So the first teaser trailer for Alfonso Cuaron's film Gravity, starring George Clooney and Sandra Bullock, came out this week to much buzz. The film has been steeped in anticipation as the original release date was to be some time in 2012. The much-delayed film is Cuaron's follow up to the sensational Children of Men (2006) (a personal favorite) -- a film that gained film-nerd cred for containing a handful of phenomenal and incredibly sophisticated long take shots (i.e. no cuts). Rumor had it, a year or two ago, that Gravity would open with a 17-minute shot. It appears as though the first teaser trailer for the film may be, ironically, a series of shots cut from that 17-minute shot.
Now. A word. I reserve the right to be corrected in the future, but doing a 17-minute long take today does not involve as much as it used it. For example, an original film magazine, if I'm not mistaken, used to run for about 8-9 minutes, therefore, logistically, shooting longer than that was impossible. Hitchcock, while shooting his fantastic film Rope (1948), billed basically as an unbroken 90-minute scene, disguised his cuts with people moving in front of the camera and blacking it out -- enabling a magazine change. But today, we are able to shoot digitally, and basically for as long as our actors are willing to stand on their feet. Russian Ark (2002), the film that famously actually is a 90-minute steadicam shot taking us through The Hermitage in St. Petersburg (and Russian history), was shot digitally, but involved hundreds of actors whose choreography was critical to the shot (imagine getting 65 minutes into it and having to restart because someone screwed up?). So despite my love for Cuaron and Children of Men and long-takes in general, I'm slightly skeptical, because surely Clooney and Bullock were not in actual outer space, and there were no logistical difficulties, because really, when you're shooting in front of a green screen there are endless possibilities to sew the seams of two different shots together. With that proviso... I am still extremely excited for this film! I mean, good god, it looks terrifying, and I have heard/read the words "science fiction game-changer" been thrown around so we shall see. I hope we will be blown away! (I'm sure I will be.)
Now. A word. I reserve the right to be corrected in the future, but doing a 17-minute long take today does not involve as much as it used it. For example, an original film magazine, if I'm not mistaken, used to run for about 8-9 minutes, therefore, logistically, shooting longer than that was impossible. Hitchcock, while shooting his fantastic film Rope (1948), billed basically as an unbroken 90-minute scene, disguised his cuts with people moving in front of the camera and blacking it out -- enabling a magazine change. But today, we are able to shoot digitally, and basically for as long as our actors are willing to stand on their feet. Russian Ark (2002), the film that famously actually is a 90-minute steadicam shot taking us through The Hermitage in St. Petersburg (and Russian history), was shot digitally, but involved hundreds of actors whose choreography was critical to the shot (imagine getting 65 minutes into it and having to restart because someone screwed up?). So despite my love for Cuaron and Children of Men and long-takes in general, I'm slightly skeptical, because surely Clooney and Bullock were not in actual outer space, and there were no logistical difficulties, because really, when you're shooting in front of a green screen there are endless possibilities to sew the seams of two different shots together. With that proviso... I am still extremely excited for this film! I mean, good god, it looks terrifying, and I have heard/read the words "science fiction game-changer" been thrown around so we shall see. I hope we will be blown away! (I'm sure I will be.)
No comments:
Post a Comment