Is the long take the most overrated shot in filmaking?
Is the long take the most overrated shot in filmaking?
William Roberts
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtube.com
youtube.com
google.ca
m.youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Jose Gonzalez
only if you have ADHD
Joshua Powell
Yeah, give me 1000 cuts per minute like Luhrman, that's what I want
Kayden Hill
In a world of 260 cuts per minute, do you really want to shit on long takes?
Luis Garcia
kek, i literally can't watch 5 minutes from a film by that hack without getting a headache. it's astounding how he has a career
Lincoln Perez
Long takes are memetastic and gay.
Short-cutting is only inexcusably shit in action where it's used as a crutch by directors who can't coordinate good looking fights.
Nicholas Green
Only when the film screams 'look! It's a long take! this took a lot of effort to do!' ie Alejandro Inarritu, among others. Sure, the long take does take a lot of effort to do, but when you notice it, it takes you out of the film and doesn't add anything to the storytelling.
At the risk of plagiarising Every Frame a Painting, Spielberg is the master of the long take, except most of his move in ways that aren't obvious to the audience, yet add to the storytelling all the same.
Caleb White
>storytelling
>film
?????????????????
Gavin Diaz
Replace user's use of the word 'storytelling' with 'absolut kinographie' and the post makes much more sense.
Easton Baker
>I prefer my movies looking like music videos
Eli Diaz
The music video style has given us some amazing movies. If it weren't for Burst City cyberpunk wouldn't really exist in film.
Thomas Wright
it sure beats its opposite youtu.be
Isaiah Lopez
Jesus
Alexander Perry
>We contemplative cinema now
youtube.com
True, Burst City is incredible (even though Electric Dragon 80.000v was a better "music video" style movie by far), but Hardware I found positively insufferable
Jack Martinez
Inarritu is turning filmaking into "look how hard we worked to make this isn't it good that we ate raw animal parts and had to do this 20 minute shot 45 times because some indian with hypothermia in the background kept fucking up GIVE ME OSCARRSS"
I think after victoria, filmmakers need to stop the long shot dick measuring contest because it has been taken as far as it can go.
Josiah Myers
fucking kill me
Julian Perez
>Hardware I found positively insufferable
why? I loved it, esp the humor
Anthony Myers
>found Hardware insufferable
How's that? It doesn't do anything near as stylish as the early Japanese cyberpunk stuff but I think Richard Stanley had some great ideas. The robot design was amazing and the movie had a lot of cool scenarios that were really unique and inventive for the genre. I'd have preferred a decade of horror inspired by Stanley's work over Scream for sure.
I still have trouble believing that this movie was actually made. All the scenes I've seen feel like comedy sketches.
This feels pretty true for Birdman and The Revenant but I just watched Babel for the first time and was so impressed that I'm rethinking everything Inarritu ever made. From Babel and what he said at the Oscars it's clear that he takes filmmaking more seriously than most other mainstream directors and is generally aiming to make some kind of point with his work rather than just produce a trendy product.
Today I've been trying to decide of The Revenant was really vapid or if it just went over my head. I think Armond White was onto something when he talked about the moral state of our time. I don't remember the specifics but I think there might have been more than memes at least to The Revenant.
Jose Kelly
Did I just watch a sex scene?
Owen Mitchell
A bit ashamed to say that I didn't manage to finish it, but I was displeased with the fact that it set itself up with some great cinematography, effects and mood - to then kill it off with a two-bits, corny rendition of a post-apocalyptic community. Felt like a lighthearted Fallout quest, or a Mad Max parody skit made by people who have seen just a few frames from the original. At least, that's how I felt after watching the first thirty/forty minutes, may change my mind watching it again.
Nathan Bailey
youtube.com
Moving cameras are a gimmick
Alexander Hernandez
In the hands of hackarritu the long take is little more than a gimmick.
But are all the anons in the thread basing their long take hate on some hollywood pseudo-artist?
Execution trumps technique. A 1000 cuts per second or a film done entirely in one take. Still depends on the how, what, and why.
Jayden Phillips
>9gag in film form
Thomas Martinez
No. They require precision and timing. They only become annoying when a director is drawing attention to how long a take is, which in turn, is a distracting and can break immersion. Because of how they're being used recently, long shots are kind of going the way of the zoom shot. It's too self-aware. There are still directors that use long shots responsibly though.
