The Russian Ark

[Vincent T Sharma]

I just read this on wikipedia.

 

Russian Ark (Русский ковчег) is a 2002 movie by Russian director Alexander Sokurov. It is notable for being the world's first unedited feature film: it consists of a single 90-minute Steadicam shot.

 

 

Do you have any interviews or insights on the making of this movie ?

What do you think are the most important elements and precautions we got take into consideration if we attempt to do something like this?

 

thank you

 

sun

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Do you have any interviews or insights on the making of this movie ?

What do you think are the most important elements and precautions we got take into consideration if we

 

The commentaries and extras on the DVD go into considerable detail on the production and problems.

[Francesco Bonomo]

What do you think are the most important elements and precautions we got take into consideration if we attempt to do something like this?

 

The movie is very interesting, though I don't think it's Sokurov's best film. It was shot with the Sony F900, tethered to a mobile hard drive that could record 90 minutes of footage.

The cast and crew rehearsed the whole movie three times, principal (and only) photography took 4 days, and the beautiful Hermitage Museum was packed with extras, three live orchestras and crew members in full costume.

 

I guess the key to get it right is the most exstensive pre-production you can afford and as many rehearsals as you may need, but the real question I have for you is why would you even try to do something like that?

Sokurov had a very specific reason to try it, a movie in a single shot, in a single "breath", and it made sense for the subject matter. Do you have a reason to tell your story that way? (I'm not criticizing you, I'm genuinely curious).

[Olex Kalynychenko]

I just read this on wikipedia.

 

Russian Ark (Русский ковчег) is a 2002 movie by Russian director Alexander Sokurov. It is notable for being the world's first unedited feature film: it consists of a single 90-minute Steadicam shot.

Do you have any interviews or insights on the making of this movie ?

What do you think are the most important elements and precautions we got take into consideration if we attempt to do something like this?

 

thank you

 

sun

You can see of site :

http://www.russianark.spb.ru/rus/index.html

 

The secrets of film

http://www.russianark.spb.ru/rus/secrets.html

 

The equipments :

http://www.russianark.spb.ru/rus/techniks.html

 

Photos

http://www.russianark.spb.ru/rus/foto.html

 

If you need, i can translate a some text.

[Nick Mulder]

There is a moment in it when a child extra noticeably stares directly into the lens - mind you, I did see it about 3 times so maybe I was looking for stuff like that...

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

Hitchcock did soemthing similar with "Rope", except he had to cut and when he did it was all coninuous, the action would freeze, with the frame on a guys back, the mag would change, and the flow would begin again.

[Brad Grimmett]

The cast and crew rehearsed the whole movie three times, principal (and only) photography took 4 days, and the beautiful Hermitage Museum was packed with extras, three live orchestras and crew members in full costume.

Actually, they never rehearsed the whole movie the way they shot it. They rehearsed sections of the movie in another location, but never the whole thing at once. They only had one day in the hermitage, so all they could do was start shooting immediately. Principal photography took one day since that's the amount of time they had the museum for.

I saw this movie with Tillman Buttner (the steadicam operator and DP) and about 50 other camera operators a few years back and it was quite interesting. I didn't like the movie at all, but I thought it was amazing that they pulled the shot off. I believe they only got three or four takes and only one that ran the full length of the movie. They had a couple problems with the Directors Friend (they only had two) and they had some other problems which caused them to cut on another take. I believe they got about 70 minutes through a take at one point and the Directors Friend failed.

The whole film was shot MOS and ADR'd later since Buttner and other crew were communicating with each other throughout the shot and the original sound couldn't be used.

I don't see the point of trying to do a one shot movie again. It's been done. And truthfully, a story can be told much more effectively by using cuts.

[Francesco Bonomo]

Actually, they never rehearsed the whole movie the way they shot it. They rehearsed sections of the movie in another location, but never the whole thing at once.

 

I knew they couldn't use the location for the rehearsals, I said 4 days because that's what the epk said about rehearsal and actual principal photography. Thanks for giving us more accurate information.

 

I don't see the point of trying to do a one shot movie again. It's been done. And truthfully, a story can be told much more effectively by using cuts.

 

I agree. If someone had to do it again, they better have some real reasons to do it that way, and I frankly can't see any.

[Nick Mulder]

There were a few sweeps where the camera passed a wall closely or an actors back where there could have been edits - as you say there were none, but it would have been nice to avoid these to give the less knowledgeable less excuses to believe there were ...

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I don't see the point of trying to do a one shot movie again. It's been done. And truthfully, a story can be told much more effectively by using cuts.

 

It's not exactly a 'story', certainly not a conventional story.

If anything it's a dance.

I prefer watching it with the sound off, so as not to be distracted by the flow of images.

 

The musical flow of images is more important than the story.

[Stephen Press]

I shot an 80min continuous roll feature called ROAD in 2000. I don?t think it has ever screened anywhere as the producer has never been able to get financing to do the sound mix. Technically it was sound and looked good in parts. I?m quite proud of my shooting but I learnt a lot about dealing with first time film wantabes who don?t really know how to make a film.

It was physically tough but that was nothing compared to the mental torture :)

[Stephen Press]

How do you edit?

 

Anyway here is a news story on R.O.A.D.

[Laurent Andrieux]

There were a few sweeps where the camera passed a wall closely or an actors back where there could have been edits - as you say there were none, but it would have been nice to avoid these to give the less knowledgeable less excuses to believe there were ...

