Re: Who is the best Director. Well, in your mind.
But this also has a lot to do with the freedom Kubrick had over his films. Many directors - in fact most, never enjoy this kind of luxury - If a good director comes along today - they usually make one good film, get noticed - then the studio jumps in and with the power of over development, the next film is garbage. .
There’s a reason Kubrick enjoyed the degree of creative freedom he did; his films warranted it, both artistically and financially. What you refer to as a “luxury” was actually the hard-won result of Kubrick’s talent, intelligence, and determination.
Read the last book about Stanley (the big one that came out after he died) where he states actors are suggested to him by friends and agents
Yeah, I think it’s safe for you to assume I’ve read just about everything that’s ever been printed in English about Stanley Kubrick.
In any case, I’ll happily concede Kubrick’s “friends and agents” may on occasion have passed along casting tips. Not sure how this diminishes Kubrick’s role as a good director, though.
As it happens, I was lucky enough to have spent a year as assistant to (casting director) Mike Fenton during the production of Full Metal Jacket. Part of my job was videotaping actors for consideration by Kubrick, which meant I spent a lot of time on the conference line with Kubrick, Fenton, and Leon Vitali (which is how I first discovered Sellers was riffing on Kubrick for Claire Quilty; the voice and mannerisms on display in Lolita are pure Kubrick). But I digress.
One thing I learned during that process is that just about every actor on Earth wanted to work with Kubrick. Most would have done so for free. Hell, many would have paid
him. Not bad for a guy who wasn’t an actor’s director.
are you talking about the bone to space cut? If so, you should read how "Kubrick" came up with that shot. .
Don’t tell me; it was Peter Sellers’s idea.
There are others who are just as good at picking music - this I don't agree with. Not that he's on the same level as Kubrick, but Tarentino has used some great needle drops in his movies. .
Yeah, my point isn’t that Quentin Tarantino is a second-rate needle dropper. My point is that Stanley Kubrick was more than just a glorified photographer, which seems to have been your original point.
Moonraker, Spy who loved me and Pennies from Heaven were designed well enough - I believe there was talent there before and after .
I never meant to imply that Ken Adam’s talent disappeared when Kubrick wasn’t in the room. My point is that Kubrick had a director’s instinct for inspiring, cajoling, tricking, berating, and directing talented people to do their very best work. Ken Adam has admitted as much himself on numerous occasions (but you've probably read his books too).
The lines written for Lee Ermey that EVERYONE remembers were not in the screenplay used on set (I'm lucky enough to own Vincent D'Onofrio's personal copy). Lee made most of those lines up on the fly. Sellers - same thing. Jack, you could be right about.
If you’ll take another look at my post you’ll see I credit Ermey with having improvised many of his lines. There’s a reason that happened: Kubrick directed him to do so, having in this case created an on-set work environment conducive to generating funny bits of drill instructor improv. That’s what good directors do, and nobody did it better than Kubrick.
I mean, in all honesty, do you really think Peter Sellers would have written off Stanley Kubrick as “more of a great photographer than director?”
An exploration of story is again something let to those who are lucky enough to be granted freedom. The Coen brothers can shoot whatever they want however they want it and Disney releases it. Some people have those deals. Most story development is strict and destructive to material. i agree Stanley knew when something would make a good story - but that ability is shared by others.
Yeah, I know something about the development process, having been through it myself on more than one occasion. As I stated above, there’s a reason why talented filmmakers like the Coen Bothers enjoy the creative freedom they do, and “luck” has nothing to do with it.
Stanley Kubrick never needed a studio’s permission to spend years reading, developing, researching, outlining, drafting, and revising his stories. He did so because he was determined to get them right. The extent to which he accomplished this is subject to debate, but no one can deny the intensive labor he devoted to the process. I mean, have you
seen that Napoleon book?
Sellers improvised and wrote almost all of his lines. The WGA has something like 8 drafts of Strangelove - the final shooting draft includes Sellers improv without credit to Sellers.
Yes, Sellers improvised some great lines – particularly during President Muffly’s phone conversations with the Russian Premier – but it is a gross overstatement to suggest “Strangelove’s dialogue was thanks to Sellers.” I mean, do you really think lines like the one below just sprang full-borne out of Seller’s mouth during a moment of improv?...
“Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy the fear to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision making process which rules out human meddling, the doomsday machine is terrifying. It's simple to understand. And completely credible, and convincing.”
Note to self: read about Kubrick.
Again - seeing how this makes no matter because we are being asked for opinion - Orson Welles for me.
Cool by me. No one is trying to convince you that Orson Welles is anything other than the monumental filmmaking legend we’ve come to know and love.
I simply reject your offhand dismissal of Stanley Kubrick as having been nothing more than a glorified photographer. To my mind, that’s like saying Leonardo DaVinci was a good drawer.
