Yeah I saw it yesterday and didn't see any threads about this movie until just now. These takes are wild. It's an enjoyable movie.
Personally, I think this one does a much better work with the technique than Birdman. Birdman had like no fucking point on being a one shot and I LIKE THAT FILM.
I almost said "western" or even more aptly, "Hollywood" and should have.
I legit forgot that movie even existed until now. I think I saw it?
I love that I had to double check to see if those 2 films were real.
What weirds me out about the rapturous response to this movie more than anything is people acting like there isn't a blatant cut to black halfway through. The more I read people saying it's one long take (there's several moments where you can pinpoint them yelling cut too) I feel like I'm being gaslit lol.
The smash to black is really the only traditional cut in the entire thing. There are moments I spotted that could have been stitched together from multiple takes, but there are nearly no traditional cuts whatsoever which is the point. Thinking you're being gaslit when people say the movie is one long take seems more like hyperbolic pedantry to me. Would you be satisfied if people instead called it a two-shot movie?
I was clearly being facetious with my use of "gaslit" but it's genuinely weird to me that people are repeating something that's just objectively not true about the movie. Like I get it for the rest of the film because functionally it does read as a long take but it seems like people are pretending there's isn't a gigantic seam in the middle of the movie for some reason.
I don't think it's even an accurate shorthand though given how the movie intentionally breaks it in two. In a movie with no other discernible cuts a single one to black that lasts several seconds is a pretty damn big aspect.
Is the truth of the matter really that pressing that it's bothersome? Again, would you rather everyone just call it a two-shot movie?
Little Women is a passion project and not Oscar bait at all. It's also the best movie of 2019.
Birdman was just a few years ago.
It can be all three. Sony only funded the movie because the formula sounded like a guaranteed awards season smash (which it has been at the box office, aside from being somewhat snubbed at the actual awards). Director hot off an Oscar nomination, new take on iconic novel, and a cast filled with big names & rising stars. It's precisely why the term Oscar bait exists - it's catnip to the type of audiences who love 'prestige'.
I know why the cut is there and acknowledge that it really worked in spite of the rest of the movie being a masturbatory technical showoff in some ways, that's why it's so strange to me that people are omitting the fact it's there.
Yes because apart from my own issues with the movie it misrepresents it a good deal as if there's some shame in the movie not being presented like one long shot. Calling it a two-shot movie is more accurate at least.
