• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

A continuous shot.

I just saw Spectre, and, while the plot is OK and obvious, I was fascinated by the opening shot.

I now know of coverage, thanks to the members of this forum, but I noticed that the opening scene seemed to be one continuous shot.

It seemed as if the cameraman followed Bond through the elevator, out the window, and so on.

The continuous shot seemed to be a bit tiring for me, as a viewer, and I was expecting a break after a few seconds. Can anyone tell me about the merits of one long shot versus the standard of several quick shots?
 
I don't know how to do that quote thing, but your last sentence, Sweetie, was well said.

I'm mostly posting this hoping someone will tell me how to do the quote thing.

On your lower right-hand side is a button called, "quote". Click on that, and it will allow you to quote our passages. Play around with that, and, if you make an error, you can change it by clicking on the "edit" button, also on your lower right.
 
Because you're telling a story in a visual medium. The choice of shot is the same as the choice of words for writers.
Well said.

There are many ways to tell a story. Using the medium of film is one
of them. What sets the medium of film apart from the novel? Or the
stage? It's the choice of shots. How one uses the medium of film
is different from filmmaker to filmmaker, is it not?

BTW: you quote someone by clicking on the little "QUOTE" button at
the bottom of each post.
 
One big risk is in post production it limits your options. Think of it like this. You've shot only your master shot. What happens if you're not happy with the result. You cannot cut to another piece of coverage. Reshoots become the only option, which costs the aspiring producer money.

OK. I will have to do both and see the difference. As you (and the others) have said, I have to learn by doing, eventually.


Yes and no. You don't, though you need to be able to trust your subordinates that they know enough to ensure they don't piss away your money. It'll depend on how much you want to get involved with the process vs how much you're happy with being the big cheque book. If you don't know option A will give you a cheaper and better outcome than option B, how are you going to know which is the best option to choose?

Good point. And I have noticed this as a litigator. I cannot do the transactional work in a lot of areas, because I don't have the depth of knowledge, but I can do the litigation if I have some basic understanding of the law and the subject area.



If this was true, you'd do away with sound, music, visuals, editing along with the camera.... well pretty much everything. you'd just sit down with the script and read it to the audience, no? Everything is important. Film has been refined over decades. If something wasn't important, don't you think they'd have removed it from the process already?

You're right, Sweetie.


There are many ways to tell a story. Using the medium of film is one
of them. What sets the medium of film apart from the novel? Or the
stage? It's the choice of shots. How one uses the medium of film
is different from filmmaker to filmmaker, is it not?

Also agreed, for the same reason.
 
But I'm wondering, as an aspiring mogul, my focus is the story, not the cinematography. To me, the film is the medium by which the story is told. So why would I care if it's a long shot or several short ones?

So which is it, the story or the storytelling? Do you want to be a film investor or a filmmaker? If you want to be a major shareholder in say the Ford motor company, you don't need to know much about the details of how an engine works. If you actually want to design and make cars though, then even if you're employing a specialist engine designer, you've still got to be pretty much an expert on engines, so you can integrate that engine with the rest of the car you're designing.

Actually making a film, as opposed to writing a script, is ALL about the delivery of the story, the storytelling, and the length of shot is a fundamental story telling tool in film. As a film investor you wouldn't care whether it's one long shot rather than several shorter ones, as a filmmaker though, you've got to plan and execute (or supervise the execution of) the filmmaking process. And, you've got to decide before you execute the plan, if one long shot is even the most effective way to tell the story in the first place. What are the storytelling implications of a long shot, regardless of how you shoot it?

I am, at heart, a story teller.

Well, that answers my question above. Which leads on to the next obvious question: If you want to be a story teller (using the medium of film) don't you think you therefore need to learn how to tell stories with film?

It's also worth repeating/expanding on what Sweetie said: Don't fall into the same trap as many/most new filmmakers! When you shoot a film, you are not "making the film", you are just making the raw ingredients for the film - a film is made in post-production. Failure to fully understand this vital fact (and all it's related implications) will ultimately doom your aspiration! There's no easy way to demonstrate/prove this fact, you're going to need to find it out for yourself. Which is the main reason you need to get out there and actually start trying to make some shorts!

G
 
I have to learn by doing, eventually.

It's true. I'm sure it's the same with law. It's all fine and good to study, but you need to practice to start to get the feel for it.

There's no easy way to demonstrate/prove this fact, you're going to need to find it out for yourself. Which is the main reason you need to get out there and actually start trying to make some shorts!

To put it in lawyer terms. You don't want to take on big tobacco on your first case. Take on that drunk and disorderly/shoplifting (or whatever you do with neophyte lawyers) first.

