This is the most respectfully disagreeing comment section I've ever seen.
@fenixfiretime
5 жыл бұрын
Yes its brilliant haha
@UNSTABLE111
4 жыл бұрын
I wish star wars fans were like this with the last jedi..., case in point a more valid opinion , " I disagree with Luke's progression as character from what he was in return of the jedi all the way to the sequel trilogy" instead of that, we get "derp derp derp damn sjw derp derp, agenda derp derp ruined the franchise"
@detoxwithp-talksofficial6868
3 жыл бұрын
ive realized that humanity can still be good
@mbmpablo3631
5 жыл бұрын
With no cut is a fuckin poesy. Is what makes those sequence plan so beautiful.
@danielponga
7 жыл бұрын
You're very right it goes way better with the cuts, the pov shot only works if you cut to the character's perspective
@michaelhenne6506
3 жыл бұрын
i agree. Those cuts work well.
@leoscoillat8655
6 жыл бұрын
Totally agree on that.
@deltafeline888
7 жыл бұрын
While I agree that we were able to more efficiently see Glass's POV, I don't think the cuts kept the emotional tension of the scene up very well. Slowness builds tension when choreographed right. With the four edits it felt like "Poof. There's Glass. Poof. There's the Native Americans. Poof Glass is gone." With the long take it makes me nervous for Glass himself, constantly wondering where he is in relation to the natives and (actually, lol) the rocks.
@vinayseth1114
7 жыл бұрын
Well said.
@ianblackburn2645
7 жыл бұрын
i agree but i do think that at least one cut is needed as panning twice to see DiCaprio's reaction isn't necessary
@sign543
6 жыл бұрын
Ian Blackburn Agreed. The slow movements didn’t build tension for me, at least after considering it from the perspective of this video. It made me all too aware of the camera....which is contrary to what the director would want, I’m sure. Like the video states, I was suddenly ripped from the perspective of Glass...and was now aware I was watching camera moves.
@FERLARA
5 жыл бұрын
You nailed it!
@riffbaama
5 жыл бұрын
That puff would not exist if it was intended to be cut frome the start. To build tension with cuts its possible. So I think he is right. With the cuts it could be better, even thou it dosent work very well in this example.
@fahad1584
7 жыл бұрын
when the camera pans (first rock and then water ) both time you don't see caprio or natives . That's why it's makes you anxious about them both - you think what caprio is doing or thinking at that moment and you don't see . That's why you feel the same(almost) feeling as caprio - tensed and anxious .
@harryom3497
2 жыл бұрын
I agree with the long take. Because it creates tension and directly puts us inside the mind of glass and in this scene the camera is also playing a Character. (Alejandro González Iñárritu)
@Toxic_0_
2 жыл бұрын
I think the problem people are having with the cuts breaking the tension is that the edit can only be done with the shot already taken. The scene looks choppy and rushed because the scene wasnt shot with cuts in mind. The point is is valid and if the scene had been shot with the cuts in mind, the tension could have easily be maintained
@LIVEGAMERCOOL
4 жыл бұрын
I would have used sound design to move the camera make the whole scene silent on the sound of footsteps,him backing up I'm the water and so on..so audience Focuses on what the character is focusing at the same time the tension doesn't break.
@straitjacketstudios7884
6 жыл бұрын
Great points but I think the perfect edit is somewhere in the middle. I do like the single shot and the way it gives some time perspective, building tension. However I think there is a cut (maybe two max) that would have helped to your point. I get what the director says he was trying to do, but the fact that the POV was not actually "POV" makes us a third party the whole time, so in that respect the shot fails in what the director was trying to achieve, even though it has other tangent benefits.
@corettaha7855
7 жыл бұрын
I concur.
@MaddiAevus
7 жыл бұрын
I'm not sure how much of this is coming from my bias towards this film and long takes in general, but I really felt the long take worked better. There was something they could've done with the long take, either a whip pan or panning back to glass from right to left instead of the 360, but putting in those three little cuts actually changed the intensity of the scene for me. Cutting may be a more natural choice and probably a safer choice, but the cuts take out some of the digestion time for my mind to stick myself in Glass's place, to feel the frigid river, experience the anxiety. The long take gave me a sense of place that the scene with the cuts missed out on. Great analysis though and please make some more videos! I've enjoyed them all so far.
