Why does Fincher do 90 takes for every scene?
I can understand getting things right, but how does he ever finish a movie within 3 months?
Is he ever worried about running out of film?
I know Judd Apotow uses a lot of film for out-takes and improv, but Fincher just does the same scene over and over again.
I'm sure Ben Affleck loved doing his scene touching the naked Emily for 90 takes.
He's been shooting digitally since Zodiac, so no wasted film.
shareBecause he is a Capricorn and they are very nitpicky, perfectionist types who are ultimately never satisfied with anything.
shareHe shoots on digital so he can do a lot of takes now, like Kubrick, Fincher is obsessed with detail and framing, he also wants his actors to do the scene over and over until it's extremely natural to them.
Most of his movies feature some highlight performances of many actors, because he makes them work and craft as much in camera as they did in pre-production, it's also why all of his movies are gorgeous.
I'm not sure if he needs to do so many takes, but it sure does work.He seems like a cynical guy too so I assume he isn't satisfied with everything, he even complains about things he wishes to do differently in commentaries.
He shoots digitally.
Anyways, he gives all kinds of excuses for his lame take-a-thons, as if doing a million takes is reaching towards some ambiguous greatness. He once claimed he did 107 takes...the fact he remembers that specific number tells us he thinks it's some freakin badge of honor that will win him cool points. Most other directors who were asked what's the most takes they did said they didn't keep track, because they were focused more on the content in front of them instead of trying to scream, "Look at me, look how hardcore I am!!!"
It doesn't matter. The lame YouTubers who are his obedient lapdog advocates will claim it's all some sort of misunderstood greatness, even though the results don't suggest anything of the sort.
And yet you give exactly zero reasons why there is anything wrong with his technique.
I find Oscar Bait infinitely more interesting than ticket bait
Or maybe he was focused on the content when he did the shooting. And then after he looked at how many takes he had done, and it was 107. It's not that hard of a thing to remember/figure out you douchebag.
shareIt's a sickness, nothing to do with quality look at Kubrics work there's nothing natural there most of the acting was over the top, especially in Eyes Wide Shut and Shining.
First few takes are the best, David Lynch and Michelangelo Antonioni never took more then few takes, one of the reason Fincher's movie suck becasue he is a nit picking idiot like Kubrick, their cinematography is cool but performance lack human element the look like tired robots.
It's because he's a control freak who gets off by making people jump through his hoops for no good reason, same as Kubrick and Warren Beatty.
shareDisagree with you on Kubrick, but agree with you on Fincher and Beatty. The latter two strike me as very arrogant, egotistical people who are more concerned with giving off the facade of being an uncompromising, demanding artist than they are in just doing the best work they can. In the case of Fincher, when you compare the way he talks about himself and his works to Kubrick, it becomes very clear that David loves wearing the reputation of being a perfectionist on his sleeve, whereas Stanley simply did what he thought was needed to get the best results possible. I still generally like Fincher's films, but whenever I hear him talk in interviews, I struggle to see him as anything more than just a pretentious, egotistical prick who does the things he does often just to fuck with people.
share