Will this type of filmmaking bore modern audiences?

I hope so because I use them extensively. Noting that by 2012 standards anything longer than about 15 seconds is a "long take". The longest continuous shot with no edits in one of my films is close to 4 minutes, but more typical is that I'll do 30 second to 1 minute shots with no edits pretty regularly.
 
I would also say that watching someone on YouTube with long takes is absolutely deplorable to me. I'm much more accepting of that sitting on the couch watching TV or in a theater.
 
In my Steadicam days I did a pretty good amount of long continuous takes that were intended to play as master shots with no coverage. I would say that a significant number of them would have been better off with a judicious amount of cutting instead. For every shot on "ER" and "West Wing" that worked brilliantly (because of a production team and actors that were utterly dialed in to the process) there was at least as many that just loped along with dead spots in the timing where nothing was going on other than the camera getting from point to point. Matthew illustrates with "Atonement" and "Children of Men". My personal feeling is that the long-take sequences in the latter were simply amazing and utterly successful (redefining, really) but the beach shot in the former was overall a meandering, dated show pony. I'll illustrate further with two clips that I worked on: I think this one was well-served by playing without cuts and never lost its steam, but this one (beginning up to the credits) flags in places. Others may disagree!

On the whole though; there were very few low-budget or indie jobs that I've done where the long shot technique works out, for the reasons that were listed in posts above; it takes everyone being on the top of their game to make it work. And you have to keep in mind the pacing of the entire film as well. There's a great example of this in the Soderburgh movie "Out of Sight"; the scene where George Clooney is locked in the trunk of a car with Jennifer Lopez, which plays beautifully in the final film in cuts, but was originally shot as a single take with the argument that you wouldn't be able to get coverage inside a trunk. Soderbergh notes on the commentary that all the air went out of film during that scene when it played in test screenings, so he re-shot it. You can see the original version on the DVD and it pales in comparison.
 
ironpony said:
That's another thing. On my microbudget I won't have sets, so I will have to use real locations, and in real locations, the art direction is really not the same. I was told by my peers that in my previous movies, the art direction looks realistic, but audiences don't buy into realistic art direction, and are use to accepting the more extravagant kind instead. I would have to use post effects to perhaps change a bit of the art direction.

As far as action goes, most of the long shots I have in mind are dialogue scenes really. The dialogue reveals plot twists and turns, and I'll cut to certain close ups when emotionally appropriate of course, if that works.
Click to expand...


There's nothing to say dialogue scenes can't be one long take and still be fantastic, it really all depends. In the film 'Hunger', there is a dialogue scene that lasts ~15 minutes, and is all one shot (a simple 2-shot). There's no cutting, no fancy camera moves, just the two actors talking. And you know what? It's brilliant, possibly the highlight of what is a great movie. It works because the scene is acted and written very well. I wasn't bored for a second.
 
Good point and I meant to say something about that aspecct as well--another example is "Y Tu Mama Tambien", which has some very long shots without much choreography. But I think we can all agree that it requires very good actors to pull this off, not often the hallmark of microbudget films (sadly).
 
ironpony said:
I am practicing towards making my first feature film. Am doing my second short film now, and still working up. I wanna practice how I want to make a feature, and have a couple of scripts to choose from.

I was thinking of shooting it like you see in a movie from the 30s to 50s, where a large portion of the scene is shot all in one take. However will modern audiences get bored with that if the are so use to constant cutting? I want to create my style, but at the same time not create a reason for why my movie could not hold people's attention. I want to do a thriller with a script that is not slow paced and gets to the point but do audiences still need quick cutting, even so?
Click to expand...

Having gotten rid of the 'black on black' text, I can now actually read your post...

As other have mentioned, Woody Allen seems to be one of the modern filmmakers who has mostly 'master shot' takes. However, from the recent "Midnight in Paris"(2011), he does 'rehearsal/improv' with the actors, and allows them more 'freedom' it would appear. So, while you may not spend the bux/time on 'short shots', you will spend the time in rehearsal and dialog 'improvement' to get a quality performance.

