In this thread, green_bladder mentioned that the film Russian Arkhad been shot in a single take. Is there any other film, foreign or domestic, characterized by this peculiarity, or is Russian Ark unique in this sense?
As an aside (and also touched upon in the linked thread), how many minutes of film can a reel hold? Could anyone provide a brief historical glimpse of how this limit has increased with the passage of time and the advent of improved technology?
Thanks,
quasar
Try a search on the technical aspects of Rope by Alfred Hitchcock. The film was edited together in a very sneaky way so as to appear as a single continuous take.
In reality the film reels he was using could only hold 10 minutes of film at a time – the film is actually a series of ten-minute continuous takes and the film unfolds in real time.
There is info on the DVD here..
Digital photography can allow an uninterrupted take to gone on much, much longer, of course. I think modern film reels are more along the lines of 20 minutes but I’ll have to doublecheck because off the top of my head, I really don’t remember.
Wait, it’s starting to come back to me… 20 minutes on 35mm and 52 minutes on 16mm (the physical length of the film is about 590m, give or take a few feet).
eyeballing tech books… nah, I’m pretty sure that’s right.
Time Code is technically four separate takes, (from what I’ve read – haven’t seen it) but they all take place simultaneously, in real-time, in four separate areas of the screen.
There is some discussion on what you asked about in another thread Anybody seen Russian Ark?.
Just for completeness’ sake here is a link to another thread, which however does not really discuss this issue: A full-length movie that was shot in one continuous shot?!
Tusclan thanks! You just reminded me of a post I made in te old thread: There is a difference between a continuous shot and a continuous take.
If you’re deftly skilled you can edit several takes together to create what appears to be an uninterrupted shot. (Example, being the aforementioned Rope, though it also has a very small number of jump cuts to rattle you a bit so you don’t get too used to the swimmy motion of the tracking camera.) A continuous shot is how it is seen/experienced by the audience (e.g. 5 separate “takes” can edited into one, very long “shot” – the audience may not notice the reel changes.)
A continuous take leaves you at the mercy of the medium. In Hitchcock’s days, the reels were smaller, so he had only 10 minutes at a time. With digital you can go until your memory cards are full or your batteries die.
A great many thanks to Eats_Crayons for exorcising the demons of ignorance out of my brain.
Nice suggestion, TJdude825. That’s quite an innovative concept (AFAIK) as well as quite a technical achievement. I’ll look it up in my video.
Cheers,
quasar
It’s not quite a good movie though. Deadly boring.
I agree – TimeCode is best appreciated as a tremendous technical acheivement – from afar. It’s an interesting idea – shoot from four cameras simultaneously and have characters float from one segment to another – but it ultimately isn’t very good, and the ending is so cliched it overshadows anything interesting in the earlier part of the film. Also, it’s a bit of a sham – if you look closely at the Jeanne Tripplehorn section while she’s sitting in the limo there are a couple of edits; I understand there were technical problems with the camera used to shoot that quarter, but the film is nonetheless billed as being done in a continuous take, which is incorrect.
–Cliffy
Film camera magazines still are ten minutes’ capacity. Projector reels are, as someone mentioned above, about 20 minutes for 35mm, but the reels used in the camera shooting the scene are smaller. It will be interesting to see if someone experiments with the longer takes possible now. Can digital cameras use a HD to record upon?
DD