@AndriesKooijman
6 жыл бұрын
I think your cut 0n 5.24 would be better if you helped the movement. It should be a more handheldfeel.
@BoyanDimitrov
4 жыл бұрын
It's very weird but I actually found myself agreeing with you as you were explaining why cutting might be a better way to do this scene... And then you showed the scene with cuts and I liked it less than the original version. I guess Inarritu and Lubezki's instincts were right at least from where I'm looking at it.
@M_freedomOfSpeech
7 жыл бұрын
I agree, I like your version!
@SK-fy8dl
6 ай бұрын
The repeated play of the five seconds of rock was cold blooded 😂
@r2gamingelite74
6 жыл бұрын
Great vid, but the tension of the scene was removed, I thought the pacing of your version moved faster than the original cut. Also, the edit wouldn’t really feel like the revenant
@Revivalgunzz
7 жыл бұрын
While I love and agree with the statement of us perceiving cutting the same as we do in real life, I do think it's about what you are trying to do with this sort of filmmaking. And in some of Innaritu's films, the camera moves as a separate being. It's not only we are seeing the world from the main character's perspective, but we are with him in that situation. So the camera, or what we see in the frame is from the perspective of an omniscient presence, and I think this plays well in coordination with the spiritual themes spread throughout this film.
@clutchcure6821
Жыл бұрын
Your crazy bro that was one of the best scenes in the movie lol.
@offensivebiasmusic
7 жыл бұрын
the cuts do work, but i was thinking that the long take adds to the feeling of tension, because when you cut to something, it usually tells the viewer that something is happening or has just happened. maybe the long take should have stayed behind Glass for the entirety of the scene so that you remain from his perspective.
@MrEverisforever
6 жыл бұрын
A one take shot can be great as long as it's always on the subject/action as it can help to draw you in but that point becomes null when the camera pans to or past objects to which have no meaning. I remember watching this scene and noticing that it was one take which left me disconnected because of the awkward camera geometry and lack of maintaining focus on what was important, whether it was on Hugh Class or the Indians.
@chungdha
2 жыл бұрын
Think if it was a quick whip pan would had also made a difference instead of the slow pan, as the slow pan kinda made it a less urgent situation as kinda too relaxed, while sudden quick whip pan would been more urgent feeling of a lot is happening and he needs to react quick.
@PauLtus_B
7 жыл бұрын
I get what you mean but when comparing them it's sort of hard to judge as the shots were still build around a long shot rather than shot like they were meant to cut.
5 жыл бұрын
Hey nice work and good observations but I gotta disagree. Your cuts have killed the tension. What you're not seeing in the pans between the set-ups is the uncertainty of the viewer building as they don't see what Glass has seen. While we are panning we don't receive new information. Vital information as to Glass' survival. By denying the viewer what they need, we build tension and heighten focus when the camera stops. The single take is vital. The other thing cutting does is removes time from observation to reaction. In the single take our hero looks like his movements are considered, choosing the best time to move and stop, whilst in the edit, he seems to instantly react... almost panicking in his desire to not be seen. This changes the character in a deleterious way.
@twincitymedia3463
2 жыл бұрын
I think both sides of the argument have merit. To those pointing out that the cuts take them out of the feel of the scene, I would agree with that, but I don't think that invalidates the point. It's nearly impossible to take the specific take that use used for this scene and cut it seamlessly. I do agree that with some longer shots of cut 2 and when he looks up that it would have flowed better. In summation, did Thomas's edit work perfectly? No. Did he prove his point? It did to me.
@Brother_Mouse_
6 жыл бұрын
I like the long take, but you do have a point about the rocks, it also took me out of the scene a bit. However, I think that if the long take takes shorter time between switching perspectives, you'd get a better clip, than slowly panning across the river rocks. I think the scene could have also worked if the scene involved audio cues to engage the viewer along with the take on the rocks, it would give much more time to add suspense, while at the same time making the flow between perspectives more seamless.
