0:00:00.594,0:00:02.706
- Thank you, sir.[br]- Alright. See you later, thanks.

0:00:02.890,0:00:04.304
Hi, my name is Tony

0:00:04.305,0:00:05.824
and this is Every Frame a Painting.

0:00:06.078,0:00:09.504
Today's topic is the oner, AKA a long take.

0:00:09.504,0:00:13.281
This is probably the most jerked-off-to[br]type of shot in filmmaking.

0:00:13.281,0:00:14.874
But basically, all it means

0:00:14.874,0:00:17.948
is doing an entire scene[br]in a single, unbroken shot.

0:00:17.948,0:00:20.008
And let's face it, it's pretty awesome.

0:00:20.008,0:00:21.432
We all have our favorites.

0:00:21.457,0:00:24.144
There's six dozen lists[br]on the internet about this.

0:00:24.144,0:00:26.963
But we tend to notice the ones[br]that draw attention to themselves.

0:00:26.963,0:00:29.053
So let's skip all of these guys

0:00:29.053,0:00:32.156
and go to one filmmaker[br]who does oners all the time,

0:00:32.156,0:00:34.276
except his goal is to remain invisible.

0:00:35.220,0:00:36.126
This dude.

0:00:37.014,0:00:39.513
Truthfully, Spielberg's takes[br]aren't even that long.

0:00:39.852,0:00:42.016
He tends to keep them less than 3 minutes.

0:00:42.016,0:00:44.853
In fact, he really likes that[br]one minute to two-minute zone,

0:00:44.853,0:00:47.216
which is long enough to[br]cover an entire scene,

0:00:47.216,0:00:49.465
but short enough to keep the pace brisk.

0:00:49.465,0:00:51.317
And while other directors seem to have

0:00:51.318,0:00:53.462
a dominant formal technique[br]to their long takes —

0:00:53.486,0:00:55.965
for instance, Wes Anderson[br]likes to move laterally,

0:00:55.965,0:00:58.667
the only thing that really[br]defines a Spielberg oner

0:00:58.692,0:01:01.197
is that it's supposed to be invisible.

0:01:01.770,0:01:04.269
So maybe I'm full of shit[br]for even saying it exists.

0:01:04.718,0:01:06.898
Now, I'm gonna cut[br]these shots down for this video,

0:01:06.899,0:01:08.185
but if you want to see the full scenes,

0:01:08.186,0:01:10.683
I've put them all in two[br]separate videos linked below.

0:01:11.710,0:01:14.223
First off, a shot from[br]Raiders of the Lost Ark.

0:01:14.224,0:01:16.790
This is a single unbroken, 90-second take.

0:01:17.379,0:01:20.729
The great thing about it is that it's[br]basically four different shots in one:

0:01:20.752,0:01:24.080
there's a push-in, two matching[br]singles, and an insert.

0:01:24.080,0:01:27.661
So Spielberg combines all four[br]into a single moving master.

0:01:27.661,0:01:29.755
It's really simple and elegant,

0:01:29.755,0:01:32.454
and it probably saved[br]a bunch of time on set.

0:01:32.805,0:01:34.590
Also, it really works for the scene,

0:01:34.591,0:01:36.914
because there's suspense[br]in the drinking contest.

0:01:36.938,0:01:38.516
And no matter how many times I watch it,

0:01:38.516,0:01:40.213
I still forget the exact timing,

0:01:40.213,0:01:42.397
so it's always funny when this happens.

0:01:45.203,0:01:47.241
Next up is a shot from Minority Report.

0:01:47.241,0:01:48.948
This time, they're on a steadicam.

0:01:48.948,0:01:51.245
But notice how the camera[br]never moves unmotivated.

0:01:51.245,0:01:53.050
It's always following[br]a motion or an action.

0:01:53.050,0:01:54.163
Hold that, please.

