Jump to content


Photo

To become DAVID FINCHER or STANLEY KUBRICK?


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#1 Michael Ryan

Michael Ryan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Other
  • Toronto, Canada via Huntington Beach, California

Posted 03 March 2007 - 08:17 PM

Hello All,


A few weeks ago I viewed the documentary STANLEY KUBRICK: A LIFE IN PICTURES. I have always thought of Kubrick as one of the best directors in film history. I have not always enjoyed his films, but I have always realized the ?importance? of each film. And as I grow older, some films that I revisit I have found myself enjoying them with ?different eyes?.

So this is my question to all those new, aspiring directors out there. Is it in your soul to become David Fincher or rather Stanley Kubrick?

Both are good directors. However, for me they both represent completely different ends of the creative universe. For me, Fincher is all about the here and now. The BMW, the A list Hollywood party. The goal of a big weekend box office. The celebration and the exploitation of the dark side of humanity (listen to his audio commentary on SEVEN). For me, he is the fast food for our minds.

Stanley Kubrick. For me, Kubrick wasn?t about the A list. He wasn?t about the Hollywood party. His films were about the human journey. I believe he made films that were the celebration of what he had in his heart and mind...and those thoughts either connected with the weekend box office or did not. Kubrick didn?t exploit the dark side, but rather explored and tried to enlighten us (FULL METAL JACKET, EYES WIDE SHUT).

Both are very good directors. Both have made great films. But they do represent two totally different directions in filmmaking.

To those directors out there I think you should look inside and find what it is that you would like to become and not just follow the popular trend.

In any event, what are your thoughts.


Mike
  • 0

#2 Robert Lachenay

Robert Lachenay
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 106 posts
  • Director

Posted 03 March 2007 - 08:37 PM

For me, he is the fast food for our minds.



Haha...so is Chuck Palahniuk.
  • 0

#3 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 03 March 2007 - 09:33 PM

In order to become like either of these filmmakers, i.e. enjoying the success they did for the work they did, I am of the firm opinion that you'd need to employ time travel. Movies such as theirs simply don't have the mainstream draw that existed then.
  • 0

#4 A. Whitehouse

A. Whitehouse
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 267 posts
  • Director
  • Melbourne

Posted 03 March 2007 - 10:54 PM

Early in Stanley Kubrick's career he was very much an A-list hollywood director, who married one of his stars and no doubt partied in LA, it was after all the 60's. I think while there are obviously differences between them I am surprised that you would choose these two directors who I think have far more in common than other younger directors I can think of. Especially if you consider their ability to use bleeding edge technology to create their films and that they both started as photographers and cameramen.
I don't think kubrick or fincher make popcorn movies at all and I don't think fincher makes "fast food for our minds" Also Kubrick was very interested in the darker side of the human mind, look at jack in the shining or humbert in Lolita or any character in Full Metal Jacket bar the photographer. On top of that he was a very successful box office director which is why warner brothers poured 10s of millions of dollars into his films. He was very aware of his audience which is also why he had so much control over the marketing of his films.
As far as finchers films being about the here and now, well one thing I really like about his films is that they may seem to be set in the here and now (except alien 3) but they are fully realized new worlds, quiet unlike "reality" or what we see around us.
I hardly think there is a fight in the minds of young directors to go down these two "divergent" paths. There must be a better example or analogy.
  • 0

#5 David Sweetman

David Sweetman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Student

Posted 03 March 2007 - 11:39 PM

Movies such as theirs simply don't have the mainstream draw that existed then.

Huh? Fincher is about as contemporary as it gets.

More polar opposites in each direction would probably be Spielberg and Tarkovsky; Spielberg being cited as the number one highest grossing film director of all time, and Tarkovsky contending that the moment a director considers his audience at all, his film no longer is his own work of art, but only a commercial response to what the audience wants to see.

On a side note, I think Kubrick's greatest film is 2001, though oddly enough, Tarkovsky dismissed it, saying that true art must address man's moral condition. However, the several references within the film to Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra," such as Strauss' song "Also Sprach Zarathustra," the theme of evolution, and the child at the end (a reference to 'the three metamorphoses'; first part of Zarathustra) lead me to believe the film does say something about man's moral condition - namely, that with the coming of the Ubermensch (Superman), morals are a thing that will be "overcome."

