I’m sick of close ups, too.
Motion pictures shouldn’t consist of shots at all.
Long shots are important in Scott Pigrim saves one from having to see Michael Cera.
Sorry, I think you’re alone on this one.
Long how? Long in time or long in distance from the subject?
The longer the better….
the sequence shot ,through the aegis of the contemplative cinema trend ,has become an important rhetorical and metaphysical device .it transcends pure social realism[or were you not referring to bela tarr et all]
It all depends on what the film is asking for. It is really difficult to adopt a position on this because it’s just like thinking in terms of pretty/ugly when it comes to design.
in the round up by miklos jancso ,the Hungarian plains actually dictate the use of the sequence shot, fracturing of the cinematic space would strike a false note as action would of been seen in its totality on the plains
“Scott Pilgriim vs. The World” is not characterized by long shots.
Maybe he means “long shot” as in “a venture that offers a great reward if successful but has very little chance of success?”
he really should return to the thread he started and clarify matters
The beauty of long shots [if I take you to mean edits held for longer than the usual AND shots composed from a distance] is that it give the audience an option as to where they want to look as the shot unfolds. Do you prefer the director lead you along and show you where to look at all times? [Granted a lot of directors do this]. Still, I’ll take some slower editing and long distance shots when I can get them – which is not often in Hollywood films.
I love the long shot following various characters in “The Player.” That whole movie pokes fun at the pretention of certain shots while, at the same time, showcasing how awesome they are.
Also, the long take of Doc’s Rube Goldberg inspired device at the beginning of “Back to the Future” would never have been cool all edited like a “Fast and the Furious” flick. And everything Gene Kelly did. And “Russian Ark.”
Long live the multi-minute take!!
If anything, modern day cinema has brought death to the long shot. The video era has brought with it a plague of hd close-ups.
I hate a film with nothing but close-ups, as it is, to me, the epitome of laziness for photography.
That being said, I don’t want the slow moving, never cutting away crap that eastern europe pumps out either.
“never cutting away crap that eastern europe pumps out either.”
Typical American thinking.
Let this thread die in peace, please….it’s just a shitty question for the love of Artemis.
im sick of jump cuts.
For the love of Artemis!
This thread is too stupid to die – stupidity deserves to be broadcasted.
I’m with Robert on this: “The longer the better…”
I love long takes, but it can be overused – just as close-ups can be overused, but when they’re done right they’re a beautiful thing. As with everything: moderation is the key.
EDIT: And it’s interesting, WXYZ, that in one thread, you say that Orson Welles is your favourite director and in this one you’re practically condemning Touch of Evil’s opening shot.
Is this thread for real?
I’m sick of your questions, Carlos! heh
Sorry Deckard Croix! I have an inquisitive nature. :)
I’m sick of long threads.
“Maybe he means “long shot” as in “a venture that offers a great reward if successful but has very little chance of success?”
I’m sick of people loling all the time!
I’m sick of cameras being used in motion pictures.