So I played through It Takes Two with cheapLEY, and I have to say, it was one of the best experiences I've had in a long time. This game is just incredible.

The game is a mandatory co-op game where you play as a married couple on the verge of divorce, who are transformed into dolls thanks to the magic of a book and a wish from their daughter to fall in love again. You essentially have to overcome challenges together to rediscover your love and passion for one another.

The game just has a ridiculous number of different ideas and mechanics, all of which are really fun and polished, yet different enough that the entire game is just constantly feeling fresh. You'll each have a different mechanic or thing you can do, which you have to coordinate with your partner's ability in order to work together. Some of the boss fights are just absolutely insane in a good way. Super fun, super compelling, and super creative. The Tool Box boss fight might just be one of the best bosses ever.

The game also has a great sense of humor. This game is really funny, often in a dark way. There's some stuff that's pretty messed up, like killing the vacuum cleaner boss by sucking his eyes out with his own hose, and the Elephant. The Elephant holy shit haha. Just experience it for yourself.

But the biggest thing was that the game felt magical. It was like the best Pixar movie that you could actually play. The levels and environment are filled with a genuine sense of wonder and awe. The snow globe level might be one of the best levels in any video game ever. The gorgeous graphics bring these incredible worlds to life, while at 60fps in split screen.

Find someone and play it. It's also ridiculously cool in that only one person needs to actually buy it, even if you play online!

- No text -

I’ve been playing The Last of Us Part 1 recently. And, of course, we just finished It Takes Two. Playing the two rattled some not-fully-formed thoughts loose.

Lots of folks uphold TLOU as the pinnacle of games as art. I won’t debate that (or even disagree with that). But it is also the pinnacle example of sort of movie as a game. The things people talk about for TLOU is the presentation, the characters, the story. While I truly love the gameplay of The Last of Us, the things I always see being talked about as the art part of the game are things that could have been a movie. While I won’t dive into the additive (and even essential to the experience) nature of the gameplay, it’s interesting when compared to It Takes Two.

Because It Takes Two is the exact opposite, but I would hold it up as Games-as-Art just as much as The Last of Us. The story is fine, maybe good even, but it’s not the thing that makes the game what it is. It Takes Two is truly one of the best video games I’ve ever played, full stop, no caveats. It’s as close to a perfect game as I’ve ever experienced. It’s just fun. Moving the characters around feels good. The sprint, the jump, the air dash, even the different abilities we’re given all feel damn near perfect to control. The game never seems to run out of ideas (save for the garden at the end, which I think was a fairly weak area in almost every regard). It’s constantly putting players in new environments with new abilities, and they’re all fun. The mini games are all fun, bite sized things, and it’s neat to suddenly be competing with the person you have to cooperate with during the normal gameplay. The writing is funny in a way that most games aren’t, even when they’re trying to be. I sort of laughed when this game won a bunch of game of the year awards, but I was wrong. It Takes Two is Art, based purely on how fun it is as a video game to be played. It’s not thought-provoking like The Last of Us, it’s just a fun video game that feels magical in a way that not many do anymore.

I wish I was better at articulating this stuff, because I think it’s a fascinating comparison. And I cannot quite find the words to describe how good I think It Takes Two is.

I’ve been playing The Last of Us Part 1 recently. And, of course, we just finished It Takes Two. Playing the two rattled some not-fully-formed thoughts loose.

Lots of folks uphold TLOU as the pinnacle of games as art. I won’t debate that (or even disagree with that). But it is also the pinnacle example of sort of movie as a game. The things people talk about for TLOU is the presentation, the characters, the story. While I truly love the gameplay of The Last of Us, the things I always see being talked about as the art part of the game are things that could have been a movie. While I won’t dive into the additive (and even essential to the experience) nature of the gameplay, it’s interesting when compared to It Takes Two.

Because It Takes Two is the exact opposite, but I would hold it up as Games-as-Art just as much as The Last of Us. The story is fine, maybe good even, but it’s not the thing that makes the game what it is. It Takes Two is truly one of the best video games I’ve ever played, full stop, no caveats. It’s as close to a perfect game as I’ve ever experienced. It’s just fun. Moving the characters around feels good. The sprint, the jump, the air dash, even the different abilities we’re given all feel damn near perfect to control. The game never seems to run out of ideas (save for the garden at the end, which I think was a fairly weak area in almost every regard). It’s constantly putting players in new environments with new abilities, and they’re all fun. The mini games are all fun, bite sized things, and it’s neat to suddenly be competing with the person you have to cooperate with during the normal gameplay. The writing is funny in a way that most games aren’t, even when they’re trying to be. I sort of laughed when this game won a bunch of game of the year awards, but I was wrong. It Takes Two is Art, based purely on how fun it is as a video game to be played. It’s not thought-provoking like The Last of Us, it’s just a fun video game that feels magical in a way that not many do anymore.

I wish I was better at articulating this stuff, because I think it’s a fascinating comparison. And I cannot quite find the words to describe how good I think It Takes Two is.

To add to this, may I present a Movie that felt like a Video Game? With its seemingly omnipresent "One Take" camera, 1917 is increasingly good. As in, the more I consider it, the more it becomes one of my favorite movies I've yet seen. Because, thanks to the camera work and all the rest, I get to -safely- live a day over a century away and reflect on its considerations to the barbarity of... well, of war, but to THAT AGE of war. Sword and horse tactics ignorantly pushed into, unbeknownst to them, a new age of war. Of ranged meat grinding, trench warfare, mud, and rats, and the constant feaster of all that dammed mix in your boots. And... about people, as always. With 2nd and 3rd viewings, I know who the characters are. Their levels of experience, of good heart, and perhaps even how naive they may be to the whole in the situation imposed. And I see little hints to such character in the beginning that is oft missed on a first viewing, followed then by that life in a day. Stories left unknown in conclusion, as, such it life.
And it's all thanks to this movies rigorously planned for "omnipresent one-shot" camera work. It's cinematographic art.

Why do I think this is in parity with what you say, cheapLEY?

Even though it is a presumption from me, as I've yet to play either The Last of Us or It Takes Two, I think the words you don't know how to describe are summed up as; it's all about how it has been presented. As previously stated, the film 1917 is designed to appear to have no cuts. And all of its quality is better for it. Not just the quality of its sum, but the delivery of its consumption. Be it (ever metaphorically) the tact of its bow, or the tasteful compartmentalization in each act, the pace (I presume) allows for a steady stream of appreciation to the quality on display. This allows, in turn, the appreciation of the whole of the art, whatever it may be. And I think, according to your description, The Last of Us and It Takes Two have the same exceptional delivery of their content.

This is what, I think, you had not the words/vernacular to say. 

Anyway, here! Literally, "The First 9 Minutes of 1917".
Take a look for yourself! Let me know if my presumption is correct, cheapLEY.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

EDIT: Spoilers for The Last of Us to follow, just in case.

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.

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 think it's more than 5%.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well of course. Definitely go for the blu-ray over the DVD, but I probably don't have to say that.

- No text -

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! 😉

- No text -