Anyway I prefer Kubrick's films to Fincher's...so I guess Kubrick...but I'm a firm believer that everyone ought to do his own thing, and I think there are still countless new things to be done. Kind of the Heraclitus idea that "you can't step into the same river twice."
  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19764 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 March 2007 - 12:00 AM

I don't think even Fincher or Kubrick planned to become who they eventually became. Besides, it's like asking what type of success do you plan on achieving, as if you had a lot of control over that aspect. Kubrick only gained his artistic freedom through the box office successes of "Spartacus" (which proved to the studios that he could be trusted with a large budget), "Lolita" and "Dr. Strangelove." Without those movies, he would not have been allowed to make the others that followed.
  • 0

#7 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2009 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 04 March 2007 - 04:42 AM

I think Fincher is a lot closer in style to Kubrick than any other director. That meticulous blocking and framing and obsessive re-takes - the swiss perfectionism. Also that cool distance they share.

I think Fincher himself said it best when describing the differences in style between Spielberg and Kubrick: if Spielberg had to show a wino getting beat up in alley, the audience/camera would have been the wino. Whereas if Kubrick would have shot the same scene, the camera would have been looking on from a distance without participating.
  • 0

#8 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 04 March 2007 - 05:08 AM

I think both suck and that Michael Bay is a much better director than any of them.
  • 0

#9 Rupe Whiteman

Rupe Whiteman
  • Sustaining Members
  • 336 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 04 March 2007 - 05:40 AM

I think both suck and that Michael Bay is a much better director than any of them.


Uh?!
  • 0

#10 Robert Lachenay

Robert Lachenay
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 106 posts
  • Director

Posted 04 March 2007 - 11:07 AM

I think both suck and that Michael Bay is a much better director than any of them.


Haha...especially if you like films made up of 1 1/2 sec shots.
  • 0

#11 Hal Smith

Hal Smith
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2280 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • OKC area

Posted 04 March 2007 - 11:26 AM

I think both suck and that Michael Bay is a much better director than any of them.

Michael Bay? Every film he's made will be forgotten in twenty years.
  • 0

#12 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 04 March 2007 - 11:27 AM

So this is my question to all those new, aspiring directors out there. Is it in your soul to become David Fincher or rather Stanley Kubrick?

If it's in your soul to become like "somebody else", then you'll have nothing original to contribute to filmmaking, and therefore have nothing in common with the above examples.
  • 0

#13 Joseph Winchester

Joseph Winchester
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 94 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Austin, TX

Posted 04 March 2007 - 11:54 AM

"I think both suck and that Michael Bay is a much better director than any of them."

The Rock
Armageddon
Bad Boys
Pearl Harbor
The Island

Better movies than...

Lolita
Dr Strangelove
2001
Barry Lyndon
A Clockwork Orange
Full Metal Jacket

?? I don't know about that... of course I'm biased, as Lolita is prob my favorite film.

I think it's great to look up to and be inspired by such great directors. That's why most of us do what we do, we saw a film and were inspired to make films. The trick is using what inspired you to create your own voice and your own ideas. There's absolutely nothing wrong with trying to emulate your heroes in the beginning, it's one way to learn. Soon you develop your own interests and ideas and become your own person. This is a Utopian ideal, of course, but one to strive for.

Also, I would love to have Kubrick's attention to detail, he doesn't miss anything. The man was neurotic as hell, but the movies were that much better. Fincher is a fine director as well. I really loved Fight Club on so many levels. I wouldn't place him anywhere near Kubrick though. Just my .02

Edited by Joseph Winchester, 04 March 2007 - 11:54 AM.

  • 0

#14 Robert Lachenay

Robert Lachenay
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 106 posts
  • Director

Posted 04 March 2007 - 12:52 PM

I have a feeling he may have been joking, but that's just me.
  • 0

#15 Robert Lachenay

Robert Lachenay
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 106 posts
  • Director

Posted 04 March 2007 - 01:12 PM

But it's kind of a random comparison, isn't it? Kubrick to Fincher? I don't really get it.

Edited by Robert Lachenay, 04 March 2007 - 01:13 PM.

  • 0

#16 Martin Yernazian

Martin Yernazian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Director
  • San Francisco/Los Angeles CA USA

Posted 04 March 2007 - 05:13 PM

I tell you who I will like to become... Martín Yernazian.... he is the poop and the way he makes films describes totally who he is ...... :)
  • 0

#17 Kim Vickers

Kim Vickers
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Other

Posted 04 March 2007 - 05:35 PM

It's best to leave Kubrick alone. He's one of filmdom's true originals. Those who try to emulate his style usually meet with disaster, as Spielberg did with A.I.

In a similar way, a lot of screenwriters waste a lot of time trying to immitate Preston Sturges. Can't be done. Move along.

