Talking Images
Talking Images

Episode 28 · 1 year ago

Single-Take Films: The Incredible Effects of the One Consecutive Shot


Why would filmmakers go through the excruciating trouble and pain of creating their films without a single cut - any mistake being detrimental - every shoot non-stop?

Why put yourself through all that pain? Why put your actors through all that pain? Why put the actual person carrying a camera for 90 minutes through all that pain? Why?

Can single-take films do things regular films can't?

Our answer is a resounding yes!

Listen in as we talk you through the ludicrously small selection of single-take films, including the "fakes", and look at just what each of them manages to achieve.


Skip directly to the films that interest you the most

Rope: 8:33

Macbeth: 18:21

Russian Ark: 28:24

Birdman & Gaspar Noe: 38:49

Victoria: 44.40

Utøya 22. juli: 49:41

1917: 58:41

The Body Remembers When the World Broke Open: 1:09:54

You are listening to talking images, the official podcast of ICM Forumcom. Welcome back every one. I'm Chris, and I just have to warn you a little bit so we do not get disappointed. This podcast will not actually be done in one consecutive take, even though we do not need to maneuver hundreds, if not thousands, of extras, even though we did not need to strive to catch frames of cinematic glory as we wander through mansions or streets. And yet that's probably for the best, because we're not really want to inflict you with our in and edited as size and and Awkward Silences. With that said, let's just start diving straight into the sparse world of the single take film. And this is an interesting one because last year we did an episode we talked about single location films and it's incredible numbers of ways it was used. And yes, I'm plugging that episode. That was probably from the very first moment, a clear issue of just timing to edit amount of films down. I think you mentioned over twenty different films. Well over twenty different films, and they had to leave so many films on the cutting room floor. Even after we're done, then everything was recorded, it kept remembering and realizing films you probably should have included but didn't. The amount of single location films are just so huge. But when we look at single take films, and that is both films again newly shot in one consecutive session with no cuts whatsoever, and films that had some early cuts or films that are just cut and edited together, such appear like it's a singular take. I mean there's almost none of them, especially of the ones that you know were actually real. Yes, there are apparently some interesting examples of live theater. In my research it did run into something called lost in London, apparently with the Harrelson gets lost in London and it's film they want take. But generally there's just so, so few, especially in terms of actual distribution and notice. So why are there so few? Well, will tell you, or at least try, and should be falter, stutter or make any mistakes, you won't know about them as once again this episode is edited for your benefit. With me today to break down the biggest films and to moral at is how they manage these technical feeds. Are My too, absolutely wonderful co hosts, Clem and mature, so introduce with outs guys and let's get this started, for I tell this is Clem, really happy to be back. Hi, this is Matt. You and yeah, we're back from the break and ready to talk single take films right this just to get this conversation started. What's the first thing will take film you remember watching and what was your reaction? I think the first for me was Victoria, which we'll talk about later, and my reaction was to be very impressed. I guess. I don't remember if I was told before that it would be one take. I think I was, but in any case, seeing it, I was thinking, I want to see more things like this. I want to see this. Don't know, and I didn't know about Russian Ark. I didn't know it was already kind of a thing for me. I believe. The first film I watch, even though it's not really you want take film, is rope by each cock. My reaction to it? I liked it. From what I remember. I thought it gave some kind of theater feeling that I really realized. Yeah, my first one was probably also rope, though I have to be completely honest with you, I didn't remember it as a thing. Will Take Film. I'm not even verified, but what are aware of it at time, which is odd. Really works really well. It's really suspenseful, but I probably thought at the time I wasn't really focus on how the films I was watching were made in the same way and I just missed the fact that there weren't done the obvious cuts. Yeah, I have this problem with aspectuations all the time. I see we views where they mentioned the film where, Oh, and then they change aspectuations. It's amazing and I'm like, okay, I'm sure they did. It's there. Yeah, sometimes, if you're not aware of it, I guess if you just absorbed by the storytelling or suspense, you don't really think about the camera cutting and when it cuts. I think that's kind of like what people thought you to talk about as the magic or cinema. It's mostly positive. It's you being really immersed in the film, which is arguably one of the goals of those techniques. And Yeah, not questioning the technique too much. I think that's mostly good. That's maybe it's good to comment on films on the podcast. The pop gets through comment...

...on their films and how you comment on them. That the perfect yeah, I think I'm taken, implighted to watch, you know, the metal element and enjoying how the film is made as well. Respect also be why I'm very often drawn to won't take films. Especially in preparation of this episode, it was really great watching and rewatching a couple of single take films, and there's the marveling at how they were actually done, and I know you guys did the same. But just generally, is a single take film something you're drawn to if you see something promote to that, as the single take is at something you take a closer look at? Definitely, definitely it's something that makes me want to see him. I don't know that I particularly seek them out. Some of the things I saw for the episode I had heard about before and I hadn't watched him before, so I don't really actively seek them out necessarily, but if I'm choosing what to watch in theaters, hearing that something is shutting one take does interest me. It just makes it stand out and it's so technique I genuinely enjoy even if I don't all the films. Yes, it's something I enjoy as well. Definitely, which makes it even more a shame that they are so few. One tick film that are being made. I think it's also why I enjoy them so much, because they're so rare and different from the rest, which could be why I'm we are so interested in them. Very absolutely. But I guess if they were pushing out the massive thing will take films in it on the big screen every single week, it might not be something we'll be talking about the same way. But for obvious reasons that hasn't been the case yet, and there's just so much work as got into making a single take films. I mean it's actually everything has to go up. Well, what do you guys think is to pay off of all that work to single take films managed to create an effect that regular films can't. I guess I would say definitely yes to that. Whether or not it works for the film is another question. Obviously that depends, but single take films, they do feel different than other films always, even if you're not aware of it. It's something that's unique. Is Very difficult to do, I'm justly for for bunch of technical reasons, but it does make a film stand out, not just in terms of marketing but even watching it. Yeah, I do think it's quite effective, especially at being immersive. That's, to me, the main quality, even though it's not the only thing, it can be useful. Yeah, I would agree with that. I think film sticking place in real time are more immerse to than other type of films, and there are two ways you can make that filming real time. You can just make a regular film with chuts or you can do one take film, and I think adding this one take to real time is even more immersive. I absolutely agree. I definitely think that's an interesting way to differentiates between single take films the ones that are in real time. That's just the ones that arms ycause I feel like the one in real time they really go for this immersive feeling was. The other ones they just have that as well, but often it's kind of for maybe different reasons that they use this single take. So maybe it's a way to categorize, I guess, single take films, even though they aren't that many. That's a very good point by two, and I think we're going to see that when we talk about the films as well, that this technical feat is used to create very different experience. is either putting you straight into the situation of the characters that you're following or being used as a way to absorb you into something massive and just visually engaging. So I think you're definitely right there. And the building on what you just said, claim that you could technically get away with the effect of real time, with cuts as well, and that's one of the main things I really thought about when I watch seen roll just a couple of days ago, if that at that time. I think we need to talk about this. It's the closest thing you should get to single take because it was shot especially ten minutes at the time, which was more or less the lenked off a film film role at the time. So it couldn't be longer. It was impossible, if unless you made a ten minute short film, it couldn't have a real uncut, singular hey, but from hitchcock's perspective this was the only way or the best way to really drive suspends to know that the Bobby was always there, essentially. But at the same time, like I said, I didn't think about that single take the first time I saw it. It does move incredibly well. You get all of the close ups, all of the large angles, etcetera. The camera is remarkably well equipped to the point that even though it does feel a little like your play, it still feels quite cinematic, it still feels like a hitchcock film. So it's very interesting that they went for at effect and that he went for at the fact in a time when it wasn't technically possible. I think in the case of hope it also helps that hitchcock is such a play form director. I was really aware of the single TAK thing with hope when I watched it, only because I had heard of it, and all those techniques he...

