An additional take may address a movement, a line, or a choice that still isn’t working. Counting takes without knowing the problem leaves out much of the work and doesn’t show how a performance was achieved.
Rehearsing means trying out a scene under specific conditions
In his interview with Joseph Gelmis, published in The Film Director as Superstar, Kubrick connected the value of rehearsal with the opportunity to work in the physical space of the scene. He also distinguished the consistency he observed in George C. Scott from Peter Sellers’s variability. These are the director’s observations about specific collaborators, not a universal classification of two ways of acting.
Space matters because a line doesn’t happen in isolation. The person speaking is a certain distance from someone else, may be sitting or moving around, and has objects available that can facilitate or interrupt their action. Trying out the dialogue alone doesn’t resolve all those relationships. Once the set is in place, an imagined solution may become awkward or reveal a different possibility.
In his conversation with Philip Strick and Penelope Houston, Kubrick described rehearsing a new scene as a moment when the material could change once put into practice. The earlier preparation was still necessary, but it didn’t guarantee that everything would work in performance. This testimony supports talking about revision, not a fixed plan that performers were expected to execute without variation.
The preparation and revision of the work addresses the method more broadly. Here, the focus is a specific unit: the scene that needs to create an understandable relationship. Before repeating it, it helps to identify what needs to be tested. A pacing problem, an unclear path, or a muddled dramatic intention calls for different interventions.
Repetition has no single cause or guaranteed result
In his 1987 interview with Tim Cahill, Kubrick rejected the idea of a fixed number of takes applied to every scene and linked some problems to knowing the dialogue. That explanation is his account of the work. It doesn’t justify attributing every repetition in his filmography to the cast’s lack of preparation, nor does it replace the experiences of those who performed.
A repeat may preserve the scene and change only one element: speed, position, timing of a response, or coordination with the camera. It may also capture a more substantial alternative. From the outside, both processes produce another take; dramatically, they aren’t equivalent. Production records and firsthand accounts help distinguish between them when available.
The work with the cast of Full Metal Jacket provides specific context for the account of R. Lee Ermey. His familiarity with the drill instructor’s language doesn’t eliminate the need to learn, coordinate, and record a scene. A performer’s prior experience can contribute material, but the film still has to turn it into actions that work with the other bodies and the camera.
Variation can also affect scene partners. A different pause changes when someone else responds; a different path changes the position from which they’re seen. That’s why a take doesn’t belong only to the person in the foreground. Acting happens within a coordinated effort, and repeating one part may require the whole group to reorganize.
Accounts of the filming of The Shining need to be kept in their specific scene, moment, and point of view. A difficult experience isn’t explained by a general formula about perfectionism. Nor does a viewer’s assessment of the result’s quality prove that every working condition was necessary or justifiable. The process and the aesthetic assessment call for different questions.
The final performance is also determined in the editing room
James B. Harris told DGA Quarterly that during his collaboration with Kubrick, ideas were tried out in rehearsal and then incorporated into the script. His recollection distinguishes the moment of discovery from the moment of recording. A solution born in a rehearsal may reach the shoot as prepared material, ready to be repeated with more defined timing.
The collaboration with Peter Sellers is useful for understanding this distinction, but it shouldn’t be reduced to an opposition between freedom and control. An actor can make a suggestion and the director can select it; a scene partner can change the response; the edit can keep only part of it. The origin of an idea alone doesn’t describe all the stages that turn it into a scene.
The finished film lets us observe a gesture, a pause, and a reaction, but it doesn’t always reveal whether they come from the same take. A line of dialogue may combine different recordings. The continuity we perceive is the result of selection and the relationships between shots. Identifying a performance with one uninterrupted execution can obscure that work.
The study of Paths of Glory and the collaboration with Kirk Douglas places another production experience in context. Comparing accounts from different films is useful when their circumstances are kept in view: cast, era, resources, and specific problems. Applying an anecdote from one shoot to all the others turns a particular experience into a rule the sources haven’t established.
A take count is meaningful only when we know what unit it counts. It may refer to a shot, a scene, a day, or a selection of footage, and these levels aren’t interchangeable. Who provides the figure and when they recall it also matter. Without that precision, the number’s apparent exactness can obscure a very imprecise description of the process.
The result can be analyzed without reconstructing every repetition. The question will be how a visible performance is organized and what relationships it creates. Explaining how it was made requires additional documents and testimony. Keeping these questions separate makes it possible to study rehearsal, repetition, and selection as concrete forms of work, without turning them into a record-breaking contest or assuming that a higher number guarantees a better scene.
Testimony: Joseph Gelmis, The Film Director as Superstar (1970); Philip Strick and Penelope Houston, Modern Times: An Interview with Stanley Kubrick, Sight and Sound (1972); Tim Cahill, The Rolling Stone Interview: Stanley Kubrick (1987); James B. Harris, In the Trenches with Stanley Kubrick, DGA Quarterly (2013).
View all articles in Directing Actors and Staging in Kubrick