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

Ryan Sims said:
A one take film is not a film.
It's just a play, shot on location, rather than performed on a stage.
Click to expand...

Ryan, although I tend to agree with David regarding manipulation of time and angle, who is to say what a film is or isn't?

With proper planning and staging, even a one-take film can take advantage of manipulations of time and angle. In-scene mirrors combined with side-by-side "change-in-time" sets along with smartly choreographed costume and make-up changes can accomplish in real-time what might only seem possible on the cutting floor or in FCP as it were.

-michael zaletel
(shooter)
 
I always thought it would be fun to do a radioplay set in a pitch black environment with a few moments where you actually see the actors. :D

I would still call it a film.

What's to say a play isn't just a movie you only see from one angle?
 
Im not against the idea of a one take movie at all but as others have said better than I can, the film requires more than a gimmick. It should be a single take in service of the story.

I found Russian Ark to be incredibly boring, not my cup of tea at all. Though it's the first DVD I bought only for the special features which are much better than the film itself :)

Having said all of this, I love the extended take approach of Children of Men for its bravado and showmanship.

The car/ambush/police battle was like a classic magic trick. Each beat of the set piece upping the ante going from "nothing up my sleeve" to the full on prestige.

I know they cheated and stictched together many elemtents for it but upon first viewing I was dumbstruck, constantly guessing at how they achieved the one take and laughing when the action/interactivity in the scene escalated.

Sorry, went a bit OT there. Short version: if you make your film in one take either the story should call for it or make it a visual spectacular.
 
What Hitchcock discovered was that the long take was not a time saver as he had hoped, and that cinema is ABOUT the cut: why are you cutting here instead of there, what are you cutting to, what rhythym is developed or diminished - this gives the art form it's meaning and power.
 
Douglas Underdahl said:
What Hitchcock discovered was that the long take was not a time saver as he had hoped, and that cinema is ABOUT the cut: why are you cutting here instead of there, what are you cutting to, what rhythym is developed or diminished - this gives the art form it's meaning and power.
Click to expand...

Well, the long take is certainly not a time saver, unless you're only talking about cutting the picture. Everything else will be much more of a nightmare. You'll need a hell of a crew to pull this off, especially if you're planning on shooting in Manhattan. Which would also be a logistical nightmare, particularly if you need to lock down whole city blocks.

The cut is obviously of extreme importance to cinema, but I'd argue that the cinema is about (if anything) rhythm more than the cut, and while cutting is the primary, and perhaps most effective way of creating a rhythm, there are ways of effectively modulating cinematic rhythm using long takes that don't rely much on editing. It's oftentimes much more subtle, and occasionally extremely effective, but it's extremely difficult to do well.

Commercially, however, it's most likely going to be a hard sell. And unless you plan to try and one-up Sokurov's ending of Russian Ark, with a cast of thousands ballroom dancing, you're not going to be able to sell the novelty aspect. Which is not to say that what you're planning isn't worth doing, but you need to have both eyes open going into this (not to mention the eyes of many good crew members, cast, producers, etc).
 
Have you seen Slacker? Not shot as one take, but a similar premise, where the camera moves from one subject to another in a linear fashion, delving into vignettes. My favorite Linklater film.
 
You want to shoot this on Manhattan streets in one take?? Not gonna happen, no matter how much technology you throw at it. No way.
 
Johnny O'Reilly said:
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???
Click to expand...
If I were shooting for 90 minutes straight running around Manhattan with the camera handheld, I wouldn't use the RED-DRIVE. I'd pony up for the RED-RAM. Solid state, no moving parts, rock solid.

Best of luck!
 
Dexter Gregoire said:
How about giving the audience the impression the movie was done in one take.

Like this commercial was.

http://video.google.ca/videosearch?hl=en&q=cibc commercial&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#
Click to expand...

I like that effect. This is similar to what I was talking about earlier in terms of how it would be possible to have apparent changes in location and time (cuts) without actually cutting. If camera is on Stedicam and if you plan out the transitions in your script (people moving in front of camera or perhaps black walls between scenes), you could cut your movie in advance while writing the script and get all the benefits of time/space manipulation combined with the cost savings inherent with shooting rehearsed stage acting. Would take extra crew to move things, help with costume and make up changes and set up the contiguous sets but at least you could shoot it in a day or two (maybe 3-5 continuous takes) and if you had to, you could cut between continuous takes at the black wall transitions.

-michael zaletel
(shooter)
 
If it's truly an experimental effort I'd suggest doing it with a Panasonic HVX or HPX camera. They now have 'budget' memory cards, 64GB for $1K, which should be available in NYC for rent soon enough. At 1GB/m a pair of those cards would more than do it.

The other thing you'd need would be a Dolgen power adapter and a big LiPo battery. The size of the battery would depend on what monitoring solution you use, but sticking with the onboard LCD should make it possible. A couple of big 11.1V LiPo batteries (available from your local hobby shop) wired in parallel mounted to a belt should do it without weighing down the camera op too much.

If you really want the cinema look you could put an 35mm adapter on it, which has it's pros and cons. Biggest con is that all focusing is manual; major pro is that the camera's auto iris function wouldn't change your dept of focus, only the amount of light hitting the sensor. This won't print to film well (I've done samples and they never satisfied me), but if your intention is to go to DVD or even Blu-Ray then it's more than good enough.

Don't get me wrong, I love my Red, and the Panasonics are not even in the same league, but I am a firm believer in the right tool for the right task, and a lightweight power effecient rig sounds like the right approach.

Bob
 
I think if it's going to be done at all (flying in the face of all the sound advice that's been offered up) it would be best to have as high a quality and as much texture as possible. And the Red can be rigged pretty easily to do it.

But if there really is some reason for the one take (I agree it's a very weak gimmick on the marketing front) then I don't think you can get 90 minutes on the Red ram drive. But small point.

And yeah, for all it's spectacle and tour-de-force, Russian Ark sank for me -- for all the reasons ennumerated. And I tend to be a tolerant viewer.

Faulker wrote a SHORT STORY in a single sentence -- and despite his genius, that didn't really work very well either. He was smart enough not to try it with a full length novel -- or repeat the experiment.

Maybe time to rethink... why one shot and not thirteen or fifty or three hundred?
 
I always discourage people from making claims of being the "first" there is always someone out there that has done it before and will pop up after you have made the claim, best not to boast about such things, especially before the film is made....

Oh by the way PVC-1 was made in one continous 84minute take and was an official selection at the 2007 Cannes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top