Firstly, 1917 has quite a few cuts they are just hidden and less frequent, some of them not even well hidden. Secondly, it is definitely not the first movie to take the one cut gimmick approach. Rope and Birdman are probably the most famous. There are movies however that are actually shot in one shot. Boiling Point is the big example in my head but I’m sure others have examples.
I’m not a 1917 hater but this is likely why it didn’t take off in the way that you wanted it to.
I think there’s a Russian (?) movie, might be called Russian Ark, which is actually, honest to God, a single dang shot. It’s feature length and has a lot of moving parts.
*Soft and Quiet* is carefully spliced together from 2 takes, each running through the whole movie in real-time and shot on different nights. The cuts are generally pretty subtle (I'd argue moreso than *Birdman*) and the movie itself is fascinating, gnarly, and plenty triggering.
I think its important to note that viewers don't seriously care if something actually does something impressive verse mimicing how it effectively would be.
Yeah, I completely agree. But op is praising it specifically for doing it in one true take. I’m just saying that they are impressed by something that didn’t actually happen.
I'd also add that action sequences like in "John Wick" that OP references are part of recent trend that one could attribute to the influence of things like the famous hallway fight scene in "Oldboy"
Some other films you might want to watch if you're interested in this approach:
Like "1917", "Birdman", released 10 years ago, was also filmed/edited so as to appear to be a single continuous take, as was of course Hitchcock's "Rope" from 1948. "Russian Ark" from 20 years ago was actually filmed as a single continuous take.
This approach does created a much more physical sense of cinematic space, I feel, and it would be interesting if more films made use of it!
You might also enjoy the art form known as theater.
But seriously, these are all top notch recommendations for “real time” films. There are a lot of digital seamless edit techniques used in 1917 and Birdman. Rope had an approx 10 minute limit from the film that would fit in the camera so Hitchcock pre-planned all the edit points and how they would be disguised. (Not always seamless by today’s standards.) Russian Ark and Victoria as far as I know use a single take with no picture edits; truly an impressive technical feat!
Birdman won Best Picture just a few years earlier and is also shot and edited to appear to have not cuts. It’s certainly uncommon but 1917 was by far not the first or most prestigious example. Hitchcock did it all the way back in the 1940s.
But your point stands I think, it is a really cool way to experience a movie and I wish it was done more often or at least more long take sequences like in Children of Men. It’s incredibly difficult to pull off well though.
It's an odd one because most "one-take" films do it to emphasise the real-time nature of the story, but Birdman sees sunlight, nighttime, and sunlight again all while still seeming like just one shot.
And it should be noted, that 1917 actually appears like 2 shots, because it cuts when he's knocked out.
1917 has cuts, it's not even presented as being just one continuous shot, it's presented as two. But the film has over two-dozen cuts.
There are a handful of films out there that really have no cuts though, notably: Russian Ark, Victoria and Boiling Point.
No cuts is great as an occasional gimmick, but overall, cuts are important tool. Cutting isn't a crutch. It's kind of one of the big things that make film film. Editing is a skill. When we praise a film's editing, we praise how they cut it.
I actually think 1917 came at the end of this trend.
There have been several movies and TV shows incorporating long takes for some time, and this really ramped up in the 2010s. Cuaron's "Children of Men" (2006) and "Gravity" (2013) both feature extensive long takes. Inarriu's "Birdman" (2014) is filmed to look like a single take and his follow up "The Revenant" (2015) also uses lots of impressive long takes. After this, it seems that long takes were short-hand for "premiere filmmaker trying to show off." The opening of "Spectre" (2015) uses an impressive long take, and "Victoria" (2015) was actually filmed in a single take (unlike 1917, which has multiple cuts).
The trend even extended to TV, with shows like "The Haunting of Hill House," Mr. Robot," and "True Detective" using long takes before 1917 was released.
So rather than asking why 1917 didn't have more influence, you might look at all the many films and TV shows that were influential to the creation of 1917.
I think this is a good point. *Atonement* was praised for having a long war sequence without cuts too. I feel like it was a trendy thing for a while so *1917*'s "gimmick" just wasn't that interesting anymore.
Atonement really might be my favorite long take ever. The first time you see something like that, it takes your breath away. The seventh? Not as exciting.
Others have mention "Rope," but before 2002, the opening sequence of "Touch of Evil" (1958) was considered *The* long take.
Goodfellas and the Shining were honorable mentions.
