Is the long take the most overrated shot in filmaking?

Is the long take the most overrated shot in filmaking?

Other urls found in this thread:

vimeo.com/126302944
zvbxrpl.blogspot.ca/2009/06/when-did-movies-start-to-become-over.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_cinema
youtu.be/RHtpN0ypQuc
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Yes, it's just a gimmick

fpbp

pulled back long takes are the hardest to choreograph, and looks the best. quick cuts and tight shotsonly exists to save money and time

i think the stills you find in grids are more overrated. at least long shots don't saturate the industry

>is immersion overrated?

I bet you like the films of Michael Bay

no, i dislike choppy films, takes should be as long as possible so as not to break flow

long take for the sake of it? yes
if it's part of a coherent aesthetic no

I like long takes but as a fan of theater I'm more than a little biased in my preference of live acting.

In the era of cgi long takes are nothing special anymore.

From a film making standpoint they were very difficult to do and gave you a very good sense of scale, space and orientation.

The long take is probably overused now, but in 1957 when Orson Welles did two 6-minute long takes in Touch Of Evil set in this hotel room, it was groundbreaking:

vimeo.com/126302944

Note this is not the overused opening shot with the bomb and the car we all know about- this is a dialogue scene of an interrogation. Look at how the camera moves to accentuate the intimacy and emotional impact of the scene. It's like a play, but cinematic.

The Tribe is notable for every scene being done in a single shot. There's 34 of them throughout the 126 minute film, leading to an average shot length of just under 4 minutes. Also, the entire film is in sign language with no subtitles. It's a pretty cool watch.

>groundbraking
>Hitchcock had done an 80 minute movie in 10 takes using a blimped technicolor camera
Touch of Evil is god tier kino, but it's not groundbraking you cheeky cunt

Also, here's Scorsese on how long takes are overused:

>Brian is a great director. Nobody can interpret things visually like he does: telling a story through a lens. Take the scene in The Untouchables where Charles Martin Smith is shot in the elevator.
>Look at that steadycam shot; he's not just moving the camera to show you that we can go longer because we have the steadycam. Francis used to tell me, "Marty, we can start a shot and go up to the Empire State Building and come back down. Anybody can do it. You have to know how to move a camera a little bit, that's all." A lot of people use the steadycam and don't know what they're doing.
>What Brian does with it is tell the story, progressing the story within the shot. That's just one example. Then in Carlito's Way there's a scene entering a night-club and the camera tracks up. It's extraordinary, his visual interpretation. He deals with stories that enable him to do that sort of thing. So when you get a real De Palma picture like Raising Cain or Body Double, you're getting something really unique. He's provocative. He goes, "I'm going to do this again. Hitchcock did it - so what? Who cares? I'm doing it this way." Brian knows. We always talk about that together.


And also John Carpenter:

>I consider Howard Hawks to be the greatest American director. He's the only director I know to have made a great movie in every genre. Critics mention the one-take, moving camera style of Ophuls and Welles but somehow never get around to the amazing one-take opening shot of the original SCARFACE, made in 1932. It's very close to being one of the best shots I've ever seen. I think it's a stunning shot. I love Scarface because it's so modern and so old at the same time.

delet this

They are only good when used in porn

This was a gimmick, an experiment that Hitchcock admitted had failed. Welles' shot was not, it was used for a purpose. There's lots of quick cutting in Welles' film, too.

Rope is one of his weakest movies. Shadow Of A Doubt DESTROYS it, Strangers On A Train destroys it.

films that are mostly a series of long takes -

Unbreakable/Birdman/Revenant/Rope/JCVD/Simon Killer/The Graduate/Stalker/La Haine/Son of Saul/Snake Eyes/The Shining/Barry Lyndon

some others?

Long takes make me anxious for the actors. I keep imagining the pressure on them to get everything perfect. One little fuck up and they have to shoot the whole thing again, who knows how many times they did the scene. How behind all that acting that makes it into the movie they're all probably nervous and/or sick of doing the take

>hating on Rope
you make me sad.

