"But there was something very liberating about that. At first I was very pissed off - 'You've got to be kidding!' - and then you realize he's just given you an almighty present - you can do whatever you want.
"Then, when I was back with Lindsay on O Lucky Man, I would say, 'Don't talk to me, I know what I want to do!' So the tables had turned a bit since If... , and he had plenty to say in his diary about it. 'I'm very pissed off with Malcolm - thinks he knows it all!'
"But Kubrick could be very spontaneous, surprisingly, and I picked that up from him. Stanley at his best was at the head of a giant army, like Patton, but still he was brilliant at being able to say to suggestions, 'That's a great idea!' and telling the whole army, 'We're all going this way now!' And off we'd go. While with Lindsay's movies, exactly the opposite, you didn't change a word."
And did Kubrick put you through 500 takes per shot?
"No, I think that started later. I think he lost some of his confidence later, but he still had it in 1971. Stanley would have been quite happy to make a film without actors. He always thought they couldn't be relied on. He once asked me if he should send the script girl to Patrick Magee's house and go over his lines with him... 'Not if you want a happy actor in the morning!' I said. There was a lot about actors that Stanley wasn't interested in."
"I don't think Stanley and Lindsay ever met, but if I wanted a bit of fun, I would sometimes pit one against the other, for my own amusement. I'd go to Lindsay, 'I never have this problem from Kubrick, one of the world's greatest directors, and a populist director at that! Makes films that people want to see!'
"Lindsay would say, 'He's far too cynical for me,' and I'd say, 'Look who's talking! What is the difference between you and Stanley?' He'd go, 'I am a humanist. He is a satirist.' I think that is exactly the right distinction - Lindsay was always right."
RSS