...uses to hide the transition. He's not even really highing it that much. I mean he's going behind the back of someone. I always feel them when I'm watching a hitchcock film that there are moments where he kind of wins at you, and the moments in hope where he hides the cuts are kind of like that for me, and I think because he has that playful energy and it's definitely present in the hope, even though it's very dark, soject matter, and I think that makes that conceits work better than maybe it would draw another director at that time. Yeah, I would agree with that as well. When I first saw it I don't remember if I was aware of one take aspect of the film, but I thought it was interesting and unusual way to make a film, especially for a film of the time, because I film came out in the four is. I remember a few transition being quite obvious, but I think I must have missed some because I have only one or two cuts in my mind that are quite obvious. But I'm pretty sure there are some imself missed because, Chris, if you said that you could only recorp ten minutes at the time, it's must mean they had about what eight or nine cut yes, day to night cut there. Yeah, and I think I only put it like one or two. So maybe I wasn't paying attention or maybe maybe ye achieved what you wanted to do. Is is you one take illusion? Yeah, we completely. I mean I was actually trying to play a little game. I was working it as well, but the cuts and I couldn't, like I caught the obvious ones that but you were talking about, like the one where it glides into someone's back and it goes dark for as I can or when they through the door and there's no one there for a second, or when they go over the box and one there for a second. But in most cases I couldn't be sure because it's just done so so well, like the characters are still moving around the screen, they still action going on. Somehow he manages to catch them at exact right spot. So it's just really impressive to me how we managed to create that illusion. Yeah, yeah, same as I'm actually I thought it was three or four shots, not not like eight or nine. I think it what helps, also with hitchcock is again his channel sign is the fact that he loves inserts, and so that's, as you mentioned, the box right. It helps with transitions when you're looking at just an object. He was kind of the perfect in maker for it's at that time. And obviously it's great for twitters. I mean it's not only using photos, but the technique tends to be used when in twitters. And you're absolutely right. And I mean hitchcock is so famous liking to put something into his fielm. I mean there's a classic scene of a film I we won't spoiled, where, you know, the child carries a bomb onto a bus and we don't know if the shovel or not, we just know that the bomb is there. I mean he's so good at placing an element, be that a mcdufferin or not, into his films so that it just adds a little extra respense. And obviously in rope we start with a murder. It's placed in, or the body rather is placed in in the box, and then it invite the parents of the murder victim and the murder watms, fiance and friend. The put on this mccrber show and I think that you have bolt that element of suspense this being right there. But then you also have this extremely black humor because throughout this film that you have these two killers that almost acting a little bit like the killers from Puny Games. I mean not exactly, but they're kind of just winking and having fun and at least one of them especially, it's just really enjoying the shoulder putting on. Yeah, and James Stewart spewing the most terrible idio ideology you've ever heard. Oh yes, which is remarkable given his persona at the time. I mean he was generally playing, like in front APPA films and he was generally playing, he was and it's changed around that, you know, I guess after the war. Anyway, that's another topic. Yeah, not just heroes I mean he was essentially the Tom Hanks of the era. He went from it a wonderful life, to say this, so like maybe he was tired of being popecast. Is that literally the case? Is it some wonderful life? Literally doin right before it can't be, no, because it's two years a gap. Yes, sure, yes, okay, so, no, but you pretty much yeah, pretty much. So that that is a remarkable, remarkable transmimation. Obviously did some really creepy roles, you know, or really harsher roles after this film as well, so it worked as opposed. And on the topic of them, Stewart, you actually had a really interesting quote about Hitchcock's single take film. I'm going to butcher it, I'm just going to say the message he had, but essentially said that he hated it because he felt like the camera was the star, not the actors. Yeah, maybe, I mean he's still really good in the same yeah, and I'm not sure if agree with the meter, because it's shot in such a way that it does, like you mentioned, like it feels a little bit like a play. You did actually put almost more focus on the actors. It always is, like looks like he did. You from it's wonderful. Left to hope. Well, that's wow.

