SCREEN-L Archives

June 2001, Week 1


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:37:09 -0400
text/plain (10 lines)
>A long take works in both mediums if the goal is to understand film >story telling technique and NOT to put together your DP reel

There are important differences at both the production and viewing ends.  Long takes in video are easily accomplished, something that a good bit of video art is based on.  (I believe video was actually designed for this but perhaps somebody can correct that.)  Film requires better planning and has stricter time limits.  One result is that long takes have a different impact on film than video.  Imagine the long takes in films by Hou, Jancso, Godard, Welles, Jarmusch, Tati, etc done on video and it's possible to imagine just what's lost (or at least different).  One extreme example is that a video version of Warhol's "Empire" would be a completely different experience but even in a more conventional style video with long takes rarely has that sense of aesthetic decision or bravura and can easily appear just lazy.  (And the image quality would matter in extreme long shots like some in Tati, Kitano, Hou and Yang since video would result in blurs more than figures.)  One of the oth!
er posts--from Leo I think--nailed the matter in that film requires planning and concision that creates qualitative differences from video.

Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: