I'd recommend the second one, specifically if you want to b***h about the one take lol. There is a pretty good 20 minute one take,around the beginning.
The only reason I can accept it's usage in Birdman is that the film is about a play, and a liver theatrical production is done in 'one take' each night. I didn't mind it in 1917 but I believe the reasoning behind it being done in 1917 is that Mendes wanted it to feel like you were 'watching someones imagination as they tell the story' and our imaginations could be thought of as being one consistent take.
You're right about intermission, but scene changes in a play are exceedingly rare. Most plays take place entirely in one setting, sometimes two, and the scene changes are usually done while a character is talking: See, Death of a Salesmen, Glass Menagerie, etc. Musicals are where you see the most scene and set changes, plays not so much.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah, but there actually scene breaks in those two examples you provided. The exceptions I referred to were where it was a one or two character play (usually in one long act) who said their piece.
8 months ago
Anonymous
For starters, Menagerie takes place entirely in their apartment: There are no scene changes, unless you count the balcony where Tom and Jim have their conversation in Act II, but that is usually already on stage in the distance or up-stage. And any 'breaks' in sequence, such as moving forward a few months, are done while Tom is adressing the audience, but even these are done only so Amanda and Laura can change costumes. In any case, the drama never stops.
The scene breaks in Death of a Salesmen take place during Willy's inner monologues that we the audience hear in the form of ramblings. So for example when he's thinking back to the time with his son in the front yard throwing the football before the big game, that scene transition is done while he is rambling. In otherwords: the drama is not stopping. Plays almost never have a straight up dark stage between scene's, almost every director and writer of quality is aware that this kills mood and pacing and always tries to encorporate some sort of drama that continues the momentum of the play.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I'll take your word for it. I haven't studied American mid-century theater in years. Nor Chekov, he had scene breaks, didn't he?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Most plays simply don't have scene breaks in the way you're thinking, regardless of play or period. The 'drama', for all intents and purposes, never stops. Same in Shakespeare, same in Ibsen, same in Beaumont and Fletcher, it doesn't matter.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Ibsen, same in Beaumont and Fletcher
Never heard of those guys but if you have a second to broaden my horizons, what is their best play each in your opinion, just quickly, and I'll go out of my way to get them and read them and you'll have the vague satisfaction of getting some butthole on Cinemaphile you'll never talk to again that you got someone to read a Ibsen, Beaumont and Fletcher play. Thanks. 😉
Pic related is some bawd to make it worth your while in my appreciation.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I'm just trying to correct your ignorance. You're speaking of something you pretend to understand that you actually know very little about. Plays do not have straight up breaks in the drama or black stages where they change the scene, and generally the exception is for a play to have different stagings and settings, not the rule. They go on throughout and never stop, and my main point was that this concept was the inspiration for the 'one take' cinematography in Birdman.
It was alright till the sequence of falling into the water.
>Almost 1.5 million Muslim, Sikh and Hindu men from regions such as the Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Bihar volunteered in the Indian Expeditionary Force , which saw fighting on the Western Front, in East Africa, Mesopotamia, Egypt and Gallipoli.
Units lost themselves and soldiers got separated from their units all of the time, it would be ridiculous to assume colonial soldiers never ended up in a white trench then told to go on the attack or defense if there was a pressing matter at hand.
Problem was this this was the frontmost unit which had just arrived at their position after following the retreating germans with basically no resistance, so they should be completely organized by this point with no troops from other units mixed in
World War 1 especially, you gotta make the movie as horrifying as possible. Not dramatize it and have it be gimmicky. Neurosis is nothing to be fricked with
You really only have sea or air war for WW1 when it comes to combat .
unironically this for land combat.
The best WW1 movie you can do is Horror, Lovecraft inspired, especially with all the rats and giant craters and chaos. i think the best one i've seen is a half remembered movie where a bunch of german stromtroopers try to clear a spooky french trench.
>Almost 1.5 million Muslim, Sikh and Hindu men from regions such as the Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Bihar volunteered in the Indian Expeditionary Force , which saw fighting on the Western Front, in East Africa, Mesopotamia, Egypt and Gallipoli.
