Games as art. (Gaming)

by Kermit , Raleigh, NC, Monday, September 12, 2022, 21:54 (806 days ago) @ Cody Miller

It's weird, because I felt like the one take gimmick totally ruined the movie. Because it was a gimmick.

There were so many times when actors would hit their marks, and then just stand there waiting for the camera to hit its mark before giving their lines, creating a stifled, stiff quality to what was onscreen The idea of a long perilous journey kind of falls apart if you're seeing it in real time. I mean, how far could you walk in 90 minutes? Editing allows you to expand or contract time and distance as necessary.

It's impossible to maintain the razor's edge of drama / tension / whatever emotion through one long take. There's just too much to handle, and you inevitably slip into moments of downtime where it drops off due to the logistics of getting characters form one place to another.

This movie actually made me a bit mad. Since for me, every choice was made to show off technical skill and filmmaking feats rather than help the story. And that's why I go see movies.

The true art of cinematography is doing what's right for the story all the time, even if it isn't crazy or flashy. The most impressive technical achievement doesn't even matter if it harms the drama of the film.

And, there were 12 cuts in the film, so they didn't even actually show off a one take movie, making it even more of an inexplicable choice.

Editing itself is intrinsic to the art of film. Without editing, you just have a stage play where you as an audience member can walk around to see the performance from whatever angle you like. The art is knowing when to hold a shot, and when to cut to something else.

Spoken like a true editor. I mostly agree with you, even though I liked 1917 and thought it worked. It’s no Russian Ark, though. There’s one real take. And boy did it work for me. I thought it was sublime, but it’s not for everyone.