Author Topic: Stanley Kubrick's Boxes  (Read 5094 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +639
Stanley Kubrick's Boxes
« on: July 17, 2008, 03:58:38 PM »
0
Stanley Kubrick's boxes
by Stuart McGurk; The London Paper

Google “Stanley Kubrick” and “recluse” and you’ll get more than 18,000 hits. Put “secretive” and it’s more than a million.

It’s lucky he was a visionary director. Being seen as a ­secretive, reclusive, oddball loan manager doesn’t quite have the same ring, does it?

And that, really, is the ­question at the heart of this absorbing documentary, where journalist Jon Ronson trawls through the thousand-plus boxes of personal paraphernalia Kubrick left after his death in 1999.

Was his increasingly obsessive nature after 1975’s Barry Lyndon an integral part of his genius or an increasingly damaging by-product of it?

The documentary walks a fine line between the two – which is a nice way of saying it doesn’t answer it – but one thing is clear. We know what he was doing with his time.

Kubrick always was a perfectionist, but the boxes chart the tipping point between perfection and obsession.

Ronson – with his usual style that sounds like he’s ­doing an impression of ­Mystic Meg while winded – finds “only a few screen tests” from the early years. But it is after 2001: A Space Odyssey in 1968 that the boxes really start to increase in number. Some are filled with ideas. “Intelligent kangaroo-shaped reptiles come down and impress a catholic priest,” reads one (I’m sure I reviewed that the other week. The title escapes me).

Others are packed with fan letters (all ordered), bizarre memos (in one, he asks his ­assistant to find the exact ­biometric pressure of where they’d been filming) or even countless adverts. Most, ­however, are filled with ­almost lunatic levels of ­research. There are years of Holocaust research for a film that never happened (Spielberg studied, shot and edited Schindler’s List in the time it took Kubrick to compile it).

But best comes with the work that went into his last film, Eyes Wide Shut in 1999, ­after more than a decade’s ­inactivity. The sheer volume is simply ­remarkable. For one doorway scene, he sent a ­photographer to snap more than 30,000 of them to find the perfect one.

Kubrick’s family and friends are unequivocal – this obsession was part of his ­genius. And it was. But Eyes Wide Shut was his worst film, and it can’t have been beyond Ronson to point this out.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5739282975440441779
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5781
  • Respect: +166
Re: Stanley Kubrick's Boxes
« Reply #1 on: July 17, 2008, 05:41:34 PM »
0
I'm watching this now. I think this documentary is good evidence to the idea that creative inspiration became Kubrick's enemy after 2001: A Space Odyssey. It effected his work at first and then fully engulfed him.

David Fincher is considered a perfectionist today, but he has a better output with releasing new films than Kubrick ever did. Fincher impresses everyone when he goes into detail about how much he digs into every film, but this documentary shows he has nothing on Kubrick. The lengths Kubrick went into with researching everything goes beyond just film. He researched things that had nothing to do with more than his personal interest. Oddball subjects and what not. Numerous things that didn't need to exhausted to such know how and information.

Oliver Stone always says perfection is the enemy of good. I also think he means it is the enemy of inspiration. Kubrick believed in inspiration, but his final films didn't show any of it. His final three films are about three different things but have similar shot sequences, styles and feel. I believe in his quest for perfection he became wary of change and steadied himself with a developed, comfortable style. The only thing that would change with his films were the stories and production methods. He immersed himself so much into those production details that he lost sight of the filmic changes he needed to make with each new film.

The filmmaker who first made Lolita and then evolved to make Barry Lyndon was nowhere to be found anymore. Each film made in between that period could not be more different and differently inspired. Kubrick was hitting extremes with each film and challenging all ideas anyone had of him. He seemed comfortable with the filmic changes.

I don't know what changed, but Kubrick backtracked into comfortability, resigned to himself to his acquired status and didn't challenge his own barriers. He just seemed to live in the details of his life and interests.


Pozer

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2289
  • Respect: +139
Re: Stanley Kubrick's Boxes
« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2008, 06:11:49 PM »
0
this could be good 10,000th post material, Pubrick.

:yabbse-thumbup:  but you may have ruined the chances.

everyone of us would spend thousands upon thousands of hours going through those boxes.  GT too, he'd just be judging everything.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5781
  • Respect: +166
Re: Stanley Kubrick's Boxes
« Reply #3 on: July 17, 2008, 06:20:19 PM »
0
everyone of us would spend thousands upon thousands of hours going through those boxes.  GT too, he'd just be judging everything.

I would, with great interest. I wrote down every topic they said was on the boxes. I'm going to check into the University of London to see if its open to the public. Not like I am going there next week, but in case I ever do.

and your guys problem with me isn't that I judge. Everyone judges all the time. It's just how I judge.

Fernando

  • satan's little helper
  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2234
  • Respect: +230
Re: Stanley Kubrick's Boxes
« Reply #4 on: July 17, 2008, 06:53:17 PM »
0
There are years of Holocaust research for a film that never happened (Spielberg studied, shot and edited Schindler's List in the time it took Kubrick to compile it).

What a stupid thing to say, so he took a long time to research to make films, so? who cares, he did a wonderful contibution to cinema and that's also why his films are so unique and apart from everyone else's, to paraphrase what Marty said on ALiP. 'I wish he had made more, but that was his process, one of his films were like ten from anyone else'.

But Eyes Wide Shut was his worst film, and it can't have been beyond Ronson to point this out.

INVALIDATED.


Note to the admins: I think the article I posted on the archives thread should merge with this one.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5781
  • Respect: +166
Re: Stanley Kubrick's Boxes
« Reply #5 on: July 17, 2008, 07:06:47 PM »
0
There are years of Holocaust research for a film that never happened (Spielberg studied, shot and edited Schindler's List in the time it took Kubrick to compile it).

What a stupid thing to say, so he took a long time to research to make films, so? who cares, he did a wonderful contibution to cinema and that's also why his films are so unique and apart from everyone else's, to paraphrase what Marty said on ALiP. 'I wish he had made more, but that was his process, one of his films were like ten from anyone else'.

I remember when Marty said that, but I don't see it. As far as I'm concerned his films got less complex and less involved as time went on. They became predictable and recognizable. There is nothing really depth about Shining, Full Metal Jacket or Eyes Wide Shut. I could understand the argument that a film like 2001 or Barry Lyndon, but none of those films.

I think the perfectionist in him took a tole on his production effort and also that age caught up to him. Directing films as large as his had to be rigorous. It reminds me of someone taking on writing a novel. Philip Roth once said it was amazing that Saul Bellow could have the concentration to even write books at such an age before he died. I think a similar sentiment could be for Kubrick and the efforts he took with his production.

Pozer

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2289
  • Respect: +139
Re: Stanley Kubrick's Boxes
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2008, 02:51:47 PM »
0
There is nothing really depth about Shining, Full Metal Jacket or Eyes Wide Shut. I could understand the argument that a film like 2001 or Barry Lyndon, but none of those films.

i would be interested in reading your reasons why you think 2001 & BL have more depth than the ones that followed.  or what you mean by them becoming predictable and recognizable.  cuz just sitting here thinking about it, i don't understand it in terms of those ones vs. those ones.  the style of them being recognized is all i could come up with.  i would understand more if you thought they ALL lacked depth, so it would be interesting to read the comparables.

or we could just scratch all that and talk about the awesome video. 

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5781
  • Respect: +166
Re: Stanley Kubrick's Boxes
« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2008, 09:41:54 PM »
0
There is nothing really depth about Shining, Full Metal Jacket or Eyes Wide Shut. I could understand the argument that a film like 2001 or Barry Lyndon, but none of those films.

i would be interested in reading your reasons why you think 2001 & BL have more depth than the ones that followed.  or what you mean by them becoming predictable and recognizable.  cuz just sitting here thinking about it, i don't understand it in terms of those ones vs. those ones.  the style of them being recognized is all i could come up with.  i would understand more if you thought they ALL lacked depth, so it would be interesting to read the comparables.

I welcome the challenge. And yes, the video is great. I recommend everyone watch it.

When Stanley Kubrick made 2001: A Space Odyssey and Barry Lyndon, he was dealing with two genres that already had a lot of norms and expectations. The science fiction and historical drama were already well established in the film world. The success that Kubrick had as being a visionary is that he was able to create two films that had little comparability to any films made in the genre. Not only little comparability, but he created two films that loomed over all films made before in those genres and challenged all ideas of what we were to expect. Before 2001 audiences expected end of the world melodramas with science fiction and Kubrick made them imagine a science fiction film of different thought, but also different structure. He wanted to lose the standard melodrama identity and installed a documentary format to the film.

A similar accomplishment came with Barry Lyndon. By developing a new camera to accurately depict 1800s life, he slowed down the story to such a halt that the film was paced to represent life in the 1800s. All historical dramas are a little slower pace with some due respect to accuracy, but no film like Barry Lyndon goes to such extent to detail life back then. With Barry Lyndon Kubrick had a story that encompassed both the life of a common man and an aristocrat. Kubrick wanted the film to be an attack on the 1969 film made about Napolean that short changed (as far as he was concerned) the accuracy that was necessary to depicting historical dramas and historical lives. And because Kubrick controlled the license on his new camera he allowed for no film afterward to replicate the uniqueness of what he accomplished.

Taking on two old genres and completely redefining them was a huge accomplishment. He also didn't do this with short films. Besides Spartacus, 2001 and Barry Lyndon represent his longest and largest production efforts. Kubrick showed he could bring nuance to every production (doesn't matter how small), but these two films had the physical lengths and demands to outweight efforts combined. I imagine you could combine the production requirements of both Dr. Strangelove and Clockwork Orange to equal one of either 2001 or Lyndon. The simplicities of their stories allowed for Kubrick to worry less about the production. Dr. Strangelove only had a few sets total while Clockwork Orange was filmed on location with some attempt to reflect modern day decay but add a futuristic undertone to it. 2001 is the most influential science fiction film ever. Almost everyone admits it. The fact that Barry Lyndon isn't as impressive with influencing future filmmakers has more to do with the genre's limited popularilty, but it definitely changed the rules to the genre as much as 2001 did.

Then there is Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut. Both films were also made with preconceptions of what was expected in the story. Full Metal Jacket dealt not only with war, but a new war in Vietnam. Kubrick did clarify that the film was about general ideas of war and not the realistic situation of what happened in Vietnam. Platoon occupied that realm, but Full Metal Jacket was trying to deal with a new look at war on film. It wouldn't be just stories of heroes and villians in a strenous situation, but questions and ideas about the nature of war. Full Metal Jacket wasn't the first film by a major filmmaker to look into the trenches of the Vietnam War from a philosophical benchmark concerned with the nature of war.

It is Apocalypse Now. It's interesting because Coppola lifted a classic text in Hearts of Darkness to fit a scenario no one would have imagined for the short novel. He filmed the project to extremes to make it a definitive look at a situation of war. Oliver Stone had right to criticize the film when he called it mythogical and not realistic. His interest in the Vietnam War had to do with reflection and accuracy, but Kubrick made a film in the same mold as Apocalypse Now. Both filmmakers had totally different styles, but both were interested in the philosophies of war. Kubrick with will to kill a man and whether one can be programmed while Coppola with the decadence of war and the giving over of the personal will to its extremes.

You can compare both films on one ground. Coppola extended his vision to create a more everlasting, penetrating viewpoint of war. Apocalypse Now goes further into the abyss and transcends more norms of war films than Kubrick does with Full Metal Jacket. Yes, in some way Full Metal Jacket is meant to be anti war film with diluted expectations of gunfire and thrilling battle scenes, but Apocalypse Now does much of its aweing with scenes not directly related to just battle scenes. Coppola creates an environment in war really never depicted with such grotesque beauty before. Kubrick got more comment and recognition because he was able to do the entire film on a studio stage. The compliments had more to do with his ability to will a story that seemed to need real locales onto a fake set. But considering most people who applaud Kubrick do so by complimenting the excellence of his imagery, it seems Full Metal Jacket falls short of truly breaking any new grounds and remains in the shadow of Apocalypse Now. People did compare it to Platoon and give it applause, but its true companion piece was always Apocalypse Now.

