MCN Blogs
Ray Pride

By Ray Pride Pride@moviecitynews.com

Colour Me deadpan: Kubrick's assistant directs

Colour Me Kubrick, a John Malkovich-starring lark about an unlikely 1980s Stanley Kubrick impersonator, opens March 23. The screenplay’s by Anthony Frewin, longtime assistant to the late director, and Brian Cook, Colour‘s producer-director, also knew him well. “I was his assistant director on Barry Lyndon and The Shining and CMK_87_3_t.jpgassistant director as well as co-producer on Eyes Wide Shut. I made three pictures with Stanley over a period of some 30 years,” Cook attests in the Colour Me Kubrick press kit. “He was really a man unto himself. We worked at the studio but we also spent a lot of time at his home. Especially as he didn’t get up early and worked into the middle of the night! He loved that and I don’t blame him. I’d do the same thing if I could afford it! He didn’t waste time going to the studio every morning. He lived at home with his wife, children and no one else. We only came over to work and never stayed… Stanley stayed up very late in the evenings reading or making phone calls. He never started to work before noon. With age, he’d get up later and later. On Eyes Wide Shut, we’d work from 1pm to 1am, even at the studio. Obviously, when you work with someone for 30 years, certain bonds develop. Extremely loyal to those whose work he appreciated, Stanley systematically rehired the same collaborators. He had surrounded himself with excellent technicians… He himself was a very good technician. Outside the periods of production, we’d sometimes phone each other. I traveled a lot but always dropped in to see him whenever I returned to England. We had a good relationship. I particularly appreciated his deadpan side whenever he’d speak about the motion picture industry. He had a very subtle wit. He knew how to be a hard taskmaster when necessary, but working with him was sheer delight, he was a true perfectionist. His method didn’t vary with the films. First of all, he’d write the scene and adapt it according to the actors. For each and every scene, he’d spend hours and hours preparing the set and lighting even before we began rehearsals with the actors. When the set finally suited him, he’d have them come over and worked with them. He never required their presence before the set, props and lighting were ready, all of which takes an incredible amount of time. We’d do as many takes as he wished. We began over again each time by modifying lighting…


It didn’t bother Stanley spending time on a film. Many good directors like to keep up a steady shooting rhythm, advancing things without increasing the number of takes.” Kubrick “always wanted to try out other options. This was his right and he could afford it, as his films raked in a huge amount of money. No studio would have tolerated his work method if he didn’t bring in so much for them. He had lots of success, but worked hard, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It was his whole life. He was a skillful filmmaker who didn’t really appreciate the shoot in itself. He preferred by far preparation and postproduction. I loved talking with him. It’s such a terrible pity he left us so son. Never again will there be a man like him. Today, directors work at a frantic pace. They have to make films ever cheaper and cannot afford to spend years preparing and polishing up each production as Stanley Kubrick or David Lean would do. All that belongs to the past.”

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Movie City Indie

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon