Just looked at the over at apple.com
Intriguing. A full movie done in one take. I know Hitch made rope but he had cheat due to the limitation on reel size.
The movie probably didn’t get a big opening in the US but I’m guessing one of you arty types have seen it.
So is it worth me spending my Euros on?
One bump then this can die a graceful death.
I hadn’t heard of it until now, but it sounds interesting.
It’s playing on campus next weekend in conjunction with a Russian art exhibit at our art museum. I cannot WAIT to see this!
I’ve been wanting to see it for quite awhile but last time I checked it wasn’t playing anywhere near here and won’t be in the foreseeable future :(.
OK, I’ve seen it (because I try to see everything… is that sad or what?)
It was playing at the local Los Angeles “art theatre” where many movies play for one week and are never heard from again.
But this time there was a longer line than I’ve seen in quite some time, and the theater was packed. Now I see that it is playing another week at a different art theater, so obviously it is getting some interest.
The main attraction (apart from the ‘single take’ gimmick, which apparently is possible because it’s shot with digital technology) is that it is shot in the Russian Hermitage museum. It has some characters out of Russian history, and I think I would have appreciated it more if I was a history buff and better aquainted with the historical figures.
That being said, it was OK. Looked great, but the “plot” was only OK. i suppose that’s better than most films.
It’s coming to Cleveland in February, and I hope to be able to see it.
Also, there was a discussion of this a little while ago here
Of course, Russian Ark only looks like one take. In reality, it was filmed over a period of several weeks, using numerous separate takes that were digitally edited together to appear as one seamless take.
Hitchcock’s Rope (1948) actually has at least one deliberate cut. When the maid announces dinner, the movie cuts from a group shot of the guests to a closeup of the maid.
I saw it last night. Like someone said, it would hve helped to know a little about history before seeing it, I’m sure a lot was lost on me. Some things I’m still trying to understand. I stayed awake, so that says something for it.
The main character, they guy in black suit who…(may have been dead?), was a riot.
It seemed like one big take to me, but what do I know. It wasn’t like Rope where they camera never moved. Just the opposite, it moved continuously, like a roller coaster moving from one room to the next, but slower obviously.
Very beautiful, the costumes, the dancing, the art, views of Moscow…Definitely see it. Raiders of the Lost Ark it ain’t.
The camera never moves in Rope? Are you sure you’ve seen it? The camera moves all the time, following characters from one room to another, moving from group shot to closeup, and back to group shot.
You got a cite for that? Because it goes against everything I’ve read about this film. Sure, there were plenty of rehearsals and they probably shot the whole movie more than once to get a “best” take, but I’d like to see some proof backing up your assertion.
p.s. Haven’t seen it but it opens here soon.
Walloon, before you go making definitive statements such as the one quoted above, please make sure you have your ducks in a row, ok? You cannot provide a cite proving your assertion because your assertion is completely erroneous. To wit :
I happen to know a lot about this film. I’m a professional Steadicam Operator, and have been for more than 16 years.
This film was shot using a device called a Steadicam. The Steadicam Operator wore the camera nonstop, during a no-cut 90 minute shot. There were several times when the Operator stood on what is called a Matthews Doorway Dolly, and was moved around the floor without walking, to take a ‘break’. There was no cut during these moments, it simply kept the Operator from having to walk as well as compost a moving shot nonstop.
There are no edits. There is no morphing of shots. There are no hidden transitions, a la Rope. Here is how it was done.
The Steadicam is worn by the Operator. The images are recorded by a second crew member, NOT BY THE CAMERA ON THE STEADICAM. ( A Steadicam is a support device, NOT a camera in of itself. On top of the Steadicam system was a High Definition video camera ). The Hard Drive recording system was worn as a battery operated backpack, and was carried behind the Steadicam Operator, by a second person.
The Steadicam Op was a German gentleman. The cast and crew totalled over 5,000 apparently.
Here is a Link to Russian Ark Productions Stills. By changing the address from " rep_001.html " to _002, _003, etc- you can move through roughly 30 shots. These include shots of the Steadicam Operator doing his thing.
This QuickTime Movie Trailer is the trailer for the Russian Ark film. You need Quicktime Player to view it.
There is a fairly extensive web site run by the studios in Russia that produced this film. It answers a lot of the questions and dispels the misinformation stated in other posts to this thread.
Please peruse This Russian Ark Site to educate yourself as to how this most remarkable film was made. It does include details on the High Definition Hard Drive system that was linked to the Steadicam rig via lightweight cable.
The longest shot I ever had to do without resting the Steadicam on my shoulder was the Leonardo DiCaprio/President Clinton interview for ABC News. We shot just outside the Oval Office. It ran over 31 minutes. I ran out of tape and had to swap while wearing the Steadicam on my body.