Kubrick knew the expectations people had with him going into war films. He avvoided the subject long enough and knew he wanted to do something more than just Paths of Glory. He respected the film but knew his greater freedom later on would allow him to make a more definitive film about war. It's sad that his one effort that directly dealt with war was already overshadowed by a film made less than 10 years before it.

Then with Eyes Wide Shut Stanley Kubrick not only dealt with a film about marriage and personal trials, but he also dealt with secret societies and the occult. While it is never reported, Eyes Wide Shut wasn't his first attempt to make a film about the subject. Back in the 1980s he tried to adapt Umberto Eco's novel Foucault's Pendulum. It fell through because (reportedly) Eco wanted control of the screenplay because his novel The Name of the Rose was adapted to less than speticular results. Kubrick balked at this and the two couldn't even forge a writing union to adapt the novel.

An adaptation would have been stupendous because the book directly correlates with Eyes Wide Shut. Both deal with characters who allow personal issues to merge with their obsession in secret societies. Eyes Wide Shut deals with a sex socieity while Foucault's deals with Knights Templars and societies to explain the entire existence of humanity. Considering Kubrick's long interest in history and science fiction, Foucault's Pendulum seemed much more suited to him. It was jam packed with information and details about human existence and the what if's. The one thing Kubrick has proven over the years is his fascination with human history and its future. Foucault's Pendulum deals with the past but plays it like a science fiction novel where ideas and wonderments are everywhere.

The novel is so indepth about its subject it would have granted Kubrick the opportunity to make a film about human desire for the unkown bigger and larger than ever seen before. Kubrick essentially would have created a new genre because the novel was unlike anything ever done. It was about character dealing with personal demons in a modern setting, but the entire human history was the setting of the novel. Kubrick would have had to make a film that was a short history of human exstence as seen by fanatics. The possibilities to Kubrick's vision here are endless. I directly believe it would have been twice as ambitious as 2001, but it was never to be.

One can like Eyes Wide Shut and respect the intention, but I'm always going to be at a loss because Kubrick had another project on his plate that he passed up on. He wasn't going to forgoe the creative control to work with Eco so he made Eyes Wide Shut. Even while making it he was developing A.I. and just making the film until he could have gotten to that project. It was a momentary project for him. It has personal significance because it was an adaptation of his favorite writer, but I never felt it was truly a meant to be film. It was something to keep working. Foucault's Pendulum has much more meaning in the Kubrick world than Eyes Wide Shut ever did.

Then finally, there is Wartime Lies. He abandoned the project because Schindler's List was supposebly going to overshadow it and he apparently was sad to try to make a film that showed everything he knew about War World II and the Holocaust. He felt like there wasn't a fictional story that really could encompass everything he knew. Stanley was probably right. Wartime Lies would have had the thinnest story of any Kubrick film ever if it was made. The story had the vision of a spare neorealist film. If the film was ever to encompass his greater vision the story would have had to been completely redone, but it wouldn't have been an adaptation then. It would have been a total reimagination and Kubrick never could get the project to that point to suit his needs, I believe.

Kubrick was always exhaustive with his later films. He wanted to them to be researched to no end, but like the documentary shows, he spent months researching trivials things like gate doors and mansions meant only to be used for set up shots in his films. He no longer was crusading to completely rework the rules like he had done before, but just make sure what he was doing was done perfect enough. I felt like he was always making films that came up short to what was becoming the new standard. He influenced filmmakers in the 60s and 70s, but it seems like he was getting older and couldn't still be the freshest talent.


(As far as style predictability goes, look at my long post in the Eyes Wide Shut thread. I go into details there about how his last three films merged together as far as style and look goes. Im too tired of writing to repeat myself.)



