I recently watched "Eyes Wide Shut" after many years, and this time paid close attention to the pacing and the slowness of the dialogue delivery. I also noticed the way characters move, the pauses before they respond, and even the hesitation before answering a phone call. The stiffness in their walking, and the stillness of the voyeurs. It seems Kubrick worked hard to strip away any extra movement and noise, that might explain his many many takes. This end result was a kind of vacuum, an eerie setup that captures the entire film.
@@theinnerlight8016 that is the great "what if" for lots of Kubrick's works; He obviously believed if he directly told his actors what he wanted it wouldnt feel natural, and he did it to their detriment. Others believe a director should be able to communicate these things in a way that works with the actors to achieve what they are looking for, and honestly thats how it should be. Realistically, we will never know if movies like The Shinning or Eyes Wide Shut would have been as good with a different approach, so the best we can do now is acknowledge the bad decisions and practices behind the scenes and advocate for it not being like that And obviously better, less stress inducing approaches do work, movies like Everything Everywhere All At Once prove that (i went on a little tangent oops lmao, just really love film)
It was a drinking game for my friends. Anytime someone repeated what someone else JUST said, take a drink.🍺 Anytime Nicole hiccup-laughed, drink. 🍺Anytime that stupid two-note piano started, drink. 🍺It was the only way to survive watching this. 😊😊😊
That interview is legendary because that was the day Opie, Anthony and Jim all found out Patrice Oneal died, so they were choking their way through that Gary Oldman interview.
@@slartibartfast7921But it's dumb though, because anybody can make their perfect movie if they're given the same freedom as Kubrick. Kubrick is just a sadist
@@stellviahohenheim “It’s dumb though” People in glass houses…. Kubrick did what he needed to, and the ends justified the means. Would I have wanted to work with him? Probably not, but he was responsible for the greatest movies of the 20th century imo. Tom Cruse can be challenging too I’ve heard, so it was probably an experience he needed. Overall though saying anyone can make their perfect movie when given enough freedom may be smarter than you intended it to be…. Neil Breen has complete freedom, so I guess you’re right?
Kubrick was a genius. But sometimes, you gotta just point at the obvious answer: dude had a massive ego. Stanley probably loved playing mind games with Tom Cruise.
Could Scientology be one of the reasons? Kubrick lost his daughter Vivian to Scientology in 1995. I doubt he blamed Cruise directly but maybe his fame and looks attracted a lot of people to it. Anything is possible with Kubrick 🤷♂️
I’m with Harvey Kietel. I would have quit on Day One. 70-80 takes isn’t about getting the best take. It’s a control methodology designed to break an actor and turn them into a piece of malleable clay.
@OnafetsEnovap no because that would screw over good directors. Good directors will finish most of their scenes in an average of 3 takes. Then they have the one shot they can’t get right that takes 30. Kubrick was just a hack who ruined incredible scripts through his dogshit directing style.
You have to admire Tom cruise being an absolute professional here. May be Stanley Kubrick wanted the expression of frustration from Tom. But it would have been better to just ask him to give those expression rather than endless takes. Because this Tom Cruise, he is also a madman like Kubrick when it comes to making movies, and mission impossible movies are a testament of it. As for people who doubt Tom Cruise acting, well I suggest you watch COLLATERAL.
Collateral is an incredible role for Cruise. Say what you will about his personality in real life, he dedicated himself fully in that movie and never slipped up once.
Try Interview With A Vampire, Cruise was so good that Anne Rice bought a newspaper ad, telling people to go see the movie for his performance. She was against his casting, but the results is he made her character far more memorable than what she wrote IMO. Stanley Kubrick was simply an obssessive-compulsive control-freak of a director. He was also an editor, and all these hundreds of shots are more to do with having more materials for editing, than "perfection" than non-creatives tend to believe.
@@Account.for.Comment I understand having the material ... but on average (regarding film stock quality) it's approximately $1/second of film at 24fps. So expenditures go way up if the director is doing 30-40-50-60-70+ takes. Lets say a shot is 5 seconds long in the script, but that's what's kept. What's filmed is usually twice that. So that shot is 10 seconds of film, so $10 of film. Now do that 70 times. That's $700 in film alone. Now do 70 takes, per shot, for the entire movie. With a movie at approx 90 minutes, that's 5,400 seconds of KEPT footage. Now double that for shot footage. We now have 10,800 seconds of film in a "per shot" total of sorts, which was done 70 times. I think you can see where I'm going with this. Having THAT much material is just a massive waste of the budget which could definitely have been spent someplace else.
@@Soldier4USA2005 yes. But Kubrick did not finance his film with his own money, did he? Film stocks would have been a very common material in the massive studios that finance his work. He was a giant in his field, and most of his works are not made in the era of bean counters and massive special effect. In Dr Strangelove, the George C. Scott comedic scenes are supposedly to be never for production. So basically, he throw all of the "real" scene, and being happy with the equivalent of bloopers.
I do have to disagree with the ending conclusion - Tom went and made alot more drama films - Vanilla Sky, Collateral (Id argue Last Samurai is a more period piece than action film), Lions and Lambs, Valkyrie and Rock of Ages. Its was more the Scientology thing bursting and questions around his career that caused him to basically just do the hits and control his stuff. He also basically did his big career goal of working with the best directors working. Its insane the people he worked with, And by 2013, he had done everyone really...
@@lordarchontitus I even like the first Jack Reacher. He's made a ton of great films. I struggle with supporting him because of the scientology stuff, but damnit, the dude really knows how to make a great movie.
@@andrewbaskett8581 Yes, bro, this is it! Spielberg with Minority Report, one of Cruise's best roles, then War of the Worlds, in which he has many heavy moments, can counter what the video essay teaches us. But also, I think, through this movie, Kubrick's last, Tom Cruise developed an understanding of Hollywood, something broke him, and he placed entertainment (which both Spielberg's films are) over Art. Also, parting ways with Nicole Kidman, which in the 90s was arguably the most beautiful woman in American cinema (see Batman Forever), makes no sense to me, a 30 year old male, now with two children, and I still believe she is gorgeous and a keeper for every sane man. When Tom lost it, he lost Nicole, or the other way around. That is why he is a workaholic, Hollywood, closed-circuit cults, and NOT Kubrick, is what broke him. ^Just my two cents in the vast pond of RUclips comments^ Hugs
With Sydney Pollack saying he didn't need to do that many takes himself- I wonder if Kubrick was wary of being too hard on a fellow director, heh, especially an A-lister like Pollack. And I'll take Pollack's word when he says he doesn't see why Cruise had to have so many takes, considering he directed Cruise himself a few years prior (in The Firm), and also because he guided quite a few actors to winning Oscars with his directing.
Kubrick himself often regretted that he was too slow in his movie making. Mostly due to his intense pre-production. This man always came well prepared. But that also consumed sooo much time.
Kubrick is one of the top movie producers / directors ever.. he has some of the best movies - for me personally the Space Odyssey is unparalleled. However, he also had some really abhorrent movies. I feel with Kubrick it is the two extremes - either poop, or the best movie ever.
I read somewhere that Kubrick was only impressed with Nicholson. That he did almost everything from the beginning, improvised and they became good friends. There is that documentary about Shining where you can see that Nicholson is enjoying himself while the other actors are not. I think Kubrick saw something in Nicholson, his pain that he carried because of his mother and his grandmother and what he went through.
It also makes perfect sense if his goal really is to break down certain actors and not others. Jack's character is absolutely giddy with insanity throughout the last half of the movie so it makes sense to treat Jack well when they're not shooting.
Tom and I have almost identical lives. That's why I quit my job assembling 350 Thanksgiving decorations a day in a Guangzhou factory and became a cobalt miner in Congo.
@@rubbersoul420 it wasn’t a good movie at all. Plus it was basically the same film as “the firm”. But it makes you wonder what other films he had to turn down because of eyes wide shut
To work with Kubrick, probably the greatest living director at that point, in his first movie in over a decade. Every actor in Hollywood who could put up with the long shoots would have done the same.
In 50 years, people will still be debating the films by Stanley Kubrick, as they are now 25 years after he died.... In 50 years many people will be asking who isHarvey Keitel ....
I really wish people would stop being Kubrick apologists. The man obviously suffered from some type of compulsive disorder that he projected onto others with a sadist’s desire to dominate. I think the man’s methods speak to his own insecurities rather than any short comings of an actor’s performance. And despite what Kubrick fanboys may believe, he would have gotten better performances out of his actors if he treated them like professionals rather than props.
I wish people like you would stop being random haters. What is your creative output exactly? Nothing? Also you’re projecting all of that onto him. And you e got zero idea why he did what he did. You know how many iconic films he made? A ton. You know how many anyone in the comments made? Exactly zero. You’re making all of that up and you aren’t the end all be all judge of if an actor did well or if Kubrick had a reason for what he did. And clearly based on is immense success, his process worked.
Also many directors have and that view of actors. Ford was rough with some actors and Hitchcock had joked that actors were like cattle. But quite clearly he got what he wanted in making these films.
