Movies Insider has released a ten-minute behind-the-scenes look at the Golden Globe-winning film ‘1917,’ showing the incredible amount of thought, planning, camera work and editing that went into the World War I film that’s made to look as though it was captured in one, continuous shot.
The behind-the-scenes video shows how meticulously Cinematographer Roger Deakins (The Shawshank Redemption, Fargo, A Beautiful Mind, Skyfall and Sicario) and director Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Skyfall, Spectre) worked together to plan each and every shot, down to the second. From creating miniature dioramas to plan out the paths of the actors, cameras and lights to the vast array of gimbal and camera setups used, the video covers it all with great snippets of pre-production footage and interviews with the film’s creators.
Do yourself a favor and set some time aside to see the cinema magic that went into this Oscar-contender film.
I haven't seen 1917 yet, I will soon. However, I think that they are making way too much about the "one-shot" thing rather than the plot, acting, story, whatever that actually makes a movie great. It's all about how clever they were to make it look like it was one shot.
Other movies that either use the "one-shot" technique (whether actual or simulated) for either the whole film or just incorporate long takes (e.g. 5-10 minutes) in a more conventional style are best when you don't actually realize the fact that the scene you just saw was an uninterrupted take. Or don't realize it until later as in "Hey, wait a minute ...."
I did not conclude any use of gimmicks in 1917, rather using the best available film technology & technical talent to show an amazing film that had me on the edge throughout. While the two unknown principal actors were not 'stars', they were more than competent to fit the roles they played. The star here was the film in total.
It isn’t actually much more than an action film. In fact the overwhelming impression I came away with was following the avatar in a first person shoot ‘em out game.
That’s reinforced by the lack of any real background or depth of characterisation. The Germans in particular were just additional obstacles in the way of the character reaching the specified goal. Hazards, not people.
The technique did hold attention, but it’s a very slight piece of cinema otherwise. The acting performances weren’t bad, but the actors were ill served by a dearth of real emotional content.
I don't like his boot. I don't think is the proper boot. It's obvious they didn't research about WWI the right way. That's just sad. The movie would be kinda ok if it had the right kind of boot. Sigh........
If by glorifying you mean the vulgar yet honest portrayal of despair, loss and sacrifice and how these impact the lives of most common and normal people in the world, then maybe. Watch the movie before discussing its alleged fantastical quality. This movie is more down to earth about war than any other.
Have to disagree with that. Watch Elem Klimov's "Come and See" if you want a war movie that really gets down to earth about war. It's devastating. Really an excellent film.
The movie is excellent and the single-take technique used compliments the story very well. The cuts are well hidden, and even though it's not impossible to spot them if you're looking for them, majority of audience will not know any better. Especially since you just can't help but be immersed into the action. Those that are discussing realism probably never saw a real shell explode. They do not actually kill anyone within 50m radius, especially the field artillery that used lower caliber shells. The movie is a technical marvel that deals with a part of history that hasn't been recently explored in cinema - barely at all, compared to big WWII movies that seem to come out every single year. Personally, I enjoyed the movie immensely and would definitively highly recommend it!
For those interested in 1-shot-movies: In 2015 the German director Sebastian Schipper made the Film "Victoria" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_(2015_film) ) that was truly shot in just one shot. It is a crime and love story situated in nowadays' Berlin. For the final film Schipper and his team recorded three versions, all shot from the beginning to the end, and later chose the best of them as the final versions. The film is fun, not an artsy experiment. The budget was maybe 1/100 of that of '1917', as it was no war film with lots of pyros etc. But I think the movie won some intensity from the 1-shot approach. Most dialogues were improvised on the basis of just twelve pages of script. And the cinematographer, Sturla Brandth Grøvlen, received a silver bear at the Berlinale festival for his artistry.
Wow, just wow! What a great concept, what wonderful challenges, and such perfect execution. A pinnacle of storytelling and a reminder of the horrors of that war and any other war. Restores a bit of hope in humanity's capabilities.
