Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, February 02, 2020

Regardless if you think the long, continuous take illusion of "1917" is immersive brilliance, or gimmicky showmanship, it's hard not to be impressed by how the camera moves so precisely, in seemingly every direction, yet is able to consistently reframe to create the same level of compositional exactness that has defined cinematographer Roger Deakins' storied career. There is also something distinctly human about the camera movement in "1917," which never feels like it was executed in a computer game engine or by some robotic device.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I saw this tonight in an IMAX theatre. Wow, what an emotional roller coaster...it really draws you in. The story was made even more of an emotional investment with the camera work and style of cinematography. My wife and I both held our breath several times. I cried when he met the brother.

whew. great movie.

#1 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2020-02-02 01:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Interesting tidbit from the video above: The collision with the extra during the long run scene was a real accident.

#2 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2020-02-02 01:44 AM | Reply

Cool

#3 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-02-02 04:09 AM | Reply

The video mentioned Rope by Alfred Hitchcock in 1948.

youtu.be

According to Wikipedia the walls and furniture were constantly moved so that the camera could follow the action. Film reels were 10 minutes long so shots would sometimes end with something filling the screen so that it kept looking like one shot.

Pretty impressive for 1948 or even today. Those are some long drawn out scenes.

Thanks for posting this thread...

#4 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-02-02 04:37 AM | Reply

Image Stabiization is great technology. It's been around for a while. This clip and story make it sound like a new thing.

I have a Canon L series lens (their top of the line) that is a 300mm focal length and has Image Stabilization. With that kind of telephoto power, it would normally have to be tripod mounted to stabilize the image. The rule of thumb for hand-holding a camera vs tripod mounting is use a tripod if the shutter speed is less than the reciprocal of the focal length of the lens. E.G. my 300mm lens should not be hand held for shutter speeds < 1/300 second. Since most cameras dont have that shutter speed, it has to be taken to the next fastest or 1/500 second. IS stabilizes up to 4 stops, so that means I can hand hold my 300mm lens at and incredible 1/30 of a second!

Image stabilization on my phone has got me using my phone camera more than I used to. (that's not really a good thing!) It is a Google Pixel 3 which most reviewers rate having the best camera in phones. It is one of the few with IS technology (at least at time of its introduction). The problem with phone cameras is the phone has so little mass vs a traditional camera, it shakes like crazy, even with the steadiest hand. This is generally compensated for with faster shutter speeds. But IS does an incredible job with my phone camera. It allows for slower shutter speeds, which with the camera's algorithms allows for incredibly low light shots. I can look at the picture on the phone and deliberately move it and the image stays perfectly still in place until the camera is moved significantly.

In short: Two thumbs up for IS.

#5 | Posted by goatman at 2020-02-02 05:22 AM | Reply

I don't go out to the movies much, but I think I'll go see this one. I've heard a lot of good things about it.

#6 | Posted by goatman at 2020-02-02 05:23 AM | Reply

Quentin Tarantino is known to be a fan of the long shot. He has a 7 minute one in Pulp Fiction in the scene where Jules and Vincent are going up to the guys' apartment for the briefcase -- the "foot massage" discussion scene.

#7 | Posted by goatman at 2020-02-02 05:29 AM | Reply

"This clip and story make it sound like a new thing."

You're right, there have been tons of long shots and moving sets before. I think this may be the first movie to appear as though the entire movie is one, long, continuous shot.

Rope is a good example. I love one set movies because they're like a play. 'Death of a Salesman' w/ Dustin Hoffman is another one.

Also 12 Angry Men and Hitchcock's 'Rear Window'. The style really sucks me in.

#8 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2020-02-02 11:24 AM | Reply

I HATED the 'shaky camera' films like Blair Witch. I literally couldn't watch it because of nausea and eye fatigue.

#9 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2020-02-02 11:26 AM | Reply

I saw "Rope" many years ago, but didn't notice the reel change thing you were talking about so I watched about 20 minutes in your link.

You were right -- twice in the snippet I watched the camera passes by a guy's back and the long shot continues. I never noticed that, but seeing it and knowing what was happening was kind of funny.

#10 | Posted by goatman at 2020-02-02 11:33 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"'This clip and story make it sound like a new thing.'

You're right, there have been tons of long shots and moving sets before. I think this may be the first movie to appear as though the entire movie is one, long, continuous shot."

Actually, I was talking about the IS technology. It has been in still cameras for at least 15 years, probably longer. I bought my 300mm lens with 4 stop IS 11 years ago. Maybe the technology is different and newer for movie camera lenses.

#11 | Posted by goatman at 2020-02-02 11:36 AM | Reply

I was intrigued by the sets in 1917. They said none were used twice. I know lighting is a major factor in movie making, but the detail to the lighting was fascinating as well.

Yes, I think I'll go see 1917 tomorrow and do one of my very rare viewings at an Imax theatre if it's showing at one.

#12 | Posted by goatman at 2020-02-02 11:39 AM | Reply

Saw it this weekend! I was surprised that the gf wanted to see this over the new Emma Watson film... Little Women

#13 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-02-02 11:50 AM | Reply

"Saw it this weekend!

#13 | POSTED BY GONOLES92 "

Did you like it?

#14 | Posted by goatman at 2020-02-02 12:03 PM | Reply

I was waiting for Gonoles' response, but I think I'll go see it today instead. There's an Imax showing at 4:30 that should be easy to get into since most people will be watching the Superbowl -- an event for which I couldn't care less.

#15 | Posted by goatman at 2020-02-02 12:46 PM | Reply

You'll love it in IMAX.

#16 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2020-02-02 02:55 PM | Reply

All I can say is "wow!" What a great movie. War movies are not a genre I like, but this one hits hard.

The long shots were incredible and really defined the movie. And the rendezvous with the brother scene -- as you said, sheeple -- well, no spoilers.

Great story. Great cinematography. Great acting.

Definitely two thumbs up.

And yes, see it in Imax if you can. If not, regular screen. But don't wait for DVD.

#17 | Posted by goatman at 2020-02-02 08:38 PM | Reply

- But don't wait for DVD.

No doubt. I'm glad I saw this on the big screen. It's that type of movie, visually.

The story, the camera, the giant landscape. It's stunning.

#18 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2020-02-02 11:24 PM | Reply

I was expecting another flavor of "Saving Private Ryan". I was pleasantly surprised.

#19 | Posted by goatman at 2020-02-02 11:42 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort