A continuous shot.

[Aspiring Mogul]

I just saw Spectre, and, while the plot is OK and obvious, I was fascinated by the opening shot.

I now know of coverage, thanks to the members of this forum, but I noticed that the opening scene seemed to be one continuous shot.

Spoiler

It seemed as if the cameraman followed Bond through the elevator, out the window, and so on.

The continuous shot seemed to be a bit tiring for me, as a viewer, and I was expecting a break after a few seconds. Can anyone tell me about the merits of one long shot versus the standard of several quick shots?

 

[WalterB]

Haven't seen it yet, but a long shot can unveil something gradually, give an actual overview and create anticipation. It can also be used to give a sense of dimensions if the set is big or the scale of things is large.
The quick cut is not the solution to everything.

 

[directorik]

It can give the feeling of being there. A long shot can be more "real time"
giving the viewer a sense of specific time. It can be unexpected making the
viewer uneasy. It can build suspense in a different way than quick cuts. In
this example Walter (who hasn't seen it) is right on the money; a long shot
can show scale. In "Spectre" the long shot also shows the characters single
minded determination and skill.

Hitchcock built suspense with a long shot in the opening of "Touch of Evil"
as we continuously see a car we know has a bomb in it. Altman made fun of
long shot in the opening scene of "The Player" by doing a very long, complicated
shot. Scorsese showed the charm and power of the main characters by using
a long shot in "Goodfellas".

There are many merits for using a long shot. I made a movie that takes place
in real time so I started with a twenty-two minute continuous shot taking up
the entire first act.

 

[Aspiring Mogul]

Thanks, Walter and Rik. So what're the benefits of a shorter shot? And is this something an aspiring producer/screenwriter should know?

I'm thinking of doing long shots, because, if we don't have to break up a scene, it would take less time and, hopefully, money.

 

[directorik]

I'm thinking of doing long shots, because, if we don't have to break up a scene, it would take less time and, hopefully, money.

One should never do long shots to save money or time. It is aesthetic.
All scenes including how they are shot should drive character and
story. In most cases long shots take a lot more time and many, many
more takes. If one person is out of place 7 or 8 minutes in the entire
shot is ruined and you need to start from the top.

Think of the shot in "Spectre"; if the camera operator stumbles just
a bit five minutes in they must start at the beginning. If the actor
trips walking up steps at the eight minute mark they must start at
the beginning. If an extra walk into the frame at the wrong time just
one minute into the shot...

But as always an aspiring filmmaker should try several methods as
they learn their craft.

 

[WalterB]

Rik is right: a long shot isn't always easier: the mise-en-scene and timing are becoming more complex the longer the shot takes.
It's like filming a dance: if you break it up in several shots, the dancer can do moves seperately. If it is one long shot: the whole dance needs to be perfect.
Since most movies are not just filming dance, but showing actions where the camera is often part of the action as well, there are many variables that need to be perfect.

 

[DeadChannel]

While I think editing is of exceptional importance to cinema, I'm a particular fan of when lengthy shots are handled well. I have a few points to bring up in addition to what's above.

Some directors are reluctant to cut because of the freedom it gives their actors. Scenes in Jim Jarmusch films, for example, often take place with very few cuts, with the actors just doing their thing in front of the camera. This makes acting more like stage acting. It allows for less to be in the way of the performance. Actors don't have to worry about technical elements as much, and can play off of each other more naturally. This lends a raw, realistic approach to many scenes, which I sort of like. However, it also means that you can't cut things very tightly. Scenes tend to go on for a long time, especially if heavily improvised. If that's the tone of your movie, then cool.
A few directors who like to work this way are: Jim Jarmusch, Kevin Smith, Woody Allen, some Hitchcock etc.

I also love the playful mood created when a lot of movement is added to shots. This is apparent in Spectre, and is also really capitalized on in that shot from The Player, but I think the best example in recent memory is Bird Man (which you probably saw). Birdman is interesting also in that conversations really don't seem to drag at all. Everything is speedy almost as if there was editing, but there's not. Added to this the percussive jazz soundtrack, which really adds to the aesthetic, and you have a badass way to shoot a movie.