Honestly I don't see the point of one shot the whole movie (and it's not even a real one).
One shot technique sometimes provides better experience but sometimes does nothing but set limitation to the camera work/stage setting and lighting/story telling. The director's job is to decide when to use it instead of abusing it all the time. You just get tired of it eventually. But like a lot of other Deakins movies I feel like he's the one controlling everything instead of the director, and he's willing to sacrifice one thing or two just for the cinematography.
And dare I say 1917's story line is mediocre and full of deus ex machina (because the director wanted to make it "real-time" so things just need to happen coincidentally)
I agree. [Spolier Alert] The one shot technique took over in certain places. It felt particularly wrong when the duo struggled across no-mans land and through exploding tunnels to get to the point that the aircraft crashes, etc only for truck loads of allies to suddenly appear from no-where.
"And dare I say 1917's story line is mediocre and full of deus ex machina (because the director wanted to make it "real-time" so things just need to happen coincidentally)" - yes, because you would've much preferred had they just got stuck in the first ditch and had to lay there in the mud for the rest of the movie. Which certainly would've been more realistic, but would it be entertaining? It's silly that on a photographer / videographer forum people are complaining about condensing action into a frame so it has maximum effect on audience. It is literally what we all do every time we take a photo or shoot a video.
The guy also got shot and passed out for hours but nobody said that part was boring , because that's the one part the director finally gave up his one shot obsession and did some proper editing
Any technical problem can be solved with a sufficient budget. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in service of our societies addiction to adrenaline. Much more impressive are low budget films for feature release that are shot on smartphones.
These aren’t all feature length but they do showcase the capabilities of smartphones for video. As with any production the camera is heavily rigged. Sound is recorded separately, with a full sound cart as a minimum requirement. It’s generally understood that audiences will forgive grain, noise, etcetera but are very unforgiving of bad sound quality. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thewrap.com/movies-shot-on-smart-phones-high-flying-bird-tangerine/amp/
It seems like the main actor was simply trying to run away from getting shot or blown up to save his life the whole time. Was that the plot and point of the film, how to save your own life?
Just the opposite. He was running to save lives by passing on an order to stop 1600 men walking into a trap, all the while trying to avoid getting killed himself as non arrival will fail to stop the suicidal action.
Yeah they have the right equipment and the trained people to make great movies while the forum guys whine about "missing" camera features from behind their greasy keyboards in their messy bedrooms.
Have you seen the movie? I thought it was fantastic and the single shot really heightened the tension for me. I don't think the film would have been nearly as effective without it.
vFunct. On the contrary. I found that the one-shot technique was very immersive. I felt that I was experiencing the journey for myself. Beats gratuitous XCUs, cut-aways and insert shots.
However, I did find it a tad Indiana Jones in parts.
And to your initial point: There were cuts. And they were there for a reason.
@vfunct. Your whole life is one shot, unless your eyes can jump out of your head. There are other ways to change camera positions and placements than a cut. But you actually come over a bit daft ragging on a film you haven't even seen.
I do not think these shots are distracting on themselves, at all. They are actually are really immersive and some of the scenes are impressive and are going to be a reference for future movies. But there are other scenes that mess with the passage of time in the movie, and THAT distracted me. I would have like some cuts where the characters supposedly travel great distances or long times, but it is made short, both in time and space, for the sake of having one continuous shot. I would have liked a cut at those times.
Well, certainly that truck didn't get very far. But there is a cut to cover the passage of several hours where Mendes thought he couldn't avoid it. A bit of a cheat, but one way to make a two hour film cover eight hours.
I’ve only seen the trailer so can’t comment on the overall movie, but It doesn’t appear the director had a good military advisor on staff. Case in point. When the artillery shells explode, maybe one or two guys go down. In reality everyone within at least 50 meters would be blown to bits. Seems like they could have been more accurate with the actual effect of artillery fire. Anyway the cinematography looks nice I guess.
