For war-themed films, there is actually a lot of debate about the real feeling of one shot. So what kind of movie viewing experience can this film really bring to everyone? In terms of intuitive visual experience, it is one shot to the end, but in fact, the film is divided into thirty or forty paragraphs. When everyone is shot, the paragraphs are all shot to the end, ranging from dozens of seconds to eight or nine. It takes about a minute, and then some digital technology is used to remove the splicing traces in the middle, so it is actually a pseudo-one-shot movie. If the audience wants to look for such traces, it depends on when the person is not on the screen, even if the camera is still moving, it doesn't matter, this may be because the editing force is strong. This is the first one-shot movie that can be seen on the big screen. Whether you accept it or not, it is particularly important to intuitively feel such a feeling and atmosphere. Photographer Deakins also said that one shot to the end is not to show off his skills, but to make people immersive. Countless directors and photographers will definitely want to make a movie like this all their lives, because long shots can keep people and things intact in time and space. In such a long shot panorama presentation, he is not only complete but also It is still ambiguous, and there is a possibility of a rich scene. There is a video where suddenly a plane was shot down from the sky, and then it rushed towards them, and it rushed right in front of their eyes, as well as in front of the audience, just such a long shot, the kind of real and shocking from beginning to end. , this is definitely the same after editing. The long shot of this movie takes me to the end, and it brings me one shot. It feels like we can travel to every corner of the battlefield, and follow the mood of the leading actor all the way, but some audiences have completely opposite opinions, and some audiences say By the time they were watching this movie, the rhythm of the first half was too slow and even made them feel drowsy. I have to say that the emotions in the first half of the film are relatively weak. It feels like the two of them have been walking and walking, until a little soldier sacrificed the plot. It's not like Marvel's superhero movies. It will be acceptable to the vast majority of the audience. When the previous plot was relatively slow, you could still feel the atmosphere very clearly. It could be seen from the beginning that when two people were sitting under the tree and sleeping, only when they stood up, the camera was synchronizing with them. When they got up, and when they started walking, the cameras also started to move in sync without showing any traces. The whole movement was exactly the same as the state of the protagonist at that time. The director hoped that the audience could enter the spiritual world of the protagonist. boundary. Many viewers said that there was no sense of fear, and they always felt that they could not understand the plot because of this huge battle, but they were quickly focused on these two ordinary soldiers, and the mood of the audience was quickly brought into their psychology. superior. Just like the "Blood Battle Hacksaw Ridge", which was also very popular in China in the past two years, it actually shows you a panoramic view of everything in this way, but at the same time, many war movies have begun to turn not to talk about this kind of panoramic view. The grand story, he began to emphasize personal feelings, personal perception. I think many people will like this film because of such a long shot, but some people are on the contrary. Just like some viewers said that although they are amazed at the superb technology throughout the whole process, the conflicts of emotional characters and themes are all empty. I felt the cart before the horse between technology and drama. Audiences also have a certain degree of video cultural literacy, and they also know some of the artistic and technical forms of watching some movies, because on the surface this movie is a very ordinary story, but in fact it must contain a lot of thinking of the director. The protagonist was a little unremarkable when he first appeared, and he didn't seem to have any special aspirations, but he was a very conscientious and responsible person who performed his duties. The difference was that this gave him a special emphasis on authenticity. The long shot of an art film is a long shot and a panoramic view. "1917" is full of all kinds of agility. The key is to use the most suitable long shot to express the story. What the movie "1917" wants to discuss most is whether one shot is equivalent to being in combat. This movie can indeed achieve this so-called "immersive" effect. Entering the environment and situation of this war, we feel an ordinary soldier, this seemingly long and tedious, but dangerous trip, the kind of action that is both humble and heroic, and his kind of hesitant , complex mood, such a scene he did indeed. If you really want to achieve such an effect, you must watch the movie to experience it yourself. The conflicts of characters and themes are all empty, and in the end, I only feel that the cart before the horse is reversed between technology and drama. Audiences also have a certain degree of video cultural literacy, and they also know some of the artistic and technical forms of watching some movies, because on the surface this movie is a very ordinary story, but in fact it must contain a lot of thinking of the director. The protagonist was a little unremarkable when he first appeared, and he didn't seem to have any special aspirations, but he was a very conscientious and responsible person who performed his duties. The difference was that this gave him a special emphasis on authenticity. The long shot of an art film is a long shot and a panoramic view. "1917" is full of all kinds of agility. The key is to use the most suitable long shot to express the story. What the movie "1917" wants to discuss most is whether one shot is equivalent to being in combat. This movie can indeed achieve this so-called "immersive" effect. Entering the environment and situation of this war, we feel an ordinary soldier, this seemingly long and tedious, but dangerous trip, the kind of action that is both humble and heroic, and his kind of hesitant , complex mood, such a scene he did indeed. If you really want to achieve such an effect, you must watch the movie to experience it yourself. The conflicts of characters and themes are all empty, and in the end, I only feel that the cart before the horse is reversed between technology and drama. Audiences also have a certain degree of video cultural literacy, and they also know some of the artistic and technical forms of watching some movies, because on the surface this movie is a very ordinary story, but in fact it must contain a lot of thinking of the director. The protagonist was a little unremarkable when he first appeared, and he didn't seem to have any special aspirations, but he was a very conscientious and responsible person who performed his duties. The difference was that this gave him a special emphasis on authenticity. The long shot of an art film is a long shot and a panoramic view. "1917" is full of all kinds of agility. The key is to use the most suitable long shot to express the story. What the movie "1917" wants to discuss most is whether one shot is equivalent to being in combat. This movie can indeed achieve this so-called "immersive" effect. Entering the environment and situation of this war, we feel an ordinary soldier, this seemingly long and tedious, but dangerous trip, the kind of action that is both humble and heroic, and his kind of hesitant , complex mood, such a scene he did indeed. If you really want to achieve such an effect, you must watch the movie to experience it yourself.
View more about 1917 reviews
