Eighty Eight Takes

JediMoonShyne · Post by **JediMoonShyne** » Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:57 pm

In his ruminative, four page essay entitled Observations on the Long Take, philosophical filmmaker Pier Paolo Pasolini compares this well-worn, naturalistic cinematic device to life itself. Using Abraham Zapruder's grainy footage of the Kennedy assassination as an example, Pasolini argues that life is always lived in the present and from a single, subjective point of view. Life is "a chaos of possibilities", he says, "a continuous searching for links and meaning" that can also be seen as an infinite (that is, without the intervention of death) long take on reality through the eyes of one person. The long take also resembles an ideal, natural and entirely unblemished form of cinema. The act of cutting and editing this pure strain of cinema allows us to add a past and/or future to the aforementioned present, turning it into something that is in contrast fragmented, discontinuous, finite: film as we know it. In much the same way, the act of dying turns our lives into stories: into history, ancestry, and ultimately into something with meaning. Death, as we are always told, arrives with a montage of significant moments from one's life. Thus, life is converted into a story with meaning. The instabilities, incoherencies and uncertainties of life - the long take, if you will - are transformed into something more stable, designed to withstand the test of time. Pasolini tells us that death is necessary, for only in death do our lives take on meaning. Yet, he also tells us that where everything filmic resembles death, the cinematic long take corresponds to life. The Corrierino is death. This thread is life. ~ Jedi

If cinephilia can be partly described as the collecting and fetishising of filmic moments, resembling the process of collecting inanimate objects like books and trinkets, then surely the long take is among the most common kind of cherished article in film lovers' nests. The appeal of such single takes isn't simple to describe in general terms; perhaps it's a technical, cinematographic or acting feat, an eschewing of formal conventions, or the maintaining of a rhythm or idea. Some takes beg to be noticed, others subtly generate a placidity or tension subconsciously felt. Jedi and I have formed an eclectic nest of not-necessarily-long takes for your viewing pleasure, ordered by length. Enjoy. ~ Trip

Sinister · Post by **Sinister** » Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:58 pm

Sinister · Post by **Sinister** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:00 am

I mean good.

Hank · Post by **Hank** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:05 am

The Last Baron · Post by **The Last Baron** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:06 am

Not 88 1/2 Takes?

ribbon · Post by **ribbon** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:06 am

It's happening.

Sinister · Post by **Sinister** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:08 am

getrhythm wrote:It's happening.

I never believed it.

JediMoonShyne · Post by **JediMoonShyne** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:09 am

The Last Baron wrote:Not 88 1/2 Takes?

Where were you when we were settling on a title, damn it?!

Sinister · Post by **Sinister** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:11 am

Is this gonna include real videos or just analysis?

Trip · Post by **Trip** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:12 am

Sinister wrote:Is this gonna include real videos or just analysis?

Both. Less of the latter.

Sinister · Post by **Sinister** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:14 am

Trip wrote: Both. Less of the latter.

Excellent.

ribbon · Post by **ribbon** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:14 am

Already uninterested.

JediMoonShyne · Post by **JediMoonShyne** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:16 am

Trip wrote: Both. Less of the latter.

Speak for yourself, pen-shy Aussie!

Epistemophobia · Post by **Epistemophobia** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:17 am

Yay.

Derninan · Post by **Derninan** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:18 am

Between this, the new horror thread, the new film orgy thread, Blevo's combative orgy thread...greatest day in Corrierino history?

Trip · Post by **Trip** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:19 am

JediMoonShyne wrote: Speak for yourself, pen-shy Aussie!

I wrote my first entry on lined paper in bed as it came to me at 4am this morning, cunt!

dreiser · Post by **dreiser** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:21 am

Does this mean we will see Jeanne Dielman footage?

Sinister · Post by **Sinister** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:23 am

This thread dies if it doesn't include Argento.

Trip · Post by **Trip** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:25 am

Sinister wrote:This thread dies if it doesn't include Argento.

Sinister · Post by **Sinister** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:26 am

Trip wrote:

I thought you did your research...ah.
There's an amazing one in Tenebrae and a cool one in Sleepless just off the top of my head.

JediMoonShyne · Post by **JediMoonShyne** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:29 am

dreiser wrote:Does this mean we will see Jeanne Dielman footage?

There may be cardigans and household chores, yes.

Trip · Post by **Trip** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:31 am

Sinister wrote: I thought you did your research...ah.
There's an amazing one in Tenebrae and a cool one in Sleepless just off the top of my head.

The Tenebrae one is inept, don't you remember me saying so?

Sinister · Post by **Sinister** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:38 am

Trip wrote: The Tenebrae one is inept, don't you remember me saying so?

