|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: The longest take
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 09-16-2002 02:12 AM
Mike Schindler writes: quote: ROPE has a few intentionally visible cuts. I believe they occur at each reel change.
Actually the reel changes are designed to look invisible. The outgoing camera pans or tracks into a dark area (e.g. the back of someone's suit jacket, or a dark wall), there is a cut and then the new camera pans or tracks away from the same position. I think you're right and that there are one or two visible cuts: I seem to remember one towards the end during the sequence in which the camera's POV is responding to James Stewart's description of how the murder was perpetrated. According to Hitchcock's own account (in Hitchcock by Truffaut) the biggest logistical nightmare was the sound recording. It was done directly into an optical sound camera, so all the mixing had to be live and in real time. Apparently there were more rejected takes because of sound issues than there were due to botched camera movements.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted 09-16-2002 03:05 AM
The first time I saw ROPE was a 16mm screening at the Art Institute of Chicago. I remember having heard about how it was designed to look like all one shot, and wondering how they were going to accomplish the reel changes. I also remember being disappointed upon seeing that each reel changed with a standard intentionally visible cut to another shot. But that was seven years ago, so my memory could be faulty.However, I decided to watch the DVD tonight, and I kept track of when and how the cuts appear. Here's what I found: 2:08- visible 11:43- invisible 19:33- visible 26:50- invisible 34:00- visible 43:57- invisible 51:32- visible 59:19- invisible 1:09:26- visible 1:14:03- invisible I also happened to watch CLERKS tonight. If anyone cares, that shot that I referred to earlier is five minutes and twenty six seconds long.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 09-16-2002 07:43 AM
I've just flicked through Truffaut, in which H insists that the only cuts are the camera change ones, all of which he tried to conceal.Could the unconcealed cuts in your DVD be due to later cutting, e.g. censorship? I notice that your last cut, which I presume is to the end credits, comes at 74'03". My 16mm print runs 81 minutes, which on PAL video would mean 78ish allowing for the 24/25fps difference. If your DVD (which is presumably NTSC and thus has the same running time as the film source it was telecined from) runs 75-ish, might it be that the 'visible' cuts are the work of a third party? I'll have to look at my 16mm again soon, though I don't know when I'll get the time.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ian Price
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1714
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 09-16-2002 01:07 PM
From the 29th Telluride Film Festival 2002RUSSIAN ARK Hitchcock dreamed of making a film in a single take, but Alexander Sokurov, thanks to HD video technology, accomplished it. RUSSIAN ARK is a 96-minute dream journey through St. Petersburg’s Hermitage, three centuries of Russian culture, 33 rooms and 2,000 extras. A French Marquis guides us, commenting in Russian art, interacting with historical figures (Catherine the Great, Nicholas and Alexandra), all the while responding to the dreamer’s often-incredulous reactions. This is an startling departure from the austere earlier films of Sokurov, who was a Telluride tributee in 1998. The Film’s final sequence-a Royal Ball of 1913 with hundreds of resplendently costumed dancers-eclipses even Visconti’s THE LEOPARD as perhaps the cinema’s richest evocation of the aristocratic culture of Europe in its fading hours. Brilliant. You’ve never seen anything like this. Filmed by Steadicam operator Tilman Büettner (Run Lola Run). (Russian, 2002, 96 Minutes) I wish I had seen it. It sounds like fun.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|