@@ComeAlongKay I worked with actors and on screen talent hundreds of times and had the opportunity to see others at work as well. You get your best performances when people are treated professionally - it's that simple. That said - I am not a Kubrick hater - I just feel his methods were more a reflection of his own insecurities and not some genius directorial method. I find it interesting that actors never wanted to work with him again. One and done for every single one of them.
@@sooperd00p Yeah, and also 1) they filmed it in England and not Colorado, 2) it's a series of sound stages and not a hotel, and 3) all the snow is fake. Bunch of fakery in this here thing.
I'm with the actor that quit after Kubrick asked him to walk through the door for the 70th take. To say that they movie would have not have been as good if Kubrick didn't ask his actors to do 70 takes, that is absolutely nonsense. Nonsense. I think Kubrick is a good filmmaker, but he doesn't need 70 to 100 takes, especially from an actor like cruise. Honestly, it sounds like it's just Kubrick's ego making people do ridiculous things..
So....? The director can do whatever he wants....thats why he's the director and mot just some idiot actor with an over inflated opinion of themself. I guess Kubrick was pushing Keitel to leave.....
Kubrick's work speaks for itself. He obviously was demanding. But he was a Chef, not a fastfood joint manager. Movies can be done quick and easy and they can still be very very entertaining. But his movies were different, weren't they?
@@richardichard4237 Actually the director answers to the producer. So no, the director can't do whatever they want. Granted, in this case the producer was Stanley Kubrick himself.
Makes me want to watch this. For Star Trek II, Nicholas Meyer got repeated takes from Shatner. Because Shatner tends to mug for the cameras. Meyer would make him repeat until he dropped the act and Meyer for a more natural take. Tom Cruise for a lot of his movies has only played Tom Cruise. He's another one who mugs for the cameras. I can believe this was Kubrick s way of getting Cruise to drop his usual "you can't handle the truth" type energy and deliver something more natural.
This happened with Jamie Foxx on Django Unchained. It was difficult to act like an actual uneducated mumble mouthed slave because he was so used to performing his cool suave guy persona from 99% of his other films.
Some people think Tom Cruise is a great actor because he can act better than Stallone or Steven Seagal, which is true but won't cut it for Kubrick. Maybe Kubrick had to frustrate him because he couldn't act the frustration.
Tom’s performance was good, but not as good as he could be. Kidman’s performance was worse. I just think they disliked and could not click with Kubrick’s methods. So their performances suffered, although I think Tom’s was still good. He was much better in The Color of Money though, maybe because he was playing a flaky cocky show off. He completely nailed that part.
Im also not impressed with Tom's look-at-my-pretty-eyes-now-watch-me-angry-laugh-now-watch-this-burst-of-anger acting. But I did enjoy him in IWAT, Collateral, and Tropic Thunder, where he seemingly doesn't have to act much.
I was about ask the question while watching this video but you answered it and confirmed what I was thinking : the Kubrick experience is quite possibly what made Cruise move away from the dramatic roles he used to do pre-Mission Impossible. (I’m old enough to remember Cruise’s work before M:I) So, His career path totally makes sense now. This probably part of what drove Cruise to take more control of the films he works on also
On the David Fincher video, where he took as many takes as Kubrick, they suggested that he did that because it would strip away the actor's acting and by the X amount of takes, it would get to what the director wanted from the actor. Also, it would help very much in the editing process where the film actually takes shape, in guaranteeing perfect continuity and the ability to get the exact right look or reaction on every scene from being able to choose from many different takes.
All of Tom's emotions in Eyes Wide Shut can also be found in other Tom Cruise movies. He didn't need 80 takes for those movies. Therefore, it seems Kubrick bamboozled himself. He heard all the hype about what a genius he is and then had to prove it to himself by being eccentric.
Kubrick was a true genius. Questioning why he did so many takes is simply conjecture. Who knows but Stanley. But rest assured, there was a reason. It is not for us to judge the man or his work. He is simply on another level. Look at his body of work and you will agree. I wonder what the movie Eyes WIde shut would have been if he wouldnt have died before editing it himself.
I remember seeing "Eyes Wide Shut" when it came out in 1999, and thinking that a future generation Will really understand and get this film... And so now we just happening, because when "The Shining", first came out it got a Razzi award... Now it is appreciated as a masterpiece, and slowly and surely it is happening with "Eyes Wide Shut"..... In time it will be regarded as a masterpiece.... Mark my words!
It's already regarded as a masterpiece. It's had 25 years to earn that status. Not as long as The Shining but still easily long enough for people to realize that, as usual, Kubrick was a master at work.
I disagree that Kubrik needed all those shots. Taking 70 shots doesn't change the costume or lighting. It might slightly slightly tweak the acting, but I don't think it would make such a big difference.
well, you're wrong. obviously it had a profound affect on the actors, as evident in this video youre commenting on, right? so you dont think their acting was profoundly affected?
Superb analysis, marvelous essay, without saying too much at a time or being to in love with your voice, skill or style, which is rare, to have modesty! Yes, I think the Tom Cruise, a 60 year old action superstar we have today, has been changed by the neverending shoot and unravelling of Eyes Wide Shut, a movie I personally have never been able to finish, and I am a great admirer of cinema. He saw, learned, felt and understood something about Hollywood, that changed him as a human being: an artificial experience pays better than a philosophical reflection of the sins of modern civilization. A sugar-rush of frenetic fight sequences pays better than an allegory of good, evil and the soul-consuming price of sins. A Mission Impossible 15 is better, at 70 (probably), suitable and pays better than being involved, for a long, long time, in the creation of a mythological opus of a misunderstood genius - Kubrick, and that faith in movement, physical dedication to roles and perseveration washes years of sinful mistakes.
The contrast between someone like Kubrick and someone like Clint Eastwood is wild. Because theyve both directed incredible films. And Eastwood famously does one take and as long as there were no glaring fuck ups, they move on. And Kubrick does hundreds in pursuit of perfection. And the truth is that on any given day, id rather watch an Eastwood movie. They may not be as artful, or deep with meaning. But they seem to have more heart and are undeniably entertaining.
Not really on the same level to be honest. Thats like comparing a 3 michelin star resturant with Mac donalds you might enjoy a big mac more but its not better than a meal at the 3 michelin star place.
@@108noonoo I think a lot of Eastwood's films are comparable. Especially his later stuff. He's a great director. Maybe not entirely as accomplished on that front as Kubrick, but there is nothing to sniff at either. Mystic River, Gran Torino, Million Dollar Baby, A Perfect World, and Letters from Iwo Jima are great films!
@@108noonoo if you wanna compare Eastwood's filmography as a big mac....you know nothing....man made number of incredible films that stands shoulder to shoulder with Kubrick.
My parents switched the film off when they realised it was going to be freaky and twist our poor child minds haha. Guess I'll have to make up for it by watching it now.
Fun fact, David Prowse played the caretaker of the wheelchair bound husband of Alex's victim. Prowse was supposed to carry the man INCLUDING the wheelchair down a short flight of stairs for one scene ...and challenged to ask how many times this would be necessary. Saying the glorious line "you're not exactly known as one-take-Kubrick". Supposedly Kubrick would chuckle and let him off the hook after 2 or 3 takes. Makes me admire Prowse equally as for his almost cameo as Darth Vader.
We never got the true version of EWS. Warner lied at the time (I remember) stating that Kubrick had finished the film. Look into Kubrick’s history - no way the film was done. But now we know that even the music wasn’t right in the cut - it was finished based on his notes. With a director like Kubrick who knows what he would have wanted. It’s a fascinating film, but it’s not finished, Stanley’s death ensured that.
I've never come across this idea, and in the world of today's Internet if Warner lied at the time the rumour should be a lot more common if not confirmed by now. I think the simplest answer is probably the correct one - the film was complete, and Kubrick was old. Kubrick died two days after finishing editing the film, because it had taken a heavy toll on him at age 70 and now he could finally relax. Sudden death after completing a psychologically arduous task is common among old people - it's like their mind has given their body permission to let go.
The biggest rumor is a scene at the orgy with a pentagram was cut. This lends to suspecting what got cut exposed the elites’ sex magic. And since Epstein it all kinda makes sense doesn’t it ?
I'll never forgive Kubrick for how he treated Shelly Duvall during the filming of "The Shining"... But I'll always be grateful for the performance he was able to pull out her... one of the best in cinematic history, regardless of genre.
Funny how there is to this day such polarizing responses in people's reviews of Eyes Wide Shut. Some people claim it to be dismal, slow, torturous and downright boring and there are people that say it's one of the most brilliant film of Kubrick's work from the pacing, tempo, tension building to the claustrophobic environment and the many easter eggs Kubrick put in it. I'm of the latter opinion. There's also many theories on whether or not the studio interfered after his death and changed his original vision of what he wanted when editing the movie. He was able to completely edit it and show it to the main actors but there are people like Roger Avary who says that Warner Bros. changed the ending of his film and a few other things.
