It seems obvious to me that the creators of this film realized early on that they were working with script that is cliche, predictable and wholly uninteresting. So, instead of trying to make the story itself interesting, they decided to shoot it in what they must have believed to be an interesting way. Long takes, few cuts, real time, real mess.
These sort of films may be attention grabbing from an experimental veiwpoint, but don't offer much in the way of good storytelling. Movies are traditionally cut and edited the way they are for a very good reason...it works. While some may consider this style of filmmaking challenging and artistic, I think lazy is more on point: strap a steadicam operator with a rig, have him run around following the action for an ungodly amount of time and it only takes you two days to edit, wow!
The negative effects of shooting a film in such a way far outweigh the possible benefits. Sickening camera shifts (think Blair Witch), stagnant camera angles, and uneven acting performances are all inevitable results. Plus, it seems to me that the value of such extended takes come as a result of their scarcity. P.T. Anderson understands this, and while he almost always incorporates a long take or two in his films, they serve as juxtapose the more traditional shooting style and, are therefore interesting.
While "Running Time" may be a fascinating filmmaking exercise, this bizarre and ineffective shooting style, when combined with a poorly written script make this movie practically unwatchable and certainly unenjoyable. It appears as if the creator of this film was making it solely for himself and not for a viewing audience, which is fine, but these sort of pieces are better suited for film school projects than feature film releases.
These sort of films may be attention grabbing from an experimental veiwpoint, but don't offer much in the way of good storytelling. Movies are traditionally cut and edited the way they are for a very good reason...it works. While some may consider this style of filmmaking challenging and artistic, I think lazy is more on point: strap a steadicam operator with a rig, have him run around following the action for an ungodly amount of time and it only takes you two days to edit, wow!
The negative effects of shooting a film in such a way far outweigh the possible benefits. Sickening camera shifts (think Blair Witch), stagnant camera angles, and uneven acting performances are all inevitable results. Plus, it seems to me that the value of such extended takes come as a result of their scarcity. P.T. Anderson understands this, and while he almost always incorporates a long take or two in his films, they serve as juxtapose the more traditional shooting style and, are therefore interesting.
While "Running Time" may be a fascinating filmmaking exercise, this bizarre and ineffective shooting style, when combined with a poorly written script make this movie practically unwatchable and certainly unenjoyable. It appears as if the creator of this film was making it solely for himself and not for a viewing audience, which is fine, but these sort of pieces are better suited for film school projects than feature film releases.