The filming version is, you have to do a few shorts first. Build up your confidence, experience, knowledge, contacts and instincts. This is doubly important for you since you haven't done film school. You need to pay your dues, even as a aspiring mogul. I've seen many moguls blow their entire load (all their money) on their first project, costing more and succeeding less than they thought they would, never to pick it up again. In other words, they took on big tobacco as their first case and gave up when they "surprisingly" lost.

When you shoot a film, you are not "making the film", you are just making the raw ingredients for the film

That's a great analogy. Someone should turn that into a meme.
 
The largest issue I see with longer shots is you have troubles controlling the pace/timing in post. You're stuck with what you have. If you made an error in production, there aren't a lot of options available to you to deal with it in post production.

THIS! I feel pacing in long two shots is one of the more common mistakes inexperienced directors make. You simply cannot make the dialogue snappier or have the actors pick up their cues in post production.

Long, dialogue heavy scenes can be made interesting with long two shots though. They require planning and aesthetics.
I always point to this important scene from Woody Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors. It is all dialogue for over 4 minutes!
It is only two shots. But it is never boring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZQ5qKpUk08

Notice, the first shot is visually interesting. The long walk from the house,to the pool house, by the empty pool and the leafless trees - the grey atmosphere.

The second shot is made interesting by the blocking. Jerry Orbach stays very still, while Martin Landau, being racked with anxiety about his moral decay, is pacing about.

Another of my favorites is this scene from Fargo. The one long two shot picks up after the officer gets out of the car. What is interesting about this one is that for 98% of the scene we never see the face of one of the characters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrM2gmx0tNM

I think I read that the Coen Brothers were intending to shoot coverage here, but didn't feel the need to after seeing how it played out.
 
One more thing to add: I'm a fan of when the audience isn't aware that a long shot is beingused, as well. The use in Spectre was flashy and overt (and there's not necessarily anything wrong with that), but I'd check out that famous shot from Indiana Jones for an example.
 
1. I feel pacing in long two shots is one of the more common mistakes inexperienced directors make. 2. You simply cannot make the dialogue snappier or have the actors pick up their cues in post production.

1. Agreed. Although I'd go a step further and say; not just the long two shots!

2. This is not true or rather, should not be true! There's actually a lot which can be done in post, providing the film has been designed in such a way as to allow for it. In the Crimes ans Misdemeanour's clip, Foley has been carefully and cleverly used to increase/maintain the pace of the scene and accentuate certain lines of dialogue, by using the contrast of not having much Foley in those places. This is only possible because the scene was specifically designed this way; there's not only a lot of movement but it's all been carefully choreographed, the movements and actions of the actors carefully timed. Inside the house, notice how the actors' movements generally increase between the lines and there's less or no movement on the important lines. This is an experienced pro director (and actors) demonstrating the holistic craft of planning, shooting and making commercial films and contrasts dramatically with inexperienced/amateur directors who would generally not even think about sound design until it's too late to do anything about it! Most amateur directors would have the actors sit down upon entering the house and hardly move or not move at all for the rest of the scene, because it's far quicker and easier to plan, shoot and post produce. However, this eliminates almost all the possibilities of manipulating the pace, emphasising parts of the dialogue in audio-post and therefore of actually making an interesting/involving film!

The sound quality of both clips is very poor and the Fargo clip is so bad I can't hear what's been done, except that it's at least been book ended.

Because you're telling a story in a visual medium.

Not for well over a hundred years. Film today is an audio/visual medium ... and that doesn't mean it's a visual medium with some sound added afterwards, it's a truly holistic AV medium ... or at least it is for modern successful directors/producers!

Analysing films as a visual medium misses an entire world of detail, a world that's been planned and then crafted by the filmmakers and which makes all the difference to modern paying consumers. As the old (pro) film adage goes; "The devil is in the detail"! I know it's exceedingly difficult for amateur filmmakers to even complete a basic film, without all this "detail" and with extremely limited resources but according to the OP's username, he isn't asking about how to make a film to garner a few thousand YouTube views or screenings at a bunch of low or mid tier film fests.

G
 
Thanks for the added info on the audio AudioPostExpert.

Sorry about the quality of the audio, just found those clips on YouTube. I went back and watched, and I can see what you mean with foley.

Also, I noticed the way the opening clip of the long walk is very carefully worked from audio perspective. I'm curious, could you speak to how you would handle a shot like that with important dialogue, starting with the actors far away, but slowly approaching us?
 
I went back and watched, and I can see what you mean with foley.

Yep, without the Foley (and the way it's been mixed), the interior scene would feel slower and far less dramatic. What would have happened in practice is that the Foley team would have created/recorded sounds for every movement; all the footsteps, clothes rustles/swishes, cupboard door, glasses, bottle movements, etc. In the pre-mix phase, the Re-Recording Mixer would balance/mix some or all of this Foley with the other sound FX and of course the dialogue. In the final-mix phase, the director and producer would fine tune this mix, maybe requiring more (or less) Foley and/or a different balance in various places to accentuate the pace and the word/s they feel need it. Going back to what I said before, none of this is going to be possible if there's no movement and therefore no Foley.