Christopher Nolan filmed the whole of The Dark Knight Trilogy faster than Stanley Kubrick shot this film. I am dead serious There is no way this film should have taken this long to shoot
The thing is Nolan works in the System with the benefit of having a lot more liberties than others. Kubrick was never really a Studio director but mostly stayed outside as much as he could. Kubrick never wanted to be part of the whole machinery but his movies were always very successful for Warner Brothers, which is why they granted him a lot of liberties such as full creative control and in return he always wanted to earn this trust with making movies that would be financially successful for Warner. He was an actual Filmmaker that had his own style and paste. Nolan's movies are really just Hollywood and also let's not forget that today you have a lot more possibilities than around the time Kubrick was shooting his movies. As much as i like and respect Nolan, he never comes anywhere close to Kubrick in terms of aspiration.
That’s indeed true but Nolan is definitely up there with Kubrick to me, not only because of his box office success but because he is the true meaning of an Auteur. He literally makes the movie from scratch, he fully writes most of his movies and directs them. Kubrick wrote and directed almost all of his movies but all were referenced from books.
I start to mail it in after 3 takes. I remember one time on a low budget film during an argument scene the director wanted a 3rd take. I asked: "any notes?" "Naw I just like watching you guys work."
Kubrick himself confided in his wife "My biggest regret is not making more films". So he really did piss about with the process of looking through the lens rather than getting on with the next project which he struggled to define. He was very burnt out after each film, and Eyes Wide Shut was this to such an extreme that it cost him his life. The pressure of making each film the best of its kind really must have played on his mind, and he didn't realise that the aspects that HE thought made the films good were NOT the reasons the public liked his films.
I think he was both. Like most people he's an amalgam of good and evil. In some ways there is no Pepsi or coke there is only cola. Yes...I know im an idiot lol.
I think it’s just a bunch of directors being pompous. I work as a VFX artist and the more you work and research the more you realise that directors don’t know shit.
While I respect Kubricks work and The Shining is in my top 3 films ever, I agree with Ridley Scott. I remember hearing somewhere Kubrick said "I know what I don't want.", which also means you don't know what you want.
I think it was because he didn't want to finish his vision of the film until the very last moment of editing so he wanted a million different takes in case he changed his mind on something
Ridley Scott isn't in Kubrick's league. He's close though. What's the difference? I think Kubrick had a very sly sense of humour, he would put the audience on just a little. Scott not so to me, but I haven't seen all his movies.
@@FamiliarAnomaly sure but that makes him a bad director. A football team coach who says “I don’t know what plays I want us to run on Sunday, so we’ll just practice a hundred variations of every play then I’ll pick the one I want on Sunday” is a coach who will never win a game. To me Kubrick has one film I enjoy; the shining. I also enjoyed the first half of Full Metal Jacket. But beyond that, I think Kubrick is a terrible director who could have been replaced by just about anyone and the films would have been better.
applying that logic, i guess he wanted to take as many takes as humanly possible, eliminate what he doesn't want from those and he'll end up / be left with what he likes, so wanted to increase the number of takes he thinks he 'can' like...!?
The problem with Cruise is that he's not much of an actor. His only natural performance, in Magnolia, was apparently him just being him. But also, Kubrick was nuts.
I'm not a fan of Cruise BUT I think he was sincere with his praises of Stanley Kubrick . Sir Ridley Scott was as picky with shots for Bladerunner as Stanley was by the way .
i personally think that Stanley Kubrick is a genius and no other director can compete with him but the films that he directed must need his method and Ridley Scott is another genius director as well but they are different 2 different person 2 different styles 2 different directors and different movie creators . his 2001 a space odyssey is just something i mean really from the future that time he created those things now we use it or see it or now its been created.
Great video! As suggested, I think maybe Kubrick was trying to use real life frustration to influence Cruise's preference, as he arguably did with Shelley Duvall. And she actually defended Kubrick's method and said it did actually bring here to a different level of acting. While I can certainly see why one would be tempted to say that doing that many takes is ridiculous, it's hard to argue with with Kubrick's impact. Pound for pound I think he was far more significant than Ridley Scott. Scott has countless forgettable films.
Yeah but that being true that’s not as fun as judging and being an armchair critic. People who’ve made nothing love to attack others. This comment section is full of them as if they’ve made anything if artistic value,
He knows what he's doing. He keeps making this big stunts because he's in great shape, but I'm sure he's lining up projects for an imminent future that have nothing to do with Mission Impossible.
I think cruise is a good actor. he has moments in some films that approach greatness, and others where he seems like just a pretty face who got the jobs for his looks and his action prowess. but overall I usually like his movies. I haven't seen eyes wide shut. I really want to, because like I said I do like cruise, and the rest of Kubricks movies are among my favorites of all time.
Kubrick is also the guy who didn’t tell the composer who wrote and recorded a complete score for 2001 that he didn’t use any of it. Dude found that out at the film’s premier.
I know it's not live theater but that many takes will turn ANY performance wooden. Some directors are visual directors, some directors are story directors, some directors are character directors, and some directors are actors' directors. Kubrick was not an actor's director.
I was working in Hollywood when EWS came together and the Warners/Cruise camp were talking about "6 or 9 months, maybe" and I'm there going... Face Eating Panther Party, dude, lol.
Great video. Should get a Patreon or something to support this. Clearly you wont be monetised even though you're fair use. Also would like to know more about the comment alluding to how T.C changed after the film, deeper into that at some point.
Clint Eastwood is famous for usually taking ONE take and no one says his movies are anything but great film making. Taking 100 shots of a single scene is actually bad film making. 100 takes isn't about what's on film, it's about psychological control. If the only way you can get the shot is to be psychologically abusive to your actor get another actor .......or go to work in Silicon Valley where they worship vile assholes like Steve Jobs. BTW...Don't care about anything that comes out of Crazy Tom Cruise's mouth. He worships at an alter (scientology) that rewards abusive behavior so he really doesn't get it.
Steve Jobs quite literally had a hand in inventing every single piece of computer tech that you use on a daily basis. If he didn't push his team, we wouldn't have any of it.
@@mikesmithz Yeah, being an asshole is the way to productivity. But it's not, it's the exact opposite. Who knows what would have happened if he hadn't been a feared asshole? If his team loved him and sought his approval above all else? THAT is a motivational method that had led armies to great victories....in fact if George Washington had "motivated" his people the way Jobs did the out come of the revolutionary war would have been much different. Virtually anything Jobs had a hand in would have eventually occurred anyway. If the Wright Bros didn't fly first it would have been someone else. If Ford hadn't reversed the pig slaughtering process into an assembly line, someone else would have. You think he was the only one with the IDEA of different interfaces, that no one else would have seen the opportunity of putting a PC in your pocket? Star Trek fans love to point out all the tech ideas that started there, in fact they claim the inspiration for the ipad started in The Next Generation. Are you that naive of technological history that you think ideas just occur out of thin air with just one individual? Best case Jobs behavior caused thing to happen a bit sooner, worst case he caused creativity to suffer and actually slowed progress. Who would you work harder for, an asshole or a really good guy?
@markalbert9011 you are talking utter nonsense. I'm assuming you are young and you've never had a job because your ideas are clearly nieve. To just say "if he didn't invent it, someone else would" is just the most absurd argument I've ever heard. Of course someone else would have invented it...but they didn't - he did, that's the point. There's way too many ideas to list here, but Jobs had a hand in bringing PC's to the market, GUIs, a mouse, tablets, changed the way we listen to music, changed mobile phones, revolutionized computer interfaces, networked computers, pushed the internet, computer animation in films....I could go on and on and on about everything Jobs pushed to the market, and it's certainly not an exaggeration to say that he is one of the most important figures in the history of computers. Would these things have happened without him? Maybe, but the fact is, he did create them and he had the vision to put the right people on the right teams to create the right products for the right time. Would his teams have made better products if Jobs was a nicer boss? Who knows, but probably not. He could have been nicer to his engineering team when they told him it was impossible to make the Ipod smaller - but him walking over to a fish tank, dropping the ipod into the water and then saying "see, air bubbles...make it smaller" just proved his point in a better way. Clearly you haven't had much work experience because hard bosses that push people get far better results than the push over nice bosses. Of course, it's better to work for an easy boss, but they don't get results. You look at any group collaboration and the successful ones always have a hard-ass pushing the team for success at the core of it. Whether it's James Cameron pushing his team to make Terminator 2 or Aliens, or Spielberg barking at his actors, or Jobs pushing his team to be better than they think they are. A hard-ass boss will always get better results than a push over, this is not only common sense, but it is something that you know is true from your personal life. Did you do the homework for that terrifyingly strict teacher? Did you do the homework for the push-over teacher who just laughed and said "don't worry about it, it doesn't matter?". We all want to work for an easy boss, but they don't get results. There's a huge difference between a psycho boss who is a hard ass for no reason, compared to someone like Jobs who was Lazer focused on making the absolute best product he can possibly make. When Jobs (or a hard ass, results focused boss) shouts at you, it's never personal. These sorts of bosses don't attack you for no reason - they know what you are capable of, and they are disappointed you are not doing your best. If I'm just working for a paycheck, then yes, give me the easy boss. But if my job is important, if it is to create something great, then give me a hard ass like Jobs any day of the week! One final point - what shape was Apple in before Jobs went back there? What happened once Jobs went back to Apple? Surely, this is all the proof you need to know how effective Jobs was and how influential his leadership style was in getting results.
