Long Static Shots! Hate or Love?
I can’t imagine that the opening of Kagemusha – admittedly, not top-tier Kurosawa – could have been any better if it didn’t have that six-minute static shot. To put it more positively: the shot choice was correct.
Agreed – Still not a big fan of Kagemusha. Yes on the shot choice – makes you understand how anyone can stand and stare at a painting for hours (you really can!). A friend of mine pointed me to contemplative cinema. The lack of music in the shot can make all the difference – see, dont have your mind made up by the music. its interesting to see where a long static shot can take you wtih visuals alone.
I have found it! What Time Is It There? Tsai Ming Liang.
Depends on the use of it, of course; such wishy-washy response mediated by the understanding, however, that typically unsuccessful uses lead to unsuccessful films, which then go relatively unseen, even in this crowd. The best examples of static long takes are the ones that are out there. Compare the aforementioned movies (Kagemusha and What Time is it There?) to a student film trying to do the same thing without the careful consideration of its purpose, and….
—PolarisDiB
Don’t you think, (student or not) sometimes it’s not about the thought put into using this type of shot, but the way a filmmaker wishes to portray everything. If a director always makes films out of a number of single long takes, they obviously prefer simplicity. It then stops becoming about the thought put into ‘why do this long take’ but the thought put into each and every shot in the film.
Agree with you still. However, if you’re ’’trying’’ to do something it’s pointless. You dictate the pace yourself. If an influence begins to impede on what you are trying to say, it is no longer yours. Student films usually try to be something to make an impression and impress.
I feel that the long take can add to the presence and pace of the film. But, its main impact is made because it shows how the director has ignored what others think (in terms of time, being bored, not understanding) and gone with instinct. It is like a raw element.
“However, if you’re ’’trying’’ to do something it’s pointless.”
Fair enough!
“the way a filmmaker wishes to portray anything”
Interesting statement that can be read two ways. The way a filmmaker tries to portray… “everything”. Or the way a filmmaker tries to portray every element of the film. In the first case, forget it, and static long shots are more often actually about just that—how limited the visual field is, the borders and constrictions in the screen, the issues of framing. In the latter case, yes, that is what I believe you and I both agree on.
—PolarisDiB
It really depends … the opening to “What time is it there?” (and most of Tsais work) and the opening in “Kagemusha” used long static shots for completely different reasons … and produced very different effects. Long static shots usually (Tsai, early Hou, Hirokazu, Tarr, Bartas, Akerman etc.) is a great method when capturing a contemplative tone … when time and place is the primary area of interest.
Also Long static shots can work very well in comedy, Roy Anderson (especially in his TV commercials) uses this very well I think … and I think it helped in a lot of silent comedies too, despite this usually being overlooked.
When a film is not trying to embrace plot, melodrama or character development … but wishes to capture the essence of a moment or of a place, for me the film-makers that choose to use long static photography always captured this best.
The limitations to the field of view – I think it can be used to greater effect if you see it as no limitation but as a means to distance the viewer from the subject. If the single take is used as no limitation, you can feel a sense of liberation and freedom, that several shots of that same ‘place’ could never hope to achieve. Agreed it can work either way.
Polarisdib – yes the latter was what i meant.
Pacing is important as is place when using this type of shot. As Matt said ‘When a film is not trying to embrace plot, melodrama or character development’ – your aiming at a lazy audience. Again, compare it to admiration of a painting, you never glance and like, you observe and apreciate.
Love! Naturally, they can be tiring if used to excess, but nothing makes me connect with a film like being given a chance to really engage with its images over a decent period of time…the final shot of Jeanne Dielman comes to mind—just watched it for the first time today.
Love them! Check out “The Line”, a short by Benedek Fliegauf for some nice static shots. I also like the use of static shots by Tarr and Bartas. Long shots in general are amazing.
That idiot Pedro Costa almost killed me with his static shots in “Colossal Youth”. Those thumping sounds you could hear were the people getting up and walking out…either that or people dropping dead from acute boredom. When you bore the artsy Melbourne Cinemateque types (most of whom will pretend to like ANYTHING European and non-commercial to impress their equally pretentious friends), it’s time to hang up your camera.
Are will talking about long shots (shot with the camera far away from the principle figure(s) of interest), or long takes (shots with long durations)? In either case, it’s totally context dependent.
Matt, we are discussing the latter example.
I generally enjoy extended “thinking about it” time. I can only think of one which really gets me antsy, the shot of the empty theater in “Goodbye, Dragon Inn”, a film I otherwise love.
Tarr is more known for his tracking shots, is he not? Usually when he chooses a static shot (the dance scene in Satantango, for example), his choice is impeccable.
Pedro Costa is a master of the long shot/long take aesthetic (notice the criticism of him on this didn’t say a single thing about the film in question… when I hear an actual criticism of the film I might feel inclined to debate this view). In Vanda’s Room pushes film (actually digital video) further than almost any other film in the last half-century or more.
If we’re just talking static shots, and it has nothing to do with length of shot…
Mike Leigh is a master of static takes; as are many silent filmmakers (Mr. Carter’s mention of comedy brings Keaton to mind). And Kore-eda uses them to great effect in both Maborosi, and Still Walking.
But, of course the greatest filmmaker when it comes to static takes… Ozu. No debate.
…………………………………………………………………..
“I can only think of one which really gets me antsy, the shot of the empty theater in “Goodbye, Dragon Inn”, a film I otherwise love.”
I can assure you that feeling is intentional, Mr. Doinel. Tsai purposefully extends shots all of the time. It’s a moment when he’s essentially making fun of the very effect Tsai Ming-liang has become famous for (and what normal ‘art film’ audiences have become very accustomed to over the preceding years), the long-static single take (normally with a distorting wide-angle lens). The shots in the bathhouse in The River, the crying scene in Vive L’Amour, the final shots in Wayward Cloud and the theatre shot in Goodbye, Dragon Inn (among many others) are all meant to push the film audiences buttons; Tsai asking us, “how far are you willing to follow me?”
I don’t think there’s a single other filmmaker that can do what Tsai does, and get away with it. He’s constantly playing with us even as he’s asking deep, and profound questions and telling extremely moving stories (Goodbye, Dragon Inn, for example, has one the saddest love stories ever told in film).
@Mark: I wouldn’t call Costa’s film a “European Art Film” seeing as most of the characters/actors are from Cape Verde. Also, he is deliberately confronting (albeit indirectly) ideas of European hegemony within the cinema and along with this goes what a word like “pretentious” even means. I highly suggest you read up a little on his films before deeming him an “idiot.”
@Emgenie: I think “long static shots” should be called “long takes” as they are based in duration as opposed to the long shot which distantiates distance. I think Tsai’s films are ultimately interested in both though. I feel that long takes cannot be equally “hated” or “loved”; they are used as both a technique and a critique of technique, especially in confronting the privileging of a totalized subjective viewpoint that the shot-reverse shot assumes. They must be considered within a specific context of a specific film as well as within film history.
I’m way too A.D.D. for that stuff.
Shantih, where in my post did I use the term EUROPEAN ART FILM in inverted commas?
Portugal, last time I checked, was a part of Europe.
I wouldn’t call the film “commercial”, would you?
And the fact is your regular M.C. crowd typically eats up anything European and non-commercial with a spoon, even for the sake of impressing their friends. Joks will know what I mean about the M.C. crowd, even if he does not agree with my views on “Colossal Youth”.
Shantih:
“Reading up” on someone’s films should not be required to appreciate them. If you have to go read a book after seeing a film to enjoy the film, then the film itself hasn’t done its job. Granted, rudimentary understanding of “from where the film is coming” is needed, but ultimately, a great film conveys its themes through itself…it requires no written supplementation in order to impress. You actually sound like one of these “Twilight” fan kids who, when I say "I hated that “Twilight” film", reply with “Try reading the book”. A great film can stand up by itself. Don’t blame the audience (me) for the fact Pedro Costa couldn’t impress me, when I DID grasp the basic theme of the movie.
Shantih, you also (rather arrogantly) presume I have no knowledge of Portuguese colonialism et cetera.
And my problem is not with the theme of the movie (as the subject matter was what interested me in the first place, plus I wanted to experience Portuguese film), but with Pedro’s technique (static long shots that all too often seemed interminable, repetitive uninteresting dialogue). You ought to do better than confusing theme with technique. If you cannot distinguish between the two, I think it’s you who ought to read a book before watching another film.
Horse said:
“Pedro Costa is a master of the long shot/long take aesthetic (notice the criticism of him on this didn’t say a single thing about the film in question… when I hear an actual criticism of the film I might feel inclined to debate this view).”
Horse, yeah, I “get” what the film was about…I just happen to flat out disagree with your belief Pedro is a “master” of aesthetic anything.
P.S.: Shantih, I even went so far as to discuss Portuguese film with a friend after seeing Pedro Costa. Even she agrees a lot of Portuguese cinema is boring. And given she’s Portuguese born and raised, I dare say you’d look foolish accusing her of cultural ignorance regarding Portugual and its cinematic representation.
Mark, Okay, my mistake in misquoting you, but from the tone of your response, this is how I interpreted what you meant by “artsy types” feigning a liking for European cinema.
I’m not presuming that you have no knowledge of Portuguese history, I am just disappointed that you’d dismiss or insult (e.g. “idiot”) someone who may not just have a legacy within the confines of Portuguese cinema but who cannot be clearly delineated by that term. I think the same goes for differentiating between commercial and non-commercial films.
As Horse had pointed out, Costa is working within a new medium (digital video film) that has different implications than past cinemas. I’m not saying you have to go read a book, but I think we must admit that film is a part of history and does require knowledge to better place it.
And yes, I do believe that theme and technique are often inseparable or at least complimentary and that neither can be dismissed or placed above the other.
Love it.
I think it goes without saying that it depends on the scene at the time. I do like static long shots if I had to pick between the two, but I certainly didn’t appreciate the long static shot of two characters talking across a shiny table in Edward Yang’s A Confucian Confusion. The subtitles were barely legible as it was but I couldn’t tell you what was said there as it was completely impossible to read the subs for the entire scene :(
Usually I love long takes- HOWEVER- just because a filmmaker employs them, or has an interest in “sculpting in time”- this does not automatically make them a worthwhile filmmaker in my book. There has to be a reason for it, at least on some level (as with any choice one makes as a filmmaker)- even if the choice is purely based on an intuition. I think someone who employs them regularly can also go wrong with them if they for some reason aren’t totally attuned properly. Tarr used them perfectly in Satantango; but not so well in The Man From London.
Chantal Ackerman
Straub-Hullet
Marguerite Duras
Tsai Min-Liang
Carl Th. Dreyer
Every one a film master.
@David- what would you recommend to start with for Duras?
It definitely depends. If it’s the right choice for the scene, then yes, they’re great.
One fantastic recent example is Hunger. The long (16 minutes, I think) dialogue scene in the middle is really the setpiece and the style juxtaposes nicely with all the visual flare used before that.
“Horse, yeah, I ‘get’ what the film was about…I just happen to flat out disagree with your belief Pedro is a ‘master’ of aesthetic anything.”
I’ve seen you bash the film numerous times. I’ve also seen you say you ‘get’ it. I have not, however, seen you even mention a single scene in the film and why it does or doesn’t fail. If you ‘got’ the film I’d presume your criticism of the film would include actual moments from the film; it never does. Just you harping endlessly about how people in some Australian theatre didn’t like it (as if anyone cares at all). Which is why I’m not debating this (or continuing to hijack this thread) with someone who either wasn’t able to understand what was going on screen or actively tried not to.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Nathalie Granger is probably a good start with Duras, Jesse.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
“I certainly didn’t appreciate the long static shot of two characters talking across a shiny table in Edward Yang’s A Confucian Confusion. The subtitles were barely legible as it was but I couldn’t tell you what was said there as it was completely impossible to read the subs for the entire scene :(”
Well, that wasn’t Yang’s fault, was it? Couldn’t the same thing have happened if he’d cut in between a scene and the shot had the same table in the bottom of the frame? It’s not the shot, but the subtitling… I think this type of thing calls for a full remastering of all of Yang’s work by Criterion. :)
Edward Yang is another master. The scenes in the doctor’s office in A Brighter Summer Day are simply some of the most astounding static shots I’ve ever seen on screen. Perfection.
“Well, that wasn’t Yang’s fault, was it?”
Absolutely not! That was a brilliant film even if I missed some due to the bad subs. I was trying to make a joke – but I guess that wasn’t really obvious ;)
It certainly would be nice to be able to obtain some sort of copy of A Confucian Confusion with nice shiny new subtitles but that seems a long way off :(
Depending on what you mean by long static shots (freeze frame or stationary camera?)…
Fanny & Alexander – jew reading to boy
I also think of Kubrick a lot…although he would typically do very slow zooms, they had a similar effect to a long static shot.
Dave, I was referring to static camera. I would disagree that Kubrick’s slow zooms had the same effect. The slow zoom was drawing your attention to a point, however gradually it may be. The static shot gives the audience a chance to observe the entire scene. The slow zoom, i feel, assumes that the elemets that move out of shot are not important. Every element in the shot in a static take has its relevance and importnace to either the character in that scene or the plot of the film as a whole.
emgenie
My first real love of these came after seeing a Tsai Ming Lai film, the name escapes me though. Wondered what people thought? Which Director has used it to the greatest effect?