@beautanner8409
7 жыл бұрын
I think the re-cut looks really good, but there is a trade-off there I think. I think what the original gives during the slow pan is an agonizing awareness of the passage of time. Part of the tension generated during those moments when we're just scanning across bare rock is the horror of what we might see when our complete the turn. It also made me feel more present (maybe Jedi mind tricks work on me). The re-cut definitely puts the person into the perspective of Glass much more effectively, however.
@lenprasad
4 жыл бұрын
The tension in the scene isnt there in your edit pattern
@Coldsealion
7 жыл бұрын
I think the version with cuts works well enough, but I actually prefer the long take here. It simulates the character's feeling of being stuck, unable to move freely, and the disorientation of looking around for enemies. Even though the cuts might actually be more realistic, I found they brought in an unwanted sense of ease and omniscience, while the slow pans built more tension and heightened that feeling of being trapped by delaying showing the pursuers. It reflects the classic horror technique that the less you show, the scarier it is. What the original cut really reminded me of is those nightmares one can have where you are stuck, unable to run while an inevitable enemy creeps up on you, and somehow the free movement of cutting broke that dread.
@ThomasFlight
7 жыл бұрын
This is mostly what I've been hearing from people who like the original scene. For whatever reason, it didn't accomplish that for me, but I definitely can see why it works for some people. Maybe a change in choreography would have made the pan less "offensive" to me, and I wouldn't have even thought about it.
@joeldunsdon6718
7 жыл бұрын
Your analysis is spot on. Long cuts are becoming a trend at this point and often seem to be a detriment to immersion. The Revenant was very disappointing all round in my opinion.
@edgarbleikur1929
5 жыл бұрын
The audience needs those beats to breath, relax and prepare for the tension to again take them away...
@DaveDexterMusic
5 жыл бұрын
I think your mistake is looking at editing and direction as having to be some kind of analog of how our eyes and brain process information. We're not seeing the scene from Glass' perspective thanks to the long take and pans; we're trapped IN the scene with him. Your cuts break that illusion.
@diegofernb2
Жыл бұрын
I don’t agree with you because the scene cuts or “blinks” decontextualizes you and impedes from sensing how close the natives are. If you cut then they feel father away than keeping the long uninterrupted scene.
@codylakin288
5 жыл бұрын
Your version felt a bit more Hollywood, somehow. It conveys the same thing but in a wholly different way. I didn’t adore “The Revenant,” but one thing it excelled at beyond most films I’ve ever seen is grounded tension. It orients you, it puts you there. And for the majority of the runtime, that grounded, all-there feeling is severely, effectively uncomfortable.
@asdfmosin
8 ай бұрын
No wonder parts of the movie had low emotional impact on me. With cuts its much more emotional. With the long pannes, it felt like im the camera overlooking this event.
@colinfoo2856
4 жыл бұрын
Not cutting give it more tension in my opinion. Anyway, love the movie , nonetheless.
@rickardkaufman3988
5 жыл бұрын
Although I do not criticize long takes, this one felt it required because of your cut brilliantly captured Glass' perspective of how the danger ahead. Using a long pan and not editing felt he was rather being accompanied by the viewer in this situation in someone's perspective than witnessing it from his perspective which makes the scene better. It emphasizes the tension of being injured and on the hunt by the so-called enemy tribe. The edit from AGI's cut is not only disorienting but also feeling odd as it does not convey the person's view. Such a shot like this is only when a scene of importance or a scene between characters that interact rather than be mentioned seems more satisfying in my opinion.
@ferrosascordoba7177
2 жыл бұрын
Definitively the long take is so tension in my body, but with the cuts uhmmm, not conviced me, not subjective, is the type of cinema in the revenant with el negro' and the chivo'...another history i don´t know if was the cinema by wong kar wai, in this case the long shot be the weird , but thanks for the video, now i m apreciated even more the masters behind this movie uwu
@danieleperoni1664
3 жыл бұрын
i think the objective could be to maintain the style of the movie, it's my opinion than some works looks amatorials because they have too many styles of camera, editing, cinematography incorporate in them, a diffent choice can work for a scene, but if don't match the look of the rest of the movie can take me out of the experience
@girlwithamoviecamera3020
7 жыл бұрын
I definitely favor the version with cuts. It's interesting that the director believed the long take would place spectator and character together, in my opinion it only created a tension. The camera movement felt very overt, I agree it situated the spectator as a detached third party rather a participant. Great video! I also enjoyed your analysis on Nightcrawler!