@@mikesmithz The fact that you admire a man who abandoned his children, abused every personal relationship he ever had and died because of his own arrogance and STUPIDITY. JOBS was a vile despicable human being widely hated by those with whom he actually interacted...... and you, someone who never met the man defend him based on the products he produced for you? Really???...... That's your standard for human behavior? As long as you make good stuff and aren't physically violent it's all good? All that emotional violence is just the path to progress? .......That's what you're teaching your children?.......No, it's not is it? You want your children to be good and loving people devoted to their family with strong healthy friendships. You want your kids to be respected in their communities, not feared, loathed and despised by those who actually know them. Now, why do you want your children to be the exact opposite of what you defend? Contemplate that for a moment.
4:13 "I don't do a lot of takes when it's good", that is essentially true for R. Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket, we all know he was a retired drill sargeant who served during Vietnam War (ending up with PTSD), he also wrote some of his dialog, resulting in what's probably the best performance in any Stanley Kubrick film (not taking anything away from James Mason, Peter Sellers, George C. Scott, Malcolm McDowell, Jack Nicholson or Vincent D'Onoffrio), even Kubrick said Ermey was one of the most disciplined actors he ever worked with, to the point he only shoot each of his scenes twice or 3 times, that's what Kubrick was looking for. When you think about it, that's method acting at it's finest, Ermey didn't even have contact with the rest of the actors playing the Marines Corp outside the film. It's even unfair the Academy didn't nominate Ermey for best supporting actor. P. S: isn't strange that Tom Cruise hasn't talked about EWS or Stanley Kubrick for over almost 3 decades? Nicole Kidman did, she even spoke about a Kubrick film where he would have revealed powerful people and p3d0ph1l3s.
In his later years I played in a celebrity golf tournament where Ermey was the host. During the round he sat in a jeep and was filming a commercial and had to do the thing at least 30 times before I walked on and didn't see him finish. He didn't seem to tire but loved every minute of it. Maybe that's why Stanley and Ermey got along so well.
It may be part of it. Cruise doesn't even call himself an actor anymore. He states that he's an "entertainer." You can see that he's lost the self-seriousness that he had about acting in the 90s. And I think he's better for it overall, even if his great acting days are gone. Some people take filmmaking way too seriously. Cruise is correct in that regard. It is just entertainment.
Many were surprised he didn’t win the Oscar for magnolia even Michael Caine acknowledged him in his speech that supporting was too small an award for him and that he’s a leading man Tom looked accepting of it but Miramax clearly campaigned so hard that Caine got it at the end and was happy he finally got it on stage after he skipped his first Oscar win.
@Wingcake1 since you brought it up, I haven't seen Cruise give a performance like that since. He says that he's planning on making "Mission: Impossible" (1996---) movies until he's in his 80s. I haven't seen the last two parter but "Fallout" (2018) was damn good. I was surprised. Plus, I think Rebecca Ferguson is so sexy...
Kubrick still had Kubrick's habits at this point, but had lost his vision. Or followed it into navel-gazing solipsism and self-indulgence. It happens to so many of them: Greenaway, Scorsese, Coppola...
I just found it boring. I remember seeing in in a theater when it came out an the audience was just kind of deflated from watching it. Maybe I will try watching it again thoguh.
yeah, but this movie isn't remembered for its stunning shots. the orgy's not even memorable. it wasn't intriguingly staged and shot...it was...there's an orgy with Tom Cruise walking thru it. the story's....meh. i think Kubrick was like this due to the people in the industry, including Cruise, were too in awe and enabling of his madness. they'd call him a "perfectionist".... while that may be true about him, on some of his other movies... on this and The Shining...I call BS. well, with Shelley...I think I kinda get what he was tryinna do to her. her "madness" on screen wasn't up to his standards, thus, he "pushed" her to...literal madness. I remember I was highly underwhelmed by Eyes Wide Shut.... and they didn't need to shoot it for FOUR HUNDRED DAYS...!! lol
There's something kind of funny about this as Tom Cruise has been making Mission Impossible 8 for almost 2 and a half years now and still seems like it's got a couple months of shooting left (granted there was a strike + I am sure they were also doing stuff for Dead Reckoning at the time, but still).
Endless Love, Taps, The Outsiders, All The Right Moves, The Color of Money, Rain Man, Born On The Fourth of July, Far And Away, A Few Good Men, The Firm (sort of), Interview With A Vampire.
He also did this to Shelly Duvall, but for different reasons…or perhaps not. He did it to drive her to the point of madness which is very much what her character was goin through. He claimed it helped he draw out the true depth of her character. However, with cruise, it could have been a massive ego check. This was kubrick’s way of breaking the wild stallion to fit the character as he needed, in my opinion. Cruise was such a huge and still rising star, but retained massive box office. Kubrick wants what he wants for his movies. And tow egos like that simply cannot exist in the same air space without one or the other breaking.
If that's the case he could have told Tom in private look "in my own opinion I think you're a young hotshot who thinks he knows everything and I won't put up with it, this is the character I want you to play and I want you to put your heart into it".
rest well shelley duvall ❤
❤
...great now shes up - kubrick
Yes indeed. 😔 ❤️
RIP 😢
@@learningchanneru4856Up?
I recently watched "Eyes Wide Shut" after many years, and this time paid close attention to the pacing and the slowness of the dialogue delivery. I also noticed the way characters move, the pauses before they respond, and even the hesitation before answering a phone call. The stiffness in their walking, and the stillness of the voyeurs. It seems Kubrick worked hard to strip away any extra movement and noise, that might explain his many many takes. This end result was a kind of vacuum, an eerie setup that captures the entire film.
He could have done that with less takes for sure with an actor of Tom Cruises caliber. 😅
@@theinnerlight8016💯
@@theinnerlight8016 that is the great "what if" for lots of Kubrick's works; He obviously believed if he directly told his actors what he wanted it wouldnt feel natural, and he did it to their detriment. Others believe a director should be able to communicate these things in a way that works with the actors to achieve what they are looking for, and honestly thats how it should be.
Realistically, we will never know if movies like The Shinning or Eyes Wide Shut would have been as good with a different approach, so the best we can do now is acknowledge the bad decisions and practices behind the scenes and advocate for it not being like that
And obviously better, less stress inducing approaches do work, movies like Everything Everywhere All At Once prove that
(i went on a little tangent oops lmao, just really love film)
it's a mediocre film at best. Cruise is dreadful and Kidman is worse. Personally, I think Stanley wanted to destroy their marriage. And he did.
It was a drinking game for my friends. Anytime someone repeated what someone else JUST said, take a drink.🍺 Anytime Nicole hiccup-laughed, drink. 🍺Anytime that stupid two-note piano started, drink. 🍺It was the only way to survive watching this. 😊😊😊
Harvey Keitel‘s diagnosis of Stanley was probably the most accurate.
@@Steve-ym9qg 6:45. He's not wrong.
That interview is legendary because that was the day Opie, Anthony and Jim all found out Patrice Oneal died, so they were choking their way through that Gary Oldman interview.
He was crazy, but then his movies are unparalleled imo.
@@slartibartfast7921But it's dumb though, because anybody can make their perfect movie if they're given the same freedom as Kubrick. Kubrick is just a sadist
@@stellviahohenheim “It’s dumb though” People in glass houses…. Kubrick did what he needed to, and the ends justified the means. Would I have wanted to work with him? Probably not, but he was responsible for the greatest movies of the 20th century imo. Tom Cruse can be challenging too I’ve heard, so it was probably an experience he needed. Overall though saying anyone can make their perfect movie when given enough freedom may be smarter than you intended it to be…. Neil Breen has complete freedom, so I guess you’re right?
This video deserves way more views. So well presented!
Hello Bhai I watch your videos 😅
jammy is here 😂
Thank you.
Kubrick was a genius. But sometimes, you gotta just point at the obvious answer: dude had a massive ego. Stanley probably loved playing mind games with Tom Cruise.
being a perfectionist doesnt make you egotistical.
Could Scientology be one of the reasons? Kubrick lost his daughter Vivian to Scientology in 1995. I doubt he blamed Cruise directly but maybe his fame and looks attracted a lot of people to it. Anything is possible with Kubrick 🤷♂️
@@LordConstrobuzThat must be a joke. Perfectionism is all about ego.
Genius aint free
Kubrick is America’s greatest director of all time.
I’m with Harvey Kietel. I would have quit on Day One. 70-80 takes isn’t about getting the best take. It’s a control methodology designed to break an actor and turn them into a piece of malleable clay.
@OnafetsEnovap I'd say 40 max
That’s what happens, and they signed up for it.
He was basically doing what drill instructors do in the Marines.
Jack Nickleson said he never had a problem!
@OnafetsEnovap no because that would screw over good directors. Good directors will finish most of their scenes in an average of 3 takes. Then they have the one shot they can’t get right that takes 30.
Kubrick was just a hack who ruined incredible scripts through his dogshit directing style.
You have to admire Tom cruise being an absolute professional here. May be Stanley Kubrick wanted the expression of frustration from Tom. But it would have been better to just ask him to give those expression rather than endless takes. Because this Tom Cruise, he is also a madman like Kubrick when it comes to making movies, and mission impossible movies are a testament of it. As for people who doubt Tom Cruise acting, well I suggest you watch COLLATERAL.