The 'average' shot time these days seems to be around 2-3 seconds.

To do longer takes, requires that the actors memorize the lines, internalize the lines, and then deliver a performance... this is not something that can be done 'on the day of shooting'... and every one needs to be on board with that.

In terms of behind the camera, such things as 'dolly shots', 'sliders', etc... those need to be better choreographed than the 'short take' version, because with the short take, one can cutaway from missed lines, or crew/equipment 'problems'... if a dialog takes 15 seconds to get out, and you are dollying the camera, following the focus, and panning the camera... all that takes practice on everyone's part.... oh... yeah... and the boom operator needs to be in there somewhere as well... maybe wireless lavs would be better, but then for the nolo budget maybe lavs aren't available...
 
"There's nothing to say dialogue scenes can't be one long take and still be fantastic, "

No one said anything to the contrary. But it requires a masterful scene on the page. You have to lead the audience along so that they want to focus in on what is said and hear where the conversation is going, over and over again as each line progresses. My Dinner with Andre is an example.

I don't see too many Dinner with Andre scenes these days. I see a lot of 20 somethings gushing about their angst. Run for the door.

That scene from Atonement, which is now unavailable had pluses and minuses. For one they had the whole British army (extras) and equipment all huddled on this massive landscape. The scene was visually dynamic, moving the camera the entire time. It was full of spectacle. But, the purpose of the scene? I believe it was a woman walking around. It's been a few years since I've seen it. Is she looking for someone? The whole thing seems a bit light on the drama, with zero escalation during the take. She just goes from place to place, with no increase in tension or any obstacles thrown, not even a conversation to build along the way. The scene, ultimately, fails for me and seems like an expensive, cuttable "trailer moment" -- if it's the scene I'm remembering.
 
I actually rarely use long takes for dialogue scenes which are generally shot with more conventional coverage. My long takes almost always involve scenes with a lot of "business" but no dialogue.
 
There are two broad approaches to long takes, IMO. The first is like the opening of "Touch of Evil", the Copacabana scene in "Goodfellas", and several shoots in "Children of Men" where a fluid camera covers the action in space over considerable (Relative) time. These kinds of shoot take very skilled actors and filmmakers to pull off. I do think that with some modern camera stabilizers and a great deal of practice shoots like this are very possible to pull off on a a low budget, but still difficult. There is also the approach of using a more locked off camera. To see this kind of style, I would recommend taking a look at the works of Jim Jarmusch, especially his early work, " Permanent Vacation", " Stranger Than Paradise' and "Down by Law". This style is not for everybody, but I kind of like it. It might be tough for a thriller, but could work.

There is a mid ground kind of style, that I think is very doable low budget and is kind of a hybrid of both styles and is something that I am kind of evaluating for low budget filmmaking myself. In this style, instead of a hyper-kinetic "Flying" camera, or a purely locked down camera, the mid ground is to use very deliberate,well operated, camera moves, to cover a scene in longer lengths. The inspiration for this kind of style, for me, has been the watching of old Film Noirs from the 1940s and 1950's. Especially the film "Border Incident", directed by Anthony Mann and photographed by the great John Alton ASC. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041198/ The film is pretty amazing and utilizes bold compositions and outstanding camera operation to cover scenes with longer takes than we are used to now. I recommend it to anyone interested in Film Noir or cinematography.

To simplify, I plan to test using a longish slider (6') with a fluid head attached and follow the action in a scene from two base framings. start and end, and use pan, tilt and linear movement on the slider to cover talent movement between the two basic framings. With this simplified approach, I think that most scenes would end up being covered from at least two set ups, but I think I can get a lot done (Story wise) in each of the set ups. I think the secret to this kind of style is first and foremost mostly reliant on the talent being able to work in the longer takes (And hit their marks). Second in importance is getting the camera moves and operation down pat. After years of struggling to get my operation down pat with fluid head, I have come up with a system that I can use for hard stops with a fluid head. This has given me a lot more confidence to try and go for more deliberate camera moves. I am putting the slider system together now (I am just waiting on the delivery of my high hat for my fluid head). I will be using the Po' Man's Dana Dolly, sorta... the CineMover by J.G. Pasterjak at http://moveyourcamera.ambitiousme.com/.
 
ironpony, go ahead and shoot your long takes, but bear in mind the two main challenges:

(1) If all you have is a long take with no cutaways, then you have to start the take over if there are any mistakes. You have to keep shooting until you get a perfect take.