@tivchack
6 жыл бұрын
How else can you capture perspective of the character and the emotions he is going through..just from the perspective would not capture the emotions Glass is goin through
@nathangale7702
5 жыл бұрын
Just the fact that you could come up with a reasonable disagreement with this masterpiece is impressive to me. Seems like there are advantages and disadvantages either way, but thanks for pointing this out, very interesting.
@ZakGurnah
7 жыл бұрын
I respect your explanation, but the long take plays a key role in establishing spacial awareness for the audience. Without the pan, the audience could assume that he is well hidden away and alot of the tension is lost. The slow panning builds tension and visually shows the audience how close he is to being caught. The long take acts as a time bomb, with the explosion being Hugh's discovery.
@huntermccreativegenious1315
5 жыл бұрын
Cutting the shot releases the tension which I think was not the point of it, Keeping the flow makes it feel a bit more personal and I like it.
@goodnbadnugly
3 жыл бұрын
I agree with your points. Also Our Eyes viewing angle is so wide, camera cannot justify. Its not just the head turns but eye balls move. So Glass wouldn't have seen the texture of the rocks, and in his POV we, the audience shouldn't see them either.
@JakeIrish
7 жыл бұрын
I think you're so wrong with your opinion.. This is true filmmaking, at its finest. A successful one-take is always a rare occurrence to see in Hollywood (especially in this generation). The revenant did the one-take style so perfectly throughout the entire film. The magic of a one-take is that it feels like real life...A cut up version feels artificial. But in my opinion, I think you're very wrong. The directors hit this scene perfectly. Not all of us have the same eye though.
@Dvalb
5 жыл бұрын
Awkwardly seeing the rocks feels like actually hiding, where you can hardly see what you're hiding from
@1akozak
6 жыл бұрын
Hey Thomas, glad I just stumbled on your videos today! I really like how you subverted the topic of the long take as when something gets popularized quickly, people tend to forget the flaws that come with it. However, i must disagree with you. This film is explicitly shot with the intention of the long take in mind. What I mean by that is that each aesthetic/technological/directorial decision made, is in service of extended shots. ex. "the camera is handheld to make it more realistic". I prefer the scene without cuts simply because of its conceptual context. Great video of subverting a popular technique. I look forward to watching more after my morning bacon and eggs.
@ParsaKherghepoush
6 жыл бұрын
I agree
@firpofutbol
4 жыл бұрын
I agree with the cuts for this scene except when he looks up at the natives above him. I actually really like the non cut version of that shot better.
@amorty456
7 жыл бұрын
I'm merely a fan of cinema and am just getting into the technical aspects. I'd like to give my input on the long take vs cut scenes. the long take brought more suspense to the scene and I loved the vertical pan, because yes we may cut to it in reality, the slow movement brought some reluctance we would feel when terrified. the camera pans up slowly and we feel as he did, we feel overwhelmed. they have the height advantage. you don't know going in he'll have to swim away and slowly revealing he hasn't a chance was great. I first pan I agree should have been cut, but it did help us understand the environment giving the scene depth? and it made the scene longer keeping you in suspense.
@iandavies7991
Жыл бұрын
It's very subjective. I actually disagree. To me the slow pans actually create more tension and suspension my opinion.
@steven401ytx
4 жыл бұрын
The version that was in the award winning movie was better, funnily enough.
@hamcakes1990
5 жыл бұрын
I respectfully disagree with this. In my opinion the direct cuts interfere with the tension.
@samwallaceart288
6 жыл бұрын
Agree on all counts, except when the Native American finally notices Glass the camera whip-pan should be left as original; the whip pan saved for that moment of discovery would really punctuate the OH SHIT! moment there.
@muralicheripally
7 жыл бұрын
I think it's more about thought process of the audience thinking about that situation, i think that's what the cinematographer might felt about this long shot. If we watch any 360 degrees video we feel like we are at that place. So I think the makers of this film intention is to feel audience like they are travelling with that character.
@vinayseth1114
7 жыл бұрын
Interesting take.
@BarnabyKeene
8 жыл бұрын
Nice analysis! I prefer the version with cuts for sure, odd choice from the DP but hey, art I guess!
@dibbage
Жыл бұрын
I feel that the slow panning in this scene helps give the audience the feeling that we cannot be quick or move irrationally in any form because it can lead the main character or (us in the pov shot) to getting spotted and killed. So personally I feel that the slow panning works well here the editor for this film seems to be pretty aware i’d say!
@goproclaimhisname9375
6 жыл бұрын
Your cut version actually broke the tension for me. You're right -- looking at the rocks and panning slowly isn't very comfortable or normal for me to watch, but that's why it is so brilliant. The director sacrifices the perspective of the character for the purpose of increasing the tension in the scene by panning slowly. But paradoxically, it also immerses the audience into his perspective because panning in a 360 motion shows the audience the surrounding space that he is in, and because we are able to see the cliff to his left and the water to his right, we truly feel trapped with him -- if he tries to swim across the river, he would be found out and shot, and he definitely cannot climb the rocks to escape. Thus, the water and the rocks play an important role in this scene in order to create tension and establish geography
@DrOctatonic
5 жыл бұрын
The information of confinement is easily relayed by the acting, locations and context of the scene. The uploader was correct in that the panning absolutely takes you out of the film, if not for just s few seconds. The 360 was excessive. But it’s harmless.
@samtho114
5 жыл бұрын
GoProclaim His Name probably just because the camera doesn’t hold for long enough in the film. He’d probably hold for longer if he could.
@Vetterminator
5 жыл бұрын
Its purpose was also to disorient you, to make you feel nauseous, thus, more worried about the situation and Glass.
@iammrig
5 жыл бұрын
Nah man the cut version immediately loses my indulgence and attention to the scene
@JanKowalski-hj9gb
3 жыл бұрын
This long shot was to show the viewers how close the Indians were to Glass. This was the only way to show us they were about 5 Meters away only.
@wesam6385
2 жыл бұрын
Nah man I fully disagree the director's vision was waay more immersive
@criztu
3 жыл бұрын
The entire movie is boredom infinite. If you'd even understand what the movie is about... the Bear is the Baphomet. the beast. Dicaprio' character is named Hugh - thought, mind. He is The Father, and The Son is killed. The Son is Hawk, the falcon, Horus. The Father is Osiris who is hacked to pieces by Set. the bear. but he comes back to life. french 'revient' - revenant. The second coming. Editing is the least of your worries.
@XFazil
2 жыл бұрын
Soooo... the comment section isn't going the way you expected.
@jaydevtalks9390
3 жыл бұрын
I personally prefer without cuts, with cuts it looks like yet another standard hollywood blockbuster to me.
@thecinephilefish9465
3 жыл бұрын
While I do agree with what you're saying, I don't think the cuts really worked here. Perhaps because of where they were placed, I found them to be quite jarring. Since Hugh moves between the shot and reverse shot it seems like a jump cut, which breaks the tension for me. Then again, there's only so much you can do taking an already filmed scene and editing that. Perhaps a quick pan (like the ones Chazelle uses in Whiplash and La La Land) may have worked better here since the first pan already establishes what occupies the space between Hugh and the Native American Hunting party. Anyway, another really insightful video. Keep up the great work! (even though I'm about 5 years late to this one) Edit: When I said 'quick pan' I meant 'whip pan'. I believe that's the technical term.
@mrgeorgejetson
2 жыл бұрын
I disagree about the distraction of the right-pan past the rock face. To me the original long cut conveys the apprehension of a person who is taking a lot time to look at what he doesn't want to see. I found your version somewhat disorientating, despite already knowing what to expect. I think this is because the long-shot style used is so distinctive that breaking it up really disturbs the viewer in a way that slicing up a regularly-shot film wouldn't. BTW, Inarritu's name is pronounced, roughly "in-YA-ri-tu." That's what the accent mark of the "a" is for: to mark emphasis.