Collateral is an incredible role for Cruise. Say what you will about his personality in real life, he dedicated himself fully in that movie and never slipped up once.
Magnolia also
Try Interview With A Vampire, Cruise was so good that Anne Rice bought a newspaper ad, telling people to go see the movie for his performance. She was against his casting, but the results is he made her character far more memorable than what she wrote IMO.
Stanley Kubrick was simply an obssessive-compulsive control-freak of a director. He was also an editor, and all these hundreds of shots are more to do with having more materials for editing, than "perfection" than non-creatives tend to believe.
@@Account.for.Comment I understand having the material ... but on average (regarding film stock quality) it's approximately $1/second of film at 24fps. So expenditures go way up if the director is doing 30-40-50-60-70+ takes.
Lets say a shot is 5 seconds long in the script, but that's what's kept. What's filmed is usually twice that. So that shot is 10 seconds of film, so $10 of film. Now do that 70 times. That's $700 in film alone. Now do 70 takes, per shot, for the entire movie. With a movie at approx 90 minutes, that's 5,400 seconds of KEPT footage. Now double that for shot footage. We now have 10,800 seconds of film in a "per shot" total of sorts, which was done 70 times.
I think you can see where I'm going with this.
Having THAT much material is just a massive waste of the budget which could definitely have been spent someplace else.
@@Soldier4USA2005 yes. But Kubrick did not finance his film with his own money, did he? Film stocks would have been a very common material in the massive studios that finance his work. He was a giant in his field, and most of his works are not made in the era of bean counters and massive special effect.
In Dr Strangelove, the George C. Scott comedic scenes are supposedly to be never for production. So basically, he throw all of the "real" scene, and being happy with the equivalent of bloopers.
stan got into tom's head, and stayed there, forever
I do have to disagree with the ending conclusion - Tom went and made alot more drama films - Vanilla Sky, Collateral (Id argue Last Samurai is a more period piece than action film), Lions and Lambs, Valkyrie and Rock of Ages. Its was more the Scientology thing bursting and questions around his career that caused him to basically just do the hits and control his stuff. He also basically did his big career goal of working with the best directors working. Its insane the people he worked with, And by 2013, he had done everyone really...
@@andrewbaskett8581 Movies of which do not suck by Tom, Minority Report, Oblivion, American Mage.
@@lordarchontitus I even like the first Jack Reacher. He's made a ton of great films. I struggle with supporting him because of the scientology stuff, but damnit, the dude really knows how to make a great movie.
@@andrewbaskett8581 Yes, bro, this is it! Spielberg with Minority Report, one of Cruise's best roles, then War of the Worlds, in which he has many heavy moments, can counter what the video essay teaches us.
But also, I think, through this movie, Kubrick's last, Tom Cruise developed an understanding of Hollywood, something broke him, and he placed entertainment (which both Spielberg's films are) over Art.
Also, parting ways with Nicole Kidman, which in the 90s was arguably the most beautiful woman in American cinema (see Batman Forever), makes no sense to me, a 30 year old male, now with two children, and I still believe she is gorgeous and a keeper for every sane man. When Tom lost it, he lost Nicole, or the other way around. That is why he is a workaholic, Hollywood, closed-circuit cults, and NOT Kubrick, is what broke him.
^Just my two cents in the vast pond of RUclips comments^
Hugs
@@andrewbaskett8581 i did not say i did not like many of his films, he has made many good films
With Sydney Pollack saying he didn't need to do that many takes himself- I wonder if Kubrick was wary of being too hard on a fellow director, heh, especially an A-lister like Pollack. And I'll take Pollack's word when he says he doesn't see why Cruise had to have so many takes, considering he directed Cruise himself a few years prior (in The Firm), and also because he guided quite a few actors to winning Oscars with his directing.
I think he was saying that the numerous takes weren’t necessarily because of him, but he still had to do them because he was in the scene with Cruise
this film and the lore around it are so fascinating
perfectionism is also counterproductive.
It resembles more a OCD than a real try to make the scene better
"perfect is the enemy of good"
Kubrick himself often regretted that he was too slow in his movie making. Mostly due to his intense pre-production. This man always came well prepared. But that also consumed sooo much time.
@@PEDRELVIS yep, or even maybe loss of confidence and a desire to reach past achievements.
but V€Ry giömetttriCK ^ ^
Kubrick was crazy. It worked sometimes and it didn’t other times.
All geniuses are arguably mad, Kubrick was a genius, that is my subjective opinion.
Kubrick is one of the top movie producers / directors ever.. he has some of the best movies - for me personally the Space Odyssey is unparalleled. However, he also had some really abhorrent movies. I feel with Kubrick it is the two extremes - either poop, or the best movie ever.
He was obsessed but not crazy. Big difference.
it worked more than it didnt but yeah he was batshit crazy and prob thats why his movies are so good i dunno
Give an example of where it didn't work. The only one I thought blew was Barry Lyndon
I love your style. Shorter than most but packed with context and industry insight. 🎉🎉🎉 keep doing it!
Thanks dude. More to come.
shorter!? trollin
@@musicisart2 😂😂😂
I read somewhere that Kubrick was only impressed with Nicholson. That he did almost everything from the beginning, improvised and they became good friends. There is that documentary about Shining where you can see that Nicholson is enjoying himself while the other actors are not. I think Kubrick saw something in Nicholson, his pain that he carried because of his mother and his grandmother and what he went through.
It also makes perfect sense if his goal really is to break down certain actors and not others. Jack's character is absolutely giddy with insanity throughout the last half of the movie so it makes sense to treat Jack well when they're not shooting.
@@NathanRichan yes, and Shelley was tormented by Nicholson's character and hence tormented by Kubrick.
Nicholson was a genius actor who could write. Tom was a guy who used to suck c***s on La Cienaga and Sunset Blvd.
Tom and I have almost identical lives. That's why I quit my job assembling 350 Thanksgiving decorations a day in a Guangzhou factory and became a cobalt miner in Congo.
😂😂😂
I had No idea the film took that long to shoot, that really explains a LOT!
Really excellently made video essays man. I just watched all 3 available on the channel and subbed. Looking forward to more
Fun fact: he turned down movies like enemy of the state because he was still filming eyes wide shut.
@@totallybored5526 Or maybe you just aren't fun?
@@totallybored5526 but that’s what makes it fun 🤣😁
but that movie sucked
@@rubbersoul420 it wasn’t a good movie at all. Plus it was basically the same film as “the firm”. But it makes you wonder what other films he had to turn down because of eyes wide shut
To work with Kubrick, probably the greatest living director at that point, in his first movie in over a decade. Every actor in Hollywood who could put up with the long shoots would have done the same.
Harvey Keitel walked off set, calling Kubrick nuts!! LOL
In 50 years, people will still be debating the films by Stanley Kubrick, as they are now 25 years after he died.... In 50 years many people will be asking who isHarvey Keitel ....
I’ve just watched all your videos, I haven’t watched a film video essay in forever but you’ve got me hooked again. Please upload more!
Awesome, thanks for your comment! More to come - just taking a while!
I see you took a two year break, this was really good and hope to see more.
Thanks man - I hope to make another before too long.
Just realized you only had 3 videos and was about to binge watch your channel. Looks like I already did. Excited for the next
I really wish people would stop being Kubrick apologists. The man obviously suffered from some type of compulsive disorder that he projected onto others with a sadist’s desire to dominate. I think the man’s methods speak to his own insecurities rather than any short comings of an actor’s performance. And despite what Kubrick fanboys may believe, he would have gotten better performances out of his actors if he treated them like professionals rather than props.
I wish people like you would stop being random haters. What is your creative output exactly? Nothing? Also you’re projecting all of that onto him. And you e got zero idea why he did what he did. You know how many iconic films he made? A ton. You know how many anyone in the comments made? Exactly zero. You’re making all of that up and you aren’t the end all be all judge of if an actor did well or if Kubrick had a reason for what he did. And clearly based on is immense success, his process worked.
Also many directors have and that view of actors. Ford was rough with some actors and Hitchcock had joked that actors were like cattle. But quite clearly he got what he wanted in making these films.
@@ComeAlongKay I worked with actors and on screen talent hundreds of times and had the opportunity to see others at work as well. You get your best performances when people are treated professionally - it's that simple. That said - I am not a Kubrick hater - I just feel his methods were more a reflection of his own insecurities and not some genius directorial method. I find it interesting that actors never wanted to work with him again. One and done for every single one of them.
@@fpdima For me kubrick is Terence Fletcher in whiplash, not a good teacher. But he knows what he's doing.
I agree. I don’t think there’s a single performance in any Kubrick film where the character is a believable human being. It’s all just overdone.
the 90s was truly the last great decade of cinema
Awesome stuff. Just watched the 3 vids and excited for the next one👏 👏
Yeah, Kubrick's movies have this eerie feeling of delusion, like absolutely nothing was real. They're like believably unbelievable.
This a great channel looking forward to more 👍
1:16 - Bro is arguing with a woman holding a knife 😂 also RIP both a yas
.....it's a fake knife bud.
