Every shot in 'Children of Men' that is 45 seconds or longer.

refocusedmedia

refocusedmedia

Veteran
Something I put together in anticipation for his new film -- "Gravity" -- which will not only have a 17+ minute opening shot, but an average shot length of 45 seconds. More info in the description, hope you enjoy.

 
I found this movie extremely pretentious because of those long shots. The 1st and 2nd shots are total killers of the mood for me.
1.) This is a big sci-fi/action film - there is a language that goes along with it. There is no calm reflective moments of "guy just walking down the street and takes a sip of vodka" in this kind of films. So when the director shows me a scene like that i tens up (instead of ease of as his intention probably was to make the explosion appear more unexpected by the contrast). That takes me out of the film all the sudden i know my emotions are manipulated, poorly. By providing an easy answer to a problem (calmness contrasted by an explosion) i know i'm not in on a ride of original solutions/ideas so i quickly lose the trust in the filmmaker.
2.) Same problem as above but heightened by a slow (SLOW when a train was just barraged by rocks??) pan.

The only refreshing shot i found in this film was the inside of the car as car interiors are usually very boring.

For much more interesting treatment of the same story watch "American Cyborg" as there the filmmaker doesn't think they are making something larger then it really is (plus they have more interesting ideas such as main character discovering that he's part of the system he's fighting against).
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
I found this movie extremely pretentious because of those long shots. The 1st and 2nd shots are total killers of the mood for me.
1.) This is a big sci-fi/action film - there is a language that goes along with it. There is no calm reflective moments of "guy just walking down the street and takes a sip of vodka" in this kind of films. So when the director shows me a scene like that i tens up (instead of ease of as his intention probably was to make the explosion appear more unexpected by the contrast). That takes me out of the film all the sudden i know my emotions are manipulated, poorly. By providing an easy answer to a problem (calmness contrasted by an explosion) i know i'm not in on a ride of original solutions/ideas so i quickly lose the trust in the filmmaker.
2.) Same problem as above but heightened by a slow (SLOW when a train was just barraged by rocks??) pan.

The only refreshing shot i found in this film was the inside of the car as car interiors are usually very boring.

For much more interesting treatment of the same story watch "American Cyborg" as there the filmmaker doesn't think they are making something larger then it really is (plus they have more interesting ideas such as main character discovering that he's part of the system he's fighting against).
Click to expand...

Well, I would be hard to express how much I disagree with you - but to each his own.

Loved the video.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
I found this movie extremely pretentious because of those long shots. The 1st and 2nd shots are total killers of the mood for me.
1.) This is a big sci-fi/action film - there is a language that goes along with it. There is no calm reflective moments of "guy just walking down the street and takes a sip of vodka" in this kind of films. So when the director shows me a scene like that i tens up (instead of ease of as his intention probably was to make the explosion appear more unexpected by the contrast). That takes me out of the film all the sudden i know my emotions are manipulated, poorly. By providing an easy answer to a problem (calmness contrasted by an explosion) i know i'm not in on a ride of original solutions/ideas so i quickly lose the trust in the filmmaker.
2.) Same problem as above but heightened by a slow (SLOW when a train was just barraged by rocks??) pan.

The only refreshing shot i found in this film was the inside of the car as car interiors are usually very boring.

For much more interesting treatment of the same story watch "American Cyborg" as there the filmmaker doesn't think they are making something larger then it really is (plus they have more interesting ideas such as main character discovering that he's part of the system he's fighting against).
Click to expand...

I completely see it the opposite way.....lots of fast/quick cut scenes BORE ME TO TEARS and annoy me to no end, UNLESS it is for a particular mood. These days if a film advertises itself as NON STOP ACTION!!...count me out, because that's all they'll be bringing- no character, no substance. Without these things...I don't give a damn how many stunts there are, how cool the explosions are and how great the special effects are...I will be bored. I like action, but only if it serves the story and I am invested in the characters. I liked the longer shots on the post here, but I am a fan of longer scenes and longer shots. No Country For Old Men and Pulp Fiction have long scenes...2 of my faves- They also include explosive moments....
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
I found this movie extremely pretentious because of those long shots. The 1st and 2nd shots are total killers of the mood for me.
1.) This is a big sci-fi/action film
Click to expand...

No it isn't. The only "action" is during the car ambush and the ending battle scene and in each of those scenes the action is secondary to the plot and the characters. This is a dystopian sci-fi drama. The rest of your comments regarding this point are completely about your individual preferences.

Suffice to say, I disagree. I will check out 'American Cyborg' though, to try and understand your point.
 
Andrew McCarrick said:
Does anybody know how the scenes that starts 3:34 was actually accomplished?
Click to expand...
Yes. The DoggiCam system was employed. Throughout the scene the driver and front passenger would recline their seat back to accomplish certain camera positions as it floated around in the car. I believe the operator, director, and AC were in the top of the car. For more details, here is the behind the scenes video on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8lAt6sCqMQ
 
Marc Villafan said:
Yes. The DoggiCam system was employed. Throughout the scene the driver and front passenger would recline their seat back to accomplish certain camera positions as it floated around in the car. I believe the operator, director, and AC were in the top of the car. For more details, here is the behind the scenes video on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8lAt6sCqMQ
Click to expand...

That's pretty nuts. Unfortunately they don't explain how they transitioned from that system to hand held at the 7:15 mark.
 
