From the famous speeding train of 1896 to the groundbreaking Russian Ark and iconic Berlin night-out-gone-wrong flick Victoria, this week we take you through the illustrious history of one-take movies - or should it be one-shot movies?
References
Hot takes: a short history of the one-shot movie in 11 attempts by Matthew Thrift for BFI
Interview with Medusa Deluxe director Thomas Hardiman
The 10 worst Martin Scorsese movies by Joe Williams for Far Out
In One Breath: Alexander Sokurov's Russian Ark (Making of) on YouTube
-----------
If you love what we do, please like, subscribe and leave a review!
Original music by James Brailsford
Logo design by Abby-Jo Sheldon
Follow us
Email us
From the famous speeding train of 1896 to the groundbreaking Russian Ark and iconic Berlin night-out-gone-wrong flick Victoria, this week we take you through the illustrious history of one-take movies - or should it be one-shot movies?
References
Hot takes: a short history of the one-shot movie in 11 attempts by Matthew Thrift for BFI
Interview with Medusa Deluxe director Thomas Hardiman
The 10 worst Martin Scorsese movies by Joe Williams for Far Out
In One Breath: Alexander Sokurov's Russian Ark (Making of) on YouTube
-----------
If you love what we do, please like, subscribe and leave a review!
Original music by James Brailsford
Logo design by Abby-Jo Sheldon
Follow us
Email us
They're wrong uns, Victoria, don't do it.
Lily:Welcome to Groovy Movies. My name is Lily Austin.
James Mic:my name's James Brailsford. Hello.
Lily:Hey James, how are you?
James Mic:I'm not too bad, thank you. Glad to be getting underway after the few false starts we've had, uh, trying to get our, our one shot wonder podcast episode done.
Lily:Yes, unfortunately, I'm now on my fourth house of the last six months. I've done three moves in six months and my new place is delightful, living with some very good friends, but the Wi Fi connection is appalling, so I've had to vacate and, take up recording somewhere else for Sunday but James is a patient man, thank God, and I'm here, and it's, and we're working, we're underway, all is well.
James Mic:And, and I just thought particularly, uh, kind of, some kind of dramatic irony that we're talking about these films that are one take films or shot in one take when you read the background stories behind them, there's often some retakes that happen or they have to stop for a week and then they come back. So I feel that in the spirit of what we're discussing it all, it's all come together, Lily.
Lily:Okay. So, so let's dive right in. First of all, what is a one take movie? Because I saw in the script that you had written, is it one take or one shot? And I was like, Oh my God, I've got this horribly wrong. But then I was like, Oh wait, no. Everywhere I read, they always call it one take.
James Mic:What we're talking about are one take or one shot films. These are films where it appears as if the entire film has been shot one take. Continuously, with no cuts, with no camera stoppage, with no, cuts to close ups, if the film was 90 minutes long, for 90 minutes, that camera was one continuous shot. and now, why, why do I say one take of one shot? Because, I think one shot films are what most of these films are in like Birdman, for example. It's a film which appears to have been shot in one take, but it isn't. It's multiple takes joined together invisibly. So it's been planned to be seamless so that you can't see the joined. it's creating the effect of one shot. However, one take is where they press record on the camera. And what you see on screen happened for the crew. Next 90 minutes, two hours. So what we're discussing today, we've got both of those films, that's not an official thing, by the way. That's just my head saying, Oh, try to get a distinction there.
Lily:no, but that's a very good point because yeah, one take when you really think about it, it sounds like you're saying, yeah, we got it all literally in this one take when the reality is for almost all of these movies, actually, I think all of them technically we'll get into it, but for most of them. Yeah, you're right. It's multiple takes or at least a few takes and then stitched together to appear as, as one long shot.
James Mic:Yeah. And, and with, with advances in effects technology and the fact that people have made more and more of these films over the years, so there's tips and tricks you can use. So the joins are getting ever more seamless,
Lily:Yeah. I w I, so I want to discuss why the hell we would even do this. Why is this something that filmmakers want to try? But I think before we get to that, let's contextualize our
James Mic:oh, yeah.
Lily:in the history of the one take movie. Cause it's quite interesting.
James Mic:Oh, yeah. Yeah. I mean, for me, like, the one take movie goes back to the dawn of cinema. Let's rewind the clock back to 1896, you know, you're in a, you're in France you sit down, you're about to watch it and, oh my God, it's as if a train is approaching you and it's going to crash into you. Cause there's a train approaching the station. so people, it's an urban myth that people freaked out a bit. at the time in 1896, it's highly unlikely they did, but they made a version in 3d in the 1930s and the 3d version they reckon is the one that would have really freaked people out anyway. The point. Yeah. But the point is that train arriving at the station is a one take film. It's just one shot. It doesn't cut. And in fact, George Mellier, who is like, well, what am I, somebody Take a lot of inspiration from. He was a magician making these short films. And if you watch any of the early Mellier films, like the first few years of his oeuvre, they're just one shot. That's what films were. They were one shot, a wide shot with a camera that didn't move, and the start and the end of that one shot was the entire short film. so that's what film was to begin with. So they were all one take. So I, you know, that that's its genesis there. I mean, but there were one takes due to necessity.
Lily:Yeah, because right, film had to invent the cut. And that was a way of creating time and space, right? But film had to come up with that. And in these early movies, they just hadn't, hadn't got that yet. It was still too soon.
James Mic:the film grammar hadn't been, hadn't been, uh, created, a, it was the. The very dawn of the art form. So essentially what they were doing, they were copying the closest analog, which of course was theater. So you just get one shot people on, on a stage, you stay, set everything around it. You build a set, you know, that's it done. And, and then it also links back to the episode that we talked about where women editors is that, at this point, this is when women editors would have been staffing these jobs because their job was just to trim the start and the end and put the credits on. There was no creativity involved. So it was just like this manual labor kind of. Quite like stitching things together job. cause as we've discussed on the other pod that then developed into an art form. But right now this is just a very simplistic, art form.
