How a Long Take Can Fail

Watch all my videos ad-free and get exclusive content on Nebula: go.nebula.tv/thomasflight
(Signing up using my link supports my channel)
Long tracking shots are one of the most unique tools that a director and cinematographer have at their disposal. But while they can be used to elevate a scene, they can also hurt a scene and break a viewers immersion.
// New York Times Anatomy of a Scene Video: • Anatomy of a Scene | '...
// If you have feedback or inquiries please send me and email: [e-mail]
TWITTER: / thomasflight
WEBSITE: www.thomasflight.com
Letterboxd: letterboxd.com/thomasflight/
MUSIC: United by TONEZPRO: / united
// sponsorship and business inquiries: [e-mail]
// questions, feedback, press, or anything else: [e-mail]
#VideoEssay #ThomasFlight

[@Dutchyman]

This is the most respectfully disagreeing comment section I've ever seen.

[@fenixfiretime]

Yes its brilliant haha

[@UNSTABLE111]

I wish star wars fans were like this with the last jedi..., case in point a more valid opinion , " I disagree with Luke's progression as character from what he was in return of the jedi all the way to the sequel trilogy" instead of that, we get "derp derp derp damn sjw derp derp, agenda derp derp ruined the franchise"

[@detoxwithp-talksofficial6868]

ive realized that humanity can still be good

[@dustinforet9168]

While I agree that we were able to more efficiently see Glass's POV, I don't think the cuts kept the emotional tension of the scene up very well. Slowness builds tension when choreographed right. With the four edits it felt like "Poof. There's Glass. Poof. There's the Native Americans. Poof Glass is gone." With the long take it makes me nervous for Glass himself, constantly wondering where he is in relation to the natives and (actually, lol) the rocks.

[@vinayseth1114]

Well said.

[@ianblackburn2645]

i agree but i do think that at least one cut is needed as panning twice to see DiCaprio's reaction isn't necessary

[@sign543]

Ian Blackburn Agreed. The slow movements didn’t build tension for me, at least after considering it from the perspective of this video. It made me all too aware of the camera....which is contrary to what the director would want, I’m sure. Like the video states, I was suddenly ripped from the perspective of Glass...and was now aware I was watching camera moves.

[@FERLARA]

You nailed it!

[@riffbaama]

That puff would not exist if it was intended to be cut frome the start. To build tension with cuts its possible. So I think he is right. With the cuts it could be better, even thou it dosent work very well in this example.

[@goproclaimhisname9375]

Your cut version actually broke the tension for me. You're right -- looking at the rocks and panning slowly isn't very comfortable or normal for me to watch, but that's why it is so brilliant. The director sacrifices the perspective of the character for the purpose of increasing the tension in the scene by panning slowly. But paradoxically, it also immerses the audience into his perspective because panning in a 360 motion shows the audience the surrounding space that he is in, and because we are able to see the cliff to his left and the water to his right, we truly feel trapped with him -- if he tries to swim across the river, he would be found out and shot, and he definitely cannot climb the rocks to escape. Thus, the water and the rocks play an important role in this scene in order to create tension and establish geography

[@DrOctatonic]

The information of confinement is easily relayed by the acting, locations and context of the scene. The uploader was correct in that the panning absolutely takes you out of the film, if not for just s few seconds. The 360 was excessive. But it’s harmless.

[@samtho114]

GoProclaim His Name probably just because the camera doesn’t hold for long enough in the film. He’d probably hold for longer if he could.

[@Vetterminator]

Its purpose was also to disorient you, to make you feel nauseous, thus, more worried about the situation and Glass.

[@dibbage]

I feel that the slow panning in this scene helps give the audience the feeling that we cannot be quick or move irrationally in any form because it can lead the main character or (us in the pov shot) to getting spotted and killed. So personally I feel that the slow panning works well here the editor for this film seems to be pretty aware i’d say!

[@EyeoftheAbyss]

I wholeheartedly disagree. The essence of the long take, as Tarkovsky explained, is the purpose and effect of this long take. I do agree that the pan you had issue with could have found another way: Pan right as it did, that slow feeling is real, move camera slowly backward to bring character back into frame-left, just as he begins to back up himself toward the water, pan left to watch him back into the water and continue. The cuts you made cut the feeling of continuous tension, tension is not discrete steps of action, at least in this case. I think it's a matter of taste, but the continuous movement, like waves of fear and relaxation and escalation, drew me in, as if I would want to be aware of the entire moment, not to miss a single moment as it all can change in the blink of an eye. Please continue making more such videos. It's very illuminating.