Xx

  • The Road of Trials
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • Respect: 0
Re: Stanley Kubrick's Boxes
« Reply #8 on: July 19, 2008, 12:53:49 AM »
0
...
« Last Edit: June 20, 2014, 01:41:50 PM by flagpolespecial »

Pozer

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2289
  • Respect: +139
Re: Stanley Kubrick's Boxes
« Reply #9 on: July 20, 2008, 05:38:28 PM »
0
it was very thoughtful, but i'm not sure about a well presented argument because it's one that seems pointless to rebuttal. 

yes, i strongly disagree because the 'non accomplishment' films mentioned were in fact groundbreaking because each genre was tackled and presented in a way never seen before.  the entire arrangement and tone of all three of those films are what make them unique and accomplished, and i guess that's enough for me.  personally, i think the bootcamp opening sequence of FMJ is far more strong and superior than the set up of Apocalypse Now, but i don't really think to compare them that way.  or even as a whole, really.  maybe they are 'in the same mold' and AN was the first groundbreaker of a more philosophical view on war, but that's not to say someone shouldn't have come along and approached it in the same vein.

here i am getting on with it.  too much sun today.  thanks for sharing your whys.       
 

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5781
  • Respect: +166
Re: Stanley Kubrick's Boxes
« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2008, 06:18:25 PM »
0
personally, i think the bootcamp opening sequence of FMJ is far more strong and superior than the set up of Apocalypse Now, but i don't really think to compare them that way.

Does it not mystify you though that the realism of the boot camp scenes was to trump boot camp scenes in An Officer and a Gentleman only? Kubrick continually referenced that film when making and promoting Full Metal Jacket. I thought he did so to an unhealthy degree. It seems like a low bar to aim for when thinking about accomplishments.

As long as my post was all my points were very general. I have very specific ideas about why his last three films weren't good or ambitious, but it is remarkable that Kubrick made films that were already lower tier than other modern works about similar subjects. Yes Full Metal Jacket and Apocalypse Now are different, but I know few people who argue the former is really better than the latter. The point is that Kubrick continually had reminders there were more ambitious and thorough films out there about that were similar to the subjects in his films and he did little to really take on that subject. It isn't just about Kubrick tackling entire genres, but really taking on films most critics and audience members will generally cross reference his film to. He steadied himself to a pace and vision that became way too comfortable.

Pozer

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2289
  • Respect: +139
Re: Stanley Kubrick's Boxes
« Reply #11 on: July 22, 2008, 08:56:32 PM »
0
Does it not mystify you though that the realism of the boot camp scenes was to trump boot camp scenes in An Officer and a Gentleman only? Kubrick continually referenced that film when making and promoting Full Metal Jacket. I thought he did so to an unhealthy degree. It seems like a low bar to aim for when thinking about accomplishments.

i can picture him yelling through his megaphone, calling the actors weak little Richard Geres as they go through the obstacles.  we need that FMJ set footage more than ever now.

Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Respect: +470
Re: Stanley Kubrick's Boxes
« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2008, 07:15:50 PM »
0
i don't think Eyes Wide Shut looks and feels at all like The Shinning or Full Metal Jacket. Those two, I see the resemblance immediately, but no Eyes...That films looks and feels like nothing else around.

About Oliver Stone, I agree with him. But...Kubrick wasn't looking for perfection. He was looking for imperfection. He patiently waited, option after option, pic after pic, take after take, for that thing called "magic", he said this himself. Looking for perfection means you have a preconceived idea of how things should be, but you don't need to look at a 1000 pictures of doors to get to that. But if you don't know exactly what you want, and you have the time and patience to wait for it, you got Stanley Kubrick.