0:01:54.163,0:01:55.484
The pacing is fantastic,

0:01:55.484,0:01:58.239
you really get the sense that[br]the scene is unfolding in front of you,

0:01:58.239,0:02:00.602
rather than a cameraman hitting his marks.

0:02:00.602,0:02:02.060
You're in a lot of trouble, John.

0:02:02.659,0:02:04.378
The blocking of the actors is really fluid

0:02:04.403,0:02:06.435
and the shot goes from[br]favoring one character...

0:02:07.557,0:02:08.713
...to favoring another.

0:02:08.713,0:02:10.800
Seems I've found a flaw.

0:02:12.268,0:02:14.229
Flashing back in time, this is Jaws.

0:02:14.229,0:02:16.919
The great thing about this one[br]is how restrained it is.

0:02:16.919,0:02:18.828
The cameraman barely moves.

0:02:18.828,0:02:21.078
All of the movement is[br]in the blocking of the actors

0:02:21.103,0:02:23.744
and specially, the really[br]smart choice of location.

0:02:24.017,0:02:25.562
By shooting on a real ferry,

0:02:25.562,0:02:28.447
Spielberg can use the background action[br]to keep the pace snappy.

0:02:28.447,0:02:30.385
One of the reasons I forgot[br]how long this shot is

0:02:30.385,0:02:31.885
is because the background keeps shifting

0:02:31.886,0:02:34.121
and you're always looking[br]at something new.

0:02:34.385,0:02:35.774
You yell "shark",

0:02:37.619,0:02:40.074
we've got a panic on our hands[br]on the 4th of July.

0:02:40.783,0:02:42.511
Next up, Saving Private Ryan.

0:02:44.786,0:02:46.564
One of the hallmarks of a Spielberg oner

0:02:46.564,0:02:50.866
is that he tends to do almost all of his[br]special FX or his vis FX in the master.

0:02:50.866,0:02:52.108
And this one's a doozy.

0:02:52.108,0:02:56.788
Explosions, rubble, dust, smoke,[br]gunfire, squibs, and you know...

0:02:57.770,0:02:58.653
A tank.

0:03:00.239,0:03:01.145
Good shit.

0:03:01.833,0:03:03.195
Now, I do want to emphasize,

0:03:03.195,0:03:05.177
Spielberg did not invent this type of shot.

0:03:05.177,0:03:07.726
In fact, it used to be[br]a very common choice.

0:03:07.726,0:03:08.884
How about you, handsome?

0:03:10.067,0:03:11.475
Haven't I seen you somewhere before?

0:03:11.475,0:03:13.241
In the 40s and 50s and 60s,

0:03:13.241,0:03:15.093
studio directors frequently employed

0:03:15.093,0:03:17.453
a moderate-length oner[br]to move the story along.

0:03:17.483,0:03:19.517
How do you like this?[br]I'm running outta alibis.

0:03:19.517,0:03:21.596
But really, beginning with[br]Rope and Touch of Evil,

0:03:21.596,0:03:23.673
the oner became a[br]calling card for directors.

0:03:23.673,0:03:24.864
Audiences noticed it,

0:03:24.864,0:03:27.377
film critics and students[br]got raging hard-ons for it,

0:03:27.377,0:03:30.099
and for the last 50 years,[br]it's been a game of one-upmanship.

0:03:30.099,0:03:32.428
Yours is 3 minutes?[br]Well mine's 17.

0:03:33.084,0:03:34.936
Hitchcock did a movie[br]seemingly in one take?

0:03:34.936,0:03:36.866
Well we did it actually in one.

0:03:36.866,0:03:39.301
Now, I'm not saying that[br]these long takes are bad.

0:03:39.301,0:03:40.915
Most of them are fun as shit.

0:03:40.915,0:03:43.098
All of them are a little awe-inspiring.

0:03:43.098,0:03:47.191
But there used to be a real type of shot[br]in at least American cinema that was…

0:03:47.191,0:03:49.593
for lack of a better word, really robust.