@@sooperd00p Yeah, and also 1) they filmed it in England and not Colorado, 2) it's a series of sound stages and not a hotel, and 3) all the snow is fake. Bunch of fakery in this here thing.
I'm with the actor that quit after Kubrick asked him to walk through the door for the 70th take. To say that they movie would have not have been as good if Kubrick didn't ask his actors to do 70 takes, that is absolutely nonsense. Nonsense. I think Kubrick is a good filmmaker, but he doesn't need 70 to 100 takes, especially from an actor like cruise. Honestly, it sounds like it's just Kubrick's ego making people do ridiculous things..
So....?
The director can do whatever he wants....thats why he's the director and mot just some idiot actor with an over inflated opinion of themself.
I guess Kubrick was pushing Keitel to leave.....
Kubrick's work speaks for itself. He obviously was demanding. But he was a Chef, not a fastfood joint manager. Movies can be done quick and easy and they can still be very very entertaining. But his movies were different, weren't they?
i bet tarantino is your favorite director
@@richardichard4237 Actually the director answers to the producer. So no, the director can't do whatever they want. Granted, in this case the producer was Stanley Kubrick himself.
Makes me want to watch this.
For Star Trek II, Nicholas Meyer got repeated takes from Shatner. Because Shatner tends to mug for the cameras. Meyer would make him repeat until he dropped the act and Meyer for a more natural take.
Tom Cruise for a lot of his movies has only played Tom Cruise. He's another one who mugs for the cameras. I can believe this was Kubrick s way of getting Cruise to drop his usual "you can't handle the truth" type energy and deliver something more natural.
This happened with Jamie Foxx on Django Unchained. It was difficult to act like an actual uneducated mumble mouthed slave because he was so used to performing his cool suave guy persona from 99% of his other films.
Some people think Tom Cruise is a great actor because he can act better than Stallone or Steven Seagal, which is true but won't cut it for Kubrick.
Maybe Kubrick had to frustrate him because he couldn't act the frustration.
Tom’s performance was good, but not as good as he could be. Kidman’s performance was worse. I just think they disliked and could not click with Kubrick’s methods. So their performances suffered, although I think Tom’s was still good. He was much better in The Color of Money though, maybe because he was playing a flaky cocky show off. He completely nailed that part.
Im also not impressed with Tom's look-at-my-pretty-eyes-now-watch-me-angry-laugh-now-watch-this-burst-of-anger acting. But I did enjoy him in IWAT, Collateral, and Tropic Thunder, where he seemingly doesn't have to act much.
I was about ask the question while watching this video but you answered it and confirmed what I was thinking : the Kubrick experience is quite possibly what made Cruise move away from the dramatic roles he used to do pre-Mission Impossible. (I’m old enough to remember Cruise’s work before M:I) So, His career path totally makes sense now. This probably part of what drove Cruise to take more control of the films he works on also
Exceptional film. Takes a moment to recover from it when it is over.
Incredible must-watch movie in so many ways.
On the David Fincher video, where he took as many takes as Kubrick, they suggested that he did that because it would strip away the actor's acting and by the X amount of takes, it would get to what the director wanted from the actor.
Also, it would help very much in the editing process where the film actually takes shape, in guaranteeing perfect continuity and the ability to get the exact right look or reaction on every scene from being able to choose from many different takes.
exactly , i don't get why people think he's egotistical for doing that
All of Tom's emotions in Eyes Wide Shut can also be found in other Tom Cruise movies. He didn't need 80 takes for those movies. Therefore, it seems Kubrick bamboozled himself. He heard all the hype about what a genius he is and then had to prove it to himself by being eccentric.
Kubrick was a true genius. Questioning why he did so many takes is simply conjecture. Who knows but Stanley. But rest assured, there was a reason. It is not for us to judge the man or his work. He is simply on another level. Look at his body of work and you will agree. I wonder what the movie Eyes WIde shut would have been if he wouldnt have died before editing it himself.
This movie straight up broke Cruise's and Kidman's relationship.
Scientology did.
@@MsTriangle Bro did the character too hard and actually joined a cult
@@MsTriangle and cruise being a closeted gay man
@@squimpopolisthat’s the rumor
@@squimpopolisWhy on earth would any actor need to closet himself in the 90s? It’s not Rock in the #50s.
I agree, Kubrick is one of the best ever.
The complete opposite of him is Clint Eastwood, known for often doing only one take.
Something sublime
I remember seeing "Eyes Wide Shut" when it came out in 1999, and thinking that a future generation Will really understand and get this film... And so now we just happening, because when "The Shining", first came out it got a Razzi award... Now it is appreciated as a masterpiece, and slowly and surely it is happening with "Eyes Wide Shut"..... In time it will be regarded as a masterpiece.... Mark my words!
Watched it again last night after watching reviews like this and it is mind boggling!
It's already regarded as a masterpiece. It's had 25 years to earn that status. Not as long as The Shining but still easily long enough for people to realize that, as usual, Kubrick was a master at work.
I disagree that Kubrik needed all those shots. Taking 70 shots doesn't change the costume or lighting. It might slightly slightly tweak the acting, but I don't think it would make such a big difference.
well, you're wrong. obviously it had a profound affect on the actors, as evident in this video youre commenting on, right? so you dont think their acting was profoundly affected?
I love making movies fast and i love taking the time to make great movies and neither can replace the other two different art forms
Superb analysis, marvelous essay, without saying too much at a time or being to in love with your voice, skill or style, which is rare, to have modesty!
Yes, I think the Tom Cruise, a 60 year old action superstar we have today, has been changed by the neverending shoot and unravelling of Eyes Wide Shut, a movie I personally have never been able to finish, and I am a great admirer of cinema. He saw, learned, felt and understood something about Hollywood, that changed him as a human being: an artificial experience pays better than a philosophical reflection of the sins of modern civilization. A sugar-rush of frenetic fight sequences pays better than an allegory of good, evil and the soul-consuming price of sins.
A Mission Impossible 15 is better, at 70 (probably), suitable and pays better than being involved, for a long, long time, in the creation of a mythological opus of a misunderstood genius - Kubrick, and that faith in movement, physical dedication to roles and perseveration washes years of sinful mistakes.
The contrast between someone like Kubrick and someone like Clint Eastwood is wild. Because theyve both directed incredible films. And Eastwood famously does one take and as long as there were no glaring fuck ups, they move on. And Kubrick does hundreds in pursuit of perfection. And the truth is that on any given day, id rather watch an Eastwood movie. They may not be as artful, or deep with meaning. But they seem to have more heart and are undeniably entertaining.
Shinning and 2001 are cool but Unforgiven is one of my all time favorites
Not really on the same level to be honest. Thats like comparing a 3 michelin star resturant with Mac donalds you might enjoy a big mac more but its not better than a meal at the 3 michelin star place.
Well and i like both for various reasons. And I respect both a LOT and also what they have done for Cinema.
@@108noonoo I think a lot of Eastwood's films are comparable. Especially his later stuff. He's a great director. Maybe not entirely as accomplished on that front as Kubrick, but there is nothing to sniff at either. Mystic River, Gran Torino, Million Dollar Baby, A Perfect World, and Letters from Iwo Jima are great films!
@@108noonoo if you wanna compare Eastwood's filmography as a big mac....you know nothing....man made number of incredible films that stands shoulder to shoulder with Kubrick.
My parents switched the film off when they realised it was going to be freaky and twist our poor child minds haha. Guess I'll have to make up for it by watching it now.
Fun fact, David Prowse played the caretaker of the wheelchair bound husband of Alex's victim. Prowse was supposed to carry the man INCLUDING the wheelchair down a short flight of stairs for one scene ...and challenged to ask how many times this would be necessary. Saying the glorious line "you're not exactly known as one-take-Kubrick". Supposedly Kubrick would chuckle and let him off the hook after 2 or 3 takes. Makes me admire Prowse equally as for his almost cameo as Darth Vader.
We never got the true version of EWS. Warner lied at the time (I remember) stating that Kubrick had finished the film. Look into Kubrick’s history - no way the film was done. But now we know that even the music wasn’t right in the cut - it was finished based on his notes. With a director like Kubrick who knows what he would have wanted. It’s a fascinating film, but it’s not finished, Stanley’s death ensured that.
I've never come across this idea, and in the world of today's Internet if Warner lied at the time the rumour should be a lot more common if not confirmed by now.
I think the simplest answer is probably the correct one - the film was complete, and Kubrick was old. Kubrick died two days after finishing editing the film, because it had taken a heavy toll on him at age 70 and now he could finally relax. Sudden death after completing a psychologically arduous task is common among old people - it's like their mind has given their body permission to let go.
@@squamish4244 ruclips.net/video/qFB1ApdW2u4/видео.html
@@squamish4244 Bullshit. Kubrick is Nick Nightingale, and the elites ended him, and re-edited his film.
I believe it was finished but they cut 23 mins out and off'd him
The biggest rumor is a scene at the orgy with a pentagram was cut. This lends to suspecting what got cut exposed the elites’ sex magic. And since Epstein it all kinda makes sense doesn’t it ?
I'll never forgive Kubrick for how he treated Shelly Duvall during the filming of "The Shining"...
