90mins one shot film

[Tom Jensen]

Hi Guys, thanks for your time and effort...

 

I will update each and every move......

 

Dev, I'm curious about the director. What else has he done?

[Brad Grimmett]

There is no Steadicam operator on earth that can last 90 minutes holding a shot in frame much less the rig.

As has been mentioned already, there are quite a few steadicam operators who have done this exact thing. Tillman Buttner was the first, but there have been many since.

Sometimes it's best not to reply to something if you don't know what you're talking about.

[Tom Jensen]

As has been mentioned already, there are quite a few steadicam operators who have done this exact thing. Tillman Buttner was the first, but there have been many since.

Sometimes it's best not to reply to something if you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Ok, so there's one. Unless you think you can do the job. Anyway, you're late to the party.

[Brad Grimmett]

I think the biggest technical issue will be power. Can the Red roll continuously for 90 minutes without a battery change when powered by it's own battery? Will it do it with two batts? I don't think there is a steadicam rig that will power the monitor, camera, and necessary accessories for that long. If I was called for the job I think power would be my first concern. Without addressing that problem there is no way to do the shot.

There are other issues as well of course. The first being, why? The one shot movie gimmick has been done, and it's not as though the films that did it were huge successes. Sure, they were technical successes, but not the best films. It's hard to make a five minute one'r interesting for the whole time, and the longer the shot gets the more difficult it becomes.

A good example of long steadicam takes (not the whole film) is Nine Lives. There are nine steadicam shots in the film which comprise the whole movie, each running about 10 minutes. That's tough to pull off, but it worked well because the shots have purpose and don't meander from place to place. I think this is a much easier, and frankly more interesting, way to shoot a film.

If I got a call to do a 90 minute one'r I think I would probably turn it down. It's too hard on your body and it's most likely not going to be a creative masterpiece, so the upside to a shot like that is limited. Of course, everyone has a price....but for a shot like that, the price would be very high!

[Tom Jensen]

Anyway Brad, you're missing the point. Dev will be hard pressed to find a Steadicam operator that can handle the shot. Personally, I don't know a Steadicam operator on earth that can handle that shot for 90 minutes.

 

Nope, I just read your last post and you do get the point.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Tom Jensen

[Brad Grimmett]

I'm sure he rested the sled on something quite a bit.

According to Tillman, he never rested the sled on anything for the whole shot. For about a 30 second portion of the film (when the kids run past him in the long hallway) he stood on a platform built on the front of a dolly and leaned on the seat.

But please inform us if you know something Tillman doesn't.

[Brad Grimmett]

Anyway Brad, you're missing the point. Dev will be hard pressed to find a Steadicam operator that can handle the shot. Personally, I don't know a Steadicam operator on earth that can handle that shot for 90 minutes.

 

Nope, I just read your last post and you do get the point.

You may not know any operators that can do that shot, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. They obviously do.

[Tom Jensen]

According to Tillman, he never rested the sled on anything for the whole shot. For about a 30 second portion of the film (when the kids run past him in the long hallway) he stood on a platform built on the front of a dolly and leaned on the seat.

But please inform us if you know something Tillman doesn't.

 

I don't want to get in a pissing match. You might. But like I said, if you think you can do it, have a ball. Tillman is the exception not the rule.

[Brad Grimmett]

Tillman is the exception not the rule.

Agreed.

There is no Steadicam operator on earth that can last 90 minutes holding a shot in frame much less the rig.

But I don't agree with this, which is why I replied.

[K Borowski]

The question is why? It's been done, and it's very limiting. The famous X files that was 1 steadicam shot act to act hid I think 2 cuts.

 

Nick are you talking about the spoof "X-Files" did of "Cops" where the former totally DESTROYED the latter?

 

Mulder: Turns around and launches into a monologue while facing the videographer.

 

Scully: "Mulder, who are you talking to?"

 

Lol.

[K Borowski]

Could shoot 2-perf and make it happen ;)

 

Gus, I know you were joking, but no, even with 2-perf. 35mm, a 3,000-foot mag is only 66 min., not including slates or some safety at the end.

 

You'd need over 4,000 feet of film (4,600 ft. + safety, that's 100 feet past 5/6 of a mile of 35mm) to shoot even with 2-perf. Tha would be an ENORMOUS mag. Camera operator would have to possess Herculean strength, or have one of those handy Star Trek anti-grav. units. :-D

 

God forbid there be a hair in the gate during that duration of time too. . .

 

OP to 2nd: "WHAT do I have to do again? Why don't YOU f8&%ing operate then, and I'll check the gate at the end of the 90minutes!"

Edited April 22, 2009 by Karl Borowski

[K Borowski]

Of course, neg. cutting and color grading are a synch! So the OP is literally and figuratively taking the "weight of the production" on his shoulders.

 

And yeah, unless it were Miss World's Strongest Woman, this is definitely a man's job, a big, body-building man's. There's no way in hell two of me could do this, let alone one of me.

[Brad Grimmett]

Nick are you talking about the spoof "X-Files" did of "Cops" where the former totally DESTROYED the latter?

 

Mulder: Turns around and launches into a monologue while facing the videographer.

 

Scully: "Mulder, who are you talking to?"

 

Lol.

I don't think that's what he's referring to. I think this is. And this.

I think the episode was called "Triangle".

[Tom Jensen]

But I don't agree with this, which is why I replied.

