Every shot in 'Children of Men' that is 45 seconds or longer.
- Thread starter refocusedmedia
- Start date
Jester2138
Well-known member
The answers in the sentence you just quoted...
Are you kidding?
Not sure what you're criticizing here. No, that's obviously not where everything we learn comes from.
Yes the camera going right did establish something. Watch it again with your eyeballs on the screen this time. Or read my previous comment. Whichever.
Uh, what? Unbroken following shots like that are common in handheld documentary-style filmmaking. When we see them we unconsciously associate it with those kinds of films. This was perfect for the opening scene because the filmmakers wanted to immerse the audience into a world and and then drop a bomb on them, literally.
What? I drink coffee outside fairly often. If the cafe was crowded I'd certainly go outside. You are not making sense.
How old are you? Are you're saying you've never seen people watching the news in public places?
Allright, look. We've all tried to be reasonable with you. It's fine for you to simply not like a movie or not think a technique worked. But to go on and on and come up with these absurd reasons for your opinion (and completely failing to comprehend the comments of others) is just ridiculous and, frankly, immature. At first I was kind of amused by you as one might be by a naive child but now you're just annoying.
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
Why do you keep on ignoring the fact that as the audience we know exactly what's going to happen? Is this really a filming technique you are willing to champion?
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
First off, I liked the sequence in "Children of Men"(2006)... so, yeah, I 'knew' something was going to happen other wise it would be a throw away shot... but there are two forms of suspense, 1) where the audience knows what's going to happen, and they anticipate whether the characters will find out in 'time'... or 2) neither the characters, nor the audience knows what's going to happen, but by the cues from the film, the viewers eventually expect something...
Now, if you thought the sequence was someone from the crafts table, who just bought a new handicam, and was trying it out... and because that person ruined 3 days worth of setup, and the filmmakers had to make do with what the Handicam delivered... well, I guess that's the way it is...
Otherwise, the camera foreshadows the fellow being chased, for one, shows something of the environment he lives in, something of his personality... drinks earlier than most deem fitting, and hides it in a coffee..., the viewer begins to construct an impression about the character... not exactly a model citizen, especially one in an authoritarian fascist style regime...
As for bobbing hand held technique... that seems to be pretty popular these days, no matter what genre is being shot..
In the case of the film I've already mentioned, "Touch of Evil"(1958), the entire first 3 minutes starts with someone placing something in a trunk of a car, the car being driven off by the owner, and the camera follows the car through a some what maze like set of streets that was Tijuana... well supposedly some border town... well in fact, Vinice Beach area of LA...
The other one that comes to mind is Robert Altman's "The Player"(1992), but that could be seen as not only an homage... but also a parody... of Welles.
@Jester2138
please refrain from profanities and calling people names, especially people with a much higher iq than yourself.
reported.
please refrain from profanities and calling people names, especially people with a much higher iq than yourself.
reported.
Lammy
Well-known member
So I've just spent the last 10 minutes reading this thread... and basically all I got was that some people here are annoyed about the directing and editing style with the long takes as opposed to cuts and close-ups? By no means was anything superfluous in any of these shots.
Infact, all those pans and tilts are editing transitions which informs the viewer.
I'll spell it the action of what happens:
cut to establishing of people (overcrowded, shows importance to whats on screen)
cut to grabbing coffee (shows main character as he's leaving)
cut to TV (what people are looking at, youngest person dies)
cut to people (crying couple, sad policeman, granny, etc)
cut to to exterior (it's London, but it's very different, with weird chinese style rickshaws, more immigration, more smog)
cut to character walking (past policemen, past alot of litter)
cut to character (he's putting alcohol in his coffee - what kind of man is he?)
cut to explosion
cut to reactions
cut to wreckage with injured lady
So what if this scene combined all these actions fluidly? Isn't that the directors choice? If we had to do actual shots dedicated to each thing, and edited together then the INFORMATION AND TENSION would actually be longer and possibly intrusive than the 43 seconds of seemingly uninterrupted take!
I thought this was very well done and really short for an introduction. If you wanted a cut here and there ("Oh I didn't like that pan", "I didn't like that crane around his back", "I didn't like following him") - well I guess that's your opinion. But it wasn't a wasted shot IMO, and didn't feel overly long or too forced. I think cuts are more forced personally, but again that's an aesthetic choice. We can't argue timing or what-was-the-point-in-that because we've just established that everything was very tight.
And Children of Men is definately not an action film, nor should it be compared to American Cyborg (LOL). Let's be honest, the first 43 seconds of American Cyborg didn't convey this much information nor felt that great to me. Or even the first 43 seconds of 2001 A Space Odyssey... which was just a black screen with music. So comparing to other films is pretty moot anyway and you got to judge art on its own terms, not your preference for how things you would have done.
:thumbsup:
Infact, all those pans and tilts are editing transitions which informs the viewer.
