tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post7213036714824454515..comments2024-03-25T21:14:21.671-04:00Comments on Listen Eggroll: Nerd Group Leftovers #1: Stupid Tracking Shotsmd'ahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06055853987416332662noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-316980960749314722008-01-14T17:46:00.000-05:002008-01-14T17:46:00.000-05:00I agree with Anonymous: I was too engrossed in CoM...I agree with Anonymous: I was too engrossed in CoM's car scene the first time to notice the long-take whizbangery—in fact, I didn't believe the guy who told me after the screening, because I could imagine the cuts in my head. (It helps that many of the takes are long, um, long before the big setpieces: Cuaron got me used to the lengthy shots in the early dialogue scenes.) I noticed the long take during the battle scene because it extends the chance of something awful happening to what seems like an eternity: every time Owen ducks around another corner or dashes up a staircase, we've been led to expect the worst.<BR/><BR/>I love CoM's long takes because I didn't sit there during the movie thinking, "Wow, these long takes are awesome!" (Had I heard about them before the movie, I might well have been distracted by them and liked them a lot less; I was thrilled by their virtuosity in retrospect.) Whereas in <I>Atonement</I>'s long, unimpressive Dunkirk take, that's all there is to think about: the choreography is too transparent, like watching stage scenery wheel on and offstage on cue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-44077618230140690812008-01-13T23:14:00.000-05:002008-01-13T23:14:00.000-05:00I went into CoM knowing nothing about the long tak...I went into CoM knowing nothing about the long takes, and have to admit I didn't actually *notice* how long and unbroken the scene in the car was until it was nearly over, at which point I went, "Whoa... wait a minute..." and was sucked completely out of the film with the realization. I made a mental note to check it out on DVD someday and only then got back into the film.<BR/><BR/>As somebody who doesn't necessarily look at every film with a film critic's (or filmmaker's) eye, I guess that lends support to both sides of the argument. The scene didn't <I>immediately</I> call attention to itself, perhaps because what was happening was compelling enough to hold my attention. That sort of supports the idea that the technique, judiciously utilized (and paired with the right content) can help (or at least not hurt) the movie.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, <I>despite</I> all the compelling content, I <I>did</I> eventually lose the story when I realized that there hadn't been a jump cut in a long while. The tension was there... and then it was instantly gone.<BR/><BR/>During the battle scene I noticed the long take was happening pretty quickly, probably because I had been primed by the earlier scene in the car. As a result I was definitely less involved in the story than I would otherwise have been.<BR/><BR/>On a completely unrelated note...<BR/><BR/>"Cole is so spectacularly wealthy, and so ridiculously lazy, that he’s watching the TV set in his hospital room while lying completely prone, using a special pair of eyeglasses that reflects the image downward at a 90-degree angle."<BR/><BR/>I haven't seen The Bucket List, but if I'm understanding what's being described here, there's a conflict. "Prone" means "face down." I'm guessing he's lying on his back, based on the description of what's happening with the glasses.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous copyeditorAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-31868831134932532722008-01-10T16:32:00.000-05:002008-01-10T16:32:00.000-05:00Ah. Well, Antwone here - sup. Kind of odd to come ...Ah. Well, Antwone here - sup. Kind of odd to come across this here, but okay. Though I am hoping it is reproduced in more of a "look at this interesting discussion I had" spirit than "look how right I was and not enough people knew about it." <BR/><BR/>Guess I better go check out ATONEMENT now...Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18168211342797984444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-42845669600819901482008-01-09T22:00:00.000-05:002008-01-09T22:00:00.000-05:00This is an awesome thread. I think it comes down ...This is an awesome thread. I think it comes down to what is distracting for the individual viewer, and what is not.<BR/><BR/>For Mike, obviously the long shots were a distraction and an artiface, and thus they didn't work.<BR/><BR/>For me they heightened the tension almost unbearably, in part for reasons brought up by eugene and others, and in part for reasons I can't express, and I don't really care to dissect it. At no time was I thinking, 'wow, what a shot!' I was thinking, 'please don't kill the baby please don't kill the baby pleasedon'tkillthebaby.'