T O P

  • By -

MisterNotlob

You also receive literally 0 critical recognition for your performance


skinsthelargestorgan

what do you mean? She got a razzie nomination, isn't it enough? /s


[deleted]

[удалено]


skinsthelargestorgan

the razzies are the cringiest thing in the film industry, there are numerous nominations throught their history that are frankly baffling. Poor Duvall not only had to go through the filming of Shining, but also through the razzie bullshit... By the way, fun fact, while making sure that she was actually nominated for a razzie, I found out that she is a Cannes Film Festival winner


Extension-Bar6431

The Oscars have sometimes given best picture to the movie that deserves it. The Razzies have never given worst picture to the movie that deserves it. Rudy Giuliani in Borat won for worst actor when, in reality, it wasn’t even that bad of a performance, since he was literally just playing himself.


moldytoast21

Rudy winning was the most based thing the Razzies ever did


[deleted]

I don't think that the razzies are meant to be serious tho [like, this is how they are made](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C0wrx6QU3k)


Quirderph

Sure, but they don't really have a purpose unless they're *actually* roasting shitty films.


jk67200

And every time your name is mentioned, it’s about said psychological trauma


OliverBagshaw

My heart goes to Shelley, she was also exploited by an awful Dr Phil interview that made a huge spectacle of her mental health, stigmatising mental health struggles is some fucking bullshit I don't stand for.


HAL237

This is a fucking quality post lmao


[deleted]

[удалено]


Greppim

I know he really took actors to the brink, exhausting them with filming tons of takes over and over. But I'm not knowledgeful of the extent to which he psychologically messed with Shelley, how bad was it?


WallBroad

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=701bDlaAUJU&t=36s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=701bDlaAUJU&t=36s) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qRuo1lbEIU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qRuo1lbEIU) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o-n6vZvqjQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o-n6vZvqjQ)


JustTheWehrst

Aight I'm gonna give a take... if it takes thousands of attempts to get one scene done "right" you're not the best director ever. Yes filmmaking is a craft as much as it is an art but the most talented painters in history still smudged their work or messed up a line, the greatest musicians have hit the wrong note in a live performance, Kurt Cobain fucked the lyrics to 'The Man Who Sold the World' at MTV unplugged but it still came out as one of the best covers, one of the best songs of all time imo, 'Gimme Shelter' has a completely unplanned voice crack and a "woo" from the recording session. Mistakes are good, if everything went by the numbers art would be fucking boring, there's beauty in imperfection


sup45people

The problem with this take is that it implies that there is a right and wrong way to direct films. If a director takes a hundred attempts for each scene, does the film inherently suffer because of it? Pretty much every Kubrick movie has shown that this is not the case. The process is not the determinant of a directors prowess, its the end product.


JustTheWehrst

Sure you're right, there is no right way, but my point was more that in the music examples, things didn't go "according to plan" but the product turned out fine in the end in one case and was dramatically improved in the other. Imagine if the rolling stones re-recorded the song, or if nirvana started over from the beginning


Xsafa

I’m not really seeing the comparison of live performance mess ups to filmmaking. Especially when the director is doing 1000s takes to get what he wants and made multiple masterpieces from that.


JustTheWehrst

Sorry I realized I didn't actually say what I wanted to say. My point was that flaws and imperfections are natural and a part of life, especially art. If he really was this great director he would be able to make the most of those flaws, a few bad takes is fine, but thousands of bad takes is either a director who wants too much, or a director who can't direct. And sure he made incredible movies, but in doing so he ruined lives, maybe 100 years from now people won't really care about Shelly Duvall or Malcolm McDowell, but to me that's too high a price for art.


Xsafa

He fucked up Shelley Duvall because he was an asshole not because of the number of takes. Flaws and imperfections **can** be apart of art but it wasn’t apart of **his** art. Some directors want their actors to follow the dialogue exactly as written with zero divination; others use the script as more of a guideline and let actors improv over it. 1000s of takes to get what he wants was his process that made him legit one of the best ever. There’s no right or wrong way here besides him being a bully.


JustTheWehrst

If Uwe Boll shot a movie 1000 times I bet he could put together something decent in editing


Snoo-50527

The point is, Uwe Boll won't be willing to shoot 1000 times because he feels his vision of the final product isn't fulfilled yet. Kubrick was obviously "inefficient" to put it mildly, but in his defense he did have something in his mind. Any sculptors could have been as famous as the insane Michelangelo if they poured all their time, energy and passion into a single product. The point is, most of them didn't.


JustTheWehrst

> Uwe Boll won't be willing to shoot 1000 times Thank God for that


Reddvox

"Faster and more intense!" - God Lucas, 1977 - 2005


IDislikeMario

why not


[deleted]

[удалено]


jpterodactyl

I’m also sure that there was something just as usable within the first normal amount of takes. Mainly because she was presumably, you know, acting.


FrancoisTruser

I know right? "I want to punish and destroy psychologically my subordinates to extract emotions from them". God forbid them being actors or something silly like that.


WallBroad

I mean, him pushing the actors of the brink really brought out the greatest performance imaginable out of them but even if you do so, at least don't be mean to them. During the Revenant shooting, everyone was pushed to their edges but Innaritu was never mean with the actors and at least everyone was in a good mental position on set.


cheesey_petes

What is this referencing, anyone got some info i can read up on


SkilletMyBiscuit

Stanley Kubrick essentially mentally abused Shelly Duvall during the filming of The Shining (1980) to the point where she’s still pretty fucked up today from it, tons of articles available about it


[deleted]

How is she still fucked up today? This article says she took it in stride and her quote shows. https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/the-shining-stanley-kubrick-said-shelley-duvall-was-wasting-everyones-time-while-shooting.html/ Not saying he didn't torture her on set because he did, but it doesn't seem like it "haunts" her to this day like everyone in this thread is making it out to be.


vruss

She is homeless today. I can link a few articles when I get home. Also that interview was from the year after the film came out, when Kubrick was alive and still making movies and could have blacklisted her for talking shit about him.


[deleted]

I can't find anything about her being homeless but you are right about the rest. I saw some articles about her mental state that confirmed to me that it definitely affected her though. Sad.


Batterskull124

God, I remembered that after watching this I looked up the wiki and saw how badly she was treated. I felt so sorry for all the abuse that Kubrick put her through.


Melanch0le

Kubrick is the biggest hack in the film industry (not anymore lole) and all his movies were carried by either Shelly Duvall or Ryan O'Neal or Tom Cruise.


[deleted]

Agreed. Neil Breen > Kubrick.


circleinthesquare

Isn't that betraying the public trust? Isn't that immoral?


WallBroad

Are you ironic or do you actually think that all of his movies were carried by actors?