Iravin nilal a, tamil movie was fully done in single shot but it's screenplay is non linear. It used large set pieces and lot of rehersals and reshoot. It was directed by Parthiban.
Michelangelo Antonioni's 1975 film 'The Passenger' & that Penultimate Shot is a visual symphony of the long take. The cinematographer Luciano Tovoli & his camera operator, Cesare Allione really placed a visual precision to what Michelangelo wanted in that scene. I think that the long-take has to be strongly aware of the Acting; especially in today's time where the fast cuts could be a visual answer to the whole storyline while undermining the Acting. However, I don't have an issue with fast-cuts if the story has its balance in that kind of editing. Yet, the long-take can really bring a scene & storyline into a director's strength. Keep the good content going.
Russian Ark is so often brought up around these discussions but it also is a prime example for me of how not to do a long take movie. My problem with it is that so much of the film is just... transport time. We need the camera to be upstairs for the next scene. Ok, let's walk up the stairs... Not filling the runtime this entails with anything important. Just... Walking to stairs. Climbing up stairs. Walking to the next scene. Finally seeing that scene. Ok now, the next scene is in a different room. Let's walk there. In movies like that. I lose all form of immersion. All form of engagement. Because there's just so much dead air of just walking to the next story beat. Don't get me wrong, I love a well executed and motivated long take. Like the opening shot of Johnnie To's Breaking News. Where we have a 7 minute scene in a single take involving several dialogs on multiple floors erupting in a shootout that is the inciting incident for the rest of the movie. There, we get to see how a situation can go from slow and routine to a shit show in just a few minutes. It's not just people walking slowly through a palace in a glorified tech demo. I don't enjoy watching a long take where all I can think of is "yes, you can, but why?" Fellow filmmakers. Please do long fancy shots. But also. Please fill them with more than tiny scenes connected with dead air transport time.
imo i liked Russian Ark’s use of the one take as it makes the film feel so dreamlike. characters just exiting scenes and leaving you in a whole different setting follows the “structure” of dreams, or mainly the ones i’ve had. i do agree that the movie doesn’t have substance behind it’s camera though
In my country India we have a Malayalam director named lijo jose pellissery, his one shots are one of my favourites in films bc they are so smooth and feel like there was almost no effort was put into it(in a good way) The best thing is they never stand out yes after sometime you will go oh hey they haven't cut it yet but still it never takes you out of the scene
Yeah, I was going to point this out when he was talking about his 17 minute long shot of dialogue with no cuts, and claimed that edits would break your emersion. My first thought was just how wrong this is, especially with an audience with any kind of film literacy, adding an unnecessary 17 minute long shot of two people talking is EXTREMELY immersion breaking, as at some point around minute 5-6, you notice its been only one shot, and then by minute 10-11, your just counting along to see how long they can possibly keep the shot going, which completely takes you out of the movie, and can make it hard to get back in, as now your focus is on the editing, maybe looking to see if they've tried to hide any edits anywhere or whatever. So basically, unnecessary long shots have the potential to completely pull you out of the film entirely for the duration of its run time.
Long takes are mostly just stunts. But were more masterful before computer trickery. Like in Touch of Evil. Rope. I know some use them to save time, but they take a long time to set up too.
He is nothing compared to the best Russian filmmaker of all time: Aleksi German. Watch his movies and see how he inspired most of what you appreciate in Sokurov and even Tarkovsky`s most iconic shot. " Hard to be a God" is one of the most underrated masterpieces of all time.
"There is never a light source between the camera and the subject" - did you mean the camera is never between the light source and the subject, as your picture shows?