Fincher can be copied. The question is why you'd want to? Fincher himself is a copy of Ridley Scott, who is himself annotating a lot of Kubrick's work. (Alien/Blade Runner:2001, Duellists:Barry Lyndon, Gladiator:Spartacus, Matchstick Men:Lolita.)

A copy of a copy of a copy = Bore-ing.

Zodiac was 2 hours and 40 minutes I'll never have back.

R.I.P. Stanley Kubrick. And I'll take Sir Ridley over Fincher any day of the week.
  • 0

#18 Robert Lachenay

Robert Lachenay
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 106 posts
  • Director

Posted 04 March 2007 - 06:22 PM

Zodiac was 2 hours and 40 minutes I'll never have back.

I agree with everything you said, but this I most passionately agree with.

Edited by Robert Lachenay, 04 March 2007 - 06:23 PM.

  • 0

#19 Michael Ryan

Michael Ryan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Other
  • Toronto, Canada via Huntington Beach, California

Posted 04 March 2007 - 07:13 PM

Hello All,

The point of my original question was to make those who would want to become directors to stop and think for a moment.

Is it really all about the German car and the house off Sunset Blvd? Or is it really about something more?

There is nothing wrong with directors like Michael Bay. After all a popcorn salesman is an honest profession.

What is it that you want to add to the history of motion pictures? Ask yourself now. Because after you have directed AMERICAN PIE PART 8 it will be too late.

Hollywood is a game to be sure. Some, like Kubrick, could play much better than others.

When director Frank Capra made IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE I'm sure he wanted a hit. I'm sure he wanted big press. But I think in the end you have to step back and look at the big picture. It doesn't really matter now...some 60 years later...if IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE was a big hit or got Capra invited to all the best Hollywood parties. That moment has passed for that film and it's players a very long time ago. What's important now is that it can still touch your heart and soul. And it will keep touching the hearts and souls of those who have not even been born yet. Capra has done his job well. He has added his voice, an important voice to the human journey.

Michael Bay and David Fincher will make lots of money for shareholders and they will be the cause of some grand parties...but they will be forgotten.

Think about the path you would like to take now. Don't just drift.

Don't get me wrong, the Bay's and the Fincher's of the world are good at what they do. However, does the world really need more of the same?


Mike
  • 0

#20 John Allardice

John Allardice
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 March 2007 - 07:44 PM

It's best to leave Kubrick alone. He's one of filmdom's true originals. Those who try to emulate his style usually meet with disaster, as Spielberg did with A.I.


I don't feel that Spielberg was attempting to emulate Kubrick with AI, in fact, many of the interviews he gave around that time testify to that. He was merely attempting to finish a project that Kubrick had started( and everyone has an opinion on the success or failiure of that one)
For absolute emulation of Kubrick one has to look no farther than Jonathon Glazers' "Birth"


Fincher himself is a copy of Ridley Scott, who is himself annotating a lot of Kubrick's work. (Alien/Blade Runner:2001, Duellists:Barry Lyndon, Gladiator:Spartacus, Matchstick Men:Lolita.)

A copy of a copy of a copy = Bore-ing.

I can't begin to express the problems I have with that quote, but - this being the internet, I'm gonna try anyway. :)

First off, the inference that Scott is attempting to emulate the career of Kubrick. You quite conveniently forget any of Scotts' films that dont fall into your analogy and, more importantly, fail to see that both emotionally & visually, they are utterly different in their directing styles.
Whilst some of Scotts' earlier work was criticized as being 'cold' emotionally, he freely admits to that being a side-effect of his inexperience with directing actors. The lack of emotion apparent in Kubricks' direction is much more a product of his tendency block, shoot and edit in much more objective style, slightly removed from the action and emotion of the characters.

Second, the assertion that Fincher is copying Scott... Why? Because both directors have a reputation for being very exacting visually? Would that it were that more directors looked upon that aspect of the craft with an equal level of concentration, we would ALL find ourselves more challenged professionally.
Finchers' work has been mostly modern urban, a setting which Scott( looking at his resume and the relative success of his individual films) obviously feels less at ease with..... And AGAIN, their visual style is markedly different. Their blocking, choreography, lens choices & lighting preferences are very distinct and quite different in tone.

The only similarity seems to be in the level of control they exert over every individual aspect of their films: Art direction, costume, sound, editing, even visual effects- to the extent that, even without credits , their films are both quite obviously products of their particular aesthetic and dramatic styles

Having a certain stamp to ones work is not a failing, especially given the current standard of feature direction nowadays.... what you rather watch? A Fincher or Scott movie?.....Or something directed by Brett Ratner?
  • 0


Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

CineTape

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Visual Products

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

Willys Widgets