Taking Advantage of a Medium--Should It Be a Primary Criterion When Selecting the All-Time Greatest Movies? If So, Would Your All-Time Greatest List Change?

@Matt

Bazinian “realism”, for example.

Could you explain that? (I’ll try to look it later if not.)

Ultimately, I think any director, as well as any viewer is going to have their own notion of what the medium fully realized is (Bazin’s “Myth of Total Cinema”, for example), but what that notion actually is is going to depend on a lot of variables—which films a given person has seen for one.

Again, the problem you’re talking about is unavoiable. Our notions of originality, technical excellence, etc. are relative to our experience. But we do the best we can. However, I would assume the critics and filmmakers participating in these polls have seen a lot of movies—to the extent that their experiences are in a the same ballpark. My sense is that the critics don’t differ in their notions of “taking advantage of the medium” as significantly as you’re suggesting.

@Falderal

How does that specific quality seperate it from ballet, opera, theatre, music or any other collaborative art form?

I’m not exactly sure how it separates it from those other forms, but are you saying there isn’t a separation from these other forms?

“Bazinian “realism”, for example.”

To oversimplify a bit, long takes, staging in depth, emphasis on mis en scene rather than editing.

“My sense is that the critics don’t differ in their notions of “taking advantage of the medium” as significantly as you’re suggesting.”

I don’t disagree with you that there’s a fairly diffuse concept of “taking advantage of the medium” out there floating in the ether of the cultural noösphere. Sift through the actual lists, though, and it might change your mind somewhat. I’m looking through the 2002 Sight and Sound ballots, and some dude from South Africa by the name of Trevor Steele Taylor voted for Deep Throat (yes, THAT Deep Throat) as the third greatest film of all-time. Some guy named Jack Thompson voted for Brainstorm (and no, this one’s not the Christopher Walken film you’re probably thinking of, but a relatively obscure 1965 film directed by William “Jake and the Fatman” Conrad). There are other eccentric examples I’m sure (and the director’s ballots are even wackier), these are just the first couple I came across.

@Jazz

Are you asking whether a film should be judged based on making full use of the capabilities of the medium (Yes), or are you asking whether a film should be downgraded for doing things that can also be done in other media (No)?

I’m not sure I see the distinction. (You’re making me think too much, Jirin. ;)

The former is a criteria of inclusion and the latter is a criteria of exclusion.

So, film can do A & B. Theater can do B & C. A film that “Makes full use of the medium” does A & B. A film that does not do anything other media should do does only A. I’ve heard people make medium specificity arguments that films should not focus on telling stories, because theater can do that just fine.

As for why I apply those standards to TV and video games but not film, good question. I suppose it’s a function of the context, the purpose of sitting down to engage in the medium.

When I play video games, I’m playing for a specific reason, to exercise my brain, and present it difficult obstacles to overcome with logic and reflex. Video games can do that, and movies can’t. So if a video game has a great story but terrible gameplay, I always think “BOOORING, I might as well watch a movie.”

When I watch television, it’s generally a function of catharsis or distraction. It is my ‘comfort food’, and it’s most comfortable when there’s a robust world which is fully explored and fleshed out given the hours and hours of space the medium affords. Movies are better produced than television shows, but movies can’t create the enormous, expansive universes that you can given a hundred hours of space to do it in. So if it doesn’t create an expansive universe, and every episode is just a one-off piece, why aren’t I watching a movie?

Movies on the other hand I generally approach for artistic and intellectual entertainment, and I’m really flexible about what constitutes art. So long as it tells the truth as the director sees it, I’m good.

@Matt

To oversimplify a bit, long takes, staging in depth, emphasis on mis en scene rather than editing.

So would movement in the frame distinguish film from painting? Still, the effects of different scenes/frames will have an impact on the overall experience as well, even if you de-emphasize the editing.

There are other eccentric examples I’m sure (and the director’s ballots are even wackier), these are just the first couple I came across.

