3 ms·
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
by williamcotton 14y ago
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 14y agoDidn'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?
- aidenn0 14y agoI think I specifically addressed this with the following quote: "Perhaps this is because the degrees of freedom are so numerous in handheld camerawork that it was not feasible." Also the original article mentions that he couldn't communicate this to even the best camera operators. That is a failure of communication. Saying that someone failed to do something that is impossible is not a criticism.
- Evbn 14y agoWhy didn't hey sew is own costumes and paint his own sets? Surely the content of the film is as important as the angle it is shot from.