[@ThomasFlight]

Thanks for your input! I do think if the shot was reworked as you suggest I would have been fine with the long take. I totally get how not cutting builds the tension, but was really thrown off by the pans, if they were different, it probably wouldn't have stuck out to me. More on the way!

[@jimbones1916]

There were definitely a lot of rocks and it stuck out to me too. But it's fine. They could've cleaned up that part better if it went from a profile of Leo, pan to the danger over the shoulder of Leo. That would've felt more POV Instead of 360 degree turn where you are in the middle.

[@alexbacro5048]

I feel like the dramatic panning across the landscape really drags you out of the immersion and makes you truly feel like some outside force unaffected by the scene

[@thomasthedanktrain]

I think the shot would have benefited if the pans where quicker. In a high stress situation your moving quickly and the quick pans would reinforce that.

[@asdfmosin]

The pan just made me think of the camera and afterwards the technical difficulty behind setting up such long pans. All emotional tension was lost.

[@edmundlee9596]

nah man, it breaks the tension. The shot emphasises that he cannot do any fast movement or he will be spotted, and killed.

[@markobegus]

This is spot on. It's about extra slow movements of precaution. For me, it's brilliant because in a long and slow take like this you get the feeling of being beside him through the camera's eyes.

[@radscorpion8]

@@markobegus But that's not true. What about that moment when he was in the water, and he suddenly looked upward at the scouts scanning the river? No one's head moves upwards at a rate of 1 degree per second. Realistically your body moves slowly while your eyes and head are still free to move quickly, especially when you need to quickly gauge which threats exist around you. To pretend otherwise is extremely unnatural and awkward; you'd end up staring at a rock wall for several seconds as you slowly angle your neck upwards, which is analogous to the horizontal panning witnessed here. So you don't get the feeling of being a human observer - you get the feeling of being in a very slowly panning camera caught in a moment fraught with tension, being forced to look at a rock wall for 4-5 seconds while important things are happening around you. That is simply aggravating for the viewer and completely breaks immersion with the scene.

[@_taxman_]

@@radscorpion8 agreed. the camera was prolly to bulky to do any whippy pans, but whipping the camera perspective around would have been tense. P.S. Sorry for the late reply.... just took me a couple years to process your comment and make up my mind on the matter.

[@xXIRelicIXx]

Looking back at this scene, I think you are correct in saying that the camera becomes apparent and a bit too obvious. For me this happens when the camera does that weird 180 turn from the Native Americans to Glass, panning over the water and then stumbling to focus back on Glass. However, I think the problem with the scene isn't the lack of cuts but rather the way the camera is being operated during the long take and the the angles that are chosen throughout. I think if the camera did a better job of not making such big movements and instead kept the view closer to Glass, this problem would be alleviated. Great analysis in any case!

[@britneyhochman5204]

I definitely agree. I think the moments where the camera focuses on the rocks and the lake were really warped and off-putting in particular.

[@visions_of_noah]

💯💯💯

[@MrJonLott]

You make a great point for cutting to assume the perspective of Hugh Glass/Leo, and I think, if you want to better that aspect, then your cuts are better. But the beauty of a long-take is in its realism and, here, in its buildup of tension. You experience the character's panic in real-time if the shot is uninterrupted by cuts.

[@vinayseth1114]

True.

[@chungdha]

Think if it was a quick whip pan would had also made a difference instead of the slow pan, as the slow pan kinda made it a less urgent situation as kinda too relaxed, while sudden quick whip pan would been more urgent feeling of a lot is happening and he needs to react quick.

[@miscellaneous9506]

It just kills all the tension that the single take produced

[@PauLtus_B]

I wish long shots were as popular as you claim they are.

[@KushagraaDubeyy]

If one talks about real, worthy movies, then they really are that popular but in mainstream ofcourse they never will be !

[@Victor-qj7tw]

Almost every blockbuster has dozens of long shots

[@peterjoyfilms]

@@Victor-qj7tw How? Give me some examples

[@mudaralnasar3182]

5 years ago they were kinda rare but not its everywhere

[@quasarulas3968]

They are popular in the sense people always love to see them/ praise their use. That isn’t to say they’re frequently used. (A popular choice for directors to use)

[@lolturbine]

Its refreshing that you question filmmaker decisions. I would love to see more of that. Thanks

[@mrinalkantinath1271]

The long take works because it captures the threat and the urgency of the situation

[@quasarulas3968]

I wouldn’t say urgency is reflected from a long slow drawn out take panning over empty water out of the frame

[@beautanner8409]

I think the re-cut looks really good, but there is a trade-off there I think. I think what the original gives during the slow pan is an agonizing awareness of the passage of time. Part of the tension generated during those moments when we're just scanning across bare rock is the horror of what we might see when our complete the turn. It also made me feel more present (maybe Jedi mind tricks work on me). The re-cut definitely puts the person into the perspective of Glass much more effectively, however.