In my opinion, I believe that they did a very well done hidden cut on that mark. Shortly after the pan, while he exits the car, the black vertical section of the car between the windows is exposed and sweeps across the frame.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
I completely see it the opposite way.....lots of fast/quick cut scenes BORE ME TO TEARS and annoy me to no end, UNLESS it is for a particular mood. These days if a film advertises itself as NON STOP ACTION!!...count me out, because that's all they'll be bringing- no character, no substance. Without these things...I don't give a damn how many stunts there are, how cool the explosions are and how great the special effects are...I will be bored. I like action, but only if it serves the story and I am invested in the characters. I liked the longer shots on the post here, but I am a fan of longer scenes and longer shots. No Country For Old Men and Pulp Fiction have long scenes...2 of my faves- They also include explosive moments....
Click to expand...

Yes, the balance needs to be struck. This film didn't. The shots were too ponderous. I'm pretty sure that Kieslowski, who wouldn't even dare to make this type of film, ever had shots this long and for a right reason - he respected his audience but also understood that the language used (here the length of the shots) has to go along with the content.
 
refocusedmedia said:
No it isn't. The only "action" is during the car ambush and the ending battle scene and in each of those scenes the action is secondary to the plot and the characters. This is a dystopian sci-fi drama. The rest of your comments regarding this point are completely about your individual preferences.

Suffice to say, I disagree. I will check out 'American Cyborg' though, to try and understand your point.
Click to expand...


But, but.... if you watch the trailer for this film they are marketing it as an action film! But that aside, as there were some great films wrongly marketed (for instance "Three Kings") this one still doesn't pass litmus test of the long shot. When you get a long shot in "Blade Runner" you get to see unseen sights - the distopian future. Are you getting the same here? Well, no - you are getting more or less blue looking streets of normal current looking city.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Yes, the balance needs to be struck. This film didn't. The shots were too ponderous. I'm pretty sure that Kieslowski, who wouldn't even dare to make this type of film, ever had shots this long and for a right reason - he respected his audience but also understood that the language used (here the length of the shots) has to go along with the content.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree. I feel the language of the shots are brilliantly in tune with their content.

Patryk_Rebisz said:
But, but.... if you watch the trailer for this film they are marketing it as an action film! But that aside, as there were some great films wrongly marketed (for instance "Three Kings") this one still doesn't pass litmus test of the long shot. When you get a long shot in "Blade Runner" you get to see unseen sights - the distopian future. Are you getting the same here? Well, no - you are getting more or less blue looking streets of normal current looking city.
Click to expand...

I agree that the marketing of the film was disappointing, but that is hardly the fault of the filmmakers. But I certainly disagree with the second part. First off, you cannot compare the future in this film to the one in Blade Runner... they are set in two completely different worlds and their respective futures are the results of two completely different course of events. Secondly, I think the "world" presented of Children of Men is completely believable. It is supported by not only the incredible production design that sells this particular world, but by a number of more nuanced items such as: the various news reports, the graffiti, the burning animals in the fields, the dilapidated school, the general aura of tension and hopelessness, etc.

Not every dystopian story subscribes to the same course of events, or look/feel of the future.
 
The lingering shots give you the sense that anything could happen at any moment. Unfortunatly, and perhaps too often, it does.

The characters are trying, as people do, to live their lives with some sense of normalcy in an atmosphere that is anything but normal. The pacing of the shots really suits this feeling of dread, but (having not seen the entire movie), leaves me to wonder whether, if every time a shot starts, I'm going to be hit with some sort of bombshell 70 - 180 seconds later. That is obviously the sense of dread the filmmakers were going for, and, on that level, it works.

I have a finite appetite for gimmicky film devices and I won't watch Shyamalan movies for just that reason.
 
Erik Olson said:
The lingering shots give you the sense that anything could happen at any moment. Unfortunatly, and perhaps too often, it does.
Click to expand...

One of the reasons I made this video, was to show the effectiveness of long takes being used in all sorts of narrative purposes. If you watch the video, you'll notice there are plenty of long takes where this assessment does not apply. In fact, two of the takes that last over 90 seconds are completely dialogue driven. Additionally, there were plenty of scenes lasting over 30 seconds -- but shorter than 45 seconds -- that would not fit your assessment either. At one point I had all 62 takes longer than 22 seconds on the timeline... the resulting video would've been over 55 minutes long, lol. Point being, Cuaron's use of the long take is incredibly diverse, which was the point I was trying to make.

I have a finite appetite for gimmicky film devices and I won't watch Shyamalan movies for just that reason.
Click to expand...

IMHO, watch Unbreakable at least... the cinematography is mesmerizing.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
When you get a long shot in "Blade Runner" you get to see unseen sights - the distopian future. Are you getting the same here? Well, no - you are getting more or less blue looking streets of normal current looking city.
Click to expand...

I don't think we see a SINGLE FRAME of a "normal current looking city." Are we even talking about the same film?
 
pulpfiction007 said:
I completely see it the opposite way.....lots of fast/quick cut scenes BORE ME TO TEARS and annoy me to no end, UNLESS it is for a particular mood. These days if a film advertises itself as NON STOP ACTION!!...count me out, because that's all they'll be bringing- no character, no substance. Without these things...I don't give a damn how many stunts there are, how cool the explosions are and how great the special effects are...I will be bored. I like action, but only if it serves the story and I am invested in the characters. I liked the longer shots on the post here, but I am a fan of longer scenes and longer shots. No Country For Old Men and Pulp Fiction have long scenes...2 of my faves- They also include explosive moments....
Click to expand...

Amen brother. There are too many movies being made for people with A.D.D..
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Well, no - you are getting more or less blue looking streets of normal current looking city.
Click to expand...


But that's the POINT. The film takes place in the very near future, right after the world basically fell apart. The technology looks a bit futuristic (but not much), but also aged because after the world fell apart there wouldn't be as many advancements.

In any case, in my opinion Children of Men is one of the best shot films in history. I know that's a crazy bold statement, but the only films I've seen that really rival this film in cinematography are the Tarkovsky masterpieces Stalker and Zerkalo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top