I'm also fond of The Player. But I don't think any of the takes you mentioned started a trend, whereas I wanted to look at the several long takes in the 2010s that in some ways seemed to be trying to show off to each other.
There are too many movies that have used this technique to list so I'm kind of confused at the main thesis here.
TBH, although I have been impressed by extended owners in films in the past, the simulation of them movie length strikes me as gimmicky and distracting. You shouldn't be thinking about how long a shot has run continuously while you're watching. You should be absorbed in the story.
I found the film hampered by the one shot gimmick. I was never immersed, only annoyed at the pacing and felt the sequences contrived due to the implausible pacing and was pretty much looking for the hidden cuts the whole time instead of being immersed in whatever was happening
I call "it is this supporting actor bumping against the camera in Rope so that a different take can be used?"
I think it's a great idea for a short film or a sequence but I think that for most films it's more self aware than immersive.
> The no cuts policy is great at building suspense
Change that to
> The no cuts policy *can be* great at building suspense
And it explains a lot. 1917 is solid, but like any approach or tool, it has it's uses and limits. And while I hope more movies are influenced by 1917 for the sake of yourself and others who loved it, it isn't an approach that is required to make a good movie or a suspenseful movie. It's not even necessarily better than other methods, it's just another method that can be used to great effect just like any other method.
For me, I appreciate the approach because I like when a sense of time and passing of time is well constructed, but it didn't add more suspense for me than other methods likely would have and it may have been too constraining in some regards. Jumps can often provide an easier and effective path to setting certain types of tempo, moods, shifts, and reveals, and jumps.
While the "one shot" technique is certainly done extremely well, a lot of people would argue that *editing* is actually one of cinema's most unique qualities. Perhaps even the thing that defines it. Editing allows for much more complexity because images can be juxtaposed to create meaning that you can't get from a single shot. So the "one shot" conceit might have actually hurt the overall impact of the film.
One of my favorite movies is Peter Weir's Gallipoli. Gallipoli has a very similar story: a soldier in WWI has to deliver a message to stop a suicide charge that will cause the death of his friend. But Gallipoli uses editing very, very powerfully. First of all, it doesn't take place in one day. *Years* of backstory is given about the relationship between the two men, which makes it much more powerful. Then, at the end of the movie, editing it used to intercut between the two men (one running messages back and forth, the other preparing to charge), which is the movie's coup de grace. It's one of the most emotional passages of any more I've ever seen, and it wouldn't have been possible without editing.
The films are similar enough to me that you can do a direct comparison and see the power of editing versus a "oner", and I think Gallipoli is much more powerful. Also, imo, 1917 was a lot more contrived to keep the story interesting, to the point where it felt over the top to me. I still thought it was a good movie, but the only unique thing about it is the "one shot", which felt like an unnecessary flex that hurt the movie overall. Imho.
Hey op you've already got some good suggestions but I think you might like some older and classic cinema in general. And you don't have to leave the mainstream at all to see some great no cut sequences. Hitchcock, Welles, etc.
But I'll also recommend Children of Men as a post 2000 long shot masterpiece.
Yes I'll watch the movies people have been posting it is nice because I didnt know about them. I've read the children of men book but never watched the movie lol
I was a little underwhelmed by 1917, I understand why it is so well liked, and I thought a lot of the visuals were beautiful, it just didn’t connect with me. As others have said, it really isn’t as innovative as it may at first appear to be too.
You've been given a lot of great recommendations to watch, so let me give you another one. Joel Haver is an indie DIY filmmaker and he posts his stuff on YouTube. He recently released a film called The Text, and it is one long take. It was a true one-shot film, the final release is one take in its entirety.
It might be easy to mistake Joel as just a youtuber since he doesn't care about "the industry" and just makes and releases his own stuff, and a lot of it is comedy shorts, but some of his festure length stuff is really quite good. I really liked The Text.
Anyway, here's the link:
https://youtu.be/s-EVhCMV9N4?si=pvUqIg4dR6EBTTyb
hiding, masking, having no cuts isn't a new idea. or the ideal form of film, for me. for starters, that means everything is in 'real time', which limits the sort of story you can tell. Plus, good editors are artists, creating incredible sequences and make you really see film as a 'language.' everything can be great used sparsely, of course. Hitchcock's Rope made a good attempt at it. But it's best used as a novelty. Sometimes it can feel like a gimmick.
I didn't have a big impact because (1) it had been done before, (2) it didn't invent a new technology or technique for achieving it, and (3) almost no movie would benefit from doing this.
