There were two or three clear and visible cut points in the movie, but I wonder how they shoot this to seem like it was one (or three or four...) continuous take(s)? I wasn't very interested in this movie in advance, but after I saw it, I have to say they did quite good job technically.
shareProbably a combination of CGI and natural fades between scenes...its easy to sneak in an edit if you have a dark sequence especially.
And its not a new technique either. As far back as 1997 the movie Contact did a similar thing, in a scene where Jodie Fosters character opens a door in one location and there is a very quick edit and she is in a completely different location.
Yes, Contact is one of my favourite movies and I remember well that scene. Also the opening scene of Sam Mendes' Bond-movie Spectre seemed like an exercise for this.
shareI dont get why they bother with this "Continous shot no cuts" thing
"Children of men" apparently did the same thing, at least in one battle scene
People will probably claim "oooh , it makes it seem like you're really there.."
well no it doesent , theres a whole lot of other stuff more importsant than a "continious shot" to ensure "immersion"
Most people will not even notice a "continous shot" i certainly didnt watching 1917 last night.
If two people are talkning and the film cuts from one of them face to the other - so what?
I dont care ifthe actors sat down and had lunch between those two lines of dialogue - thats what editings for.
something not available in the theatre - you know, proper theatre , not a cinema
I bet when some directors bragging abouit his continous shot all done in one take,
theatre actors be like:
"Big wup, we do that every night,the whole play, we have to"
Yeah agreed, it's just a gimmick. It adds nothing to the story. All it does is make for some sloppy action.
For example in this when he fired the flare gun. That looked ridiculous, he sort of made it recoil in his hand like he was just doing it for an early rehearsal.