The longest time I ever had the system strapped to my body without “docking” it was 2 hours and 15 minutes. It was the Opening Ceremonies of the Atlanta Olympic Games.
I hope the links and accurate information above help to straighten out the confusion.
As for other films referenced in this thread. Rope does indeed contain cuts. Each film reel , at 1,000 feet per roll, runs almost 11 minutes. Hitchcock choreographed the most amazing 11 minute sequences. Props and furniture moved, walls were moved ( literally ). It was a tour de force. The cuts were sometimes clumsily hidden in a body cross, or a pan into a dark drawer or area. Remember when this was made. Such edits couldn’t be morphed away to match frames- as was the case in the opening sequence of the film, ** The Birdcage**. In that case, the helicopter shot morphed into a Steadicam Operator standing on a moving crane mounted to a truck. The truck moves down the street, the Steadicam Operator steps off the crane and walks quickly up the steps to the doors of the nightclub, and then that shot morphs into the same Operator, moving through doors into a studio interior set of that same nightclub. Three shots, morphed optically into one seamless shot.
Hitch didn’t have that option. What he DID have, in Rope as well as in shots like the last sequence of Frenzy, was a brilliant sense of timing and composition. The last sequence of Frenzy begins with an attack in a woman’s apartment. The camera moves out her doorway, snakes backwards down the stairs and down the hallway of the apartment building, out the front door and then cranes upwards and turns to show a busy marketplace outside the building. The cut is hidden by a body crossing close to the lens. It’s a beautifully constructed sequence, and as camera choreography goes, it is on my Top Ten List of most perfectly executed shots in Cinematic History.
Cartooniverse
I stand corrected, It’s been a long time since I’ve seen it. But the difference between the two as far as camera’s moving is rather drastic. During the movie (Russian Ark) more than once, I thought about how that guy held it and walked for that long a time. I guess the previous post answered that.
Hopefully, he was paid grotesque amounts of money to hold it and walk around for that long at a time. I used to call music videos " blood money", but my god…
** The Big Cheese**, you have 666 posts. If you have a Pit Rant about satanic rituals in you, by gosh, NOW is the time to speak out !!! 
Wow. Thanks Cartooniverse. Now that’s the Straight Dope.
My Euros will be spent on this.
Actually, I found it to be one of the most boring films I’ve seen in a while. This film should come with a warning label. It should be available only by prescription. One should not attempt to drive or operate heavy machinery after watching this movie. Side effects of this movie may include dry mouth, dizziness and sexual side effects.
I don’t dispute that the single-shot technique was intriguing. If only they found a more interesting movie to use it with.
Here’s a review, FYI:
http://www.nypress.com/15/50/film/film.cfm
Matthew Zoller Seitz gives it measured praise, saying it’s a historic milestone in film that everyone should see, it’s also beautiful, but it, nevertheless, can also fall victim to its own device:
To give Walloon the benefit of the doubt, that last bit could explain the origin of the whole multiple-take myth.
Ark was filmed continuously with digital technology as was already pointed out. however, it took them three tries to get it…they had two prior flubs and had to start over.
That is the accomplishment…I believe the overwhelming opinion is that the film doesn’t work without the device.
Speaking of great long shots…what about “A touch of Evil”? That’s filmmaking.
Except that the reviewer is wrong. While it is true technically that prints are shipped in reels to movie theatres ( that is those dim gray metal hexagonal cases you see against the wall near the manager’s office sometimes at your local gigaplex ), the truth is that almost all modern day projection booths employ Platter Film Projection Systems.
Yes, the video recording had to be rendered to film. However, the only part of the entire process that interrupts the realtime flow of a movie with no PHYSICAL cuts, is the fact that 35mm and 70mm movies are shipped in smaller reels, and then are reassembled AT the projection booth, and spooled ONTO the platter, where it is indeed shown nonstop.
The days of Changeover ( see ‘Running The Show’) are virtually gone.
I’m sorry. Walloon is wholly mistaken in assumption and purported statement of fact. The film was recorded nonstop by a hard drive storage media, it was transferred to film in reel sizes that were physically manageable, THEN spliced back into one continuous take.
That is just the way it is.
Metroshane, god you’ve got it right there. The whole film is pretty breathtaking in terms of solid Film Noir work, but that opening sequence is astonishing.
Considering the technology at hand at that time, it’s a powerful bit of filmmaking. A modern day analogy might perhaps be the opening shot of “The Bonfire Of The Vanities”, in terms of exposition married to a no-cuts sequence. It too was shot in a long single take, by Larry McConkey. The director, Brian DePalma wanted to be able to witness a lot of the take firsthand, and so he did a cameo as a security guard, so he could accompany the camera.
Shots like this call attention to themselves, and unless they propel the story along ( as is surely the case in both examples here ), they kind of suck wind and make you wish you were’t watching 'em. 