So you had that one there. Get that fantastic. Thank you for the research. You can can check that. Yeah, very any he didn't do any film, according to Wikipedia. I didn't do any film in One thousand nine hundred and forty seven. So he went from me to wonderful like in nineteen forty six, to rope in nineteen forty eight, the others, just picking himself for two years. That he has to get out of. That love, but something more challenging, creepy. Very good. I think's an interesting one, like I said, because at least for me, the camera is a little bit misstable. It rope as well. It does give a lot of room for the performers. I mean in general, when you talk all the time. I've ever said that the performance sort of one's losing out a little bit because they have to, you know, stop and the retake the exact performance for the closed up every time. So I'm not sure if I entirely agree with dirt, but obviously he's the actor, so he had he was in it, so he can have his olf opinion on it. At least for me I think rope works really well, both as that unique lectures exercise and as a thriller, Dark Comedy and Suspense Film from hitchcocket. But it really covers all the boxes and has that in a really dark, gleeful humor that he's got produced so well. But I think Stewart's reaction is interesting because you see a lot of very strong reactions against the idea of single takes, some people who say essentially that cinema is editing, that editing is what sets cinema apart from especially theater, and that when you take that away you're just kind of you know, why are you cutting your own leg or something like that. Right, you're just cutting off a tool for no particular reason. artistants what those people would argue, and I do think it's interesting how it blurs the line between cinema and theater. I think it's definitely a case for hope, which is just takes place in a single location. You also have films that use that without feeling like place. I think Oh really doesn't feel like a play. For example, rope is actually an adaptation from a play, so which might explain. I think it's interesting the the idea of well play and in this one take because, yeah, I agree, definitely burs line between theater and cinema, especially when it's in a single location. That rope is because it almost feels like it's actually a play taking place, but there is this camera moving around. It's like your spectator to a play, but you're allowed to come on stage and just move around the actors as they're performing. So I guess it's play but in a different way, which I think makes the audience even more immersed into what they're watching. Yeah, because you say you're allowed to watch some specific parts, but you also directed to watch some specific parts. Right, there is still that the camera is choosing what you're looking at and I think it's concused that in hope that sometimes you can use what's happening off screen also, which theater can really do, art is not in the same way. So I do think that is still the obvious difference between single take, single location, sims and place that there is also often this reaction of it's not really cinemout that that's an interesting reaction because there you can also argue that it's hyper cinema in a way. But continuing the trail of play adaptations into anotation all the most famous place of all time, Matt Bet we do see that Bellatre, who's very famous for his long takes, a shocking on the one arguable single take film, which is this one, a Hungarian TV movie from a one thousand nine hundred and eighty three, which is only a little bit over an hour long, and it's composed in two takes, mind you, but one is the intro. About five minutes the opening credits come on and then it really is one consecutive single take, all taking place in a castle. As you move from room to room, we look down, we look up, and what's interesting in contrast to rope, is that, at least I don't interpret this to be intended to be in real time, we covered so much in the matter of an hour of the play. We move from large scenes to feast, to night to battles, all through this short space, and it's so in a little way it's rushed, it's relatively minimalistic in something. Another way it's quite massive because you run into these large set pieces that really surprise you, and I think this is also a really good point of ups mentioned earlier, that it's different from a play because you can do different things like when you go from a room where someone is alone into a setting that's, you know, large party in a matter of a second or two seconds, or something you can do in the play the right there that the entire time it says that the camera isn't showing them. So I think these kinds of techniques are really interesting to observe and experience and I think to our really brought something different... Matt Bet. Yeah, so this one is really blowing that I and even more between cinema theater. It feels at times like film theater, but obviously it's not. In the way that we move among the sets and they're they're specifically a short way. Lady Macbeth is looking upon a murder and we look at it with her secually, using the depths of feeling right, which is something you couldn't do in theater. That's a great moment. Generally, I do think the single take huts a bit of the narrative because it has to be a bridge so much, possibably because of the logistical issues, and I think if you saw this version of Macbeth without being familiar with the story, you would have a really hard time really getting invested into it because everything moves so quickly and major characters like Bonco I barely get times to really get introduced. I do think it works generally. It has this very eerie feeling which is very appropriate to Macbeth, and there are some great moments, the one I mentioned earlier and when you have the the mists coming into it for the battle near the end. That's really has this kind of universal feeling. The way it compresses time gives this story it is fable aspects right. This is not really a story. It's a fable about humanity in general. It's not just about this characters. I think. I think there's something there. It doesn't work as well as it could maybe, but I do think it's an interesting experiment and certainly made me think that I would have been interested in seeing better to make more traditionally narrative films. I think he would be quite good at it. He's good at what he does anyway, but this is much more plot heavy and dialog heavy than most of his films. Well, as someone who never read Macbeth and didn't know anything about the actual story of my death before watching the film, I have to agree it was a bit messy at first. I well, I got the general idea. I understood quickly what the film was about, but I'm pretty sure I missed a few things about the story because of how short movie actually is. That being said, it's so it's as fine film overall. I wanted to mention well, the one take aspect of the film. I agree with what has been said already about cinema being giving the OPPORTU triunity to be able to from one see into another very quickly, which is something that cannot really be done when we're watching the plane in real time. I think it creates an even more immersive feeling that you're there, actually there in the castle with all the characters. Something I was also trying to figure out word is there were any cuts the one our film, because I couldn't really spot any. I guess I could spot one or two occasions where it could have cut the action, but I couldn't find for certain any, any point where I knew for sure it was a it would have been cut there. So I don't know if if it's really a film that has been made completely in one take or if it's just see delusion. I don't know if you guys have any information about that? Well, I do. I did look it up and from what the information is actually available. A lot people are saying the obviously people would lie. It was indeed one real single day with Ricki. It's very impressive, especially for a time, and the fact that it's done tv, I mean did it was essentially barring the Intro, this was essentially the first real pomp take film in a way, like unless you want to talk about something, like telling me about it, and they were all film. Yes, empire, the real to talk about empire. I had the world. I'm surprised no one watched it for this podcast. Yeah, I mean that's some point. I will watch it. We bring empire up so many times it's almost like an Indoke at this point. I think it's ex is sorely to be mentioned in this context. I don't think it exists to be watched. Yes, that's the only reasonab well that that's kind of the reason it existed to begin with, because it was, you know, an installation piece. You weren't meant to see all of it. Were just supposed to spot it and talk about it. So we're talking about that where we have essentially seen it. Can we shake it on a check movie. Yes, we got we can't. We have jube make cultural aspect of this. But to get back to mcpet I think I completely agree, just because all of us actually sold this film yesterday, which is why it's so fresh in our minds, and I hadn't seen it in probably six plus years and it did go down a little bit. In my estimation. I think that the first time I was marveling over just how it was done. At that that point it weren't really that many single take films at all. But that was long before Victoria. There was long before one thousand, nine hundred and seventeen ute said right, like the sentially it was just this in Russian art that was hanging around as any kind of notice. So I think I just really dug into this how impressive...

...was done that way. But this time I agree with it's really abridge. There's some elements that that works really well, like the way the ending works, for instance. I'm not going to say what it does, but essentially it's just so fast. You have the battle and then the conclusion and and this just comes together with some of these physicians come in in front of the fighting and the smoke and it ties over into how the film ends. It's composed really well, it shot really well, it has this kind of ultraswort style that is almost reminiscent of Robert Burton. It has so many good qualities that way. But yes, it just feels really, really, really rushed. Yeah, you talk about the musicians, we actually see them earlier in the film. They're used to kind of smooth over some transitions. I think maybe the wire first transition, naratively, whether used, is one where they early on where Macbeth and they mcbeth go. Basically they go have sex, they go have a son and you have the endo, the home. And so to transition to the other scene you have the musicians which are coming right in front of the screen and singing something. It's and it's kind of funny to see how bettis problem solving in this way. Also, the way he uses cross ups right. He has his actors, especially the guy playing mcbeth, of course, gets right into the camera and so that you're just looking at him, you're not seeing anything going around, and so they're moving. It's exactly and so that really helps moving from one's into the other. And there's there's one moment I really liked, which is where the invisible knife right moment he's talking about a knife and he's holding nothing and then his hand goes a bit of screen and then he went comes back he has the knife in hand. That's just a good moment. It's kind of a hitchcocking moment. It's kind of a wink again, whether or not it's intentional is just what you have to do in this situation, but I think it worked quite well and Macbeth is probably one of the best place to do that with a side from the length, because it has this very surreal feeling. So compressing time in this way maybe works better for its than thought us. Yeah, agree with that. It's really heightens its realism. By the way, the actor playing Mac pet is a love on the butcher. It is George She Jollmey, which did so many great Hungarian films as well, especially if it's bubody. So it was great seeing him here and I think it's really interesting and what they brought up earlier with this these close ups, because that's a large part of this films if just so many close ups, and that's also how cinema and is the art of how we move the camera work in because many of these scenes really are just two characters of one character just close together the camera right on them, and that allows them to essentially obscure anything else that's in that room, to just instantly move into another scene right away because the other actor is for a next scene is right in that room and then it moves over again and there's more actors in that same room ready to take do something else, and I think that's just one of the things that, for any limitations and flaws to the film might time was done really well and it's an interesting technique to think about, because they don't really think I've seen that in any of the other single take films will be talking about today and as we talked about, I think we've gone through most of what we can say about back bet. Now, for a long time, like I said, a really worked at many single take films. There was rope, which was in several takes but put together to make the parents of a single take. You had matc beet, which wasn't two takes that least had but one, almost our on callsecutive take. And then in two thousand and two was the film. Again, barring empire and a few other films that didn't get much notice, the very first film to really delve into the single take as that takes and really be shot in one single take and, even more impressively, shot over one single day. They had to run through it a few times, of course, but it really well, shot in one day, and that is Alexander Sukedas. Russian ARC, which is a bit of a sensory overload of Russian history, is set in the palace of the old stars, entering in a mixture of the actual museum, discussion past history at as just everything blends together in this unique, wistral, bizarre, colorful, massive experience. And I'm going to stop talking. I will let you guys take over. But I re watched Russian art this week as well and never loved us your girl film before. This film did not quite work me the first time, but this time I was really absorbed into it. It won me over finally, and I know that you guys might have a much closer attie to Su girls, so just jump into it. Guys. I don't think I'm about to clear so called fun new for missingle of more than me, but I do like question arc. I think if really gets into what we just talked about with mant with that delution of time, right. And so in this case, so go office making a film essentially about history, or basically eighteen to early twenty century Russia. But he I compressing it all. He's...