Given that the voters could choose whatever criteria they wanted this isn’t suprising. My sense is that voters listed some or many of their favorite films—so you get these eccentric choices. So I’m not suggesting that taking advantage of the medium dictated the selection of every voter. I don’t think that’s true. But I’m wondering if a significant number of weight that criterion heavily—or at least if filtered in on some of the choices. It would explain something choosing films like CK or Vertigo (Well, I’m guessing it would lead to choosing Vertigo.)

@Jirin

OK. By “taking advantage of the medium,” I don’t mean a film should be penalized for doing something that can be done in another medium. It can do A or A and B. The emphasis is on doing A.

(I don’t have much to add to your comments about TV, film and video games, but it makes sense.)

Not that I’m totally against it, but why does it seem everyone is always obsessed with “long takes” nowadays? Sometimes long takes are just plain boring or they just seem like a pissing contest. “Look, my ONE SHOT was over 20 MINUTES long!!!!” Even Tarkovsky varied his shot length considerably.

Bresson didn’t have long takes in particular and his films work just fine. Like I said, I’m not against it, but some directors and theorists seem to have an aversion to editing, or find editing to be unimportant compared to other parts of the medium and it baffles me.

Not that I’m totally against it, but why does it seem everyone is always obsessed with “long takes” nowadays?

One possible explanation: it’s a reaction to the hyper-editing style in music videos and Hollywood movies. Developments in an art form are often reactions to the existing norms and all that jazz.

Yeah that’s what I figured originally, but I noticed it’s starting to go in the opposite direction now.

Well, it’s a pendulum thing, right?

I don’t know, maybe. There is a way to vary shot length though. Plenty of directors utilize both long takes and short takes and editing. It’s like making every sentence in your novel an entire page long- after a while, the long take loses any significance because it’s just part of a formula.

Sometimes I watch someone like Bela Tarr and just think he’s holding on the shot and looking at a stop watch. It can get very boring and tiresome, but I feel like the auteur police will get me if I say anything more.

Did you see the thread about painting and movies? (I think we also brought up this issue in the thread about “CCC: the Default Style of Lazy Hacks”.) I bring that up because a part of me feels like guys like Tarr might be trying to give their films the quality of a painting, and that would require viewers to approach the films in a similar way that they would paintings. So what may seem like a pissing contest may be a way to turn the films into something akin to paintings. I think it’s an interesting approach.

I don’t know about you, but I find five minutes of a cow walking across a field enthralling.

Dp

Well I never got into Tarr, so maybe that’s it. I really don’t like his work at all and I completely expected to LOVE his work.

Also, I side with the ghost of Bresson here and say I don’t understand why you’d want to turn a film into a painting. Just go and paint? I don’t know. I mean sometimes I have the same impulses with Apichatpong Weerasethakul and I like his work. Sometimes there is a shot of two people talking in monotone voices about how sweet some fruit they’re eating is and I just want a car to run both characters over. It just feels redundant after a while I guess.

Again, it’s not that I dislike long takes. It’s only when I get the sense that the entire film hinges on just long long long takes of uninterrupted material- as in, the long take is no longer a means to an end, but simply the end itself. And when a director becomes “famous” for their long takes, it starts to feel like they’re just imitating themselves.

Also, I side with the ghost of Bresson here and say I don’t understand why you’d want to turn a film into a painting. Just go and paint?

But the thing is, it’s still not a painting. It has features that are similar, but it’s not the same.

Again, it’s not that I dislike long takes. It’s only when I get the sense that the entire film hinges on just long long long takes of uninterrupted material- as in, the long take is no longer a means to an end, but simply the end itself. And when a director becomes “famous” for their long takes, it starts to feel like they’re just imitating themselves.

You sound like Axelmug. (You can see the same feelings expressed towards the end of the “hack” thread I mentioned.)

Stylistic trends almost always get extended and distended, sometimes purposefully and sometimes not so much. But one reason to do long takes would be that simply, to put it in the terms of the OP, one believes that long takes “take advantage of the medium” to a greater extent than does a montage style.

“I’m not exactly sure how it separates it from those other forms, but are you saying there isn’t a separation from these other forms?”

