90mins one shot film

[K Borowski]

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."

 

Sometimes the first attempt at a new technique (not Citizen Kane, but in other cases) the technique doesn't work the first time around but is later refined into a success.

 

The movie "Alien" is based on a one-star monster on a spaceship movie from the '50s, which had the "Ed Wood-esque" brilliance to have a case of grenades on the ship that they are rather casually throwing at this monster near the walls of the hulls of the ship.

 

If I recall correctly, Hitchcock's film, forget the name, where they had seven or eight ten minute takes comprising the entire movie, wasn't a big success, but it inspired other filmmakers to do better later.

 

I'd say Atonement's 1,000-foot steadicam take was one of the best I've ever seen. They didn't invent the technique, but they sure did pull it off well.

[Brian Drysdale]

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."

 

You should check out the later re-cut of "A Touch of Evil" based on Well's instructions rather than the original studio version.

[Tom Jensen]

You should check out the later re-cut of "A Touch of Evil" based on Well's instructions rather than the original studio version.

 

It's criminal in my mind the influence studios exert on directors. Sometimes directors to get carried away and there are plenty of examples. Plus there are time constraints as mentioned on another thread. But Apocalypse Now comes to mind. I remember watching Coppolas's version and it was brilliant. It was a great movie either way but it made more sense to me after seeing the longer version. I loved both. I'll have to check out Well's version. Thanks for mentioning that.

[K Borowski]

It's criminal in my mind the influence studios exert on directors.

 

Why? In every field of human endeavour, the people with the money call the shots. The Ancient Egyptians did it, the Romans did it. Why should Hollywood be any different?

Edited April 23, 2009 by Karl Borowski

[Charlie Peich]

Mike Nichols' Catch 22 has a 1000 ft opening shot.

 

IMDB:

 

The film has one of the longest, most complex uninterrupted scenes ever made. In the scene, where two actors talking against a background, 16 of the 17 planes, four groups of four aircraft, took off at the same time. As the scene progresses, the actors entered a building and the same planes were seen through the window, climbing into formation. The problem was, for every take, the production manager has to call the planes back and made to take off again for every take of the particular scene. This was done four times.

[Simon Wyss]

Tha would be an ENORMOUS mag.

There is thinner film on the market, Gigabitfilm, 0.068 mm thickness. It's black and white but you put the double length into any conventional magazine, like 2000 feet in a 1000-footer. Employing half-standard step, two-perf, you'll have 64,000 frames or 44 minutes in 35, 2400 feet in a 1200-foot mag for 96,000 frames or 66 minutes and 40 seconds in 16.

[K Borowski]

There is thinner film on the market, Gigabitfilm, 0.068 mm thickness. It's black and white but you put the double length into any conventional magazine, like 2000 feet in a 1000-footer. Employing half-standard step, two-perf, you'll have 64,000 frames or 44 minutes in 35, 2400 feet in a 1200-foot mag for 96,000 frames or 66 minutes and 40 seconds in 16.

 

That's a good point Simon. The late John Pytlak, of Eastman Kodak Co. was also mentioning, shortly before his death,, that Kodak was entertaining the possibility of coating camera negative onto thin 3/1000-inch (0.068mm) Estar-base stocks.

 

Unfortunately, that is still twice as thick as would be necessary to shoot 90 minutes uninterrupted.

 

1.5/1000" (0.034mm) anybody?

 

I think they used to do 1- and 2-thou (x/1000") thicknesses on aerial films at Kodak, at one time.

 

 

IDK though. Digital is definitely a better fit here. Like I said, imagine getting a camera jam or a hair in the gate on a 90-minute take, or a lab accident!

[Tom Jensen]

Why? In every field of human endeavour, the people with the money call the shots. The Ancient Egyptians did it, the Romans did it. Why should Hollywood be any different?

 

There is truth to what you say. However film is an art form. The director is the creator. I don't like seeing creations mangled. I don't know how much a publisher calls the shot in a book. It may be significant. It's just my opinion. Doesn't it mean it's right or wrong.

[John Sprung]

You should check out the later re-cut of "A Touch of Evil" based on Well's instructions rather than the original studio version.