Lady In The Lake- terrible movie.

Dark Passage- another terrible movie.

But I'd like to watch them using an Oculus rift.

John Ford is underrated for his long takes.

Here's an informative blog post: zvbxrpl.blogspot.ca/2009/06/when-did-movies-start-to-become-over.html

>When Did Movies Start To Become Over-Edited?

>Today was Vincente Minnelli day on TCM. Though I'm a big fan of Minnelli as a visual stylist, his career is awfully uneven. I've called him the Michael Curtiz of MGM -- a director with a great eye and a distinctive visual style but not really someone who did a lot to shape the scripts he worked with, handled every type of movie that his studio specialized in (different specialties at WB and MGM), and could be depended on to make a first-rate movie if the producer gave him first-rate material to work with.

>The essence of Minnelli's visual style is, of course, the long take with the fluid, constantly-moving camera, a style influenced by Max Ophuls. But to some extent, this was just Minnelli's personal spin on the MGM house style (just as Curtiz's shadows-on-the-wall trademark fit in with the Expressionism-influenced Warners house style). From at least the '30s onward, MGM movies frequently did whole scenes, or long parts of scenes, in one take. Look at, say, A Night At the Opera: many of the scenes with Kitty Carlisle and Allan Jones are one-take scenes, and in the Arthur Freed unit, the non-Minnelli movies have as many long takes at the Minnelli films. That's just the way the producers cut the films, and the way the directors shot them:

>Other studios tended to be heavier on the editing, particularly Warners, where Hal Wallis loved editing (Jerry Lewis said that the one way to insult Wallis was to question his instinct for cutting). Warners films of the '40s are much quicker to cut back and forth between characters than MGM films, which will often keep the characters in the same frame for as long as possible.

>But one thing all, or nearly all, movies from this period have in common is that they have fewer cuts than almost any Hollywood studio movie being made today, or even in the last 20 years. Which brings up a question I often wonder about: when did cutting become the default technique for any scene in a Hollywood film? Or to put it another way, when did the two-shot turn into a special effect?

>I remember that in the '90s, when I first got interested in "classic" film, I started noticing that contemporary films had all kinds of edits during a scene that an older film probably wouldn't have had. Even at cut-happy Warner Brothers in the '40s, it was reasonably common to at least use the master shot for the first part of a scene before cutting in, or to keep the characters in one shot when it would enhance the comedy (like the "shocked, shocked" scene in Casablanca). But by the mid-'90s, even if characters were sitting on a park bench or in the back seat of a car -- sitting side-by-side, facing the camera, nothing obstructing our view of either character -- the scene would cut between them almost immediately. It wasn't only Hollywood movies, because non-Hollywood movies also seem to have more cutting than they used to, but it's more pronounced in Hollywood films.

>The saddest example of this from the mid-'90s was the Pacino/DeNiro scene in Heat, which after all the hype, almost never had them in the same frame together. That's cinematic malpractice, but it was the logical culmination of the idea that a two-shot is, in essence, a special effect or a gimmick. Whereas at MGM or Paramount in the '40s, the two-shot was an essential part of film grammar.

>There are many reasons why this happened: the increased ease of editing, the increased power of editors. The lack of directors who "cut in the camera" to protect their shots (John Ford, Orson Welles, et al would shoot important scenes with no "coverage" to make sure they couldn't be re-cut). A reaction against the '50s and '60s when Hollywood movies went too far in the opposite direction, trying to fill the CinemaScope screen by going as long as possible without cutting in.

>There's also the increased use of practical locations instead of studio sets, as well as the increased emphasis on realistic placement of the actors. If you're going to put the actors in positions that actually look like where people might really sit or stand, then it's unlikely that both of them will be in clear view of the camera. (This is one reason why from the '50s onward, multiple-camera television shows rarely use two-shots or long takes: the actors have to be positioned in a way that makes them visible to the audience, and then the cameras have to catch them wherever they happen to be.) Whereas you'll notice in any Minnelli movie, there are scenes where the characters sit or stand in very awkward or artificial ways, so that they'll both be clearly seen in the shot.

