Looking for an Alfred Hitchcock movie [shot in a single take]... and others like it.

[MyFootsZZZ]

There was an X-Files episode called 'Triangle', and it was all done in only a few takes. I believe they said they were inspired be a Hitchcock film with only a few takes. Anyone know which movie it is, and what it's about?

Also, any other movies that attempted the same? I think I remember seeing a movie that had four stories about four people all done in just one take... I forgot the name, but the screen was split into four, and all the stories happened simultaneously.

Thanks

[MsWhatsit]

Famously, Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope" was supposedly only done in one single take. Actually it was 10, because they had to use multiple film reels - one reel was nowhere near long enough to fit an entire movie, obviously. But it was filmed as though it were a single take, and the effect is pretty cool.

[MyFootsZZZ]

I just love the style. Thanks MsWhatsit!

[MsWhatsit]

No problem! Also, you might want to ask the mods to re-title the thread to "Movies shot in a single take" or something like that, to draw more interest. :)

[h.sapiens]

There was an X-Files episode called 'Triangle', and it was all done in only a few takes. I believe they said they were inspired be a Hitchcock film with only a few takes. Anyone know which movie it is, and what it's about?

Also, any other movies that attempted the same? I think I remember seeing a movie that had four stories about four people all done in just one take... I forgot the name, but the screen was split into four, and all the stories happened simultaneously.

Thanks

I haven't seen it, but the movie you're thinking of is Timecode (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0220100/). It sounds intriguing, but I don't know how successful it would be.

[Marley23]

No problem! Also, you might want to ask the mods to re-title the thread to "Movies shot in a single take" or something like that, to draw more interest. :)
I revised the title. I'm assuming the OP won't mind, but please let me know.

[APB]

Another example is Russian Ark (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318034/) (2002).

[Little Nemo]

This link (http://trueslant.com/mikeharvkey/2009/11/30/the-10-best-long-tracking-shots-ever-filmed/) shows you ten well-known long tracking shots.

There's The Norman Conquests which is a trilogy of plays by Alan Ayckbourn. The three plays, Table Manners, Living Together, and Round and Round the Garden, are all self-contained and can be seen alone. But they all feature the same characters and take place simultaneously. The plays are set in three different parts of one house - so a character can walk out of one play and walk into another.

And surprisingly enough, there's an x-rated movie that uses the split screen idea, Chrono Sex (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0467836/) (2005). Like Timecode it shows four simultaneous stories - only with more sex.

[WordMan]

How about the video for Mr. Krinkle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOdo7dhvSwg)by Primus? :D

[Ferret Herder]

Running Time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_Time_(film)) is another film inspired by Rope in that respect. It features Bruce Campbell as an ex-con who just got out of prison and is being pushed into doing a big heist.

[Little Nemo]

How about the video for Mr. Krinkle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOdo7dhvSwg)by Primus? :DI don't know if that counts. There's lots of scenes shot with a fixed camera.

[RealityChuck]

There's The Norman Conquests which is a trilogy of plays by Alan Ayckbourn. The three plays, Table Manners, Living Together, and Round and Round the Garden, are all self-contained and can be seen alone. But they all feature the same characters and take place simultaneously. The plays are set in three different parts of one house - so a character can walk out of one play and walk into another.Ayckbourn also did House & Garden, two plays that take place simultaneously. It has been staged so that they used the same cast in two different theaters (next door to each other).

[Joey P]

I haven't seen it, but the movie you're thinking of is Timecode (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0220100/). It sounds intriguing, but I don't know how successful it would be.

Saw that movie a loooong time ago, IIRC my reaction was that the concept was really cool, it was executed well, but the movie itself wasn't very good.

[CalMeacham]

It's not the whole movie, by any means, but if Little Nemo can include long tracking shots, so can I.


Rouben Mamoulian's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a fascinating film for many reasons, but opens with a long point-of-view tracking shot that moves from an organ keyboard, through a door, out into the hall, looks straight into a mirror, and out into the street.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV-FHqEi_LE


Of course, the "mirror" is a shot into an identical room, but it's wonderfully choreographed. I really do think the butler is the same guy in the mirror and out, not just a similar-looking guy.

[MyFootsZZZ]

Saw that movie a loooong time ago, IIRC my reaction was that the concept was really cool, it was executed well, but the movie itself wasn't very good.

