Klaus wrote:
Same. I'm yet to see it work anywhere. I haven't seen Victoria but I can't think of a single instance throughout the history of film, from Rope to Russian Ark, where films shot as unbroken sequences have had the intended effect on the viewer. It's not immersive; it's immersive-breaking after a while. It's just antithetical to the medium.
I know that you're talking about entire films, but if narrative immersion is your goal, then you'll likely fail with long takes. However, some of the greatest moments in cinema have been from using that strategy. Good example is I am Cuba by Kalatozov. It's not antithetical to the medium at all, it's something that only becomes meaningful because of the ability to cut, and so is integral to what makes anything cinematic. So many new wave films have used it to great effect. Antonioni, Fassbinder, etc. Godard's Le Mepris, Bela Tarr's films, Tarkovsky! One of my favorite things to see is a beautiful choreographed and well executed long take that strains every filmmaking muscle the cast and crew have got. It's great to watch. Russian Ark is dull and empty, it bit off more than it could chew. Rope is the same, very dull. But that's not inherent to the strategy, I don't think. It's inherent to those filmmakers, who I have little interest in regardless of the long take attempts. I don't think Birdman did a particularly bad job of it, I didn't even really see it as a long take but just a fun way to cut and play with ideas between signifier/signified.
Then again, I'm rarely ever "immersed" in any film in terms of its diegesis. I'm immersed in the medium itself, sometimes, but almost never in whatever it claims to be representing. Too many years making, studying, and teaching it to really forget about its surface.