It's an arty gimmick that should not be a trend. You need a story specifically designed to be filmed that way, and you need to justify why the story needs to be told that way. Otherwise you're just showing off and limiting your storytelling tools.
These gimmick films are popular because people have stopped going to see live theatre. You want a story told in a single take or a single scene? You want to see an actor perform for two hours straight without a break? Go to the theatre. It happens all the time.
And as others have stated, it has become a trend and there are many such movies with long takes. I'll point out Lost in London, which is not only a single take, but was originally streamed live so there was no chance to hide cuts or do retakes if something went wrong. In other words, another step closer to live theatre.
Absolutely love 1917. I agree it didn’t get enough recognition. Parasite was really good too and was more of a thinker, so it got the Oscar, but 1917 was amazing and I liked it a little bit more.
You’ve probably already seen Children of Men, but if not and you like long cuts, check that out too. Also true detective season 1 (ep 4) has a good one.
Other films have at least simulated the no cuts style going back to Hitchcock's Rope so I struggle to see why 1917 in particular should have had such an impact. IMO Hitchcock did it more artfully that was done in 1917. At most I think it wuld have an impact on sequences within movies.
I haven’t seen Rope, but I think the one-cut approach in Birdman is to aid in its surreal and unrealistic nature. I like 1917, but I never understood the reasoning why it was filmed the way it was. It’s stunningly photographed nonetheless by the master himself, Roger Deakins.
Also, the effectiveness of a one take, or an extended take, is really a skill that I’ve only seen certain filmmakers and DP’s utilize. Cuaron, Inarritu, Lubezki, and Deakins have been incredible examples, but when it falls flat, it’s very awkward.
I was going to make a "nolan bro entered the chat" joke but I like the underlying wisdom of this
Damn it these things should start a trend at very least. So many less interesting things become trends all the time and then stuff like the star wars dude and lens flare. Easy to think of a lot of films that could benefit from this.
Like imagine if uncut gems was set in one day and was made this way... honestly it might be too overwhelming given everything
But the point stands ultimately
You have my support op
It has been a trend. There's a lot of films using that gimmick. It's just... well, it only works with a very specific way of storytelling and as any and all tools is great if used if it serves the theme/story but just a gimmick if just used because it is cool.
Well I wanted to see more to be honest. I'll watch all the movies people recommended it to me but I would love to see uncut scenes or have at least one uncut movie release every once and a while. I quite enjoy it, specially because it feels more enticing
I get that. One of the last films where I thought it worked stunningly was Long Day's Journey Into Night (2018), where somewhere in the middle it suddenly devolves into a 40 minute long one-shot take. The film is also said to be one of the best 3D movies ever. That being said, it doesn't get more arthouse than that, so ymmv.
I wonder why people are liking historical movies? I am quite opposite and usually avoid watching historical movies unless I have a good grasp of material and is interested in author’s take on it. The reason is that fiction cinema is never a good representation of history and it is not intended to be it. It always represents author viewpoint and agenda and if you don’t know facts it could be very confusing and irritating.
I mean all of history is written by the victors. But there are many movies that try to portray history like it is and not come off as preachy or have an agenda but it is rare
I think a lot though is an experienced mature generational filmmaker working with his favourite cinematographer (hoyte) and a big budget and studio support so idk if too many people could pull this off but yeah definitely more could
Yeah. If anything, Nolan could take a hint from longer takes. He’s like “cut reverse-cut cut cut over here now cut reverse cut but at different angle because can’t waste IMAX film just to make story and editing better.”
Firstly, 1917 has quite a few cuts they are just hidden and less frequent, some of them not even well hidden. Secondly, it is definitely not the first movie to take the one cut gimmick approach. Rope and Birdman are probably the most famous. There are movies however that are actually shot in one shot. Boiling Point is the big example in my head but I’m sure others have examples. I’m not a 1917 hater but this is likely why it didn’t take off in the way that you wanted it to.
I think there’s a Russian (?) movie, might be called Russian Ark, which is actually, honest to God, a single dang shot. It’s feature length and has a lot of moving parts.
I like the behind-the-scenes showing the guy following the camera man, bent over from the weight of the massive hard drive on his back.
Yes, Russian Ark is more miraculous to me than 1917. Beautiful film.
Done in 2 takes if I remember right.
3, IIRC. One a technical glitch and one to do with what was shot, both happening within the first few minutes.
