Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Make a feature film in one shot

J

Johnny O'Reilly

New member
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hi there, I'm an Irish filmmaker currently developing my third feature film, which I intend shooting in one shot. Yes, that's right...a 90min take. It's almost been done before, but never fully, without a break. It's a Manhattan-based melodrama about 2 guys chatting up a girl on the street – the 3 of them walk around all day, fall in love, fight and then part ways after the girl makes a shocking, unexpected revelation. All takes place in realtime.

Does anyone know if RED'S external hard-drive could withstand being knocked about for 90 mins while the DOP rushes around Manhattan trailing a group of actors? Would the combined weight of camera, lens, battery pack etc. be too heavy for a strong DOP? Do RED have a lightweight camera which could do the job well???

Sorry this thread's so long, but I'm a director with no experience working with the RED camera and would be grateful for any advice. Thanks in advance,

Johnny
 
You're not the first. Russian Ark.
 
Russian Ark is quite a workout. Slating it would be a snap though. :rofl:
 
Johnny O'Reilly said:
Hi there, I'm an Irish filmmaker currently developing my third feature film, which I intend shooting in one shot. Yes, that's right...a 90min take. It's almost been done before, but never fully, without a break. It's a Manhattan-based melodrama about 2 guys chatting up a girl on the street – the 3 of them walk around all day, fall in love, fight and then part ways after the girl makes a shocking, unexpected revelation. All takes place in realtime.

Does anyone know if RED'S external hard-drive could withstand being knocked about for 90 mins while the DOP rushes around Manhattan trailing a group of actors? Would the combined weight of camera, lens, battery pack etc. be too heavy for a strong DOP? Do RED have a lightweight camera which could do the job well???

Sorry this thread's so long, but I'm a director with no experience working with the RED camera and would be grateful for any advice. Thanks in advance,

Johnny
Click to expand...

long drive cable, battery belt clip, two hours....i wouldnt shoot in the hottest summer time but rent one and try for one day
 
Cüneyt Kaya said:
russian ark were 2 or 3 shots asfaik, hitchcock had a "one take" movie too
Click to expand...

Nope, one shot, unless somebody was lying. And there were no apparent cuts, or opportunities to conceal cuts.

Hitchcock shot complete 1000 ft. film loads on two features (Rope; Under Capricorn), but had to splice them together, using concealed transitions where the screen is momentarily blacked out by an object. This was the film era.
 
Hi Johnny, not that it matters -- but it actually has been done before, ie a single take feature film-- Russian Ark -- most recently, and there are probably others that have been forgotten or never saw the light of day.

Yes, the Red can shoot 90 minutes plus continuous at 4K -- assuming there's not too much "knocking" -- and of course the drive can be shock-mounted and protected. I don't know if you're going hand-held or steadycam type rig and/or dolly, but naturally its good to mitigate violent camera actions.

Take a look at Russian Ark -- how much easier it would've been to do on the Red. The operator was amazing really-- and coreography and the coordination and the chain of sets are all spectacular. But despite this, you will also see, I think, the weaknesses of this kind of approach.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the film benefited because it was in one take except possibly in the promotional department. That was hyped effectively. But one take didn't make the film more watchable or dramatic or meaningful except as a tour de force.

All I can say is you will need a helluva script and a genius magical cast to sustain a single shot for 90 minutes without the cinematic punctuation of editing/shot selection and perspective and time compression, extension. You will also need a genius operator.

I would suggest the limited vocabulary of a tour-de-force single shot may be interesting to the filmmaker, but doesn't mean much if anything to normal audiences. And it puts a huge strain on your performers. Long takes can be an advantage, true, but it's hard to keep up energy, blocking, character for even five or ten minutes.

But good luck. Red will do the job.
 
I don't think Russian Ark counts as a feature film. It's more of an experimental educational piece. The only other one I know of is Rope, which of course is like 10 takes since they had to reload film.

In my opinion the 1 take feature film has yet to be done (although I feel that won't last long) :)
 
Hi rod, Thanks very much for you advice. I know Russian Ark very well and I know the guys who made it. Apparently, they didn't actually manage to do it all in one shot (tightly-held secret) but I take your point about it only really adding to the film in terms of promotion. I think the actors can handle it - my main concern would be coordinating the crew, extras and making sure the operator's equipment would be OK. My film could be shot in about 5 or 10 long takes. But for promotional purposes it might just be worth pushing the logistics, planning etc. to see if we can get it in one shot.....I'm worried that with all the weight the operator has to carry around - camera, some kind of steadicam, or hand-held unit, battery, hard-drive etc. he might not be able to move the camera much or very quickly...any advice on this?? The film is a remake of the Russian film PROGULKA, which was shot in about 8 takes. But they used basic DV cameras...
 
jpp said:
Nope, one shot, unless somebody was lying. And there were no apparent cuts, or opportunities to conceal cuts.

Hitchcock shot complete 1000 ft. film loads on two features (Rope; Under Capricorn), but had to splice them together, using concealed transitions where the screen is momentarily blacked out by an object. This was the film era.
Click to expand...


"Russian Ark" took three takes, the first two were incomplete, so what you see in the movie is Take Three I believe, not a combination of three takes.

"Rope" only hid the cuts when there was a camera mag change every 10 minutes, but the projector reel changes every 20 minutes allowed Hitchcock to cut to a new angle.
 
I should remind everyone that Hitchcock abandoned the technique after "Under Capricorn" because he realized that editing and manipulation of time and angle, was one of the key arts of cinema.

Don't let the tail wag the dog and make a movie about a gimmick like shooting it all in one shot, not if an edited movie may end up being more involving for the audience.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Don't let the tail wag the dog and make a movie about a gimmick like shooting it all in one shot, not if an edited movie may end up being more involving for the audience.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said better myself (of course).

But if the film conception is part of the marketing strategy what can we do?

:)
 
Impagliazzo said:
But if the film conception is part of the marketing strategy what can we do?:)
Click to expand...

Impossible to know what resources Johnny O'Reilly will bring to this project, but it's very hard to believe that a one cut movie will enjoy much notoriety these days, in an age of loosely constructed camcorder movies, where there's already loads of dead cinematic time.

And David: yes, I realize Russian Ark took 3 takes. OTOH, folks here are claiming they somehow cheated, and that the final take isn't actually unbroken(?)

You caught me on Rope, however; I forgot about the angle changes corresponding with projector reel changes. Mea culpa!
 
a film taken in one shot maybe like a cool idea, but there's an arab saying that goes; it's a weapon with two faces, it could save you, though it could harm you as well.

not everyone is keen on watching an indy movie with a single take.. a lot of people might go like.. oh man.. i bet it sucks ass cause the actors just go quiet and silent and lose their mojo every now and then, oh did you see how the fight seen was about to happen; there were these guys who were actually standing there and waiting for the camera crew to come over... oh did you see that shot, where the protagonist was kissing the girl right in central park and those guys in the background gave a finger... i bet the dp didnt notice those tiny middle fingers through his viewfinder.. but sheesh.. they look so clear on that 100foot screen, meh. i bet he knew and didnt give a shit. meh.. yeah i think the director knew too and he didnt give a shit either... i bet that was like the millionth take and he was like.. meh.

just 1 article saying "actors lose mojo" and ure so called fancy idea of dumping a really nice story for a marketing strategy goes tumbling down the drain.

dudes. if you want to be storytellers, be freggin storytellers not some marketing douschebags with ties around your neck. story comes first. that is where your passion is.

shit covered with aluminum foil... is still shit.

worry about thy shit.

no offense guys. but seriously.. what serves the story comes first.
 
I find it difficult to stomach films shot in "real time" let alone a single shot... A few years ago Gabriel Garcia Marquez's son (forget his name) shot nine lives. 9 short films shot in single takes centered on the lives of nine women. This film had the best of the best regarding talent...and still meh was all I could muster.

It's kinda like sushi...not bad but fry that sucka up and it would be a whole lot better.
 
Rope was great but it would have been great if it was edited. Don't think you'll get an extra brownie points for doing a one take movie unless there's truly a critical story reason as to why it only could have been done in one take.

Children of Men had all those really long takes. Outside of filmmakers being wowed I'm not sure they helped the story very much. Audiences are used to editing. You're better off getting perfect performances.

As to shooting for an hour and a half straight... yeah, someone could do that but now you've added the likelihood of camerawork problems to the mix of mediocre performance moments, bad sound moments etc.

I just think you're asking for trouble with not much upside benefit. But I like the spirit!
 
Personal peeves: Russian Ark literally put me to sleep. So, I don't know how it ends (ufos?). Don't let your film do likewise.

I thought Timecode was pretty inventive, with 4 different choices the whole time for where to look. The only part I remember now was Julian Sands in the movie office. So I guess not too consequential.

Is this more about gimmick than story?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top