What I'm saying here is that I disagree that his "quest" for perfection got in the way of his ability as a writer, producer and director of films. On the contrary, his will to wait, as a chess player, for the one thing that made him tick emotionally and creatively on the majority of choices you have to make as a filmmaker, is precisely what made his films so unique. I understand GT''s points on his last three movies, the only problem I have with that argument is that well...The Shinning is still one of the best horror films in history and at least the first half of FMJ is one of the best war films ever too...and Eyes Wide Shut is even more weird and unique, so to call it predictable...I don't see it as predictable....really, where is that film predictable? What in the previous Kubrick films made it predictable? And in any other comparison? Kubrick was a true artist in that despite his obsessive tendencies he gave himself the chances to find, via trial and error (and this is the most important thing in any art) what he liked best and found the most adequate to his own vision. I always say that a perfect film is what Ron Howard makes (and that's where Oliver Stone's quote makes sense). Artists are looking for something else.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5781
  • Respect: +166
Re: Stanley Kubrick's Boxes
« Reply #13 on: July 25, 2008, 08:06:04 PM »
0
About Oliver Stone, I agree with him. But...Kubrick wasn't looking for perfection. He was looking for imperfection. He patiently waited, option after option, pic after pic, take after take, for that thing called "magic", he said this himself. Looking for perfection means you have a preconceived idea of how things should be, but you don't need to look at a 1000 pictures of doors to get to that. But if you don't know exactly what you want, and you have the time and patience to wait for it, you got Stanley Kubrick.

I think Kubrick is kidding himself with that explanation. The whole idea of finding the "magic" is being able to live in the moment. That is what makes up a creative environment. David Mamet says after 5 takes of shooting a scene the actors become dull and their best performance is behind them. It's known on the Shining Kubrick would film scenes to exact perfection that sometimes he had more interest in the camera's alignment than what the actors were doing. He was calculating with how everything looked. And it just isn't how he filmed scenes, but the fact that he would allow simple decisions to take up months of his time. That has nothing to do with finding the "magic". It's about calculation and perfectionism. When someone tells me they believe in finding the magic, I think they are talking about relying on your intuition. In a game like poker (to just give an example) intituition is key and as the old poker saying goes, "when you think long, you think wrong."

The rest of your post asks for an epic reply. I'm up for the challenge but I have long days the next three days so allow me until next week to give it to you.

Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Respect: +470
Re: Stanley Kubrick's Boxes
« Reply #14 on: July 25, 2008, 08:34:50 PM »
0
In my experience, trial and error is the key to everything. I'm talking about all sorts of enterprises, specially artistic enterprises. Acting, writing, and certainly producing and directing films are a matter of trial and error. The thing is, you don't always have the time and/or the money to keep exploring options. Kubrick had the balls and the persistence to do this until he felt satisfied, and I would bet he was as concerned about sound, music, camera framing and movement and everything else as he was about acting and getting what he wanted, and intuition of course, is primordial. You don't really KNOW when something works, you think you know, and you hope it does months later, years later. It is a matter, as they say in shawshank redemption, of time and pressure. Kubrick had a unique position, he could take more time with less pressure, but he was never in some Steven Spielberg position (is Spielberg himself even in this position?) where he could do anything he wanted for as long as he wanted. Time and money were a concern for Kubrick. For every story about his obsession with detail there is one about his obsession with money and using time and resources economically. Finding "something", whatever you call it, magic or whatever, was his concern. He was not kidding anyone nor himself. Why would he?

People can have any objection they want with his films and/or his progress or work ethics, but really, to claim he became sterile, uninventive, or any other way to put it BECAUSE of his attention to detail and his Will to prepare and just wait for the right thing for HIM...I just don't buy it. In my experience, you work with what you got, even though you never, ever ever have enough. Not enough time, not enough money, not enough people to help you. Never enough. Just because he took a year to shoot a film or two years to shoot another film, doesn't mean that at some point he didn't have to say: "Ok, time's up, let's move on".

And about actors turning into wooden caricatures after five takes, it's bullshit, and I say this as an actor too. You get yourself in the right frame of mind, you don't get tired after five or 145 takes. If you're a stage actor you do the same stuff for years, and on film that shouldn't be a problem either. Some actors, a LOT of actors are just lazy and used to be told they're awesome for nothing. If you get in some attitude after the 15Th take, your work will be shit. If you take the numerous takes as what that IS, an opportunity to do it differently AGAIN and AGAIN, then, of course, "magic" will happen at some point. Don't even get me started on actors complaining for doing more than five takes. It pisses me off.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy