|
Post by gunshotwound on Mar 18, 2017 2:51:47 GMT
Targets (1968) has a nice long take that lasts just under 5 minutes. The action takes place in the home of the main character Bobby. The characters involved are Bobby, his wife and both of his parents. The action starts in the living room of the home. The camera tracks from the front door, through the living room and beginning down a hallway. The camera stops at the doorway to the family den. All 4 characters are seated and watching TV. The daughter-in-law gets up to get dressed for work. She walks toward the camera and past it. The camera stays locked on the other 3 characters. A few seconds later Bobby gets up to go talk to his wife. He walks toward the camera and passes it. The camera rotates to follow Bobby as he walks down the hallway to the bedroom. Bobby and the camera enter the bedroom. The camera stops with the majority of the bedroom in view as Bobby and his wife have a conversation while she dresses for work. She finishes dressing and walks out of the bedroom. The camera lingers in the bedroom as Bobby straightens up a few things. Bobby leaves the bedroom and the camera follows him back down the hallway to the den where it stops at the doorway. Bobby sits back down where he was before. There is a short conversation between Bobby and his parents. The parents get up to leave and both walk past the camera. The camera lingers on Bobby. He gets up and leaves the den with the camera following him. He walks through the living room and through a swinging door into the kitchen. As the swinging door swings back to close it cuts off the view of Bobby and the scene ends.
Just a simple scene with no edits. It took several viewings of the movie before I realized there were no edits
|
|
|
Post by pimpinainteasy on Mar 18, 2017 3:17:37 GMT
not sure if this qualifies, but JOHN DALL and PEGGY CUMMINS in the car, the camera is placed in the back seat. we get their nervous conversation, the bumpy ride, cigarette smoking, the driver's encounter with a policeman while waiting for her accomplice and then the escape all in a single take:
its very tense and realistic. i didnt even realize that it was a single take the first time i watched it.
|
|
|
Post by gunshotwound on Mar 18, 2017 3:37:48 GMT
Targets (1968) has a nice long take that lasts just under 5 minutes. I have never seen this debut Bogdanovich film, gunshot, but I love your example! It sounds like film critic/filmmaker Bogdanovich utilized techniques he learned from his inspirations - not least, Orson Welles. I've always wanted to see this, but have never had a chance. A five minute "oner" is impressive for a novice director. Thanks for the wonderful description of it. Targets is a very good movie. You really should try to see it. Push those thousands of other movies on your "to see" list aside and watch it immediately. Following the scene I described in my previous post there is an experiment with lighting in the next scene. Bogdanovich and cinematographer Kovacs try to make the viewer think the scene is lit just by the glow of a cigarette. It is not totally successful but it is an excellent attempt.
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Mar 18, 2017 15:19:48 GMT
I came to think of this Orson Welles The Touch of Evil, redux version ( re-cut According to Welles original ideas)the opening scene helped by an early Mancini score.
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Mar 18, 2017 16:01:22 GMT
pimpinainteasy said:
I didn't even realize that it was a single take the first time i watched it.
Some great comments and information in this thread.
I am not a veteran film buff like many on this board. I have seen only a fraction of the number of movies as some of you guys. Even less am I knowledgeable about techniques. I cannot bang a nail in straight and I call in an electrician to change a light bulb. I panic when confronted with any technical or practical problem and to learn and understand about film technology would take up too much of what relatively few days are left to me on this earth.
I am just a punter, but I apply the taste and discrimination I developed in literary fields to cinema. It follows that my favorite aspects of movies are plot, characters and dialog. Films which excel pictorially can leave me underwhelmed if they are lacking in the previously mentioned areas, but not necessarily vice-versa. When you guys and others explained why a scene was so effective I say "Oh Golly, yes! I see that now!" and it enhances my respect for the film-makers.
After that little burst of humility let me try this one on, inspired by pimpinainteasy's remark quoted above:
Anytime I am instantly aware that the director has used a trick, or technique, or non-standard procedure, it is a partial failure on his part. Such things should only be apparent, and perhaps analysed and appreciated, in retrospect. Films are a form of magic, and we should not see the magician at work pulling strings behind the curtain.
An obvious example is CGI. On this board (or was it on IMDb?) someone asked for good uses of CGI. I posted that the only good uses were the ones I was not aware of.
I am not sure if I actually believe what I have just written. Do any of you believe it too?
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Mar 18, 2017 17:26:25 GMT
pimpinainteasy said:I didn't even realize that it was a single take the first time i watched it.