[@bitodd]

When I first saw this scene, I thought I failed to catch an important element in the rocks because it focused so directly on them. The comments disagreeing with the recut focus on tension, rather than the stated intention of perspective or immersion, so I think the main point of the case study stands. The only added tension in this continuous shot is from the longer time it forces. You know the cut is shorter, so it feels more brisk. That doesn't mean longer is more effective. I think if this experiment was reversed, people would wonder why shots of rocks and the other bank of the river were added in.

[@AbdulRauf-ri5eu]

The long takes builds more tension and it lockedup the audience with glass in the surruonding.this video made me think in a different perspective and thanks for that.keep doing

[@BryantBuralTV]

I agree with Armin. Simply just increasing the speed of the pans would've helped further the tension, and decrease the amount the audience has to stare at rocks and get thrown out of the scene.

[@brmoogma]

...the pans could not be faster, because of rolling shutter and the short distance of the rocks to the camera.

[@allthingsfascinating]

I thought of the same. But it might make the viewer dizzy.

[@dudepersonvids]

That is one possible improvement, but also runs the risk of further dizzying the audience and calling much more attention to the camera operator with quick motion, rather than the slow, floaty motion in the rest of the scene.

[@thatcherfreeman]

@@dudepersonvids There are perhaps other camera moves that could have gotten the job done without looking at rocks. For instance, instead of the first pan over the rocks, the camera could have dollied in towards and maybe even slightly behind Leo, and then shown the Indians from an over-the-shoulder angle. Moving the camera would have kept something interesting in the frame over the course of the rotation from the Leo shot to the reverse shot, rather than looking at rocks.

[@pod9363]

Long take made me feel for Glass, cuts made me feel with him.

[@danielcardiff3861]

I think the quick cut is better. It felt like he's starting to panic and it quickly picks up pace. I like it.

[@BenBigg]

Do you think the scene could still work if the panning was very quick?

[@ThomasFlight]

I do think whip pans might have been a better option, although they can still be visually jarring depending on how they're used. I focused on cuts in my video because I can illustrate them by comparison. (I tried to fake some faster pans but I couldn't get it to look natural. I think some adjustments in choreography might have allowed them to avoid the 360 degree pan, which was the most jarring element of the scene for me.

[@Dylan-nq6vi]

I think a whip pan to the right would make it seem like the protaganist is moving erratically where he needs to be stealthy, whereas a whippan upwards could work as the people above him move to the edge surprising him.

[@alexisgaraurolon8314]

I disagree, the long take is better because of the continuous tension of the scene and it makes it more realistic.

[@ThreesixnineGF]

That's because he had to work with the material taken from the long take. To make the short cuts work, they would require more angles for more information thus more stakes and more tension.

[@MrGrey151]

Have the same feeling as FOG MDF

[@MrBeastknows]

I disagree. I'm a huge fan of long takes, but the cuts to this scene actually ramped the tension a bit higher than the original. I'd say if the pans in the long take were quicker, then the scene might be better. But they were SO slow making us look at things that don't matter and that's just a failure. Of course, setting up these shots for cuts would actually make filming them longer, as a long take only takes one take instead of several. This means Leonardo DiCaprio would have to be in the freezing cold water for longer, and I think that'd not be good so I'm sure they just wanted to get a shot down and dip instead of setting shots up several times. However, those pans should've been faster.

[@F1FireKing]

The cuts do make for a more intense moment, but it also accelerates the moment. I think this is a scene of drawn out anxiety not action. The slow pan create a sense of that; it feels wrong and that's part of the anxiety not adrenaline. He also may have been trying to convey the textures of the environment. Much like the scene of him crawling out of the horse carcass. This was however a fail in that sense.

[@Kaiyes_]

The slow pan over the rocks did feel unnatural and unnecessary. However, the recreated cut was even worse

[@edgarbleikur1929]

The audience needs those beats to breath, relax and prepare for the tension to again take them away...

[@girlwithamoviecamera3020]

I definitely favor the version with cuts. It's interesting that the director believed the long take would place spectator and character together, in my opinion it only created a tension. The camera movement felt very overt, I agree it situated the spectator as a detached third party rather a participant. Great video! I also enjoyed your analysis on Nightcrawler!

[@jj-if6it]

Good point, your edits made it a lot more tense

[@Nic33rd]

Great stuff. Can't wait to see more from you.

[@ThomasFlight]

Thanks! More to come.

