Anyone see Silent House? I'm sure many of you have heard it was filmed all in one continuous take, blew my mind honestly. I can't imagine how difficult that whole process must have been. I enjoyed it, didn't like the ending but I appreciated the hard work that was put into it. I'd like to know how everyone remembered their lines and stayed in character for the entire thing.
One continuous take
- Thread starter DRthunderMD
- Start date
I read that a movie last year called Victims was shot all in one take too. I wanted to see it but missed it cause they only showed it once at the local festival unfortunately. How do they do that? I mean what data card holds 90-120 minutes of video?
Ehh... I have a feeling it's not a "genuine continuous take". I bet you it was really about ten or more shots strung together sneakily/digitally.
According to IMDb, the movie was shot in 10 minutes segments and edited to appear as if it is one continuous shot. But still, pretty cool concept...
Well, the same way actors on stage remember their lines and stay in character for the entire thing. Done it many times myself. It's called acting.
It's not true...
Think of it this way... if it were shot all in 1 continuous take.. the movie would have been filmed in its entirety in 80-85 minutes. (official run-time of 85 minutes, including credits).
HAHA.
Think of how much money the would have saved on cast, crew, food, insurance, rentals, etc.
Now.. THAT would have been spectacular.
Think of it this way... if it were shot all in 1 continuous take.. the movie would have been filmed in its entirety in 80-85 minutes. (official run-time of 85 minutes, including credits).
HAHA.
Think of how much money the would have saved on cast, crew, food, insurance, rentals, etc.
Now.. THAT would have been spectacular.
Well, the same way actors on stage remember their lines and stay in character for the entire thing. Done it many times myself. It's called acting.
^Oh snap!
But really, although the film is sorta impressive in that aspect, it's still an awful, poorly acted/written and cliched film.
Okay, I'm old. What does "Oh snap!" mean?
I was being quite serious, btw. I've performed Shakespeare. Try memorizing those lines and sustaining a performance for 3 hours.
The payoff was shit but I thought Elizabeth Olsen was actually believable in most parts.
Alfred Hitchcock did "Rope" in pretty much the same manner - single takes of ten (10) minutes which were the length of a film magazine at the time (actually, most takes were a lot less).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope_(film)
Scroll about halfway down and they have the "shot" list.
I saw it yesterday, hoping for filmmaker-porn (stuff that gets filmmakers off, but nobody else cares about).
I found the "single-take" conceit to be a hindrance, definitely not adding anything to the story.
Plus, the execution just wasn't all that impressive. Ten-minute takes aren't all that difficult, if you only have two actors, are confined to a small space, and don't care too much about lighting. Try something a little closer to "Children of Men", then you can start bragging.
And yes, they definitely shot this in a series of cleverly-edited shorter takes, made to look like one REALLY long one.
Lau and Kentis seem to have a knack for finding clever ways to make really low-budget movies that attract an audience. Can't say I'm a big fan of their films, though. What's their next gimmick?
I found the "single-take" conceit to be a hindrance, definitely not adding anything to the story.
Plus, the execution just wasn't all that impressive. Ten-minute takes aren't all that difficult, if you only have two actors, are confined to a small space, and don't care too much about lighting. Try something a little closer to "Children of Men", then you can start bragging.
And yes, they definitely shot this in a series of cleverly-edited shorter takes, made to look like one REALLY long one.
Lau and Kentis seem to have a knack for finding clever ways to make really low-budget movies that attract an audience. Can't say I'm a big fan of their films, though. What's their next gimmick?
while it was apparently stitched, for a "continuous take" - The Protector has one pretty amazing scene.
Even Rope, Hitchcock's viewer challenging movie about strangling and a trunk (1948) -- got old, very quick.
I want to see as much as possible on the screen. Pace me. Movies are like music. Give me that visual (and audio) rhythm. From CU to DS -- movies are about image (and audio).
LOL. Want to see a play -- go see a play! I like plays... too.
My two cents.
I like the ART of camera movement. Variety of angles. Great compositions. MOVEMENT (but extremely tired of the hand held POV).
I will see SILENT HOUSE. Will not comment plus or minus until I do. I HAVE studied ROPE. Not a good Hitchcock movie, just an interesting attempt at something different...
I want to see as much as possible on the screen. Pace me. Movies are like music. Give me that visual (and audio) rhythm. From CU to DS -- movies are about image (and audio).
LOL. Want to see a play -- go see a play! I like plays... too.
My two cents.
I like the ART of camera movement. Variety of angles. Great compositions. MOVEMENT (but extremely tired of the hand held POV).
I will see SILENT HOUSE. Will not comment plus or minus until I do. I HAVE studied ROPE. Not a good Hitchcock movie, just an interesting attempt at something different...