Lily:Okay. But then the cut was invented.
James Mic:Yeah,
Lily:And we fast forward to Alfred Hitchcock, who is arguably the king of editing and using cuts strategically to move history along and tell a story that he decides to go for the one take movie with his 1948 movie.
James Mic:Now this is, uh, when we go back to the definition that I just kind of semi created, this is definitely a one shot movie, not a one take movie, because the problem we have with shoot trying to do a one take film. During the era of shooting on film, not digital, is that it was physically impossible because a magazine, a film, maximum duration is 10 minutes and then it runs out. The film runs out of the magazine and so, there's no way to shoot continuously for more than 10 minutes. You are locked into that. so that was a hard limit that Hitchcock had to work around with. On rope. And of course there's all the classic techniques, you know, if you have somebody walking past the frame and they block the camera, then you can cut cause the, the image has gone black for that moment. Then you cut to your pickup shot where you've reset, you've restarted. and, you know, because this is 1950s, I mean, they're very well done, but you can definitely see the joins. They're not invisible to a modern audience, but they're as well done as they can be for the time.
Lily:But Alfred Hitchcock talks about how This was a gimmick, this was a marketing ploy that he used, and it was almost funny that he, as we said, because he is the kind of master of, of editing and cuts, it was kind of funny that he would decide to do this, but then, yeah, actually, because of all these, quote unquote, like, hidden or slightly hidden cuts along the way, there still is the, the same gimmick. What you said, grammar of storytelling is still there in Rope, so it's not, it's not really, it doesn't feel, I think that film feels somewhat less like a, like a one take movie than some of the others in a way, like that pacing I think is still there, but, I just found it interesting that he described it as a gimmick. I'm like, so why do it?
James Mic:Movies are about show the audience something they haven't seen before. And I think Hitchcock, you know, Hitchcock's career was very much a kind of, you know, you haven't seen this twist or you haven't seen this, you know, you haven't seen this
Lily:this yet.
James Mic:Yeah. And, you know, he also did a 3d film that people forget about. It's not one of his better films, but it's, you know, dial M for murder was shot in 3d,
Lily:Oh, I didn't know that.
James Mic:I don't think he was particularly fond of Rope. I was just reading the book of interviews he did with Francois Truffaut and they discuss it quite a bit at length there and he's not happy with it because, like you said, he's a director who's the master of the edit and suddenly he didn't have that, you have to get all of your performance, everything, you have to get it like theatre, you have to get it there in front of the camera, you can't make anything in the edit because the edit, that's out of the question for you.
Lily:yeah. It's kind of creativity in the moment that you're making the film, but then there's no, you can't employ any afterwards.
James Mic:it's interesting because on one hand, what you're doing is you're completely disregarding a lot of cinematic tools. I mean, the edit, basically the ability to change time, to change performances, to do a lot of things that the edit gives you. You're forgoing all of that. All of those things, but what you are doing, you're leaning into something that's so peculiarly, uniquely, cinematic, which is, the fact that you can, especially when you go to a cinema where you're not stopping and starting the film, for 90 minutes or two hours, you are locked in, in a room, completely immersed in this world, and I was thinking as well that, I think there's a certain reality that the one take one shot film gives you because we perceive our day to day reality in the present moment. We perceive it as one take, but when we think back on our lives, we perceive them as memory fragments where we cut around and we skip time. I just think subconsciously, when we see edits in films, or when we, even if we're not aware of it, we're essentially being put in the thought process of a memory, that this is a shifting fragment of memory, whereas, when we see a one take film, and we're not interrupting it, we are mimicking what it's like to be present.
Lily:Oh, James, I'm getting takes are coming back to me from university and doing a film course there because there was a lot of, psychoanalysis being employed in the art, in art history. And that's like a key part of like, film Freud, all this, these connections of how yeah. Cuts and edits uh, very similar to dreams and memory and there's all these associations there. Right. And Hitchcock was like well into that from what I remember,
James Mic:Well
Lily:you can tell I can barely remember anything.
James Mic:He bloody loved it. He was mad for it. No, he was mad for it. Yeah.
Lily:Okay, so we then, there's a bit of a quiet, lull, are we saying?
James Mic:Yeah,
Lily:Next in our, timeline is Time Code from 2000.
James Mic:Which I was very excited to see at the time. I remember seeing it, I think in 2004, um, it was screening at Camera Marge. it was a bit of a disappointment when I finally saw it because
Lily:Camera Marge is the Polish Film Festival.
James Mic:That's right. Yeah. And Mike Figgis was, he was showing, he was demonstrating his fig rig and screening time code. He did a little presentation beforehand. And it's one of those things, which is, it's a good, some of these one take films a bit more, they're an impressive exercise rather than a great film, and this was very, uh, Because you know, the fact is in timecode that the, the screen is split into four squares and each one is a different one, one take, a genuine one take. So they've got four camera crews following four different actors there's a few earthquakes throughout the film. So they had to coordinate everyone jiggling their cameras at the same time to give like the earthquake effect
Lily:Wow. That's very impressive. Thank you.
James Mic:yeah, it was a good, as far as what was pulled off it, just the film itself wasn't any great shakes, but, but, the thing, but the thing about that was that, it wasn't really what you call cinema quality, it was digital, it was very, it was 1990, 2000 digital video, trust me. Rough picture quality. So, but the fact that each digital image was reduced down to a smaller square helped it kind of helped it. But you certainly wouldn't want to see a lavish production shot like that.