It can give the feeling of being there. A long shot can be more "real time"
giving the viewer a sense of specific time. It can be unexpected making the
viewer uneasy. It can build suspense in a different way than quick cuts. In
this example Walter (who hasn't seen it) is right on the money; a long shot
can show scale. In "Spectre" the long shot also shows the characters single
minded determination and skill.

Hitchcock built suspense with a long shot in the opening of "Touch of Evil"
as we continuously see a car we know has a bomb in it. Altman made fun of
long shot in the opening scene of "The Player" by doing a very long, complicated
shot. Scorsese showed the charm and power of the main characters by using
a long shot in "Goodfellas".

There are many merits for using a long shot. I made a movie that takes place
in real time so I started with a twenty-two minute continuous shot taking up
the entire first act.

What film was that? Sounds interesting.

 

[Aspiring Mogul]

One should never do long shots to save money or time. It is aesthetic.
All scenes including how they are shot should drive character and
story. In most cases long shots take a lot more time and many, many
more takes. If one person is out of place 7 or 8 minutes in the entire
shot is ruined and you need to start from the top.

Think of the shot in "Spectre"; if the camera operator stumbles just
a bit five minutes in they must start at the beginning. If the actor
trips walking up steps at the eight minute mark they must start at
the beginning. If an extra walk into the frame at the wrong time just
one minute into the shot...

But as always an aspiring filmmaker should try several methods as
they learn their craft.

Thanks for the education, as always. But my first scenes will be only a few minutes long, and I was thinking that to avoid the problems of coverage, we should just do one long one.

It's like filming a dance: if you break it up in several shots, the dancer can do moves seperately. If it is one long shot: the whole dance needs to be perfect.

Very good point. Thanks again for the education.

While I think editing is of exceptional importance to cinema, I'm a particular fan of when lengthy shots are handled well. I have a few points to bring up in addition to what's above.

Some directors are reluctant to cut because of the freedom it gives their actors. Scenes in Jim Jarmusch films, for example, often take place with very few cuts, with the actors just doing their thing in front of the camera. This makes acting more like stage acting. It allows for less to be in the way of the performance. Actors don't have to worry about technical elements as much, and can play off of each other more naturally. This lends a raw, realistic approach to many scenes, which I sort of like. However, it also means that you can't cut things very tightly. Scenes tend to go on for a long time, especially if heavily improvised. If that's the tone of your movie, then cool.
A few directors who like to work this way are: Jim Jarmusch, Kevin Smith, Woody Allen, some Hitchcock etc.

Thanks, DeadChannel. But one continuous shot also doesn't allow us to cut to viewing each person's face, to show his expression. For example, I posted this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNwzawXu4v8

Look at time 1.30-1.33 - the Captain's expression is priceless. Can this dramatic effect be done with a long shot? Maybe not, because it doesn't allow for a closeup - at least, that's what I'm thinking, but I have lots to learn.


I'm going to be reading this thread over and over again for a while, just as I've read previous threads. BTW, DeadChannel, are you working in film?

 

[AudioPostExpert]

1. So what're the benefits of a shorter shot? And is this something an aspiring producer/screenwriter should know?

2. I'm thinking of doing long shots, because, if we don't have to break up a scene, it would take less time and, hopefully, money.

1. Long shots are often loved by film critics/festivals. It's more in line with a purist idea of filmmaking, capturing a great acting performance for example. They're generally not so appreciated by the wider general audience though. Unless designed with a lot of movement/action, long shots will always tend to slow down the pace of a film. In an otherwise fast paced or high tension/suspense/action film, longer shots can help create contrast/shape. A higher density of edits/shots generally does the opposite and increases pace. Pacing is arguably the most important single aspect of making a film, IE., regardless of how good the story, the acting or any other aspect of the film, if the pacing is off you'll loose the target audience. Pacing is also hard/time consuming to learn to get right, difficult to be objective about and commonly the greatest single failing of indie filmmakers!! I don't see how, if you wish to achieve your stated aspiration, you can avoid an expert level of understanding and appreciation of all the filmmaking tools which directly affect pacing.

