me watching all the butthurt in this thread
Prologue
Posts: 8437
Joined:
August 2012
Real one-take movies do exist: Russian Ark being the prime example. Done in camera, no stitching or arbitrary breaks. Also, Hitchcock, in the Truffaut/Hitchcock book talks Rope and how it's an interesting exercise, but not necessarily the most conducive to telling a story.Angus wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2019, 4:38 pmI hate these lies about single-take movies. 1917 is not one long take. Why do they think we'll believe that over and over?
If something like that were actually achievable, Mendes wouldn't be the first one to do it. It would've been Kubrick or Hitchcock or Malick or, you know, one of the greats.
I guess I'm the only one looking forward to 1917 : p. The marketing has been pretty shameless, but I'm hoping the actual movie does more of it's own thing.
To be fair, i dont think that it matters if its really one take, its impossible, at least as a feature film goes, but thats not the point, its a narrative deivce, like in Birdman, off course its not in one take for real, and you can tell, but its a great way to tell that particular story, and who knows, it may be a great way to tell this story aswell, i`ll know when i see it.Angus wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2019, 4:38 pmI hate these lies about single-take movies. 1917 is not one long take. Why do they think we'll believe that over and over?
If something like that were actually achievable, Mendes wouldn't be the first one to do it. It would've been Kubrick or Hitchcock or Malick or, you know, one of the greats.
PD: i`ve looked and didnt see any promotional material claiming it was shot on a oner, they explicitly said it was "made to look like a oner".
Posts: 180
Joined:
March 2013
The absolute butthurt on these forums over Sam Mendes is equal parts hilarious equal parts pathetic. This is why a lot of film twitter live making fun of Chris Nolan’s fanbase, they cant conceive of another director of a similar ilk of Nolan getting any success. If that’s not petty and childish I don’t know what is.
Posts: 4193
Joined:
June 2010
How dare you, sir!Sharkboy wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2019, 2:06 amThe absolute butthurt on these forums over Sam Mendes is equal parts hilarious equal parts pathetic. This is why a lot of film twitter live making fun of Chris Nolan’s fanbase, they cant conceive of another director of a similar ilk of Nolan getting any success. If that’s not petty and childish I don’t know what is.
Yeah, poor Christopher Nolan. Guy just can't catch a break...A Borges man wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2019, 4:09 pmThe issue is: Nolan is victim of his own monumental success. Film Twitter doesn't like him, and neither do the older film critics, and young people view him as conservative.
All these groups though, get suckered in by something like a fake-o long take-o.
Nolan will get recognition and respect when he is gone. It happens with some of the best. The list of filmmakers and films he has influenced just keeps getting longer.
Posts: 7
Joined:
December 2019
u w0t m8Angus wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2019, 4:38 pmI hate these lies about single-take movies. 1917 is not one long take. Why do they think we'll believe that over and over?
If something like that were actually achievable, Mendes wouldn't be the first one to do it. It would've been Kubrick or Hitchcock or Malick or, you know, one of the greats.