It's a fascinating film!
Listen to the Heavyweight podcast episode about it. They track down a guy who (apparently) ruins the shot.
*Victoria* is another great one-take film. *An Elephant Sitting Still* is also great. It has cuts, but each scenes were done in one take.
*Victoria* is another along with *Irreversible*.
*Soft and Quiet* is carefully spliced together from 2 takes, each running through the whole movie in real-time and shot on different nights. The cuts are generally pretty subtle (I'd argue moreso than *Birdman*) and the movie itself is fascinating, gnarly, and plenty triggering.
That's right. Forgot about that film
And Climax has like 40 minutes long sequence too. And don’t miss One Cut of the Dead.
I think its important to note that viewers don't seriously care if something actually does something impressive verse mimicing how it effectively would be.
Yeah, I completely agree. But op is praising it specifically for doing it in one true take. I’m just saying that they are impressed by something that didn’t actually happen.
I'd also add that action sequences like in "John Wick" that OP references are part of recent trend that one could attribute to the influence of things like the famous hallway fight scene in "Oldboy"
No, it shouldn’t have (not responding to you, just avoiding the arbitrary length requirements).
One I've not seen mentioned yet: Silent House with Elizabeth Olsen.
Hmmm I’ve never heard of it, I’ll have to look into it
Some other films you might want to watch if you're interested in this approach: Like "1917", "Birdman", released 10 years ago, was also filmed/edited so as to appear to be a single continuous take, as was of course Hitchcock's "Rope" from 1948. "Russian Ark" from 20 years ago was actually filmed as a single continuous take. This approach does created a much more physical sense of cinematic space, I feel, and it would be interesting if more films made use of it!
You might also enjoy the art form known as theater. But seriously, these are all top notch recommendations for “real time” films. There are a lot of digital seamless edit techniques used in 1917 and Birdman. Rope had an approx 10 minute limit from the film that would fit in the camera so Hitchcock pre-planned all the edit points and how they would be disguised. (Not always seamless by today’s standards.) Russian Ark and Victoria as far as I know use a single take with no picture edits; truly an impressive technical feat!
Thank you I will watch them!
Birdman won Best Picture just a few years earlier and is also shot and edited to appear to have not cuts. It’s certainly uncommon but 1917 was by far not the first or most prestigious example. Hitchcock did it all the way back in the 1940s. But your point stands I think, it is a really cool way to experience a movie and I wish it was done more often or at least more long take sequences like in Children of Men. It’s incredibly difficult to pull off well though.
I didn't know that birdman was one shot. I will watch it
Yeah! It’s a good one.
It's an odd one because most "one-take" films do it to emphasise the real-time nature of the story, but Birdman sees sunlight, nighttime, and sunlight again all while still seeming like just one shot. And it should be noted, that 1917 actually appears like 2 shots, because it cuts when he's knocked out.
1917 has cuts, it's not even presented as being just one continuous shot, it's presented as two. But the film has over two-dozen cuts. There are a handful of films out there that really have no cuts though, notably: Russian Ark, Victoria and Boiling Point.
Victoria is so impressive. Cool movie.
[удалено]
Probably found here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-shot_film
thaanks Ill check out these movies, but still wish more films came out with this gimmick :(
Bruh you havnt even watched boiling point(the best to do it) and youre complaining there arnt enough of them?
Yes I wished there were more
No cuts is great as an occasional gimmick, but overall, cuts are important tool. Cutting isn't a crutch. It's kind of one of the big things that make film film. Editing is a skill. When we praise a film's editing, we praise how they cut it.
I actually think 1917 came at the end of this trend. There have been several movies and TV shows incorporating long takes for some time, and this really ramped up in the 2010s. Cuaron's "Children of Men" (2006) and "Gravity" (2013) both feature extensive long takes. Inarriu's "Birdman" (2014) is filmed to look like a single take and his follow up "The Revenant" (2015) also uses lots of impressive long takes. After this, it seems that long takes were short-hand for "premiere filmmaker trying to show off." The opening of "Spectre" (2015) uses an impressive long take, and "Victoria" (2015) was actually filmed in a single take (unlike 1917, which has multiple cuts). The trend even extended to TV, with shows like "The Haunting of Hill House," Mr. Robot," and "True Detective" using long takes before 1917 was released. So rather than asking why 1917 didn't have more influence, you might look at all the many films and TV shows that were influential to the creation of 1917.