@Fyuesiy
3 жыл бұрын
Correct we don’t get Hughes vision. Inaritu immerses us into the middle of the battle or skirmish/search or on Glass’s team. Like a video game, we are THERE with Glass, we are not him....We don’t need his POV here. Like others have said it interrupts the tension of the scene, and we don’t want Glass’ POV visually, it’s almost insulting the viewers intelligence. We get what he’s experiencing, from the geometry of how the natives are positioned around him, and the story. The slow pan around the rocks is important because it mimics the fearful cadence someone hunted/under attack would act. The one take helps give a more raw real feeling, which supports how raw a tale of survival Glass is.
@archer111000
3 жыл бұрын
I think a quick pan would have been the correct choice. It would feel more like we’re transitioning between watching Hugh and seeing from his perspective, but wouldn’t make us as acutely aware of the cameraman.
@CarlosRiveraFernandez
7 жыл бұрын
I like that you're coming from a new perspective but don't think that cutting works as well. The film builds its own cinematic language using those long takes and I feel as though if they had cut in this scene to just do shot-reverse-shot then the scene would feel somewhat technically detached from the film.
@mrbananoid
3 жыл бұрын
Interesting analysis, although I think the way it was on the film was perfect. The cuts you added (especially the first one) would have almost ruined the scene for me. I get your complain, but it wasn't something that bothered me, at least in this scene.
@gertskekuttekop2334
3 жыл бұрын
I find the first 2 cuts a bit messy and jarring maybe space the cut out more then I think it would work
@sign543
6 жыл бұрын
I 100% agree with you. The director’s explanation doesn’t make sense for the reasons you said. I also thought that the panning was “artistic”, but it didn’t achieve what he said it was supposed to achieve. If we truly were experiencing it through his eyes, cuts would’ve achieved this. We wouldn’t pan our eyes around the rocks....then to the water...then up the side of the rocks. It’s unnatural...and when I watched that scene, I also was ripped from the film and was suddenly aware of the camera. I knew what the camera was doing....and that’s contrary to the film’s goal.
@steffnar.509
7 жыл бұрын
Excuse me but I disagree. This was so well executed that you don't feel that long take at all, you just become part of the tension and it builds up. It was not forced or edgy, it was just an extremely good scene in my opinion.
@patrickpilkington6241
3 жыл бұрын
I like Tommy Filghts version
@zahuruddinsheikh2814
7 жыл бұрын
I dont find the same amount of thrill I had in theatre or the director's take here in your video when you cut the shots... people who propagate cuts say you keep it simple and make it appealing to the mind. I say dont just belong to a type of take. certain scenes would be amazing if its given fast cuts certain scenes require long takes such as this. I just felt that immense fear and adventure the protagonist was actually going through here. your cut just made it a little distant as an experience to me, and I disliked the very situation this protagonist was in. I not saw why am wasting time watching this messed up guy. I was not with him! so as a director you should make the call as in where you want audience to be a viewer and experiencer(wrong word but i dont have one to perfectly communicate it either)
@CerebralCritic
4 жыл бұрын
Actually you are wrong! From a general audience's pov there wouldn't have been any odd feeling as they don't think technically or think about the making detail while they watch a movie and so the tension of the scene prevails to them but not people who watch a movie thinking they are a intellectual.
@swantonist
3 жыл бұрын
i agree that the long take wasn't good. The passing past the rocky face with a texture that is somehow uninteresting pulled me out and bored me, it feels like an eternity that doesn't make sense. Why did they just such a slow pan speed. Your cuts don't work either but that is more to do with the framing of the shots. In this i would say that Inarritu did it better, there IS a certain tension that yours lacks.
@sydoesgames
3 жыл бұрын
almost never during the movie did i think to myself "this take is too long. im losing interest or feeling less tension". in fact i barely even registered that it was quote on quote a long take because it was so immersive. to cut that up and take that away is better you say? i digress.