...really making a point about how this is one thing, this all era is all comprised of one thing. That the hermitage, to the museum in which this is all films, really encompasses this. It's really interesting to look at how this film is in relation to the museum, because when criticism you could make of it is that it kind of feels like an advertisement to come to the hermitage right, come to habitate. It's great. That was my first thought. To Watch. It's actually in a public library. This film remembered quite well and I think maybe that's emphasized this feeling of kind of vegetable filmmaking. That makes sense. Write it. Yeah, I think it's kind of fascinating the way circle of uses this device to the single teg device, to the time. And one of the other interesting aspects, I think, is the narrator. The camera is kind of you in Russian art. That's what gives this the advertisement from museum feeling. It feels that you are walking through the museum and walking into these various scenes from history and you have a guide essentially the use of this guide. I think it's quite interesting in the way that this single take idea sets it apart from, quote unquote, normal cinema. You would not do this in this way without this technique. You would not have this narrator coming along and current thing again, because it is a thing about history. You need to have a historian there because you show how the narrative shapes what we think of history. But I guess I don't have to stick points. I just think it's a very interesting film. It's not when I love because I don't like museums, that's really enjoy spending time in them, despite loving history, but I do think it manages what it wants to do quite well regarding the guide and advertisement aspect. I think it's also helped by the fact that this is a first film we've mentioned that actually breaks the fourth wall and there's actually someone talking to the camera, compared to rope or Macbeth, where it's just a play taking place and the camera is just there to share what's going on and the camera is not supposed to be you. Regarding Russian arc, it's a film I sadly haven't at time to rewatch this week. I really really loved it when I first saw it a few years back, not really for the one take aspect, which which I think is nice, but I was really impressed with all the work that they did on the visual aspect. To take us through a part of Russian history like this, on such a beautiful place filled with so many figurants, and pretty much being able to tell us a story of what a few centuries in just ninety minutes, I think this way was, I think, very, very impressive thing to do, especially once again filmed in such beautiful place. The one take aspects might add a little bit the impression that we're actually going through time with the film we're watching, because the first two films we talked about were shot in real time. The action is actually taking place just as a cameraser following what we're watching in a rope and Macbeth is taking place in real time, whether and in Russian Arc, well, what we're watching could be seen as happening in real time, but I don't think that's really the point. The point is to take us through the museum and Russian history at the same time. What the film wants to achieve is a bit different between the first two film, we mentioned that our plays, and the third one, which could be seen as advertisement for sense, the museum, as you say that you know, but they're all. Honestly, if all advertisement could be like that, that would be that would be perfect. So I'm not complaining at all, but not in that we see a director was literally playing himself in the film. has found several top people getting there were themselves either talking to the characters in the specific museum scenes, showing them things, explaining things. So it does really have that advertising. Your favorite, I guess, in a way, but for for me the film and the single take what it does is that it bompards you with shotting in surprise the images, because you can go through a order of an actual theme and certainly you slip through time and you're just in the middle of real event seeing them at this large, massive scope as it being emerged in them, and it's almost like you have to be clues to the screen at all times because suddenly the open a door, suddenly that turn around and something else. It's happening. It's really impressive. I just want to get back just a second for Macbeth. I don't agree that it's weird time because the events in Macbeth particularly take place over a large period of time. Right mcbeth becomes king and you have the Sun who goes away and then comes back with an army. I mean it feels that weird time, obviously because of the single take, but I don't think...'s a weird time film. But in no film uses this notion of unbroken time more obviously than than Russian arc. Editing is cutting time, and kind of what SOC off accomplishes with Russian ark is to do that without editing the certainly something magical about that. I definitely remember especially the scene where we enter the revolution era and we're basically went to a room that's destroyed. It's during the war and you have snow going in this as well. That's such a strong visual moment for the strong emotionally also because it's comes towards the end of the film after we've seen all of this luscious and luxurious history playing out, and do think it's something very special that socer does with this film that really hasn't been done, since the other things will talk about don't really go for that delution of time aspect as much, where thinks in equal of doing you two, and it's really interesting to compare. This is like bet because in that better, like it said, time has abridged, it just compressed a much that you barely noticed it's passing. In here it's really in real time in a way because you have these two central characters. The camera follows what rather one character is a point of view and the other character is walking in from dancing around into acting and essentially just the having these Sam your bizarre conversations with each other, playing with history, discussing what's going on. But around them time is changing and it's done into such completely different ways. I'm also really interesting just how much fun so grows clearly having with this like how what arel and surreal, how bizarre in like you said, this character of the stranger is a real character in a way, but it's also the playing around with who this person is, which country is, from several points, simply called the same Europe, as it is the standing for all European interest in Russia. Almost this just interesting, just how much fun, how much play and how many other ideas are being brought into this film. To that point, his French's actual historical sunch character, but he represents Western Europe in general because the Hermitage was built in some pictures building and the whole place is about Russia as part of Europe. That whole period of history really is Russian's relationship with Western Europe and wanting to be more like western Europe or not. It's kind of the central dynamic of this period of Russian history and it's what central in the same as well. I think that's also why we have this character and why he's never really named and, as you say, that kind of stay vague about him just being western European, because that's what matters. Doesn't matter that he is specifically French. That's a really interesting and twenty point as well. There's just clearly so much taught playing into this, and one of the things that also should be mentioned it, which I guess it isn't obvious unless you either read the Trivia or you're really familiar with the Russian history, but that if spectacular ball seen. That is the final guess called climax of the film, the final long set piece that was set in the exact same hall as the last ball in sorry Stra, Russia was ever held. So it's dontually covers all of you know, sorry's history. The way it plays with history in this way, it's just absolutely incredible. It's clear that is so much tall when In't do it. Yeah, it definitely has this last day of the empire thing. And and again this film was actually shot in one single day, the only close for one day. They ran through it in a few different takes, but really just one day properly prepare, set everything up, you know, coordinate. It's so many extras which so cour does not even want to say. I mean there's a reason why this film is remembered the way it is and perhaps also the reason why there are a couple of smaller films that were not mentioning like time code. But there's such a long gap before the next major made sure one take film which in my opinion, is not really I won't take film. It's fake. It's more clearly fake, but it's bird man, the massive, you know, mute the Academy Award winning film by in a edit to really over the cloths or cast incredible central performance by Michael Keaton, essentially reigniting his career and it's so visually studying, it's so visually playful. But would you classify this as a single take film? I mean it's literally isn't. But it certainly belongs in the conversation because stylistically that's what it appears as, right, even though people who are not better at this than me can tell you where all the cuts are. I don't particularly see the cuts and just no intellectually that it's not one take, that it would be basically impossible, given the fantasy aspects of the film. But yeah, it feeds like a one takes him. So it's not, but it belongs in this conversation, I would argue. I'm personally not a big fan of that man, but the reasons I don't like the film have to do with the writing and the characters, not with the...