>3:25 Making the claim that using cuts during a 17 minute long dialogue scene somehow breaks the immersion of the audience while also dampening the effectiveness and tension of the scene is one o the most pretentious, juvenile, try hard things I've ever heard. All you have to do is look at some examples from directors who were masters of this to see how idiotic and opposite of true this is. If you look at something like the Winkie's scene from Mulholland Dr. about the nightmare, you can see a master class on how using cuts allows you to do things with the camera like switching from handheld with slight sway to mounted, the mise en scene, blocking, etc., to create an extremely tense build up that builds a ton of suspense and allows for one of the most effective payoffs in film history. Another example that come to mind is from Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, in the scene where Group Captain Mandrake confront General Jack Ripper. This is an incredibly iconic scene which uses cuts, camera angles, the wide shots closing to medium, and finally to a close-up of Ripper shot from underneath him so the audience is looking up at him, relaying a sense of his power and willfulness. You could never achieve the same effect, level of tension and drama that you get here from using a single medium shot for the entire dialogue. While there may be some instances where a single take in a dialogue scene may be appropriate and even optimal, these instances are extremely, extremely rare. It would be like saying that writing totally stream of consciousness, with no punctuation is the optimal way to create a script or a novel. It's just absurd. Basically, anything you can hope to achieve with a single long shot, you can almost always, like 99.999999999% of the time get the same or better results by using skilled editing and blocking and camerawork, as it not just the edits themselves that are the issue here, it's what they allow you to do, what they allow you to add on in an emotional, sub textual, thematic, symbolic context that you just can't get from a long shot, especially in a dialogue scene. And let me emphasize that again. I'm talking specifically about dialogue scenes here. Other types of scenes DO benefit from the long take, although again my point still partially stands in that you can usually get the same effect with camerawork and editing, although the numbers change from being able to get an equal or better scene 99.999999999% of the time, to being able to get a better shot 55%-65% of the time.
@@dudhman Where's the ad hom? Calling his argument juvenile and pretentious? That's not ad hom, because for one I'm not attacking him, I'm literally attacking his argument. And two, I'm not "name calling," so to speak, I'm accurately describing his position here. It is very juvenile and pretentious to think a long single is somehow objectively superior for building tension in a dialogue scene. And I gave examples to back up my claim.
![Run Away - Tzuyu(TWICE) ツウィ 쯔위 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 240906](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KnHNNyAYiu0/mqdefault.jpg)
There is a Malayalam movie called Joyful Mystery 2020 with just one take inside a car.
Thank you for mentioning Sokurovs Russian Ark
Also one of the first digital movies (another being _Star Wars Episode II_ )
Iravin nilal a, tamil movie was fully done in single shot but it's screenplay is non linear. It used large set pieces and lot of rehersals and reshoot. It was directed by Parthiban.
Michelangelo Antonioni's 1975 film 'The Passenger' & that Penultimate Shot is a visual symphony of the long take.
The cinematographer Luciano Tovoli & his camera operator, Cesare Allione really placed a visual precision to what Michelangelo wanted in that scene.
I think that the long-take has to be strongly aware of the Acting; especially in today's time where the fast cuts could be a visual answer to the whole storyline while undermining the Acting.
However, I don't have an issue with fast-cuts if the story has its balance in that kind of editing. Yet, the long-take can really bring a scene & storyline into a director's strength.
Keep the good content going.
Russian Ark is so often brought up around these discussions but it also is a prime example for me of how not to do a long take movie. My problem with it is that so much of the film is just... transport time. We need the camera to be upstairs for the next scene. Ok, let's walk up the stairs... Not filling the runtime this entails with anything important. Just... Walking to stairs. Climbing up stairs. Walking to the next scene. Finally seeing that scene. Ok now, the next scene is in a different room. Let's walk there.
In movies like that. I lose all form of immersion. All form of engagement. Because there's just so much dead air of just walking to the next story beat.
Don't get me wrong, I love a well executed and motivated long take. Like the opening shot of Johnnie To's Breaking News. Where we have a 7 minute scene in a single take involving several dialogs on multiple floors erupting in a shootout that is the inciting incident for the rest of the movie. There, we get to see how a situation can go from slow and routine to a shit show in just a few minutes. It's not just people walking slowly through a palace in a glorified tech demo. I don't enjoy watching a long take where all I can think of is "yes, you can, but why?"
