View previous topic | View next topic

Movies

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

Troux
1084368.  Sun Jul 13, 2014 11:34 pm Reply with quote

Thought it was about time we had this topic...

The longest movie is currently Modern Times Forever, at a modest 10-day run time. It will be left in the dust by the in-progress Ambiancé, which will stretch a full 30 days. The 72-minute trailer in the link will be followed by a 7-hour and later a 72-hour trailer in the coming years before its 2020 release date. If the production seems ridiculous, then the presentation is pure insanity:
Quote:
Weberg plans to have Ambiancé screen only a single time, simultaneously on every single continent. After that, it'll be destroyed.


This project is artistically ambitious, perhaps moreso than the unashamedly named, The Longest Most Meaningless Movie in the World, which held the record (at 2 days) from '68-'87.

 
yommilommi
1084369.  Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:27 am Reply with quote

Wow! that will be a long movie!... why are they going to destroy it?... how is it going to be shown? are they going to be really 30 days in a row? or are they arranged in a series, people are going to be able to go out of the theatre or are they going to be living in theatre for a month?! That is ambitious!

The longest movie I saw was the Human Conditon by Masaki Kobayashi, 9 hours, divided in three films of three hours each (nothing compared to a month, I know)... great film!

 
'yorz
1084381.  Mon Jul 14, 2014 3:52 am Reply with quote

The longest movie I saw was Novecento or 1900 (1976) by Bernardo Bertolucci:
5 hr. 15 min.

 
Troux
1084462.  Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:48 am Reply with quote

Wow, you two are patient! The longest I've done is The Return of the King at 3:21, but I think I ought to see Lawrence of Arabia at some point.

I'm not sure what the point of destroying his work is. Perhaps a monkish lesson of impermanence, or perhaps just to be artistically ironic. I haven't read any more about how they really intend to bring all of this together, but I imagine it won't be seen by many in its entirety.

 
djgordy
1084468.  Mon Jul 14, 2014 11:14 am Reply with quote

yommilommi wrote:
why are they going to destroy it?


Art, darling. Art.

I have made the shortest movie ever. Well, strictly speaking it is a photograph......

 
CharliesDragon
1084471.  Mon Jul 14, 2014 11:27 am Reply with quote

And that is exactly why I say all movies are 3D (height, width and time) while what is called "3D movies" are in fact four dimensions. Then you have what they advertise as 4D dimensions, "3D" movies with rocking chairs and sprays of water and what-have-you.

I'm not sure of it's right to count time as a dimension in this context, but if you didn't have time there, it would just be a photograph.

 
djgordy
1084477.  Mon Jul 14, 2014 11:46 am Reply with quote

My photograph exists in time It existed when I took it and it exists today. I assume it exists even when I'm not looking at it, although some people might wish to argue that point.

3D movies aren't really so; they are still projected onto a flat screen. The 3D effect is an illusion. Also, they are really irritating when not seen in 3D as there are lots of guns and swords etc being pointed at the viewer,

 
'yorz
1084485.  Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:07 pm Reply with quote

Troux wrote:
Wow, you two are patient!

I didn'y say I saw it in one sitting - it was shown in the cinemas in two goes. Can't remember how much time in between... weeks? A month?

 
yommilommi
1084502.  Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:46 pm Reply with quote

'yorz wrote:
Troux wrote:
Wow, you two are patient!

I didn'y say I saw it in one sitting - it was shown in the cinemas in two goes. Can't remember how much time in between... weeks? A month?


I did see it in one go... we were in a school marathon and we had to see it before lunch. o_O

 
yommilommi
1084503.  Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:50 pm Reply with quote

djgordy wrote:
yommilommi wrote:
why are they going to destroy it?


Art, darling. Art.

I have made the shortest movie ever. Well, strictly speaking it is a photograph......


A professor of mine, once said that every finished movie it's a miracle... and I believe that too. I mean, sure it's art, but I just think it's to much work to destroy it... Well sometimes art is misunderstood.

 
yommilommi
1084505.  Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:56 pm Reply with quote

djgordy wrote:
My photograph exists in time It existed when I took it and it exists today. I assume it exists even when I'm not looking at it, although some people might wish to argue that point.

3D movies aren't really so; they are still projected onto a flat screen. The 3D effect is an illusion. Also, they are really irritating when not seen in 3D as there are lots of guns and swords etc being pointed at the viewer,


Well I think Chris Marker explores that in his movie "La Jetée", it is actually a movie made out of just photographies, there is just one moment in the entire movie where there is movement, there is actual film. And many people have argued about this, and they agreed that technically speaking if it wasn't for that film moment, the movie wouldn't be considered a movie but a slideshow.

