MovieChat Forums > Silent House (2012) Discussion > Anyone else angry that the movie is not ...

Anyone else angry that the movie is not really done in one shot?

posted 13 years ago by dbhanson1129
85 replies | jump to latest

I really liked the movie and saw the debates about it being one shot or not. I found an interview where the Directors mention that it is about 10 shots with hidden edits.

That really irritates me as I paid attention for cuts and there didn't need to be any. Sure, there are times when the screen goes pretty much black and there would be very easy for them to put a cut at those moments. Still that doesn't prove anything one way or the other. The film-makers could have lied and said it was one shot and I don't think they could have been proven wrong.

What is really frustrating is that it totally COULD HAVE BEEN done in one shot. There is nothing about the logistics that would have prevented that. Anyway I still like the movie but now I am disappointed that it isn't what I thought it was.

You can see my review that was written before I knew about the cuts here :

http://www.youdontknowjersey.com/2012/03/movie-review-silent-house/

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] clint-taylor 13 years ago

hahaha this made me laugh

[–] Defenseman13 12 years ago

Fear Network just advertised this movie as being done in one single cut. WHat a jip.

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm2339870/

[–] devilsreject85 13 years ago

They were, a lot of awkward pans around doors or around rooms. Shots that wouldn't be in a movie, unless they were hiding a cut during the pan by freezing the camera in place and preparing for the next take. I enjoyed it, but saw some of the outcome coming from the beginning.

I went to see this because the trailer had the flashbulb scenes which reminded me of Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Stay Violent.

[–] SDReels 13 years ago

Exactly. When the camera pans around the two girls hugging in the beginning of the movie when they were in the doorway.. I instantly knew that's what they did. The doorway was definitely not wide enough to fit the two actors, and the camera/cameraman in that doorway.

Sabrina Dungan

[–] electrictroy 12 years ago

They did the same thing with the X-Files "one take" episode..... inserted a lot of obvious cuts. Marketers need to stop lying.

[–] totti127 13 years ago

No *beep* Sherlock!!!

LET ME BE THE ONE THAT SHINES WITH U-OASIS

[–] Eve_of_Destruction 13 years ago

You are so charming

**
Cici: "Oh, I'm sorry my bad, I thought you were someone else".
Ghost Face: "That's OK, I am"

[–] SmallNic 13 years ago

It doesn't irritate me. I went in having overheard it was in done in one take, so I watched for cuts but didn't see any. I was super-impressed thinking it had been in one take, but once I learned, I just felt disappointed. But not frustrated.

And yeah, technically it could have been done in one take, but can you imagine how difficult that would be for everyone involved, particularly how draining that would have been on Elizabeth Olsen? I can't be upset that they didn't do it.

Cool review. I totally agree with everything you said about Olsen. Great actress. Great performance. Check out my review if you want: http://www.smallnic.com/?p=579

I'm the Antichrist. You got me in a vendetta kind of mood.

[–] dbhanson1129 13 years ago

Great review! Very thorough and well thought out.

I agree about the lack of characterization at the beginning but by the end I realized that they probably didn't want to give background on the characters as it might have given away too many hints at the ending.

I also felt the same way about the heart pounding suspense. I got that rare feeling of edge of your seat tension and experiencing what the charater does.

Angry is probably too strong a word. I was more disappointed than anything else. I was more upset that the Directors gave away the fact that there were edits. I realized while watching that there were places they could have easily edited it but I wanted to believe it was all one take.

But none of this takes away from the fact that I feel it is a very solid and well made horror/suspense movie. I still really liked it.

[–] martytamu27 13 years ago

I was wondering the same thing going in. I had heard some murmurs about one long tracking shot of a movie, but nah I saw the parts where the hidden cuts were at. Doesnt take much to slip a cut in.
It would have been VERY hard to do a movie in one shot this long. there would have to be no missteps at all. not worth the effort. that is saying if it was evne possible.

[–] mikeyflatley 13 years ago

It is possible and its called live theater

I live, I love, I slay, and I'm content

[–] martytamu27 13 years ago

Whatever. There's breaks in theater. And how many plays have u seen where the main character is onstage for an hour and a half and doesn't make one mistake?
A movie has to look more polished. There can't be the forgivable little mistakes that one has in theater.

[–] carsonnik 13 years ago

Are you really going to compare a theatre performance to the filming of a movie? Just use your brain for a second and think about the technical and spatial logistics that would need to be overcome to shoot an 85 minute film in one single take. It HAS been done before, to my knowledge, only once(possibly a couple more times) but it is not feasible or realistic to expect a film production to do it, and it's not worth the logistical nightmares and hassle.