Some great comments and information in this thread. I am not a veteran film buff like many on this board. I have seen only a fraction of the number of movies as some of you guys. Even less am I knowledgeable about techniques. I cannot bang a nail in straight and I call in an electrician to change a light bulb. I panic when confronted with any technical or practical problem and to learn and understand about film technology would take up too much of what relatively few days are left to me on this earth. I am just a punter, but I apply the taste and discrimination I developed in literary fields to cinema. It follows that my favorite aspects of movies are plot, characters and dialog. Films which excel pictorially can leave me underwhelmed if they are lacking in the previously mentioned areas, but not necessarily vice-versa. When you guys and others explained why a scene was so effective I say "Oh Golly, yes! I see that now!" and it enhances my respect for the film-makers. After that little burst of humility let me try this one on, inspired by pimpinainteasy's remark quoted above: Anytime I am instantly aware that the director has used a trick, or technique, or non-standard procedure, it is a partial failure on his part. Such things should only be apparent, and perhaps analysed and appreciated, in retrospect. Films are a form of magic, and we should not see the magician at work pulling strings behind the curtain. An obvious example is CGI. On this board (or was it on IMDb?) someone asked for good uses of CGI. I posted that the only good uses were the ones I did not notice at the time. I am not sure if I actually believe what I have just written. Do any of you believe it too? I wouldn't presume to pass judgement upon what you've expressed, given the highly subjective nature of film viewing. I daresay that even within the communal, "collective consciousness" experience of watching a film with several hundred others in a darkened theater, it's possible no two of them see a given film in exactly the same way. My personal tendency is to become "the man with two brains" while watching any film: one brain surrenders to the dramatic experience intended, getting swept up in the story, identification with characters and their situations and so forth; the other is constantly noting and cataloguing those "tricks" and "techniques," engaged in analysis and evaluation of what's working, what isn't and why, and the manner in which each of those elements are crafted, along with the intent behind them. It's not at all uncommon for two thoughts such as, "Omigod, he's the killer" and "I would have held that shot a bit longer" to occur simultaneously. If you think about it, the way we experience life through our own eyes is, barring those periods when they're closed, essentially one long take: we don't compress time through a series of dissolves or fade-ins and fade-outs; we don't jump instantaneously from one location to another, and yet it's rather remarkable that from the very first dramatic photoplays, displayed to audiences whose only previous exposure to performed drama was on the stage, the language of film - those cuts, fades, dissolves and so on - were intuitively understood by them. Consider a typical assemblage: three seconds of a struggling heroine tied to railroad tracks; another three of the sneering villain observing her from behind a tree a hundred feet away; two seconds of a train barrelling toward her a half-mile down the track; four seconds of the mounted hero galloping across a field to her rescue, etc. Such disjointed witnessing of events is like nothing experienced by any single person in real life, but audiences "got it" just the same, with complete clarity about the narrative being presented. So there's irony in the notion that a single, uninterrupted shot such as that referenced by pimpinainteasy might be considered a "trick" rather than a completely naturalistic photographic portrayal of a three-and-a-half minute sequence of events, isn't there, when those events are seen just as they would be as passengers in the back seat of that car rather than as viewers looking at images projected on a screen? It's actually the basic language of film so quickly absorbed by the earliest audiences (and to which which we've all long been accustomed), comprised of shots lasting from only a few down to a single second, instantly-changing points of view and locations, transitions denoting passage of time and the rest that consists of pure "technique."
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Mar 18, 2017 17:35:30 GMT
That's OK for you, Mr Two Brains. I only have half a brain these days and even that does not work too well.
Great post. I will lie down in a dark room and think about it.
|
|
|
Post by divtal on Mar 18, 2017 17:59:30 GMT
Sidney Lumet seemed fond of long takes. In Murder on the Orient Express (1974), Poirot's (Albert Finney) interrogation of Greta (Ingrid Bergman) runs nearly 5 minutes, in a single take, with the camera moving around her.
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Mar 18, 2017 18:05:52 GMT
That's OK for you, Mr Two Brains. I only have half a brain these days and even that does not work too well. Great post. I will lie down in a dark room and think about it. I'd hate to think I've driven you to the dark side, but a lie-down is always good. Just tried a brief one myself, but one of my brains wouldn't shut up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2017 21:44:39 GMT
The opening shot of Robert Altman's THE PLAYER is extraordinary and shows us the multiple facets of the filmmaking process. Surely one of the greatest opening shots. vimeo.com/75881931 Yes! It's unique.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2017 22:03:44 GMT
The poker scene near the beginning of Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid shows a close-up of the face of Robert Redford, who was relatively unknown to most audiences at the time, for a full two minutes in order to introduce not only the character but the actor.
