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/

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 12 years ago

No. What made me more "angry" was that it was filmed Blair Witch Project style even though there was no need for it to be. I'm not a fan of that cinematography style.

Anyway, the logistics involved for filming a 90-minute movie like this all in one shot are very difficult, not to mention that if the slightest thing goes wrong--either with a performance or technically/with set-ups, props, special effects, etc., then they'd have to do the entire film over.

If it's 90 minutes (I know it's a bit shorter, but just hypothetically), you might get 87 minutes in, have some screw-up, then have to do the whole thing over again.

Even if there are no obvious screw-ups, the director and actors are always going to feel that some parts of a performance were done better than others. If the whole thing is really one shot, then there would be some parts of the one performance captured that they feel aren't as good as those same parts in other "takes" of the entire film (or those parts in botched takes that weren't finished because something went wrong before they got to the 90 minute mark).

Personally, I think that even the claim that the whole thing was really just 10 shots is probably bogus (and it would be really impressive technically if it was just 10 shots). There are a ton of places where they could have made cuts. But it's a marketing tactic to claim that it's similar to Hitchcock's Rope in this respect.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] Jakealope 12 years ago

There is no way you can do a movie that long in one shot

[–] judd_clarke 12 years ago

I think a film like 'Jumanji' or 'Around the World in 80 days' could be done in one shot. Maybe even 'Saving Private Ryan' or 'Shanghai Knights'.

All these could have been done in one shot and I am quite angry that the respective film-makers couldn't pull their collective heads out their asses long enough to make it happen.

www.igloooftheuncanny.blogspot.com

[–] max7171 12 years ago

They did it in the original...so it's really not that hard to believe.

[–] cldne2000 12 years ago

Oh wow, Im gonna have to check out the original then. Im expecting a much lower budget feel then perhaps, or some mistakes, occurrences they couldn't control (like background noises from ambulances or police). Of course that can be edited in post but its much harder to edit out visual mistakes so Ill be looking for those. Thanks for the info, I had no idea they actually did that in 1 shot for real.

[–] RayRoman 12 years ago

Yep, I noticed this within the first minute. As time went on I was looking out for the cuts and realized about 5 minutes in there probably wasn't going to be any. As an editor, I had fun picking out where hidden edits could have been. Another film that does this is 'Rope' directed by Alfred Hitchcock, I think there's only 8 cuts in the film. I enjoyed Silent House, there were times early on (Spoiler Alert) where I thought this is all probably in her mind, or she is probably the crazy one since the entire film was from her perspective.

[–] andrewblack84 12 years ago

interestingly they chose to shoot on the 5d mark 2, the same camera the original was shot on. this is a rather strange choice as it only has the ability to shoot for 12 minutes at a time, max. they could have gotten around the absolute, definitive certainty that it wasnt shot in 1 take by choosing a different camera, lol.

[–] eh-earle 12 years ago

Erm...are you sure that doesn't depend on how big your memory card is? Pretty sure you can shoot for longer than 12 minutes on a 5D. Otherwise that's a ridiculous restriction

[–] RayRoman 10 years ago

True, I own a Canon Rebel T5i and I think it allows about 14 minute takes.. But there's no interruption with the recording, it continues seamlessly onto the next clip.

[–] eh-earle 12 years ago

Okay, seriously. I ask you: have you ever tried to make a movie? Of any type, ever? If so, ever tried to direct a series of actors to get through a 2 minute scene without any cuts, with dialogue, with a bunch of complicated camera movements in a darkened set? How about directing a DOP to do that? And a lighting guy to follow them, so they're lit properly at all times? All at once? Now try doing that...for 10 minutes. I thought not. I'm just saying, it's pretty impressive. I'm pretty sure that if someone claimed to have done that for a 70 minute film, I'd call *beep* It's not possible.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]