2. If you don't want long shots to destroy the pace of your film, you're almost certainly going to need a lot of movement/action. It's going/likely to require; careful planning, more equipment, more rehearsal and more takes per shot, as Rik stated. In practice it's likely to be just as expensive (sometimes less and sometimes more), to get it right, as designing scenes using shorter shots.

You need to be thinking about shot length in terms of the aesthetic of your film/s, of involving your target audience, NOT from the sole perspective of what is the cheapest way of shooting your film/s!

G

 

[directorik]

But one continuous shot also doesn't allow us to cut to viewing each person's face, to show his expression.

One continuos shot does not mean the camera and the actors cannot move.
You are technically correct that a continuous shot " doesn't allow us to cut"
to a close up but the camera can move into a close up. The actors can move
into a close up.

Many aspiring filmmaker shoot a lot of short films as they learn. One could,
for example, take a short scene, grab a couple of actors and a small crew
and shoot the scene in several different ways. Try the exact same scene in
one long shot and try it using standard coverage. For some aspiring filmmakers
that's how they learn - by doing.

 

[DeadChannel]

Thanks, DeadChannel. But one continuous shot also doesn't allow us to cut to viewing each person's face, to show his expression. For example, I posted this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNwzawXu4v8

Look at time 1.30-1.33 - the Captain's expression is priceless. Can this dramatic effect be done with a long shot? Maybe not, because it doesn't allow for a closeup - at least, that's what I'm thinking, but I have lots to learn.

Don't worry, I have a lot to learn too. I think, if done wrong, a long shot can definitely inhibit the portrayal of emotion. You'll have to be creative with framing. Adding a lot of motion (shooting on a movi or steadicam, for instance) might help because you can physically move the camera in when you need to emphasize a facial expression, though.

I'd study some of the filmmakers that I mentioned, though, to see how they accomplish this. If done right, it's really cool, but I'd be careful and do your research.

I'm going to be reading this thread over and over again for a while, just as I've read previous threads. BTW, DeadChannel, are you working in film?

Except for a bit of brief intern work at a local tv station (very small, rural and local), I've never worked in a professional capacity on a film. I've been shooting short films for a little over a year (I've done five, some are better than others), and I've worked on some of my peer's, but Its always been student or hobby projects. Any illusion of expertise is caused by my obsession with watching and analyzing movies, so take what a say with a grain of salt. That said, this is a subject that I've thought about enough to add to, so I hope I could be of help.

 

[Aspiring Mogul]

One continuos shot does not mean the camera and the actors cannot move.
You are technically correct that a continuous shot " doesn't allow us to cut"
to a close up but the camera can move into a close up. The actors can move
into a close up.

Many aspiring filmmaker shoot a lot of short films as they learn. One could,
for example, take a short scene, grab a couple of actors and a small crew
and shoot the scene in several different ways. Try the exact same scene in
one long shot and try it using standard coverage. For some aspiring filmmakers
that's how they learn - by doing.

Agreed, and that's what I'm going to do. I think I will be speaking to my aspiring DP later this week. I think we should get an experienced director on board, to give his views on the process - I know someone who knows someone fairly prominent, so I'll approach that first someone.

I'd study some of the filmmakers that I mentioned, though, to see how they accomplish this. If done right, it's really cool, but I'd be careful and do your research.

Good idea. I am still wondering, however, if I should get too deeply into this, because I'm an aspiring producer, not an aspiring director.

BTW, that youtube clip above - the appropriate time is 0.59, not 1.30-1.34.

 

[directorik]

Agreed, and that's what I'm going to do. I think I will be speaking to my aspiring DP later this week. I think we should get an experienced director on board, to give his views on the process - I know someone who knows someone fairly prominent, so I'll approach that first someone.

I'm sad that after all the help I've given you you won't
even consider me.

 

[Aspiring Mogul]

I'm sad that after all the help I've given you you won't
even consider me.