I'll spell it the action of what happens:
cut to establishing of people (overcrowded, shows importance to whats on screen)
cut to grabbing coffee (shows main character as he's leaving)
cut to TV (what people are looking at, youngest person dies)
cut to people (crying couple, sad policeman, granny, etc)
cut to to exterior (it's London, but it's very different, with weird chinese style rickshaws, more immigration, more smog)
cut to character walking (past policemen, past alot of litter)
cut to character (he's putting alcohol in his coffee - what kind of man is he?)
cut to explosion
cut to reactions
cut to wreckage with injured lady
So what if this scene combined all these actions fluidly? Isn't that the directors choice? If we had to do actual shots dedicated to each thing, and edited together then the INFORMATION AND TENSION would actually be longer and possibly intrusive than the 43 seconds of seemingly uninterrupted take!
I thought this was very well done and really short for an introduction. If you wanted a cut here and there ("Oh I didn't like that pan", "I didn't like that crane around his back", "I didn't like following him") - well I guess that's your opinion. But it wasn't a wasted shot IMO, and didn't feel overly long or too forced. I think cuts are more forced personally, but again that's an aesthetic choice. We can't argue timing or what-was-the-point-in-that because we've just established that everything was very tight.
And Children of Men is definately not an action film, nor should it be compared to American Cyborg (LOL). Let's be honest, the first 43 seconds of American Cyborg didn't convey this much information nor felt that great to me. Or even the first 43 seconds of 2001 A Space Odyssey... which was just a black screen with music. So comparing to other films is pretty moot anyway and you got to judge art on its own terms, not your preference for how things you would have done.
:thumbsup:
Christopher Daniel Walker
New member
This is beginning to spiral out of control. A person can have a contrary opinion about a film and you can respect their view if they offer an informed and thought out response. You can understand their view and not agree with it. Do I think Children of Men is a good film? Yes. Does Children of Men rank among my favourite films of all time? No, and that's okay.
I read in psychology that when an individual reads or hears a view in opposition to their own it simply reinforces their belief. It is incredibly difficult for a person to pull a reversal on their opinions. In film-making is it necessary for everyone to share the same philisophy? As I stressed earlier in this thread, no. Some people don't like the style present in Children of Men. That's fine. You can't berate someone because you love it and they don't. There is no resolution to everybody's differences in opinion, so there's no need to be militant one way or the other.
We post on this forum to share thoughts and offer advice. Let's read them.
I read in psychology that when an individual reads or hears a view in opposition to their own it simply reinforces their belief. It is incredibly difficult for a person to pull a reversal on their opinions. In film-making is it necessary for everyone to share the same philisophy? As I stressed earlier in this thread, no. Some people don't like the style present in Children of Men. That's fine. You can't berate someone because you love it and they don't. There is no resolution to everybody's differences in opinion, so there's no need to be militant one way or the other.
We post on this forum to share thoughts and offer advice. Let's read them.
Lammy
Well-known member
Er... dude, he called you immature and annoying - but you actually threw the first stone by insinuating Jester2138 was slow (the "Pentium 2" insult), and again here by implying you're smarter. You'd be the one reported in this instance
refocusedmedia
Veteran
Because we didn't. Did you guess it? Good for you, but clearly you're the minority here.
This is like when people criticize 'The Sixth Sense' because it was so obvious Bruce's character was dead the whole time and it made for a poor experience for them. Well, as much as that sucks for you, it wasn't that way for most everybody else.
Lammy
Well-known member
Also to counter Patryk's thing about ' knowing whats going to happen' - well alot of shots in Children of Men are long takes... but not all shots end with a huge explosion.
There's maybe 3 big set pieces (the opening, the car, the end get-away) - the rest is pure drama and dialogue.
But having an explosion/guns glazing beat at the end of every other scene would be very funny and cool... but this isn't an action film.
There's maybe 3 big set pieces (the opening, the car, the end get-away) - the rest is pure drama and dialogue.
But having an explosion/guns glazing beat at the end of every other scene would be very funny and cool... but this isn't an action film.
i did not insult him, and i did not attack him, call him names or use profanity.
and that was a reasonable deduction, he implied that it takes him more time to process the 'visual contrast'. 'by the time we process' as if we all need multiple seconds to 'process the visual contrast' which is not the case, he was much slower than the rest. i could anticipate what was about to happen. and a lot of people don't need 'time to process the visual contrast'.
and please stop repeating what he said.
and that was a reasonable deduction, he implied that it takes him more time to process the 'visual contrast'. 'by the time we process' as if we all need multiple seconds to 'process the visual contrast' which is not the case, he was much slower than the rest. i could anticipate what was about to happen. and a lot of people don't need 'time to process the visual contrast'.
and please stop repeating what he said.
jghenderson
Well-known member
I think it's sad that you seem to think of art as mere information to be processed. I think art goes beyond that.
refocusedmedia
Veteran
But you're acting like it. You are not leaving any room whatsoever for creative expression or artistic differences. You are essentially berating a film based on your personal preferences for coloring by numbers and within the lines.
i did not do that, that scene did not have creative expressions or anything artistic per some of the quotes from the film-makers in earlier posts. you are jumping into conclusions based on your limited scope/imagination and preconceived notion that the movie has to be good. and mind you that i did not pick or choose the scene that we kept talking about for few pages, it just happened to be the first part of the clip provided. and it did have that many flaws errors, continuity errors and inconsistencies and no cinematography.
i can give examples of the same story done by different filmmakers in different styles that had unique or different creative expression and did it successfully. it was never about my personal preferences, i don't have a bias.
and stay on the op topic
refocusedmedia
Veteran
Again with the not making any sense whatsoever.