[@noir4659]

5:49 That just feels generic, it's like the music equivalent of using a 1645 progression in pop music. Yes of course it serves the purpose of giving the audience an immediate experience of what the character is experiencing but you need to take a step back and think about do we really want that experience? Or do we want something different, maybe better?

[@JanneLepist0]

the single take felt much more claustrophobic and involving. you can get the sense of how close he's actually getting caught. you're right that one might become more aware of the camera, but i'm willing to trade it for the feeling of being there

[@vinayseth1114]

1) Even when we are 'panning' with our eyes, our brain omits a lot of information, leading to a kind of blur in between object A and object B. This movement is called 'saccade'. So even in our everyday vision, we are subjected to 'cuts'.: Just another input from my side regarding the subject of cuts. 2) I disagree with your take on the shot. There are some very interesting things happenin with this long shot. Firstly, the long shot has a sense of three-dimensional movement to it that the one with the cuts lacks, and this movement is in keeping with the entire film, which relies heavily on movement and the audience feeling that they are part of the scene they are watching. Second, it creates spatial awareness for the viewer. Simply cutting to Leo's POV doesn't let us know properly about the rocks behind which he's hiding. Third, a very interesting thing that happens is that the pan shot merges Leo's POV with the viewer's. So when you're looking at the native americans, you could be looking through the film's POV or the character's or in fact, even both! I don't have an issue with this seemless blending of POVs- I don't think it hurts the scene. In addition, it gives a sense that you're travelling along with Leo. Now I don't know whether they were thinking all of this while shooting or editing, but I find this fascinating nonetheless. But thanks for your take on the subject. Appreciate the time and effort you put into this endeavour!

[@KushagraaDubeyy]

Vinay Seth huge thanks for the enlightening and for truly nailing what The filmmakers were doing with this!

[@rootsofafrika]

Your cuts are so naturally good i even missed it until i remembered what this video is about.

[@kokobeen]

I'm glad you showed the scene first before you added your commentary so people can think for themselves first when looking at the scene. The scene worked for the first 20 seconds and the director did make me feel like i was seeing from Glass's POV. And then when it got to the part where it panned across the rocks I first thought "wow, the focus on the camera is nice and I can see those really rocks well." This took me out of the movie almost and It made me feel a little sick and claustrophobic from being so close to the rocks. Anyways great video! It was interesting that I thought of the same problem that you talked about before I knew!

[@unviversalyhappy]

I have to agree that the cut feels like I'm not seeing through the character but by making it feel like I'm there just made me so anxious, I love this scene even more now

[@averrose23]

You said this was "nitpicky," but watching the cut version did keep me in the character's head/POV better than the long take. If you add up a bunch of scenes like this, the entire movie could gain or lose a lot of impact depending on the use of cuts. That potential difference surprised me.

[@thescarygary]

What took me out of this was that they didn't hear him splashing as he entered the water. Great job Thomas!

[@Devil-Made]

I love long cuts. After seeing Children of Men nearly a decade ago I fell in love with filmmaking because of that long take in the movie (well, the two big ones). It gave me an appreciation for cinema I hadn’t had before. While I would normally defend the long take to the end, you taught me something here. I studied journalism (which is all about making the most efficient use of your words to tell a story - not unlike cinematography), and I’m inclined to agree with you here. I was paying attention and trying to participate and still, I honestly didn’t catch the first cut you made. It was so effortless and natural. It really adds to the scene overall. I would’ve never come to this conclusion on my own. Thanks for another great video!

[@shana2765]

This scene really bothered me too and I'm glad someone else felt it's awkwardness. I really loved the continuous shot of looking at the two hunters above then sliding down the rocks to find the one native really close, that felt like natural eye movement. But the pan across the river felt so unnatural, as if you were sitting next to Hugh and then spun around in place for no reason.

[@lifeinahillstation3209]

I completely agree with you. For this particular scene of the movie, the panning of the camera does not look like it has a purpose and was very distracting. I definitely felt more connection to what the character feels with the cut version.

[@M_freedomOfSpeech]

I agree, I like your version!

[@ac.6667]

Personally I like panning scenes and long cuts, it builds tension at an already high stress time making you, the viewer, wait for the outcome while you hold your breath and keep eyes glued to the scenes.

[@AbhishekGupta1704]

Though I agree with you on staright cut for POV which works rather seamlessly, in this case however I liked the one-shot. Sometimes you want to elongate a moment of tension and this is great example of that. Infact when I watched this film the first time, I was really amazed at the beautiful choreography of the scene while still remaining in the scene. I feel one of the main reasons that this film is a rewatachable masterpiece is because everytime you see it, it pulls you in the environment. The music, the often drifty and unassuming camera, the slow pace, it all just draws you in a different world only.