The bar for realism is set pretty low in cinema, thanks to things like cars/helicopters/planes that explode upon small impacts, as if they were made entirely of nitroglycerin or C4. I was quite pleased to notice in Terminator Dark Fate where a car based into something pretty hard and didn't explode for no apparent reason. Odd that such a moment of realism worked its way into a film where almost everything else is BS physics, LOL.
I doubt that it’ll sweep every award going. I have seen it as well (liked it too) but think Joker is a shoe in for best picture and Joaquin Phoenix will get best actor award. I’m referring to upcoming Academy Awards.
I went and read that article and it's a pile of cr*p. The author is so heavily invested with dragging Trump (!) into a review of WWI movie it's almost bizarre. This quote: "it is immoral to tell a story about a war without analyzing the reasons behind that war" is just one of the ridiculous arguments laid out in that article. Not to mention that the author of the article completely ignores the fact that the "1917" was based on stories Sam Mendez's grandfather, who was a trench messenger in WWI, told him before his death. Insisting that every war movie needs to have an instructions manual, a political manifesto and detailed historic context attached is simply absurd.
It’s already finished filming and it was directed by Denis Villeneuve with Greig Fraser handling the DoP duties. It’s not going to be a dumb Marvel affair, not at all.
I am amazed when filmmakers decide to put their own mark on war movies that have been done so many times. Clearly they intended to stand out in this one and succeeded well.
"1917" was a mostly controlled environment. The only real problem with control was weather. For most of its length it only followed two people, and for a considerable amount of that, only one. That makes life a LOT easier. "Russian Ark" had dozens to contend with. Including children and animals. For "1917" much of the augmentation was done by CGI, including rats and dogfights. That said, "Russian Ark" did use some computer work in post-production to remove some mistakes. The important thing is that "1917" gives the illusion of not one but TWO single shots (although the average shot length was I believe about eight minutes) . In "Russian Ark" it was no illusion. That said , Deakins did an amazing job on lighting and mood, which is what i am more interested in crediting it for.
Thought the Joker was overhyped and a little predictable. One very much underrated new film is Jojo Rabbit. I even preferred it to 1917. Imagine the challenge of making a comedy (with tragic elements) about the Hitler youth and nazis in the final days of WWII, where Adolf is comic relief character....
If anyone is interested in another interesting film done in "one take", then check out Hardcore Henry. Really impressive filming there, especially considering the first-person viewpoint. Not truly continuous-take, but still great.
@otto k @Old Cameras Yeah it's unfortunate, he would have surely made something unbelievable, nonetheless the cinematographer in charge is very, very talented as well, it's Greg Fraser, ASC, who for example shot "Star Wars: Rogue One" or "Zero Dark Thirty". Moreover as I undestand it, Villeneuve has a very clear vision of what he wants and does great work with other cinematographers, for example "Arrival" was shot by Bradford Young, ASC and was great, as well as "Incendies" (IMO one of Villeneuve's best work), which was shot by André Turpin. So I'd say if anyone was up to the task, it's Denis Villeneuve.
really wish they would get Bradford Young to shoot Dune. I just wish Young would do more work. I mean he was the first DP of color to be nominated for an Academy award since 1998. I think he's done great things for cinematography and like Chivo has a firm understanding of image politics.
It's not just that Villeneuve has clear vision of what he wants, studios seem to let him create his vision with little to no interference (almost Nolan-like freedom). This gives me hope. And he works with the best cinematographers. I could pick a random frame from the Blade Runner and frame it.
yayatosorus I’m sure Dune could be shot beautifully, and with really good special effects, which it needs to have impact (giant sand worms), but the plot is just way too complex to be compressed into a movie and be understandable. Great books make for lousy movies. They’ll probably get JJ Abrams and you can marvel at epic lens flare.