The irony there, is outstanding.
Even on a fundamental level, everything you just stated there is entirely incorrect.
You have proven the opposite again and again. Please stay on topic, or don't... because on that note, I want to say I'm enjoying discussing this film with many of you, even those who have differeing perspectives. That said, I shall be ignoring Amr's trolling from here on out.
Enough.
If you disagree with each other, fine... but not one of your opinions is more correct than anyone else's and there's no need to prove yourself right and others wrong. Enjoyment, interpretation, and analysis of films in this context is completely subjective, and absolutely none of this warrants name-calling or insults. Discuss the film, state your opinion, and move on.
If you have any questions, please refer back to the "8 P's" in the Forum Guidelines:
If you disagree with each other, fine... but not one of your opinions is more correct than anyone else's and there's no need to prove yourself right and others wrong. Enjoyment, interpretation, and analysis of films in this context is completely subjective, and absolutely none of this warrants name-calling or insults. Discuss the film, state your opinion, and move on.
If you have any questions, please refer back to the "8 P's" in the Forum Guidelines:
Last edited:
Stop arguing about each other.
Read what Alex has written.
One more post that is even close to a personal comment, etc. will result in suspensions.
This site is about collaborative filmmaking, among other things.
It is not a site that will facilitate any type of personal acrimony or exchanges at any time.
Stop the arguments about each other.
Thank you.
Read what Alex has written.
One more post that is even close to a personal comment, etc. will result in suspensions.
This site is about collaborative filmmaking, among other things.
It is not a site that will facilitate any type of personal acrimony or exchanges at any time.
Stop the arguments about each other.
Thank you.
I really don't want to enter this fray. But for those looking for an informed review of the film, I'll offer up this review from "Reverse Shot."
They rated Children of Men at #19 in their "Best of the Decade" review. Their review brought me back to an appreciation of good criticism, whether pro or con, that doesn't limit itself to an academic interpretation of how well a film conforms to certain preconceived "rules" about how a film should work.
Here is their comment on the opening take, plus much more at the link.
http://reverseshot.com/article/19_children_men
Defying expectations, the clarity of Cuarón's vision was apparent in the movie's opening frames.
With stunning confidence, he thrusts viewers into a bleak future: over a black screen, we hear a news broadcast that leads with a story about the death of the world's youngest person—an 18-year-old. Cuarón cuts to a high angle shot of a crowd of people in a cafe, transfixed as they watch the terrible report on a television set. Theo enters and orders a coffee. As he looks up, Cuarón cuts to the monitor, then back as Theo gets his drink and leaves. The camera follows him in a handheld shot out the door, pausing to take everything in after it exits to the London street (a subtitle reveals the date: November 16, 2027).
Cuarón's camera turns towards Theo, walking with him and then stopping when he steps aside to add some booze to his coffee. Then there's an offscreen blast. The ringing of Theo's ears takes over the soundtrack as the camera turns back and moves towards the smoking cafe, out of which emerges a woman charred from the explosion, carrying her own arm. The sequence is shocking, even grotesque, but in its narrative efficiency and strict attention to point-of-view it prepares us for the unrelenting cinematic tour de force to follow.
They rated Children of Men at #19 in their "Best of the Decade" review. Their review brought me back to an appreciation of good criticism, whether pro or con, that doesn't limit itself to an academic interpretation of how well a film conforms to certain preconceived "rules" about how a film should work.
Here is their comment on the opening take, plus much more at the link.
http://reverseshot.com/article/19_children_men
Defying expectations, the clarity of Cuarón's vision was apparent in the movie's opening frames.
With stunning confidence, he thrusts viewers into a bleak future: over a black screen, we hear a news broadcast that leads with a story about the death of the world's youngest person—an 18-year-old. Cuarón cuts to a high angle shot of a crowd of people in a cafe, transfixed as they watch the terrible report on a television set. Theo enters and orders a coffee. As he looks up, Cuarón cuts to the monitor, then back as Theo gets his drink and leaves. The camera follows him in a handheld shot out the door, pausing to take everything in after it exits to the London street (a subtitle reveals the date: November 16, 2027).
Cuarón's camera turns towards Theo, walking with him and then stopping when he steps aside to add some booze to his coffee. Then there's an offscreen blast. The ringing of Theo's ears takes over the soundtrack as the camera turns back and moves towards the smoking cafe, out of which emerges a woman charred from the explosion, carrying her own arm. The sequence is shocking, even grotesque, but in its narrative efficiency and strict attention to point-of-view it prepares us for the unrelenting cinematic tour de force to follow.