@DocFunky
3 жыл бұрын
I agree that the scene *works* just fine with the cuts, but it doesn’t *feel* the same. The long take makes me feel more invested, like I’m there with the character and not just watching a movie - the cuts take me out of the scene and feel more “movie-like”. But I feel like the cuts would work really well if they cut to shots from the natives’ perspectives, where you could see Leo’s character in the corner of the frame while the native was looking elsewhere? Something like that.
@waltanthony1988
3 жыл бұрын
I like the original better , not only for the tension but for how close the enemies are to him.
@levisimpson516
2 жыл бұрын
I think after seeing this, I see what you mean, I think the scene with a few cuts makes more sense.
@EyeoftheAbyss
7 жыл бұрын
I wholeheartedly disagree. The essence of the long take, as Tarkovsky explained, is the purpose and effect of this long take. I do agree that the pan you had issue with could have found another way: Pan right as it did, that slow feeling is real, move camera slowly backward to bring character back into frame-left, just as he begins to back up himself toward the water, pan left to watch him back into the water and continue. The cuts you made cut the feeling of continuous tension, tension is not discrete steps of action, at least in this case. I think it's a matter of taste, but the continuous movement, like waves of fear and relaxation and escalation, drew me in, as if I would want to be aware of the entire moment, not to miss a single moment as it all can change in the blink of an eye. Please continue making more such videos. It's very illuminating.
@ThomasFlight
7 жыл бұрын
Thanks for your input! I do think if the shot was reworked as you suggest I would have been fine with the long take. I totally get how not cutting builds the tension, but was really thrown off by the pans, if they were different, it probably wouldn't have stuck out to me. More on the way!
@jimbones1916
7 жыл бұрын
There were definitely a lot of rocks and it stuck out to me too. But it's fine. They could've cleaned up that part better if it went from a profile of Leo, pan to the danger over the shoulder of Leo. That would've felt more POV Instead of 360 degree turn where you are in the middle.
@alexbacro5048
7 жыл бұрын
I feel like the dramatic panning across the landscape really drags you out of the immersion and makes you truly feel like some outside force unaffected by the scene
@thomasthedanktrain
Жыл бұрын
I think the shot would have benefited if the pans where quicker. In a high stress situation your moving quickly and the quick pans would reinforce that.
@asdfmosin
8 ай бұрын
The pan just made me think of the camera and afterwards the technical difficulty behind setting up such long pans. All emotional tension was lost.
@ipdavid1043
3 жыл бұрын
It is good without the pan...I agree with you
@noamias4897
6 жыл бұрын
I think that the first cut was really great but the other one where Hugh looks up towards the natives above him I don't get the same feeling of wanting to push myself into the side of the cliff the same way as when it's all one take. It takes me out of his perspective a bit.
@miscellaneous9506
4 жыл бұрын
It just kills all the tension that the single take produced
@edmundlee9596
5 жыл бұрын
nah man, it breaks the tension. The shot emphasises that he cannot do any fast movement or he will be spotted, and killed.
@markobegus
3 жыл бұрын
This is spot on. It's about extra slow movements of precaution. For me, it's brilliant because in a long and slow take like this you get the feeling of being beside him through the camera's eyes.
@radscorpion8
3 жыл бұрын
@@markobegus But that's not true. What about that moment when he was in the water, and he suddenly looked upward at the scouts scanning the river? No one's head moves upwards at a rate of 1 degree per second. Realistically your body moves slowly while your eyes and head are still free to move quickly, especially when you need to quickly gauge which threats exist around you. To pretend otherwise is extremely unnatural and awkward; you'd end up staring at a rock wall for several seconds as you slowly angle your neck upwards, which is analogous to the horizontal panning witnessed here. So you don't get the feeling of being a human observer - you get the feeling of being in a very slowly panning camera caught in a moment fraught with tension, being forced to look at a rock wall for 4-5 seconds while important things are happening around you. That is simply aggravating for the viewer and completely breaks immersion with the scene.
@_taxman_
6 ай бұрын
@@radscorpion8 agreed. the camera was prolly to bulky to do any whippy pans, but whipping the camera perspective around would have been tense. P.S. Sorry for the late reply.... just took me a couple years to process your comment and make up my mind on the matter.