I can however see a film like 12 Angry Men or any other film taking place in a single location that has roots in theatre to pull it off.

[–] jewelsb129 13 years ago

Yes, but live theater is on only one stage. A movie is usually shot over days, weeks, even months, and sometimes in different locations. Some shots may have been taken in a studio as where some were in an actual house. You never know. There are so many people that make up the cast and crew involved to make a movie that it is literally impossible to make a major motion picture, that's worth anything, in one shot. It simply can't be done. What if there was a mistake, or the director wanted to go another direction and had to cut toward the end? LOL! They would have to start all over again. That is why theater and film should never mix and will forever be different, if not polar opposites.

[–] frejdis 13 years ago

It is possible and it's called "Russian Ark": http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318034/

[–] max7171 12 years ago

Uh your argument doesn't hold any water seeing as it was done in the original so obviously it's not that hard to do. Of course, since there's an American remake, we now have all these questions and doubts that the original Urgyuan film didn't bring out in people. So that in itself should tell you something.

The only issue I would imagine them having in doing one continuous shot would be lighting. That and obviously it would not allow you to have any major jumps in time. Other than that it's very possible to do.

[–] Ronny_the_effin_bear 13 years ago

I found an interview where the Directors mention that it is about 10 shots with hidden edits.

Link?

[–] Lupin-III 13 years ago

I'M *beep* FURIOUS ABOUT IT. RABBLERAH!

[–] krissykins 13 years ago

It looked like one shot to me.

I thought it was really well made.

[–] historyprofbrad 13 years ago

Actually, I was more upset by the total lack of backstory and Elizabeth's Olsen's inability to carry the film by herself. I fluctuated back and forth between total boredom and utter frustration. This could have been so much better.

[–] naborneo 13 years ago

Actually "logistically" it could not be done in one take... at least with the equipment they we're using. The 5D MarkII has a peak recording time of ~12 minutes/4GB.

I have yet to hear them say it was done in one take, I have only heard other people say that about the movie. It's meant to appear in real-time, so they made it look like one long shot... Except for the ending, I thought the movie was done really well.

[–] naborneo 13 years ago

Here they talk about the takes that were involved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YB45DcwWAk#t=03m23s

[–] dbhanson1129 13 years ago

I have used the 5D Mark II and I own the 7D and I know that 12 minutes is the limit. I thought they had used other equipment to film this movie. There are ways to shoot 88 minutes all in one take.

I first saw this film on November 9th, 2011 at a movie screening and at that time I was informed that it was all shot in one take. That was also confirmed to me by the statement in the trivia section of the IMDB which stated:

'The entire movie was shot in one continuous real-time take, with no cuts from start to finish.'

That was a pretty straightforward statement. It actually still said that last night when I looked at it but it was just changed this morning to:

'The entire movie was shot to mimic one continuous real-time take, with no cuts from start to finish. It was shot in roughly 10 minute segments then edited to hide the cuts.'

I totally see where you are coming from because the advertisements I have seen on TV only say one 'sequence' and of course the interviews with the Directors say 10 takes. I guess the producers shied away from the 'one take' angle because they knew they could be caught in a lie if people could clearly point out the cuts.

Don

http://www.youdontknowjersey.com/2012/03/movie-review-silent-house/

[–] jewelsb129 13 years ago

Do you honestly believe everything you hear or read? Even Newscasters lie DAILY! They get stories and facts wrong all the time, report it, then just change it later and say, "Oops." Have you not played the "telephone game" when you were little? Things get misconstrued all the time. Oh and hey btw, did you know there is a cure for cancer now? Lol! (See?)

[–] BuffWin 13 years ago

The editing is obvious if you watch the making of Cloverfield they explain the same cuts. When they cut to Sarah walking outside but the scan past the door, and other scenes where you only see stationary objects, are cuts. It's very easy to make cuts when there are stationary items because they obviously don't move so you can stop in one spot, and resume from the same place without it looking obvious. Also when she was running around outside, cuts were made. And time you have a blurry, slightly out of focus image, filmmakers can easily make cuts. This movie didn't do as bad with cuts as some people say, it was well done. I don't believe they should have advertised as one, it's obvious to people who studied film to see cuts. Feature length uncut films are nearly impossible. I think they should have stuck with it being "real time", but uncut most definitely not.