What I said was that “editing” may only “pragmatically” seperate cinema from other forms. The term “editor” comes from the print industry, not the cinema. “Editing” in art happens constantly.

“It’s only when I get the sense that the entire film hinges on just long long long takes of uninterrupted material- as in, the long take is no longer a means to an end, but simply the end itself. And when a director becomes ‘famous’ for their long takes, it starts to feel like they’re just imitating themselves.”

Couldn’t one make that argument about any stylistic device a director uses? Hand-held? Static shots? Tracking takes (you mentioned Tarkovsky)? Close-ups on faces, hands, feet, objects (you also brought up Bresson, and I see you’re a fan of Ozu)?
Why is it long takes are the only things that people don’t analyze with the same consideration they do Bresson’s close-ups on hands? Or Tarkovsky’s tracking over water? Or Scorsese’s steadicam? Or Von Trier’s hand-held?

Long take is a subjective distinction, anyway. 5 seconds is a long take in modern cinema.

And another thing… It’s actually harder to edit and stage a film with long takes than it is a film with short takes.

“And another thing… It’s actually harder to edit and stage a film with long takes than it is a film with short takes.”

I don’t think this is necessarily true. In a lot of instances, it’s actually much easier because things like coverage and continuity aren’t as important.

It’s harder to change a long film take in editing though. Therefore, I’d agree it’s pretty much impossible to “shape a film” like that in editing. Again, editing becomes much more secondary.

In a Godard film or a Marker film or a Bresson film or a Resnais film, editing is obviously crucial to the point where it basically creates the entire meaning of the film. It’s different from soviet montage or just modern rapid fire editing though. Even when the editing is very fast, as in sequences in Muriel, it means a lot more than just lazy editing.

I guess what I’m saying is, a lot of the best films today seem to employ very long takes and complex mise-en-scene over editing. There is nothing wrong with it, I’m just wondering about its influence on future films and whether or not people view editing as something that actually hurts the power of the medium nowadays.

EDIT: Because I saw you added this “Why is it long takes are the only things that people don’t analyze with the same consideration they do Bresson’s close-ups on hands? Or Tarkovsky’s tracking over water? Or Scorsese’s steadicam? Or Von Trier’s hand-held?”

I think people do analyze long takes and have for a while. Like I said, a big part of the reason Bela Tarr is famous is for his long takes. It’s just that I’ve noticed a distinct shift to long takes, especially in Asian cinema, and I don’t see much attention to editing in the sense that editing seems to simply string long sequences together.

Going back to Tarkovsky- his films had long shots, really long shots, and sometimes short shots. But the editing of his films also added to the rhythm of his films and they also provided punctuation in some instances…it’s hard to explain really, but here is an example in The Sacrifice:

To me, the acting, dialogue, framing, shot length are all subverted by the editing at the end of the clip. To me, that’s a utilization of both shot length and editing that creates more depth to the scene.

Am I saying people MUST do this in their long-take films? No. All I’m saying is that it’s not a sin to have a couple of short shots and some useful editing.

“In a Godard film or a Marker film or a Bresson film or a Resnais film, editing is obviously crucial to the point where it basically creates the entire meaning of the film.”

Is that why Godard had a ten year period from the late 60’s to the late 70’s in which extreme long takes became one of the focuses of his cinema?

“I don’t think this is necessarily true. In a lot of instances, it’s actually much easier because things like coverage and continuity aren’t as important.”

Actually, coverage and continuity are more important. Take Satantango, for example (since you brought up Tarr). The scene in the bar. There are three shots. The shot of the drunkards dancing. The shot of the girl’s face. The shot back to the drunkards dancing.

Because Tarr allows an audience the time to study every single aspect of the frame in the first shot, when he does cut away and cut back any single item out of place is immediately recognizable by an audience. If he’d used multiple takes in that scene any item out of place probably wouldn’t have been noticeable. So when editing, he’s not allowed the freedom in choosing takes that other directors would be. He has to use takes that match up.

“I guess what I’m saying is, a lot of the best films today seem to employ very long takes and complex mise-en-scene over editing.”

We’ve all seen films from the Dardennes, Von Trier, Dogme 95, mumblecore and Lodge Kerrigan, right? So we know that’s not really true, right? I’m not even going to mention early-sixth generation cinema in China and the influence that’s had throughout much of Asia…

“Like I said, a big part of the reason Bela Tarr is famous is for his long takes.”

But you dismissed him as having no ends beyond long takes and left it at that. No mention of early Fassbinder, no mention of Jansco, no mention of Angelopoulos… No analyzing the progenitors of his style, no analyzing of his reinterpretation of this style, no discussion of how his style fails, in your eyes… Just that it does because his takes are long.

I’m guessing if I said Tarkovsky fails because he shoots water too often, you’d tell me I missed the point, right?

“It’s just that I’ve noticed a distinct shift to long takes, especially in Asian cinema, and I don’t see much attention to editing in the sense that editing seems to simply string long sequences together.”

I’d suggest you see The Puppetmaster, M/Other and 2/Duo, and Maborosi and see if that statement still holds water (it doesn’t)…

“But the editing of his films also added to the rhythm of his films and they also provided punctuation in some instances…”

But doesn’t a long take following a long take create its own rhythm?
Again, I ask, why couldn’t this criticism be laid against any other stylistic device? Medium-length shots, short-shots, steadicam shots following steadicam shots, hand-held shot following hand-held shots, etc..

Peter Hutton’s films don’t have rhythm, punctuation and an unexplainable quality because of the stripped-down, long-take cinematography?

“All I’m saying is that it’s not a sin to have a couple of short shots and some useful editing.”

But that brings in the question of “useful”.
Tsai Ming-liang has said if he can do a scene in one shot, he won’t add another (and I suggest one see Vive L’amour and I Don’t Want to Sleep Alone to see how that idea evolved). Is it “useful” if all it adds is another angle on the same action?

If all the cut adds is the ability to say, “wow, what rhythmic editing,” was it truly all that “useful”?

“Is that why Godard had a ten year period from the late 60’s to the late 70’s in which extreme long takes became one of the focuses of his cinema?”

I’m well aware that Godard has used long shots (I was thinking of Sympathy for the Devil while typing that post) but what I was referring to was the films where he makes the editing very visible, which is a large number of films.

“Actually, coverage and continuity are more important. Take Satantango, for example (since you brought up Tarr). The scene in the bar. There are three shots. The shot of the drunkards dancing. The shot of the girl’s face. The shot back to the drunkards dancing.”

If you’ve ever been on sets with long takes, these things are planned out meticulously ahead of time. The same way an audience member has time to notice such things, usually the director has time to plan and observe such details as the scene is shot. I’ve seen films shot with ridiculous amounts of coverage, and since they’re shooting the same scene from several different angles, they tend to go much faster in their resets and not account for how the coverage will be edited together.

We’ve all seen films from the Dardennes, Von Trier, Dogme 95, mumblecore and Lodge Kerrigan, right? So we know that’s not really true, right?"

But some of those films are 10-15 years old. I said the best films today- what I’ve seen celebrated from China or Thailand or Philippines. I’m sure there are plenty of films that disprove my point, I’m talking about trends I’ve noticed in general. Maybe I’m noticing things incorrectly and I should be punished for it.

“But you dismissed him as having no ends beyond long takes and left it at that.”

I don’t think I said that at all. You’re combining two of my statements/thoughts together. Some of his shots seem like that, but so do some of Weerasethakul’s shots, so do some of Kiarostami’s shots and I like both of those directors on the whole. I don’t like Tarr for other reasons that would be too time consuming and off track for the thread.

“I’d suggest you see The Puppetmaster, M/Other and 2/Duo, and Maborosi and see if that statement still holds water (it doesn’t)…”

Fair enough, as I haven’t seen those films, but if you took my statement to mean literally every film coming out of asia is this way, I’d think that to be a ridiculous assumption.

“But doesn’t a long take following a long take create its own rhythm?
Again, I ask, why couldn’t this criticism be laid against any other stylistic device? Medium-length shots, short-shots, steadicam shots following steadicam shots, hand-held shot following hand-held shots, etc..”

