3 ms·
> Sometimes I’d have an actor so stubborn that I’d say, All right, let’s do it two ways. We’d do it my way, and I’d say to my assistant, Print that. Then to the
by Wowfunhappy 5y ago
> Sometimes I’d have an actor so stubborn that I’d say, All right, let’s do it two ways. We’d do it my way, and I’d say to my assistant, Print that. Then to the actor, All right, now your way. We’d do it his way with no celluloid in the camera.
This bothers me.
Why the deception? Was film really that expensive? Just capture the footage both ways—as in, actually capture it—and see what works better in the editing room? What's the harm in trying it? What if the actor is right?
I'm okay with the director getting the final say—someone has to make a final decision eventually—but you should be open to other ideas form your team.
(Disclaimer: I haven't read the article.)
- dharmon 5y agoMaybe even more so then now, it was very common for studios to step in and "fix" a movie. I.e., re-edit it. So any footage that existed was fair game to end up in the final movie. Wilder would famously film the absolute minimum amount, so in his words, "there is only one way it can fit together." Or another line of his, "the only thing that should be left on the cutting room floor are tears and chewing gum."
- dang 5y agoHe's talking in the style of the Hollywood raconteur, which is really just about great stories. Who knows what he actually did. I got sucked into watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtT0zb9L7V8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtT0zb9L7V8 last night (Billy Wilder on Dick Cavett) which is fascinating and great. He wasn't kidding about his accent.
- DiggyJohnson 5y agoWell, if the director has realized that he never uses an actor’s rendition, then it starts to make sense to save the film and the argument.