<BR/><BR/>So, obviously, for me they worked.<BR/><BR/>I have no idea if having cuts would have resulted in just as effective a scene, because those weren't the choices made. I daresay the scenes could have been just as harrowing with cuts. An effective edit requires skill just as a long dolly shot does, and film is artifice no matter what.<BR/><BR/>I love this film, and I love those scenes. The reason I love them has very little to do with their technical complexity.Julius_Goathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01265326822534167730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-60113625608196463402008-01-08T19:13:00.000-05:002008-01-08T19:13:00.000-05:00Awesome, read every word... But I disagree, at lea...Awesome, read every word... But I disagree, at least about CHILDREN OF MEN -- I do think that the tracking shot in ATONEMENT could be cut from the film altogether and it would be *better*. The difference is that in CoM, there's suspense and danger and so much going on and you're stuck in the moment... But in At', it's just a boring guided tour through period recreation.Gilidorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361541979219323059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-73527379015340469812008-01-08T14:36:00.000-05:002008-01-08T14:36:00.000-05:00p.s. I shouldn't have been coy; by "anyone" in my ...p.s. I shouldn't have been coy; by "anyone" in my last sentence, I did of course mean Mike in particular, since the shot in IRREVERSIBLE seemed to me to encapsulate everything he was arguing against in talking about CoM and ATONEMENT. Thinking about it a little more, though, I realize my reasoning was poor, and I can anticipate his response: IRREVERSIBLE is a different case because it's an obvious formal experiment from the get-go; the impossible one-take face-smash is just one more facet of that experiment - it's not like it's happening in a cinema-verite atmosphere.<BR/><BR/>So...never mind. I answered my own question.<BR/><BR/>Still don't have a problem with the CoM shots, though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-40915818554995830952008-01-08T14:07:00.000-05:002008-01-08T14:07:00.000-05:00I wonder how differently these shots would be perc...I wonder how differently these shots would be perceived if almost everyone commenting hadn't read beforehand about how impressive they were. Personally, I've noticed that if I get sufficiently sucked into the drama of what's going during a scene, I tend to stop noticing the editing scheme so much, at least on first viewing (with CoM I had heard about the shots beforehand; I'm just saying this is true for me generally). I.e., uh, what josh said: "General audiences might not even be particularly aware of the length of these takes, or the logistical difficulties involved." Anyway, I can think of a couple points in defense of the one-take car ambush sequence in particular:<BR/><BR/>- I suspect that a big part of the reason people respond so strongly to this scene is that it involves the early and unexpected death of an ostensibly major character, and I think death is particularly shocking partly *because* it occurs in the middle of a single long take. A long unbroken take (if you just happen upon it while watching the film and it hasn't been built up as the most technically amazing thing ever in every review you've read) can be an effective way for an abrupt mood change to catch the audience with their guard down. When the camera's riding along with the car with some characters joking around and trying to relax, you don't expect a flaming car to suddenly come into view out the window, let alone for one of the characters to die shortly afterward choking on their own blood. Yes, it would've been a shock however it was filmed, but the unbroken take makes it a particularly uncommon kind of shock (at least for now, until it starts a trend and everyone's doing it).<BR/><BR/>- The long take during a suspenseful/gut-wrenching scene like this can imbue it with a sort of unflinching/merciless quality, a feeling that your POV is trapped there along with the protagonists; it's one way - partially effective here because it's such an uncommon way (or, again, at least it has been until now) - of making an audience feel really *immersed* in the terrible situation they're watching, even if they don't consciously realize there's no cutting going on. Mike Casey's "everything slowing down during a car crash" comment is spot-on; the "trapped" one-camera POV can enhance that helpless when-is-this-going-to-end? feeling. Cf. the almost unwatchably harrowing murder scene in IRREVERSIBLE, also a long shot that would be "impossible" without post-production trickery, also deadly serious-minded. And yet I haven't heard anyone complain that the obvious technical difficulty of the shot is distracting or damaging to the film.