The biggest thing I'll say is this. No, editing is not intrinsic to the art of film. It is a staple. A powerful art, but a staple, a commodity for which the demand for is constant, as the needs require. And the needs are far fewer here.
Show me a theatre production that can be so infinite? That can have you witness the true scale of a battlefield. The only thing else that can do this with ease is a videogame, which is why this MOVIE, and all it's efforts to be what it is, brings with it great artistic value. I mean, can't beat those graphics, m I rite? :P

You could conceivably coordinate a series of events to replicate this movie in real life. Pay theater actors to do what they did on a location, blow shit up, crash planes etc. Then you could walk through said production in exactly the same way as the camera traveled through it in the film. That would be prohibitive given money and safety, but it is possible theoretically.

And it would probably be MORE interesting doing it that way.

But what can't you do in the theater? Cut to a close up.

Editing is intrinsic to storytelling. Whether it is a cut of film, a scene change on stage, or chapter break in a book. Choosing what to show/tell (and how) IS editing. Presenting a story in the "one-take" format is just a different way of editing. It's fixing time, stretching it out, allowing tension to build/pacing to form/emotions to play out in different ways than most films do it.

"No other art form is able to fix time as cinema does. Therefore what is film? It is a mosaic made with time." - Andre Tarkovsky

1917 asks: What if the mosaic, was instead a sculpture?

First of all, hat's off for name-checking Tarkovsky. Solid dude. The most transcendent moment I've ever had watching a movie was while watching one of his. (Probably the second-most transcendent moment was watching Russian Ark, a single-take film that surpasses all other attempts that I've ever seen, but I've already mentioned it in this thread.) Tarkovsky's films are way too slow for 21st century folk--it's tough for me now, when I'm not making connections to James Joyce essays I've just read and immersed in the middle of a film class. I'd love him if I'd never seen any of films because he wrote one of the best books about art that I've read--Sculpting in Time. (The title is interesting, given your final point, no?)

Steph got me Sculpting In Time this year after I kinda fell into Tarkovsky’s work for first time. So yeah, my phrasing was definitely intentional! 😉

I just bought the blu-ray! If you're patient and willing to deal with mail, I'll loan it to you.

In this town you can easily find any movie ever. But thanks.

Editing is intrinsic to storytelling. Whether it is a cut of film, a scene change on stage, or chapter break in a book. Choosing what to show/tell (and how) IS editing. Presenting a story in the "one-take" format is just a different way of editing. It's fixing time, stretching it out, allowing tension to build/pacing to form/emotions to play out in different ways than most films do it.

And this was my fundamental problem. Seeing it in one take / real time made the journey feel small. How far could you walk in 90 minutes?

I think this is weak argument. Ninety minutes across a war-torn battlefield can be quite a challenge, but not because of the actual distance.

It's a type of story where you need to manipulate time. Which by the way, they did when he fell asleep or lost consciousness or whatever (I forget). So they didn't even do what you claim. It seems like a tacit admission that a real time presentation was not suitable for the story when you actually abandon it.

He's knocked out. The screen goes black. I think the break kind of saves it, actually. It gives the audience a chance to breathe, allows the film to transition to night, and what follows is one the more effective sections of the film.

IMO it prevented tensions and emotions from building.

Not my experience. I don't totally disagree with you, Cody, regarding the gimmicky nature of it being distracting. If possible, the best way to watch it would be to go in not having heard a bit of the one-take hype.

For me something like Birdman fared better, since its 'one take' gimick was actively part of the theme of the artifice and pompousness of art.

I need to see that. Thanks for reminding me.

And I’ll see Russian Ark and get back to you!

I just bought the blu-ray! If you're patient and willing to deal with mail, I'll loan it to you.

Editing is intrinsic to storytelling. Whether it is a cut of film, a scene change on stage, or chapter break in a book. Choosing what to show/tell (and how) IS editing. Presenting a story in the "one-take" format is just a different way of editing. It's fixing time, stretching it out, allowing tension to build/pacing to form/emotions to play out in different ways than most films do it.

And this was my fundamental problem. Seeing it in one take / real time made the journey feel small. How far could you walk in 90 minutes?

I think this is weak argument. Ninety minutes across a war-torn battlefield can be quite a challenge, but not because of the actual distance.

It's a type of story where you need to manipulate time. Which by the way, they did when he fell asleep or lost consciousness or whatever (I forget). So they didn't even do what you claim. It seems like a tacit admission that a real time presentation was not suitable for the story when you actually abandon it.

He's knocked out. The screen goes black. I think the break kind of saves it, actually. It gives the audience a chance to breathe, allows the film to transition to night, and what follows is one the more effective sections of the film.

IMO it prevented tensions and emotions from building.

Not my experience. I don't totally disagree with you, Cody, regarding the gimmicky nature of it being distracting. If possible, the best way to watch it would be to go in not having heard a bit of the one-take hype.

For me something like Birdman fared better, since its 'one take' gimick was actively part of the theme of the artifice and pompousness of art.

I need to see that. Thanks for reminding me.

And I’ll see Russian Ark and get back to you!

Editing is intrinsic to storytelling. Whether it is a cut of film, a scene change on stage, or chapter break in a book. Choosing what to show/tell (and how) IS editing. Presenting a story in the "one-take" format is just a different way of editing. It's fixing time, stretching it out, allowing tension to build/pacing to form/emotions to play out in different ways than most films do it.

And this was my fundamental problem. Seeing it in one take / real time made the journey feel small. How far could you walk in 90 minutes?

I think this is weak argument. Ninety minutes across a war-torn battlefield can be quite a challenge, but not because of the actual distance.

It's a type of story where you need to manipulate time. Which by the way, they did when he fell asleep or lost consciousness or whatever (I forget). So they didn't even do what you claim. It seems like a tacit admission that a real time presentation was not suitable for the story when you actually abandon it.

He's knocked out. The screen goes black. I think the break kind of saves it, actually. It gives the audience a chance to breathe, allows the film to transition to night, and what follows is one the more effective sections of the film.

IMO it prevented tensions and emotions from building.

Not my experience. I don't totally disagree with you, Cody, regarding the gimmicky nature of it being distracting. If possible, the best way to watch it would be to go in not having heard a bit of the one-take hype.

For me something like Birdman fared better, since its 'one take' gimick was actively part of the theme of the artifice and pompousness of art.

I need to see that. Thanks for reminding me.

The biggest thing I'll say is this. No, editing is not intrinsic to the art of film. It is a staple. A powerful art, but a staple, a commodity for which the demand for is constant, as the needs require. And the needs are far fewer here.
Show me a theatre production that can be so infinite? That can have you witness the true scale of a battlefield. The only thing else that can do this with ease is a videogame, which is why this MOVIE, and all it's efforts to be what it is, brings with it great artistic value. I mean, can't beat those graphics, m I rite? :P

You could conceivably coordinate a series of events to replicate this movie in real life. Pay theater actors to do what they did on a location, blow shit up, crash planes etc. Then you could walk through said production in exactly the same way as the camera traveled through it in the film. That would be prohibitive given money and safety, but it is possible theoretically.

And it would probably be MORE interesting doing it that way.

But what can't you do in the theater? Cut to a close up.

Editing is intrinsic to storytelling. Whether it is a cut of film, a scene change on stage, or chapter break in a book. Choosing what to show/tell (and how) IS editing. Presenting a story in the "one-take" format is just a different way of editing. It's fixing time, stretching it out, allowing tension to build/pacing to form/emotions to play out in different ways than most films do it.

"No other art form is able to fix time as cinema does. Therefore what is film? It is a mosaic made with time." - Andre Tarkovsky

1917 asks: What if the mosaic, was instead a sculpture?

First of all, hat's off for name-checking Tarkovsky. Solid dude. The most transcendent moment I've ever had watching a movie was while watching one of his. (Probably the second-most transcendent moment was watching Russian Ark, a single-take film that surpasses all other attempts that I've ever seen, but I've already mentioned it in this thread.) Tarkovsky's films are way too slow for 21st century folk--it's tough for me now, when I'm not making connections to James Joyce essays I've just read and immersed in the middle of a film class. I'd love him if I'd never seen any of films because he wrote one of the best books about art that I've read--Sculpting in Time. (The title is interesting, given your final point, no?)