Lily:Okay. You sure? That's, it's good to know, but impressive. Very impressive.
James Mic:Yeah. Yeah. Very impressive. Um, or at least a good kind of idea of what we could do if digital technology improved. So, you know, shooting film, you can only do 10 minutes, digital technology up to about 2000 wasn't good enough quality really to do a film. So then we get in. 2002, I remember at film school at the time, and so I read the American cinematographer article all about it, but Russian art came out, a Russian film that was a one take film. It was because suddenly cameras had got high definition. So they were kind of good enough, I would say. I mean, I hate digital, but anyway, they were good enough. But the thing is they couldn't record tapes longer than 45 minutes. So they had to get, a company to design a, like a, basically a backpack full of hard drives and batteries that was custom designed. they had a runner whose job it was to wear the backpack and run alongside the camera with a, with a cable going from it. Nowadays you can get like three hours on some cards that you slot into the cameras that you shoot on. That's not a problem, but this was 20 odd years ago. So yeah, go in a backpack, run alongside.
Lily:Wow. That is amazing. Well, I'm, I, so I watched Russian Ark last night and a bit today as well. and I'm completely obsessed with it because it's just such a strange idea, but I, but I love it. So Hermitage Art Museum in St. Petersburg, which was. The Palace of the Tsars, basically, and The film goes back in time it kind of moves back and forth from the, between the 17th century and the early pre revolutionary 20th century. There is a moment in like contemporary time towards the beginning, I swear, but, but, but we're not there very long. but it's incredible because you're walking through this museum with, you're kind of escorting this funny French guy, a Marquis apparently, a Marcus, Marcus,
James Mic:Marquee. Yeah, Marquee.
Lily:yeah, whatever the singular is. And, we have this voiceover from kind of the camera as if the camera is a person walking and he's going, where am I? I'm so confused. and that is the voice of the director, Alexander Sokharov. But you, you, he's not introduced as such. You don't know who this guy is, and both him and this French marque are both like, why are we here? But they're just rolling with it. The French guy knows all about this arch, but is very, very dismissive of Russia, and Russian culture. And it's a very interesting film to watch now, particularly, I think, given the political situation we're in, because this is a film which is really celebrating Russia's cultural and historical ties to Europe. Like this is an incredible collection of art from artists all over Europe. And we also have three orchestras playing it sort of set in different time periods during the movie. this is music that's playing from, again, like all over Europe and it really The original It shows this connection and I just don't, this film would not be made now, right now. I'm sure of
James Mic:Oh, absolutely not. But yeah, quite a fascinating kind of production history behind it. How they got the film kind of together. I remember at the time. When I first heard about it, that they only had a limited window of opportunity at four hours to shoot the entire thing in, and they decided that they could have about two or three restarts, open till the 20 minute point of the each take that they did. So once he got past the 20 minute point. Part that part, that was the point of no return. They did the first take and the cameraman stopped after 10 minutes. Cause he caught a really bad reflection of himself. Then he did the second one. I think the actor missed his cue and this was all in the first 15. So they, they went on for their third and this was their final, they had no choice now. So they had a third take and that was the one that got used. But. As soon as they started the take came over on the walkie talkie that for the final scene that's in a ballroom, one of the light balloons, cause they've got helium balloons full of lights, right? One of them had deflated and so they, they were going around, they had 90 minutes to fix it and it wasn't until like 30 seconds before that it was all sorted. So the cameraman was going around thinking, Oh, We might get to that last shot and it's fucked because there'll be a helium balloon in the middle of the shot. So, that was the circumstances under which this really beautiful, floaty film was made. Was the cameraman thinking, Oh, fuck. We could end up and the whole film's useless.
Lily:I think it adds to it. I think it adds to the, to the film, the fact that you know that and you're kind of thinking about that as it's going on. I don't think it always works to be thinking about what, what is happening with the actual making of the film, but I think for this, because actually the plot is so. Light really like it's incredible. You're seeing these fantastical costumes and there's this funny little interactions between the French guy and and this voiceover is you know has there are moments of entertainment, but really it's pretty light and it's just it's just really showing this incredible museum as it would have been, and that's entertaining in its, in its way. But like, what is really fun is just like seeing how everyone, because it's such a huge cast, there are thousands of people as they're walking through this huge museum, this palace. and so it's just, it makes it a very arresting watch. I really strongly recommend anyone to watch because you're just constantly thinking about that and seeing how everyone is, is in it. And, and they're not perfect, you know, there are moments like I did see someone look at the camera at one point, you know, but that adds to it. I think it's fun.
James Mic:Oh, absolutely. There's a certain energy because I'm sorry. I think just, I think we just to make it very clear, this is a genuine one take film, there are no invisible joints, although there's certainly lots of places where it could be an invisible joint, which is a bit of a shame. There's certain moments where if you wanted to, you could have definitely joined it together. But anyway, that's, that's by the by. But uh, but knowing that and just knowing, Holy shit, if one person goofs up here, the whole thing's got to reset. And especially when it's the final take. the adrenaline must be there. And as you're getting towards the end of the film, you're like, Oh my god, the amount of anxiety. Because the stakes are so high for the entire production. They're almost at the end. Come on, come on. Heh heh.
Lily:This is insane. I don't know actually what is wrong with this director that he would put, want to put himself through this, but good for him.
