The Circle
- Thread starter ussinners
- Start date
Cool! I looked this up on IMDB and it sounds very intriguing - I'll have to check it out. I love films that work within limitations like this - like doing the whole thing in one take.
It strikes me that if you put some real planning into the pre-production phase this could allow you to potentially shoot an entire feature within roughly a week's time (however long it took you to get one good take!)
It strikes me that if you put some real planning into the pre-production phase this could allow you to potentially shoot an entire feature within roughly a week's time (however long it took you to get one good take!)
I was guessing video for that exact reason (unless they 'cheated' it like Hitchcock did with Rope). I've often thought of doing something unconventional like this to allow me to shoot a feature-length film with very few resources.
Another idea that intrigues me is doing what I've usually heard referred to as a "chamber piece" a film usually set in just one location and just a couple of actors. That sort of scenario would be perfect for a micro-budget film. Some great examples? Sleuth (the original one) and Deathtrap both come to mind... even Polanski's "Knife in the Water" I think could be added to the list.
Another idea that intrigues me is doing what I've usually heard referred to as a "chamber piece" a film usually set in just one location and just a couple of actors. That sort of scenario would be perfect for a micro-budget film. Some great examples? Sleuth (the original one) and Deathtrap both come to mind... even Polanski's "Knife in the Water" I think could be added to the list.
It was shot on video.
Also, Closetland I think was just two actors in one location. But, it's been a long time since I saw that. Great film.
You know what's weird. I bought a Korean version of The Circle a few years ago, because it wasn't distributed in the US. For some reason the Korean version doesn't look like video. But, when I watched the US version I bought, it screams video. Why would that be?
Also what did Hitchcock do for Rope? Did he have two cameras or what?
Also, Closetland I think was just two actors in one location. But, it's been a long time since I saw that. Great film.
You know what's weird. I bought a Korean version of The Circle a few years ago, because it wasn't distributed in the US. For some reason the Korean version doesn't look like video. But, when I watched the US version I bought, it screams video. Why would that be?
Also what did Hitchcock do for Rope? Did he have two cameras or what?
I haven't seen Rope in probably ten years, but my recollection is that it wasn't exactly shot in one take. He would shoot until his reel was about to run out and then right before it did he would focus the camera on a particular inanimate object (I seem to recall the camera moving down into a chest at one point). Then they would reload the camera and start filming from the exact same place and continue from there. In fact, if I recall, these cuts in the film aren't completely seamless - close, but you can see them if you're looking. But like I said, it's been a long time - someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
I've never heard of Closetland - I'll be sure to check that out. I'm always on the lookout for other chamber films to add to my collection. (By the way - if there is a more common name for them, also please let me know).
I've never heard of Closetland - I'll be sure to check that out. I'm always on the lookout for other chamber films to add to my collection. (By the way - if there is a more common name for them, also please let me know).
90 minutes? One shot? I dunno... I mean I sure it can be done and there are probably parts that are interesting. But it would have to be a really intriguing story or have a lot of action to be able to hold most of the audiences interest. I wouldn't mind taking a look at it, but I have a feeling that the only thing that drives stuff like this is the gimmick that it is only one take. Does anyone know what the story is about? Is there a lot of dialogue or more action?
Well I don't know about The Circle as I haven't seen it, but I wouldn't think that is necessarily true. You could consider quite a few plays as 'one continuous shot' and I don't think people enjoy those because of any gimmick.
However I do agree that the chances of it being done well are very slim, but with the right story, approach, talent, etc. it could be done well and be very good. (Of course that same statement could apply to just about any film).
If you want more info about it (story, etc.) check out IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388837/
However I do agree that the chances of it being done well are very slim, but with the right story, approach, talent, etc. it could be done well and be very good. (Of course that same statement could apply to just about any film).
If you want more info about it (story, etc.) check out IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388837/
I wouldn't consider a play as one continuous shot because with a play, unlike film or video, there are no second takes. The audience is there and you don't get a re-do. However with this video, the idea of the "90-minute one-shot" is gimmicky in itself and simply the fact that people are talking about the "90-minute one-shot" instead of the story or the acting also raises a red flag. With video you can do retakes and actually control what comes onto the screen, no matter how much of a pain in the butt it would be to do the 90 minute shot again. From the reviews I am reading it doesn't sound like there were very many takes either. But I definitely think I will check this out and see what it is like for myself.
Russian Ark is another film SUPPOSEDLY filmed in one continuous shot. It would actually be the first film every REALLY made up of one continuous shot. It's a 90 minute movie shot on video to a disk that held 100 minutes. It took 4 takes. The first three had technical problems.
My Dinner with Andre' is the poster boy for the Chamber piece.
Last edited:
With a play, every night is a second take!! It's true, you don't get a re-do. If you mess up in front of the audience you just have to soldier on (I know this having been in many plays). If anything that would make it more in the spirit of a 'single take' not less in my view. Besides, looking at it that way, each consecutive performance could be viewed, in essence, as another take.
Sure the 90-minute one take thing is a gimmick - as are adventures in space, transformers, surprise endings, 3D, computer animation, etc. - all kinds of things if you want to look at it that way - doesn't mean the film's no good. In fact one of the reasons 'gimmicks' can stand out is if the film is well done despite the fact that it was shot in one take.
I mean, if I saw this film and loved it and it was ALSO all done in one take, I'd be impressed and would certainly mention that fact when discussing it with others.
Again, though, I haven't seen this particular movie.
Sure the 90-minute one take thing is a gimmick - as are adventures in space, transformers, surprise endings, 3D, computer animation, etc. - all kinds of things if you want to look at it that way - doesn't mean the film's no good. In fact one of the reasons 'gimmicks' can stand out is if the film is well done despite the fact that it was shot in one take.
I mean, if I saw this film and loved it and it was ALSO all done in one take, I'd be impressed and would certainly mention that fact when discussing it with others.
Again, though, I haven't seen this particular movie.
I haven't seen Russian Ark, but I'm definitely a fan of My Dinner With Andre.
Seeing a film that is really good, not because it only has a couple of characters or one location, etc. but just because it's really damn good and also only has a couple of characters, etc. is really impressive in my book.
It just shows what you can do with a great script, concept and some really great performers.
Actually the story is pretty intriguing with very good performances by everyone, with the exception of Angela Bettis who is always magnificent.
The basic plot is a woman (Bettis) who tries to convince a hitman (Max from Gilmore Girls) not to kill her husband. But, it's so much more then that.
Of course when you look at the cinematography you'll think "had they gone with multiple angles and takes" the picture on a whole would be better. But, for what it is, and the "story" the one take is actually fairly ingenious.
The basic plot is a woman (Bettis) who tries to convince a hitman (Max from Gilmore Girls) not to kill her husband. But, it's so much more then that.
Of course when you look at the cinematography you'll think "had they gone with multiple angles and takes" the picture on a whole would be better. But, for what it is, and the "story" the one take is actually fairly ingenious.