Editing is intrinsic to storytelling. Whether it is a cut of film, a scene change on stage, or chapter break in a book. Choosing what to show/tell (and how) IS editing. Presenting a story in the "one-take" format is just a different way of editing. It's fixing time, stretching it out, allowing tension to build/pacing to form/emotions to play out in different ways than most films do it.

And this was my fundamental problem. Seeing it in one take / real time made the journey feel small. How far could you walk in 90 minutes? It's a type of story where you need to manipulate time. Which by the way, they did when he fell asleep or lost consciousness or whatever (I forget). So they didn't even do what you claim. It seems like a tacit admission that a real time presentation was not suitable for the story when you actually abandon it.

IMO it prevented tensions and emotions from building.

For me something like Birdman fared better, since its 'one take' gimick was actively part of the theme of the artifice and pompousness of art.

The biggest thing I'll say is this. No, editing is not intrinsic to the art of film. It is a staple. A powerful art, but a staple, a commodity for which the demand for is constant, as the needs require. And the needs are far fewer here.
Show me a theatre production that can be so infinite? That can have you witness the true scale of a battlefield. The only thing else that can do this with ease is a videogame, which is why this MOVIE, and all it's efforts to be what it is, brings with it great artistic value. I mean, can't beat those graphics, m I rite? :P

You could conceivably coordinate a series of events to replicate this movie in real life. Pay theater actors to do what they did on a location, blow shit up, crash planes etc. Then you could walk through said production in exactly the same way as the camera traveled through it in the film. That would be prohibitive given money and safety, but it is possible theoretically.

And it would probably be MORE interesting doing it that way.

But what can't you do in the theater? Cut to a close up.

Editing is intrinsic to storytelling. Whether it is a cut of film, a scene change on stage, or chapter break in a book. Choosing what to show/tell (and how) IS editing. Presenting a story in the "one-take" format is just a different way of editing. It's fixing time, stretching it out, allowing tension to build/pacing to form/emotions to play out in different ways than most films do it.

"No other art form is able to fix time as cinema does. Therefore what is film? It is a mosaic made with time." - Andre Tarkovsky

1917 asks: What if the mosaic, was instead a sculpture?

Tim Rogers said it best when he said there were so many moments in the Last of Us that a film editor would cut out. Moments that only work because your brain is in interaction mode, not sit back and interpret mode.

If you like that moment, you would similarly enjoy a very similar situation in Metal Gear Solid 3. No spoilers, but if you've played the game you know what I'm talking about. It's one of the most beautiful moments of gaming ever.

That extra 5% though . . . it’s not essential for a fantastic job experience, but it’s something only the game could do. It’s hard to nail down, and it’s not consistent even within the game, but there is an experience and emotion that only comes from playing the game. Look at the end. When I burst into that operating room and saw Ellie and realized what was happening, I shot that doctor in the face immediately, no hesitation. Lots of stories are told around the internet about people trying to find ways around having to kill the doctor before realizing the game simply would not progress until you did. Not me. Joel and I were on the same page at that moment, and I pulled that trigger without hesitation. If I had been watching that movie, I’d have understood and sympathized and even agreed with Joel doing so, but there is a unique feeling an experience to playing that as a video game and actually pulling the trigger myself. You can argue that falls under “presentation,” but it’s deeper than that.

I've never resonated with a paragraph about The Last Of Us more.

I’ve still been thinking about this.

Partly it’s presentation. I think it would be totally possible to make a film of The Last of Us that could get like 95% of the way towards being the same experience, give me the same feelings as the game. I got attached to Ellie and Joel because they were well developed characters in a compelling story. Movies are great at doing that!