The best long takes are inept. I should have made this thread.
All you can think is hitchcock, HitchCock...Cock.

Trip · Post by **Trip** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:39 am

It's by pure coincidence that we open our thread with maestro formalist Brian De Palma, ever the lover of creating complicated shots for the sake of the craft itself. Frankly, there were a handful of impressive shots by the man that did not make the list: the talky tracking maneuver at the police station in Raising Cain that concludes on the reveal of a stunned corpse, Mission to Mars' attempt to one-up Kubrick's rotating space-station, the jaw-dropping opening sequence of Snake Eyes that acts as a subjective viewing-stream of key moments before an assassination, one that is looked upon again and again from other perspectives afterwards, etc. The chosen Dressed to Kill shot is perhaps less impressive, but for a succinct take it displays just as much skill and ingenuity. The proceeding pure cinema sequence demonstrates De Palma in top form. To synopsise, Angie Dickinson senses the presence of a man she could pick up, or be picked up by, in a gallery, and takes a glove off in an apparent attempt to show she's interested -only it reveals a wedding ring and he walks away. She drops her glove. De Palma exhausts the scenario of Dickinson searching for the man throughout the gallery with ultra-clear and precise shot-sequencing. The act of gazing is fetishised throughout, not just her, him, or the gallery's patrons who too take peeks at those around them, but of course us, too, gazing at people gazing (within a gallery!) -through De Palma's eyes. She loses the man, and exits the gallery. The burst of a wide, high-angle long shot at the steps of the gallery after a prolonged series of taut mid-shots and close-ups, along with the busy city sounds, act as a kind of relief that abruptly turns to disappointment with the closing-in crane movement that follows. But, we see that she sees something, surely the man, and the smooth pan left offers not just a bit of teasing in its slow reveal of the hand holding her glove propositioning her to collect it, but a glimpse of a figure in the foreground that turns its head in the same rhythm of the reveal as us. What's oddly pleasing about this is that he/she was never introduced or made explicit prior to this (but registers sinister anyway), is not figured into the shot with total clarity (some viewers could miss the person entirely), and that the shot thus becomes a case of four simultaneous acts of looking: her at what we assume is the man (and he back at her), the sinister figure neither are aware of looking at each of them, and the film viewer looking at all three in one wonderful sweep. I suspect De Palma is fond of looking.

polo · Post by **polo** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:42 am

How does this ‘88 take’ thing work? Will you be presenting 88 long takes? That’s quite a feat. Or is it just clever titling relating to a hypothetical or specific film’s overall quantity of takes? Because unless a film is 12 hours long, 88 takes wouldn’t exactly signify “long takes”, not on average. A 90 minute film with 88 takes averages a cut every 61 (+/-) seconds. That’s pushing the “long take” quota a bit. But it's probably the former though, right? Skolimowski's long takes are the best.

Sinister wrote:I should have made this thread.

It would be much better if you had.

JediMoonShyne · Post by **JediMoonShyne** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:48 am

ᴾᵒˡᵒ wrote:How does this ‘88 take’ thing work? Will you be presenting 88 long takes? That’s quite a feat. Or is it just clever titling relating to a hypothetical or specific film’s overall quantity of takes? Because unless a film is 12 hours long, 88 takes wouldn’t exactly signify “long takes”, not on average. A 90 minute film with 88 takes averages a cut every 61 (+/-) seconds. That’s pushing the “long take” quota a bit. But it's probably the former though, right?

Eighty Eight takes in total, ranging from around 30 seconds to 10 minutes in length.

So, a list made up of what would mostly be considered "long" takes, ordered by length.

Sinister · Post by **Sinister** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:49 am

I knew it. <3

Trip · Post by **Trip** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:58 am

Sinister wrote: The best long takes are inept. I should have made this thread.
All you can think is hitchcock, HitchCock...Cock.

We might have a couple of inept camerawork takes. At least I have one.

Fist · Post by **Fist** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:01 am

Ugh, Tarr. De Lawlma. What is this nonsense.

JediMoonShyne · Post by **JediMoonShyne** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:01 am

As perhaps the most prolific collaborative relationship in modern American cinema, Minnesota natives the Coen brothers and English cinematographer Roger Deakins have certainly produced some iconic moments in the last couple of decades. Barton Fink, their 1991 film that is often credited solely to the older half of the directorial duo, is a special instance in that it represents the first effort in this longstanding partnership - a change that was forced upon the brothers when their regular cinematographer, Barry Sonnenfeld, was hired to direct his first film, The Addams Family. By all accounts this new alliance hit the ground running, with Deakins having no trouble translating the Coens' particular ideas to the screen, including the film's oppressive aesthetic and heavily symbolic shots. One of these, an elaborate tracking shot that leaves Barton's important sexual encounter with Audrey and moves into the bathroom before plunging down the plug-hole, has been explained as everything from a way to represent the act of sexual intercourse without actually showing it, to a portal that Barton moves through in his final loss of innocence and transformation from child to adult. Speaking after the film was released, Joel picked out this particular shot as the only thing they requested of Deakins that surprised the cinematographer: "After that, every time we asked Roger to do something difficult, he would raise an eyebrow and say, 'Don't be having me track down any plug-holes, now.'"