You are the one seething about a split second appearance of an extra in a 2 hour film though
8 months ago
Anonymous
Where?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Not him but there were also the much more prominent sikh guys mixed into a white regiment when theyre on the truck
8 months ago
Anonymous
A problem introduced by the single take gimmick is the distances all get shortened, so in reality what is supposed to be a journey of several miles became a few 100 metres. They travel about 300 metres in the truck, but act like it’s been several miles. Mate you could have jogged that distance in a minute.
8 months ago
Anonymous
The timeskip when the sniper glances his head could have fit in better if he just fell asleep in the truck and then woke up at sundown when they get to the bridge
>Almost 1.5 million Muslim, Sikh and Hindu men from regions such as the Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Bihar volunteered in the Indian Expeditionary Force , which saw fighting on the Western Front, in East Africa, Mesopotamia, Egypt and Gallipoli.
The problem is that they were all in distinct units; everyone in the Empire was. The Australians and Canadians had their own corps and even the Scotch and Welsh were mostly in their own units.
They're supposed to be a Devonshire regiment. Literally one of the most rural counties in England with next to no diversity even today. If they wanted to show Indians why not make them an actual Indian regiment?
Almost nothing. My only complaint was having a couple of 'big name' actors in the beggining and end. It would have been pure, unadulterated kino if the entire cast top to bottom were a bunch of literal 'who?'s
I thought it showed the germans as just people for the most part - only comically evil thing was the plane crash stab but that could be because he was scared of capture.
>the core story being shit and unbelievable >the “this totally happened to my grandfather cringe” >telling extras not to use the weeks of drilling in period correct tactics but to instead just run around because of le spectacle >characters making bizarre stupid decisions, such as choosing to climb over the parapet and run in front of the trench while an attack is being launched instead of over the parados across empty land >cartoonishly evil germans >cringe tokenism >wooden actors
I checked out when they were watching the planes dogfight and I just knew that the plane was going to crash right on top of them, and of course it did. It could have gone any direction in a 3 mile radius, but no, it crashed right where they had been standing.
Then after the moving death scene immediately from off camera half a platoon of British troops turn up out of nowhere to have a piss. Good job guys! You would of been really useful 20 seconds ago when you were presumably watching this all happen from 30 feet away.
kinda went to after the first nine minute single pan cut. unironically. all the world building after that was terrible but before it was alright in the beginning trench. maybe you can give it some points for the ending. movie is pretty hit or miss and depends on immersion. to fix this it probably needs an opening battle like SPR
I don't like it because historically Oppenheimer was a dull person who is only famous because of his dumb "I am become death" quote. There were more interesting people involved in the Manhattan Project
Sure, but if you're talking about Teller he at least got an interesting if not brief portrayal with hints to his hydrogen bomb. Of course, most dudes including Groves, etc were boring as frick engineers and physicists.
>empty feeling >subverted expectations: action very far away from the average war experience >cliched characters and poor performances >plucky stiff upper lip tropes abound >miscasting, no chemistry between leads >pilot with rabies, dehumanized enemy in most bizarre ways >sniper misses 17 shots
TLDR: unoriginal, written by a woman
>entire war was fought on the territory of France which suffered the most damage on the western front by far >basically no French people
Wow I wonder. Watching this movie would make you think the british were the only enemy the germans fought
>German pilot is a pre-WW1 caricature of the national personification of Prussia and after crashing on fire and they save him he decides to stab two guys with a pocketknife >Also they had phones and no need to send some guy running through a battlefield to relay a message, and they wouldn't have stopped a pointless attack to save 3000 lives anyway, 1 million dead for 100 meters was considered a good advance
the only thing memorable are some of the shots and moments. Particularly sneaking through the pitch black town illuminated only by artillery starbursts. But the plot and characters just aren't memorable. I can't remember anything about their characters or any interesting things they said. Contrast that to like "Saving Private Ryan" where you can recall a number of lines between the characters and things about their personalities where you can recall things about Oppham, Pvt. Jackson. Tom Sizemore etc.