That extra 5% though . . . it’s not essential for a fantastic job experience, but it’s something only the game could do. It’s hard to nail down, and it’s not consistent even within the game, but there is an experience and emotion that only comes from playing the game. Look at the end. When I burst into that operating room and saw Ellie and realized what was happening, I shot that doctor in the face immediately, no hesitation. Lots of stories are told around the internet about people trying to find ways around having to kill the doctor before realizing the game simply would not progress until you did. Not me. Joel and I were on the same page at that moment, and I pulled that trigger without hesitation. If I had been watching that movie, I’d have understood and sympathized and even agreed with Joel doing so, but there is a unique feeling an experience to playing that as a video game and actually pulling the trigger myself. You can argue that falls under “presentation,” but it’s deeper than that.

In regards to It Takes Two, it’s a similarly blurry line. Presentation certainly has a lot to do with it, but it’s more about . . . design ethos or something. I still haven’t figured out how to articulate it. It was just a joy to play a game that was simply fun to play on a moment to moment level, with no sort of deeper intentions. No extraneous progression systems, no illusion of trying to tell some grand story, just fun gameplay for its own sake. There’s a level roughly halfway through the game that is a winter town inside of a snow globe. It’s legitimately one of the most magical areas I’ve seen in a game. It’s not like it’s some technical marvel that’s just unfathomably cool, but it was just neat. You can ice skate around, you can throw snowballs at each other, you can ride a ferris wheel. None of it really means anything, but it all just feels really great and it all exists for its own sake just because it’s fucking neat. It’s silly, but it really felt truly magical in a way I can’t quite explain.

I think for lots of people, I am probably really overselling the game. But it really hit me as a sort of reminder of just playing video games as a kid when they were just fun. It reminded me of playing Mario 64 for the first time and the wonder of running around those levels and finding all the little things.

Spoken like a true editor. I mostly agree with you, even though I liked 1917 and thought it worked. It’s no Russian Ark, though. There’s one real take. And boy did it work for me. I thought it was sublime, but it’s not for everyone.

I found Russian Ark to be crazy overstimulating. Beautiful movie, holy crap can't beat the location, but man... it's, alot. A few cuts might have been nice, to at least let my eyes breath.

I'm not sure that overstimulating is the word I would use, but I think I get your drift. You're right, there is a lot. But that's because there is a lot to cover, and the pace is languid. The camera lingers. It avoids the pitfalls associated with real time, because time isn't linear here--it's a canvas to explore. Dang it. You can't write it about without sounding pretentious. I might call the last fifteen minutes overstimulating on an emotional level--at least for me. It would be a disservice to try and describe it with words.

The biggest thing I'll say is this. No, editing is not intrinsic to the art of film. It is a staple. A powerful art, but a staple, a commodity for which the demand for is constant, as the needs require. And the needs are far fewer here.
Show me a theatre production that can be so infinite? That can have you witness the true scale of a battlefield. The only thing else that can do this with ease is a videogame, which is why this MOVIE, and all it's efforts to be what it is, brings with it great artistic value. I mean, can't beat those graphics, m I rite? :P

You could conceivably coordinate a series of events to replicate this movie in real life. Pay theater actors to do what they did on a location, blow shit up, crash planes etc. Then you could walk through said production in exactly the same way as the camera traveled through it in the film. That would be prohibitive given money and safety, but it is possible theoretically.

And it would probably be MORE interesting doing it that way.

But what can't you do in the theater? Cut to a close up.

Spoken like a true editor. I mostly agree with you, even though I liked 1917 and thought it worked. It’s no Russian Ark, though. There’s one real take. And boy did it work for me. I thought it was sublime, but it’s not for everyone.

I found Russian Ark to be crazy overstimulating. Beautiful movie, holy crap can't beat the location, but man... it's, alot. A few cuts might have been nice, to at least let my eyes breath.

It's weird, because I felt like the one take gimmick totally ruined the movie. Because it was a gimmick.

There were so many times when actors would hit their marks, and then just stand there waiting for the camera to hit its mark before giving their lines, creating a stifled, stiff quality to what was onscreen The idea of a long perilous journey kind of falls apart if you're seeing it in real time. I mean, how far could you walk in 90 minutes? Editing allows you to expand or contract time and distance as necessary.