Do you live near me?

 

[ILikef11]

Hoytema said he used the long take to suck the audience into action. I haven't seen the movie yet, but long takes can do that effectively. Strangely, I also think I remember reading Mendes saying he also felt it saved him time. Personally I'm with Directorrik in that using long takes to save time is just too much of a gamble. However, I think Mendes mentioned that if he had to do half a dozen set-ups on each stage of the action it would have taken him longer.

Here's the DP:
http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/flink/611895

 

[Aspiring Mogul]

Hoytema said he used the long take to suck the audience into action. I haven't seen the movie yet, but long takes can do that effectively. Strangely, I also think I remember reading Mendes saying he also felt it saved him time. Personally I'm with Directorrik in that using long takes to save time is just too much of a gamble. However, I think Mendes mentioned that if he had to do half a dozen set-ups on each stage of the action it would have taken him longer.

Here's the DP:
http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/flink/611895

Thanks, IlikeF11.

From your link,

But nothing is ever quite what it seems in a Bond film, and that four-minute opening — as was the case with Birdman — isn't continuous at all.

It was accomplished with several meticulously choreographed long takes edited together with shrewdly placed wipes and a smattering of CG (though Hoytema insists there are no fully CG shots in the sequence).

But I'm wondering, as an aspiring mogul, my focus is the story, not the cinematography. To me, the film is the medium by which the story is told. So why would I care if it's a long shot or several short ones?

 

[ILikef11]

Because you're telling a story in a visual medium. The choice of shot is the same as the choice of words for writers. Now, if you say that because you are only focused on writing and no other element in film-making, then, yeah, I suppose it's okay to have that attitude, though I still think it's important to have an understanding of how visual story-telling works.

 

[Aspiring Mogul]

Because you're telling a story in a visual medium. The choice of shot is the same as the choice of words for writers. Now, if you say that because you are only focused on writing and no other element in film-making, then, yeah, I suppose it's okay to have that attitude, though I still think it's important to have an understanding of how visual story-telling works.

Hmmm, good point. I have to consider this.

I was wondering if I would prefer video games or comics, but, in the end, film and TV would be where it's at. I am, at heart, a story teller.

 

[Sweetie]

Thanks for the education, as always. But my first scenes will be only a few minutes long, and I was thinking that to avoid the problems of coverage, we should just do one long one.

One big risk is in post production it limits your options. Think of it like this. You've shot only your master shot. What happens if you're not happy with the result. You cannot cut to another piece of coverage. Reshoots become the only option, which costs the aspiring producer money.

Long shots can (not always, it depends on the shot) take more resources to do. Often way more than more traditional coverage.

The largest issue I see with longer shots is you have troubles controlling the pace/timing in post. You're stuck with what you have. If you made an error in production, there aren't a lot of options available to you to deal with it in post production.

A longer shot done well is better than short shots done poorly. Short shots done well are better than long shots done poorly. Spielberg loves the longer shot. He'll also add in coverage.

wondering, however, if I should get too deeply into this, because I'm an aspiring producer, not an aspiring director.

Yes and no. You don't, though you need to be able to trust your subordinates that they know enough to ensure they don't piss away your money. It'll depend on how much you want to get involved with the process vs how much you're happy with being the big cheque book. If you don't know option A will give you a cheaper and better outcome than option B, how are you going to know which is the best option to choose?

my focus is the story, not the cinematography. To me, the film is the medium by which the story is told. So why would I care if it's a long shot or several short ones?

If this was true, you'd do away with sound, music, visuals, editing along with the camera.... well pretty much everything. you'd just sit down with the script and read it to the audience, no? Everything is important. Film has been refined over decades. If something wasn't important, don't you think they'd have removed it from the process already?

The differences between the long shot and short shot are often a combination of aesthetics, budget and abilities of the people you have involved.

 

[ILikef11]

I don't know how to do that quote thing, but your last sentence, Sweetie, was well said.

I'm mostly posting this hoping someone will tell me how to do the quote thing.