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/

[–] aimalasplace 13 years ago

I was really disappointed when I found out that the Blair Witch Project recovered films found in the woods. I saw it in the theater when it first came out, no one knew it wasn't fake. They will say anything to get you to the theater.

[–] Indifferent_Observer 13 years ago

Noone knew Blair Witch was fake when it came out? lol...okay.

I really don't care how many takes it took. Irrelevant. Plus the whole 1 take thing has already been done in horror.

[–] max7171 12 years ago

"I was really disappointed when I found out that the Blair Witch Project recovered films found in the woods. I saw it in the theater when it first came out, no one knew it wasn't fake. They will say anything to get you to the theater."

Recovered films found in the woods? That was bullsh*t, it was part of the movie. They didn't really find lost films in the woods. And Uh I'm sorry but people did know it was fake. Shortly before, or it might of even been a little after the movie came out, The Chicago Tribune did an interview with Heather Donahue, Joshua Leonard, and Michael Williams and they talked about and revealed everything that they did and how they did it. They themselves said that it was not real.

[–] jcarrig 13 years ago

I only read the first page of this thread so it's possible someone's already said it but:

No, it wasn't technically possible for them to do this movie in one take, and the reason is the camera they used.

It can only shoot for 12 minutes at a time.

It's as simple as that!

[–] theevilmonkeycmp3 12 years ago

What's funny is Hitchcock did the same thing for Rope and it's hailed at a great movie. I find it funny how people suddenly have a problem with this, plus, you didn't need to know everything about this chick, it begins with her just at a moment in her life, and it ends with her at a moment in her life, told from her point of view. You got enough to know what was going on and happened to her, you didn't need to know a ton about her to feel for her character. You sacrifice some when you tell a story from a first person perspective but the filmmakers were able to make this story work and explain what they needed to without it pushing the limits of believability.

One mans wife was another mans slut This has been a MomentofTruth brought to you by TheEvilMonkey.

[–] StoneGriffin 13 years ago

(a) no, only a fool with no knowledge of filmmaking would believe that a true 90 minute film (that is a narrative and not avante garde) could be shot in one continuous take.

(b) With film it would have been impossible. Even with digital technology it would be extremely difficult.

(c) anyone who is surprised that there are hidden cuts obvious has never handled a video camera of any type before.......

Dr. Kila Marr was right. Kill the Crystalline Entity.

[–] ben-iland 13 years ago

Absolutely correct. Hitchcock's Rope is a prime example of this. And that is a fantastic film

[–] StoneGriffin 13 years ago

Yes. And I've HELD a film camera like the one for ROPE before. It's damned heavy. I'm tired holding it for ten minutes. My arms started to shake once with a much lighter camera when I had to hold a shot for a long time. But, unlike you, a lot of folks didn't even know that film magazines were never 90 minutes long LOL. And even high def cameras like the RED would have trouble moving all over the place and it would fill up it's memory cards pretty darned fast.

Dr. Kila Marr was right. Kill the Crystalline Entity.

[–] earl687 13 years ago

That last point is really a big part of the point here, this canon is very small and relatively easy to carry. But I totally agree with you otherwise.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PamerEldritch 13 years ago

Seriously you need to think about what you're suggesting. It is not possible to make a film in a single take. Aside from the logistics of how many times it would have to be shot before a "perfect" take was achieved there is the question of the length of a can of film. Are you also disappointed that it's not real/

Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?

[–] earl687 13 years ago

I personally think it is more important to focus in on the merits of the film. This was quite good too, I mean I was VERY very impressed. Ususally, when you see the universal stamp at the beginning of the movie, get ready to see some cheesy horror. This really broke that mold, in a very effective way. I did see the south american version (was it paraguay?), and that one was better, but this was very good as well, and i'm sure glad I saw them both.

As to the one cut stuff, they are giving the feeling of a single cut, and I think that is the point. And they did an amazing job with it. I have actually been on movie sets before, and know people in the industry, and even 4 or 5 minute scenes are very complex and difficult. This should be obvious as we hardly ever see long scenes, right. In any event, great job, fantastic little film, and the one cut feel is definitely there and well executed.... yet sure, I see how one could feel slighted in the "one cut" marketing. The truth is though it is just not even practical or viable in any way to "sell" a feature length movie to execs as one cut, I mean you can't really execute it, and nobody would give you money for it.... it just isn't done as it would invariably turn out to be a disaster. You probably have to do at least 4 or 5 takes I would think, and the urge to cut out parts where things went wrong and splice in others where things went perfect would be too great also. Anyway... interesting discussion.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cacophony-2 13 years ago

I would have been disappointed if it had been shot in a single take. There would have been too many plot holes if it had.

The plot of the movie prevented it being done with one continuous take. Our perspective for the entire movie is from the point of view of Sarah.

However, it is clear that Sarah only sees part of the picture until later in the story.

If it had been filmed in one continuous take, there would not have been any opportunity for the other aspects of Sarah's personality to do the things that she was not equipped to do.

[–] ilon 13 years ago

Really?

Don't you know how complicated it would be to have a 90 minutes shot?

Sometimes is hard to do a 1 sec shot.

The pressure over the entire crew would be enormous, I'd say unbearable.

[–] WeedWhacker 13 years ago

I actually couldn't stand the mimicking of a continuous shot. I found myself looking for cuts.