 

Yes, Walter Murch did that restoration using the lengthy notes that Welles left. Alas, the results were still not .... well, .... good.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Sprung]

Just heard that at NAB, Steadicam has a rig mounted on a Segway. The operator's body doesn't carry the weight. So, you could probably load it up with a big battery for the Red and make the one-shot movie.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Chris Keth]

There is truth to what you say. However film is an art form. The director is the creator. I don't like seeing creations mangled. I don't know how much a publisher calls the shot in a book. It may be significant. It's just my opinion. Doesn't it mean it's right or wrong.

 

Limitations draw out the creativity in people. Money didn't seem to have hurt the myriad works of art ever created by commission: Tutankhamen's funerary mask, The Mona Lisa, The Sistine Chapel ceiling, Michaelangelo's David, Stradivarius violins, Beethoven's 9th Symphony, etc. The list can go on and on.

[Brian Drysdale]

Yes, Walter Murch did that restoration using the lengthy notes that Welles left. Alas, the results were still not .... well, .... good.

 

I'd say it's more European than Hollywood, but certainly an interesting film and perhaps a matter of personal taste.

[Tom Jensen]

Just heard that at NAB, Steadicam has a rig mounted on a Segway. The operator's body doesn't carry the weight. So, you could probably load it up with a big battery for the Red and make the one-shot movie.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

[Tom Jensen]

Limitations draw out the creativity in people. Money didn't seem to have hurt the myriad works of art ever created by commission: Tutankhamen's funerary mask, The Mona Lisa, The Sistine Chapel ceiling, Michaelangelo's David, Stradivarius violins, Beethoven's 9th Symphony, etc. The list can go on and on.

I think the issue concerning Apocalypse Now was the running time. It was a lack of constraint if anything. It was definitely a film of excess. Eleanor Coppola wrote a book called "Notes" about the making of the movie. In it I remember her saying that Storraro and his crew were always making these great Italian meals.

[Brad Grimmett]

Just heard that at NAB, Steadicam has a rig mounted on a Segway. The operator's body doesn't carry the weight. So, you could probably load it up with a big battery for the Red and make the one-shot movie.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Even though using a Segway would be easier physically on the operator, I think the actual shot itself would be harder. First of all, take any steps out of the equation. Also, the Segway may or may not fit through a doorway. I've never tried, so I'm not sure, but if it doesn't then you're even more limited. And the Segway with a rig attached is not easy to control in tight spaces.

In certain situations the Segway is a great tool for steadicam, but like anything else, it has it's drawbacks. There is a reason it's been around as an option for steadicam for 4 or 5 years and only a few people own them.

[John Brawley]

It's criminal in my mind the influence studios exert on directors.

 

 

Well maybe if filmmakers were financing for their own productions they COULD do what ever they wanted...

 

and there are plenty that do.....

 

jb

[Tom Jensen]

Well maybe if filmmakers were financing for their own productions they COULD do what ever they wanted...

 

and there are plenty that do.....

 

jb

 

That's true. Let's just say I have a soft spot in my heart for artist and a not so good love affair with producers. Of course the only directors I know that finance their own films are very few. The ones that do usually shoot on video and the film lasts for 10 minutes. It's obvious that film making is expensive and very few people can afford to make a feature length film. Page 1 productions says don't use your own money to make a film.

[K Borowski]

Limitations draw out the creativity in people. Money didn't seem to have hurt the myriad works of art ever created by commission: Tutankhamen's funerary mask, The Mona Lisa, The Sistine Chapel ceiling, Michaelangelo's David, Stradivarius violins, Beethoven's 9th Symphony, etc. The list can go on and on.

 

Strads were a fluke due to unusually-dense wood used. With teh exception of Beethoven's 9th, every other thing you've listed on there had an unlimited budget.

 

Films do not. . . .

[Nick Gardner]

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

I think the episode was called "Triangle".

 

 

Yup that was it. I actually spent all day today rehearsing a really long steadicam shot. We shoot it tomorrow. Was pretty surprised when I showed up today and found out we weren't goinf to roll today.

 

I think you could handle the power issue fine for Red. My Mk-V d-box has four battery inputs, and really I think 3 90wh lions would be plenty.

 

Cheers,

 

Nick