I noticed the way the opening clip of the long walk is very carefully worked from audio perspective.

To be honest, in commercial films, virtually every frame of the film is "very carefully worked from an audio perspective" ... the devil is in the detail!

I'm curious, could you speak to how you would handle a shot like that with important dialogue, starting with the actors far away, but slowly approaching us?

Good question, for which there's no absolute answer, no answer which would always be the right way to do it. Almost everything we do with sound is relative ... relative to the other sound in the mix at that particular moment and crucially, relative to what has and what will happen. For example, if the end of the previous scene/shot had a lot of sound, then cutting to a scene/shot which is quiet (just dialogue, some quiet footsteps and distant atmos) creates a contrast and therefore dramatic impact, this is what's been done in your clip of Fargo, btw. If on the other hand the previous scene/shot is quiet, then efforts would be made to make it quieter still and a contrast setup the other way around; maybe a significantly louder atmos and soft FX (birds, etc.) on the cut to the actors far away (where your clip starts).

I would dispute that the dialogue is important when the actors are far away. OK, I understand that the dialogue is important at the beginning of the clip but the most important line is: "Want me to have someone talk to her?". Until that line, it's just a common, everyday scene of a guy complaining to his friend about his estranged wife. That line implies a deadly serious (not off the cuff) threat of violence and completely changes the scene (and film) from the relatively ordinary/common into something entirely different. This line of dialogue doesn't occur far away, in fact quite the opposite, it occurs when the actors are at the closest point to the camera (the audience's POV)! When the scene starts, the dialogue is a little distant but nowhere near as distant as actual reality would dictate because in reality we would hardly hear it at that distance (from the camera). It gets imperceptibly less distant as the actors approach the camera, with our most important line being the most present of all. Subsequent lines are fractionally less present but as they're still very important to the story, we're not given a more realistic impression of the actors' increasing distance (from the audience's POV/camera) until the unimportant repeat of the line "Jack, I don't know". This has all been very carefully planned and executed: That line was designed/timed to occur at that location (relative to the camera) and the dialogue recordings manipulated (mixed/processed) to build up to and emphasise that line. This build up (and build-down) creates shape, pace, dramatic impact and therefore, audience interest/involvement AND is an absolutely fundamental requirement of modern (commercial) filmmaking. Low budget/amateur filmmakers do not generally have the interest, experience or resources to go into this meticulous level of vision, planning and execution and therefore their films have very limited (or no) shape, which general audiences find un-involving/boring. It's really not about the story, it's about how you tell it!!

If you're interested in this (fundamental) aspect of filmmaking, you might like to have a read of "The Principles of Sound Design" thread. Starting at post #11 is an example and breakdown of how the audience was manipulated and shape (dramatic impact, etc.) was created.

G
 
Here's two good examples.

The examples are excellent, the analysis not so much. For example:
It’s a masterclass in camera movement, framing, staging, lighting, set design, wardrobe and ultimately…storytelling through visuals.

No, it really isn't. It's a masterclass in filmmaking NOT a masterclass in storytelling through visuals!! Analysing Spielberg and these shots in terms of purely visual storytelling is missing half of what makes Spielberg such a great director and more importantly, misses half of what makes any commercial narrative film director even competent!

G
 
The examples are excellent, the analysis not so much. For example:

No, it really isn't. It's a masterclass in filmmaking NOT a masterclass in storytelling through visuals!! Analysing Spielberg and these shots in terms of purely visual storytelling is missing half of what makes Spielberg such a great director and more importantly, misses half of what makes any commercial narrative film director even competent!

G

Yeah, the blog wan't much cop, but it was the videos I was after.
 
No, it really isn't. It's a masterclass in filmmaking NOT a masterclass in storytelling through visuals!! Analysing Spielberg and these shots in terms of purely visual storytelling is missing half of what makes Spielberg such a great director and more importantly, misses half of what makes any commercial narrative film director even competent!

What's the other half? :)
 
Yes, I see what you all mean. I like Space: 1999 because of its imagery, and I understand from the Wikipaedia entry that it was an expensive production for its time. Here's a scene from the episode, "War Games", and it had shots at time 1:00-1:03 which showed the pilots running to their ships, and, a second later, a scene of the Eagle being raised on a launchpad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duCnjgADbVY

And here's another one, with the entire crew of the moonbase on red alert, from time 1:51-2.34.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tfU7CLmFh0

Last, but certainly not least, a longer shot did show the scale of an engineering room.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr3jIRbbr5I


Thanks, APE, Rik, Sweetie, and everyone else. :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top