Will this type of filmmaking bore modern audiences?

[gonzo_entertainment]

As far as needing movement goes, how do you do it with a slider? Just put the slider on the tripod? Because you can only move back and forth on a certain character then. In that clip the dolly moves all over, but in the locations I want to use, I can't just switch tracks, when I want to switch moving on characters, so how do you do it with a slider, since it can only move back and forth in one direction?

Well, "slider" is a pretty broad term. We have one that's only 4', but we also have an 8' slider (speed rail mounted on baby stands). In a master for example, a slow slide across the scene combined with some pan back towards the direction the slide originated from is a very nice way to add some movement to an otherwise pretty static shot. May not apply to the kind of stuff you are trying to do.

[mail4joeg]

mise en scene:

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

mise en scene:

Even so, about very 2-3 seconds 'something is happening'... in this case mostly costume changes in frame...

[Ken Hull]

ironpony,
One reason for long takes in some of those early films was a carry-over from the live theater. Look at some Marx Brothers films, where they used the same gags they had used on stage. Also, those very early sound films had the camera in a sound-proof booth... not very convenient for moving around to set up for individual close ups.

Nowadays, you often see long takes, but with a moving camera, mounted on either a dolly or a crane. The movement of camera and actors is choreographed to flow from LS to MCU of one actor to MCU of another actor, etc. Kind of expensive for a low-budget independent project. But maybe you could achieve something close to that by using a slider.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...454+4098136223

But the main rule to avoid boring the audience: Have every scene advance the story! Don't waste time showing things that don't need to be shown. I remember a problem with many student films was showing the character driving to his destination, without any exposition during the drive... just driving. Instead, just show him making the decision to go somewhere, then cut to him arriving.

-- Ken

[gonzo_entertainment]

We are not mentioning the single biggest reason for long takes (average much longer than today) in older films which is non-lnear editing. When every edit was a physical cut with a razor, when adding a few frames back meant digging a piece of film out of the trash, edits tended to be more sparse and deliberate. People didn't cut just for the sake of cutting.

[Rolf Silber]

We are not mentioning the single biggest reason for long takes (average much longer than today) in older films which is non-lnear editing. When every edit was a physical cut with a razor, when adding a few frames back meant digging a piece of film out of the trash, edits tended to be more sparse and deliberate. People didn't cut just for the sake of cutting.

With some distinct exceptions to that rule... ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Fd_T4l2qaQ

[gonzo_entertainment]

With some distinct exceptions to that rule... ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Fd_T4l2qaQ

I had never seen that, nice one.

I'd like to see and average cuts per minute comparison from the silent era all the way through today graphed out. I bet there is a huge shift upwards post NLE.

[Rolf Silber]

I had never seen that, nice one.

I'd like to see and average cuts per minute comparison from the silent era all the way through today graphed out. I bet there is a huge shift upwards post NLE.

Sure you are right. Just wanted to show that Vertov (and other Russians, including Eisenstein and some Germans) did actually cut and inter-cut extensively. Vertov's movie still is full of rather modern ideas. I love it.

[jghenderson]

I had never seen that, nice one.

I'd like to see and average cuts per minute comparison from the silent era all the way through today graphed out. I bet there is a huge shift upwards post NLE.

I actually did see some kind of chart about this before, i'll try to find it. All I remember from it is that in the earlier days (30's-50's), the average cut was ~50 seconds long. Today the average cut is just under 3 seconds.

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I had never seen that, nice one.

I'd like to see and average cuts per minute comparison from the silent era all the way through today graphed out. I bet there is a huge shift upwards post NLE.

Here's a quick find:

http://unspokencinema.blogspot.com/2...ot-length.html

The blogger is looking to 'contemplative' films, that is films that would probably appeal to the sin-o-phile, rather than the general audience. But even then, one finds classic slient films
with the blogger's 'ASL', 'average shot length', ranging:

Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari. (1919/Wiene) ASL= 10.7" (the " is interpreted as 'seconds'...).
to
Strike (1925/Eisenstein) ASL= 3"

For Sound movies, and more modern but before 1980-90, one sees:

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968/Kubrick) ASL=13"
and
Death in Venice (1971/Visconti) ASL=17.4"
or
Act of Seeing with One's Own Eyes (1971/Brakhage) ASL= 4.6"

(I'm picking films I've seen, save the last one...)

For post 1990's. There's

Russian Ark (2002/Sokurov) ASL= 96' (that's minutes...)
Five (2005/Kiarostami) ASL= 14'45"

and many others of 'long shot' values... I have not seen any of them, including 'Russian Ark" despite it's frequent mention in sin-o-phile circles...

A 'special' note here... the typical run length of a 35mm film negative is about 10 minutes of 'shooting' time. So Hitchcock's "Rope"(1948) was limited to shots of this length. Modern digital cameras, especially with feeds to external recorders are not limited to this length, hence "Russian Ark" was possible.

Now how this blogger seems to calculate this is some sort of 'average' in the following way. Total Length of film / Total Number of Shots. This doesn't say any one shot couldn't be a minute or two... just that by the time the film has run, the number of shots is such that the average is X"...

More modern approaches to this is some sort of SMPTE type time device and someone marking shot begin and end points, and having a number of people doing this to take averages. (I don't think too many people want to single step through very many films to do this more accurately...).