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]

[–] BloodBarn 13 years ago

did you think about the logistics of someone sneezing after a 1 hour shot ? come on it's just not worth the risk. you have to cut.

Your poetry will now be written with blood

[–] HuGoL1101 12 years ago

Yet, this is possible. Have you seen the film RUSSIAN ARK ?
This is a single take movie. The fourth take was successfull.
This is incredible because of the ammouth of details in that movie!!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318034/

[–] BloodBarn 12 years ago

no I haven't seen it, I'll check it out. I'm not saying it's not possible. i'm just saying you can achieve the same effect while cheating. Like Hitchcock in the rope.

Your poetry will now be written with blood

[–] HuGoL1101 12 years ago

I approve that we can achieve the same effect while cheating, but it was a poor publicity to lie about that fact. But cinema is cheating life anyway so I don't mind much the cheating.

But I didn't like Silent House anyway. Not that it was totally bad, there was some qualities to it. Just not got moved.

[–] BloodBarn 12 years ago

I wasn't aware that they said it was one continuous shot in the ads, I don't really watch trailers, my bad.

I liked the film a lot up until the last act, wich ruined everything for me.

Your poetry will now be written with blood

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Eddie_Riggs 13 years ago

It would be stupid to get angry over something so relatively unimportant.

[–] chrisrocknroll 12 years ago

"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."

I'm sincerely impressed if this is only 12-14 cuts, or whatever I heard. To expect the whole movie to be 1 shot is unreasonable. Hitchcock directing Jimmy Stewart couldn't even pull that off. It would be stupid to try. Imagine getting 80 minutes in (on the 20th) take when Elizabeth Olson botches a line and they have to start all over--that would just be a foolish approach and a colossal waste of money. If that makes you angry then maybe, you should probably develop a second personality and take care of whatever issues are really behind your frustration (hopefully it doesn't involve a bathtub full of empties).

"Don't unform, you're a great mob. We'll think up something else to get upset about." Moe Sizlack

[–] Blackace 12 years ago

I actually didn't care if it was 1 shot or 100, as the movie was so bad I didn't even want to watch the rest of it. The acting was horrendous by all of them really. Sure Elizabeth did a little better then the male actors, but that isn't saying much at all. He incredible lame facial expressions started getting on my nerves. I just wanted to reach into the screen and smack her back to her senses. I'm glad I didn't pay any money to see this. I just got the DVD of Netflix and will be sending it back today so I can get something I really wanted to see. Stay away from this bomb.

[–] zcajack 12 years ago

I for one, and actually glad they didn't 'really' do it in one cut.
Besides all the rather draining physical challenges to the cast/crew, I really do not see any real value added to a movie for the length of it's shots.
Making it look like a long continuous shot was an interesting way if making it feel as if we were following along with Sarah, trapped as she is.
While they did have to use some artifice to maintain that illusion, I don't mind.
I did think Ms Olsen's performance was rather good, and I did appreciate while hand-held, the camera work was more fluid than the 'shaky-cam' approach to trying to make things look 'real'.
All-in-all, story wasn't the strongest, but it was respectable enough to give the actors something to work from.
After any number of films with ASL's dropping into the sub 5's 4's and (shudder) 3's, It's nice to see a film take more time.

On the flip side, for a 96 minute, all-in-one, Check out Russian Ark
( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318034 )

A full length all-in-one-shot film -can- be done, yes, I'm just not convinced it would have -added- anything to this one.

[–] randomlynx 12 years ago

Would have been awesome if they could pull it off :(

[–] Celestina_24 12 years ago

What movie could possibly done in one shot? You know there are bloopers..breaks needed..technical difficulties...

Im in Jamaica with the keys under palm trees & the leperchaun sees what my palm reads