Read on Twitter
Doing hundreds of takes for a shot is bad directing, I don't care how much of a perfectionist you are, at a certain point it just becomes cruelty to your cast and crew, and it's horrible to see press who don't understand that celebrating such behaviour
If it takes 100 takes for you to direct an actor to the performance you want, you'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't EXACTLY the way you foresaw them, because surprise, it's a fucking collaborative art form, other artists bring their own ideas to the table, and it's your job to integrate them
100 takes for a shot, with let'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's torture
If you need time to explore and "find" the scene? Cool! Rehearse more before production! Do you know how many people you're holding captive in an actual shoot by making them do dozens upon dozens of takes when you could've done that work beforehand?
This paragraph from a IndieWire article a few years back (specifically regarding Stanley Kubrick's emotional abuse of Shelley Duvall) is fucking unconscionable. If your boss constantly abused you, you'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's a job too, one that involves working in a team of other human beings.