James Mic:I mean, the thing is he, you know what, he made a film that 20 plus years later, we're still talking about and it certainly, you know, it was a very significant film because it was the first time that a, a genuine continuous one take film was able to be made because of the advantage in digital technology,
Lily:and then we kind of move on to more of the films where you, There are joins, but the joins are a bit better hidden, right? Like Birdman in 2014, Alejandro González Iñárritu's
James Mic:Yep. And then we've got, uh,
Lily:Son of Soul, oh, 1917, yeah. And don't, but let's not forget Son of Soul. Have
James Mic:I don't have, I haven't, uh,
Lily:Oh my god, it's incredible. I mean, it's, it's heavy as fuck because it's a movie about Auschwitz, I believe, or one of the concentration camps, and it's filmed, you're basically over the protagonist's shoulder the whole time as he's going about his life there. Um, and, but it's just, I think it, it works. perfectly. This is like, I think there's something with, I didn't really love Birdman. Like I saw the point.
James Mic:I liked Birdman.
Lily:I think the problem with the one take movie is that it's very easy for it to drag. There's a reason we have cuts. It's to keep things moving, keep things pepping along. I felt like there are quite a few minutes where I'm like, all right, come on, let's get going. But with son of soul, I really felt like it works very, very well for what this film is about and what it's trying to convey. Like it's so sort of intimate and urgent. I think it's brilliant. So if you want a heavy movie that's well made, Laszlo Niem's Son of Saul.
James Mic:Okay. no, I hadn't even heard of that until, uh, just through this podcast actually. So yeah, I need to look into that a bit. I mean, of course the other one is 1917 that came out in 2020.
Lily:Which again, I think it does drag a little bit. It's not as good as Dunkirk.
James Mic:I completely agree with you. Oh, yeah. Thank you for that one, Lily. Um, but, um, Your pacing is baked in you've got absolutely nothing to do about the pacing they are all rehearsed for weeks and weeks in months in some cases just so that everybody's locked in You can't just turn up on the day and discover this kind of one take film so everything's been rehearsed in advance, but then of course, has it gone in front of an audience? Have people sat and watched it? Because there's nothing like. Watching your film with an audience for the first time to really get a sense of where things are dragging. because you're so engaged with the film as a director or, you know, filmmaker involved with the project, you're getting more invested in the story. But when you see it with an audience, goddammit, things just seem to be much slower and draggier. If you show it to your audience, then they're like, clocking out, well, tough, you know.
Lily:Well, on that note, should we talk about Medusa Deluxe, which was, was kind of the inception of this whole episode? Well, actually, one of our listeners did recommend it. I remember this is a subject last, I think last year, it was a while ago.
James Mic:Okay, thank you.
Lily:But James, you wanted to talk about Medusa's which is another one take movie. So, tell me why, why you wanted to talk about it
James Mic:Well, you know,
Lily:because I, had a hard time with it.
James Mic:Oh yeah, I mean, I, I didn't know much about it, but, um, but I, I just thought it looked interesting because it was a one take film set in the world of the UK, hairstyling competition
Lily:Professional hairdressing comp competition competitions. Yeah. Which is, yeah. The premise is incredible. Sorry. Carry on.
James Mic:and shot by Robbie Ryan, who of course is Yorgos Lanthimos's, uh, cinematographer of choice. Yeah, they've done lots of projects together. So, and also name drop, I did work for him for one day in my career. So I've been, I was his, I was his gaffer on a short film for one day. That's
Lily:Oh, wow. Okay. So I understand you're emotionally invested in his career.
James Mic:Yeah, you know is an interesting cinematographer. Certainly he's got a very, very clear style. so yes, so for those reasons, like
Lily:It's a hairdressing competition in which we don't see, really see the competition, but we land there and it becomes quickly apparent that someone has been killed. it's kind of like billed as a murder mystery, but to be honest, I, I don't, I feel like no one was really questioning it. that much. I was a bit confused during the film because they were talking repeatedly about the fact that, this isn't really a spoiler because it's talked about very early on, that the murderer victim had been scalped, obviously linking with hair, it's symbolic, you know, was it another competitor maybe? but I, I wasn't clear on how he'd actually been killed because like that alone, I mean it's ghastly to think about, but that alone wouldn't. So it was all a little bit confusing what that was about and, and yeah, but, but this is, so this is another, um, hidden joins one take movie, right?
James Mic:Yes. So unlike, Russian Ark, this is actually a not actually one take. It looks like one continuous shot, but it's stitched together. I did a bit of research just to, I have to say though, it was pretty seamless. There's only one join where I could definitely say hand on heart. That's a join. The rest of them. Yeah. I, I
Lily:I obviously didn't see any.
James Mic:It was probably some of the best invisible join work I've ever seen. Um, yeah, but, but, um,
Lily:claim to fame. Excellent joinery there.
James Mic:I mean, I do appreciate that,
Lily:yeah, yeah. yeah. That's the point. Excellent.
James Mic:I mean, when you look at Rope, where they had nothing to smooth things out, it was literally, they could cut, and they did their best, and here, you can just really go to town, and plus, they've just got better at planning all these things.
Lily:but this was smoothed over with CGI, correct? Like
James Mic:I mean,
Lily:as well. Is that how they do it?
James Mic:I mean, yes, but I, I like to be a bit careful with the use in the word CGI cause CGI to me means like using 3d models, you know, making characters and monsters and stuff and building buildings. Then there's other compositing where yes, using computers, but you're just manipulating the 2d image, like in Photoshop.
Lily:Okay. So what are you saying? that's less mobile work than making characters. I feel like you're, you're bringing on a value judgment. Both are important parts of, especially, look, in the one take world, this, there is no higher art than smoothing those joins in Photoshop.
James Mic:There certainly was no judgement call, it's just like me being an incredibly nerdy person who wants to be like, well, CGI my head. When you say the word CGI it means 3D model stuff, and then
Lily:Okay.
James Mic:Anyway, who cares, computers, computers, yes.
Lily:I have to say, so in a way this, this film kind of stands out a little bit because it's less shaky than the others, right?
James Mic:Well, yeah, again, Russian arc was on Steadicam, but, um, but it was, because it was a genuine one take that, you know, you can't, when we
Lily:it was, it felt a bit shaky at times.
