The long take has evolved over the years much like film has. The structure of the long take has remained the same while the theory and the technology used to make it happen have changed. Two films that incorporate long takes and span the evolutionary timeline of the long take are the Maltese Falcon and Children of Men. These two films have famous long takes that while they have “uninterrupted” filming, the effect the long take has on the audience is different.
The Maltese Falcon’s long takes were stellar given, when it was made. Many takes in the film were over 45 seconds long and required the camera to move. John Huston, the director of the Maltese Falcon, storyboarded the entire movie which allowed the cast to rehearse and shoot a scene with seamless flow. The camera at times tracked with the characters and followed them into the room. These tracking long takes were amazing given the weight and bulkiness of the camera equipment. The long takes allow the audience to get a sense of real time in the passing of events, such as the scene in which Spade is drugged by Gutman. The long takes of early film relied proficient acting and relatively still scenes.
65 years later, Alfonso Cuaron in Children of Men “apparently” produced long takes which are up to 6 minutes and 20 seconds long. The long takes in the film are nothing short of modern technological marvels. Thanks to post production editing and elaborate camera riggings, scenes like the coffee house bombing, the car ambush, the birth, and the siege of Bexhill appear to be continuous uninterrupted film. By far, the most complex scene was the car ambush. The car itself had no roof to allow for the complex camera rigging and for the multitude of angles to be shot continuously. The shot was considered by many to be impossible and insane to attempt, yet the “shot” was made and achieved its goal. The effect of the long take in this scene is appearance of happening in real time which engrosses the audiences in the “climax” of the first half of the film. The scene also takes on the effect that the camera just happened to be on as the action occurs, the so called “documentary” feel. Cuaron’s daring style allowed for the departure from film convention of the long take.
While the long take has retained its structure and basic use in film, the possible meanings for the use of the take have expanded. This expansion has led director such as Cuaron to utilize the long take to its current full potential in Hollywood film. Since the early years of film, long takes have been cinematography challenges that directors have conquered. With the ever growing technology in the film industry, there is no telling what will be done with the long take. The question I have is: With the evolution of the long take, what will filmmakers do to add to the meaning of the long take?
Engaging Cinema at Tech 
I was very impressed with the camera work and ability to create the appearance of long takes when they spliced several takes together. It definitely did add to the movie, and gave you the sense that you were actually there, following Theo every step of the way, and also the sense that everything was more real.
I’m honestly not sure where else the long take will decide to go. Our camera equipment is light enough to run with, and our ability to splice takes together is seamless. I really can’t think of too many places for these long takes to go from there. We seem to have tackled the two most apparent problems of filming just one take for a whole sequence or scene. What other problems could present themselves in the future? What new ideas can we open up in film with the use of technology and long takes?
I believe that with the advantage of new technology, directors will continue to advance film making techniques. It is reasonable to say that as technology continues to develop, so will film making techniques and uses for the current technology. I would say that, and using the video in this post as an example, new technology will allow film makers to produce movies that seemingly do away with cameras. By that I mean that the film making and editing will continue to advance the seamlessness in which we are now able to view films. It will appear that the camera is not even in the scene because we will be able to view from so many different angles and almost simultaneously. It begs the question to the viewer of, how come when the angle shifts that I don’t see the camera that I was just viewing from? These kinds of seamless and multi-angled scenes are where the advancements will continue to occur, in my opinion.
As far as how far the long take will go.. I’m waiting for an entire movie to be filmed and spliced together as one long take. That would be pretty neat. But to comment on the above scene I’m going to be a pessimist and point out a few things that kind of bugged me. First of all I usually don’t pay much attention to detail when I am trying to enjoy a film (especially science fiction), particularly because I don’t want to ruin my own experience. With that being said, after hearing all the hype about how good these long takes were, I agree, they were pretty awesome. But while I was paying so much attention to detail and trying to notice where the slices may be I noticed some things that bugged me. First of all, in the ambush scene when Theo opens the door to knock the bikers down the crash looks very fake. Which I hate to complain but it really caught my eye as it appeared that the bike crashed and was flipping and rolling in the direction opposite to which it was going, which is impossible. This may not have been what was intended in the CGI but it definitely appeared that way. The only other thing that I will play devils advocate to is in the scene where Theo is stealing the car and trying to pop the clutch to get it to start while rolling down a hill. When that doesn’t work, at the bottom of the hill, he begins to push it and when it finally starts and we hear it drive away to the sound effects of an automatic vehicle. But the list of things messed up in movies similar to that is endless so it really doesn’t deserve my critique.
There actually is a movie that is all shot in one long take (no splicing together). It’s Aleksandr Sokurov’s 2002 film “Russian Ark:” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318034/
There is a fascinating documentary about the making of the film that’s online as well:
I believe the car ambush long take was shot perfectly. A special camera was invented by Gary Thieltges and the vehicle was modified to enable seats to tilt and lower actors out of the way of the camera similarly, windshield was also designed to tilt out of the way to allow camera movement in and out through the front windscreen. A crew of four including director, producer and camera operator rode on the roof
The whole purpose was to take advantage of the real time. The director has a very distinct style of this movie and he did incredibly long takes that took a lot of orchestration. In this big action sequences actors rehearsed for a very long time before shooting because a lot of elements had to come together. The long takes are incredibly choreographed. Hence, if this twelve minute action sequence could be shot in one take, I am pretty sure in next five years a whole movie would be shot in 2-3 takes.
Another main point one can addresses is the lighting in both different films. Obviously viewers can tell that one is a black-white film while the other one is more recent, since it is in color. The lighting in both movies help addresses long takes by providing emphasis on specific parts when needed.
While in The Maltese Falcon this was done in a more specific manner, since Lighting was one of the few key elements setting everything apart. In The Children of Men, many more elements played key roles as the the art of cinematography has improved.
I’m not sure if there are other uses and ventures the long take can take on. I think when used appropriately, it is an interesting and meaningful type of shot. Maybe eventually the technology will become versatile enough to use the technique in situations never thought possible before, such as a scene involving water or some other inconvenient location. Although the method of shooting these scenes often involves editing, splicing, and CGI, they do serve the purpose desired in the film (even if it may look “fake”). Of course when any film is severely analyzed, there will be inconsistencies, there are whole websites devoted to this practice. As the technology improves, however, the scenes will become smoother and more realistic (and accurate). For the time being, I think one needs to enjoy the scene for what it is, and not try to dismantle the underlying techniques.