<BR/><BR/>(Just for a record, I have only a mild liking for CoM overall, but generally my issues are with the writing, not the cinematography.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-46798116565922939622008-01-08T13:06:00.000-05:002008-01-08T13:06:00.000-05:00There's a great long take in Alex Cox's Highway Pa...There's a great long take in Alex Cox's Highway Patrolman that makes it clear to me that audience expectation has a lot to do with why these shots are effective. The HP shot works because by keeping the camera on the cop running to help his wounded partner, and not cutting to the violent action, Cox gives us a sense of the terror the cop is experiencing. But beyond that, the shot draws attention to its own artifice. It simultaneously draws us into the character's experience, and makes us aware of exactly how we are being manipulated. I want to shout "Cut!" at the screen. The point with this type of thing is hardly ever simple verisimilitude.<BR/><BR/>I think it's possible to treat serious, somber subject matter on film while still using the medium in a dynamic or even "show-offy" way. Do the shots in CoM detract from the film's thematic impact. Not for me. I think the way in which the violence in the film is depicted highlights Cuaron's seriousness of purpose.<BR/><BR/>I don't have a problem with the shots in CoM, or the one in Atonement, but I think your problem with them stems in part from the idea that these shots flatter the film-savvy audience. General audiences might not even be particularly aware of the length of these takes, or the logistical difficulties involved, but film snobs can pat themselves on the back for recognizing these aspects while they applaud Cuaron's daring. <BR/><BR/>Again, I think these moments in CoM work pretty well, gimmicky or not, but I guess I can emphasize with your distaste for them.Joshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15795059156381622698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-67664245554042809332008-01-08T13:05:00.001-05:002008-01-08T13:05:00.001-05:00There's a great long take in Alex Cox's Highway Pa...There's a great long take in Alex Cox's Highway Patrolman that makes it clear to me that audience expectation has a lot to do with why these shots are effective. The HP shot works because by keeping the camera on the cop running to help his wounded partner, and not cutting to the violent action, Cox gives us a sense of the terror the cop is experiencing. But beyond that, the shot draws attention to its own artifice. It simultaneously draws us into the character's experience, and makes us aware of exactly how we are being manipulated. I want to shout "Cut!" at the screen. The point with this type of thing is hardly ever simple verisimilitude.<BR/><BR/>I think it's possible to treat serious, somber subject matter on film while still using the medium in a dynamic or even "show-offy" way. Do the shots in CoM detract from the film's thematic impact. Not for me. I think the way in which the violence in the film is depicted highlights Cuaron's seriousness of purpose.<BR/><BR/>I don't have a problem with the shots in CoM, or the one in Atonement, but I think your problem with them stems in part from the idea that these shots flatter the film-savvy audience. General audiences might not even be particularly aware of the length of these takes, or the logistical difficulties involved, but film snobs can pat themselves on the back for recognizing these aspects while they applaud Cuaron's daring. <BR/><BR/>Again, I think these moments in CoM work pretty well, gimmicky or not, but I guess I can emphasize with your distaste for them.Joshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15795059156381622698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-30407879915665699062008-01-08T13:05:00.000-05:002008-01-08T13:05:00.000-05:00There's a great long take in Alex Cox's Highway Pa...There's a great long take in Alex Cox's Highway Patrolman that makes it clear to me that audience expectation has a lot to do with why these shots are effective. The HP shot works because by keeping the camera on the cop running to help his wounded partner, and not cutting to the violent action, Cox gives us a sense of the terror the cop is experiencing. But beyond that, the shot draws attention to its own artifice. It simultaneously draws us into the character's experience, and makes us aware of exactly how we are being manipulated. I want to shout "Cut!" at the screen. The point with this type of thing is hardly ever simple verisimilitude.<BR/><BR/>I think it's possible to treat serious, somber subject matter on film while still using the medium in a dynamic or even "show-offy" way. Do the shots in CoM detract from the film's thematic impact. Not for me. I think the way in which the violence in the film is depicted highlights Cuaron's seriousness of purpose.