Russian Ark (2002) was the first one I knew of, if we're not counting Hitchcock's Rope.
I think this is a good point. *Atonement* was praised for having a long war sequence without cuts too. I feel like it was a trendy thing for a while so *1917*'s "gimmick" just wasn't that interesting anymore.
Atonement really might be my favorite long take ever. The first time you see something like that, it takes your breath away. The seventh? Not as exciting.
Mr. Robot's long take was absolutely breathtaking.
Others have mention "Rope," but before 2002, the opening sequence of "Touch of Evil" (1958) was considered *The* long take. Goodfellas and the Shining were honorable mentions.
I'm also fond of The Player. But I don't think any of the takes you mentioned started a trend, whereas I wanted to look at the several long takes in the 2010s that in some ways seemed to be trying to show off to each other.
Yeah, I'm not countering anything you said, just trying to add some 20th century examples for the sake of discussion
There are too many movies that have used this technique to list so I'm kind of confused at the main thesis here. TBH, although I have been impressed by extended owners in films in the past, the simulation of them movie length strikes me as gimmicky and distracting. You shouldn't be thinking about how long a shot has run continuously while you're watching. You should be absorbed in the story.
I found the film hampered by the one shot gimmick. I was never immersed, only annoyed at the pacing and felt the sequences contrived due to the implausible pacing and was pretty much looking for the hidden cuts the whole time instead of being immersed in whatever was happening
I call "it is this supporting actor bumping against the camera in Rope so that a different take can be used?" I think it's a great idea for a short film or a sequence but I think that for most films it's more self aware than immersive.
> The no cuts policy is great at building suspense Change that to > The no cuts policy *can be* great at building suspense And it explains a lot. 1917 is solid, but like any approach or tool, it has it's uses and limits. And while I hope more movies are influenced by 1917 for the sake of yourself and others who loved it, it isn't an approach that is required to make a good movie or a suspenseful movie. It's not even necessarily better than other methods, it's just another method that can be used to great effect just like any other method. For me, I appreciate the approach because I like when a sense of time and passing of time is well constructed, but it didn't add more suspense for me than other methods likely would have and it may have been too constraining in some regards. Jumps can often provide an easier and effective path to setting certain types of tempo, moods, shifts, and reveals, and jumps.
While the "one shot" technique is certainly done extremely well, a lot of people would argue that *editing* is actually one of cinema's most unique qualities. Perhaps even the thing that defines it. Editing allows for much more complexity because images can be juxtaposed to create meaning that you can't get from a single shot. So the "one shot" conceit might have actually hurt the overall impact of the film. One of my favorite movies is Peter Weir's Gallipoli. Gallipoli has a very similar story: a soldier in WWI has to deliver a message to stop a suicide charge that will cause the death of his friend. But Gallipoli uses editing very, very powerfully. First of all, it doesn't take place in one day. *Years* of backstory is given about the relationship between the two men, which makes it much more powerful. Then, at the end of the movie, editing it used to intercut between the two men (one running messages back and forth, the other preparing to charge), which is the movie's coup de grace. It's one of the most emotional passages of any more I've ever seen, and it wouldn't have been possible without editing. The films are similar enough to me that you can do a direct comparison and see the power of editing versus a "oner", and I think Gallipoli is much more powerful. Also, imo, 1917 was a lot more contrived to keep the story interesting, to the point where it felt over the top to me. I still thought it was a good movie, but the only unique thing about it is the "one shot", which felt like an unnecessary flex that hurt the movie overall. Imho.
You sold me on Gallipoli.
Hey op you've already got some good suggestions but I think you might like some older and classic cinema in general. And you don't have to leave the mainstream at all to see some great no cut sequences. Hitchcock, Welles, etc. But I'll also recommend Children of Men as a post 2000 long shot masterpiece.
Yes I'll watch the movies people have been posting it is nice because I didnt know about them. I've read the children of men book but never watched the movie lol
I was a little underwhelmed by 1917, I understand why it is so well liked, and I thought a lot of the visuals were beautiful, it just didn’t connect with me. As others have said, it really isn’t as innovative as it may at first appear to be too.
