• You are welcome to promote here, but members are also welcome to reply with their opinions.

Trailer for single-take horror feature, "The Silent House" -- The Filmsmith

It was filmed in my country, and from what I've heard is not a bad movie. It has it's ups a downs, but certainly not bad.
I'll check it out this week, and tell you what I think.
 
http://www.zonehorror.tv/articles.php?feature=3961

This article talks about the "Canon Mark II", I'm assuming they're reffering to the 5D MkII.
Does the MkII not have a 12 minute HD video length? Or is their a firmware that allows for longer recording?

With a run time of 78 minutes, regardless of whether the camera could even possibly record this, I don't believe this to be quite true. That the actors, camera operator, sound man, etc. etc. etc. could remain in sync with each other for this amount of time, without making any mistakes, I doubt it.
 
Not being a filmmaker, maybe I am missing something. But it seems like the only reason to do this is to be able to say you did. Does a single-take really add something to a film?
 
If it's done well it could be quite effective. But man it would have to be done really well. The trailer actually looks promising. At the very least what they've done is create a little publicity story that helps their film stand out from the pack.
 
dar said:
Not being a filmmaker, maybe I am missing something. But it seems like the only reason to do this is to be able to say you did. Does a single-take really add something to a film?
Click to expand...

I think this is right, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with that.

The market is flooded with cheap horrors (as you know) and it makes it almost impossible to get exposure for a film. Dreaming up a gimmick like this is almost certainly a marketing ploy but, by the looks of things, it's an effective one. So what's the harm?
 
I think it could add some continuity...I mean, the lack of cuts makes you get more into the action, syncing your time perception with the one in the movie.
 
It kinda bothered me that the trailer had so many cuts. :)

I'd be worried a little by marketing through the gimmick. It could take people out of the action, because they're looking to see how you did, whether you cheated, etc.
 
mad_hatter said:
http://www.zonehorror.tv/articles.php?feature=3961

This article talks about the "Canon Mark II", I'm assuming they're reffering to the 5D MkII.
Does the MkII not have a 12 minute HD video length? Or is their a firmware that allows for longer recording?

With a run time of 78 minutes, regardless of whether the camera could even possibly record this, I don't believe this to be quite true. That the actors, camera operator, sound man, etc. etc. etc. could remain in sync with each other for this amount of time, without making any mistakes, I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Though, that's assuming that they do stay in sync, don't make any mistakes. It might be filled with such goofs!
 
NickClapper said:
The market is flooded with cheap horrors (as you know) and it makes it almost impossible to get exposure for a film. Dreaming up a gimmick like this is almost certainly a marketing ploy but, by the looks of things, it's an effective one. So what's the harm?
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree with this, if the filmmakers really did shoot the movie in one take. If, however, they didn’t, I don’t feel they should be allowed to claim that they did. They’re lying to the audience. I don’t mind filmmakers misleading the audience, using a device such as “based on true events”, but, in my mind, claiming a film was shot in one take when it wasn’t, is a lie more in line with saying “my film stars Angelina Jolie and features a hardcore sex scene between her and an evil midget”. What’s wrong with that, if it sells the movie?


Imagine shooting a 78min film, all one take, and your lead actress forgets the final line of the film... :(
 
mad_hatter said:
Imagine shooting a 78min film, all one take, and your lead actress forgets the final line of the film... :(
Click to expand...

I would imagine they still did many takes of the film.

The question is whether they then took the best bits from each of those 78 minute takes or whether they just chose the best 78 minute take. Either way they could claim that the entire film was shot in one take, but the first way would be a slight cheat.
 
mad_hatter said:
I don’t disagree with this, if the filmmakers really did shoot the movie in one take. If, however, they didn’t, I don’t feel they should be allowed to claim that they did. They’re lying to the audience. I don’t mind filmmakers misleading the audience, using a device such as “based on true events”, but, in my mind, claiming a film was shot in one take when it wasn’t, is a lie more in line with saying “my film stars Angelina Jolie and features a hardcore sex scene between her and an evil midget”. What’s wrong with that, if it sells the movie?
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, but find it sort of funny that we're bothered more by a lie about the technical details than a lie about people's lives. It seems like we should be bothered more by the latter, to me. But maybe it's because the notion of "true events" has been so distorted already as to have lost all meaning. Technical details are still in the realm of truth.

@NicK: If they did take bits of one take, I'd consider that a major cheat. There's no real difference between that and doing successive takes of each scene, is there? Or is there a difference for filmmakers--for a viewer, it amounts to the same thing, I think.
 
It's possible to do it in one take. Just think back to Aleksandr Sokurov's 2002 single-take feature, Russian Ark. If you haven't seen that yet, you should check it out. I watched the "Making of" feature on the DVD and it was ridiculous. If I remember right, they only did three attempts, due to time-restrictions and other factors, and the first two...they messed up. The last take is the one you see in the film--99 minutes.

Now, the fact that there is darkness everywhere in The Silent House makes it very possible for them to cheat. If that's important or not, I guess that's just a matter of opinion; which is obvious based on the replies in this thread. I'm not sure if it is that important to me if they cheated or not. I guess if the story is good, I wouldn't really care to much.
 
It was filmed on a Canon 5D mark II so it's impossible to be one cut.

I agree that lying about it being 1 cut is wrong. But hey, any publicity is good publicity, right?

Either way... I'm rented this tonight and am going to watch it very soon, it looks interesting.

Does anyone have any more info on this? the DVD doesn't contain any special features at all, not even a commentary track

P.S. The Aussie film Boxing Day (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0970922/) also claims to be "Filmed in one cut" but apparently had over 10. They are masked very well and I only noticed one or two. Plus it's a better film than expected which was a nice surprise.
 
Hitchcock's Rope did this over 60 years ago. Not one take, naturally, but masked to make it look like one take (or three...if I remember, there are a couple of deliberate cuts that stop the flow of the one-take effect). The effect was to slowly build tension, and it works lovely.

I think the only way this gimmick works is if you don't realize it's one take. It only works if the story and performances transcend the gimmick. There was a pretty cool 48 Hour Film project entry from a few years ago called "Yard Sale" which was a horror movie about a jerk who tries to steal from a woman's yard sale and ends up getting massacred. After I watched it a few times I suddenly asked myself "was that one take?" A further viewing confirmed my suspicions. Bravo.

But you need a helluva lot more going on to hold an audience. Shoot, most homemade wedding videos and family Christmas morning home movies are also shot in one take.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top