[@filmstonereviews4018]

I felt that most of the scene could of been a shot from behind Hugh Grant.

[@karthiktumuluru5650]

4:16 DING DING DING Old Spice Commercial

[@MagnoliaNoir]

Great case study, thank you! I really think that your version makes the scene far more edgy and interesting, with the intention of the director accomplished, on the contrary to his one-take. I have the impression that he didn't give to his editor to contribute, as I believe a good editor would suggest the cuts because editors always go for the sake of the story.

[@label21]

Interesting video, I subscribed because your recent videos tell me you’re a man of good taste.

[@hamletfisherman5740]

Really good point, good job sir!

[@jaydevtalks9390]

I personally prefer without cuts, with cuts it looks like yet another standard hollywood blockbuster to me.

[@Pandamasque]

I wholeheartedly agree. As soon as the slow pan over the rocks occurs it's almost like the camera assumes its own POV. It's like Terrence Malick has taken over :)

[@archer111000]

I think a quick pan would have been the correct choice. It would feel more like we’re transitioning between watching Hugh and seeing from his perspective, but wouldn’t make us as acutely aware of the cameraman.

[@johnsage3466]

Thomas thank you so much for your thoughtful video essay - I too often find myself watching film and deconstructing not just the editing, but the scripting, the value system of the script writer to have characters say certain dialogue and even the enneagram POV of various character's dialogue, all coming from some understanding of the building blocks of the creative process. I think the thing to remember is that when magic is constructed the audience rarely sees the building blocks the make the trick or in this case the film production become reality in the mind of the viewer. I respectfully disagree with your proposition. This movie is built on an entire series of long takes that are so artful, so well constructed and so convincing. Your edits in this context to me are jarring and out of step with the rhythm and pace of this movie. But I loved the thoughtful quality of your critique all the same.

[@ol1dammara]

Down with you Thomas! Thx for the quote of Walter Murch. Cheers

[@Replicode]

Definitely agree. I enjoyed most of the long takes in the movie as they were immersive and built tension, but this scene was really distracting. I didn't put it together at the time of watching it but thanks to you I see why it didnt work for me. It is unnatural to have a long pan when really the character would be darting his eyes all over the place, panicking as he is being surrounded.

[@jeroenverschakelen6253]

Very interesting video. "Going downstream" is a huge theme in this film (early on it's portrayed as a sign of "vulnerability" and it arguably causes the demise of Fitzgerald at the end of the movie), so it makes sense that Hugh Glass is reluctant to swim away in this scene. That being said, I feel your edit makes the scene into an action scene whereas it is actually a huge turning point for Glass' character: this is where he decides to go downstream for the first time. For someone who generally refuses to "back down", this is a huge deal. Anyway, for me personally the slow pan didn't "pull me out of the scene" as you put it: it merely made me self-conscious as a viewer (like when a character looks directly into the camera).

[@radscorpion8]

I think you're absolutely right. It completely breaks my immersion in the scene, because my mind is frustrated by the fact that, in the middle of a tense moment, my attention is being forced onto a rock wall for several seconds for no good reason. I don't want to look at a rock. I want to look at whether the scout is coming closer to him. In that frustration the scene completely breaks viewer immersion. And you make a perfect point about how eye movements work and the fact that jump cuts are not at all unnatural. The truth is we do the equivalent of jump cutting all the time when we look around a room or from one vista to the next.

[@sydoesgames]

almost never during the movie did i think to myself "this take is too long. im losing interest or feeling less tension". in fact i barely even registered that it was quote on quote a long take because it was so immersive. to cut that up and take that away is better you say? i digress.

[@smeer001]

I like the cuts you added.

[@danielponga]

You're very right it goes way better with the cuts, the pov shot only works if you cut to the character's perspective

[@Frederatormusic]

I think the cuts undermine the emotional effectiveness of sitting on a long take. I feel like some whip pans could work though!! You're definitely onto something

[@AdamOpie]

I had the same reaction when I watched the film! I couldnt agree more!

[@r2gamingelite74]

Great vid, but the tension of the scene was removed, I thought the pacing of your version moved faster than the original cut. Also, the edit wouldn’t really feel like the revenant

[@iammrig]

Nah man the cut version immediately loses my indulgence and attention to the scene

[@mbmpablo3631]

With no cut is a fuckin poesy. Is what makes those sequence plan so beautiful.

[@EJplay]

Great video. Lot takes are definitely used for style over substance sometimes and i think this video highlighted that point well. As others have mentioned your cuts didn't flow as well as they should though but that would only because it became very noticeable after watching the no cut scene and also if they were filming this scene with the intention of cutting it would become much more easier to edit and make it flow better.

[@clutchcure6821]

Your crazy bro that was one of the best scenes in the movie lol.

[@jordansampson5314]

My experience with this scene is that I actually feel the panic of Hugh Glass more profoundly by having a bystander's point of view, being next to him or in front of him. I feel more at ease when the cuts are put in, but I feel less of the emotion of not wanting to be found or seen. It almost has the effect of being in a dream where you have less control than you are comfortable with. Because the camera is panning slower than I want it to, it makes me feel less in control of being able to stay hidden. So, I like the scene without the cuts, but I also disagree with the DP on what the desired effect is.

Hey nice work and good observations but I gotta disagree. Your cuts have killed the tension. What you're not seeing in the pans between the set-ups is the uncertainty of the viewer building as they don't see what Glass has seen. While we are panning we don't receive new information. Vital information as to Glass' survival. By denying the viewer what they need, we build tension and heighten focus when the camera stops. The single take is vital. The other thing cutting does is removes time from observation to reaction. In the single take our hero looks like his movements are considered, choosing the best time to move and stop, whilst in the edit, he seems to instantly react... almost panicking in his desire to not be seen. This changes the character in a deleterious way.

[@fahad1584]

when the camera pans (first rock and then water ) both time you don't see caprio or natives . That's why it's makes you anxious about them both - you think what caprio is doing or thinking at that moment and you don't see . That's why you feel the same(almost) feeling as caprio - tensed and anxious .

[@skii_mask_]

I think the long take was a good idea, but I don't think it was done as well as it could have been. The shot if the rocks lasts too long.

[@derangedemu]

This is one of the most wholesomely disagreeing comment sections I’ve ever seen

[@michaelhenne6506]

i agree. Those cuts work well.

[@Toxic_0_]

I think the problem people are having with the cuts breaking the tension is that the edit can only be done with the shot already taken. The scene looks choppy and rushed because the scene wasnt shot with cuts in mind. The point is is valid and if the scene had been shot with the cuts in mind, the tension could have easily be maintained

[@harrisonrakhshani4706]

I'm gonna have to agree that the camerawork was the thing I was unintentionally paying attention to in this shot, especially after he rounds the corner of the rocks and slips into the water. That said, this movie is amazing and beautiful.

[@levisimpson516]

I think after seeing this, I see what you mean, I think the scene with a few cuts makes more sense.

[@xxReznikxx]

I think that you're absolutely right.

[@1akozak]

Hey Thomas, glad I just stumbled on your videos today! I really like how you subverted the topic of the long take as when something gets popularized quickly, people tend to forget the flaws that come with it. However, i must disagree with you. This film is explicitly shot with the intention of the long take in mind. What I mean by that is that each aesthetic/technological/directorial decision made, is in service of extended shots. ex. "the camera is handheld to make it more realistic". I prefer the scene without cuts simply because of its conceptual context. Great video of subverting a popular technique. I look forward to watching more after my morning bacon and eggs.

[@ParsaKherghepoush]

I agree

[@kiarashforooharpak3332]

Great vid man

[@leoscoillat8655]

Totally agree on that.

[@waltanthony1988]

I like the original better , not only for the tension but for how close the enemies are to him.

[@amorty456]

I'm merely a fan of cinema and am just getting into the technical aspects. I'd like to give my input on the long take vs cut scenes. the long take brought more suspense to the scene and I loved the vertical pan, because yes we may cut to it in reality, the slow movement brought some reluctance we would feel when terrified. the camera pans up slowly and we feel as he did, we feel overwhelmed. they have the height advantage. you don't know going in he'll have to swim away and slowly revealing he hasn't a chance was great. I first pan I agree should have been cut, but it did help us understand the environment giving the scene depth? and it made the scene longer keeping you in suspense.

[@Bizarro69]

So true!

[@ezekielyu4294]

This is a good reworking of that scene. It's telling how Inarritu could not follow the logic of his own intentions. There's a tendency to be masturbatory with "style" that ends up screwing with sequences like that one. Your cuts placed the audience in Glass's POV far more effectively (which is what the director initially wanted!) although I do agree with one of the other comments (which you've addressed) that the cuts ought to have been longer, but that's no fault of yours. Found your channel from your post on Mr. Rollins's video - glad I did. Subscribed.

[@ThomasFlight]

Glad you found my channel and enjoyed the video! I definitely agree, I think Inarritu's work can be beautiful, but he's certainly willing to sacrifice the story at times for style's sake, or even for the sake of the filmmaking itself.

[@Wise_That]

I think the entire film suffers from this problem of focusing on whatever is most prestigious, over what would convey information more efficiently. While I can understand wanting to be slow with a reveal to build suspense in the audience, the pan does nothing to help me relate to the character of Glass. I couldn't agree more that the pan and camera movement was jarring, and completely ruined the illusion that I was on the same journey as Glass. Even worse is that the camera had plenty opportunity to build suspense by crouching closer to the rock, simultaneously achieving both goals of obscuring the audience's view of the trackers as well as of giving us a view form Glass' perspective. It's emblematic of a broader issue, where an idea like "Good filmmakers use long takes" becomes an idea like "The film uses long takes, so the filmmakers must be good".

[@huntermccreativegenious1315]

Cutting the shot releases the tension which I think was not the point of it, Keeping the flow makes it feel a bit more personal and I like it.

[@JanKowalski-hj9gb]

This long shot was to show the viewers how close the Indians were to Glass. This was the only way to show us they were about 5 Meters away only.

[@danielduff]

I completely agree, I felt this disconnection from the movie in many other of the long take scenes as well.

[@nah9724]

I agree with your statement even though i thought i wouldnt be before seeing your side. I understand how the idea of keeping it in one take allows the movie to flow realisticly but i think that if they would have cut during that one scene it woulf have done a better job of letting the audiance know that there was tension. Now they would have to make the scene longer because the cuts shorten the scene which eliminates tension and suspence but with there skill set they would have had a better scene cutting. Good vid

[@SK-fy8dl]

The repeated play of the five seconds of rock was cold blooded 😂

[@rickardkaufman3988]

Although I do not criticize long takes, this one felt it required because of your cut brilliantly captured Glass' perspective of how the danger ahead. Using a long pan and not editing felt he was rather being accompanied by the viewer in this situation in someone's perspective than witnessing it from his perspective which makes the scene better. It emphasizes the tension of being injured and on the hunt by the so-called enemy tribe. The edit from AGI's cut is not only disorienting but also feeling odd as it does not convey the person's view. Such a shot like this is only when a scene of importance or a scene between characters that interact rather than be mentioned seems more satisfying in my opinion.

[@westminsterabbey.6916]

For me, the complete absence of cuts leaves you with no escape, no respite from the moment, and so puts you right there in the rocks with Glass inside that tense moment of life and death. It’s that sense of being trapped within the moment with no option but to follow the action and the characters and let them take you deeper into the rabbit hole that has always struck me about long shots. It’s a huge part of why I love this film so much, and why I love long shots so much, when they’re done right. Just take the moment in It Follows, when we’re first introduced to the concept of the following thing. We’re initiated into the nightmare at the same time Jay, our protagonist, is, by way of being strapped into a wheelchair and left utterly helpless and completely vulnerable, at the mercy of the guy who’s brought this upon her. We come into the scene facing her as she wakes up and realises where she is. We’re forced to watch up close and personal as she slowly starts to panic. We can see him pacing frantically in the background, looking in all directions as if he’s expecting something, but we have no idea what that something is. Jay starts to struggle against the ties that bind her to the wheelchair, shaking the chair as she does. But her movement doesn’t just shake the chair. It shakes the camera. And us. It’s at this moment we realise that we’re not only trapped here watching her, we’re PHYSICALLY tied to the chair with her, dangled like a worm on the fishing line, completely helpless to escape the unknown horror that’s coming. And, just like in this scene from the Revenant, there’s no respite from this moment. The shot just keeps on going. Keeping us locked in fear with her, the tension and panic mounting with every second that ticks by. We’ve been thrust right into the claustrophobia of the moment, in a way only achievable by a long, drawn out shot. This scene wouldn’t have half the effect if it was cut. I do see your thinking here, especially with that quote about us blinking to cut our own vision (that’s actually a wonderful observation that I’m going to take with me going forward, so thank you for including that). I just feel that in this particular case, the filmmakers’ decision to keep us locked inside that moment with Glass, putting us through EVERY SECOND of it, as if we could feel the water at our backs and the ice in the air as we breathed it with him, was the right decision to make. Very nicely presented video, better than most I’ve seen. I appreciate your acknowledgment of the subjectiveness of all this. Far too many people get it into their heads that one opinion is objectively better than the rest in these situations. I’ll be watching your other work after this.

[@adzamree6870]

this is so much better!

[@DMichaelAtLarge]

I agree. Many here say the slow pans keep the tension alive, but if the slow pan draws attention to itself, that pulls us out of the story and breaks the tension even more. The 360 pan really felt gimmicky.

[@BarnabyKeene]

Nice analysis! I prefer the version with cuts for sure, odd choice from the DP but hey, art I guess!

[@Sari36YT]

With the slow long take I felt it had more tension, but I also felt removed from the scene, just like you said in your video. With your cut I felt more connected to Glass, but the tension was lessened because it felt too quick. A long take that doesn't focus so long on things like those rocks and does better to show the point of view of Glass (however that is actually done) might be best?