Charles Hill
The worst ones I've seen in a while were in Spectre and Batman vs Superman. The Spectre one had no reason to be there, it was literally just James Bond walking. The Batman vs Superman was just as superfluous with terrible choreography.
Cooper Morris
This one was bretty gud.
The one in Children of Men was good too but not sure if they used CGI to make it seem like it was or not.
Michael Nguyen
I don't see the society as a problem. It was meant to be a little darker in the final product before producers stepped in and made them cut some edgier stuff but I still think it works. It was inspired by 2000AD and such. That's just kind of how the British handle bad situations.
Remember 1984 is meant to be comedic.
Benjamin Moore
please drink bleach
Jayden Scott
You are unironically retarded if you think that is a single uninterrupted take.
Sebastian Brooks
Way ahead of your, comrade.
Jonathan Diaz
I cant remember exactly which scene, I think it was the motorcycle chase, but I remember an amazing one from Children of Men. Also I believe the scene with the crying baby was extended and that was pretty good.
The movie won or was at least nominated for cinematography
Jason Rivera
ITT you don't like edgy try-hard 10 minutes shots? that surely means you prefer 2000 cuts a minute mtv moulin rouge type cuts haha
David Roberts
This movie has some of the best shots I've seen in recent years.
Hadn't thought about it like that, it probably just rubbed me off the wrong way. What about Threads, though?
Daniel Taylor
>Threads
Haven't actually gotten around to seeing that one but from what I've heard it sounds like a straight-up misery-trip. It makes sense that they wouldn't add some sly humour into what's meant to be a cautionary message about a very real danger that effects the entire planet.
Anthony Barnes
Both quick and long cuts have their advantages and is usually dependent on the director's style. For example, Requiem for a dream uses over 2000 cuts while your average 100 minute film uses between 600 and 700. However a movie with a similar narrative and themes (something like Trainspotting) will use conventional devices. It's just about the director's personal touch really. Maybe other directors will see it as a novelty and try to utilise it in their work but then it becomes forced and noticeable thus tacky. As long as the director knows what they're doing, long takes and short takes can work within any situation.
Lucas Butler
Threads is actually very punchy and terse compared to a truly miserable film like Come and See. But it is truly disturbing. No other apocalypse film has really come close for me, and I think the made-for-public-broadcasting quality has a lot to do with that. I would highly recommend watching it at least once.
Christopher Campbell
Your contrarianism is showing
Just because the Revenant is overrated, that doesn't make it a bad film
And it's hugely relevant since it's pretty much the only hollywood film of the last 5 years to have artistic integrity and a budget of over 100m
Jose Baker
It works in a movie like Touch of Evil
Just a gimmick in Birdman
Kind of cool in the Russian film Ark though I don't know if it really adds much to it
I'd prefer longer takes in general especially in action sequences
Jaxson Carter
Birdman was a great film and you all would be whining that it got snubbed if Boyhood had won best picture.
But because it won, it's mainstream accepted which means you have to hate it for your anonymous internet cred
Henry Hernandez
About half of the Inarritu posts in this thread are defending him and Birdman has been mentioned maybe twice. And you sound like you're double-contrarianing because all you have to say about Birdman is that it's 'great.'
If you really care, convince everyone that it is, and without using the words plebs, faggots, contrarians or anything along those lines.
John Fisher
Have you seen Boyhood? It's fucking boring, there's no plot. Maybe that's the whole point of the film, an analogy to life. The mother only really covers it right at the end when Dr Boyhood leaves for college.
Ian Allen
>I think after victoria, filmmakers need to stop the long shot dick measuring contest because it has been taken as far as it can go.
Yeah really. No CGI to mask edits (like in The Revenant) just genuine careful planning and dedication. What's amazing is that it works at successfully ramping up tension and really making you feel like you're a part of a living breathing world. It goes well beyond a gimmick.
Carson Roberts
So where do you guys put found footage movies, when talking about long takes?