...directing. I think the one take aspects works very well actually for the film. It is with him about theater, which again matters here, and it has this immersive aspect, but this time in making us identify with the main character, right, and with his kind of psyche that is kind of being told with by the same and having this one take means that we are there with him all the time and we can maybe empathize more with him and with the way he is kind of losing his mind, not just in my love, but I think technically it works. I think the single take does do what the thing wants it to do. Yeah, I would have reburn men is definitely a thing we can mention, because it's supposed to look like a one take film. I have to say I didn't remember it as a one take sham at all, even though I remember that they were some long shots and just didn't remember it was one long take. I like the film. When I saw it, I thought the long shot aspect worked quite well. It really allowed us to follow him through his journey. Let's say. The fact also that movies center around theaters is probably something that has too with the fact that it's also in one take. Yeah, personally, I actually loved Burd and I just I love the craft of it. It was what really absorbed me and and I love from says. I just loved the amount of the realism and play in such a massive thing stream film. I thought it was quite spectacular, but I didn't really watch it for this episode and the reason for that is also because I don't really consider it a single take. Films like effects aside them. This is to me in the same category as, you know, Gosper Nos film, which I know we looked up in the research for this, and the restore fings is irreversible. Were all lists of single take films. That list is litter in reverse chronological order, and only reason why all of the list is because it has these digital effect transitions were carribly be moving up and going into something again. And that's the same with the enter the void. Camera essentially plays with effects and changes between the scenes and that to me works really well. I love the craft of that, I love the way that makes the film feel, but that to me is not, you know, a single take film. is creates a very different experience essentially. So I I just can't think of them exact same way, even though I'm very happy burn and was made the way it was. It was, you know, a spectacular experience, but I think it's just a very different category of film. Same with the Goth Bor no film. See, maybe I'm misremembering. You have a seem that I don't remember. It's all appearing as one take I do think it's different from the man. Maybe I'm mismembering because I remember some of the transitions you mentioned, but I don't think. I think there are also more traditional cuts and it's under because I do think that man, because it feels like one take to me, a different than the Spanolis film, which are just a lot of wrong takes. I think it's a fact that the SE is in reverse, let's say, which is yet why we proved me, why we remember so many huts. But I think that if you don't conso transitions, I think the scenes are all shot in one take. Actually, if you take if you take the film and put it into might order, I think you would have a one you would probably have a one take film. I think really, if you take your ways of transitions, I think, I think, I actually know. This is interesting because actually know the Gosper no recut the film last year to bea you mentioned that order. I didn't haven't seen that version, but that would be interesting. Now all sins a sort as well. I always just thought that it was the scene shot as one takes and then it just use digital effects to kind of just morehout than into the next scene without really doing a traditional cut. Yeah, that that's that's possible. It's interesting. Yeah, yeah, we're cutching university in the other way around, seems for found is stupid to me. Yeah, that's when just not the ways reasoning for it, and it's still sound stupid. I think the same was done with I think the same was done with a memento desim by Nolan, which is also problem. While no, okay, that's that's awful. I mean this one thing. Were cutting rest of development, but when you're cut momental, wow, yeah, you're taking you pretty much taking away the younger thing good about the movie. I guess we have to talk about it. What more, didn't make fun. But okay, all right, we can do that definitely, but to the transition away from the takes, if you will, the really good fakes. There was then one other major release, this time from Germany. It's called Victoria. It was made by essentially completely unknown director named Sebastian Shipper, which I haven't really heard that much from since I know we made one movie but it didn't go that well. From what they hair, it is incredible, it's beautiful. Is actually one of my...

...very favorite films from two thousand and fifteen probably the running as a d favorite film of mine from two thousand and fifteen, because it takes a kind of far fetched plot where girl gets swept up with the random men on the street and goes on essentially this crime wave with them. In a way it turns into a highst film, from a hangout film to highest film, and it has these terms that are not necessarily overly believable, but it's just sucks you in and it becomes believable because it's just this one single take and I think the way it works, where you just follow her on the street, you see these men behind her kind of holdering at her, you get scared, you get alarmed, you feel the tension, you just move into their conversations to flow. The ribe of them is walking together, doing things together. It numbs you how this sucks you into that night and it's just it's not something I had experience before. It goes a very different direction from Russian art in the way this is an action film, or at least, you know, a proper intense thriller. It goes through, she car chases, it does essentially anything you would imagine, but it is one single take and the effect is incredible. Yes, I mentioned, Victoria was the first film I saw in one take and I was extremely impressed by it. It was also around the time I really got into film, so relatively early on, and yeah, absolutely loved it. It's still a favorite of mine. You mentioned the believability, or lack thereof, of some of the plot developments, and I do think it's kind of an interesting aspect of the one take thing is it's either really smooth, is that over, because you are in there with them. For me, because I was in there in the action, to the lack of believability didn't bother me. It's kind of smooth over, it said real because I was in it. But I think it can have the reverse effect. I think it can really take you out the thin and we'll talk about a thing later with where it did this for me. But yeah, I think in the case of Victoria, the this transition from this kind of romantic drama, kind of the before Sun rise type of thing, yes, into a twitter really works, I think because of the single take. For me, and again I think it's all or nothing. Yeah, I guess, and you're completely right. I mean you have slower scenes, you have this Romans building up and you get these extremely varied scenes where you have them in a cafeteria where she works, essentially the atmosphere there. You have those hang out things on the roof the apartment that are spectacular. You have the street scenes and then you actually have a litteral high you have car Shase to shootout. You have just so much intense variety that four different sessions they went with the third one. It's still boggles a man the man, as she's variety. They even go clubbing, like they go into this massive club and they danced with so many extras around them and it's just so absorbing as they can't stop being impressed by this film. Like question art a kind of complicate their own life to show how difficult it is. kind of I mean I think the cubbing thing is kind of showing off. It works quite what it the story. Also, there's one little thing that I read about it is that at one point, there's just one point in the film where the lead actress is not on screen. It's like two minutes and apparently she went to vomiting the toilet or something, because it was such a dense thing and it was not particularly scripted. Wow. Anyway, I supposed detail. And another thing I want to add mention the director, Sebastian Shipper. Apparently he does have a film, absolutely Guantan from one thousand nine hundred and ninety nine, which is volatively well with you to haven't seen it, but she had done something before. The claim you haven't seen that one correct. Yeah, I haven't seen it, but I guess I would have to see it, because you guys are. Yeah, because apparently you guys are. You guys like it, especially you, Chris. You managed to sell it to two thousand and twelve, so I have to check it out. When them these days, I'm looking upper in A. Ye, I'd actually done three films before that. Would love to see something else from him, but at least in this film. It's incredible this amount of transitionc he manages to do. And comparing its Russian arc, I mean Russian mark was in one museum, this one literally spans, you know, a city. I mean it's probably a small alley, I the city. Seems that you're out one night in burden. I mean, yeah, it feels like that. You got too many different places and the I would do want to say the lead performance by Layakastam. She hasn't done that much since I don't not Donne the wells that she was great in this film really anchored the same, which is important because we basically all the time with her, and I think that's a nice attire to the film as well, which I guess it takes place in a smaller location but also feels incredibly intense and a bit more person of me as all, which is ute out twenty two July, which is the story of the terrorist attack and massacre in Norway back in twenty eleven. It's the most disturbing,...

