March 24, 2008
A Chicago Take on a Single-Take Movie
Hitchcock got the ball rolling. Orson Welles experimented with it too. But it wasn't until Russian Ark (and the advent of digital video, with its high-capacity recording capability) that an audacious technical challenge was satisfyingly fulfilled: shoot an entire feature-length film in a single take. Aleksandr Sokurov's surreal voyage through St. Petersburg's Hermitage showed exactly what the form is capable of and received nearly universal critical plaudits.
Now writer/director Aram Rappaport plans to try his hand at it with his thriller Helix. According to the blog at Wired, "plans are underway to shut down several areas of Chicago so the 100-minute crima drama can be shot in a single take." Filming is scheduled to begin today, with Alexa Vega in a leading role as a victim of kidnapping.
We don't really know much about Rappaport, other than that his imdb photos are pretty dreamy. But we wish him well and we're curious to see the result. Technical acheivement aside, the form itself doesn't automatically ensure a great movie. Hitchcock's own Under Capricorn, which is dull as dishwasher, is a perfect example. An even better one is Mike Figgis' Timecode, one of the most godawful movies we've ever sat through, embarrasing and pretentious in equal proporation. Let's hope that a meat-and-potatoes thriller will be the perfect story to tell in this fashion.
image via TheseBootsAreMadeForStalking
|
Sweet, that's my street in the second picture (Wells and Schiller).
I am intrigued! What if they screw up at the 99th minute!?!@?@!$!
Weak. The Spice Girls did this like 84937859 years ago for the Music Video for "Wannabe"
So Spav1, you're basically equating a 3-minute Spice Girls video with a 100-minute movie?!
I am just saying that tracking shots are boring. See: Atonement. And unless they can make this movie MORE entertaining than the Spice Girls clip, I kind of don't see the point. Doing something just to do it isn't the best...
Tracking shots are boring? See: Children of Men.
Also, Austin O'Brien is in this? Last Action Hero, ftw!
I've always felt that tracking shots have been done for one of two reasons:
1) Dance numbers (i.e. Fred Astaire, Ginger Rogers, Gene Kelly, Busby Berkley, and so on).
2) Directors want to show off their metephorical/technical wang.
Can you imagine how orchestrated this whole thing has to be?! Jeeze, what if they turn around to get the boom mike guy in the shot...
"Oh...him? He's my...brother...? He holds a microphone...I'm gonna go."
The director is only 20 and said this: "I cannot conceive of making the picture any other way. To edit it would be an injustice."
Great, another young pretentious asshole who's adding to the cacophony but assuming he's from the ether.
This place just drank a giant cup of haterade.
Good grief, no wonder no one likes to be creative in Chicago. It's full of haters!
I, for one, can't wait to see this.
That quote IS pretty pretentious, but I'm willing to give Mr. Rappaport the benefit of the doubt. Proof is in the pudding. It takes guts to even attempt it. The way Hitchcock made it work is that it wasn't just all dolly here-dolly there. He was essentially creating edits in-camera by varying the shot from wide angles to close-ups. Even though it was a "single" shot there was a lot of variety in it, just like there would be in a typical edited sequence. If there was one problem I had with "Russian Ark" it was its staginess; there wasn't the same rhythm that "Rope" had.
Who wants to go see Solaris later?
I am not "hating" matty, I am just calling it what it is: a gimmick to generate press.
Can we stop with the bullshit word "haters"?
It manages to be both childish and pretentious, and implies you are either with me/against me. The word is as sophisticated and useful as "evildoers" or "good guys."
People have problems with various things, including art, and when criticism is offered, it does not make one a "hater." It merely makes one a critic, either informed or uninformed or something in between.
As well, "hater" is a word that hardly means what it pretend to--does a critic really hate everything he or she criticizes?--even though the word tries its best to squeeze out nuance.
We are just cleaning up Chicagoist today, aren't we Matilda?
Spav: Not sure if that's something to be liked or hated.
Matty,
Just change "hater" to "uninformed critic" and you'll have most chicagoist commentors covered. Not to at all imply that most of them are probably lazy desk jockeys who aren't you know creatively active or anything.
Navin: So one must be engaged in creative pursuits to offer criticism of creative work?
Is that what you are saying?
I am the least artistic person ever, but I know what I like and I am well-informed. Isn't this enough to have strong opinions regarding the inanity of making a movie that is essentially a 100 minute tracking shot?
So, fine, the last thing I "made" was a macaroni picture frame as a joke. But I go to museums, I see exhibits, I have taken art classes as well as art history. But I have to be actively CREATING to contribute?