I think that photographies are a moment frozen in time, but they are not films... even if there is no movement in a film you can see time pass by, time is what makes a movie a movie, not the image. I say.

 
yommilommi
1084512.  Mon Jul 14, 2014 1:12 pm Reply with quote

I just found this and I think it is amazing.

THE SHORTEST MOVIE IN THE WORLD

Well it is actually the tiniest movie in the world. It's called "A boy and his atom" IBM reckons that they have made the smallest stop motion animation. A one-minute video of individual carbon monoxide molecules repeatedly rearranged to show a boy dancing, throwing a ball and bouncing on a trampoline.

They say that each frame is 45 by 25 nanometers, and when you see it looks like an 8-bit animation. They are not just atoms in motion, but atoms arranged in order to give this amazing illusion.

They used a remote controlled two-ton scanning tunneling microscope, that magnifies the surface over 100 million times. It works at 268 degrees below zero Celsius, and they say they need to work at this temperature so the atoms don't move that much.

Scientists used the microscope to control a tiny, super-sharp needle along a copper surface, IBM said. At a distance of just 1 nanometer, the needle physically attracted the carbon monoxide molecules and pulled them to a precisely specified location on the surface.

They say that the techniques used to make the movie are similar to what IBM is doing to make data storage smaller.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLaFe0BJiho2pbiULC7W4UpxFGArH7oD7i&v=oSCX78-8-q0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA4QWwaweWA


Last edited by yommilommi on Mon Jul 14, 2014 2:20 pm; edited 1 time in total

 
djgordy
1084513.  Mon Jul 14, 2014 1:25 pm Reply with quote

yommilommi wrote:
even if there is no movement in a film you can see time pass by, time is what makes a movie a movie, not the image. I say.


You could make a movie where you couldn't see time pass. All you'd need is a room sealed from outside light so that the shadows and illumination doesn't change. The just point the camera at an unmoving object for the appropriate length of time.

Derek Jarman's "Blue" just has a single shot of a blue background, although there is a narration that shews that passage of time. If someone were to watch it without the sound, they wouldn't know if they were watching a photograph or a movie.

 
CharliesDragon
1084515.  Mon Jul 14, 2014 1:26 pm Reply with quote

djgordy wrote:
My photograph exists in time It existed when I took it and it exists today. I assume it exists even when I'm not looking at it, although some people might wish to argue that point.

3D movies aren't really so; they are still projected onto a flat screen. The 3D effect is an illusion. Also, they are really irritating when not seen in 3D as there are lots of guns and swords etc being pointed at the viewer,


Regular movies also just create the illusion of movement (in time (and a relative dimention, I guess)).

I agree that your photograph exists in time, but you can choose if you want to glance at it for a second, of gaze at it for an hour. A 90 minute movie will always take at least 90 minutes to watch. (With commercial breaks or pausing the movie to go to the bathroom it will of course take longer.) You can choose to only watch 60 minutes of it, but then you will have to skip some part and haven't watched the whole movie, similar to if you were to cover part of your photograph from sight.

To sum up: you need time to make something a movie. If you want to call that a dimension or not is another matter.

 
yommilommi
1084517.  Mon Jul 14, 2014 2:20 pm Reply with quote

CharliesDragon wrote:
djgordy wrote:
My photograph exists in time It existed when I took it and it exists today. I assume it exists even when I'm not looking at it, although some people might wish to argue that point.

3D movies aren't really so; they are still projected onto a flat screen. The 3D effect is an illusion. Also, they are really irritating when not seen in 3D as there are lots of guns and swords etc being pointed at the viewer,


Regular movies also just create the illusion of movement (in time (and a relative dimention, I guess)).

I agree that your photograph exists in time, but you can choose if you want to glance at it for a second, of gaze at it for an hour. A 90 minute movie will always take at least 90 minutes to watch. (With commercial breaks or pausing the movie to go to the bathroom it will of course take longer.) You can choose to only watch 60 minutes of it, but then you will have to skip some part and haven't watched the whole movie, similar to if you were to cover part of your photograph from sight.

To sum up: you need time to make something a movie. If you want to call that a dimension or not is another matter.


Agreed. There is a movie called "Zen for film", it is a white square the whole time, and that is a movie. There is something inside film that it's not inside a photography, and that is exaclty time, you can see time, you don't have to see something moving in order to call it time, you can feel it. 24 frames per second is what makes a film a film, a photograph might make a frame of those 24, but without time there is no film.

Your photograph is a moment frozen in time, not a moment running throughout time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1sOsIrshU

I mean I think that, but this is the never ending discussion about film. So there is no answer to this, or is it?

 

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group