...most extreme attack in Norway since World War II and it shook the country to its core. I think everyone knew at least someone affected by the massacre, because if there's so many people involved in one way or another, this is a film that takes the single take thought in a different direction, because it's the peating something that was real. Is a fictional story, but it was a conversation with the survivors. It's taking real elements from the story. It feels just like the stories we heard after the massacre, and a whole idea of the film, which is why it's incredible might could almost be imaginable to be shot an the other way is that it literally takes place in this exact same time as the massacre happened. So it goes over the seventy two minutes essentially, or it a bit longer because it starts before the shooting starts. But essentially this lets you be there then entire time. You feel like you dare you feel the trauma off the characters. And before I let you guys speak as well, I think the reason why I didn't seek for green grasses. You like Trenty sewond which is film releasablieve the same year and falls the terrorist, because that would be even more raw. But this film it doesn't show the terrorist at all. There's perhaps one shot which you would make out to be him. What welc if always we followed their faces, we follow the teenagers and children as they're hiding, running. We just stay from their perspective. Then entire time, even as you know some of them die, we see it only is their perspective. We see the hurt and the pain and the terror of the event rather than actually glorify and giving any notice to the terrorist themselves. I think that's just a really beautiful touches, a really powerful touch, and you really feel that that you're there and it's just probably one of the most powerful experiences I've had cinematically in a long time. But that's also because of just how close it feels, because in this it has been mentioned before, I am the reason. I knew at least one person who was there and it's it's quite still a quite raw experience. Yeah, it is very, very intense film, so very intense subject matter. It treaty uses this single take idea to put you into someone's skin. Right it's to go what if you were there when this was happening? And it's succeeds. I think it's it's almost traumatic to watch. It's so intense and so hard to watch at times. You have to kind of cling to the fact that I didn't know this for sure when I watched it, but I assume those were fictional characters, even though obviously situation is quite weird. You do see actually driving the the kidder a few times, but always from a distance. He's kind of treated like horror movie monster in some sense. Yes, exactly. So I think it's also like question of whether it is him or someone else, because you kind of just see the shadow of someone something you don't know. So it's always that this question of if it is him or not as well. So it really feels like it's him. I think it's two times we see him because he's working very calmly. And Yeah, no one else is calm in this whole thing. Yeah, and there's also a time, a point where from using sound designed very well, where she's hiding in a tent and we just hear very quiet steps. It's unclear whether or not his him at at that point. So yeah, I think it's a thing that really succeeds in what's it's doing completely. There is something a little obscene about it. I don't know if it's the right word, but it's very uncomfortable to watch. It's supposed to be, but yeah, I don't I don't know what to make of it. It's hard to process in some sense. Obviously I don't have the closeness you have, Chris, to those events, but need is to say they were similar, not quite similar. It's always attacks and France and the past few years and I don't know about the claim, but similarly, you know people who were kind of connected to those events and I don't know if I would like to see that for those events. Right, it's not exactly. It's just the something that feels wrong about it. But that same time I can't fold the film for again, it does exactly what's it sets out to do and it's uses the the one take technique for this purpose extremely well. I think it's extremely effective. No, I agree completely and I I said, it really feels like this horrifying creature in a distance and the way that it's just really focuses in on these people, how these survivors and and obviously some of them die, their experience, and only their experience, of the event. I think that's why it was received so well in Norway, not why it didn't feel that my carburb, to me at least, because it's really respectful to the survivors and and the casualties and it's was made in conversation with them as well, and it walks such a fine line on doing that. And at just one point in many films, like if you're too, horror film, it does to an exist slight extent, feel a bit like a horror film because it's just... horrifying. There's this trill right, if you watch many horror films, that this trill. When will this person died? Will this person died? Oh my God, there's bullets, there's something's going to happen, and I think in this film that's not there. You don't want the killer to come. I think that's probably one of the things that the film manage to do so well. It has this long quiet moment where they're just hiding, maybe ten or even fifteen, twenty minutes in the same spot, just laying down, whispering, the camera going into the Rock, showing their faces and you don't want the killer to come. Even though it's such a long, long set pieces with limited talking. You don't want anything to break that up because it's so tense that I think the way it managed to do that the weight never in vade invited any kind of glee at the violence, where any kind of excitement from the violence. I think that's so rarely dumb. It makes the FEELM even more powerful. Yeah, I agree with you, yet that you definitely don't want the things to happen to the characters on screen. I think especially the way the film using the sound of the shots that are constants it feels like a traumatic event. It feast like you're having a traumatic experience when watching it, which whatever, not that something you want to do is is up to us, suppose. I do think there is something in the film about the difficulty of inaction. I think that's right away in the start of the film, because these people are they confronted with this thing and you see how difficult it is to hide, to just do what is probably the most conducive to surviving, which is nothing that set I've seen in this I mean the main character has, I don't think it's just further to say she has a sister and she's most emotilated in the film by finding her sister who's on the island, and that's makes her an active character. That kind of forces her into being active. But you also have a bunch of characters around her. You kind of at some points we sent them for doing nothing, while also thinking obviously you do nothing. That's only thing you can do and it's it's it's an interesting films. I don't think I have fully process it yet. I watched its two days ago. It's a unique film, I would say. I do think there's a decision right near the end of the film with I can speak in detail, but if you see the thing you might know what I mean. It didn't make me feel a little queasy, is what I would say. I think that's the that's they experience. A lot of the go away with as well. I think it's just speaks to the power it has in any way get a we can talk with to talk about various flaws, racings weren't done. It's really that well as well. I'm sure there's things to pick pick at, but I think just as an experience it is unique can all and almost in paralleled in just how nerving it is and also how this how it uses that. You said in action, and I never felt contempt for characters doing nothing. I will not did nothing, but but I can see that that that you as well. Yeah, I just it's a contradictory thing, M and and they. I think that's cinematically as well, if you can just disconnect from that actual emotions. But I think it's really interesting because I don't think I've seen it done before the way of keeping tension and horror for such a long time with inaction, like when you have people hiding for say, ten minutes plus just hiding and still managing to keep that attention. I think that's something that I guess was amplified by the single take, by the way it is shot, by the emotions and the fact that it worked when it just cannot think of that working in that way in this kind of little wrong to called mainstream, but they mean it was a big film in Norway and it's just I can't think of any other bigger films I would do that managed to maintain suspense that way. Well, I guess if you want to transition into another thing that also takes us into extremely violence and difficult situation and uses this technique, I guess we can talk about one thousand, one hundred and seventeen, and yeah, that's the going into the terror of World War One and all that bet novel at killing almost feels like a bit of a lighter bitch. I'm so thankful. Thanks for that transition. Met Your and one thousand, ne hundred and seventeen is not technically a single take film. Is A to take film. It has a very obvious break with also switches the time of day. But with that exception, it does belong in this conversation and it is also arguably the very biggest film to ever use this technique and the one that really pushed shooting things and one single take into a note the ultimate main like mainstream conversation, because essentially everyone has seen the people were seeing it. That Imaxi was such a massive experience around the world, and I'm assuming this is the film you were hinting at earlier that in quite succeed in some of the real time things we were talking about, and I'll agree with that. But from a craft perspective I really enjoyed the thought was a really strong experience with some great effects from this the single takes, but very few can jump to solve the fourth before...