James Mic:exactly, it's a bit rougher, but whereas, because with, um, Medusa deluxe being shot in multiple parts, it meant that you, you did a 10 minute sustained run. And so if there's a problem on your, on that 10 minutes, you could realistically go back, reshoot them. You could also, for that 10 minute sequence, perhaps have the camera on a crane, so it will be rock solid. But then, and then when you do your transition. To another scene you then go back to handheld or steadicam. But yeah, there's much more precision in the camera work in this. It was very noticeable.
Lily:That was the problem for me was that it was so noticeable. I just kept thinking about what the camera was doing. I found it very distracting. And to be honest, I felt like the script wasn't so strong and the acting wasn't so strong. And so the,
James Mic:these are the problems with a one take, you know, if you have got, you can't cut around a performance. Um,
Lily:I feel like because of this one take thing, even though, like you said, they did it in parts, but I almost think that was maybe perhaps a bit why the actors were a bit. The delivery I felt at times was a bit stiff. I think, honestly, it might be partly because it was like a different way of filming than probably they, they're used to. You know, assuming these are all like TV and film actors more than theatre. I just got the sense that they were all a bit more like, Highly strung almost it didn't it just didn't feel as naturalistic. It did feel very stagy to me
James Mic:It did to me as well. I, um, and what was interesting was, was noticing the differences between this and Russian Ark and, and Victoria that we're going to talk about. But, I did feel that, I don't think it helped, but it was clear that everything had been ADR'd, so all of everybody's voice had been redubbed over. Very well done, uh, but I think, yeah, and I think that just, that just adds a distancing effect. Now, Interesting point to note when we talk about Victoria, they had three or four sound teams following all the different actors and they actually boomed the whole film so that all of the dialogue, as much as possible, was the natural dialogue they spoke, which I think really helps it's also performance as well, but there is just something a little bit artificial seeming about, when you have dubbed, dubbed voices.
Lily:Yeah. Oh my god. that's exactly what it is. I couldn't I couldn't really put my finger I was like, why does this feel not quite right? There were a few moments where people were making quite impassioned monologues and it felt It didn't feel quite right, and I think that was why, because, you know, no matter how good you are as an actor, that's always gonna, it's never gonna be quite as natural as in the moment, delivering
James Mic:yeah, yeah, absolutely. And also you remember when you, replace the line during a recording booth with a nice microphone in a soundproof booth, when you're on a set or on a location, you've got all the echo and all the different low, you know, that just sells it as real in a way that the ADR doesn't. So not only is it the ADR that I think is a distancing effect, but I think you've also kind of, you, you touched upon something perhaps that you couldn't, you felt, I mean, it's very stylized the film, but I just think that there was a point of view issue with this film because with a Russian arc, you know, you are essentially a ghost character. You hear the voice of the character you never see. So it's like, you are his point of view. You're that character, and you are experienced everything. This character is asking questions that you hear as voiceover Victoria that we're going to get to. it's all from Victoria's point of view. The camera never leaves Victoria. It's completely next to her all the time. but here with Medusa, the camera often follows one character or another. And that's just part of the storytelling. But I think maybe there's something about one take films that work much better, perhaps with just one point of view or following one story. Because, you know, often in Medusa, we have to get from one location to another and we just suddenly follow one character and move with them and it sometimes just pulls you a bit out of that particular moment, then you have to get into the next story with this new character you're following.
Lily:You've nailed it, babe. I hadn't thought of that. But that's definitely it. It's that every time we move from one character to another and we follow them around a corridor and they start talking to someone else, you just have this lag, this moment of where everything gets slowed down. And given that it's meant to be kind of a exciting murder mystery whodunit thing, That lack of pacing, I think, is a bit of a problem.
James Mic:Yeah, because suddenly, when people are just walking around, I mean, which I'm sure they would do on a murder scene, but because we're watching a murder mystery, just seeing people kind of walk around from one place quite calmly, they got stuff to do, just doesn't have the energy of a murder mystery, whereas if we were cutting from, we could cut quickly from one location to another location, we could give that sense of urgency of, where's the murderer, by cutting it that way, whereas here, that kind of leisurely camera move, just, Ha ha
Lily:though I kept thinking like, where are the police? They've been waiting around for hours. What are the
James Mic:ha one thing I would like to say about Medusa Dulux is it was clearly heavily influenced by one of my favorite failure films, which is One from the Heart, the neon drenched saturated colors, a direct riff on that, but also with One from the Heart, that's the film that Isn't it
Lily:Francis Ford Coppola. We're going to have to do it soon.
James Mic:Yeah, absolutely. It's on re release at the moment, I think. And, um, yeah. So, that film is a film that isn't one take, but it's made up of lots and lots of sustained, longer takes. So, the whole film is sequences that might last a couple of minutes, five minutes, and they're all stitched together. So, it has that feeling, and Even the way the camera moves, it's clearly an influence on Medusa Deluxe. especially there's a shot that kind of pulls out to reveal the entire of the, the location that they're in. And then it pushes in and flies into a window to pick up one of the characters. And that to me was almost identical from certain sequences within One from the Heart. So it was nice to see. I don't know. I wasn't expecting that, a riff on that film.
Lily:And I think you mentioned to me that we should also do an episode on, on movies with just long takes rather than one take because I bloody love a long take. I love it when, especially when it comes, you know, kind of, thinking about movies like Richard Linklater's, Before Sunset. trilogy. These long, long takes where two characters are just talking.