You're right, it wasn't.

Thanks for changing the title. :)

[Superdude]

Wasn't there a Coen brothers movie that was shot all in one take, or at least had a long scene like that? I want to say Blood Simple. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086979/)

Tarantino uses the long tracking shot in several of his movies. There's one in Reservoir Dogs and Kill Bill Vol. 1, right off the top of my head.

I know the OP wasn't asking for long tracking shots, but someone else mentioned them.

[Shoeless]

Children of Men had several scenes that appeared to be very long tracking shots. I don't know if they were actually shot that way or just very cleverly edited.

[John Mace]

The Player is somewhat of an homage to Hitchcock, and has a long opening scene done in a single shot. Excellent movie, too, with a great cast.

[Chronos]

Rouben Mamoulian's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a fascinating film for many reasons, but opens with a long point-of-view tracking shot that moves from an organ keyboard, through a door, out into the hall, looks straight into a mirror, and out into the street.
There's an even more fascinating mirror scene in Contact (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD0_5HFMPIg).

As an aside, was Jekyll and Hyde the first horror movie to use "Tocatta and Fugue in D Minor"?

[Krokodil]

Boogie Nights opened with a pretty long unbroken sequence. Stranger Than Paradise was, in its entirety, five or six long shots.

[Sampiro]

Another example is Russian Ark (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318034/) (2002).

That is an incredible film that holds several records. It's 99 minutes long, has a cast of thousands (literally- more than 2000 extras), orchestras and bands, is set on a time-traveling tour of dozens of rooms in the Hermitage (in one room it's Nicholas & Alexandra's time, another will be Stalinist, another will be Catherine the Great, another will be modern day [2002 when it was shot], etc.) and it was literally all shot in a single continuous take.

[Tim R. Mortiss]

Famously, Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope" was supposedly only done in one single take. Actually it was 10, because they had to use multiple film reels - one reel was nowhere near long enough to fit an entire movie, obviously. But it was filmed as though it were a single take, and the effect is pretty cool.

I saw that movie in film class. In those days, movie film came in 10-minute reels. (That's why 20-minute shorts like the Three Stooges were called "two-reelers.") But Hitchcock wanted the illusion of continuity, so every ten minutes, he would have the camera pass by a black curtain, the back of someone's black suit coat, etc., causing a total blackout of the screen. The next reel would begin with motion in the same direction and velocity, so it appears as if nothing had paused.

As for what it was about, it was a fictionalization of the story of Leopold and Loeb: the two rich college kids who killed someone, just to see if they could get away with it. (Naturally, the murder weapon was a rope.)

Personally, while I love these kinds of long tracking shots in movies like "Children of Men" and "Touch of Evil," I found that an entire movie made that way was toooo distracting. I felt like saying, okay, we get it! It's cool! Now quit farting around and just tell me the rest of the story.

[beagledave]

Probably the best long tracking shot in recent history..Atonement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5dqmUgu0SI

[beagledave]

And for comparison..."The Ten Best Tracking Shots Ever (http://www.filmcritic.com/features/2007/09/the-ten-best-tracking-shots-ever/)"

[BigT]

Imagine a TV show done like this. Take 24 to the next level.

[Wendell Wagner]

Incidentally, let's get straight the difference between a shot and a take. A shot is a single continous piece of film done with a single camera that's running all through the shot. By looking at the finished film, you can count the number of shots in it (although a good filmmaker like Hitchcock could disguise things to make it hard to count the true number of shots). A take is any single attempt at making a shot. When a movie is made, each time the director finishes a shot and then reshoots it he is creating a new take. There's no way to tell when watching a finished film how many takes each shot required. A long shot could well have taken many takes before the director was satisfied with everything in the shot.

