1917 (movie)

[Loach]

The movie 1917 is due out in December and it looks really good. I’ll predict Oscar noms for directing and cinematography at least.

Here’s my question. I’ve seen some making of stories where they say it is filmed in real time and that it will be one continuous shot. I’ve heard that repeated several times. One continuous shot. But I’ve also heard the actors mention different takes and waiting for the lighting to be right. When I hear one continuous shot I think one shot that lasts the length of the movie. But now I’m guessing it will be multiple long shots made to look like one with movie magic. Anyone know the actual technique used.

[GuanoLad]

It would have to be multiple shots blended together, it’s impractical to do it any other way. But digital methods to seamlessly blend shots have come on a lot since Children Of Men, it’s been done more often than you might think since then, so it shouldn’t be noticeable.

[Peter_Morris]

Hitchcock did it in *Rope * with some clever camera tricks, but without digital effects. That’s much more impressive.

[Baron_Greenback]

Here’s an interview with Sam Mendes, Roger Deakins et al about the making of it

Sam Mendes And Co. Talk 1917’s One-Shot Shenanigans

(Spoiler: it’s a series of long takes stitched together - some of the locations were hundreds of miles apart)

The scriptwriter, Krysty Wilson-Cairns, is interesting about the problems of attempting arcs in a narrative that is only two hours of real-time.

[Shoeless]

@Peter_Morris

Hitchcock did it in *Rope * with some clever camera tricks, but without digital effects. That’s much more impressive.

Rope was basically a stage play on film, where they moved the camera behind someone’s back when it was time to change the film reel. That’s not nearly as impressive as some shots in Children of Men, say where the camera is in the car and seems to move in and out through the windshield throughout the shot.

[Ike_Witt]

Russian Ark was filmed in a single 96 minute shot. There was some post production work but it was all one shot.

[Loach]

@Baron_Greenback

Here’s an interview with Sam Mendes, Roger Deakins et al about the making of it

https://birthmoviesdeath.com/2019/10/08/sam-mendes-talk-1917s-one-shot-shenanigans

(Spoiler: it’s a series of long takes stitched together - some of the locations were hundreds of miles apart)

The scriptwriter, Krysty Wilson-Cairns, is interesting about the problems of attempting arcs in a narrative that is only two hours of real-time.

That’s what I was assuming happened. Impressive anyway if they can pull it off well.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

I get the appeal of lengthy shots: they can ramp up tension and focus when used effectively. But, and I don’t mean to be a dick, I’m honestly asking: is there an artistic reason, beyond “because we can,” to make a movie a single long shot?

[Loach]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I get the appeal of lengthy shots: they can ramp up tension and focus when used effectively. But, and I don’t mean to be a dick, I’m honestly asking: is there an artistic reason, beyond “because we can,” to make a movie a single long shot?

To actually make it one long shot? Probably not beyond it being an impressive technical accomplishment. It’s a gimmick. To use movie magic to make it seem like one long shot accomplishes the dramatic purposes without the gimmick.

[gaffa]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I get the appeal of lengthy shots: they can ramp up tension and focus when used effectively. But, and I don’t mean to be a dick, I’m honestly asking: is there an artistic reason, beyond “because we can,” to make a movie a single long shot?

I just saw the trailer today, and it’s clear that two soldiers are assigned a very difficult task and a short period of time to accomplish it. So the director told the story in “real time” and made that much more explicit by apparently being a single shot.

It sounds like a very effective way of ratcheting up the tension.

[Miller]

@gaffa

I just saw the trailer today, and it’s clear that two soldiers are assigned a very difficult task and a short period of time to accomplish it. So the director told the story in “real time” and made that much more explicit by apparently being a single shot.

“No edits” doesn’t necessarily preclude the story jumping around in time and/or space. You could, for example, have a scene early on where there’s someone typing up a set of orders in London HQ, have the camera zoom in on the telegram he’s just written, then pull back to show that the telegram is now in the hands of an officer in Flanders. Big jump in time and place, but no camera edit.

Also, who wants to bet that the guy gets through with his message about it being a trap, and the asshole/incompetent CO of his brother’s battalion orders the attack anyway?

[Loach]

@Miller

“No edits” doesn’t necessarily preclude the story jumping around in time and/or space. You could, for example, have a scene early on where there’s someone typing up a set of orders in London HQ, have the camera zoom in on the telegram he’s just written, then pull back to show that the telegram is now in the hands of an officer in Flanders. Big jump in time and place, but no camera edit.

They have said that this movie will follow the two soldiers in every minute of the movie. King Tommen and the other guy.

Also, who wants to bet that the guy gets through with his message about it being a trap, and the asshole/incompetent CO of his brother’s battalion orders the attack anyway?

Wasn’t that called Gallipoli?