Sure, sometimes. Sometimes not. It depends on how each director approaches it. I’ve said over and over that I’m not against long takes at all, just wondering why I’m seeing so many explicitly long takes recently as if it’s inherently a good thing. You can have bad, boring long takes, which I feel like a lot of people don’t think about.

“If all the cut adds is the ability to say, “wow, what rhythmic editing,” was it truly all that “useful”?”

No, just like if all a long take adds is the ability to say “wow, what a long take” it’s not very useful. This is basically all I was saying.

OK …

“The one aspect of cinema that catapults it from every other art form is the process of editing.”
and
“If it can be thought or dreamed, it can be filmed.”

Both of these quotes are by Stanley Kubrick, who rarely made anything that didn’t begin first as a book (I don’t know the origins of The Killing or Killer’s Kiss, but all of his other films were adaptations, even 2001 which Arthur C. Clark had published in-part as a short story).

Now …

In as far as I can follow most of this rambling dialog (and, guys, it was a bit difficult!), I’ll tell you to stick with Malle, but not My Dinner With Andre, but go to his last film, Vanya on 42nd Street. You’ll find every answer you’re looking for in this sweet, amazing mash-up of so many media while always commanding its statement as pure cinema.

“…but what I was referring to was the films where he makes the editing very visible, which is a large number of films.”

I know. And the films in which the editing is most visible are the films that employ long takes. Like Numero Deux, for example. Or Weekend. Or Le gai savior. Or British Sounds. Etc., etc..

“But some of those films are 10-15 years old.”

That’s a moot point. The three filmmakers I actually named have not only all released a film within the last two years, but all of them have been incredibly well-praised worldwide, and each of them have shortened the average length of their shots as their careers have gone on.

“…just wondering why I’m seeing so many explicitly long takes recently as if it’s inherently a good thing.”

You’ll notice that the films I mentioned from Asia as examples of the usage of long takes were all at least 12 years old…
This isn’t a new trend. Miklos Jansco began focusing on long takes around 1965, Angelopolous in his first feature in 1970, Tarr in 1988, Taiwanese New Cinema began around 1982, Tsai Ming-liang began his career in 1992. In fact, if we’re even going to call it a trend, the “trend” of shaky hand-held with dozens of shots in each individual scene is much, much newer than the “trend” of long takes.

What I’m saying is sometimes a cut creates rhythm, but nothing else. What a long take adds, inherently, is both rhythm and the distance to analyze that rhythm. That’s the reason the Neorealists used them. It’s the same reason Rohmer and Rivette used them. It’s the same reason anyone has ever used them.

“Sure, sometimes. Sometimes not. It depends on how each director approaches it.”

But I’m still waiting for the discussion on how this separates the “trend” of long takes from the “trend” of shaky hand-held, or the established formal device of using tracking takes and multiple shots in every scene.

The vast, vast, vast, vast majority of films made have ASL’s of about 2-7 seconds, have a detailed formula for staging and cinematography and don’t add anything new to the formula. They just follow it. You mentioned China… Never forget that Zhang Yimou is thousands of times more popular than Wang Bing ever will be (have you seen He Fengming, by the way? Because that’s the perfect example of “why” one should use extreme long takes).

The long take films create a new formula. In China you have Wu Wengguang, then you have Wang Bing, then you have Liu Jiayin, then you have Yang Heng. All of them use long takes, but all of them reinterpret their usage. In the Philippines you have Diaz, you have Martin, you have Sanchez. All of them use long takes, but none of them use them in the same way. Lav created a new formula in the Philippines. A new way to approach cinema in the Philippines in both drama and technical approach.

Is it any wonder that the two places that have embraced new means of formal expression (through digital, and the uninterrupted takes it allows) have also entered into true cinematic renaissances? It’s not about accepting them as inherently good, as no one does that.

I hope I don’t sound silly, but Kathryn Bigelow trained as a painter, and I think she has thourough control of the ebb and flow of rhythm in her movies.

Some of my favorite action scenes ever, and “The Weight of Water”.