First off it seems like there is a strange, specious simile the OP is trying to draw between a director doing some camerawork (note: Kubrick in that particular interview cited is only speaking of /handheld/ camerawork specifically because it's difficult to communicate the framing and such) themselves and an individual being able to do everything (within the scope of some discipline) themselves. Let's clear something up right now: directors who do some or all of their own camerawork are NOT tantamount to directors making a film by themselves. There is so much more that goes into making a film besides the raw camerawork. Even your average Joe will know this by proxy as big events like the Academy Awards highlight the complexity of big Hollywood productions and the many roles that individuals have mastered. Directors, e.g. Lars von Trier, will sometimes oscillate between doing all camerawork themselves and none of it. (In Trier's case he even experimented with allowing a computer program to compose shots in a completely automated way!) However none of this backs up the apparent assumption that this is equivalent to making the film wholly yourself.<p>That said I think this is a pretty weak and misleading analogy! We can give the OP a break here and say, "Sure I know what you're getting at." However, if you really want to get a strong point across, use a better analogy.<p>Finally, let me dwell on one passage in the posting that I find troubling:<p>> Lately it has started to feel like our society respects “vision” more than the actual craft of execution.<p>What is going through the OP's mind here? Execution is definitely the only thing that has ever mattered.
I once read an interview with someone who had worked with Kubrick. He was talking about how deep Kubrick's knowledge of his tools went.<p>It went something like this- Stanley knew everything there was to know about the lenses he used. But he didn't just know the lenses, he knew the man who designed the lenses. And he didn't just know the man who designed the lenses, he knew how that man's daughter was doing in school.<p>He learned his tools thoroughly, often from the people who built them. And he knew the people, which is just as interesting in its own right.
Off-topic: if you like kubrick's movies, do yourself a favor and watch this documentary right now: <a href="http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0278736/" rel="nofollow">http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0278736/</a><p>It's exceptionally great. Kubrick himself would've been proud of it. I really can't recommend it enough. For me, it's <i>almost</i> Kubrick's 10th movie (not counting Spartacus, The Killing, Killer's Kiss and Fear & Desire, of course) - that's how great it is.<p>Trailer: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNuzGlLqxNU" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNuzGlLqxNU</a>
Kubrick also had an insane obsession with his tools. Most of Barry Lyndon was shot on F1.0 (EDIT: it was F0.7) glass, which, as far as I know, was only available from NASA at the time and probably can't be found at all today for film cameras.<p>EDIT: f/0.7, thanks! Holy shit!
The elephant in the room here is the Auteur Theory [1]. Film is a uniquely collaborative art--a director needs to communicate his or her vision to a very large team with specialized technical skills. While tempting to do it all yourself, that doesn't scale. There's a direct corollary here with running a company.<p>The craft, skill, and genius of great auteurs and entrepreneurs is inspiring a team with his or her vision to build great things together, not in doing it all him or her self.<p>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auteur_theory" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auteur_theory</a>
Kubrick's quote from the article:<p><i>"Yes, all of the hand-held camerawork is mine. In addition to the fun of doing the shooting myself, I find it is virtually impossible to explain what you want in a hand-held shot to even the most talented and sensitive camera operator."</i><p>Kubrick might have benefited from doing a few runs with his camera, THEN showed his camera people that this is how he wanted it. I find this is a powerful technique in delegation. Ie- where most will outsource a task with a rudimentary set of guidelines, the results can be exponentially better if the 'delegator' simply rolls up his or her sleeves and literally does the task at hand, albeit a rough draft first attempt, and shares the results; uses that as the guideline. Like planting a seed with water.
I think Kubrick would have been happy to hand off the camera to another operator so he could be free to scrutinize other things. He very obviously did this with many other jobs on the set. However, there was a lack of ability to communicate with precision what he wanted done.<p>Perhaps this is because the degrees of freedom are so numerous in handheld camerawork that it was not feasible.<p>In any event things like this are failures to communicate, and any time you have to do this, it should be treated as so. Sometimes it is more efficient to do something yourself than to communicate it to someone else; if that is the case more often than not, the most efficient thing to do might be to improve your communication skills.
This is just confirmation bias. Kubrick made great formalistic films, Robert Altman made great naturalistic films. Joss Whedon focuses on script and characterization. Christopher Guest focuses on casting and improvisation. Wes Anderson focuses on casting and tableau and music.<p>They all make great stuff. By all means be a Kubrick if it works for you, but don't try to be something you're not.
There was an expo in Venice a few years ago featuring his photography work before he become a film director. The man really knew how to capture mood through his knowledge of light. His time in old New York City produced some fantastic pictures of people and their locations.
isn't this a true gem: "Our surroundings have pressured us to believe that doing less and moving slower are negative characteristics, but I see them as a obvious advantages."...
This article might have been about something interesting. I don't know, because I stopped after this:<p>"It was less a surprise to the extent that he, famously demanding and meticulous, had a specific vision which needed to be realized, but more-so a surprise I had never thought of him to do such a peculiar thing."<p>I don't continue reading after it becomes clear that I'm looking at some kind of rough first draft. If you want it to appear that you have some respect for yourself and your potential readers, at least look over your output once quickly before sticking it on the end of a publicly-facing URL. You have some room. Try to be more articulate than a tweet.