Post by account_disabled on Jan 5, 2024 22:31:11 GMT -8
For those who don't know what I'm talking about, the sequence shot is a single shot , without a camera cut, a long scene shot without interruptions, therefore. The first to use it was Orson Wells and the last film in which this technique was used was Birdman – which I didn't like, but nothing to say about the direction. In a sequence shot the viewer is forced to concentrate on the scene , precisely because the absence of cuts could cause distraction, therefore loss of images and portions of the story. There is perhaps more participation – and immersion, too – because the audience follows the characters step by step. How to create a sort of sequence shot in fiction ? I don't think it's easy, but the constant changes of scene or point of view certainly don't create much involvement.
Focusing on a character , however, keeping him in action without ever switching off can make the reader more involved. Does reproducing a sequence shot with writing seem impossible to you? Showing two Special Data people talking does not imitate a sequence shot. The writer must find other stratagems, or have particular skills, to give the same sensation of a sequence shot to the reader. Personal stories All the characters have their own past , which must somehow emerge in the story. But first of all there is no story if the past of the characters does not exist. In Birdman that past is preponderant, so much so that it becomes an integral part of the story. But there are other current films in which both the past and the personal stories of the characters are evident, such as American Sniper , The Imitation Game , The Theory of Everything . We not only see the film, but at the same time we know some of the characters' secrets.
All these personal stories create those subplots that help the viewer - and in fiction the reader - to immerse themselves more passionately in the events narrated. In each film we not only witness the main story, but also many parallel stories, both of the protagonist and of the supporting characters. All this enriches the film, as it enriches the novel. Suspense: how to keep a spectator in an armchair for two hours When I first watched Amélie , I fell asleep several times in less than twenty minutes. Even the soundtrack, terrible to my ears – except Comptine d'Un Autre Été , which I adore – played a decisive role. Ok, not my thing. It's not the film's fault, then. I think so, at least. What I mean is that a film must be able to hold a viewer for two hours. When we read a book, if it bores us, we close it. But how many go to the cinema once the film has started?
Focusing on a character , however, keeping him in action without ever switching off can make the reader more involved. Does reproducing a sequence shot with writing seem impossible to you? Showing two Special Data people talking does not imitate a sequence shot. The writer must find other stratagems, or have particular skills, to give the same sensation of a sequence shot to the reader. Personal stories All the characters have their own past , which must somehow emerge in the story. But first of all there is no story if the past of the characters does not exist. In Birdman that past is preponderant, so much so that it becomes an integral part of the story. But there are other current films in which both the past and the personal stories of the characters are evident, such as American Sniper , The Imitation Game , The Theory of Everything . We not only see the film, but at the same time we know some of the characters' secrets.
All these personal stories create those subplots that help the viewer - and in fiction the reader - to immerse themselves more passionately in the events narrated. In each film we not only witness the main story, but also many parallel stories, both of the protagonist and of the supporting characters. All this enriches the film, as it enriches the novel. Suspense: how to keep a spectator in an armchair for two hours When I first watched Amélie , I fell asleep several times in less than twenty minutes. Even the soundtrack, terrible to my ears – except Comptine d'Un Autre Été , which I adore – played a decisive role. Ok, not my thing. It's not the film's fault, then. I think so, at least. What I mean is that a film must be able to hold a viewer for two hours. When we read a book, if it bores us, we close it. But how many go to the cinema once the film has started?