0:03:49.593,0:03:50.996
Like, it didn't break down.

0:03:50.996,0:03:52.905
It worked, it got the job done.

0:03:52.905,0:03:54.732
It was always interesting to watch.

0:03:54.732,0:03:56.737
It didn't call attention to itself.

0:03:56.737,0:03:58.514
You know, you could rely on it.

0:03:59.205,0:04:00.313
Now, it's split.

0:04:00.313,0:04:01.658
You got one branch of filmmaking

0:04:01.658,0:04:04.113
that is trying to go faster,[br]shorter, more chaotic.

0:04:04.113,0:04:07.090
And another that is almost[br]willfully doing the opposite.

0:04:07.090,0:04:08.400
Some people are still in the middle.

0:04:08.400,0:04:09.852
Alfonso Cuarón comes to mind

0:04:09.853,0:04:12.964
as someone trying to mine[br]the long take for dramatic purposes.

0:04:12.964,0:04:15.675
But even Alfonso[br]isn't trying to be invisible.

0:04:16.548,0:04:18.827
Hell, even Spielberg sometimes[br]wants you to notice.

0:04:18.827,0:04:20.257
This one from Minority Report

0:04:20.257,0:04:22.993
is practically a De Palma[br]or Hitchcock shot.

0:04:22.993,0:04:27.107
This one from Duel is, I mean,[br]it's almost like a slasher movie.

0:04:31.375,0:04:32.456
This one from Always,

0:04:32.481,0:04:34.024
which is a terrible movie,

0:04:34.024,0:04:36.602
is done in sync with a 747.

0:04:44.297,0:04:46.455
And this is just insane.

0:04:51.281,0:04:52.912
But otherwise, Spielberg plays it quiet.

0:04:52.912,0:04:55.297
Which is weird to say, because[br]you know, Spielberg.

0:04:55.850,0:04:56.935
But compared to his peers,

0:04:56.935,0:04:59.706
this technique, which he has been doing[br]this for 40 years at this point,

0:04:59.706,0:05:01.250
makes him stand out all the more.

0:05:01.275,0:05:03.765
Which car were you planning on?

0:05:05.796,0:05:06.999
Whichever one you are.

0:05:07.000,0:05:10.608
So I guess that's maybe the closest[br]I can get to defining a Spielberg oner.

0:05:10.609,0:05:13.723
It uses any and all possible[br]tricks to remain invisible.

0:05:14.273,0:05:15.203
So if you're a director

0:05:15.203,0:05:16.858
and you want to pull off a Spielberg oner,

0:05:16.858,0:05:18.340
there’s only a few simple rules to follow.

0:05:19.006,0:05:20.326
First, move your actors.

0:05:20.326,0:05:21.446
Move 'em around.

0:05:21.446,0:05:23.140
Don't just have them stand there and talk

0:05:23.140,0:05:24.953
like they're in a 2014 blockbuster.

0:05:24.977,0:05:26.032
Don't mind him.

0:05:26.032,0:05:28.250
- English humor?[br]- Scottish whiskey.

0:05:28.275,0:05:29.959
Second, follow that movement.

0:05:29.978,0:05:31.972
The camera doesn't have[br]to follow on a leash,

0:05:31.972,0:05:34.142
it can swing around,[br]it can move counter to them,

0:05:34.143,0:05:36.023
it can track laterally, whatever.

0:05:36.024,0:05:38.481
But watch the scene and[br]place the camera accordingly.

0:05:40.138,0:05:41.291
Third, break down the shot

0:05:41.291,0:05:43.630
into multiple compositions[br]and smaller angles.

0:05:43.630,0:05:46.122
You are essentially linking[br]five or six different shots

0:05:46.123,0:05:47.364
into a single moving master.

0:05:48.061,0:05:49.592
So you can think in terms of

0:05:49.592,0:05:52.359
single, over-the-shoulder, insert, wide.

0:05:52.384,0:05:53.584
It all flows together.