For example, every one of Shiraishi's mockumentaries (Noroi/Cult/Occult/etc.) features long takes made with a handheld camera, especially in the most climactic and "terrifying" scenes. Also, how about movies using the same footage again and again, maybe with little editing? Again, I'm thinking about found footage/mockumentaries, but the case could be made for more abstract movies like Giallos.
Jacob Smith
I get the feeling this thread is just an indirect jab at art film in general. Please feel free to unleash your hate for everything you see as undermining your own taste, and thus label pretentious, unnecessary, and even evil.
Wyatt Gray
Long takes are the literal autism of film. They're what happens when the director is a robot who can't understand human emotion and thinks only the mechanics of filmmaking are what matter, and therefore the longer the takes the better the movie.
Robert Edwards
There you go. Let it all out.
Levi Gray
This thread is actually one of the best discussions I've seen lately, (yeah I know, sad state of affairs) there's a few in here trying to discuss the merit of this technique/"art" movies in general.
Wanna contribute?
Landon Ross
>Please feel free to unleash your hate for everything you see as undermining your own taste, and thus label pretentious, unnecessary, and even evil.
Is this poster operating on a very high or very low level? Both seem plausible.
Anthony Bell
worst thread on Sup Forums right now
Jacob Watson
I wasn't defending Boyhood...
Birdman was a self-aware satirical look at the entertainment industry and actors' determination to stay relevant. It was hilarious, well-written and brilliantly acted. Each character showed more depth than the majority of protagonists in big-budget films.
Its criticism of superhero films and their effect was on-point and hard-hitting, at a time when the general public wais embracing superhero films more and more making it a risky move
The direction was incredible and in-line with its meta-commentary. By framing the cinematography as an extended long shot, it gave the effect of watching a play which obviously parallels the play being produced in the film.
And this is all without getting into the technical challenges of the cinematography itself
But of course you don't give a shit about any of this because reddit probably liked it
Camden Myers
This actually makes my eyes hurt.
Wyatt Carter
It's simple - Oldboy.
Jordan Ortiz
I think the revenant is alright. I'll happily call it beautiful and impressive, but I can't call it a great movie.
You stop noticing the lack of cuts after maybe 10 minutes too, you just become totally engrossed in what is happening. I think the fact that they couldn't totally choreograph and practice everything made it all more natural and easy to involve yourself in.
Thanks, I'll check babel out right now
Zachary Morales
sad but true
Colton Sullivan
Well, this thread hasn't moved beyond the point of a conflict in values, so there's no point in long-winded explanations of why any particular film in which a director uses long takes are good.
What needs to be discussed is this confusion between a technique(a neutral possibility) and its execution. That discussion won't happen because the person who made this thread and about 90% of the other posters aren't here to discuss. They're here because they feel insecure about their taste, and as such have a compulsion to shit on things they don't understand.
Both. It's a fatal strategy. There's no at aiming for discussion in these threads, the only the only possibility is teasing out noteworthy stupidities.
Know your enemy and all that,
Cameron Morris
I M A G I N E being the most based director of all time and doing long takes when it was actually a big deal and you didnt just CGI it all together to make it seamless looking. look at that dolly work.
Sebastian Mitchell
Yeah, the one in the car is what you're thinking of, although they masked a couple cuts. I think the one at the end is legit. Not that being real makes either scene better or worse, but I like the baby one more.
Ryan Miller
m.youtube.com
oops proper link
Parker Long
Yeah, you're right about that. Also, a lot of people (me included) talking about this topic lack the technical expertise/knowledge that'd inform our opinion of the long take. Still, something may be said that doesn't involve shitting on another's opinion.
For example, I posted this The idea was to think a bit about how the footage from a handheld camera, to be portrayed as "authentic" or "genuine" has either to be either inserted in a narrative context that allows for editing or be a long, unedited sequence mimicking the spectator's eye, some kind of demented kinoglaz basing its pretense of authenticity in our meta-knowledge of the technique used; my second question was about the nature of the long take, if it exists only as a linear continuity or if the constant reappropriation of an image could be construed as some kind of fractured whole, elongating itself in (dis)connected iterations.
Alteratively, we can maybe talk about long takes and the concept of movement in Benning?
>fatal strategy
Is that you quoting Baudrillard?