@Old Cameras Definitely agree, it's quite a task, and in this case it might be an almost impossible one. If the script was done somewhat right, then it's more than likely that it's going to be an adaptation that'll try to conserve more of the core/message/soul of the book, which I find is Villeneuve's strong suit - he's very good at making authentic movies.
Nikon's combined the best of its DSLR and mirrorless cameras into one tough-built body, equally well-suited for stills as it is for video. For effectively modernizing one of the brand's all-star camera lines, it receives our silver award.
It's not cheap and the initial setup is time-consuming, but the Loupedeck+ improves on its predecessor in some important ways and makes a lot of sense for those with demanding photo editing needs.
With a slew of significant updates, the Fujifilm X100V's formula remains the same as the previous models; it's stylish, engaging to use, and takes great pictures. Find out what Fujifilm's added to (and taken away from) its fifth X100-series camera in our initial review.
The S1H is a full-frame mirrorless camera designed with videographers in mind. It brings features both from the GH series and Panasonic's professional Varicam line to create the most capable video camera we've ever tested.
What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel, and recommended the best.
If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.
If you want a camera that you can pick up and use without having to page through the manual first, then this guide is for you. We've selected seven cameras ranging from compacts to full-frame, all of which are easy to operate.
What's the best camera for under $500? These entry-level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.
Looking to get in on the instant camera fun? We tried every model and think the Fujifilm Instax Mini 70 strikes the right balance between price and feature - the Instax Wide 300 is our choice if you crave a larger format.
Today, Moment, a company that creates gear and accessories for photographers and filmmakers, released 67mm filters and a mount that works with any modern smartphone.
The 2020 Sony World Photography Awards recently removed active links to images from three separate finalists due to their 'sensitive nature. All have a common theme: the Hong Kong protests. The move has raised concerns about possible censorship.
Join seasoned wildlife photographer Adam Jones as he tries out Canon's high-speed flagship in South Texas, where a colorful range of bird species occupy the inland habitats and coastal regions of the lower Rio Grande Valley.
The X-T200 is Fujifilm's most promising entry-level camera in some time. With a feature set tailored to casual photographers who might bring the camera on a trip somewhere warm and sunny, well, we did just that.
Nikon's combined the best of its DSLR and mirrorless cameras into one tough-built body, equally well-suited for stills as it is for video. For effectively modernizing one of the brand's all-star camera lines, it receives our silver award.
Firmware version 3.00 for the Z6 and Z7 camera systems brings major new and improved features, including updates to the AF tracking implementation, expanded CFexpress support, animal-detection autofocus and more.
Earlier this week, Judge Joseph Farah ruled in favor of Jason Harrison. He was arrested for a legal flight at a Genessee County park (Michigan, U.S.) in December 2018. The ruling is expected to set a precedent for the rest of the United States.
At last month's Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas we sat down with Yosuke Yamane, Director of Panasonic's Imaging Business Division, to discuss market reaction to the S1-series, full-frame strategy and the state of the L-mount alliance.
Three new lenses from Leica for the M system, including a pair of limited edition Safari options (28mm F2 and 75mm F2) and a silver version of the 75mm F2.
The Timelapse+ View is a sophisticated device that aims to solve a common challenge for time-lapse photographers: shooting through extreme changes in light levels, such as day-to-night transitions. As we discover in our review, it works really well.
The DPReview TV team recently traveled to Costa Rica where they had an opportunity to shoot with the new Olympus 12-45mm F4 Pro lens. Check out their sample images in this gallery and see how it performed.
It's not cheap and the initial setup is time-consuming, but the Loupedeck+ improves on its predecessor in some important ways and makes a lot of sense for those with demanding photo editing needs.
The FAA recently proposed rules that could impact all drone operators in the US, virtually requiring an internet connection to fly and a requirement to broadcast personally identifying information. Here's what's at stake and how to make your voice heard.
Comments