[@TheRealDogfart]

I completely agree. In this segment it does not give the audience the perspective the director is looking trying to achieve.

[@martinl2410]

The original take is flashy, and clever but distracting. It's a great example of a director going for style over substance and not putting his story first. I much prefer your quickie version, which is telling considering the director could obviously have done even better with the material. Love your video !

[@jupiter8597]

In the long take i could appreciate where leo was wrt the natives which made me hold my breath, but in the cut version, while being spontaneous and more natural for the viewer it was less impactful

[@gameboygangsterlive]

you are genius maan.. that orginal is exactly as you said. we think where the camera is moving. but as you cuts these continusky that connection between the scene is withdrawn. what I mean is what you said is correct but. still don't know why. the original cut Conways more with the audience than your version where there I feels something missing.. but you have did a good job maan. nice observations. I like your channel. need more from you. would you like to review silence (2016) ? it would be nice

[@calliph]

I think the longer version let the music really build up the tension more. While the 360 pan felt over the top and i think it could have done the job with an equally slow 180 pan back and fourth, the length really gave the music space to build the tension more slowly.

[@DynamicDurge]

I thought the long cuts were distracting as well. I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt that way

[@chiaragiombetti]

the meaning of Inarritu's intention was to put the viewer inside the same state of mind and location of the main character. the pan shot help us (the viewers) to "taste" the ambient around him, what he sees at first is the rock - giving us the sensation of the obstacle and the imprisoned feeling of the main character. the second pan to the river make us understand the logic of the protagonist's escaping plan, adding "air" to the scene which is equal to "freedom" for our main character. Sure you can make both, there is no right or wrong here guys! Nice work and analysis man!

[@D0S81]

i think its each to their own, and whil i can understand why a cut may be better. i really do feel that it added to the sense of dread when it slowly panned because at first you only see his reaction to something, but you never see what it is, then as the camera pans slowly, it makes it more intense. and shows you its natves. it cuts back to leo moving into the rock and away from the enemy. you wanna see what he sees and why he's scared, has something happened? have they moved? but the camera wont let you till _its_ ready, and only then do we see that one of them is standing closer to the rock upping the danger for Leos character and the sense of urgency that he can't stay where he is. It then swings around to Leo again, but this time instead of showing you the relative cover and safety of the rock, it shows you the open water and how vulnerable Leo's character really is and how easy he could be spotted, giving you a sense of urgency that he needs to move because he is more vulnerable than we realised. He slinks into the water and we follow with him making us feel that maybe he is okay now that he is further away, but we don;t really know because we can't see what he sees. then he hears voices above, and again we don't know if they can see him yet. the camera panning just slowly enough to keep us in suspense about how close they are to really discovering him, after everything he has just been through, him getting caught like this would not be good. By now we've lingered away from the man on the shore long enough to worry about wether he is still a threat or is Leo's character safe, the camera pans to show another man standing on the outcropping, upping the tension and only then does it pan down to the one by the shore not starting to walk towards Leo's spot, but already in the spot he was making us feel like we had almost forgot about him so much so he got close enough to spot Leo, it lingers, making us hope he just walks away. but he doesn't and its only when he spots Leo's character that the camera pans swiftly for the first time back to Leo retreating as fast as the current can take him. we don't need to see them firing arrows because we see them land around Leo as he is swept away by the current. The whole thing builds a sense of dread and urgency way more than simple cuts would have i feel and works better than simple jump cuts, which while they give us the same information, don't convey the same feelings of him possibly getting caught, and the urgency we wish it would move with when it lingers like it does. but like i said, each to their own. its interesting to see and hear other peoples perspectives on storytelling and how they would do it tbh.

[@killerbee065]

Totally agree with your assessment. I was annoyed that the camera guy wasn't showing what Leo was seeing like in a video game where the camera is acting up in a bad unintended way. It felt like a nature documentary where some third party was filming the subjects reacting to each other instead of a lonely person in the woods who is terrified. I feel like your version is better with the total fix being an added shot from Leos perspective just above the water line looking at the natives around 5:34 with the camera slipping into the water just above the water line, since all people in that scenario pay the most attention to what is chasing them when they are starting to make noise. While it would lose its tension from the long cut as others point out, instead it would ease the audience a bit just long enough to realize he is discovered after all and a new chase has begun. Sorry for a comment on such an old video, I just found your work and I really appreciate it, keep it up!

[@harryom3497]

I agree with the long take. Because it creates tension and directly puts us inside the mind of glass and in this scene the camera is also playing a Character. (Alejandro González Iñárritu)