James Mic:Mmm. Ha ha ha
Lily:eat it right up. It's so good. It's so good. So I, and I, and it's like, you get the best of both worlds. You get to really hold with the character and be with them and it feel quite intimate and I don't know. It, it, it does something very special, but also we do get the, the freedom of, and the pacing of, of a cut. So yeah, we need to talk about it another time, but let us finish by talking about Victoria, because this is one of my favorite films of all time. Not just, I think the best one take movie that's been made. It's a bold statement, but Roshanak is incredible, incredible, but I think Victoria. In terms of marrying the story and storytelling. With this impressive technique, I guess. It, it, it nails it, right?
James Mic:Oh, I completely agree. Uh, Victoria was my favorite of the three and my first time watching Victoria. I've had, yeah, I'd heard about it probably since release, but for some reason just never quite got round to it. and same with all three of these films, actually, the films, because I'll be honest, I've never watched Russian art because I thought it would be like it was, which is, it's an incredible Marvel to watch, but I just thought it's probably going to be a bit distancing. And that's
Lily:Yeah, it, it does feel like a museum advert.
James Mic:Yeah, but it's, but
Lily:I'm glad I watched it, but I'm never gonna watch it again, that's for
James Mic:Yeah, exactly. But that's what I thought. I thought it'd be something to marvel at rather than something to fully be like, that was an incredible film. but Victoria, yeah, you're absolutely right. Because what they managed to nail so well are the characters and the kind of, they just, what you've got is a one take film that doesn't feel like a technical exercise. And that is the genius of it.
Lily:And that, exactly, because all these other films, you are so aware of the fact that it's a one take movie. and in that sense, arguably, does feel a little bit gimmicky, I guess. But with Victoria, it really doesn't feel that way. Just to give you a quick plot summary, if you haven't seen it, though, I, I kind of, I'm not going to say, I don't want to say too much because I honestly, the first time I watched it, I knew nothing. And speaking of Richard Linklater, the way the film begins, you meet Victoria, who's played by Lea Costa, a Spanish woman, who's, you meet her in Berlin in a club, and it's quite, you quite quickly can tell that she's quite lonely. She's trying to make And then she This guy starts speaking to her, um, Sonny, Son, Son, Sonny, yeah, sorry, my German pronunciation terrible, obviously, um, played by Frederick Lau. she kind of falls in with his gang. They're like four guys who are out on a night out, real Berliners, as they keep saying. initially. It does feel like a kind of before sunset type of movie and you kind of think it's just going to be that. And I was very happy with that because, you know, you, you get to know Victoria, you get to know these guys. It's so naturalistic the way the camera follows them. You're really not thinking, gosh, this camera has not been any cuts. you're just with it and with them and it feels very intimate and you can feel the fact that they're all a little bit Lost in their different ways, but then it goes in a completely surprising crazy direction and becomes a very, very different kind of film by the end of the film. And the whole time it's so exciting, it's like the energy of the fact that the film never cuts and the fact that they're trying to get it all in one take that infuses the acting and the performances of everyone and it gets become so heightened.
James Mic:You absolutely feel like you are in the middle of it. You feel like you are right there with Victoria. Like, like, I mean, for me, unfortunately, I did know. The gist of it, which I really wish I didn't, but that also has its own different thing because it's that Hitchcock thing of surprise and suspense. You know, if you know what's coming up, it's excruciating.
Lily:Yeah. Does add suspense. I mean, there is this tension from the beginning, but the tension is you're thinking, are these guys good or bad? You can't get the sense of like, are they nice guys or are they, are they should.
James Mic:they're rogans. Like, like, cause, cause I have to say, I found this film, I love this film. It's great. It's, it is a classic, but I found it excruciating to watch because it nails Berlin. It gets the atmosphere of that night out in Berlin, that energy that you could, you could leave at four in the morning and anything can happen. Now I've had. overwhelmingly positive, great experiences where I've had like random scripts, but you know, but I was watching this thinking, oh Victoria, come on, they're wrong uns. They're wrong uns, Victoria, don't do it.
Lily:But it's brilliant, that bit where she is in the cafe with Son, Sonny, and she tells, she plays piano and she tells him a bit of her backstory. And so you get this understanding that, oh, she's had this very controlled life and, She, there was a plan, and now that plan is, is over, and she's kind of looking for something. It kind of then makes sense as to why she, she follows completely a fucking crazy path. And you are thinking all the time, why on earth would she do this? it seems so clear that This is going to lead nowhere good, but she goes all in. And because you get this quieter moment where she kind of shares a bit about herself, it doesn't feel implausible. That's what's amazing. This film goes crazy and yet it all feels completely real and authentic, which is such a feat, you know?