...we turn this episode into a complete falling exercise. Okay, so one thousand nine hundred and seventeen. I only saw it yesterday. I didn't have a chance to see it in theater. I quite liked it. It's obviously not a one, one take film because it has very clear shot in the middle, as you mentioned, Chris. So I thought the idea of following these two soldiers to deliver a message to another battalion through the battle field was quite a good idea. To do it in one shot it really feels like you're you're with them, companying them through their request. I think someone mentioned in the comments of the the I check movie page that it reminded them of some kind of video game, because you had, you have like this quest that you have to do and you do it through the film in real time. Or I can I see where it's come from, even though I didn't thought about it at all when when I was watching the film. I think also the first and the second part are quite different in in tone. I think the second part is much more violent, let's say, and the paste is much faster, which was a nice end of place. Even why I like both parts equally. Maybe I prefer the first one to bits better. As for the one shot technique, as I said, I think it worked quite well here. It gives them the opportunity to do some great shot like at the beginning when we're following them in the trenches. It actually reminded me of the Kubrick Film path of glory in the first scene as well, when the troop douglass is also going through the trenches. I think filming in in one shot as well in a way give it two more tense feeling because you're really there with everything that's happening in you can really see anything that's going on because they aren't that many claws up on their face on or on themselves. There are lots of huge panorama of what's going on around them, which I think was nice because it allows us to see even more what's going on. So I think it's a nice film, not a film specifically about war or World War One, but a film about to young soldiers caught up in this world that have to do this kind of quest in this film and you just know that after this is done they will be stand back to the battlefield to resell lives. So it's kind of like a parallel in their horrible trenches life. Yes, ask Chris alluded to I'm not a big Fan. Then, Jean Seventeen, what you brought up claim with the video game, the discussion that was very prevalent on the film, which makes sense with the single take thing, especially when you have a Q in. We didn't talk about it for version arc, but when we say it's kind of like visiting a museum, you could also say it's kind of like video game taking place in a museum. For one thousand nine hundred and seventeen. In the end it's not so much of a video game I would compare it to. I would more say it's like a World War One theme park. Yes, I do mean that pejoratively. I don't know. This is maybe kind of unrelated, but there's a very famous quote from Jacquivett's in the cages them a talking about traveling shots, where he said traveling shots are question of morality, and there's something similar to me that plays out in both this film and Victoria and the use of single take. I don't want to condemn them, I'm not on authority to do so, certainly, but because of the intensity, because you are placed with them, there is something uncomfortable to me morally about what's going on in these films, but much more in nine hundred seventeen actually, I think I think Joia, because of its Focus, works better. It's also maybe the writing. I think the reason people compared it to a video games also because I think the writing, especially in the first parts and the conversations between the two two soldiers there, maybe not super well written, I would argue, and maybe that's what's why people think of video game, which general I don't have the greatest screenwriters. Not Depends on the game. And Yeah, I don't know. I think that is everything is is remarkable in terms of technique, right. Oh, yeah, Prosha Dickins won the ASCA for it. It looks amazing, especially in the second half, PAS nine scenes with the the town on fire. The has really nothing to say about that. It's just amazing in terms of visual storytelling. I don't know what it is about this technique. It makes me feel uncomfortable when we are in situations like this, which are not only tragic but also we are even though these are fictional characters. And Yeah, it's specifically this film felt like. Yeah, the thing back to me. It felt like, Hey, visit World War One and they're taught with peppery. But I think it's a very different film from the usual war film that we see. We we don't see like the day to day life the trenches. We don't see them charging the other army. So I understand what you mean by the theme part. It seems like we'LD just taking a walk through what's going on and not really seeing any actions, apart from a scene where planes are fighting and towards the end where we see...

...a little bit of English soldiers coming out of the trenches to charge. I think that the life condition were worse than what we see. So I didn't see what you mean by them. Park. I don't think it's a fim that was made to be representative of the for and World War One, just a story taking place over about twenty four hours in what could a four year conflict. I did look it up. Perfectly. Did win best achievement in thematography and it also won best achievement in visual effects and best achievement in sound mixing. At those are only three wins, but with also said, those are all well the third it looks spectacular, even, or so the Victoria. In a way, this is done in a much larger scale. It's essentially takes in the extras from Russian arc and they of this move bring all throughout the massive area from Victoria and merges them together and it's shot even more professional, which is to say it just done the proper studio way. It's utterly incredible in this how beautiful some of these shops etc. Is. But from the very beginning I had that video game feeling and never took team park. But this idea of the video game where, you know, you kind of had the early missions where you working places, you're discovering things, there's some caves to go in like. It feels a lot like so many different war games you know, we might have played, and that was the slight negative. On the flip side, though, regards of what do you want to say about the dialog? I actually thought the early portions of the film where you really just do have these two characters on their own, walking through the trenches and hiding and being harmed in some ways, cutting themselves on bar wires, etc. It feels really immersive, I think as a film building tension, as there's this immersive journey follow with the characters, works incredibly well. I think us about the main powers of the single take, that he can really just be there with them. Everything's given a little bit extra gravatas. But then there's some transitions that are a bit too unbelievable, like when suddenly they run into a bunch of folders. There's so many things that has to happen for this to really work, in so many big events, and at some point it doesn't work as well as, say, Victoria. I think it was with Victoria that I said, long take thing was kind of all or nothing in terms of immersion and I was thinking of those things in in one thousand nine hundred and seventeen, whether they're talking and the early parts, and maybe it's not the right thing, maybe it's just something. It really broke the immersion for me. Something there didn't click for me and I think, yeah, with this technique, because it is so involving, it's again all or nothing, and maybe the thing kind of lost me there and couldn't bring me back, even though I could appreciate the technical aspects of its the beauty of some of the shots. But yeah, I guess I think it lost me emotionally and that point and that's why I got the fan. I agree that the story is not particularly incredible or something that has never been done before. It has a few war film Tshirt or where it's but yeah, I don't. I don't think the story is necessarily the most important part of the film. That is my I just saw it as two guys having a break, let's say, from their life, well soldier life, to just have another mission deliver to them. So yeah, I don't. I don't think it's worth supposed to be necessarily something that represent what day to day life in a war is, but just distressed type of him, and I think it mainly exists to give you that immersive experience and to be able to have that one or other two single takes. I think that's really the main thing about the film as and as someone who's really drawn to the technical elements of film that really were, for me, overstepping for writing and cliches. I think that's why I really enjoyed thousand nine hundred and seventeen. I think probably that's why a lot of people are doing nineteen seventeen, because it is done so well, it is so impressive. I didn't manage to see that the cinema. I would love to, but it is the way this film is made that really is the stand out there, and perhaps the performance is perhaps you know, obviously there's all of the staging, etc. which which all goes into how it was made. Against it, I would credit the story, which the success or the strength of the film, but I do like the idea you put forward that it is all or nothing and that when there's no cuts, when there's no rare Asian there the entire time something can keep the machine experience all the way through, so that that's definitely an interesting take as well. It's something we're considering for anyone trying to make a single take film now. I did think actually this is the last one or the newest one that all of you guys have seen, right. Yeah, absolutely so. One more on the recommendation of Tom Move, fortunately isn't there today, which is called the body remembers when the world broke open, which is,...

