Read on Twitter
Doing hundreds of takes for a shot is bad directing, I don& #39;t care how much of a perfectionist you are, at a certain point it just becomes cruelty to your cast and crew, and it& #39;s horrible to see press who don& #39;t understand that celebrating such behaviour
If it takes 100 takes for you to direct an actor to the performance you want, you& #39;re either bad at directing or bad at casting, which is, famously, 90% of directing
A big part of directing is accepting that things aren& #39;t EXACTLY the way you foresaw them, because surprise, it& #39;s a fucking collaborative art form, other artists bring their own ideas to the table, and it& #39;s your job to integrate them
100 takes for a shot, with let& #39;s say a generously low 3 minutes between "action" calls, is FIVE HOURS making dozens of people perform the exact same lines and actions over and over. And with a good cast/crew, take 5 would probably be fine. I cannot fucking fathom it. It& #39;s torture
If you need time to explore and "find" the scene? Cool! Rehearse more before production! Do you know how many people you& #39;re holding captive in an actual shoot by making them do dozens upon dozens of takes when you could& #39;ve done that work beforehand?
This paragraph from a IndieWire article a few years back (specifically regarding Stanley Kubrick& #39;s emotional abuse of Shelley Duvall) is fucking unconscionable. If your boss constantly abused you, you& #39;d say they were bad at their job. Why is it different for male cinema auteurs
I just wish people could decouple directing from this image of the Great All-Powerful Artist and realise it& #39;s a job too, one that involves working in a team of other human beings.