(2) In the editing room, without cutaways, you're stuck with the best take you have. You can't edit, beyond splicing together one long shot to next.


An alternative approach would be to shoot your long takes, but also go in for closeups or other cutaways, so you can cut together two or more takes if you need to. That way, if there's a long shot that you just can't get right, you can edit it together from several takes. Of course, to do that, you need to cut to a closeup or cut to the dog, etc.

Good luck!
 
Two broad types of filmaking. Both styles may appear in one film.

MONTAGE: you create dynamics through editing.
MISE EN SCENE: you create dynamics within the frame.

You need something interesting happening within the frame (not necessarily a moving camera). Maybe really great dialog.

If you want to get super deep, track down "What Is Cinema?" by Andre Bazin, who believed that the thing that is the MOST CINEMATIC is a feeling of deep space and movement in the frame. Then go watch Citizen Kane, The Rules Of The Game, and Transformers Dark Side Of The Moon (No, I'm not kidding- Michael Bays movies may not be masterpieces, but he sure as hell understands and uses cinematic deep space).

Awesome Tutorials on Montage and Mise En Scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0BMDcbjfBg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWcw70Wl2Y4

Probably the most important movie for you to see if you're serious about devoting yourself to that style:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxs4P6u1EiI

The best movie to see if you want to see robot battles and a smoking hot blonde with a cute button nose and heavenly pillow lips (sigh)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHRf01Gjosk
 
Okay thanks. I have directed one short film so far about 20 minutes, and have helped other's on their projects, and practiced on my own. Although practice is very difficult since actor's only want to work on real projects, and I can't get friends to practice for me well at all.

Perhaps for a low budget indie, quick cutting is the way to go, but most filmmakers still follow the rule of acting out the whole master shot in one take as a safety, right? So don't actors still do that as a safety, or is that not normal practice anymore? I don't want to do a whole scene in one take in the final edit though. Just master shots, that last around say 30 seconds at some points. Is 30 seconds too long for most actors you would find on a microbudget?
 
Last edited:
Absolutely. You still shoot coverage in case you get into editing and it plays WAY too long.
Yes, we play every scene out beginning to end in a master.
 
Yeah so it seems to me that maybe the actors could play the master out for maybe four more takes, then you have a few masters to choose from, for the sections of the scene, where you want a long master shot.
 
As noted in some of the comments, if I was going to stay in a shot for a long time I'd add motion. We use a lot of slider in conjunction with pan tilt. You have to create movement in the scene. If you aren't doing it in the edit it needs to come from somewhere else.
 
I'd like to add that I recently wrote a feature script with long, long takes, highly choreographed. It's done in "found footage" style, so that every time the camera turns on I account for why it's on, who's motivated to film then, and then make sure each take escalates the tension, often throwing curve balls into the mix. It will be a very difficult project to film, with a lot of rehearsal necessary, but I believe it will work out in the end.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
I've only skim-read this thread but here's my two English pennies nonetheless:

Yes it can work, and it can be very powerful. It's your film so if you think it's right then you should definitely do it. Some of my favourite scenes from films are very long takes. Gaspar Noe films spring to mind, as does the film 'I am Cuba'.
There's a 90 minute film called 'Russian Ark' which is one long take, but it's very experimental and IMO pretty boring.
 
Yeah that would bore a lot of modern audiences. It's hard to tell cause my attention span exceeds my friends' when it comes to movies, so I want to use them as examples of how to make something marketable. Even though I want long takes, I am only talking about 30 percent of my script, the rest is pretty modern takes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top