|
Post by Doghouse6 on Jul 3, 2019 22:18:40 GMT
He filmed a series of long takes and he had objects blocking the screen to hide the transition. Did people back then really not notice? It wasn't quick or subtle. It's not like one has to be a film expert to notice that the entire screen is pitch black. I'm not trying to diminish the merit of continuous shots though. Some of those transitions work better than others. Stewart dramatically flinging open the top of the chest right into the camera lens is nice. Others, such as dollying in to the back of someone's coat, are simply awkward and only call attention to themselves. If memory serves, there's at least one instance in which Hitchcock goes with a plain, old fashioned cut, not bothering to try to disguise it. The continuous shot, or the illusion of one, if only for isolated moments, is one he never completely abandoned. The opening of Psycho, displaying the panorama of Phoenix and gradually zeroing in on one building, and then to one window in that building, was originally intended to have been accomplished with a continuous helicopter shot, but camera mounts of the day were unable to achieve the desired stability. So four stationary shots from the tops of buildings were used, linked by quick dissolves from which Hitchcock distracted with three successive title overlays denoting the place, date and time. He revisited the Rope technique in his penultimate film, Frenzy, for the celebrated shot retreating from the flat in which a murder is about to take place, down the stairs, a hallway and out into the street. The first part was shot on a soundstage set, and the cut to the location exterior of the building is masked by a produce worker walking by with a sack of potatoes (a mischievous bit of foreshadowing).
|
|