I guess, a bit of a poetic title. But it is a really powerful film and I think it uses a single taken a very different way that we used to as well, because it takes us into the aftermath of domestic abuse. You get a bit of an introduction, you know, setting up lives off two women, which is not done in a single take. It's kind of like, just like my bat, you have a little mini intro first and then the title comes on screen and then it's a single day, essentially, that single take to start with, one of those women standing there in a bloody in the rain with no shoes on her feet. As you know, her boyfriend is screaming from the other side of you know heavily traffic road abuse. You have this horror element. These have been bumping each other for first time and the Open Rize and the see takes her away to safety and it's just start this blow brooding, very emotional. Look at that abuse. Look at just what happens there. What are thoughts that goes through it? And this is feels some real and probably impart because it was inspired by a real event in the corrector and called star, probably going to butcher the name of Elmya tail feathers life. It just feels like you are right there with these women. As you know, you have one of them, a lave, being just this supportive to destive, cautious, UN sure. She's just the kind of giving this little sugestions of when shouldn't be called the police, like are you okay? And then you have the other woman, rosy, who's just heard route crude, kind of lashing out it, being abused in herself a bit, and it just kind of experience this relationship grow and just the way they deal with solving it, trying to find rosy help, being there in the room with them, being there as they drive somewhere else. I'm not going to tell you anywhere where it goes, but it's just feels like a powerful experience of real life and it's kind of this story that you never really see before and it's again shot in absolute real times. It was just like this event happened over ninety minutes. This is how it felt, this is the experiences of these women. It allows you to have this more quiet moment, but in a very different way than, say, ute from second duly. It's just it's really powerful. I would definitely recommend that. It's a Canadian film and an indigenous narrative as well. Both of the main actors are indigenous. It kind of dells into some of that as well. It's a beautiful film as a powerful film, definitely something to be recommended and as you guys haven't seen it, I want ask you to comment. But I do think that over the last two three years we're seeing a bit of a emergence of these single takes films, like there was an other relatively big goal from Norway called Blind Song, which I haven't seen yet, which is also a single take, and you can have this. Just over the last two three years you getting to create big single take films and technology is getting there too, now that is possible to make more of these single takes films. So what do you think the future single take film? Sorry, do you think they will be more of them, and how do you think they'll develop? I think we definitely see you, not more. As you mentioned, the technology is a big factor. First digitals inmaking. I think wash an occurs made specifically because Sok off, when, now that we have do digital cameras, we can do this much more easily. And in the case of one thousand, nine hundred and seventeen, I think they also use some new things in terms of visual effects. I do think these films show that you can do the very big stuff right with the white budget, and hopefully we'll see more things like you describe, with the body remembers, when the world work open, more indie films using this. I do think it's also kind of stylistically in vogue to do stuff like this. Long takes in general are very fashionable, I suppose in cinema right now, just in the past twenty years, it seems that there have been lots more films with very long takes. And Yeah, so I think we see more and hopefully more valvid, just not twit us. I mean, I think it's great for photos, but yeah, I'm the interested in seeing it used in other genres. Yeah, I agree with Matt. I'm prettyure it. It's something that we will see more and more as time goes by. It's something that isn't that much develop even today because, as we said that there are only two films that are really one take film so far in two thousand and twenty one. Maybe we'll get more in the next years, but I'm pretty sure it's extremely hard to do. It requires a lot of budget, a lot of white depends on the type of film you want to do. Obviously, I assume it's a lot of work, a lot of preparation before shooting the film and maybe not everyone can afford to have this time of preparation. I hope we see more and maybe try to have some other general as as much you mentioned, like not only like trailers or war films, but maybe try to go through something completely different. Maybe, I don't know, comity or romance or Western or I don't know, or maybe or film could be good. Yeah, you mentioned two of them being with yeah, Victoria in Russian Ark, but actually, Chris is isn't you tooya also really want to take.

It trends that way to me, but I guess I don't know. The entire film technically is some single take. But it's a bit like the body members when open in that it has an intro so with several cuts. It has been shots from the capital where it was a bomb first and they kind of shows the bomb going off and then they go to the island. Then everything is a single take from there. Not that that first part could absolutely be technically being cut out, but I think that's also an interesting part we didn't really discuss, which is that you have essentially two parts of the single take film. You have the ones that are specifically doing it for the artistic purpose of being solely one single take, which I guess Russian arc is the main example of, but also Victoria, and then you have the films that are going for the effect of the single take, which could even include nine hundred and seventeen, but also something like the body members when the world broke up, and that there's a real point. There's a reason say we do thee. There's a real reason why you want that effect. But they're not necessarily inclined to artistically limit themselves off this more about the fact they create. It's good to have a single taketion, but think you should be for the right reason, let's say, not only to just say a rk, we made a one take show, but also to to have a reason, let's say, behind it. Yes, and I'm not sure after our others, like the recommensation, is one more regional film from two thousand and eighteen called blindstone. I'm not sure if that is complete single take or if there's an intro there as well. There are other films that have existed that haven't gotten that much attention. I heard a time code has four single takes essentially shown on screen and the same time or something come. Not Very exactly how that works. The probably all the smaller ones out there. It's an interesting distinction because you kind of like just looking at the extreme definite, most extreme definitions as well this make sure that it is truly truly one single taken every single instance, though. I guess it's also the nature of the limitation, and I hope that our podcast today wasn't too limited and it didn't too singular and that we manage to talk you through the biggest single take films, or almost single takes film in a good way. Join US on ICM formcom find a thread for this episode and tell us what you think the future of single take. Don't so be if we actually left out some of your favorites and what your sunds are on any of the film's we mentioned today. Thanks so much listening and journ us again soon. You have been listening to talking images, official PODCAST OF ICM FOR USCOM.

In-Stream Audio Search


Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (61)