In the opening shot in Hitchcock's Psycho the audience is brought through the air over Phoenix AZ between skyscrapers and into a bedroom. Hitchcock did this because he could and to show off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2017 22:43:24 GMT
The poker scene near the beginning of Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid shows a close-up of the face of Robert Redford, who was relatively unknown to most audiences at the time, for a full two minutes in order to introduce not only the character but the actor. In the opening shot in Hitchcock's Psycho the audience is brought through the air over Phoenix AZ between skyscrapers and into a bedroom. Hitchcock did this because he could and to show off. I don't remember Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid very well, because I haven't seen it since it was released. But that sounds like a great choice for introducing Redford, the actor and character. About the Hitchcock thing, however: of all the great American directors, he was without a doubt one who through the years deliberately played with style, from elaborate to simple. But I don't think it was ever because he wanted to show off; rather, that in his mind a particular choice of angle, lens, movement or not, was the best way to tell the story. I don't remember Psycho well enough to comment on that shot, but it sounds to me like it would be a perfectly legitimate way to tell the story, sweeping in from the canvas of the city landscape into a room where he draws the audience down with him to the beginning of the story. King Vidor did a very similar thing by his camera climbing the walls of skyscrapers and diving in through a window to an office filled with workers. There actually may be a dissolve in there, if I remember correctly, but the essential idea is the same. "From the world to the parish," to quote novelist Willa Cather. Well, I was joking about Hitchcock showing off, though he always was a showman.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2017 23:53:16 GMT
Well, I was joking about Hitchcock showing off, though he always was a showman. Oh, I should have known that. Sorry. And he was indeed a showman, that's for sure. Well, how can someone necessarily know when someone is joking when communication is text-only? Text-only causes lots of unnecessary problems. I consider Hitchcock similar in temperament to Salvador Dali. Both were showmen and both artistic geniuses, and both prevented their egos to override their work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2017 23:59:39 GMT
Well, how can someone necessarily know when someone is joking when communication is text-only? Text-only causes lots of unnecessary problems. I consider Hitchcock similar in temperament to Salvador Dali. Both were showmen and both artistic geniuses, and both prevented their egos to override their work. Agree with you 100% about both things. As I am want to say about the internet (I don't text), inflection is the first thing to go. Sometimes a written sentence can be interpreted at least two different ways with two different meanings. It's a challenge not to be misunderstood via text-only (I don't mean texting, you know).
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Mar 19, 2017 1:18:15 GMT
As I am want to say about the internet (I don't text), inflection is the first thing to go. Oh, I so want to borrow that at the first appropriate opportunity!
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Mar 19, 2017 2:22:16 GMT
I wouldn't presume to pass judgement upon what you've expressed, given the highly subjective nature of film viewing. I daresay that even within the communal, "collective consciousness" experience of watching a film with several hundred others in a darkened theater, it's possible no two of them see a given film in exactly the same way. My personal tendency is to become "the man with two brains" while watching any film: one brain surrenders to the dramatic experience intended, getting swept up in the story, identification with characters and their situations and so forth; the other is constantly noting and cataloguing those "tricks" and "techniques," engaged in analysis and evaluation of what's working, what isn't and why, and the manner in which each of those elements are crafted, along with the intent behind them. It's not at all uncommon for two thoughts such as, "Omigod, he's the killer" and "I would have held that shot a bit longer" to occur simultaneously. If you think about it, the way we experience life through our own eyes is, barring those periods when they're closed, essentially one long take: we don't compress time through a series of dissolves or fade-ins and fade-outs; we don't jump instantaneously from one location to another, and yet it's rather remarkable that from the very first dramatic photoplays, displayed to audiences whose only previous exposure to performed drama was on the stage, the language of film - those cuts, fades, dissolves and so on - were intuitively understood by them. Consider a typical assemblage: three seconds of a struggling heroine tied to railroad tracks; another three of the sneering villain observing her from behind a tree a hundred feet away; two seconds of a train barrelling toward her a half-mile down the track; four seconds of the mounted hero galloping across a field to her rescue, etc. Such disjointed witnessing of events is like nothing experienced by any single person in real life, but audiences "got it" just the same, with complete clarity about the narrative being presented. So there's irony in the notion that a single, uninterrupted shot such as that referenced by pimpinainteasy might be considered a "trick" rather than a completely naturalistic photographic portrayal of a three-and-a-half minute sequence of events, isn't there, when those events are seen just as they would be as passengers in the back seat of that car rather than as viewers looking at images projected on a screen? It's actually the basic language of film so quickly absorbed by the earliest audiences (and to which which we've all long been accustomed), comprised of shots lasting from only a few down to a single second, instantly-changing points of view and locations, transitions denoting passage of time and the rest that consists of pure "technique." Exceptionally well stated, doghouse. You talk, so help me God, like a director. Because that is what a director does and must do - the split brain thing - in order to wrangle the hundreds of factors involved in the moments of shooting (and in prep, et al), and the hundreds of decisions that have to be made for each element, sometimes in rapid succession. I've looked at films like a director since I was a young teenager, able to enjoy them emotionally while simultaneously analyzing them in terms of craft and technique, so it's almost impossible for me to relate to viewing in any other way. Maybe this story will convey something of what I'm getting at: I was once playing a composer friend of mine an orchestral piece of music he hadn't heard before. He listened for a few minutes, then suddenly said, "He (meaning the composer) has a tough transition coming up here." I was amazed, until I thought about the fact that I did the very same thing when viewing films, in terms of performance and technical things, generally knowing what was coming or what ought to come, or, if I was surprised, understanding fully why the surprise was chosen and why it worked. (Except, as I've said elsewhere, when surprises are surprises without substance.)
