Toro who can take on almost any character and make it work.
So there is a method to the madness that is method acting but only for those who are actual method actors and not wannabe hacks like Jared Leto for instance.
Well, I like Tommy Lee Jones, but his portrayal of his character in this movie (The Hunted) is exactly the same as his character in The Fugitive. And that's what you get when you have a director like this, not asking anything from their actors.. Just an average performance of a flat character. Friedkin arguably made 2 great movies, in one (The French Connection) he worked with Gene Hackman, a method actor, which not only won Gene an Oscar, but also put Friedkin on the map as a director. So I guess he changed his position on method acting later in life.
No, directors almost all find method acting tiresome in its process, even if they respect the actor and result. They have a lot to manage and they ideally want an actor to show up prepared and get the job done with as little hand holding as possible.
@@Kinesiology411 That's one way to do it, but I think great directors are only concerned with the result, and not about having an easy time creating it.
funny and amusing though it is it’s actually this that’s turned me back on to method acting.
to me this is like someone saying drinking and smoking and staying out late is bullshit and how much better life is in the morning feeling sober and eating eggs and bacon, and I’m nodding and agreeing because they’re making good points but meanwhile I’m thinking about how awesome it’s going to be to get blind drunk that night and have a lazy day tomorrow.
When you hear this story and then imagine TLJ having to act with Jim Carey in a Batman movie. No wonder he hated Jim.
So let me get this straight… I come threw the do-
If anyone ever wanted footage of the exact opposite of “an actor’s director,” you found it.
Most directors are juggling a lot and they're like managers. Stopping to hand hold and babysit a method actor takes precious time, and on a film shoot time it quite literally money.
@@Kinesiology411 I buy that reasoning overall but not as an excuse for him. The guy was famously abusive to cast and crew, and the level of pettiness was like a teenager. A director is meant to set the tone on set, this is film school 101 stuff. He's an example of what not to do.
@@xav645 "abusive" lol
You mean professional and with the Chicago attitude? I can handle that. I prefer that. Only little precious snowflakes had a problem with him. A director has a million things to oversee on any given project. Show up prepared and do your job well, no problems. When any one person doesn't do that, the director gets the heat from the studio.
I’d like to see him direct Daniel Day Lewis
Love & miss you Bill!
It's good audience didn't mentioned Pacino. Otherwise it would have turned into a roast
RIP
If it helps an actor to study, then great, but they shouldn't expect anyone else to read it. There is no right way. TLJ is a good actor but he's always exactly the same so there's little reason for him to do deep character work, he's playing himself. Would Friedkin have had a problem with Daniel Day Lewis or De Niro?
Kevin who ????
bro why did i think this guy is jeb bush 💀
What my mf motivation? lol
Movies haven’t been the same
This is typecasting. I absolutely adore Bill Murray in Lost In Translation. Friedkin wouldn't cast Murray in that movie because it's not a funny character. That's a mistake. Sometimes doing the work, learning what range an actor has and how to draw it out of them, is the director's job. Friedkin was used to television, where schedules and budgets are tight. This can make a great director, it's how he could make The French Connection with all its complexity. But it can also mean taking a lot of shortcuts like typcasting people. It's not all roses.
Being an actor is weird. If you’re an extra you get treated like you’re an inmate with a PA as your strict babysitter, and lots of directors that don’t understand actors or sick of the few that are nutcases (that ruin it for the rest) decide that they hate actors. James Cameron said that he isn’t a fan of actors. It really is a miracle that any good project makes it from the writer to the screen.
He's not suggesting typecasting as much as casting the right person. He wouldn't make Lost in Translation anyway, which is actually a very funny film, btw.
Not sure about that example, since Lost in Translation was written for Bill Murray and Sofia Coppola didn’t really have a second choice in mind for the part.
i will be as good as him when i professionally direct 🎬🎬🎬🎬🎬
I don’t give a flying fuck through a rolling donut what Al Pacino thinks.
Would have been funny if he hadn't called people out by name.
Shirley Temple was bigger than either of these 😅
Hes a method director 😂
He sure seems to not like Benicio - totally trashing him and perhaps deserved - idk
Well there’s actors and tossers.
LoL
What a piss poor example Tommy Lee Jones character in The Hunted was a basic carbon copy Plaid flannel wearing Marlborough man hes played in ever movie for 3 decades.
Benicio del Toro's had to play a multi-level, ruthless killer war veteran with ptsd trauma Who's become disillusioned with the organizations he's pledged his loyalty to while losing his grip on reality & his humanity.
I disagree. I have worked with several men who were the real-life version of the character Tommy Lee Jones played in The Hunted, and he absolutely nailed the part. He also excelled at conveying the pain he felt for Benicio's character, and his character understood the PTSD trauma you reference better than anybody else in that movie.
I agree 100%. Del Toro also did so many more interesting projects than Jones and is overall a better actor in my book. He is incredible and one for the history books.
@@Dan210871 I'm not saying he didn't nail it, he did the roll well because it's been His bread & butter character since The Fugitive.
I'm saying it's not that complicated a roll, especiallyfor him & nowhere near as complex as what B.D.T had to bring alive
@@YeLizardLords I appreciate the reply and I do agree that Benicio Del Toro executed an extremely complex role remarkably.
I disagree that Jones' role in this movie is comparable to Sam Gerard (in The Fugitive and US Marshalls). They are both in law enforcement, but that's where the similarities end. Sam is all bluster and colorful turns of phrase, the epitome of forward motion without a single ounce of self-doubt. Bonham is tired, full of regret, questioning whether his life's work actually resulted in a better world overall. If anything, Bonham resembles Sheriff Tom Bell more closely than he resembles Gerard.
That he can play all three roles, go beyond the superficial similarities and show us the much more subtle differences among them is Jones' strength and remarkable talent.
Thanks again for the conversation.
@@TxxT33 Nolte is a better actor as well. Tommy Lee is a very good actor as well.
Benicio del Toro is a far better actor than Tommy Lee Jones who is basically the same fucking guy in every movie.
Yeah it’s kind of insulting that Friedkin equates Jones’s straight practicality to “brilliant”/smart/intellect, while acting like Del Toro’s artistic thoughts are “stupid.”
Jones is great but we all know he has in no way rivaled what Del Toro has put on screen multiple times. Jones just acts like fast-talking “realistic” guy every time (or bad-acting crazy in Batman and Under Siege).
It's movie star versus character actor. We've always had both.
And what's BDT....
Bill, I know how much you were influenced by “Citizen Kane”, calling it a masterpiece. Well, I think “The Exorcist” is YOUR Citizen Kane, because it is without a doubt, a masterpiece! Rest easy son, you done good!
Method acting is total bs. Self indulgent nonsense. And they drive pretty much every director nuts.