>But I think Hollywood movies today have gone too far with the over-editing, losing sight of what can happen when you put two actors in the same frame and let them interact. It often seems like movies are obsessed with picking and choosing the best bits of each take, whereas it can often happen that the "flawed" bits of a long take -- the ones that would be eliminated in editing -- give a scene its character and spontenaity.

>Here's a scene from the master of the long, static take (that is, long takes with little or no camera movement, as opposed to the fluid takes of Minnelli or Ophuls), John Ford, in Two Rode Together. If Ford had cut in, selected bits of other takes -- though he didn't even do other takes for this scene -- it would be less rough, less funny and less real. It wouldn't be worth the greater "realism" of letting them move around more, and it wouldn't be more "cinematic" than doing the scene with cuts.

>The Pelican Brief is not much of a movie, but a good-looking one thanks to the late Alan Pakula. There is one scene that was shot in a way that I particularly liked, and I wanted to bring it up because you hardly ever see a scene like this any more, not just now but for many years before 1993 (when this film was made).

>The scene features two guys in the back seat of a car, talking to each other about The Conspiracy. It's a two-shot, almost head-on, with each character occupying half of the Panavision frame. And instead of cutting to different angles the way I expected, the scene just plays out all the way through with no cuts; the characters turn toward each other, turn away, turn back, and it's all done in one take. Normally, when you have two characters sitting together and talking, the scene will start with that shot (the master) but quickly cut to closer angles for each character.

>I like this kind of shot, for one thing, because it doesn't overstate the importance of a scene. For an exposition scene, or a light comedy relief scene, or any other kind of scene that isn't all that big, all the cutting just seems to make everything bigger than it is: look at that person's reaction, now look at that other person's reaction, now look at his face while he's talking. Cutting within a scene like this makes sense if the characters are seated or standing in such a way that you can't see them both clearly at the same time. But if they are both in full view of the camera at the same time, like in the back seat of a car, why not let the scene play out (and let us enjoy their reactions in real time) instead of pretending that this is the back-of-the-car scene from On the Waterfront?

>This doesn't make The Pelican Brief a great film, but I just like that Pakula bothered to shoot a scene that way. I wish more big films -- and little films, too, which seem to me to have too much reflexive cutting -- would rediscover the principle, once well-known, that a short scene often fits better if you don't edit it so much.

also thinking of some notable directors who rarely or never use long takes

David Fincher/Christopher Nolan/James Cameron/NWR

please feel free to correct any of those but normally i hunt for them when watching anything

again?
these circlejerkers doing the same threads with the same replies over and over again are the definition of sadness

Victoria and Russian Ark are both one-take movies. beautiful IMO. Irreversible and Gaspar Noe's other movies have many long-takes. Willow Creek if you like low-budget horror

See

here u go famalam
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_cinema

I don't like long continuous shots that are set up purposefully to change scenes or locations, chase scenes, shooting scenes etc I don't care for. If a scene is let hang for a while with one or two characters interacting in one single location I don't have a problem with it, as long as the actors are blocked right its fine and has its uses. The whole "wow he was on horse, now on foot, now shooting" is pointless to me because tension and exhilaration or monotony, whatever the director is going for can be done in better ways than meticulous planning and shit tonnes of dolly work. like everything, in moderation, Don't know what better way to phrase it

Anything that begs attention to the camera work is fucking annoying, I don't care what technique

yeah, Victoria and Russian Ark i've been meaning to get around too, it sounds pedantic but when i buy blurays i prefer movies with longer takes because i feel like i'm getting an "optimal" viewing experience

others -

Audition/American Beauty/Rocky(often goes unnoticed)/Clockwork Orange/12 Years a Slave/Network

That's one of the reasons I think the two 6 minute interrogation shots in Touch Of Evil (equalling 12 minutes) are BETTER than the 3 minute long opening tracking shot in Touch Of Evil, with the car. The opening shot draws attention to itself. You don't even notice the long takes in the interrogation scene, but you feel its effects, of tension and suspense and horror and restlessness. The opening shot is just pointless.