But I'll always be grateful for the performance he was able to pull out her... one of the best in cinematic history, regardless of genre.
Funny how there is to this day such polarizing responses in people's reviews of Eyes Wide Shut. Some people claim it to be dismal, slow, torturous and downright boring and there are people that say it's one of the most brilliant film of Kubrick's work from the pacing, tempo, tension building to the claustrophobic environment and the many easter eggs Kubrick put in it. I'm of the latter opinion.
There's also many theories on whether or not the studio interfered after his death and changed his original vision of what he wanted when editing the movie. He was able to completely edit it and show it to the main actors but there are people like Roger Avary who says that Warner Bros. changed the ending of his film and a few other things.
Christopher Nolan filmed the whole of The Dark Knight Trilogy faster than Stanley Kubrick shot this film. I am dead serious
There is no way this film should have taken this long to shoot
The thing is Nolan works in the System with the benefit of having a lot more liberties than others. Kubrick was never really a Studio director but mostly stayed outside as much as he could. Kubrick never wanted to be part of the whole machinery but his movies were always very successful for Warner Brothers, which is why they granted him a lot of liberties such as full creative control and in return he always wanted to earn this trust with making movies that would be financially successful for Warner. He was an actual Filmmaker that had his own style and paste. Nolan's movies are really just Hollywood and also let's not forget that today you have a lot more possibilities than around the time Kubrick was shooting his movies. As much as i like and respect Nolan, he never comes anywhere close to Kubrick in terms of aspiration.
That’s indeed true but Nolan is definitely up there with Kubrick to me, not only because of his box office success but because he is the true meaning of an Auteur. He literally makes the movie from scratch, he fully writes most of his movies and directs them. Kubrick wrote and directed almost all of his movies but all were referenced from books.
Because he is someone who takes time
@@oscarwinningcritic”wastes time”
I start to mail it in after 3 takes. I remember one time on a low budget film during an argument scene the director wanted a 3rd take. I asked: "any notes?" "Naw I just like watching you guys work."
Great video! What I have often wondered is, why did Warner Brothers put up with this insanity?
Kubrick himself confided in his wife "My biggest regret is not making more films". So he really did piss about with the process of looking through the lens rather than getting on with the next project which he struggled to define. He was very burnt out after each film, and Eyes Wide Shut was this to such an extreme that it cost him his life. The pressure of making each film the best of its kind really must have played on his mind, and he didn't realise that the aspects that HE thought made the films good were NOT the reasons the public liked his films.
Stanley was not a perfectionist. He was a sociopath. Legit.
I have wondered that as well recently.
Not true at all. David Fincher sometimes goes to 70 takes.
@@orangewarm1 we never said he has exclusivity rights to being a sociopath
I think he was both. Like most people he's an amalgam of good and evil. In some ways there is no Pepsi or coke there is only cola.
Yes...I know im an idiot lol.
Genius often looks sociopathic to idiots
He was testing Tom Cruise‘s Scientology superpowers.
I think it’s just a bunch of directors being pompous. I work as a VFX artist and the more you work and research the more you realise that directors don’t know shit.
Just found your channel. Really great video, thank you.
Several directors have been accused of this very same thing, including James Cameron and Michael Cimino.
There is a theory that Kubrick enjoyed torturing Cruise and got a kick out of keeping him on this project so he missed other work opportunities.
While I respect Kubricks work and The Shining is in my top 3 films ever, I agree with Ridley Scott.
I remember hearing somewhere Kubrick said "I know what I don't want.", which also means you don't know what you want.
The first half of that quote is Kubrick literally saying "I don't always know what I want..."
I think it was because he didn't want to finish his vision of the film until the very last moment of editing so he wanted a million different takes in case he changed his mind on something
Ridley Scott isn't in Kubrick's league. He's close though. What's the difference? I think Kubrick had a very sly sense of humour, he would put the audience on just a little. Scott not so to me, but I haven't seen all his movies.
@@FamiliarAnomaly sure but that makes him a bad director.
A football team coach who says “I don’t know what plays I want us to run on Sunday, so we’ll just practice a hundred variations of every play then I’ll pick the one I want on Sunday” is a coach who will never win a game.
To me Kubrick has one film I enjoy; the shining. I also enjoyed the first half of Full Metal Jacket. But beyond that, I think Kubrick is a terrible director who could have been replaced by just about anyone and the films would have been better.
applying that logic, i guess he wanted to take as many takes as humanly possible, eliminate what he doesn't want from those and he'll end up / be left with what he likes, so wanted to increase the number of takes he thinks he 'can' like...!?
The problem with Cruise is that he's not much of an actor. His only natural performance, in Magnolia, was apparently him just being him. But also, Kubrick was nuts.
Bullshit, Tom Cruise has repeatedly said he enjoyed the process even though it was rigorous.
He was being professional
That's the answer his PR consultants recommended he give
I'm not a fan of Cruise BUT I think he was sincere with his praises of Stanley Kubrick . Sir Ridley Scott was as picky with shots for Bladerunner as Stanley was by the way .
@@BruceStephan Cruise even narrated the stanley kubrick memorial documentary made after his death.
It can be both.
i personally think that Stanley Kubrick is a genius and no other director can compete with him but the films that he directed must need his method and Ridley Scott is another genius director as well but they are different 2 different person 2 different styles 2 different directors and different movie creators .
his 2001 a space odyssey is just something i mean really from the future that time he created those things now we use it or see it or now its been created.
Great video! As suggested, I think maybe Kubrick was trying to use real life frustration to influence Cruise's preference, as he arguably did with Shelley Duvall. And she actually defended Kubrick's method and said it did actually bring here to a different level of acting.
While I can certainly see why one would be tempted to say that doing that many takes is ridiculous, it's hard to argue with with Kubrick's impact. Pound for pound I think he was far more significant than Ridley Scott. Scott has countless forgettable films.
Yeah but that being true that’s not as fun as judging and being an armchair critic. People who’ve made nothing love to attack others. This comment section is full of them as if they’ve made anything if artistic value,
@@ComeAlongKay Indeed, plenty of _Monday morning quarterbacks_ on the internets
Tom Cruise signed for Eyes Wide Shut as an apprentice, Kubrick turned him into a master.
That last part is very true. Cruise solely is an action star now, it’s incredibly disappointing.
He knows what he's doing. He keeps making this big stunts because he's in great shape, but I'm sure he's lining up projects for an imminent future that have nothing to do with Mission Impossible.
actually its a great thing for industry as he is the last big action star of our generation!
True perfection has to be imperfect
And, after EWS, Cruise became a HARDCORE ........ LRH Fan (aka scientologist)
I think cruise is a good actor. he has moments in some films that approach greatness, and others where he seems like just a pretty face who got the jobs for his looks and his action prowess. but overall I usually like his movies.
I haven't seen eyes wide shut. I really want to, because like I said I do like cruise, and the rest of Kubricks movies are among my favorites of all time.
Kubrick is also the guy who didn’t tell the composer who wrote and recorded a complete score for 2001 that he didn’t use any of it. Dude found that out at the film’s premier.
Great story thanks 🙏
I think Stanley likes to see If he could drive someone into madness! And he has for a few of his cast members
I know it's not live theater but that many takes will turn ANY performance wooden.
Some directors are visual directors, some directors are story directors, some directors are character directors, and some directors are actors' directors. Kubrick was not an actor's director.
“ This is the year something happens to cruise..” PDiddy.
I feel like Kubrick made Tom go crazy
I was working in Hollywood when EWS came together and the Warners/Cruise camp were talking about "6 or 9 months, maybe" and I'm there going... Face Eating Panther Party, dude, lol.
Great video. Should get a Patreon or something to support this. Clearly you wont be monetised even though you're fair use.
Also would like to know more about the comment alluding to how T.C changed after the film, deeper into that at some point.
Well Cruise still did Vanilla Sky after EWS/Magnolia, so I think the breaking point was sometime later
Eyes wide shut is a intense movie.
This feels like it was produced by the film studios to convince young filmmakers not to aspire to have any control over their movies.
Would live a Clint Eastwood version! 😮
Clint Eastwood is famous for usually taking ONE take and no one says his movies are anything but great film making. Taking 100 shots of a single scene is actually bad film making. 100 takes isn't about what's on film, it's about psychological control. If the only way you can get the shot is to be psychologically abusive to your actor get another actor .......or go to work in Silicon Valley where they worship vile assholes like Steve Jobs.
BTW...Don't care about anything that comes out of Crazy Tom Cruise's mouth. He worships at an alter (scientology) that rewards abusive behavior so he really doesn't get it.
Nailed it. I respect Cruise's professionalism, but he's a terrible person.
Steve Jobs quite literally had a hand in inventing every single piece of computer tech that you use on a daily basis. If he didn't push his team, we wouldn't have any of it.
@@mikesmithz Yeah, being an asshole is the way to productivity. But it's not, it's the exact opposite. Who knows what would have happened if he hadn't been a feared asshole? If his team loved him and sought his approval above all else? THAT is a motivational method that had led armies to great victories....in fact if George Washington had "motivated" his people the way Jobs did the out come of the revolutionary war would have been much different.