Anyway, if you're not a director for real, you're a director in essence, for whatever that's worth. Once again, I must thank you for your generosity and kindness. I suppose that within all of we who love not only films themselves but the understanding of what makes them "tick," there's a director - or screenwriter or editor or DP or even producer - inside, yearning to be unleashed. Your story about the composer friend is revelatory and illustrative (as well as charming). My hubby is a veteran software programmer with a similar sense that's equal parts instinct, intuition and experience, making him the company go-to guy for exposing and exterminating "bugs" in others' code, and I had a chef friend long ago who'd know with one taste when a dish needed a half-teaspoon less of oregano and a half more of basil. Perhaps more prosaic examples than yours, but indicative of the way that certain artistic and/or technical pursuits just seem to "speak" to some at a level beyond that of what hubby refers to as "the user." I told this other-side-of-the-coin story more than once back on IMDB boards: in the '80s, I was working for a VP of Post Production who once told me that learning the nuts and bolts of film and TV production when he'd entered the industry 30 years earlier had diminished his enjoyment of the product by destroying the magic inherent in the illusions created. While I understood it, I couldn't relate to it. Although his personal enjoyment may have abated, it yielded benefits: he was the guy at Universal editorial who'd taken teenaged Steven Spielberg under his wing and seen enough in his amateur and student work to bring it to the attention of Syd Sheinberg, so we have him (whose name was Chuck Silvers) to thank for that.
|
|
gogoschka1
Sophomore
@gogoschka1
Posts: 256
Likes: 76
|
Post by gogoschka1 on Mar 19, 2017 10:15:57 GMT
One of the most complex "oners" I've ever seen is in 'Children of Men'. If you haven't seen the film yet, don't watch it; 'Children of Men' is a film that deserves to be seen in its entirety upon first viewing. Here's the famous one-take:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2017 10:41:56 GMT
Some of the best long takes I've seen can be found in movies that have no fancy camera movement at all, but contain scenes where the acting is so excellent you forget the camera exists, like in 12 Angry Men.
|
|
|
Post by pimpinainteasy on Mar 19, 2017 13:32:40 GMT
pimpinainteasy said:I didn't even realize that it was a single take the first time i watched it.
After that little burst of humility let me try this one on, inspired by pimpinainteasy's remark quoted above: Anytime I am instantly aware that the director has used a trick, or technique, or non-standard procedure, it is a partial failure on his part. Such things should only be apparent, and perhaps analysed and appreciated, in retrospect. Films are a form of magic, and we should not see the magician at work pulling strings behind the curtain. An obvious example is CGI. On this board (or was it on IMDb?) someone asked for good uses of CGI. I posted that the only good uses were the ones I was not aware of. I am not sure if I actually believe what I have just written. Do any of you believe it too? well said. but does your rule apply to "showy" filmakers like say - BRIAN DE PALMA? or TARANTINO? they both use so many tricks and techniques and non-standard procedures. or even HITCHCOCK? remember the eyes in the title sequence of VERTIGO? the long shots of sinister figures and buildings in STRANGERS ON A TRAIN and NOTORIOUS?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2017 13:43:35 GMT
Some of the best long takes I've seen can be found in movies that have no fancy camera movement at all, but contain scenes where the acting is so excellent you forget the camera exists, like in 12 Angry Men. I couldn't agree with you more, Takeshi. Ideally, even with moving camera shots, the viewer is unaware of the technique and is instead just guided by the story. But in those long takes without movement that let the actors do their work are some of the most wonderful in cinema. A film like 12 Angry Men (as with most Lumet films) is a perfect example. Another one is Rope (1948 I think). The Alfred Hitchcock film. I think it may have already been mentioned on this thread.
|
|