Fellow filmmakers. Please do long fancy shots. But also. Please fill them with more than tiny scenes connected with dead air transport time.
imo i liked Russian Ark’s use of the one take as it makes the film feel so dreamlike. characters just exiting scenes and leaving you in a whole different setting follows the “structure” of dreams, or mainly the ones i’ve had. i do agree that the movie doesn’t have substance behind it’s camera though
In my country India we have a Malayalam director named lijo jose pellissery, his one shots are one of my favourites in films bc they are so smooth and feel like there was almost no effort was put into it(in a good way)
The best thing is they never stand out yes after sometime you will go oh hey they haven't cut it yet but still it never takes you out of the scene
Yeah, I was going to point this out when he was talking about his 17 minute long shot of dialogue with no cuts, and claimed that edits would break your emersion. My first thought was just how wrong this is, especially with an audience with any kind of film literacy, adding an unnecessary 17 minute long shot of two people talking is EXTREMELY immersion breaking, as at some point around minute 5-6, you notice its been only one shot, and then by minute 10-11, your just counting along to see how long they can possibly keep the shot going, which completely takes you out of the movie, and can make it hard to get back in, as now your focus is on the editing, maybe looking to see if they've tried to hide any edits anywhere or whatever. So basically, unnecessary long shots have the potential to completely pull you out of the film entirely for the duration of its run time.
Long takes are mostly just stunts. But were more masterful before computer trickery. Like in Touch of Evil. Rope. I know some use them to save time, but they take a long time to set up too.
He is nothing compared to the best Russian filmmaker of all time: Aleksi German. Watch his movies and see how he inspired most of what you appreciate in Sokurov and even Tarkovsky`s most iconic shot. " Hard to be a God" is one of the most underrated masterpieces of all time.
rope is one of my all time favorite movies.
Victoria by Sebastian Schipper is a single shot, over 2hrs
Grand prix had some long takes from the on-board cameras on the race cars, building up the sense of speed & danger of driving a race car.
"There is never a light source between the camera and the subject" - did you mean the camera is never between the light source and the subject, as your picture shows?
Soooo cool!
@18:04 drinks on the lens cases!?
Russian Ark is all one shot and only the second take - great film (at the beginning of the video still)
>3:25
Making the claim that using cuts during a 17 minute long dialogue scene somehow breaks the immersion of the audience while also dampening the effectiveness and tension of the scene is one o the most pretentious, juvenile, try hard things I've ever heard. All you have to do is look at some examples from directors who were masters of this to see how idiotic and opposite of true this is. If you look at something like the Winkie's scene from Mulholland Dr. about the nightmare, you can see a master class on how using cuts allows you to do things with the camera like switching from handheld with slight sway to mounted, the mise en scene, blocking, etc., to create an extremely tense build up that builds a ton of suspense and allows for one of the most effective payoffs in film history.
Another example that come to mind is from Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, in the scene where Group Captain Mandrake confront General Jack Ripper. This is an incredibly iconic scene which uses cuts, camera angles, the wide shots closing to medium, and finally to a close-up of Ripper shot from underneath him so the audience is looking up at him, relaying a sense of his power and willfulness. You could never achieve the same effect, level of tension and drama that you get here from using a single medium shot for the entire dialogue. While there may be some instances where a single take in a dialogue scene may be appropriate and even optimal, these instances are extremely, extremely rare. It would be like saying that writing totally stream of consciousness, with no punctuation is the optimal way to create a script or a novel. It's just absurd.
Basically, anything you can hope to achieve with a single long shot, you can almost always, like 99.999999999% of the time get the same or better results by using skilled editing and blocking and camerawork, as it not just the edits themselves that are the issue here, it's what they allow you to do, what they allow you to add on in an emotional, sub textual, thematic, symbolic context that you just can't get from a long shot, especially in a dialogue scene. And let me emphasize that again. I'm talking specifically about dialogue scenes here. Other types of scenes DO benefit from the long take, although again my point still partially stands in that you can usually get the same effect with camerawork and editing, although the numbers change from being able to get an equal or better scene 99.999999999% of the time, to being able to get a better shot 55%-65% of the time.
Reasonable point. Shame you chose ad hom attacks to accompany it.
@@dudhman Where's the ad hom? Calling his argument juvenile and pretentious? That's not ad hom, because for one I'm not attacking him, I'm literally attacking his argument. And two, I'm not "name calling," so to speak, I'm accurately describing his position here. It is very juvenile and pretentious to think a long single is somehow objectively superior for building tension in a dialogue scene. And I gave examples to back up my claim.
Great video.
just noticed the boy in magnolia in the rain had a hood 👀
1st view 1st comment from India 😊
1917 (2019).