|
Darko posted:This is the question of if result justifies the means because her performance is what makes that movie more than anything else, even if Jack obviously stands out more. Thats where the soul searching comes in. I don't agree with this, because Shelly Duvall is obviously a competent and capable actress. At the end of the day, she was the one who actually did the performance that made the movie. How Kubrick motivated and encouraged that performance is like any other workplace manager—did he motivate her in a way that ensured workplace safety, treated her with professional courtesy and respect, and with a clear sense of boundaries? Or did he did he take the easier, quicker way that exploited her mental health and well-being for his own personal gain? Duvall is not a child or a show-horse, she can be motivated by the full range of human interactions. There are plenty of managers who insist that screaming at and belittling their employees is how they get results, but implying that it's the only way to get results dehumanizes and reduces the workers to objects to be manipulated for the boss's profit. I see no difference in artistic production—screaming at actresses, like all exploitation, is the cheaper way to do things, both financially and in terms of the psychological reward the boss takes by abusing an employee. If anything, it's made more inappropriate because an actress is a fellow creative professional the director is to collaborate with. He really couldn't have had a sit down with her where he explained what his plan was, got her consent to subject her to real-life stress for the shoot, and given her tools to back out? It would have cost time and money, forced Kubrick to find methods other than casually demanding a hundred takes, but those costs aren't new, it's just that they were being paid by a woman's mental health instead of by the studio.
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2021 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 17:32 |
|
|
I did overlook the part in the interview where she brings up having long conversations with Kubrick, and I admit, I was starting to get emotionally caught up and going more at the generalized issue of the "Genius Director Mistreats Actors For His Art," so I do take that back. But overall, as Trix Rabbi's post points out, I'm seeing a lot of the same narrative here we've seen again and again in other Hollywood abuse cases. Duvall saying that Kubrick's behavior was because that's how he was treated... what does that have to do with the question she was asked, about her experiences, other than the usual defense we hear of "Oh, no, it was perfectly normal, he was just doing what was done to him." In the context of Charisma Carpenter's statement that mentions how she continued to justify Joss's behavior and claim she'd work with him again after Buffy, it's a narrative that keeps moving forward in history. Directors aren't just allowed to make sets emotionally unsafe, even traumatic spaces, they're supposed to, because that's what artistic passion looks like. Film sets are workplaces. Actors are employees. The narrative of suffering for your art is just as abusive as telling unpaid interns they have to "pay their dues" before they're allowed to make money.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2021 19:04
|
|