James Mic:Because the first hour almost, almost the first hour is a character study. You know, it's a character piece. It's very gentle. that's, you know, you contrast as to what, what happens later. But yeah, I absolutely loved it because they, they, they cracked it being a one take, but also being a compelling story with characters you really care about and connect with. It doesn't feel this distancing exercise and then little details like the fact that, it was recorded with boom microphones as much as possible. So the dialogue just feels like it's in those environments. and also I loved the fact that they basically though they've got main characters, Spanish, uh, the other guys, uh, German. So they speak in English, the common language, which means that none of them are particularly native. Well, they're not, not fluent English speakers. They're not immaculate. So it means that any flubs and fuck ups, cause they often say the wrong word or the wrong line doesn't, you don't even think about it being a mistake that they've, they've made. It just sounds like, oh, they use the wrong word because they're having problems translating. Like for example, it goes into the cafe and goes, Oh, nice hotel. You've got here. And it's not. Cause obviously they go in a hotel later in the film and he laughs and corrects himself. I mean, cafe, but you don't buy it as though he said he messed up, you know, he just like, he got his English a
Lily:yeah. Well, I think what helped with that hugely is the fact that there was basically a, a skeleton script. They were, they were, they improv'd throughout and so it does feel totally naturalistic and yeah, but I, but yeah, I also remember, noticed that moment and loved it because it feels completely true to life of when people mess up when they're trying to speak, but you also know that it's a, But this is an actor trying to deliver a line. I don't know, that all adds to it. It's so fun. You've got the, because you've got these two things going on. You're really in the film and invested in the characters, but you're also thinking about it as this incredible performance and this tension of like, because apparently also there were, so the, the way that they filmed it was they, uh, there were initially did. a kind of a safe run, right? Where they filmed it in parts. I think you said it was 10 minute parts sections, right? Just to make sure that the, basically for their backers, financial backers that they could tell them like, yeah, don't worry, we've got the movie. But then after that they did three takes and the first take, it went kind of technically correctly, but there was no energy in the director. Um, Sebastian Skiffer Was not happy with it. So then he started to get really, really stressed and literally starts like yelling at the crew and the cast to like, come on, no, no, we need more energy. This needs to be like, there's no life in this. You've got to bring it. And so then in the second take, apparently they went too far and went. It was utterly bonkers, and it was way too much. So then the pressure starts to mount because like, Oh my God, we've only got this few hours left to get this movie right. So he's like getting really, really stressed. And like, apparently one of the cast members, they have like a proper huge fight and it's like really tense between them. He didn't disclose which one, but I have, I have my theory, um, I, I'm not saying it's this Rugger Whiskey plays Boxer, this main character. You'll, you'll know him from, um, Um, what's that film that you didn't like, but I loved the threesome film. What was it called? Uh,
James Mic:it's him, isn't it? Yeah Passengers Jesus Christ.
Lily:Passengers. Yes. You'll know
James Mic:did think I recognized right?
Lily:And he's also in great freedom, which is one of my favorites. movies of the last few years. It's a really incredible movie. So he's a fantastic actor. and he's really good in this. He's so good at playing a scary, a scary guy that you can't really trust. But anyway, that all aside, that final third take, they nailed it. And they, they filmed between, I think it was 4 30 and seven. And so it starts at night and then as the film progresses, the sun comes out and it's like sort of dawn by the time the film finishes, which again is just so incredible. The
James Mic:it's
Lily:of the film.
James Mic:It's so good because it is happening real time. There's been no cheat. So You never pulled out of it. You never like, Oh, that doesn't seem like the right time of day, or that must've been a different, you know, different day that they shot that. But even if you're not aware of it, you subconsciously be aware, but this is all actually happening, you know? And, uh, yeah. And then the sound effects, even the little bird tweeting as it's kind of morning time. They've just nailed what it's like to go out and have a wild night in Berlin, but then they've made it into this, horror story, you know, kind of terrifying horror story, which isn't actually what happens in Berlin most of the time, but it's almost like, oh god, that could have been me.
Lily:Yeah. Totally. Totally. The other thing I really wanted to point out is that they don't have editing to tell the story. So they use other things to do it. And one of the things is the use of music. So there are two points in the film where, Music comes in over and there's a scene where they're dancing in the club. They returned to the club and they danced there's an earlier moment as well. I forget where it is. Is it going up onto the, onto the roof?
James Mic:Yeah, no, it's when they're going, they're going into the lift
Lily:That's it. Exactly. Yeah. And so there are these moments where, you know, the dialogue is quiet and down. You can hear it faintly, but mainly it's just this kind of score coming in and it just gives us kind of. breath and pause and it kind of feels very emotional. And you just have this like moments, like process where we've got to in the film and everything that's come so far. And, and I feel like it's a great way of adding some pacing to the movie because it is a very, it's two hours and 20 minutes. It's a long movie. You know, it's going at such speed through all these different scenes, despite there not being any cuts. So it's great to have those, those points, I think, in between. Well, it was actually quite a plot heavy movie in the end.
James Mic:oh yeah, absolutely. managed to get the pacing right. I mean, this is where they did clearly the, the calls that they made as far as where they can slow things down and how you slow it down. They really nailed it. I mean, and you know, it's just so impressive because the Russian arc is incredible, but I hate saying, but it's not really a book, but there's something about the fact that it's all set in one place in a museum that just,
Lily:The same with Medusa Deluxe as well. I felt like, oh, it feels a bit almost claustrophobic and a bit tiring to basically just be in the one, Plays.
James Mic:but Victoria just goes all out. It goes into clubs, into cafes and rooms and, uh, you know, just
Lily:Yeah, car parks. We, I don't want to say any more, but various different play. Yeah, you're right. You're right. I just don't know how he did it. So, so incredible.
James Mic:It's very, very impressive work. And I have to say, shout out to the cinematographer. Oh my God. It's Norwegian cinematographer. I should have checked with Bjorn on the pronunciation here. Sturla Brandt Grovlen. Uh, sorry about that. Anyway, Grovlen. It's got a little dash through the is. Oh, anyway. Um, but yeah, but he, he was in front of it and Oh my God. Like you've got to think he was, he was working nonstop. I mean, he didn't have steady cam. He was doing it handheld. The other two are on steady camera on tracks. This is this handheld camera. And to begin with, he had the, the director kept saying to him, the no, you've got to, you've not got to be preempting what's happening. You've got to think like a war photographer. You've got to be reacting to what's happening around you. So that was the thing that he was being told by his director was like, be in the moment, even though we've done it loads of times, you've got to just completely be seen it all fresh. And he also did something similar with the actors improvisations. He said, look, We're doing three versions, you know, we're doing that three takes in total. But what I don't want you to do is to remember all your greatest hits from the previous takes, like that really funny line or that Zynga, because you've got to forget all that. It's got to be new each time, which again, pretty hard to do. One of his rules of improvisation said, I don't want you to say the same story or the same thing over and over again. Now, you know, everything's got to be new every time you come back to it.