Confusingly, a shot in a film that lasts for much longer than usual is often referred to as a long take. It's true that the long shot in the finished film came from a single take (usually among many takes of that shot), and the take was obviously as least as long as the shot in the film, but that's placing the emphasis on the wrong thing. The interesting thing about long shots (a.k.a. long takes) in finished films is not that it was possible to let a camera run that long. Anyone can turn a camera on and let it run for a long time. The interesting thing is that the director could get everything to work correctly for that long time. He has to make sure that nobody forgets their lines or actions, nothing falls over in the set or drops down from somewhere, no extraneous noises distract from the shot, the camera man moves the camera in precisely the right path, etc. I would guess that a long shot in a finished film that doesn't look horrendously ragged requires lots of pre-planning, many rehearsals with the actors, and many takes.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Personally, while I love these kinds of long tracking shots in movies like "Children of Men" and "Touch of Evil," I found that an entire movie made that way was toooo distracting. I felt like saying, okay, we get it! It's cool! Now quit farting around and just tell me the rest of the story.Hitchcock did ROPE as an experiment, and I think he also would agree that it was a failure. He did use another 10-minute take in UNDER CAPRICORN, the movie that he made next after ROPE, and it's much easier to take.

I suspect that there are some filmed versions of stage plays, where the cameras were just set still and tracked around the stage for the whole play, but I don't know of such off-handed.

[Anticounterrevolutionary]

There was an episode (http://www.tv.com/mad-about-you/the-conversation/episode/21964/summary.html) of "Mad About You" with Helen Hunt and Paul Reiser that was one shot. It was even shown without commercials to preserve the novelty. It was the ep where they try to get their new baby to sleep alone at night for the first time.

Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-krcerbPkOY) Paul explaining it at the end of the episode. (YouTube)

I thought it was cute.

[Dan_ch]

Also, any other movies that attempted the same?
Thanks

There is this 'new wave' of directors in Romanian cinematography (best known for '4 months, 3 weeks, 2 days' (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1032846/) and 'The death of Mr. Lazarescu' (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0456149/)) which uses frequently long shots.

The last three movies I've seen from them ('Tuesday, after Xmas' (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1470024/), 'Police, adjective' (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1337051/) and 'Boogie' (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1132578/)) contain several shots longer than 3-4 minutes. Each has at least one shot that goes for about 10 minutes or so.

For my amateur eye, the shots do not seem difficult from a technical point of view. The camera doesn't move too much and there are no explosions, hundreds of extras, highly choreographed fights or car chases. Usually the whole shot takes place in one room and no more than several actors are involved in it.
On the other hand, it must be very though for the actors. They have to stay in character for a long time and, since the camera is always on them, they have no room for error.

[ryobserver]

It wasn't until the fourth or fifth time I saw the Kenneth Branagh version of Henry V that I noticed that the lengthy "Non Nobis" scene near the end--when the king carries the dead boy across the field of Agincourt--is all one continuous take, from just before the singing starts until there's a cut at the very end to close up on the king's face. It's mostly a tracking shot of the king, but he actually walks out of the shot at one point, to reappear later standing over the corpse of the Constable of France. It's a long shot that doesn't call attention to itself, and I like it all the better for that.

[Chronos]

On the other hand, it must be very though for the actors. They have to stay in character for a long time and, since the camera is always on them, they have no room for error. Is it really any harder than it is for stage actors, though? They're regularly on for an hour or more at a time, and with no opportunity to re-do the take if they screw up.

[Dan_ch]

Is it really any harder than it is for stage actors, though? They're regularly on for an hour or more at a time, and with no opportunity to re-do the take if they screw up.

My (very) uneducated guess is that is harder. The camera is sometimes really close (as if you'd be sited with the actors at the same table) and they must fully control their bodies, not only their facial expressions, otherwise the viewer will notice immediately that something is wrong. A glimpse in the wrong direction and they'd have to do a new take.

On a stage the actors are usually far from the public and their gestures are not really natural (hence 'theatrical attitude' :) ), since whatever they're doing must be clearly seen by the whole audience. So I'd guess that any misstep will have a better chance of passing unnoticed by the average person. I remember reading somewhere that stage actors do not always look good on film because they tend to overact.

This being said, AFAIK most actors from the movies I've mentioned above are stage actors. I'm sure their stage experience is very helpful, but my feeling is that long shots require some more skill on top of that.

[GuanoLad]

This being said, AFAIK most actors from the movies I've mentioned above are stage actors. I'm sure their stage experience is very helpful, but my feeling is that long shots require some more skill on top of that.The complication comes with every other crew member's job having to be just as seamless and invisible, especially with all the paraphernalia required for a typical shot having to be avoided. It would suck to do a ten minute single shot, only to have, for example, the boom mic drop into view a few times, or the shadow of the cameraman appear on a wall, and ruin it.

