Film’s thought of as a director’s medium because the director creates the end product that appears on the screen. It’s that stupid auteur theory again, that the director is the author of the film. But what does the director shoot—the telephone book?
Or this:
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.
Or this:
Sometimes when you finish a picture you just don’t know whether it’s good or bad. When Frank Capra was shooting Claudette Colbert in It Happened One Night, after the last shot she said, Will that be all Mr. Capra?
We’re all done.
All right. Now why don’t you go and fuck yourself. She thought the picture was shit, but she won the Academy Award for it.
Deceiving the actor with no film in camera sounds extreme, but I suppose every production is different. Sometimes actors come up with new or better lines. Off top of my head, Brad Pitt apparently came up with the line "what's that smell" when he died at the end of Fight Club. The Big Bang Theory cast described the set as a "sandbox" where they tried different things, but I suppose a TV series has different production methods.
> 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.
Maybe 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."
He'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 last night (Billy Wilder on Dick Cavett) which is fascinating and great. He wasn't kidding about his accent.
What a treat. I once hear someone compare Nabokov's novels to a meal where the table is perfectly set and food perfectly prepared for you. As a reader, you don't have to bring a lot to enjoy the book. I find the same is true about Wilder's films.
12 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 69.1 ms ] threadFilm’s thought of as a director’s medium because the director creates the end product that appears on the screen. It’s that stupid auteur theory again, that the director is the author of the film. But what does the director shoot—the telephone book?
Or this:
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.
Or this:
Sometimes when you finish a picture you just don’t know whether it’s good or bad. When Frank Capra was shooting Claudette Colbert in It Happened One Night, after the last shot she said, Will that be all Mr. Capra?
We’re all done.
All right. Now why don’t you go and fuck yourself. She thought the picture was shit, but she won the Academy Award for it.
There’s a great 60 Minute interview with him.
One famous example is Harrison Ford improvising Han saying "I know" in response to Leia's confession of love in The Empire Strikes Back.
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.)
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."
I got sucked into watching 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.
1. The audience is fickle.
2. Grab 'em by the throat and never let 'em go.
3. Develop a clean line of action for your leading character.
4. Know where you're going.
5. The more subtle and elegant you are in hiding your plot points, the better you are as a writer.
6. If you have a problem with the third act, the real problem is in the first act.
7. A tip from Lubitsch: Let the audience add up two plus two. They'll love you forever.
8. In doing voice-overs, be careful not to describe what the audience already sees. Add to what they're seeing.
9. The event that occurs at the second act curtain triggers the end of the movie.
10. The third act must build, build, build in tempo and action until the last event, and then—that's it. Don't hang around.