Trip · Post by **Trip** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:09 am

Oooh, good writeup. A quote! Nice shot, I like how symmetrically the camera moves up to the basin.

dreiser · Post by **dreiser** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:14 am

I've seen Dressed to Kill any number of times and that is the first time I noticed you-know-who standing next to the hot dog vendor, following her line of sight.

Trip · Post by **Trip** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:15 am

dreiser wrote:I've seen Dressed to Kill any number of times and that is the first time I noticed you-know-who standing next to the hot dog vendor, following her line of sight.

Wow!

dreiser · Post by **dreiser** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:18 am

Trip wrote: Wow!

Your writeup had me focusing more on the details of the shot. My tendency would be to follow straight from her reaction to the object of her gaze without really taking note of the other objects in the camera pan.

Hank · Post by **Hank** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:21 am

Good choices so far.

ADD · Post by **ADD** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:22 am

These kinds of threads are the reason why I come here.

Blevo · Post by **Blevo** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:22 am

My life is a complete failure because I'll never make a thread this good.

Trip · Post by **Trip** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:24 am

dreiser wrote:
Your writeup had me focusing more on the details of the shot. My tendency would be to follow straight from her reaction to the object of her gaze without really taking note of the other objects in the camera pan.

That's exactly what's so odd about the shot.

I also want to add, the proceeding sequence is oddly, at least to me, absent of De Palma's so-called "crocodile grin". It's almost sympathetic of this aging beauty's desperate attempt to score, when generally I don't get the impression De Palma really cares about his characters. I don't mean he's mean-spirited, just that his cinema is the main focus. However, he later gives her an STD to punish her for her extra-marital affair, which is hilariously cruel and probably pointless.

Edit: He also punishes her further

Sinister · Post by **Sinister** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:26 am

Blevo wrote:My life is a complete failure because I'll never make a thread this good.

We could crush these guys without even researching.

Oaktown · Post by **Oaktown** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:36 am

Derninan wrote:Between this, the new horror thread, the new film orgy thread, Blevo's combative orgy thread...greatest day in Corrierino history?

My thoughts exactly.

Trip · Post by **Trip** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:37 am

yeah but this one's good

Fist · Post by **Fist** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:37 am

Trip wrote:yeah but this one's good

dreiser · Post by **dreiser** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:39 am

Trip wrote: That's exactly what's so odd about the shot.

I also want to add, the proceeding sequence is oddly, at least to me, absent of De Palma's so-called "crocodile grin". It's almost sympathetic of this aging beauty's desperate attempt to score, when generally I don't get the impression De Palma really cares about his characters. I don't mean he's mean-spirited, just that his cinema is the main focus. However, he later gives her an STD to punish her for her extra-marital affair, which is hilariously cruel and probably pointless.

Yes, Dickinson's scramble throughout the galleries in search of a stoop is sympathetically shot from my point of view. Especially since we've already witnessed her husband's idea of a romantic tryst. She's almost cotton-mouthed in her yearning.

The STD moment makes for great ironic black humor considering what lies in store for her. I thought it was a nice touch, but I can see how some might find it a bit sadistic considering.

Blevo · Post by **Blevo** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:39 am

Trip wrote:yeah but this one's good

Hey! I expended minutes of thought and effort in to that thing, I'll not have you besmirch it.

Trip · Post by **Trip** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:41 am

Blevo wrote:
Hey! I expended minutes of thought and effort in to that thing, I'll not have you besmirch it.

Yours isn't good YET.

ADD · Post by **ADD** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:43 am

Barton Fink is so good it hurts.

Blevo · Post by **Blevo** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:44 am

Trip wrote:

Yours isn't good YET.

Here's hoping it pays off.

Fist · Post by **Fist** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:44 am

Thread makes me want to talk about my favorite long takes, but I'd hate to spoil any of the sure surprises.

MrCarmady · Post by **MrCarmady** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:49 am

Hey ᴾᵒˡᵒ, I just watched White of the Eye. Was it you who mentioned it a while back?

B-Side · Post by **B-Side** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:53 am

Thread is already awful and I haven't even read either of the entries.