
Stanley Kubrick held his own camera, so why shouldn’t you? - maccman
http://future-bits.com/stanley-kubrick-held-his-own-camera
======
llambda
First off it seems like there is a strange, specious simile the OP is trying
to draw between a director doing some camerawork (note: Kubrick in that
particular interview cited is only speaking of /handheld/ camerawork
specifically because it's difficult to communicate the framing and such)
themselves and an individual being able to do everything (within the scope of
some discipline) themselves. Let's clear something up right now: directors who
do some or all of their own camerawork are NOT tantamount to directors making
a film by themselves. There is so much more that goes into making a film
besides the raw camerawork. Even your average Joe will know this by proxy as
big events like the Academy Awards highlight the complexity of big Hollywood
productions and the many roles that individuals have mastered. Directors, e.g.
Lars von Trier, will sometimes oscillate between doing all camerawork
themselves and none of it. (In Trier's case he even experimented with allowing
a computer program to compose shots in a completely automated way!) However
none of this backs up the apparent assumption that this is equivalent to
making the film wholly yourself.

That said I think this is a pretty weak and misleading analogy! We can give
the OP a break here and say, "Sure I know what you're getting at." However, if
you really want to get a strong point across, use a better analogy.

Finally, let me dwell on one passage in the posting that I find troubling:

> Lately it has started to feel like our society respects “vision” more than
> the actual craft of execution.

What is going through the OP's mind here? Execution is definitely the only
thing that has ever mattered.

~~~
nateberkopec
That's not really specious if you understand the rest of Kubrick's reputation
and work history. Kubrick was well known for pretty much running the editing
room (a big deal, since editors are usually given at least a degree of
independence on the first cut) and also wrote the screenplays for most of his
films. A single person taking the role of director/editor/screenwriter is
pretty much unheard of in the industry.

~~~
llambda
> A single person taking the role of director/editor/screenwriter is pretty
> much unheard of in the industry.

Wrong.

Let's take a very recent example (and note well, this is not at all uncommon
outside of Hollywood, for instance Teshigahara's famous collaborations with
author Kobo Abe) Paul Thomas Anderson, directed, wrote, and produced/edited
(both the 65mm and digital transfer, in tandem) The Master. It is not at all
uncommon for a director to at least collaborate with a screenwriter if not
write the screenplay themselves. And most directors would like (although this
is sometimes prohibited by the studios, e.g. in the case of Orson Welles) to
have creative power if not direct control over the production and editing
process.

However, even at this level of involvement we are a far cry from the claim
that a single person is responsible for the film as a creative work.

For instance, you're missing a critical piece of the equation: acting. You
could easily make the argument the job of an actor is as important as any role
a director might have and ultimately it is the centerpiece of so much film as
well as the final artist presentation. Even the most controlling directors
have limited ability to hold de facto control over this aspect of the film.

Considering all the multitude of complexities of the process, the myth of this
superhuman director here is a lot less interesting than the actual process of
filmmaking, if you ask me.

~~~
philwelch
The best directors also cast and manipulate their actors into the performances
they want. Some Kubrick examples: George C. Scott's manic performance in Dr.
Strangelove was pulled from the actor when Kubrick repeatedly asked for a
deliberately over-the-top performance in one take, promising that he would
have Scott dial it down in further takes to get the performance he wanted. In
reality, Kubrick just used the over-the-top take. Another technique of
manipulating George C. Scott was to bet the outcome of any disagreement on a
game of chess, which Kubrick invariably won and which Scott was nonetheless
too competitive to turn down. Shelley Duvall's neurotic performance in The
Shining was partially the result of Kubrick unsettling her by telling her none
of the cast liked working with her, least of all Jack Nicholson. This was a
lie, but it worked.

~~~
wahnfrieden
"The best"? Some directors use those kinds of methods to manipulate their
actor's psychology. I don't understand why you think that's a mark of a better
director though, and not just one technique among many. Some consider
Kiarostami for instance one of "the best" and he gives only the minimal
information needed to his actors for the scene and lets them do their thing.
He does cast for the performance he wants though - not sure what director
doesn't?

~~~
derleth
> He does cast for the performance he wants though - not sure what director
> doesn't?

A director will do what they can, but there's a reason Orson Welles directed
Charlton Heston playing a Mexican.

~~~
wahnfrieden
Yeah, true - producers can pervert a film any way they like.

------
waterlesscloud
I once read an interview with someone who had worked with Kubrick. He was
talking about how deep Kubrick's knowledge of his tools went.

It went something like this- Stanley knew everything there was to know about
the lenses he used. But he didn't just know the lenses, he knew the man who
designed the lenses. And he didn't just know the man who designed the lenses,
he knew how that man's daughter was doing in school.

He learned his tools thoroughly, often from the people who built them. And he
knew the people, which is just as interesting in its own right.

~~~
stephengillie
_he knew how that man's daughter was doing in school._

That's obsessive beyond creepiness...

~~~
ImprovedSilence
Or he was a friend of the family, knew how to make small talk, and had
discussion about things other than just lenses...

~~~
stephengillie
So was that anecdote a one-off, or was Kubrick that way with every part of the
camera?

Did he visit the summer home of the guy who milled the camera's metal bits?
Did he play with the camera assembler's dog?

~~~
jankins
Lenses are a different class of camera component. The camera itself is just a
dark box to advance film, the lens is everything in terms of image quality.
The only other component on the same level of importance is the film stock
itself.