It's impossible to maintain the razor's edge of drama / tension / whatever emotion through one long take. There's just too much to handle, and you inevitably slip into moments of downtime where it drops off due to the logistics of getting characters form one place to another.

This movie actually made me a bit mad. Since for me, every choice was made to show off technical skill and filmmaking feats rather than help the story. And that's why I go see movies.

The true art of cinematography is doing what's right for the story all the time, even if it isn't crazy or flashy. The most impressive technical achievement doesn't even matter if it harms the drama of the film.

And, there were 12 cuts in the film, so they didn't even actually show off a one take movie, making it even more of an inexplicable choice.

Editing itself is intrinsic to the art of film. Without editing, you just have a stage play where you as an audience member can walk around to see the performance from whatever angle you like. The art is knowing when to hold a shot, and when to cut to something else.

This reads like Jealousy. "there were 12 cuts in the film", oh yea really? Sounds like an ex making and argument about the new girl. And so indeed, as Kermit mentioned, it is no surprise that this post is made by an editor.

The biggest thing I'll say is this. No, editing is not intrinsic to the art of film. It is a staple. A powerful art, but a staple, a commodity for which the demand for is constant, as the needs require. And the needs are far fewer here.

Show me a theatre production that can be so infinite? That can have you witness the true scale of a battlefield. The only thing else that can do this with ease is a videogame, which is why this MOVIE, and all it's efforts to be what it is, brings with it great artistic value. I mean, can't beat those graphics, m I rite? :P

It's weird, because I felt like the one take gimmick totally ruined the movie. Because it was a gimmick.

There were so many times when actors would hit their marks, and then just stand there waiting for the camera to hit its mark before giving their lines, creating a stifled, stiff quality to what was onscreen The idea of a long perilous journey kind of falls apart if you're seeing it in real time. I mean, how far could you walk in 90 minutes? Editing allows you to expand or contract time and distance as necessary.

It's impossible to maintain the razor's edge of drama / tension / whatever emotion through one long take. There's just too much to handle, and you inevitably slip into moments of downtime where it drops off due to the logistics of getting characters form one place to another.

This movie actually made me a bit mad. Since for me, every choice was made to show off technical skill and filmmaking feats rather than help the story. And that's why I go see movies.

The true art of cinematography is doing what's right for the story all the time, even if it isn't crazy or flashy. The most impressive technical achievement doesn't even matter if it harms the drama of the film.

And, there were 12 cuts in the film, so they didn't even actually show off a one take movie, making it even more of an inexplicable choice.

Editing itself is intrinsic to the art of film. Without editing, you just have a stage play where you as an audience member can walk around to see the performance from whatever angle you like. The art is knowing when to hold a shot, and when to cut to something else.

Spoken like a true editor. I mostly agree with you, even though I liked 1917 and thought it worked. It’s no Russian Ark, though. There’s one real take. And boy did it work for me. I thought it was sublime, but it’s not for everyone.

There were so many times when actors would hit their marks, and then just stand there waiting for the camera to hit its mark before giving their lines, creating a stifled, stiff quality to what was onscreen The idea of a long perilous journey kind of falls apart if you're seeing it in real time. I mean, how far could you walk in 90 minutes? Editing allows you to expand or contract time and distance as necessary.

It's impossible to maintain the razor's edge of drama / tension / whatever emotion through one long take. There's just too much to handle, and you inevitably slip into moments of downtime where it drops off due to the logistics of getting characters form one place to another.

This movie actually made me a bit mad. Since for me, every choice was made to show off technical skill and filmmaking feats rather than help the story. And that's why I go see movies.

The true art of cinematography is doing what's right for the story all the time, even if it isn't crazy or flashy. The most impressive technical achievement doesn't even matter if it harms the drama of the film.

And, there were 12 cuts in the film, so they didn't even actually show off a one take movie, making it even more of an inexplicable choice.

Editing itself is intrinsic to the art of film. Without editing, you just have a stage play where you as an audience member can walk around to see the performance from whatever angle you like. The art is knowing when to hold a shot, and when to cut to something else.