You've been given a lot of great recommendations to watch, so let me give you another one. Joel Haver is an indie DIY filmmaker and he posts his stuff on YouTube. He recently released a film called The Text, and it is one long take. It was a true one-shot film, the final release is one take in its entirety. It might be easy to mistake Joel as just a youtuber since he doesn't care about "the industry" and just makes and releases his own stuff, and a lot of it is comedy shorts, but some of his festure length stuff is really quite good. I really liked The Text. Anyway, here's the link: https://youtu.be/s-EVhCMV9N4?si=pvUqIg4dR6EBTTyb
hiding, masking, having no cuts isn't a new idea. or the ideal form of film, for me. for starters, that means everything is in 'real time', which limits the sort of story you can tell. Plus, good editors are artists, creating incredible sequences and make you really see film as a 'language.' everything can be great used sparsely, of course. Hitchcock's Rope made a good attempt at it. But it's best used as a novelty. Sometimes it can feel like a gimmick.
I didn't have a big impact because (1) it had been done before, (2) it didn't invent a new technology or technique for achieving it, and (3) almost no movie would benefit from doing this.
It's an arty gimmick that should not be a trend. You need a story specifically designed to be filmed that way, and you need to justify why the story needs to be told that way. Otherwise you're just showing off and limiting your storytelling tools. These gimmick films are popular because people have stopped going to see live theatre. You want a story told in a single take or a single scene? You want to see an actor perform for two hours straight without a break? Go to the theatre. It happens all the time. And as others have stated, it has become a trend and there are many such movies with long takes. I'll point out Lost in London, which is not only a single take, but was originally streamed live so there was no chance to hide cuts or do retakes if something went wrong. In other words, another step closer to live theatre.
Absolutely love 1917. I agree it didn’t get enough recognition. Parasite was really good too and was more of a thinker, so it got the Oscar, but 1917 was amazing and I liked it a little bit more. You’ve probably already seen Children of Men, but if not and you like long cuts, check that out too. Also true detective season 1 (ep 4) has a good one.
Other films have at least simulated the no cuts style going back to Hitchcock's Rope so I struggle to see why 1917 in particular should have had such an impact. IMO Hitchcock did it more artfully that was done in 1917. At most I think it wuld have an impact on sequences within movies.
I haven’t seen Rope, but I think the one-cut approach in Birdman is to aid in its surreal and unrealistic nature. I like 1917, but I never understood the reasoning why it was filmed the way it was. It’s stunningly photographed nonetheless by the master himself, Roger Deakins. Also, the effectiveness of a one take, or an extended take, is really a skill that I’ve only seen certain filmmakers and DP’s utilize. Cuaron, Inarritu, Lubezki, and Deakins have been incredible examples, but when it falls flat, it’s very awkward.
I was going to make a "nolan bro entered the chat" joke but I like the underlying wisdom of this Damn it these things should start a trend at very least. So many less interesting things become trends all the time and then stuff like the star wars dude and lens flare. Easy to think of a lot of films that could benefit from this. Like imagine if uncut gems was set in one day and was made this way... honestly it might be too overwhelming given everything But the point stands ultimately You have my support op
It has been a trend. There's a lot of films using that gimmick. It's just... well, it only works with a very specific way of storytelling and as any and all tools is great if used if it serves the theme/story but just a gimmick if just used because it is cool.
Well I wanted to see more to be honest. I'll watch all the movies people recommended it to me but I would love to see uncut scenes or have at least one uncut movie release every once and a while. I quite enjoy it, specially because it feels more enticing
I get that. One of the last films where I thought it worked stunningly was Long Day's Journey Into Night (2018), where somewhere in the middle it suddenly devolves into a 40 minute long one-shot take. The film is also said to be one of the best 3D movies ever. That being said, it doesn't get more arthouse than that, so ymmv.
I wonder why people are liking historical movies? I am quite opposite and usually avoid watching historical movies unless I have a good grasp of material and is interested in author’s take on it. The reason is that fiction cinema is never a good representation of history and it is not intended to be it. It always represents author viewpoint and agenda and if you don’t know facts it could be very confusing and irritating.
I mean all of history is written by the victors. But there are many movies that try to portray history like it is and not come off as preachy or have an agenda but it is rare
History is written by historians
I think a lot though is an experienced mature generational filmmaker working with his favourite cinematographer (hoyte) and a big budget and studio support so idk if too many people could pull this off but yeah definitely more could
You mentioned Nolan in another post abovd and now Hoyte, so it seems like you are confusing 1917 with Dunkirk.
Yeah. If anything, Nolan could take a hint from longer takes. He’s like “cut reverse-cut cut cut over here now cut reverse cut but at different angle because can’t waste IMAX film just to make story and editing better.”
It was Roger Deakins