Your taste.
spent too much time on boring soap hogwash instead of the sci-fi underpinnings
nobody cares about some dying wytebois
your mum cares
The welded together 'one' tracking shot unironically fricked the pacing.
It seemed dishonest doing this after Birdman won the oscar for it.
It fricked up the pacing on Birdman too. It's a shit gimmick that luckily died a death.
Long takes and oners are kino but yeah the "entire movie single take" is just ridiculous
I disagree somewhat, I think it's just good as an one-movie only gimmick but watching another movie that uses the same gimmick makes it feel old fast.
Nope, Extraction 1 and Extraction 2 did it really well.
Haven't seen them yet because I hate the Hemsworths but i guess I'll at least watch the first one now to b***h on it.
I'd recommend the second one, specifically if you want to b***h about the one take lol. There is a pretty good 20 minute one take,around the beginning.
The first 25 minutes of Ex2 is fricking KINO
The only reason I can accept it's usage in Birdman is that the film is about a play, and a liver theatrical production is done in 'one take' each night. I didn't mind it in 1917 but I believe the reasoning behind it being done in 1917 is that Mendes wanted it to feel like you were 'watching someones imagination as they tell the story' and our imaginations could be thought of as being one consistent take.
>liver theatrical production is done in 'one take' each night
Well, not really, act breaks and blacked out stage pauses scenes between scenes (with exceptions, of course).
You're right about intermission, but scene changes in a play are exceedingly rare. Most plays take place entirely in one setting, sometimes two, and the scene changes are usually done while a character is talking: See, Death of a Salesmen, Glass Menagerie, etc. Musicals are where you see the most scene and set changes, plays not so much.
Yeah, but there actually scene breaks in those two examples you provided. The exceptions I referred to were where it was a one or two character play (usually in one long act) who said their piece.
For starters, Menagerie takes place entirely in their apartment: There are no scene changes, unless you count the balcony where Tom and Jim have their conversation in Act II, but that is usually already on stage in the distance or up-stage. And any 'breaks' in sequence, such as moving forward a few months, are done while Tom is adressing the audience, but even these are done only so Amanda and Laura can change costumes. In any case, the drama never stops.
The scene breaks in Death of a Salesmen take place during Willy's inner monologues that we the audience hear in the form of ramblings. So for example when he's thinking back to the time with his son in the front yard throwing the football before the big game, that scene transition is done while he is rambling. In otherwords: the drama is not stopping. Plays almost never have a straight up dark stage between scene's, almost every director and writer of quality is aware that this kills mood and pacing and always tries to encorporate some sort of drama that continues the momentum of the play.
I'll take your word for it. I haven't studied American mid-century theater in years. Nor Chekov, he had scene breaks, didn't he?
Most plays simply don't have scene breaks in the way you're thinking, regardless of play or period. The 'drama', for all intents and purposes, never stops. Same in Shakespeare, same in Ibsen, same in Beaumont and Fletcher, it doesn't matter.
>Ibsen, same in Beaumont and Fletcher
Never heard of those guys but if you have a second to broaden my horizons, what is their best play each in your opinion, just quickly, and I'll go out of my way to get them and read them and you'll have the vague satisfaction of getting some butthole on Cinemaphile you'll never talk to again that you got someone to read a Ibsen, Beaumont and Fletcher play. Thanks. 😉
Pic related is some bawd to make it worth your while in my appreciation.
I'm just trying to correct your ignorance. You're speaking of something you pretend to understand that you actually know very little about. Plays do not have straight up breaks in the drama or black stages where they change the scene, and generally the exception is for a play to have different stagings and settings, not the rule. They go on throughout and never stop, and my main point was that this concept was the inspiration for the 'one take' cinematography in Birdman.
It was alright till the sequence of falling into the water.
Units lost themselves and soldiers got separated from their units all of the time, it would be ridiculous to assume colonial soldiers never ended up in a white trench then told to go on the attack or defense if there was a pressing matter at hand.