Lily:God, I would actually love to, I'd love to have a release of the first two takes. Just, just have a quick look out of, look out of interest. I want to see that crazy take.
James Mic:I know. I know. Because it, because it's pretty, it gets pretty crazy in this take, I
Lily:Yeah, exactly. I'm like, I can only imagine how crazy that second take was. Yeah, honestly, it's such a great movie. I strongly, strongly recommend it. I'm so glad we've talked about Wandshake movies this episode as a reason to talk about Victoria because I think it is just an incredible, incredible
James Mic:It's, it's incredible film. Yeah. I, I absolutely loved watching that one. It got me so excited. Um, and, and also just to point out, it is now officially the, Longest single take film in the history of cinema,
Lily:Round of applause for Victoria. Very
James Mic:quite the, that's quite the achievement, you know, for, for two hours, for over two hours, nearly two hours.
Lily:minutes. It's bonkers. Totally bonkers that it would go on that long. And, you know, normally I complain about a long movie, but in this case, I think, bravo. That's, it's all good. Okay, so, shall we take a trip to the film pharmacy?
James Mic:Absolutely.
Lily:Okay. So we have this entry. I just read an article about Scorsese's 10 worst films and it got me thinking, is there a director with a flawless back catalogue? And if so, should I watch it from start to finish? I will say that I then did a cursory Google and I found said articles. I believe it was an article in Far Out, um, which I must say is a very good website for articles about. I often use their resources. So I'm going to put a link in the show notes, but yeah, James, what do you think? Is there a director with a flawless back catalogue?
James Mic:I mean, obviously, I can't even say the director who first comes to mind. I'm not going to. You know I'm not going to.
Lily:Go on. No, you can. You can. What If we have a first, we might have a first time listener
James Mic:Well, I would say, yeah, but what I want to do is reward long time listeners because they'll get the joke and then incentivize newbies to go and discover which director that would be. But, the point is, I mean, my knowledge of films has its limits and I just don't think I know enough about enough directors for that. However, what I would say is you can have a lot of fun just picking a director you like and just watching all their films in chronological order. So, for example, about 12 years ago, myself and a friend, we just every Sunday we met up and we'd watch every film that Francis Ford Coppola directed from the very first one. His very first film, one is a Roger Corman. Black and white horror film called Dementia 13 that was shot in, shot in the Republic of Ireland in six days or something like that. And it's mad. And then you watch his career progress. And he does a musical with Tommy Steele called Finian's Rainbow. And she's like, what do you do? What, what's happening, Francis? And that's where he met George Lucas on the set of that. So anyway, so I would, I strongly Francis Ford Coppola's, films in order is good fun.
Lily:It is good fun, but it certainly is not a flawless back catalogue. And I think
James Mic:no, no, no. Sorry. It's a.
Lily:so great. and the same with Scorsese. I think that actually what makes a great director is not a flawless back catalogue, but as someone takes risks and has variation in their oeuvre, so I applaud them. But I actually, having said that, one of my favourite directors, I would argue, does pretty much have a flawless back catalogue, which is Paul Thomas Anderson. And I think the secret to success is he's only made nine movies in his career, so little, but do them well, I think, is the, is the, It's the secret to success, because I mean, you know, just to run through them, Boogie Nights, Magnolia, There Will Be Blood, The Master, Phantom Thread, Licorice Pizza, most recently, I mean, some of those movies are my all time favorites, and, there's a consensus amongst critics that these are great movies, so I do think he is a good example, but other than that, it's like, just go for a few, like I was thinking, Rose Glass, Excellent, pristine back catalog. She's only made two movies.
James Mic:I, I think you're quite right. I think Paul Thomas Sanders is a great suggestion for a flawless back catalogue. But I almost think, you'll have fun because each film is a classic in its own right. but is it going to be as entertaining as watching, like, a rollercoaster director? Like, I think Francis Ford Coloppo, you get the highs and the lows, you know?
Lily:what is amazing is a really genius director being given the bandwidth, the long lead to make huge, huge, what did you, what were you calling them when we were discussing an episode on flops? Uh,
James Mic:Oh, um, uh, Follies.
Lily:yeah. Fantastic follies. It was something along this lines, you great follies, you know, like really going for it and and kind of failing hard. And I think a in this day and age, it's tough for new directors to come up and be given that and also for women directors, you know, these are all Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorsese are two of are considered two of the greats, five. and They have some terrible, terrible movies in the back catalogue. And I just don't think there are any women directors who would be put in the same league as them if they'd had these kind of bombs. And we have to let people have some bombs in amongst the like, huge successes.
James Mic:Oh yeah, ab absolutely.
Lily:Sorry, I just got on a soapbox then, but I just suddenly got very impassioned about the whole thing.
James Mic:I, I
Lily:I believe in failure! It was a very Elizabeth Day of me, you know. We've got to be allowed to fail, guys. That is how we learn. And you're right, it's entertaining as well.
James Mic:Yeah, I mean, if you do work your way through Coppola's back catalog, by the time you finished his last film, Twixt, you'll be ready and up and running for Megalopolis. Ha
Lily:Exactly, I was thinking that. we've got a movie that could potentially be another great flop or it could be an absolute smash. Who knows? A complete triumph. I can't wait to see it to find out.
James Mic:Yeah,
Lily:Well, this is making me feel inspired to do another, kind of flops episode. So I think we should do that because I'm, it's, it's time. I want to see after hours. I want to see One from the heart.
James Mic:Come on. Let's do it.
Lily:Okay. Great. All right. Well, on that note, thank you guys for listening to another episode of groovy movies.
James Mic:Thank you as always. And if you could leave, find your way to leaving us a five star review or give us a like, it all helps get the podcast out to bigger audience. Bye.