[Susanann]

From what I remember, Lifeboat seemed like one single shot.

[C K Dexter Haven]

From what I remember, Lifeboat seemed like one single shot.LIFEBOAT was one confined and cramped setting, but Hitchcock uses the camera amazingly to make it interesting. I'm pretty sure there's no really long take.

[Cheesesteak]

Is it really any harder than it is for stage actors, though? They're regularly on for an hour or more at a time, and with no opportunity to re-do the take if they screw up.There is also a lot less "reality" to theatre. The audience can see the wings where actors come and go, they can see sets change, they can see the lighting, they can see that the actor is confined to a single physical space. Set up a camera in front of the stage when they perform Hamlet, it's not going to fly as a Hamlet movie.

The other aspect is if someone does something wrong on the set of a play, it's come and gone, there's little repercussion. 1,000 people may have seen it, they'll maybe recognize that it's wrong, and they move on. Do that on a movie set, and a million people can see it, over and over again.

[phreesh]

The terrible de Palma movie - Snakeyes - opens with a really long shot, but it calls attention to itself to the movie's detriment.

[Susanann]

Originally Posted by Susanann
From what I remember, Lifeboat seemed like one single shot.
LIFEBOAT was one confined and cramped setting, but Hitchcock uses the camera amazingly to make it interesting. I'm pretty sure there's no really long take.
Well.............that "one single scene" where they are all in the lifeboat, sure seemed like a loooooooooooooong scene.

[jjimm]

The video for Sugar Water (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN9auBn6Jys) for Cibo Matto by Michel Gondry is one shot, and splitscreen, and really damn clever.

[Wendell Wagner]

A scene is not the same thing as a shot. Look up the difference.

[janeslogin]

Netflix: The Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant (http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/The_Bitter_Tears_of_Petra_Von_Kant/60024395?trkid=2361637#height8568) is almost entirely in one room and just a couple or three camera angles in that room. If I remember correctly there may be a couple of short scenes elsewhere.

[Bryan Ekers]

Rope actually has several visible cuts, in the sense that the camera angle noticeably changes, and that's not even counting the opening shot, which is set outside the apartment building. We hear a man yell and the camera approaches a window on the top floor, then cuts to the interior where the victim has just expired.

[MovieMogul]

I haven't seen it, but the movie you're thinking of is Timecode (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0220100/). It sounds intriguing, but I don't know how successful it would be.Timecode is impressive because it does the feature-length single-shot conceit while also using multiple locations with many scenes occurring in the van as they follow the heist crew from one area to another. The movie itself, though, is dumb dumb dumb.

[Tim R. Mortiss]

Coincidentally enough, Farley Granger, star of "Rope" (as well as the infinitely better "Strangers on a Train") died today:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118034555?refCatId=25&query=Farley+Granger

[aruvqan]

Probably the best long tracking shot in recent history..Atonement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5dqmUgu0SI

Ouch. Never saw the movie but I sort of wish you had mentioned them shooting horses in it =( I had to stop watching it.

[Bryan Ekers]

Ouch. Never saw the movie but I sort of wish you had mentioned them shooting horses in it =( I had to stop watching it.

They shoot extended sequences, don't they?

[Bridget Burke]

Rouben Mamoulian's name prompted me to offer Isn't It Romantic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGNQ7TrVDrg) from Love Me Tonight.

No, it's not one take or one shot--just skillful editing that uses one song. Beginning in cynical Maurice Chevalier's Paris tailor shop & ending with Jeanette McDonald on the balcony of a chateau.

[Panurge]

And for comparison..."The Ten Best Tracking Shots Ever (http://www.filmcritic.com/features/2007/09/the-ten-best-tracking-shots-ever/)"

These are all Hollywood films. There are lots of absolutely wonderful tracking shots that have been left out. Theo Angelopoulos, Tarkovsky, Herzog (wonderful shots in Fitzcarraldo, for instance), Visconti (Il Gattopardo), Polanski (Cul-de-sac), Satyajit Ray, Alain Resnais (Last year in Marienbad), Bela Tarr (Werkmeister Harmonies) etc. have all made wonderful tracking shots. Not entire films, though, but certainly long enough to qualify for such a list.

And don't forget this beauty from Soy Cuba (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYFXv6bDIY8)!