Yes, it's an amazing shot technically, but that doesn't justify holding on a shot of people walking down the street for such a long time, particularly when the audience hasn't been clued into what's going on. I know that the theory is that we're all supposed to be in suspense about when the bomb is going to go off, but I think that it's hard for the scene to build suspense when we have no reason to care if these people get blown up or not; the movie's only just started. So I think the studio had it right: the movie doesn't truly begin until the characters start talking and we get a sense of who they are, and that's indicated by putting the credits over the first part of the shot.

that's not pretentious at all

>Touch of Evil
>Charleton Heston
>As a muy macho latino cop
Me gusta!

Often, yes. It fucks up the pacing.
In movies like Children of men and Birdman it's great, because it's seamless, but how anyone can like that shit from goodfellas is beyond me. It's literally there to make you point at the screen and say "wow, what a great single take!"

this and only this

did you know true detective was only one long take? you now know.

Eh, he looks more stereotypically Mexican than Guillermo Del Toro or Louis CK. 13% of the Mexican population is non-mixed white. The problem is his accent- he doesn't have one, and he should.

Goodfellas did it right- to show the power of Henry at his height, to show the rise before the fall, and to make a point about how audiences identify with protagonists in gangster films.

Anyway, Scorsese understands more than you ever will.

It's not shitty if it's done well

For example
youtu.be/RHtpN0ypQuc

Which one are you talking about? The Goodfellas take when they enter the club?

It works, you're meant to be watching his girlfriend the whole take "walk" in real time, into the life of a gangster and under Henrys wing. At it's most basic level thats what I took, along with demonstrating Henrys status

meant for

How the fuck do you know what's going on

Also this

>Is the long take the most overrated shot in filmaking?
Fuck yes. Don't get me wrong, they are nice and when done well they can be highlights but they are so overdone and some are just there to show off without it actually enhancing the experience.

you're right - it's not

it's actually pretty easy to follow the story based on character movement/behavior. it helps that it's not especially complex.

TIL Cary Fukunaga was given a hot meal after he completed filming of that long take

>Eh, he looks more stereotypically Mexican than Guillermo Del Toro or Louis CK. 13% of the Mexican population is non-mixed white.
I am aware of that. I just love introducing this movie to kids today because they immediately bitch about his being cast. For the record, I have no problem with this.

>The problem is his accent- he doesn't have one, and he should.
No. If anything, we should have more portrayals of foreign nationals who speak American English without the stereotypical accent.

It depends, if the camera move is calling attention to itself then it doesn't belong there. But can be very effectivr if used correctly.

Perfect example is Chivo using long takes today in The Revenant and back in Children of Men.

In the Revenant basically every scene is a long take where the technique loses it's effect off immersing because it calls attention to the cameraman, every scene has the same weight and feel no matter what is happenjng and I end up looking for the tree/water/fast swipe where will he use the "invisible" cut.
But in Children of Men only a few key scenes have those extra long takes, but most of the viewers don't even notice that they were single shot takes on their first viewing because they were actually "immersed" and the long take make sense in those scenes.
So I think that if you are going to use a long take don't do it just to show off, but to serve the story that is presented.

If Sup Forums had their way no movie would ever make any attempts at artistic credibility and everything would look like Avengers.

My father is from Guatemala, he's lived and worked in the united states and Canada for 30 years as a truck driver, and he has an accent when he speaks English.

There's no way Vargas would speak English in a perfect American accent.

>In the Revenant basically every scene is a long take where the technique loses it's effect off immersing because it calls attention to the cameraman, every scene has the same weight and feel no matter what is happenjng and I end up looking for the tree/water/fast swipe where will he use the "invisible" cut.

This is what I was getting at here

I wouldn't say it's the most overrated, but it's certainly the one most people jerk off to

Yes, its a meme move on the director's part. At least now it is, recently people have been using it as a crutch.

Want to be praised by plebs? Do a long shot.

Most of the time it's not even a real one take, they use pan wipes and black screens to disguise it as one.

My nigga