So I'm finally actually watching Russian Ark.
Though I am actually more interested in the documentary about the making of it.
A whole 90-minute feature movie, filmed in one take, on steadicam, with 800 actors and more extras. It should have been impossible.
At the same time, I'm ambivalent about my awe. Is it really that great to overcome a great technical challenge, if that challenge is artificial?
The director, Alexander Sokurov, claims in interview that the technical accomplishment means nothing in and of itself, that it's only justified by what it makes possible artistically. But as far as I can see, there is nothing in this movie which demanded one single 90-minute take.
If they even had made it in three takes, say, it would have made the task so much easier, and it could easily have been stitched together seamlessly with CGI. And beyond that, I don't see how the tone of the film would have been compromised in any way if it had been produced in a traditional way, with many cuts. I know that as a viewer I don't notice cuts unless they are done in unusual ways.
It does bring up the point though: if a movie with 800 actors can be made in a single take, is it really necessary that so many directors use 30 or 50 takes of every small scene?
9 comments:
Alfred Hitchcock did almost exactly the same thing decades before the Steadicam existed, in Rope. That was an adaptation of a play, which would normally be acted out in real time before a live audience. I think the theory was that a single long shot, with the camera moving around the set with the actors, would give the viewer a sense of being present in the action.
Rope appeared to be a single shot, but because the cameras could only hold about ten minutes worth of film, there are a number of carefully choreographed moments when someone walks right in front of the camera, so they could seamlessly change reels.
Hitchcock was a genius. I think he liked challenging himself -- figuratively tying one hand behind his back and seeing whether he could make a movie. He handicapped himself in similar ways for Lifeboat, which takes place entirely on a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean, and in Rear Window, where the camera is always inside Jimmy Stewart's apartment, though much of the action is seen through the apartment's picture window. (Lifeboat and Rear Window both employ conventional editing techniques.)
I think the technique works very well in Lifeboat and brilliantly in Rear Window, but not so well in Rope. But I appreciate a filmmaker who's willing to take a chance and try something innovative. There are always plenty of other directors available to do things the conventional way.
I've watched Russian Ark and loved it, not for the "one take" but for what it reveals about much of Russia today: the dynamic tension between the "old" Russian traditions and the "imported" western influences. Most of the art in the Museum is western, yet its in one of Russia's great museums. Small note; the museum was burned during WW2 and much of it rebuilt after the war. That rebuilding and restoration deserves more credit than it gets..,
"Is it really that great to overcome a great technical challenge, if that challenge is artificial?"
Are you sure it is the single-take technique that is artificial, and not the multi-take one?
An analogous development has happened in sound recording. 50 years ago all recordings were done in one take. All classic Jazz recordings, early Blues performances, etc. All in one take.
Things changed in 1970s when technology allowed more flexibility in combining takes. And by the late 1980s this had been taken to the extreme. Did you, for example, know that in Mike Oldfield's hit Moonlight Shadow every syllable the vocalist (Maggy Reilly) sings is a separate take. So the line "Carried away by a moonlight shadow" has 10 edits on solo vocal alone. This was done as an effect, to make it sounds as if the vocalist had infinite breath. It worked brilliantly, and the recording became a world wide hit.
But which technique is the artificial one: single-take or multi-take?
Depends on which one is the more difficult one. (For no great reason.)
Y'all have good points here.
Clearly multi-take is more tedius with the necessity to edit and compile the takes.
Andy Warhol went to extremes with simplicity. Not only were his films single take, the camera sat still on a tripod. In fact, he used to switch the camera on and leave the scene. It was only after developing the film that he found out what he had shot.
"Clearly multi-take is more tedius with the necessity to edit and compile the takes."
Well all right. Unless it goes to the extreme that thousands of factors all have to go just right, in one long take of 90 minutes.
That's right. Warhol didn't bother. Even if his camera just captured the wall of a building for 20 mins or so, with nothing happening on the frame, he deemed it a success, and would publish his film!
Art!
He was a card all right. He was portrayed very nicely by David Bowie (who knew him) in the film Basquiat.
"Actually, I jade very quickly. Once is usually enough. Either once only, or every day. If you do something once it’s exciting, and if you do it every day it’s exciting. But if you do it, say, twice or just almost every day, it’s not good any more.” --Andy Warhol
Post a Comment