Problem was this this was the frontmost unit which had just arrived at their position after following the retreating germans with basically no resistance, so they should be completely organized by this point with no troops from other units mixed in
It felt so empty and fake, I'm not sure how else to explain it but for a war movie the whole one-shot thing made it look even more low budget
World War 1 especially, you gotta make the movie as horrifying as possible. Not dramatize it and have it be gimmicky. Neurosis is nothing to be fricked with
You really only have sea or air war for WW1 when it comes to combat .
unironically this for land combat.
The best WW1 movie you can do is Horror, Lovecraft inspired, especially with all the rats and giant craters and chaos. i think the best one i've seen is a half remembered movie where a bunch of german stromtroopers try to clear a spooky french trench.
the civillian b plot was shit but it’s still a good film
Would you prefer erasure of the historicity of the mighty British Empire?
Kek, seething brainlet oikophobes.
cope
I’m not the one warping history to suit my world view, you delusional coping wankstain
You are the one seething about a split second appearance of an extra in a 2 hour film though
Where?
Not him but there were also the much more prominent sikh guys mixed into a white regiment when theyre on the truck
A problem introduced by the single take gimmick is the distances all get shortened, so in reality what is supposed to be a journey of several miles became a few 100 metres. They travel about 300 metres in the truck, but act like it’s been several miles. Mate you could have jogged that distance in a minute.
The timeskip when the sniper glances his head could have fit in better if he just fell asleep in the truck and then woke up at sundown when they get to the bridge
>Almost 1.5 million Muslim, Sikh and Hindu men from regions such as the Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Bihar volunteered in the Indian Expeditionary Force , which saw fighting on the Western Front, in East Africa, Mesopotamia, Egypt and Gallipoli.
The problem is that they were all in distinct units; everyone in the Empire was. The Australians and Canadians had their own corps and even the Scotch and Welsh were mostly in their own units.
They're supposed to be a Devonshire regiment. Literally one of the most rural counties in England with next to no diversity even today. If they wanted to show Indians why not make them an actual Indian regiment?
Your own quote debunks the need for a jeet in this movie
honest trailers-tier nitpicking =/= genuine film criticism.
Yes they should also have bigfoot and greys in ww1 movies if you don't like it it's like cinemasins lol chud
you're right, that sounds kino as frick
based british letting brown people sacrifice themselves for their colonial empire
shut up, israelite. stop trying to justify brownwashing
>AHHHHHHHH is that a single person of color? help me hitler man I'm going INSANE
>historical movies should inaccurate fantasies because THEY JUST SHOULD BE OK?!
>thinks brown people didn't die during ww1
okay lmao get fricked incel
>has to mischaracterise the preceding points
Utterly delusional.
Just say you hate White people and go, incel.
At least it was better than the new All Quiet on the Western Front
I disagree but that's only because I have a YUGE boner for the st chamond scene
Was that the scene they break into the farm house/barn?
The whole movie was just a camera gimmick in a ww1 setting
Almost nothing. My only complaint was having a couple of 'big name' actors in the beggining and end. It would have been pure, unadulterated kino if the entire cast top to bottom were a bunch of literal 'who?'s
And this is why democracy is a fricking stupid idea.
I agree democracy is stupid, but why do you think it had anything to do with their casting decisions?
the big name actors were in background roles you fricking tart. the two mains were literal nobodies. die now.
I liked it
Forced inclusion of nonwhites in order to receive funding from the British government and consideration for British film awards.
well put.
the one shot take gimmick
the comically evil Germans
I thought it showed the germans as just people for the most part - only comically evil thing was the plane crash stab but that could be because he was scared of capture.
>germans as just people for the most part
which scene did they attempt to show german soldiers as people?
The city scene before the chase - they were making jokes and stuff
Bravo.
ENGLANDER! ENGLANDER!
Its basically just a montage of WWI cliches
>the core story being shit and unbelievable
>the “this totally happened to my grandfather cringe”
>telling extras not to use the weeks of drilling in period correct tactics but to instead just run around because of le spectacle
>characters making bizarre stupid decisions, such as choosing to climb over the parapet and run in front of the trench while an attack is being launched instead of over the parados across empty land
>cartoonishly evil germans
>cringe tokenism
>wooden actors
I checked out when they were watching the planes dogfight and I just knew that the plane was going to crash right on top of them, and of course it did. It could have gone any direction in a 3 mile radius, but no, it crashed right where they had been standing.
Then after the moving death scene immediately from off camera half a platoon of British troops turn up out of nowhere to have a piss. Good job guys! You would of been really useful 20 seconds ago when you were presumably watching this all happen from 30 feet away.
no way they didnt hear the rifle shot either. that would have put them on alert im thinking if it was unexpected and so close by
kinda went to after the first nine minute single pan cut. unironically. all the world building after that was terrible but before it was alright in the beginning trench. maybe you can give it some points for the ending. movie is pretty hit or miss and depends on immersion. to fix this it probably needs an opening battle like SPR
It's like they put a ww1 movie and an adventure movie in a blender and kino came out.
It had its issues, but Dunkirk was worse in terms of recent epic modern war movies (ie, it was even more boring).
Though, at least Nolan redeemed himself with Oppenheimer
Dunkirk was superior.
Oppenheimer sucked balls though
Because you don't like legal dramas? Di you like the atom bomb explosion bit though?
I don't like it because historically Oppenheimer was a dull person who is only famous because of his dumb "I am become death" quote. There were more interesting people involved in the Manhattan Project
Sure, but if you're talking about Teller he at least got an interesting if not brief portrayal with hints to his hydrogen bomb. Of course, most dudes including Groves, etc were boring as frick engineers and physicists.
>no fermi
>barely any feynman
Agreed. Dunkirk was more of a 2 hour montage than a proper movie. I could forgive that if it wasn't so dull.
not much
great mood piece
less dialogue would've been even better
not sure how I feel about the casting choices of the officers
>empty feeling
>subverted expectations: action very far away from the average war experience
>cliched characters and poor performances
>plucky stiff upper lip tropes abound
>miscasting, no chemistry between leads
>pilot with rabies, dehumanized enemy in most bizarre ways
>sniper misses 17 shots
TLDR: unoriginal, written by a woman
>entire war was fought on the territory of France which suffered the most damage on the western front by far
>basically no French people
Wow I wonder. Watching this movie would make you think the british were the only enemy the germans fought
The pretty much were. The frogs just died.
the flare run through Écoust is one of the best scenes that i've ever seen in a theater, i'm in my 30s
I liked it, also was great to watch in the theatre
I assume a relative must have molested you or something. Usually how homosexuality develops
>German pilot is a pre-WW1 caricature of the national personification of Prussia and after crashing on fire and they save him he decides to stab two guys with a pocketknife
>Also they had phones and no need to send some guy running through a battlefield to relay a message, and they wouldn't have stopped a pointless attack to save 3000 lives anyway, 1 million dead for 100 meters was considered a good advance
George Mackay carried it. He's a great actor. Loved him in 11.22.63 with Sarah Gadon.
the only thing memorable are some of the shots and moments. Particularly sneaking through the pitch black town illuminated only by artillery starbursts. But the plot and characters just aren't memorable. I can't remember anything about their characters or any interesting things they said. Contrast that to like "Saving Private Ryan" where you can recall a number of lines between the characters and things about their personalities where you can recall things about Oppham, Pvt. Jackson. Tom Sizemore etc.
Nothing, it was a good movie.
liar
nothing. it's a good movie.
jinx
Nothing. It is a better adventure movie than Conan The Barbarian.
felt like a long video game cut scene for ADHD zoomers and not a real movie
muh evil german pilot is where I signed out. It was generally a poor representation of ww1
it's just true to real life
germoids are an incel nation
Being anti german is the most israeli behavior you can exhibit
what of it?
Disgusting
>this is a very important mission
>sends out 2 messengers instead of an entire squad
Got mogged by all quiet on the western front
>Got mogged by all quiet on the western front
Which version?
all they had to do was accurately portray what life is like in the trenches.