Gabriel Perez
I don't have the technical knowledge either. If I were to discuss long takes it would be based on films I've seen and my thoughts on them. Not much more.
I saw your comment. It was interesting(I googled some of the stuff you mentioned, I always do when I see something new) I haven't watched Shiraishi, or Gaillos. I'm not a found-footage aficionado or fan. So Again, it's a problem of the level of discussion.
I do appreciate your effort though. I just think it's misguided in this thread. Play the field your on, or make a new field.
As for the expansion of your comment in your latest reply, I don't know man. I'm as willing as the next to go into technicalities, but unless someone is on the same page as you already, it ends up being fruitless. You have to find a way to talk about it that's more straightforward. At least in this context. There's only so much googling I want to do during a discussion.
Talking about long takes in Benning could be an interesting idea. I haven't seen much.
And yeah. Dat Baudrillard. I think Sup Forums, or maybe Sup Forums in general, is a great place to think the triumph of the object.
Owen Martin
When I said technicalities, I meant jargon.
Leo Walker
Where can I get a torrent of this, friend?
Brody Davis
Most videos nowadays are long takes anyway
Cooper Howard
>source: my ass right now
Caleb Garcia
...
Angel Green
Does anyone even notice it? I don't. I think we're trained to ignore cuts because they happen so frequently in movies and TV, so when a long take comes we don't notice. It is cool, like the long take fight scene in Children of Men was impressive, but I knew about CoM's long shots going in and most likely wouldn't have noticed it if I hadn't already known about it.
Colton Carter
jesus christ
Benjamin Morgan
Pure kino film, marathoned it few months ago, really worth it.
Anthony Gray
JUST
Easton Adams
youtube.com
You should try going outside, it helps
Jaxson Hill
I think Inarritu and Cuaron are two sides of the same coin. Their films are exciting, but they end up feeling a bit pompous. No harm really, I guess.
Brayden Miller
Look for "behemoth 2015" on torrentproject . se, there's a couple of torrents on there. I got mine from kat, can't really link it anymore.
>Play the field your on, or make a new field.
Yeah, I guess that's it - only, I have neither the capacity of output nor the reach to create an online platform like a blog that'd attract discussion, and whenever I try to put videos on YouTube I end up saying a lot less than I would by writing. You know worthwhile places to discuss?
>You have to find a way to talk about it that's more straightforward.
Uh yeah, I always get called out on it whenever I try replying extensively to something - but the thing is, what actually is the level of discussion one should hope for on here? I don't mean to be arrogant or disparaging just for the hell of it, but this board is a wreck (as are, regarding cinema discussion, topic-friendly boards like /lit/ and /x/). I'm fairly sure there are people on here that could engage in a more complete discussion, but most are unwilling to use another vocabulary than the one they have deemed adequate to this board once and never changed their mind. What do?
>Benning
Look up Ten Skies and, if you can, get a hold of Natural History. Friend of mine got the DVD, we watched it and it was great.
Always surprised people on this site don't talk about him more, to be honest.
Brayden Campbell
Yeah, absolutely. That one video completely proves your point.
Colton Lopez
Late 90s early 00s fucking sucked, man.
Good riddance to that time.
Nathaniel Lewis
Of course, all editing should be like this instead
youtube.com
Nicholas King
13 cuts in 6 seconds
2 cuts a second
BRA
VO
BRA
VO
Gabriel Thomas
How can the filmmakers justify this shit?
Jaxon Howard
>You know worthwhile places to discuss?
Sup Forums has it's moments. I've chatted with some people who really knew their stuff. But ultimately no, I don't.
>what actually is the level of discussion one should hope for on here.
Don't hope. Try to create. You're not walking into a room of your peers, so you should be sparing and precise with your language. If you find someone who shows you they know enough about some specific topic to understand it when you go into jargon-level detail, then do so. Otherwise. Keep it simple.
As for Benning. I feel like I need to find a big screen to watch it. And besides, would I not be better off literally staring at the sky from my garden for an hour and a half? At least then I could lie on my back. What's his aim?
Henry White
ADHD audiences
Carson Martinez
chilren of men scene
/thread
Carter Reed
you should try stop being a snotty asswipe to make up for your inability to argue, or think at all. Lemme guess, your favorite film from 2014 is whiplash
Anthony Martin
I'm sorry that your non argument fell apart. I'm sure you'll try harder next time.