 

There is one guy that did it. It's just plain nuts. I'm just trying to point out to Dev that this is going to be more trouble than it's worth. I'm not saying, "I've seen every single movie there is, interviewed every single Steadicam operator, scoured the planet on my rocket fueled jet car and had 1000 MIT scientists working day and night and there isn't a single Steadicam operator that can do this shot." I'm just looking at the big picture, trying to make a point. Let's look at it this way. Dev lives in New Zealand. First he will look in New Zealand for a Steadicam Operator that can do this, then he will look in Australia. If he doesn't find one in either of these places, he'll have to bring in someone from another continent. I don't know his budget but like you said, he's going to have pay the guy. Now, just because Tillman did, I wonder if he would be willing to do it again? I see you're a Steadicam operator. You of all people obviously know how heavy and grueling Steadicam can be. I've assisted a lot of Steadicam. I've worked with some of the best in the business and I have them all strain at one point or another. This is with 400'-500' loads. I just can't see the average or the good Steadicam operator holding a rig for an hour and a half straight without some sort of help. Again I was just trying to make a point based on my experience.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Tom Jensen

[K Borowski]

I don't think that's what he's referring to. I think this is. And this.

I think the episode was called "Triangle".

 

Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, I've never seen "Triangle".

 

Too bad X-Files doesn't see regular play on TNT and Sci-Fi in the U.S. like it used to until recently.

 

Maybe we have the lackluster success of this past summer's 2nd (and final :-( ) X-Files movie to blame for that.

[Justin Hayward]

They did it in this movie, though it was only seventy minutes and I think they hid a cut or two.

 

You can ask the director Josh Becker about it directly at his website beckerfilms.com under "ask the director". He answers questions pretty quick.

[Tom Jensen]

That's a film that Kurt Rauf shot, isn't he on here? I know he's on CML.

[Brad Grimmett]

Again I was just trying to make a point based on my experience.

Understood. I just don't want someone to be overly discouraged about something. I agree that there is probably no reason to do a single take movie, but you never know....the "masterpiece" one'r hasn't been done yet. Maybe someday someone will do it.

[Brad Grimmett]

They did it in this movie, though it was only seventy minutes and I think they hid a cut or two.

It would have to have cuts since it was shot on 16mm. Or is there a 3000ft mag I don't know about?

[Justin Hayward]

It would have to have cuts since it was shot on 16mm. Or is there a 3000ft mag I don't know about?

 

Right. :lol:

[K Borowski]

It would have to have cuts since it was shot on 16mm. Or is there a 3000ft mag I don't know about?

 

I'm pretty sure there are 3,000 foot 16mm mags. They would obviously have to be retro-fitted for a standard dramatic 16mm camera, but I'm almost certain 16mm instrumentation cameras, even 35's would have lots of long-length magazines for high-speed testing.

 

My Auricon, with its 1,200 foot mag, is massive, but, barring any doorways or other overhead obstacles, I am pretty confident that even with my smaller stature I could man-handle a 2,400 or 3,000 foot, retrofitted magazine around for an hour and a half.

[John Sprung]

There are other issues as well of course. The first being, why? The one shot movie gimmick has been done, and it's not as though the films that did it were huge successes.

 

Yup, "Touch of Evil" springs to mind.... though it was just a one magazine shot, not the whole movie. Somehow this gimmick seems to have bad karma. ;-)

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Brad Grimmett]

Yup, "Touch of Evil" springs to mind.... though it was just a one magazine shot, not the whole movie. Somehow this gimmick seems to have bad karma. ;-)

 

 

 

-- J.S.

To be fair, that particular shot was a huge success, albeit years and years later. Maybe Touch of Evil should have been a one'r! It might have been a better movie.

[K Borowski]

With a few worthy exceptions, "Russian Ark" being one of them (though I've never seen it), I agree this is a gimmick.

 

A movie with the premise of "High Noon" actually supposed to have been shot in real time would have been interesting if it were done this way though. Even here, there are just so many more things you can do with jump cuts and two cameras, or at least two camera positions than one.

 

There's a lot of running back and forth to be done in 90 minutes if you have to photograph a train of killers coming into town, a sheriff preparing for the train of killers, the sheriff's angry wife, etc. etc. etc.

 

That's the nice thing about motion pictures, you don't have to see an event from just one perspective. You can see it from multiple angles perspectives, often in a manner that you would never be able to observe in real life.

 

Who can forget the shots in "2001" where you actually see from the vantage-point of the HAL 9000, or the first refrigerator shot, or that amazing overhead shot in "Minority Report" where they took the tiles out of the ceiling and dollied around from apartment to apartment.

 

These staging techniques obviously necessitate a great deal of rigging and mechanization that would probably make it impossible to do as part of a single, uninterrupted 90-minute take (especially with a 3,600- or 4,600-foot mag!).

[Tom Jensen]

To be fair, that particular shot was a huge success, albeit years and years later. Maybe Touch of Evil should have been a one'r! It might have been a better movie.

Technically the shot had some flaws but it is what made the movie. After that it went downhill. I remember the first time I saw it I thought this is going to be good. I liked the beginning and ending. Today we have the equipment to make that shot flawless. I remember watching Citizen Kane back in the late 70's or early 80's and there was a discussion afterward. The point the moderator made was, "Yeah, you've seen all this technique before just not before Citizen Kane."