I guess when a film becomes a classic, we do tend to think that it came off without a hitch. It's too perfect for any major obstacles to have been in place during production. I don't know why we do this. Haha. I don't think anything gets done without a lot of sweat and blood and grunts and agony at times. The world is just a tough place, even in the world of fiction. I think the single-shot take is a good gimmick and having a whole movie or series done that way is an exceptional feat. I recently watched a film from the 50s called The Thief, I believe, where Ray Milland was the star and there was absolutely no dialogue in ninety minutes. I kept waiting but it never came. It's a fine film and again, I enjoyed the gimmick here as well. However, I do believe that overall, a gimmick is not a great thing for a long work, whether it be movie or series. Having shots that go on for ten or fifteen minutes with no cuts is awesome but like any gimmick, too much of it becomes tiring and flat-out annoying. Very interesting post, though. Thank you for sharing, Michael.
Agreed -- making anything is hard, be it good or bad. I've seen the second episode of "Adolescence" since this post went up, and if anything, the single-take aesthetic works even better. Thus far -- halfway through -- it doesn't feel like a gimmick. That said, I share your sense that too much of anything eventually becomes ... too much. The single-take approach might not wear as well if this series went twelve episodes, and it would certainly exhaust the cast and crew.
I'm not familiar with "The Thief -- thanks for bringing it to my attention -- and for tuning in here with such a thoughtful comment.
I guess if there's a lesson, it's in the power and value of persistence. It would have been easy to give up on the movie at any number of points in such a troubled production ... but between Evans, Luddy, and Coppola, they didn't give up -- and the rest is cinematic history.
I guess when a film becomes a classic, we do tend to think that it came off without a hitch. It's too perfect for any major obstacles to have been in place during production. I don't know why we do this. Haha. I don't think anything gets done without a lot of sweat and blood and grunts and agony at times. The world is just a tough place, even in the world of fiction. I think the single-shot take is a good gimmick and having a whole movie or series done that way is an exceptional feat. I recently watched a film from the 50s called The Thief, I believe, where Ray Milland was the star and there was absolutely no dialogue in ninety minutes. I kept waiting but it never came. It's a fine film and again, I enjoyed the gimmick here as well. However, I do believe that overall, a gimmick is not a great thing for a long work, whether it be movie or series. Having shots that go on for ten or fifteen minutes with no cuts is awesome but like any gimmick, too much of it becomes tiring and flat-out annoying. Very interesting post, though. Thank you for sharing, Michael.
Agreed -- making anything is hard, be it good or bad. I've seen the second episode of "Adolescence" since this post went up, and if anything, the single-take aesthetic works even better. Thus far -- halfway through -- it doesn't feel like a gimmick. That said, I share your sense that too much of anything eventually becomes ... too much. The single-take approach might not wear as well if this series went twelve episodes, and it would certainly exhaust the cast and crew.
I'm not familiar with "The Thief -- thanks for bringing it to my attention -- and for tuning in here with such a thoughtful comment.
Thanks for the pointers to some entertainment. Gawd, do I need it! Happy spring 💐
If you haven't yet tuned into "The Studio," you're in for a treat. Happy spring, indeed!
"The Studio" absolutely kills it. Seth Rogan really outdid everyone in this genre.
The inside story of how "The Godfather" came to be is both inspiring and disheartening. A lesson in there somewhere, but I've no idea what it is.
I guess if there's a lesson, it's in the power and value of persistence. It would have been easy to give up on the movie at any number of points in such a troubled production ... but between Evans, Luddy, and Coppola, they didn't give up -- and the rest is cinematic history.