Long tracking shots, dynamic or cheap?

[Luke Kokinos]

So, I'm cooking up a feature film. I'm think of using my MX Red One on a steadicam for super long tracking scenes. I just went through the script and cut half the dialogue. If I were to do a, say, 10 minute continuous shot, of a husband and wife talking in a hotel room, with her in the bathroom, and him in the bedroom, then getting up, getting the wifi password from a woman at the front desk, and then taking a phone call, then returning to his room to finish his conversation with his wife. This is a suspense thriller, and I can decide if this will look really cool and build suspense throughout the film, or if this will just look stupid and put people to sleep.
What do you think? I can do some test shots eventually to decide.

 

[Marc Dunham]

Personally I think it could be cool and build suspense with a good atmospheric soundtrack underneath. Kind of like some shots in Magnolia, just maybe different feel on the music.

 

[Greg Huson]

My personal feeling is that steadicam can help you shoot faster - but putting everything into one shot eliminates the editor, and the ability to improve your direction (or the actor's performance) - through editing. Unless you've made a dozen films and have great actors, I think you're looking for trouble. Plus, lighting a shot that long, if you're lighting, is a bitch - or, you're limited to natural-ish (or no) lighting. Thrillers generally mess with time to create energy or suspense - Steadicam, unless you're cutting, is 'real time.'

That said, I worked with a director who shot EVERYTHING off the steadicam - he cut his teeth as an operator. ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0240995/ ) He followed more or less traditional blocking, though, so he had the necessary coverage. The fluidity of the camera gave the film a really nice energy- and he said his setups were faster (and he was STRONG after carrying the camera 'on his back' for entire shoots!) [We did the US recut of a foreign made-for-TV movie- great guy to work with... wish he'd hire me again!]

I'd love to try this technique if I ever get around to making another film.

Anxious to hear what DPs and Gaffers on the list have to say about these two techniques- hope others add to this thread.

 

[Mark K.]

It all depends on the lighting, the tension you're able to put into the single take and the atmos/music that accompanies it.

I don't think there's anything innately wrong or twee about having long steadicam shots - but they do need to be motivated. If there's no particular visual reason we're getting one long take as an audience, then I think those shots tend to get dull quickly.

It's all in the intent.

 

[Luke Kokinos]

Thanks guys,

I did a thread a few weeks ago about how to gaff this. Since we won't have too much cash to play with, we'll be shooting on location, and gaffing with practicals and booming a chinaball from time to time. The film is the same 40 minutes told from three different perspectives, which is why I wanted to do the long shots, to quite literally follow the three different perspectives. Another reason thing I wanted to do with the tracking shots, was so we can have shady scenes. I will of course have a tense score done.

Greg, you make a really good point about actors. For my big projects, I always hold rehearsals to get the performances I want, so once we get on set, it's mostly technical and making the movie happen, in stead of babysitting the actors. In your opinion should hand the camera off to someone else? Because I'll be directing on set, the only problem is I might not be able to be in the room while rolling since there won't be room for much crew once we hit record, as we have to film in such a small space. Thoughts?

 

[Greg Huson]

I've only made two movies, and it's been a while- and I can only speak to my personal experience... but I guess that's what you mean by 'in your opinion.'

I am not an operator by profession, rather, an editor most days, so your mileage may vary. On my second film we got a little behind- we had two bodies (BL4) so we shot two cameras at the same time - kinda TV style with wide and closer. I can honestly, and without hesitation, say that my concentration on the performance suffered during those setups. In the overall context of the film, which was rather simple, I doubt it's noticeable, but I noticed- and I notice again any time I see those scenes.

On the flip side, the video assist on that show was barely useful for framing, let alone performance - so I preferred to be in the room, watching the actors directly, and just trust the operator. (Since it was a action/horror, this didn't always make the operator happy- he was busy with movement, etc., but that's a separate story.) So, if there had not been room for me on the set, I would of preferred operating. BUT, with digital capture, you get high-quality monitoring - so in your case, I think I'd rather watch from the monitor and let someone else operate.

Also - and this is a bit tangential, but may go to your question - I am my second favorite editor, but when directing, I prefer to work with an editor rather than cut everything myself. As the director you often see what you WANTED to see - what you imagine is there. The editor can only see what you've delivered. Generally speaking he/she is also not encumbered by having written the script and imagined the entire film - that fresh perspective is a huge benefit once you've got the dailies. Some version of that maxim may be true for operating the camera as well.

