Acting is overrated in Kubrick films
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Eyes Wide Shut
NomadNomadovic — 9 years ago(October 10, 2016 01:42 PM)
Kubrick was famous for hundreds of takes for pointless scenes, it had nothing to do with performance because Tom Cruise acted as he did in all his movies, repeating dialogues twice and than laughing like a retard, Jack Nicholson doesnt need any introduction he plays the same vile irritated man in every movie, there's nothing special about performance because it was all whipped and insulted out of those tired actors, they look physically tired and bored.
Acting in Kubrick movies looked forced and devoid of all human emotions, because Kubrick was an abusive and insensitive man, he was abusive on sets and used to treat actors and staff very poorly, Shelley Duvall got sick, Tom Cruise developed ulcer, steady cam operators complained of backache.
It was Kubrick's inability to decide, he had no idea where he was going? which makes it even more funny when fanboys look for hidden meanings
most of the pointless crap was improvised on set, it had no meaning or significance.
His pointlessly long movies were the result of too much control given to him and his vague sense of artistic license. 12 minutes of psychedelic trip in 2001 is one example of his inability to properly edit the movie to make it watchable in one sitting. -
Barbed_Wire_Strawberry — 9 years ago(October 10, 2016 08:39 PM)
Acting is not the focus - putting over some one's performance is not Kubrick's objective. Often times it was getting the actor to do something physically that Kubrick didn't want to say, he simply waited for it to happen and for the actors to reach a non-rehearsed heightened performance, often through stress yes, but often through release.
Good troll post though.
Buy The Ticket, Take The Ride -
ErgonomicSpliff — 9 years ago(January 20, 2017 12:54 PM)
His pointlessly long movies
Of all the truly pointless drivel in your OP, this is the bit that really makes my ass itch. Who are you to decide the correct length for motion pictures? Who is anyone to decide? Films are as long as they need to be in the eyes of most competent filmmakers, which Kubrick most certainly was.
one example of his inability to properly edit the movie to make it watchable in one sitting.
Your inability to recognize true genius seems to be the real issue here. One whole "example" to prove a sweeping generalization about one artist's entire body of work? You're what is known in common parlance as, "a joke." -
NomadNomadovic — 9 years ago(February 04, 2017 03:28 AM)
Who are you to decide the correct length for motion pictures?
Who are you?
Your inability to recognize true genius seems to be the real issue here. One whole "example" to prove a sweeping generalization about one artist's entire body of work? You're what is known in common parlance as, "a joke."
Becasue you say so! idiot -
SealedCargo — 6 years ago(June 03, 2019 01:33 AM)
Malcolm McDowell wasn't overrated. And Kubrick didn't need a million takes with him, or James Mason in Lolita. Just the actors who didn't get what he wanted.
The Fearmakers Blog
https://thefearmakers.blogspot.com/