The Good, the Bad, and the Long Take

Long takes (or oners, or long shots, or whatever you feel like calling them) have been talked about endlessly among film buffs, film students, and really anybody that gives a shit about the aesthetics of film. If you know what a long take is, chances are you've got a favorite, whether it's Goodfellas or Gravity or Children of Men or Birdman or Episode 4 of the first (and only, as far as I'm concerned) season of True Detective. I'm pretty positive I even wrote a blog post last year around the time Birdman came out, fanboying over how sexy and cool the long take is, as a shot. By this point, just pointing them out is nothing new, though. They're there, they're good, and I won't talk about them any more.

While these shots should be praised for their creativity, determination, and, sure, length, I've recently gotten more interested in when it's acceptable to use one, and for what purpose. You might have seen this video about how Spielberg uses long takes in a far more subtle way than most directors; it's part of the really great Youtube channel "Every frame a painting," and it really dissects ways you can use a long shot to your advantage without calling attention to it. In particular, I think it's fascinating how you can essentially take a long shot and break it down into three or four basic shots: the Raiders of the Lost Ark scene stands out to me the most in that regard, with a wide, mid, close, and insert shot all being incorporated into a single take. It moves the scene along, keeps things interesting, and like the guy said, almost definitely saved time on set. 

What's the point of this though? Why not just do a scene four times and cover all your bases? This is just me conjecturing here, but I think every shot should elicit some kind of emotion from your audience. Don't just go about shooting everything willy-nilly: have a purpose. If a character feels isolated and alone, back that camera way up and make her look small. If someone is claustrophobic, slap that macro lens on and get in real tight. Make a powerful character more prominent in a shot than a weaker character, and switch this if their roles are reversed. All of these will, even if only subconsciously, help an audience to better understand whatever emotion you're trying to play up. 

So what emotion does a long take elicit? In short, all of these things, all at once. I know I said I wouldn't bring up Birdman again, but I lied, so deal with it. Birdman is filmed to make it appear as if the entire movie was all done in one take, using really clever transitions to cover up the cuts. It's about theatre and theatre actors, and throughout the film, you can't help but feel like you're watching a stage production instead of movie, mostly due to fluidity and lack of cuts. One of the intentions of this is to (probably) just let the actors take over and control the screen. This works, but only to a certain extent: the lack of cuts can sometimes be distracting, e.g. "oh, did they cut there? I think they cut there. But wait ok maybe not." 

This guy.

This brings us back to the subtlety of the Spielberg long take: it's long enough to let the actors act uninhibited from cuts and various camera angles, while still being short enough to not draw attention to itself. The "Every frame a painting" guy calls it "robust," and I think that's the perfect word for it. It's simple, gets a strong point across, and can free up time on set. Ideally, we'll find some way to incorporate it into our film this semester, and if we do it right, you might not even notice it.

Also, here's another great article about the evolution of long takes, both subtle and not-so subtle. Looking at you, Lubezki. 

Still Life

I recently watched part of the film Still Life again. It is a recent Sixth Generation Chinese, multiple award winning film directed by Jia Zhangke. The film follows a story using parallel plotting. The first plot concerns a man Han Sanming and the second concerning a woman Shen Hong. The film is driven mainly by cinematographic images rather than the dialogue and narrative. The dialogue and narrative is present but they are not as predominant as the images and cinematography. It involves making choices between types of shot, types, of lenses, camera movement, along with more technical aspects. The cinematographic characteristics in Still Life support the overall themes. It takes all of the other elements of film and ties them together with the art of camera movement, composition, and framing.

The cinematography draws attention to the magnificence of both the natural landscapes and the deteriorating urban scenery. It also compliments the film’s themes urban displacement and change. Since there wasn’t a lot of dialogue I enjoyed analyzing how the movie told the story through all of the other elements. I think each individual element within the cinematography, such as mobile framing, symmetric composition, depth of field, and the immense amount of camera movement, lead the themes and narrative to success.

Another Les Mis Post

Yes, I know we just had a Les Mis post.  And I just want to say that I agree with everything that was said.  I loved the film, it was a great adaptation of the musical, and the acting and singing was incredible.  In fact, I can almost say that Les Mis was my favorite movie of the year (there were so many good ones!).  That said, I liked it so much that I can afford to be nit-picky.  There were a few technical aspects that I thought suffered because of the uniqueness of the film.

Despite the great performance, the framing and eyeline do not match

In a way, this goes back to a lot of the discussion we had in class regarding acting for film and acting for theatre.  Much of the film was shot in such a way to let the actors act as they saw fit.  Because the musical performances set the pacing of the film, the cinematography suffered because the pacing was not as tight as it would be under normal conditions.  For instance, there were framing issues throughout, as the steadicam operators struggled to keep up with the actors moving around so freely.  There were also some weird eyeline issues.  It is obvious that from a directorial standpoint, the performance was placed above the cinematography in terms of choosing which take to put in the final cut.  That said, I am glad they made that choice because it led to the great performances that we saw.

Like I said, this was a great movie that I enjoyed very much, and it was innovative in a lot of respects.  But because of these innovations, it led to some neglect of the traditional approach.

Also, in no way do I mean to knock the steadicam operators.  They did some awesome work as seen in the behind the scenes video below.