There are 12 comments. October 4, Brandt Hardin. October 7, October 10, October 14, October 18, October 30, Please click below to consent to the use of this technology while browsing our site. Close Privacy Overview This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website.
Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies.
But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience. Necessary Necessary. Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly.
This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information. Non-necessary Non-necessary. Silent House, a newer film, uses the same "continuous shot" editing technique. I liked the movie and enjoy these types of methods.
The choreography to get the shots has to be spot on. Excellent point. Though there's no post-production editing or little, essentially the staging and movement become the editing. Even when there is a hard cut, it happens when someone interjects into a conversation and attention is then drawn to that person much like the attention of the listening characters who's attentions are drawn to the new person.
Rope is also a good example of past censorship of invisible minorities. Back then you weren't allowed to show a gay character as "normal" so there's no mention of it. This was also the case with Blacks and Asians back then. The two leads are obviously a same-sex couple and we can easily read that into it today but I wonder back then who clued in to that. It might have been great and something special back in that day, but I think it looks and works terrible. Especially the "dissolves" are annoying So I left with the feeling I think there's a place for long takes and a place for rapid cuts.
But that Hitchcock thing, may he rest in peace, has no place in my world. I think it's important to know where our contemporary techniques come from. Hitchcock is only one of the early users of handheld filmmaking and the editing style that came out of it.
Regarding the origin of techniques, a "hitlist" of who did what in the pioneering days would be great as a future post! Many thanks. He could have avoided the dissolves except the amount of film they could spool was limited 10 minutes I believe. If Mr. Hitchcock has access to today's digital cameras, I believe he would have done away with some of the "invisible" transitions.
Rope has five projection reels, and the four cuts in question are easily identifiable thanks to the reel change marks visible in the top right corner of the frame, a few seconds prior to the end of each reel. As for the transitions required exclusively by the change of film magazines, of which there are five instances, they are accomplished with relatively obtrusive camera movements, until the screen blacks out for a second on a character's back.
This adds up to 9 cuts. There are three additional cuts, in the first and last projection reels, varying in degrees of visibility, for a total of 12 cuts, or 13 takes in Rope.
Certainly, this is a far cry from the myth of the one take film which has kept circulating through the years. There is only one shot in the entire film: the camera follows the characters though the various rooms of the apartment where the action takes place, without there being the slightest fragmentation" 45 translation mine.
Reading more critical reviews of the film reveals that when the existence of separate long takes is acknowledged, the five conventional straight cuts are rarely ever mentioned. This lack of precision is all the more surprising when one considers that Claude Chabrol and Eric Rohmer had already correctly identified the strategy of alternating cuts in Rope in , less than ten years after the film's initial release In their early study of Hitchcock's films, they state: "Every other transition is accomplished on the back of a jacket.
The rest of the time, eyeline matches are used, thereby cheating literally, if not figuratively, for it is these latter cuts which end up being less noticeable" In a footnote, Chabrol and Rohmer go on to explain that since the precise synchronization required from projectionists for the hidden cuts could not be reasonably guaranteed, this led to the use of classical reverse-shots every meters or so, that is, at each change in projection reels. The logic behind the one-take idea appears to be not so much narrative identification, but rather a demonstration of technical virtuosity, of showmanship.
Hitchcock himself admitted to Truffaut that he "undertook Rope as a stunt" According to Donald Spoto, Hitchcock sought not only to impress his peers, but especially to prove to David Selznick that his idea could work Lewis were all produced during this period. To explain the apparent paradox in the perception of the shot transitions in Rope , I will appeal chiefly to the logic of narrative causality, and the impact of historically established filmic codes.
The straight cut is meant to signal. Thus, the viewer barely notices it. Today, we are so familiar with montage that no one would ever think of qualifying such an ordinary and general manipulation as a form of trucage or special effect " , [translation mine].
The status of "special effect" is perhaps precisely what the hidden cuts were seeking to attain.
0コメント