Nolan Martinez
I had a sound guy who said the there's a grammar to editing, and it's a cut at least every 3 seconds, otherwise the audience gets bored.
Jason Myers
disgusting
Jose Anderson
I think we did.
Carter Harris
You could at least link the video so we can discuss that
youtube.com
Julian Hernandez
>dat american docu voice.
But in all seriousness there's not much to discuss. He's just saying platitudes and advertisement-tier descriptions.
Tell me what there is to discuss about this video?
Xavier Anderson
Whether the examples he's chosen help answer OPs (admittedly stupid) question or not?
James Myers
Yeah, I've had a few pretty good experiences on Sup Forums too. That's the reason why I still come here. Thing is, though, if you want to talk about something a bit "esoteric" seriously and not just bragging about the variety of films you see, you need to either get really lucky or bump your thread for hours, in the hope someone wants to talk.
There's a counterpoint to semplicity, though: some concepts require specific words to be conveyed, and those you can't do without. Also, castrating the way you express yourself is something I really dislike - sure, it may be an exercise in concision and "teaching", if you will, but you tend to lose your integrity, as in: what makes you what you are, what keeps the bits together. Dunno, maybe I'm too manichean on this. Not all black and white, areas of grey and all of that, but this place sometimes drives you nuts when you try to speak with the same people responsible for a dozen cuck thread in the last hour alone.
Regarding Benning, I can only tell you why his films worked for me, as I think it's a very personal experience. His movies are contemplative cinema, in the sense that they make you contemplate cinema as a medium while you watch them; I see the beauty of them in how Benning captures movement in its purest form, dragging the medium back to its roots; I understand time in the multiple ways of the spectator, the machine-eye, the object of vision; and stuff like this.
Plus, you see some damn pretty skies.
Luke Bell
Okay. I'll bite.
At most the video shows that the long take exists. And that it exists in cinema across much of its short history. So it's not an irrelevant topic to discuss apropos film.
To go into what I can infer from the video, it shows that the long take is easily identifiable, and thus vulnerable to vacuous praise in the name of generating content rather than real analysis. Moving from this thought I can deduce that the long take is also open to vacuous condemnation.
Thus the possibility of this thread.
That satisfactory?
Hunter Price
ahaha what the fuck
Brayden Parker
If you want good discussion you have to be prepared for it to be very slow. Places like the TCM forums or I Check Movies have some really in depth discussion but really most forums have been abandoned for the all encompassing umbrella of social media. There's probably some excellent private facebook groups for movie discussion for example, I know that's the case for music at least.
Camden Gonzalez
Take it as it comes I say.
I agree that fine grain conceptualizing is important, but it's only healthy when the people that you're in conversation with can follow. I'm not saying to curb your interest or thoughts, I'm suggesting that by being more discerning with your own language use, you'll get to have the conversations you want to have more often.
Don't speak with the cuck thread people. Simple. Don't waste your time flogging a dead horse.
You're right about it being difficult to make thread. I wish Sup Forums would become a slow board. I think it was once.
I like what you say about Benning. I'm going to investigate further.
Isaac Martin
Not by a long shot. Although, I do sometimes find them annoying outside of action films, especially when they focus on a face too much. Can be a bit eerie, unless of course that's the point of the scene.
A well directed long shot action shootout or fight always beats a well directed multiple cut fight scene. If anything, just because I can tell what's happening and I can admire some actors skills.
>fuckload of cuts
>steadycam
>zooming in
>slightly fish eyed
Oh, it's the "look how cool these characters are" style. Always makes me cringe and the last F&F was excelling in that.
Leo Johnson
Bump
Jace Davis
All these Inarritu comments and no one has mentioned his best film...
Jeremiah Jenkins
yes long takes are gay, this is true kino
Evan Clark
After doing Russian ark you kind of get over them. I mean that film was so fantastic and nobody is ever going to top that
Bentley Perry
All those CGI horses passing in front of the camera totally aren't cuts my friend :^)
Josiah Lewis
Even plebby capeshit movies have long takes these days and they look great. I don't get why anyone would not like that.