<BR/><BR/>I don't have a problem with the shots in CoM, or the one in Atonement, but I think your problem with them stems in part from the idea that these shots flatter the film-savvy audience. General audiences might not even be particularly aware of the length of these takes, or the logistical difficulties involved, but film snobs can pat themselves on the back for recognizing these aspects while they applaud Cuaron's daring. <BR/><BR/>Again, I think these moments in CoM work pretty well, gimmicky or not, but I guess I can emphasize with your distaste for them.Joshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15795059156381622698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-17297609093112320042008-01-07T21:44:00.000-05:002008-01-07T21:44:00.000-05:00The CoM long shots engaged me because of their sur...The CoM long shots engaged me because of their <I>surreality</I>, not their "realism". We're so used to cutting that one long shot can feel like slow-motion. Cuaron's shots produced a feeling in me similar to the "everything slowing down during a car crash" cliche. I expected a cut, not because "wow this looks hard to shoot" but because I expected a shift in focus. Whether that came in a ECU or a master shot or a reveal of important information or a hiding of what we need to know or a change in environment didn't matter, I just expected some hint that the characters could mentally reorient themselves. There was no rhythm, rhyme or reason; Theo's emotional state had flatlined.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-4084841676074418612008-01-07T18:51:00.000-05:002008-01-07T18:51:00.000-05:00That's a fair point, Eugene, and I suppose one cou...That's a fair point, Eugene, and I suppose one could make that case for the second of CoM's vaunted shots, which is the one to which "Leguizamo" mostly referred. But I was much more irritated by the trick shot in the moving vehicle earlier, which required the creation of a special rig and clearly has nothing to do with maintaining geographical integrity. Nor do I think the big <I>Atonement</I> shot serves any real purpose other than directorial showboating—which one can't say about many of the longer takes Wright employs in <I>Pride and Prejudice</I>, in which we're generally moving from room to room in ways that heighten alliances and divisions between/among characters.md'ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06055853987416332662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-10398182114800141092008-01-07T18:33:00.000-05:002008-01-07T18:33:00.000-05:00An argument that I think is missing here -- and it...An argument that I think is missing here -- and it's one that's related to but distinct from the "tension" point on which you "agreed to disagree" with "John Leguizamo" -- is the extent to which long tracking shots can better convey a convincing sense of geography. An easy way to gum up an action scene (e.g.) is not to present a lucid view of what's going on where, where the characters are in relation to one another, and where a particular character is in relation to where he was a moment ago. The more integrity that the physical location in which the action is taking place has for me, the viewer, as an <I>actual physical location</I>, the more I buy into the scene, the more suspense I feel, and the closer my ass creeps to the edge of my seat.<BR/><BR/>Now, it's true that skillful direction and editing can accomplish this without long takes. But I think that these "stupid tracking shots" are one very good way of giving us that sense of geography, especially in a complicated scene. But it doesn't even have to be scene-specific -- one reason I think that the Cuaron installment of <I>Harry Potter</I> is so awesome is that it's the only one of the series that lets us perceive Hogwarts as an actual place that you could diagram on a map if you wanted to. And I think Cuaron's penchant for long tracking shots is one reason this is so.Chareth Cutestoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11964296756042321625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-42197543798665566122008-01-07T15:39:00.000-05:002008-01-07T15:39:00.000-05:00You got my feedback: please keep it going! In this...You got my feedback: please keep it going! <BR/><BR/>In this particular subject, I almost totaly agree with MdA, although sometimes we might be aware that we're watching a long (and difficult) shot and also consider that's the best narrative choice.<BR/><BR/>Matter of fact: Ridley's bro is no artist, but Deja-Vu's scene at last Skandies is way better than both CoM scenes.htfernandeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10604307501795060817noreply@blogger.com