Jake vs Fincher
“David knows what he wants, and he’s very clear about what he wants, and he’s very, very, very smart. But sometimes we’d do a lot of takes, and he’d turn, and he would say, because he had a computer there” — the movie was shot digitally —'Delete the last 10 takes.’ And as an actor that’s very hard to hear.”
“What’s so wonderful about movies is, you get your shot,” he said. “They even call it a shot. The stakes are high. You get your chance to prove what you can do. You get a take, 5 takes, 10 takes. Some places, 90 takes. But there is a stopping point. There’s a point at which you go, ‘That’s what we have to work with.’ But we would reshoot things. So there came a point where I would say, well, what do I do? Where’s the risk?”
And you the fans reaction? Does Jake have a point or does Fincher as the director have the ultimate say in what goes on the screen?
"We had to lose a lot of connective tissue and a lot of little character moments," he says with a sigh. Among the victims: Robert Downey Jr., as a boozy San Francisco reporter, lost three scenes, including "a great one of him sleeping in his car," according to Fincher. Watch for it on DVD."
posted by pinkpanther1586 at 2:53 AM
10 Comments:
Well technically the director is the artistic lead of the project, so of course Fincher has the final (and only) say on what ultimately goes on screen. And if that means his vision requires 90 takes, then let it be.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I seriously doubt Jake Gyllenhaal was criticising Fincher's choices concerning which takes go on the screen and which don't. Because, when asked, I'm sure Jake would agree that when it comes to the cutting room, no one but the director has the last say.
He *is* however fully entitled to criticise the way a director works with his actors, as he is entitled to observe that after ninety takes (or more, or less) it would become difficult for *any* actor to bring something fresh and new to the shot. The questions he raises at doing re-shoots of a scene Fincher would have dozens of takes on, is justified in my opinion.
In other words, you're trying to compare two different things.
Personally, I think it is a sign of insecurity of the director rather than the actor if he thinks he needs so many shots to choose from - but I can understand that is not the appropriate stance in this particular blog (that I have been reading with great interest, by the way).
Both his remark in the interview about 'wanting the earnestness out of the performance' as well as his so-called 'shock' at Gyllenhaal's (rather tame) observations about the re-shoots, tell me the man is probably a creative genius, yes - but also a royal pain in the proverbial backside.
My hat is off to Ruffalo, Downey Jr. *and* Gyllenhaal for making it through. And I can't help but like Gyllenhaal for being unable to hide this kind of honesty.
I'm starting to wonder if Fincher was being ironic when saying he was "totally shocked" at Gyllenhaal's comments. I mean, what did he say that was so shocking? Does Fincher really think it's usual for directors to require 90 takes? And then bring them back 5 months later to shoot the scene AGAIN! I doubt there's an actor out there who has worked with Fincher that doesn't find him exhasperating. Doesn't mean they don't respect him and his talent. Read the rest of the interview, and Jake clearly does. Jake also commented that he'd wished he'd personally had the maturity at the time to see that all Fincher wanted was what was best for him. Sounds like self-awareness beyond what's normally seen in a 26 year old. Cudos to him.
There is an article about Zodiac and Fincher in the new EW this week.This finally explains why the delay. I hate to think about the scenes we will miss on the big screen but I guess we will see them on DVD.. here is the direct quote...
"When shooting finally wrapped, Fincher found himself sifting through the digital equivalent of 1.3 million feet of film, enough footage to fill two features.
After months of slicing and dicing, he emerged from the editing room with a cut of Zodiac that ran a tick over three hours.
Even he knew it was too long, so the movie's original fall 2006 release was pushed to January, then to March, to give him time to make more trims.
It wasn't easy - Fincher had to do some of the cutting when he was in New Orleans gearing up for his next picture, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, starring his old pal, Brad Pittt as a middle-age man who suddenly starts growing younger - but he managed to carve the running time down to about two and a half hours. "We had to lose a lot of connective tissue and a lot of little character moments," he says with a sigh. Among the victims: Robert Downey Jr., as a boozy San Francisco reporter, lost three scenes, including "a great one of him sleeping in his car," according to Fincher. Watch for it on DVD."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
yo
the episode of americas most wanted tonight is all about the zodiac killer. theyre interviewing the guy who wrote hte book, paul avery, people who worked on the case, showing clips from the movie, interviews with the cast, showing behind the scenes things. im watchcing right now, its so interesting. i love that this movie is getting coverage. u shoudl do a poll asking how big do you think itll be first weekend, in all, etc.
America's Most Wanted - Zodiac Special - DOWNLOAD!
http://www.zshare.net/download/americas-most-wanted-zodiac-special-wmv.html
or
http://www.sendspace.com/file/663vd4
I scanned the Esquire interview, click on the quote here :
http://www.novaplanet.com/forums/viewtopic.php?pid=944586#p944586
Jake is a smug little bastard with down-syndrome eyes and a wispy voice. Fincher is a GENIUS. So he needs to shut up and stop thinking he knows better than a genius.
5:00 PM
Give me a break! *rolls eyes* Jake has every right to his opinion. I agree with everyone else. Kudos to Jake!
Post a Comment
<< Home