quote:

Originally posted by Hill Dawson Kane:

quote:

Why not? It forces the actors to get try more to get it right the first time, and thus think about their characters on a deeper level.

But nobody gets on Stanley Kubrick for doing 80 takes on Jack Nicholson in "The Shining" he just had the economics to shoot them all on film. Taking advantage of the cheap economics of video shouldn't take away from the "art."

That's Kubrick pushing Nicholson for a better performance. I'm referring to the mindset of actors (and equally directors) in front of a digital camcorder thinking "meh, if I don't do it well, we can just do it again." Shooting on film adds a sense of urgency and thus pressure for the actors to get it right. And out of that comes a better performance.

I think it wasnt jack. Kubrick was very hard with Shelley Duvall. You can see that moment in the documentary "Kubrick - Life On Films".

im sure he did this with all his actors, i know in eyes wide shut he had pollack do his scene a bunch of times....tho i personally dont think it shows. Nicholson's performance in The shining is probably the best acting ever in a Kubrick film.

quote:

Nicholson's performance in The shining is probably the best acting ever in a Kubrick film.

Nah, especially since Jack has been so much better in Five Easy Pieces, The Last Detail and The King of Marvin Gardens. The best performance in any Kubrick film is by far HAL 9000. I bet he always nailed it in the first take.

quote:

The best performance in any Kubrick film is by far HAL 9000.

What about TOM CRUISE in Eyes Wide Shut?

Kubrick is a great director when dealing with non-humans, which explains why HAL and TOM are the most interesting characters he's created.

nah if i were Kubrick i would pulled some more tricks on Cruise to get down to the nitty dehumanized existence that he is

Tom Cruise was the best thing in that otherwise monstrosity of a film, except Nick nightengale totally dominated his scenes to, spin off?

Just to answer the original question, I tend to shoot in takes but keep the camera rolling as I repeat a couple takes of the same shot. So I kind of blend the styles so I can get the benefits of not having to look at all the footage and also just keeping it rolling at times so I won't miss that special moment.

Also, there is a DVD Feature on the Sin City Special Edition where they show Quentin Tarantino directing and they just keep the camera rolling for like 20 minutes straight. So there is a more modern example of letting the camera just keep rolling. I think QT took this from Rodriguez since it was RR's film, along with Frank Miller.

quote:

Tom Cruise was the best thing in that otherwise monstrosity of a film

I like EWS better than 2001, actually. It's an intelligently-made film that still (mostly) succeeds as entertainment, which is more than I can say about 2001 - that puts me to sleep every time (I've 'seen' it four times).

quote:

Originally posted by Evan Kubota:
Kubrick is a great director

It's refreshing to find absolute truth.

The worst part of EWS is the incredible potential that it has - a film that questions whether monogamy is a strictly physical commitment or a mental one too, its an extremely fascinating concept and subject, which I wish had been done in a serious, down to earth manner, instead of turning nearly full blown porno.

(sorry to hijack the topic)