The Placid Stillness of 'Silent House'

Most movies, especially contemporary horror flicks, cut every few seconds especially in action sequences. Like this one from 'Final Destination':



19 cuts in 27 seconds.

'Silent House' has a flow, long lines. The 'presented as one take' gimmick won't get anybody into theaters. Nobody's going to say, "Let's go see that haunted house movie that was shot and/or presented in one take."

However, I think people will respond to what they've seen in clips and trailers. Flowing takes that breathe. Like this one:



51 seconds, zero cuts, one reverse angle by moving the camera. Nice. Doesn't punish you for watching. A refreshing step back, stylistically. Really, it's like you're there -- a good thing for a horror movie.

Elizabeth Olsen delivers, as well. She's got that look -- that conviction actors have when they believe in the script, know they are doing good work.

I think audiences will check it out. It should do better than the $8-10m most are predicting. I'll go out on a limb: Lorax won't appeal to older kids or teens. Carter won't appeal to guys or their girlfriends -- Neither will 'Project X' (not sure it appeals to anyone -- we see that stuff in reality TV and YouTube all the time). And with Carter's runtime of 132 minutes, this creates a vacuum and 'Silent House' may come out strong despite its R-rating. So (in millions):

1) The Lorax $33
2) John Carter $22

Which leads to a toss-up for 3rd and 4th. I'll go with:

3) Silent House $16-20
4) Project X $6-12

'Act of Valor' should hold stronger than usual.

To be honest I wasn't even aware Eddie Murphy's 'One Thousand Words' was opening this weekend. That's a bad title for this kind of movie -- won't register with the targeted audience.

'Journey 2' and 'Safe House' may hold better than expected.

Not too much chance of it, but I wouldn't be shocked if JC did less business than SH.

.

'Silent House' -- One Continuous Shot Becomes 'Captured in Real Time'

I went on yesterday regarding this shtick about how 'Silent House' is one continuous 88-minute shot -- how it would just be too tough and, really, can't be believed, and how there are plenty of ways to shoot a movie using conventional cuts but make it look like one continuous take.

If you don't know, the movie is being pitched as having been shot in one take because that's how the  original Uruguayan film 'La Casa Muda' was sold. Producers of that film claimed the entire movie was done in one take and this was made possible largely because they used a Canon 5D SLR, which is very compact especially compared to a film (motion picture) camera, and allowed them to move around the actors in tight spaces and shoot the movie without cuts.

Okay, fine. It's a fun gag -- we'll go along for the ride -- although, if anyone cares to check 'Silent House' certainly spent several weeks in principal photography just like every other conventionally shot single-location b-horror flick.

What's funny, though, is how producers are soft-selling this hokum. In this trailer, at 1:46, John Horn is quoted: "presented as one single film take". 'Presented as'... Of course, in the same trailer, at 2:12, we're told the story is 'Inspired by true events', and it ends with the tag: Real fear in real time.

I don't know how I missed it when this poster rolled out, but now the pitch is 'Captured in real time'. So, we're to understand the imagery in this movie was photographed...in real time? Filmed as the actors...acted? What's next? Will they proclaim the movie will be projected onto the screen in real time?

It looks good, though. I've been surprised by clips. I'll be watching 'Silent House'. On disc. In real time, 5 or 10 minutes at a time, over the course of a week or two.

.

Clips from 'Silent House' -- Shot in One Take!

This whole 'shot in one take' gimmick can't be taken seriously. Can't be done. Alternatively, 'presented as a single take' is a used car sales pitch.

The cut, or opportunity to cut, in this clip comes at :54. At this point, with the shot almost completely black and out of focus, you could stop shooting while the upstairs rooms are lit and set up. Then you could go back and pick up at the same spot, pan over and find Elizabeth Olsen at the foot of the stairs. Any fine tuning of the imagery could be done in post, but that would be minimal if you were careful. Certainly, any director and DP would do tests as to the best way to accomplish what looked like a seamless take before production started.

When the flick comes out I'll bet it's loaded with bits where someone or some object gets very close to the camera and blocks it totally, or the light levels drop to black for a second, or other some such thing, allowing for cuts every minute or two. The takes may be impressively long, but not seamless. The logistics of that effort would be mind boggling. The ruined takes would drive cast and crew crazy. Really, even if you tried it, the studio would step in and tell the director to just make it look seamless and quit throwing money away trying to get the whole 88 minute movie in one take.

Of course, it's all in good fun, but I can't help myself.



Have to say, I'm impressed by the quality of footage. Olsen is looking good. Movie has a flow.















.

Hard-Sell TV Spot for 'Silent House'

They're trying a tad too hard here. Doesn't bode well.













.

'Silent House' (La Casa Muda) Clips

There's no way this was shot in one 90-minute take.

Great clips, though.

'Silent House'

Remake of 'La Casa Muda' which was (supposedly) shot in one take on a Canon 5d Mark II. I remember thinking that was nearly impossible in practical terms. Can you imagine an entire crew slinking around a house making sure each room/actor, etc., was ready for the camera to come in shooting?

It struck me while watching this trailer that the whole 'one-take' thing may add a lot of suspense. Make it a grinding experience. I'm thinking audiences will want to see 'Silent House'. Movie is looking good so far.