MovieChat Forums > Victoria (2015) Discussion > Remove the one-take gimmick and there's ...

Remove the one-take gimmick and there's not much there


Separated from the technical stunt pulled off to capture it, VICTORIA is saddled with a VERY dull story that on its own couldn't pad a 90 minute movie shot in conventional terms. It's also a story that has been told countless times before in films from multiple cultures: bored youth hangs out with four thoroughly suspicious guys who enlist her in a bank robbery to pay back a debt to a gangster. Cops catch up to them almost IMMEDIATELY, chase them for a very short time, shots are fired, some folks die, the end. This is painfully unoriginal stuff. Shooting it one take is a technical exercise and nothing more. The makers of Russian Ark truly had a logistical nightmare on their hands, and important things to say about their country's history. The makers of VICTORIA pulled off a challenging stunt, but they paid the price both at the box-office and at awards time. People breathlessly rating it as a masterpiece and throwing perfect 10's at it are clearly too enamored with the gimmick on their first viewing to realize they're watching a cliche-ridden story that has been used ad nauseam in direct-to-video B movies for years now, and one that can only be made to seem interesting if it's buried in technical virtuosity. Unfortunately for the filmmakers, audiences smelled something and the film never truly caught on.

reply

You couldn't be more wrong......

reply

Nope, I was entirely right. Sorry, but it's true. :)

reply

I couldn't disagree with you more. You are looking at the story in an all-too-simple way, one should look at it as a whole. I can't think of any movies out there about a young woman willingly going into an armed bank robbery or any life-and-death situation with a bunch of guys she just met on the street couple hours ago. I think the story itself is already a fascinating study of human character, and how far one would go to feel belonged when one is lonely for a long period of time. The one-take makes the film even more engrossing because you see the seamless transition of the relationship between Victoria and the four guys, and how her decision-making was based on her desperation to not be alone, and cling on to any relationship or friendship that she manages to build, however brief it has been.

If the filmmaker did not make it one-take, he would still be able to make it a good film because the story is already an interesting one. But I wouldn't call the one-take as a gimmick. It is a very important part of the storytelling, and making sure the audience goes through the transition along with the protagonist without missing any elements.

reply

I should have clarified. I didn't mean there were countless stories about women hooking up with bank robbers. I meant that there were countless stories, especially in indie films, of people (men, women, young, old) hooking up with the wrong kinds of people and facing violent consequences. Very tiresome, and this movie's one-take gimmick REALLY pads it out, which makes it all the more obvious.

reply

I also disagree; it would've been EVEN BETTER without the gimmick. Because if there was editing, they could have...

...Shortened unnecessarily long scenes, like the cafe conversation.
...Shown close-ups more quickly and effectively, instead of panning around to show faces.
...Relied less on handheld cameras. Since it was all one take, handheld was necessary everywhere, and this made some scenes too shaky, like when they run from the police.

Why did they do it in one take, anyways? Because it takes place in real time? You don't need a single take to show real time. Look at the TV series "24".

reply

Exactly! One-take movies are look-what-we-can-do STUNTS.

And I'll agree that the movie would've been better -- but only slightly, and certainly blessedly shorter -- with edits for the reasons you state, but I still think the core concept has been done to death. :(

reply

[deleted]

Here's the thing though - even if true, why would it matter. The breathtakingly crafted perfection creation from long takes such as this, Russian Ark and Tarr's Macbeth (granted, one shot pre-credits).

You seem to carte far more about story than technique, that's fine. Personally I don't think story needs to be important - it is all about the form, the structure and the technique. It is the same as how a brilliannt writer can craft a book. With the right description or is the case of cinema - shot/shots - a trip to the mailbox can be extraordinary.

I love this film for the realism this technique adds - that is the freshness that makes the film so spectacular. It genuinly feels like you are there with them and in less than two and a far hours we go from a drunken night out, and through completely extraordinary circumstances.

I do actualy think the improvisation and the slow pace could have made a great film with a somewhat similar feel even if there were done more ordinarily - there's a lot more here to love than just the single shot - and similar traditionally contemplative tools could have been added - but the fact that it was just one shot is what made it stand out and gave it the extreme suspense and urgency the end product had.

My 1000 favorite films - http://www.imdb.com/list/PkAV7BgvMJg

reply

i have to agree. tbh i found this film pointless. the first hour was meant to engage me with the characters, presumably so i would care when they got shot. but i found the conversations really tedious and superficial, like the characters themselves. the characters were generally idiots and/or unlikeable, especially victoria who seems to have some sort of personality disorder, given her decision to kidnap a baby and the speed of her emotional recovery when sonne died in front of her. the pacing was horrible, the plot far fetched and the characters utterly disposable. i won't be recommending this film to anyone.


reply

You can seperate the film from its technical accomplishment. All we can do is review and appraise the film we see presented. Not some fantasy film that doesn't exist.

Armond White - yes that Armond White - once made a very good point about this. When asked if a film showed signs of meddling behind the scenes, he said that didn't interest him. That's fodder for gossip websites. He just reviews what is on screen.

reply

I disagree, the one take aspect certainly helped to raise the fly on the wall feeling for the viewer, it helped to raise the realistic feel of the movie, but even if there had been cuts this film would still have been amazing
The acting alone was natural, truly phenomenal

reply