Okay armchair (and other) directors and cinematographers, is this Taylor Swift video one continuous shot?
The first time I watched it, I thought it was just a good attempt to look like it was, but on second viewing I noticed something interesting. At the 1:00 mark, Taylor ducks through the door of the set on the left, something she wouldn’t really need to do if the transition to the next tableau was to be done with a digital edit rather than practically. After I noticed that, it seemed that all the other transitions could also be accomplished practically. There are costume changes for her, but there is time to do them and, I think, significantly, her hair doesn’t change between her appearances.
I’m prejudiced toward believing that they made the extra effort to do it in one shot because I think it’s cool. What do you think?
Watched the video. Definitely looks like it was done in one shot. Then I searched and found this article, which, unless they’re lying, confirms it’s a single take with no edits.
Look, I’m no fan of Taylor Swift but due to a few tweener (and one 45 year old) girls in my home I here a great deal of her. And I heard that song and thought to myself, “Poor Jake Gyllenhal” like any sane man should.
But that was a great concept and execution for a video. Can’t mistake it.
Are the girls (at least I think they’re girls) dressed as animals at the party supposed to signify something*, or are they just a transition device to disract you from the set/costume change?
*I’m aware that it’s possible that I’m reading too much into a Taylor Swift video.
They’re mostly boys, with a few girls, dressed in stuffed animal costumes. Many of them are holding instruments and pretending to be back up musicians and singers. They’re distractors. Near the end Taylor gives them a funny look over her shoulder and mouths, “I don’t know” to the camera. So they are full of sound and furry, signifying nothing.
Well, when the wall opens on a hinge to reveal a new room (around 1:09) the move could be a digital wipe which would mean that the following action would be a new scene.
But, as Jman points out, the video makers claim it’s one long shot. They could be lying but why? It certainly wouldn’t be the most demanding “one long tracking shot” ever executed before. Plus, it’s a fun thing to set out to do. Why not?
It reminds me of that Honda ad from a few years back where there was a cascade of falling objects that kept the sequence going. Song was OK I guess, quite catchy. But why would they both say it was done in one take? Apart from the Kudos what have they got to earn from it? Both videos had plenty of opportunity to do digital jumps of blends and all this talk of “it only took 19 takes” just smacks of bravado. Occam’s razor and all that, it was done with takes and edited with the makers claiming otherwise for the pure credit. No cite, just my two centimes.
Thanks. my bad assumption. I was trying to say that although it could be done in one take it could also be done with edits plus a bit of economical truth from the film makers. Anyway, what is it with the bear dude?
Porbably one shot, if the producers say it is, but I believe the technology is sufficiently advanced that digital edits wouldn’t necessarily have to be at the obvious break points, if they really wanted to get tricky about it.
Meanwhile, although I find all of her music (that I’ve heard) callow, overproduced and uninteresting, has there been anyone who better fits the term “ingenue” since, I don’t know, Audrey Hepburn? Damn, the camera likes her.
Since the question has been answered and people are giving examples of one-shot music videos:
I think the video for Gravity by Sara Bareilles has got to be one of the most elegantly shot videos of the genre. It’s not a jarring “action video.” You get to see the extras setting up the special effects and then they blend into the background and you forget they are there.