 

[Björn Benckert]

So, I'm cooking up a feature film. I'm think of using my MX Red One on a steadicam for super long tracking scenes. I just went through the script and cut half the dialogue. If I were to do a, say, 10 minute continuous shot, of a husband and wife talking in a hotel room, with her in the bathroom, and him in the bedroom, then getting up, getting the wifi password from a woman at the front desk, and then taking a phone call, then returning to his room to finish his conversation with his wife. This is a suspense thriller, and I can decide if this will look really cool and build suspense throughout the film, or if this will just look stupid and put people to sleep.
What do you think? I can do some test shots eventually to decide.

Take a look at Eyes wide shut. The intro scene going into the bathroom and also the dancing scene are probably the nicest references you can find.

 

[Brian Pascale]

Long takes can work wonderfully if block properly. Check out "Touch of Evil" for some wicked long takes. Of course the story goes along with it is the opening scene which starts with a bombing of a car, the camera flies over a roof and then picks up two actors walking towards the border, when they get to the border the actor playing the guard who only had a couple lines, got so nervous he kept blowing the lines, so they had to start all over again.

A nice cheat is having an object in the foreground act as a wipe. You simple go full frame with it and then start full frame on your next shoot to revel the actors and it comes across as one shoot. Good steadicam operation is a must to make any of this work and that is not easy. So practice if you are indeed the one going to shoot. And if you are not used to operating, you will get tired and could hurt you back if not operating properly.

 

[Luke Kokinos]

Oh yes! I remember that scene! I'll take another look at it, but I think I know what you're talking about.

 

[Luke Kokinos]

Alright, I'll put touch of evil on my watch list.

 

[Joe G.]

" If I were to do a, say, 10 minute continuous shot, of a husband and wife talking in a hotel room, with her in the bathroom, and him in the bedroom, then getting up, getting the wifi password from a woman at the front desk, and then taking a phone call, then returning to his room to finish his conversation with his wife. This is a suspense thriller, and I can decide if this will look really cool and build suspense throughout the film, or if this will just look stupid and put people to sleep."

That's a screenwriting question more than a question about camera movement. The question is really: where's the danger? What's the source of this suspense? Is a killer looking for him in the hallway, so that each step forward takes him closer toward an assassin? Or is it a long boring walking scene for the sake of a long boring walking scene? There's the heart of the issue. Why is this walking being shown to the audience at all?

 

[Bruce Allen]

" If I were to do a, say, 10 minute continuous shot, of a husband and wife talking in a hotel room, with her in the bathroom, and him in the bedroom, then getting up, getting the wifi password from a woman at the front desk, and then taking a phone call, then returning to his room to finish his conversation with his wife. This is a suspense thriller, and I can decide if this will look really cool and build suspense throughout the film, or if this will just look stupid and put people to sleep."

That's a screenwriting question more than a question about camera movement. The question is really: where's the danger? What's the source of this suspense? Is a killer looking for him in the hallway, so that each step forward takes him closer toward an assassin? Or is it a long boring walking scene for the sake of a long boring walking scene? There's the heart of the issue. Why is this walking being shown to the audience at all?

Yes, that was kinda my reaction too.

I'm assuming the Luke meant like 1 minute shot instead of 10 minute shot for the action described.

A 10 minute continuous shot would have to be a masterpiece of staging and drama to hold audience attention.

Lots of guys have done good jobs with that - most recently I'd think of Alfonso Cuaron in Children of Men - but you just need to have a hell of a lot happening.

Also, getting everything to happen perfectly for minutes at a time is really really really hard. Be prepared to do it over and over again, many times. Then the actors get tired. Steadicam guy gets tired. Etc. I remember Mike Figgis talking about doing Timecode and it sounded extremely difficult to do.

You have to weigh the technical joy of doing it against the possibility that you will sacrifice imperfect camera and acting at times unless you have class-A talent in all departments, the ability to do many takes, plus some luck.

But doing shorter stuff like compress 5 shots into a single long well-staged shot that works dramatically... sure! That's a more easy win.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Marc Wielage]

The biggest reason against doing a 10-minute continuous Steadicam tracking shot is that there's no coverage and you can't cut it. You'll also find you may have to do 20, 30, 40 takes or more, because the actors will tend to screw up, or the operator will miss a focus pull, or a jet flies overhead, or some other technical issue will happen.

To me, traditional coverage is a lot faster and more practical, except in very, very special cases where the shot length and style dovetail perfectly with the script. And I don't think that happens very often. The danger is that it becomes a "hey! Look at me!" kind of shot that calls too much attention to itself, rather than telling the story simply and directly.