Well, Spav and Matilda, you clearly don't get it. If you can't personally cook, you can't be a food critic; if you can't write a novel, you certainly are not informed enough to judge fiction; if you can't write, direct, act or produce, you better not be judging film. You certainly cannot judge unless you have done the creative act yourself. Duh.
I am not a chef, author or director, so by Navin's standards, I cannot tell that vomit on a plate with a sprig of parsely is still vomit, that the "Left Behind" series is a great example of horrible writing (and a simply horrible movie series), and anything with Rob Schneider is not worth the film it was printed on.
Hardly Tilda,
But I didn't realize criticism = 'dude sux' or 'this iz dum' now............
Sparky: I am not a politician, I guess, so I should stop criticizing our dear leaders.
Let's give Navin the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he/she meant something else, and the writing was unclear. Hence, my question.
Then again, if that is the case (unclear writing), Navin should never comment on books or other forms of writing, I guess.
so Navin you will be keeping you comments to yourself about politics,the police,pro sports and well everything except what you have created. you are so witty and wise.
Navin: Hence, informed vs uninformed criticism.
Sometimes people just do not like an idea or work. Sometimes this is just a basic gut reaction.
But, do you really think that people not engaged in creative pursuits should refrain from criticizing creative work? If so, why?
Well, Spav and Matilda, you clearly don't get it. If you can't personally cook, you can't be a food critic; if you can't write a novel, you certainly are not informed enough to judge fiction; if you can't write, direct, act or produce, you better not be judging film
Haha,
THe difference being that you would have eaten the food and read the book. Judging film would require you to have maybe, you know *seen the film". At this point this kid's just guilty of even trying to do something. Personally I'm skeptical myself about 20 year old kids with enough clout to get something like this done but whatever, who knows.
By all means keep the awesome criticism coming: The Spice Girls did this like 84937859 years ago
Every director & film school grad wants to do a long tracking shot or a 360 shot.
The good ones realize that it's usually a lazy, stupid & boring piece of film making & never do it again.
The rest become Ridley Scott or even worse, Henry Jaglom!
Navin:
I was being Hyperbolic, but the criticism here isn't lost:
my point want that this kid is trying to do something that works best in a medium that by design is supposed to be on the shorter side, i.e. a music video. When stretched, the tracking shot gets boring and leaves audiences with too little to observe, like the tracking shot in Atonement (which was just over six minutes long).
But yeah, the Spice Girls did do it like 8578302387 years ago.
Navin: Hence, informed vs uninformed criticism.
Sometimes people just do not like an idea or work. Sometimes this is just a basic gut reaction.
But, do you really think that people not engaged in creative pursuits should refrain from criticizing creative work? If so, why?
Exactly,
And they manage to articulate that criticism in a decent manner. If you think Spav1 managed to do that than you've let me down. Whether you like the term or not, this is just simple 'hatin'. This post is today's cupcake lady.
so Navin you will be keeping you comments to yourself about politics,the police,pro sports and well everything except what you have created. you are so witty and wise.
Fed compared to a mouthbreather like you some pretty foolish mofo's would seem pretty witty and wise.
@matilda: sparky's first paragraph was dripping with sarcasm ... i happen to know s/he isn't a politician and has *no* problem criticizing our dear leaders!
Navin: I never said Spav's criticism was the smartest I've read, only that he/she did nothing unholy or hateful to express a general dislike of a particular artistic method. You seem to be proposing an informal system under which few should offer criticism about anything.
I can't really take anyone seriously who uses the word "hater" or variations of it. I prefer that adults speak and think as adults, not like slow-thinking children.
Smussy: I know. I probably wasn't clear enough in my post, and my apologies for that unclarity. I was trying to extend the joke in a very clumsy way.
dude he is so indie-hipster cool with blue tape on his shoes, blue shorts and scruffy beard. and if he really said what Josh said he said,
"I cannot conceive of making the picture any other way. To edit it would be an injustice."
then he's totally indie-hipster cool with an attitude. girls want to know him and guys want to be him and in between are "haters" and "wannabes" and i for one am neither of those. i love 100-minute single-take movies just as much as the next pretentious douchebag!
I dunno, I really enjoyed that scene in Children of Men. Got my heart pumping. I dunno about a whole movie though...I'll definitely watch.
for the record that spice girls "tracking shot" video did have at least three hidden edits. it definitely wasn't a continuous take.
@ThisGuy:
You know how I know you're gay? Because you know "wannabe" had three hidden edits.
Kidding. Who didn't love Pop-up Video?
The Children of Men tracking shot was the tracking shot to end all tracking shots.
This sounds like a cool exploration of film as a medium (i.e.- "Momento", "Time Code") and I'd totally rent it, but I just don't think we'll be seeing an assload of one-take movies because of it. It's more like a mountain to be climbed to say it was climbed.