------
pooriaazimi
Off-topic: if you like kubrick's movies, do yourself a favor and watch this
documentary right now: <http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0278736/>

It's exceptionally great. Kubrick himself would've been proud of it. I really
can't recommend it enough. For me, it's _almost_ Kubrick's 10th movie (not
counting Spartacus, The Killing, Killer's Kiss and Fear & Desire, of course) -
that's how great it is.

Trailer: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNuzGlLqxNU>

~~~
MartinCron
That is exactly the kind of off-topic comment that HN needs more of. Thank
you.

------
nateberkopec
Kubrick also had an insane obsession with his tools. Most of Barry Lyndon was
shot on F1.0 (EDIT: it was F0.7) glass, which, as far as I know, was only
available from NASA at the time and probably can't be found at all today for
film cameras.

EDIT: f/0.7, thanks! Holy shit!

~~~
jeffreylo
[http://fstoppers.com/stanley-kubrick-films-natural-
candlelig...](http://fstoppers.com/stanley-kubrick-films-natural-candlelight-
with-insane-f0-7-lens)

------
fescue
The elephant in the room here is the Auteur Theory [1]. Film is a uniquely
collaborative art--a director needs to communicate his or her vision to a very
large team with specialized technical skills. While tempting to do it all
yourself, that doesn't scale. There's a direct corollary here with running a
company.

The craft, skill, and genius of great auteurs and entrepreneurs is inspiring a
team with his or her vision to build great things together, not in doing it
all him or her self.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auteur_theory>

~~~
MartinCron
_While tempting to do it all yourself, that doesn't scale._

Of course Kubrick didn't do it all himself. He deliberately picked things that
he wanted extremely fine-grained control over and delegated other things to
trusted experts. His brilliance, at least part of it, was knowing what he
could delegate and what he couldn't.

------
mrschwabe
Kubrick's quote from the article:

 _"Yes, all of the hand-held camerawork is mine. In addition to the fun of
doing the shooting myself, I find it is virtually impossible to explain what
you want in a hand-held shot to even the most talented and sensitive camera
operator."_

Kubrick might have benefited from doing a few runs with his camera, THEN
showed his camera people that this is how he wanted it. I find this is a
powerful technique in delegation. Ie- where most will outsource a task with a
rudimentary set of guidelines, the results can be exponentially better if the
'delegator' simply rolls up his or her sleeves and literally does the task at
hand, albeit a rough draft first attempt, and shares the results; uses that as
the guideline. Like planting a seed with water.

~~~
stephengillie
This article is supposed to be hero worship, but all I see is a famous
director outed as a person who couldn't delegate properly.

~~~
MartinCron
_couldn't delegate properly_

Why delegate tasks that you enjoy doing? He was obviously a competent camera
operator.

------
aidenn0
I think Kubrick would have been happy to hand off the camera to another
operator so he could be free to scrutinize other things. He very obviously did
this with many other jobs on the set. However, there was a lack of ability to
communicate with precision what he wanted done.

Perhaps this is because the degrees of freedom are so numerous in handheld
camerawork that it was not feasible.

In any event things like this are failures to communicate, and any time you
have to do this, it should be treated as so. Sometimes it is more efficient to
do something yourself than to communicate it to someone else; if that is the
case more often than not, the most efficient thing to do might be to improve
your communication skills.

~~~
williamcotton
You're missing something, and it should be pretty obvious, because you're
criticizing an incredibly talented and successful movie maker's ability to
communicate.

Art is all about communication. Stanley Kubrick is a fantastic communicator.
He knows that things are always lost in translation. He knows that his
priority is communication between him and his audience. Therefore, it makes
sense for him to want to have direct control over an aspect of filmmaking that
he finds incredibly important, that is, dictating the what is shown to the
audience by manipulation of the camera.

Put another way, his insistence on operating the camera is not a failure of
communication on his part, rather an elevation of his ideal way of
communicating to an audience.

Don't try and criticize art using only ideas from business management.

~~~
TWAndrews
Didn't the quotation from Kubrick in the original piece say exactly this? That
it was nearly impossible to communicate what he (Kubrick) wanted to "even the
most talented and sensitive camera man?

------
nollidge
This is just confirmation bias. Kubrick made great formalistic films, Robert
Altman made great naturalistic films. Joss Whedon focuses on script and
characterization. Christopher Guest focuses on casting and improvisation. Wes
Anderson focuses on casting and tableau and music.

They all make great stuff. By all means be a Kubrick if it works for you, but
don't try to be something you're not.

~~~
jankins
The problem is the vast majority of directors who fancy themselves a Kubrick,
but whose ego trails somewhat ahead of their skill, and who thus succeed only
in offending the DP and diminishing the quality of their film.

------
flannell
There was an expo in Venice a few years ago featuring his photography work
before he become a film director. The man really knew how to capture mood
through his knowledge of light. His time in old New York City produced some
fantastic pictures of people and their locations.

------
nnq
isn't this a true gem: "Our surroundings have pressured us to believe that
doing less and moving slower are negative characteristics, but I see them as a
obvious advantages."...

------
leephillips
This article might have been about something interesting. I don't know,
because I stopped after this:

"It was less a surprise to the extent that he, famously demanding and
meticulous, had a specific vision which needed to be realized, but more-so a
surprise I had never thought of him to do such a peculiar thing."

I don't continue reading after it becomes clear that I'm looking at some kind
of rough first draft. If you want it to appear that you have some respect for
yourself and your potential readers, at least look over your output once
quickly before sticking it on the end of a publicly-facing URL. You have some
room. Try to be more articulate than a tweet.