Virtually anything Jobs had a hand in would have eventually occurred anyway. If the Wright Bros didn't fly first it would have been someone else. If Ford hadn't reversed the pig slaughtering process into an assembly line, someone else would have. You think he was the only one with the IDEA of different interfaces, that no one else would have seen the opportunity of putting a PC in your pocket? Star Trek fans love to point out all the tech ideas that started there, in fact they claim the inspiration for the ipad started in The Next Generation. Are you that naive of technological history that you think ideas just occur out of thin air with just one individual?
Best case Jobs behavior caused thing to happen a bit sooner, worst case he caused creativity to suffer and actually slowed progress. Who would you work harder for, an asshole or a really good guy?
@markalbert9011 you are talking utter nonsense. I'm assuming you are young and you've never had a job because your ideas are clearly nieve. To just say "if he didn't invent it, someone else would" is just the most absurd argument I've ever heard. Of course someone else would have invented it...but they didn't - he did, that's the point. There's way too many ideas to list here, but Jobs had a hand in bringing PC's to the market, GUIs, a mouse, tablets, changed the way we listen to music, changed mobile phones, revolutionized computer interfaces, networked computers, pushed the internet, computer animation in films....I could go on and on and on about everything Jobs pushed to the market, and it's certainly not an exaggeration to say that he is one of the most important figures in the history of computers. Would these things have happened without him? Maybe, but the fact is, he did create them and he had the vision to put the right people on the right teams to create the right products for the right time. Would his teams have made better products if Jobs was a nicer boss? Who knows, but probably not. He could have been nicer to his engineering team when they told him it was impossible to make the Ipod smaller - but him walking over to a fish tank, dropping the ipod into the water and then saying "see, air bubbles...make it smaller" just proved his point in a better way.
Clearly you haven't had much work experience because hard bosses that push people get far better results than the push over nice bosses. Of course, it's better to work for an easy boss, but they don't get results. You look at any group collaboration and the successful ones always have a hard-ass pushing the team for success at the core of it. Whether it's James Cameron pushing his team to make Terminator 2 or Aliens, or Spielberg barking at his actors, or Jobs pushing his team to be better than they think they are. A hard-ass boss will always get better results than a push over, this is not only common sense, but it is something that you know is true from your personal life. Did you do the homework for that terrifyingly strict teacher? Did you do the homework for the push-over teacher who just laughed and said "don't worry about it, it doesn't matter?". We all want to work for an easy boss, but they don't get results. There's a huge difference between a psycho boss who is a hard ass for no reason, compared to someone like Jobs who was Lazer focused on making the absolute best product he can possibly make. When Jobs (or a hard ass, results focused boss) shouts at you, it's never personal. These sorts of bosses don't attack you for no reason - they know what you are capable of, and they are disappointed you are not doing your best. If I'm just working for a paycheck, then yes, give me the easy boss. But if my job is important, if it is to create something great, then give me a hard ass like Jobs any day of the week!
One final point - what shape was Apple in before Jobs went back there? What happened once Jobs went back to Apple? Surely, this is all the proof you need to know how effective Jobs was and how influential his leadership style was in getting results.
@@mikesmithz The fact that you admire a man who abandoned his children, abused every personal relationship he ever had and died because of his own arrogance and STUPIDITY.
JOBS was a vile despicable human being widely hated by those with whom he actually interacted...... and you, someone who never met the man defend him based on the products he produced for you? Really???...... That's your standard for human behavior? As long as you make good stuff and aren't physically violent it's all good? All that emotional violence is just the path to progress? .......That's what you're teaching your children?.......No, it's not is it? You want your children to be good and loving people devoted to their family with strong healthy friendships. You want your kids to be respected in their communities, not feared, loathed and despised by those who actually know them.
Now, why do you want your children to be the exact opposite of what you defend? Contemplate that for a moment.
(Shrugs) Kubrick is at the the top. On his own.
Worth it though. Great movie
4:13 "I don't do a lot of takes when it's good", that is essentially true for R. Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket, we all know he was a retired drill sargeant who served during Vietnam War (ending up with PTSD), he also wrote some of his dialog, resulting in what's probably the best performance in any Stanley Kubrick film (not taking anything away from James Mason, Peter Sellers, George C. Scott, Malcolm McDowell, Jack Nicholson or Vincent D'Onoffrio), even Kubrick said Ermey was one of the most disciplined actors he ever worked with, to the point he only shoot each of his scenes twice or 3 times, that's what Kubrick was looking for.
When you think about it, that's method acting at it's finest, Ermey didn't even have contact with the rest of the actors playing the Marines Corp outside the film. It's even unfair the Academy didn't nominate Ermey for best supporting actor.
P. S: isn't strange that Tom Cruise hasn't talked about EWS or Stanley Kubrick for over almost 3 decades? Nicole Kidman did, she even spoke about a Kubrick film where he would have revealed powerful people and p3d0ph1l3s.
The film she talked about is Eyes Wide Shut, right??
Ermey wasn’t acting
Kubrick is Nick Nightingale. They ended him, and re-edited it in post-production.
In his later years I played in a celebrity golf tournament where Ermey was the host. During the round he sat in a jeep and was filming a commercial and had to do the thing at least 30 times before I walked on and didn't see him finish. He didn't seem to tire but loved every minute of it. Maybe that's why Stanley and Ermey got along so well.
I wonder if this is part of the reason why Tom Cruise flipped the script and became an action star after he did "Magnolia" (1999).
It may be part of it. Cruise doesn't even call himself an actor anymore. He states that he's an "entertainer." You can see that he's lost the self-seriousness that he had about acting in the 90s. And I think he's better for it overall, even if his great acting days are gone. Some people take filmmaking way too seriously. Cruise is correct in that regard. It is just entertainment.
Many were surprised he didn’t win the Oscar for magnolia even Michael Caine acknowledged him in his speech that supporting was too small an award for him and that he’s a leading man Tom looked accepting of it but Miramax clearly campaigned so hard that Caine got it at the end and was happy he finally got it on stage after he skipped his first Oscar win.
@Wingcake1 since you brought it up, I haven't seen Cruise give a performance like that since. He says that he's planning on making "Mission: Impossible" (1996---) movies until he's in his 80s. I haven't seen the last two parter but "Fallout" (2018) was damn good. I was surprised. Plus, I think Rebecca Ferguson is so sexy...
Saying TC performance was stronger in MAG vs EWS is subjective
He knows what he wants but he's unsure of what he's doing
After 80 takes I’d ask for another one just to mess with Kubrick
Kubrick still had Kubrick's habits at this point, but had lost his vision. Or followed it into navel-gazing solipsism and self-indulgence. It happens to so many of them: Greenaway, Scorsese, Coppola...
You need to make more and longer videos dude❤❤❤
Despite all the problems and insanity it’s an incredible film
Average at best!
I disagree…I think it was one of his worse films.
I just found it boring. I remember seeing in in a theater when it came out an the audience was just kind of deflated from watching it. Maybe I will try watching it again thoguh.
meh
Every shot is stunning in this movie. ❤
yeah, but this movie isn't remembered for its stunning shots.
the orgy's not even memorable. it wasn't intriguingly staged and shot...it was...there's an orgy with Tom Cruise walking thru it.
the story's....meh.
i think Kubrick was like this due to the people in the industry, including Cruise, were too in awe and enabling of his madness.
they'd call him a "perfectionist"....
while that may be true about him, on some of his other movies...
on this and The Shining...I call BS.
well, with Shelley...I think I kinda get what he was tryinna do to her. her "madness" on screen wasn't up to his standards, thus, he "pushed" her to...literal madness.
I remember I was highly underwhelmed by Eyes Wide Shut.... and they didn't need to shoot it for FOUR HUNDRED DAYS...!! lol
@@isuriadireja91 Mediocre, pretentious and boring film from an overrated director.
There's something kind of funny about this as Tom Cruise has been making Mission Impossible 8 for almost 2 and a half years now and still seems like it's got a couple months of shooting left (granted there was a strike + I am sure they were also doing stuff for Dead Reckoning at the time, but still).
Good point on Cruise’s career post EWS. Dramatic films, mostly up to that point. He did fine work in Kubrick’s film.
Endless Love, Taps, The Outsiders, All The Right Moves, The Color of Money, Rain Man, Born On The Fourth of July, Far And Away, A Few Good Men, The Firm (sort of), Interview With A Vampire.
He also did Vanilla Sky right after EWS and Magnolia
Perfect is the enemy of good.
He also did this to Shelly Duvall, but for different reasons…or perhaps not. He did it to drive her to the point of madness which is very much what her character was goin through. He claimed it helped he draw out the true depth of her character. However, with cruise, it could have been a massive ego check. This was kubrick’s way of breaking the wild stallion to fit the character as he needed, in my opinion. Cruise was such a huge and still rising star, but retained massive box office. Kubrick wants what he wants for his movies. And tow egos like that simply cannot exist in the same air space without one or the other breaking.
If that's the case he could have told Tom in private look "in my own opinion I think you're a young hotshot who thinks he knows everything and I won't put up with it, this is the character I want you to play and I want you to put your heart into it".
Tom is good at what he is good at. Emotional complexity is not what he is good at.