@TheRealPinkWish
6 ай бұрын
Thomas, Thanks for having the courage to say that Iñárritu does make mistakes.
@BS2Dos
Жыл бұрын
As others have pointed out, tension isn’t sustained through cutting. 👍👍
@hogpsking33
2 жыл бұрын
I feel like a lot of this movie was supposed to remind us that we were watching a movie, especially when the CGI bear snorts and makes CGI fog on the camera lens. I don't know why Innaritu wanted to constantly remind us that we were watching a movie, but it seems like it was on purpose.
@thomasthedanktrain
Жыл бұрын
I think the shot would have benefited if the pans where quicker. In a high stress situation your moving quickly and the quick pans would reinforce that.
@tomislavjancar7754
7 ай бұрын
Im not an expert but i remember when I saw the the movie back then that the camera movement was often like you where playing Red Dead Redemtion idk .. and of course it's like you've sad in this scene... It was building some stress and tention for quite a while and then.... Like nothing... it left me confused... I thought maybe I missed something in the shot idk.... because a camera perspective like this and for that amount of time, sure got have me want to look closely and see something that is very important the plot but wasn't the case... But now Im Just a little bit proud of me that I felt the same like you 😄 no you doing really a good job man I know it sounds stupid because obviously your doing it with love and passion and i think that's why a lot of viewers prefer your opinion about movies
@allthingsfascinating
6 жыл бұрын
Cuts work better. For sure. And I don't think that adding cuts reduces the tension. You should make one on background scores.
@brodibarringer5016
4 жыл бұрын
Disagree, its a great shot..
@kokobeen
6 жыл бұрын
I'm glad you showed the scene first before you added your commentary so people can think for themselves first when looking at the scene. The scene worked for the first 20 seconds and the director did make me feel like i was seeing from Glass's POV. And then when it got to the part where it panned across the rocks I first thought "wow, the focus on the camera is nice and I can see those really rocks well." This took me out of the movie almost and It made me feel a little sick and claustrophobic from being so close to the rocks. Anyways great video! It was interesting that I thought of the same problem that you talked about before I knew!
@toniraff5488
3 жыл бұрын
Much bette with the cuts
@LawtonMeyer
6 жыл бұрын
Everyone has their own opinion. Personally I think the long take is better. The pans give you time to sit in suspense. What's he going to see when the camera settles on his pursuers? Will they be closer? Will they see him? The pans increase tension by making you wait. It's more methodical, it's paced. Cuts do work but that doesn't mean it's the only way to do things. It also has to fit with the rest of the movie. If there's a certain method to the rest of the scenes, like long takes, once you do something different like adding quick cuts it stands out, it feels out of place. Cuts completely change the pace of the scene, which could also effect the rest of the film.
@mrinalkantinath1271
4 жыл бұрын
The long take works because it captures the threat and the urgency of the situation
@quasarulas3968
7 ай бұрын
I wouldn’t say urgency is reflected from a long slow drawn out take panning over empty water out of the frame
@zamirstuff
7 жыл бұрын
I agree that those pans without motivation takes you out of the movie (there's particulary one when John & Jim arrive to the town, where there's a pan and all you see is the snow. But I do think that "the fix" for those pans in your example would be keeping the character in frame, I mean, using Hugh as a pivot or also having in frame something that connects with the character, for example those pans when aiming looked beautiful because you see the gun. But at the end of the day it is up to the vision of the director, I mean, Alejandro wanted the nature to be a character more, that's why they used a lot of depth of field, to show the environment rather than enclosing the actors.
@MujikMunkey
7 жыл бұрын
I think that these slow pans are kindoff essential to this scene not just because they look absolutely awesome but because they create anticipation. What I was thinking during the first pan wasn't ,,oh man this is taking me out of the moment''... Quite the opposite actually. I was thinking ,,oh shit is that person, looking back at hugh? I really hope he isn't THE TENSION IS KILLI... ah hes not what a relief''. Anyway, thanks for presenting a potential flaw with a movie most people think is flawless :)
Пікірлер: 466