How was the 1917 long shot Filmed?

How was the 1917 long shot Filmed?

1917 is a war movie about two British soldiers in WWI who were tasked to do an impossible mission.

The movie starts with the soldiers sleeping, they receive their task, walk through the very long trenches, then to the enemy’s trenches, get chased and bombed… (we will not spoil the entire movie). All that was done in one continuous take!

Actually, it seems like just one long continuous take. When you take a look at the behind the scenes shots of 1917, you will see that the camera crew had to chase after the characters by Jeep, motorcycle, crane, drone, and even by foot. 

This has been done before. One of the earliest examples of a one-shot film was Alfred Hitchcock’s Rope. A more recent example is Birdman. 

However, 1917 pushes it a step further. In this movie, the task was harder because of the war setting which means persistent action. Add to that, the action took place over large landscapes. 1917 never uses the same location twice. 

Obviously, the movie was not shot in 1 continuous take. We will reveal all the techniques and filming tricks used in 1917 to establish the feel of a continuous shot.

Cinematographer Roger Deakins was up for this hard task. Deakins is undoubtedly one of the greatest cinematographers alive. He worked on movies like Skyfall and Sicario, The Shawshank Redemption, No Country for Old Men. He also earned the best cinematography Oscar for Blade Runner 2049 and now for 1917. The list goes on…

Director Sam Mendes decided to shoot the film in a continuous long take to create an immersive experience and to put the audience in the shoes of a British soldier fighting in World War I.

So how did director Sam Mendes, cinematographer Roger Deakins, and editor Lee Smith achieve this extremely difficult cinematic trick?

Planning the long take

To get the 1917 long shot right, the filmmakers needed to plan everything before starting to shoot. And I mean plan to the tiniest detail.

The crew needed to build models for every shot. This would help them visualize the shooting process better.

For example, this is the farmhouse that the two soldiers visit.

Here is the model they built and here’s how it appeared in the movie

The art department built realistic sets from scratch. Each set needed to be able to accommodate for the path of the camera.

This was a main aspect the filmmakers needed to account for before shooting. These narrow trenches needed to be wide enough to fit the camera and crew who will be following the actors as they walk along.
For example, the barbed wire the two soldiers walked through in no man’s land had an angled pathway so the camera could get through. Ramps allowed the camera to pass from no man’s land into the lower German trenches.

For example, the barbed wire the two soldiers walked through in no-man’s land had angled pathway so the camera could get through. Ramps allowed the camera to pass from no-man’s land into the lower German trenches.

Perhaps most impressive of all was the 5200 feet of trenches the crew had to build. As some of the most action-packed and challenging shots happen in these narrow pathways, it was crucial to measure everything.

Timing

Every scene had to be the exact length of the land. So if a scene shot lasted 5 minutes, the action has to take exactly that long to get through that specific area.

So, the production designed should build sets that allow the camera to move and still look narrow. These sets should extend to a large landscape that will fit the exact timing of the actor’s action!

Rehearsals and Blocking

In an interview with Vox Mendes said they wouldn’t fill the set until they knew exactly how long it should be.

This required a lot of rehearsing.

While all films require rehearsals the process for achieving the 1917 long take was much longer and more rigorous.

Usually, the rehearsals on most film sets can take place on the day of shooting. But for 1917 walkthroughs were happening well in advance. They first started rehearsing is a studio and then moved to the real sets.

Every single line of dialogue had to be rehearsed on location. The whole process of blocking and rehearsing scenes went on for 4 months!

Once they figured out the landscapes and timing, measured everything out, and made sure every actor knew their lines and hit their marks… it was time to start shooting.

Filming

There was another crucial step in pulling off the illusion of one continuous long take in 1917:

The camera could never move backward only forward.

The characters had a starting point and a fixed destination and could never go back.

One solution for that was letting the camera move 360 degrees.

This allowed the crew to constantly move forward and follow the characters without making a visible hard cut. Productions of this size call for heavy equipment, but how were the crew supposed to deal with cameras that needed to be mobile?

The solution was a new model of high-definition camera that was much lighter and smaller than usual.

This gave the cinematographer the same great image quality but also allowed for more portability and for the camera to more quickly be attached to something like a crane or a drone.

Scofield’s (the main character) journey downriver was captured mostly by a crane.

Lighting

The constant movement created another big challenge: lighting

This was a challenge because it will be extremely hard and restricting to hide the large lights and their grips in 360-degree shots. It would be very hard to light such large areas.

The most logical solution for that would be natural lighting.

Therefore, cloudy days were the best days to be filming. Sunny days meant more shadows and more equipment.

Imagine that they would be looking at weather apps to see when it’s going to be cloudy and if the cloud would last long enough to do a 5-minute take.

However, they did use some artificial lighting.

For example, this 50-foot tall light tower that was dimmed to create the color of fire that meant to light up the entire wound village.

And, because the movie took place in real time the lighting had to look consistent and to match the natural light of the time of day that the action is taking place.

Editing

In post-production Deakins and Mendes found subtle ways to make those cuts without the audience knowing.

Sometimes an object would block the frame.

Hidden cuts were also seamlessly achieved when characters travel through doorways or entered a dark bunker.

Other shots required even cleverer transitions.

In one sequence, Scofield runs through a burning City and jumps off a ledge into a river. If you look at the same shot behind the scenes you’ll see George running through that same city and jumping off the ledge. But instead of a river, he jumps onto a mat!

With the help of some visual effects, the editors were able to seamlessly stitch together the character jumping off the ledge and into the water.

Crazy Creative filming

Nothing quite matched the challenge of pulling off the climactic sequence in which Scofield runs alongside a trench in the middle of battle.

Getting the shot was a huge endeavor.

They started on a 50-foot crane. It climbs up the trench with the actor… then the camera is taken off that crane and hooked onto another crane. That crane was on the back of a tracking vehicle that was already slowly moving back. So as they hook it on, it’s all one move that moves back.

Still in the same take, the action continues… Jorge speeds up and starts running. Meanwhile, the two crew members that hooked the camera come across the back of the shot, but we don’t recognize them because they were in costume. Once the camera was on the truck it had to follow George as he ran for about a quarter of a mile meanwhile.

Fun Fact

While everything they did while shooting had to be so precise, there was still room for accidents…

As George is running out of the trench you’ll see him bump into some extras. That wasn’t planned!

The actor bumped into them by accident and they just kept the camera rolling. Had Mendes called cut right away, this great genuine moment capturing the chaos of the war would never have made it into the movie

Refrences

This information was taken from: inews.co.uk, vox.com, insider.com

The Death of Cinema: Is TV taking the Place of Cinema?

The Death of Cinema: Is TV taking the Place of Cinema?

TV shows are being more and more cinematic… This would make us think if TV is taking the place of cinema. If so, will cinema eventually die and become history?

The Second Golden Age of TV

In an era that is described as the television’s second golden age, TV stations ( HBO, FX…) and online streaming platforms (Netflix, Hulu…) are competing to produce TV series with interesting plots, sophisticated filming techniques, and high production values. In addition to the economic success of these products, some TV series combined rich plots with stylized storytelling, which gave them critical acknowledgment and big viewership. Consider for example quality TV shows like The Handmaid’s Tale and Game of Thrones. All this led to shows that I would like to describe as cinematic TV series, or quality TV that has a cinematic look. As established film directors, producers and actors are venturing into TV series, we say that the line between cinema and TV is blurring.

Technology made it possible for the audience to choose among several platforms to watch films. We can now choose to watch a movie in the traditional way by going to a movie theater, buying a ticket and watching the film on the giant screen in the dark. Or we can chose to watch the film on a TV set at home with available options of considerably big 4K high definition screen and 5.1 surround system. Of course, the movie going rewards a different experience, but it would be rather easier, cheaper, time efficient, more flexible, and more accessible to watch a film on a DVD, VOD (Video on demand), online streaming, or even a broadcasted film. The film industry is going to the extent of producing films exclusively for the online streaming platforms. Certain quality films produced by Netflix are not screened in movie theaters.

In such cases, what would be the difference between watching a film or an episode of a quality series on Netflix?  And why wouldn’t both productions be considered cinematic? Such questions may bring up the thought that TV, and online TV, is taking over the traditional cinema, and may also introduce the idea of the decline of cinema and the rebirth of TV.

The Death of Cinema?!

The death of cinema is not a new concept. Cinema has faced many technological advancements throughout its history. First, the introduction of sound, and then the wide screen formats. These advancements changed the way films were produced and distributed. But the notion of the (hypothetical) death of cinema that concerns this article is the impact of television on cinema. To be clear, I don’t blame contemporary TV series for this assumed death of cinema. But the effect of television as a medium on cinema has long been discussed by many critics and scholars. Some went to the extent of saying that the invention of TV was starting point for the death of cinema.

The death of cinema does not mean the vanishing of cinema as a medium where films cease to exist and cinema theaters close their doors. It would rather refer to a shift in the dominant narrative medium. Meaning that cinema loses its hegemony in being the main source of audio/visual storytelling to TV. But, as the quality of television had developed, one might be able to think of this phenomenon as if television is being affected by cinema. But this idea may be controversial. Film critics tend to be defensive about cinema and refuse to transcend its artistic legacy to TV. Critics consider that the big screen is essential for the existence of cinema. Only the films that are watched in a movie theater projection, in the dark, without the ability to interrupt or modify the experience can be regarded as cinema.

The improvement of TV’s content should not mean that one medium would replace the other. Traditional TV programming contained mainly soap operas and sitcoms, which characterised the medium. But during the 1980s and 1990s, the style and content of these programs went through a considerable change. TV series started to stand in opposition of the mass-audience popular forms. This lead to rise of cultural niche programs (think of Twin Peaks, The Sopranos, and The Wire).

But is TV actually taking the place of cinema?

There are two approaches for this question:

1. Audiences prefer TV over going to cinema


If the question is suggesting that people are just watching TV rather than cinema, then the answer is NO!

TV is not taking the place of cinema in this sense. And the numbers back this argument. According to The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the number of movie admissions and film revenue seem to be fairly stable in the last couple of years. Statistics show that the admission number to cinema has been almost stable since the 1970s. So there is no sensible negative effect of the rise of cinematic Quality TV series on the popularity of cinema. This rise in quality in TV shows has started since the 90s (about 30 years ago). It would be far fetched to consider this (relatively new) genre of TV to be competing with the 100 year of cinema. Cinema seems to be standing strong as the main source for narrative and fiction entertainment.

2. TV is replacing cinema in the artistic sense

Another way to answer the question is by looking at the question in the artistic sense. So, the question would be: Is TV replacing cinema as the home for artistic audio/visual storytelling?

Here I would give my vote for TV. The shows of this second golden age of TV are having great cinematic quality and artistic value. In comparison you can easily notice that the movies that are gaining the most recognition are commercial movies. Mainly action, fantasy and super-hero genres. The more “serious” content is on TV. There you can find many popular shows with deep psychological characters, controversial plots, symbolic meanings, and creative story-telling… Think of shows like The Handmaid’s Tale, The Man in the High Castle, The Young Pope, Mr. Robot, The Affair, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones... and many others. Please write the name of the shows that you think we must add to this list in the comment section.
I will not dive deeper in the artistic value of TV, but you can read about Art in film here.

On an ending note, I think that we should not consider TV and cinema as enemies in a war where one should take the place of the other. Each has its own experience. Cinema has (and still is) providing us with great movies that satisfies all tastes. TV is picking up in the artistic sense, and the quality of its content is increasing. After TV was based mainly on soap operas, sitcoms, and talk/game/reality shows. The more competition, the more good content for us!!

What do you think about this cinema V/S TV argument? I would like to read your thoughts.

What is a Quality TV Show?

What is a Quality TV Show?

You may have used the term “Quality TV” to describe your favorite TV show, and you would mean by that that the series is good and has good quality. But what are the standards for a quality TV series and what are the elements that give it this quality?

Quality TV Series

Quality TV series is a type or genre of TV shows that have higher production and artistic standards. The term started to be used in the 1990s with the rise of shows like Twin Peaks (ABC, 1990), OZ (HBO, 1997), and The Sopranos (HBO, 1999). Mainly when we talk about quality we are looking at the theme, style, production value, and target audience. Quality TV series have serious themes that reflect the concerns of the contemporary society. The story is usually presented in a unique visual style with high production value and visual aesthetics. Such TV series are targeted to a more educated audience that are familiar with cinematic story-telling and have some interpretation and analytical skills.

Themes in Quality TV Series

First we should discuss the main theme in the series to consider its quality. Here we are looking at the story and the message of the series, in other words the script. Quality TV series often deal with serious and sophisticated social and psychological issues. For example, addiction to power in Breaking Bad, women rights and oppression due to religion in The Handmaid’s Tale, The effect of technology on our life in Black Mirror… What I described as a “serious theme” is not exclusive to drama genre. Dark comedies can also be considered quality TV. For example, Shameless deals with many serious social issues using light and dark comedy. Finally, the main theme of a quality TV show usually comments on the society and revolve around big subjects that concern the modern audience.

Style in Quality TV Shows

Style is the most important element when it comes to quality TV series. In order have a better quality, a TV series should be different from other TV shows in the way that it represents the story. When I talk about style I am talking about how the story in the series is represented visually.

Quality TV have a unique style in its visual representation. Unique visual style can be achieved through colours, digital effects, and framing.

A frame from “The Handmaid’s Tale”
A frame from “American Gods”

Second, The quality in style comes from using new and innovative framing that we are not used to see in other TV shows. In some cases, these shots tell the audience information about the characters and the story. For example look at this frame from The Handmaid’s Tale:

The Handmaid’s Tale

In this frame the character is at the edge of the frame. The character is visually marginalised in the frame, the same way that she is being marginalised in the series. This specific use of framing makes the quality of the show even higher. Those who like to interpret and analyse movies would like to watch shows that allow deeper analysis of the cinematography.

Production Value in Quality TV Series

High production value is the most obvious element when it comes to labelling the quality of a TV show. To consider the production value high, the show must be:
– Shot in nice locations that seem real
– There are celebrity actors
– Good CGI and video effects
– Authentic costumes, and makeup
– Good music and sound tracks

In general, when the series presents all its scenes beautifully and does not shy away from demanding scenes and expensive shots such as war scenes, explosions, action sequences, traveling to new countries…

Here are some examples of high production value in TV shows:

Game of Thrones – HBO
The Young Pope – HBO
Peaky Blinders – BBC

Target Audience of Quality TV Series

The target audience are the people that the producers of the show want to be watching their show. Sitcoms for example, usually target families and younger audience. Quality TV series are usually targeted to adults who are educated and have at least a minimum knowledge about cinematic production and story-telling techniques. That is because those people would appreciate the good cinematography, and won’t accept easy/cheap solutions to go around demanding scenes. (Here high production value becomes a necessity). The group of people that watch quality shows need to have good interpretational and analytical skills because the themes of these shows are complicated and the story is often told without spoon feeding the details.

Conclusion

In this golden age of TV, almost all the TV series can have a good quality. This does not mean that all these shows are good. Quality has specific elements or a checklist that we can consider to evaluate the show. But a good show is relative to every person. For example, season 8 of Game of Thrones has undoubtably a great quality according to the elements that I mentioned in this post, but still many viewers did not consider it as a good season.

Even within quality TV shows, some might have a greater value than the others. It is not just the production value that determines the quality. Shows like The Handmaid’s Tale, Breaking Bad, The Leftovers, Peaky Blinders, The Young Pope, Maniac… are all TV series that have a great artistic value in addition to their production value. I like to think of such shows that perfect their quality as cinematic TV series. They are closer to being an artistic film than a conventional TV series.