0:05:55.881,0:05:57.178
Ah, Frank.

0:05:57.212,0:05:58.509
Oh, and if you can accomplish all this

0:05:58.509,0:06:00.164
without even moving the camera?

0:06:00.164,0:06:01.056
Even better.

0:06:01.602,0:06:02.409
All of you?

0:06:03.822,0:06:06.156
Fourth, do your vis FX or special FX,

0:06:06.157,0:06:08.071
anything you need to[br]keep the "magic" alive,

0:06:08.072,0:06:09.355
do it in the wide shot.

0:06:09.355,0:06:11.246
Don't cheat and construct your elements

0:06:11.246,0:06:12.687
out of close-ups and cutaways,

0:06:12.687,0:06:15.373
put 'em in the wide shot and[br]let the actors interact with them.

0:06:15.373,0:06:18.071
And don't fucking green screen[br]shit that should be practical

0:06:18.071,0:06:19.045
The audience can tell

0:06:19.045,0:06:21.093
when an actor is reacting[br]to something that's there

0:06:21.093,0:06:22.249
versus something that isn't.

0:06:28.085,0:06:30.187
Fifth, if you need to, shoot a cutaway.

0:06:30.187,0:06:32.667
All of the shots in this video[br]are completely unbroken takes,

0:06:32.667,0:06:34.200
but Spielberg isn't stupid.

0:06:34.200,0:06:36.067
He often shoots an insert[br]or a cutaway for a oner

0:06:36.696,0:06:38.150
even if he's sure they nailed it.

0:06:38.150,0:06:41.157
This gives him the ability to[br]tighten in editing if he needs to,

0:06:41.157,0:06:43.249
or perhaps use the beginning of one take

0:06:43.250,0:06:44.250
and the end of another.

0:06:44.817,0:06:45.958
It also helps if he needs someone

0:06:45.958,0:06:47.745
to hit a particularly difficult mark,

0:06:47.745,0:06:49.812
like making a gun land in the right spot.

0:06:50.237,0:06:51.713
...cautious fellow I am.

0:06:53.787,0:06:55.095
And last, keep it short.

0:06:55.095,0:06:56.317
Don't outstay your welcome.

0:06:56.317,0:06:58.610
The Spielberg oner is designed[br]to get through scenes quickly

0:06:58.611,0:06:59.415
and keep the pace up.

0:06:59.813,0:07:01.420
You should not be[br]spending an entire day

0:07:01.445,0:07:02.602
trying to get it perfect.

0:07:02.602,0:07:03.769
That's for shit like this.

0:07:06.635,0:07:07.937
So in conclusion,

0:07:07.937,0:07:10.014
I understand that there's[br]sometimes a lot of backlash

0:07:10.039,0:07:12.702
with regards to talking about[br]Spielberg as a serious artist.

0:07:12.702,0:07:15.720
I mean, sometimes the sentimental[br]stuff is a little hard to swallow.

0:07:16.290,0:07:17.711
I'm not gonna talk about his legacy,

0:07:17.711,0:07:20.059
but I do think he should be[br]celebrated for his oners.

0:07:20.520,0:07:21.997
Especially considering it's a technique

0:07:21.997,0:07:24.122
generally abandoned by mainstream directors

0:07:24.122,0:07:26.945
for either this kinda[br]incomprehensible bullshit

0:07:28.165,0:07:31.590
or this really good, but also[br]really noticeable style.

0:07:33.282,0:07:34.542
Ironically, this dude,

0:07:34.567,0:07:38.175
who was once considered responsible[br]for destroying 70's Hollywood filmmaking,

0:07:38.175,0:07:40.642
is probably the greatest[br]living practitioner

0:07:40.642,0:07:42.178
of a classic Hollywood tradition.

0:07:43.005,0:07:44.573
I wonder if he feels sad about that.

0:07:47.434,0:07:49.158
Fuck that, he's rich!