 

I analysed the DVD and noticed a few times where I feel sure there are cuts. I would think they must have edited and used different takes. Does anybody know if one can be absolutly sure there was not cut/editing point ? Brad ?

[Nick Mulder]

I analysed the DVD and noticed a few times where I feel sure there are cuts. I would think they must have edited and used different takes. Does anybody know if one can be absolutly sure there was not cut/editing point ? Brad ?

 

I doubt they will admit it - hence its a pity that there are those parts that will always lead us to wonder ...

[Laurent Andrieux]

Ah Ah... Anyone's advice ?

[Andy_Alderslade]

Ah Ah... Anyone's advice ?

 

I saw it in the cinema, and looked like to me they were cutting on extreme close-ups - like Rope did. However I could be wrong, found it one of the most agonising films to watch.

 

Watched The Return immediatly after - much more interesting film.

[Nick Mulder]

'Russian' isn't a genre ...

[NathanCoombs]

I think most of those who found the film "agonizing" were simply shocked by the twin factors of the absense of cuts and linear story. I also found this an impediment the first time i saw it in the cinema,

 

But if you appracoh the film as a ballet and drop your expectations of stories and characters arcs it is simply a wonderful piece of documentary making. I say 'documentary' because I think this is a far more appropriate term.

[K Borowski]

One excellent advantage of filming the movie in one continuous take would be that a director like David O Russell wouldn't have the opportunity to demolish the set, kick books at helpless crewmembers, or call his leading lady a c*nt :lol:

 

Sorry, I'm in a particularly humorous mood today. . .

 

Why would they shoot it on the F900 if they weren't going to shoot it in one continous take. I actually remember the cinematographer or AC bashing the camera a bit in an interview.

[Laurent Andrieux]

Why would they shoot it on the F900 if they weren't going to shoot it in one continous take. I actually remember the cinematographer or AC bashing the camera a bit in an interview.

 

It's the fact of recording on a hard drive that makes the point, not shooting the 900...

 

But that doesn't mean the actual result has no cuts.

 

 

Please, does anybody know or can confirm there are actually cuts in the edited release ? Is there an editor credited BTW ? (I don't have the DVD anymore, it was lent to me...). Many thanks.

[Nick Mulder]

Please, does anybody know or can confirm there are actually cuts in the edited release ? Is there an editor credited BTW ? (I don't have the DVD anymore, it was lent to me...). Many thanks.

I understand your frustration as I too would like to know the answer for real - all I know is that all the marketing and write ups I have read so far say it was one long take ...

 

Could be weasel words though, as I think it was mentioned earlier that indeed one whole take was achieved during filming - "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" etc... - the question is >> is this the whole take that we see in the final 'cut' presented to us ?

 

Again, I say I really doubt we are going to get anyone to say so - and if they did, why would we trust them ?

 

It would really make you wonder if an editor was credited ...

 

I remember another film I had seen around the same time - a big ol' doco about birds, birds flying, birds mating, birds doing bird things - it was really big, but I cant remember the name... A massive palaver was made about how zero computer effects were used to the film and the birds were as you see them...

 

The very first shot of the film was of a bird flying from an altitude that would be classed as outer space flapping down to near sea level in the period of a few seconds. The 'camera' managed to track it perfectly... It wasn't even that great CGI, the bird flew sideways in a kind of Tie Fighter from A New Hope style - anyways, it was CGI nevertheless ...

 

little bit off topic but:

What the f&*k is it with marketing d#2k's that make them think this is acceptable ?

[Laurent Andrieux]

What the f&*k is it with marketing d#2k's that make them think this is acceptable ?

 

Was there much of choice by this time (2002) ?

[Andy_Alderslade]

Why would they shoot it on the F900 if they weren't going to shoot it in one continous take. I actually remember the cinematographer or AC bashing the camera a bit in an interview.

 

Well the film was hardly a a great example of the benefits of the F900, infact it looked like it had been shot by a very sharp handycam.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

But that doesn't mean the actual result has no cuts.

Please, does anybody know or can confirm there are actually cuts in the edited release ? Is there an editor credited BTW ? (I don't have the DVD anymore, it was lent to me...). Many thanks.

 

I've seen it a few times, including without sound, and haven't noticed any cuts.

 

those there's quite a lot of digital touch ups for exposure changes.

 

The most obvious is the skies when going into the garden.

 

& at the end when we look out the widow or door at the river, that's a composite.

 

An editor could be involved in that and on the sound.

[K Borowski]

Well, even if they shot in one take and edited pieces out so that it was down to 90 minutes, the fact that they SHOT the film in one continuous take remains impressive.

 

I know that the ability to shoot on a 900 and dump to a hardrive without reloads for the length of the entire movie is what prompted their using the F900, regardless of the digital camera the decisiion was based on the ability of HD to allow for uninterrupted shooting.

 

Perhaps plugging digital's ability to do this, even with disguised cuts, got them a cheaper deal? Or maybe this is because they wanted to break the long-take "record" previously set by Andy Warhol, who utilized the 1200 foot capacity of an Auricon 16mm camera to shoot 30-minute continuous takes. IDK.

 

Personally, as someone who owns a 16mm Auricon witha 1200-foot mag, I'd try to figur out a way to fit a 3600 foot mag on it. I'm sure it could be done. I'm not a big guy by any means, but I can handhold a loaded Auricon witha 1200 foot mag without too much difficulty. Not sure if I could hold it and move with it for 90 minutes, but I'm sure the average cameraman could do it easily.