Best Steadicam movies/shots

[Benjamin Treplin]

Snake Eyes - Larry McConkey

Great stairs

[Garrett Brown]

Just saw "A Very Long Engagement"

 

my friend Valentin Monge's work is amazing. (Valentin did some amazing shots on the "La Traviata" production I worked on in Paris in 2000, including a 10 minute shot that was partly shot on his knees!!!)

 

Garrett Brown

[Mike Brennan]

Has anyone seen the Russian Ark?  I hear its a 90 minute one shot steadicam film?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

About thirty (or more?) operators saw this at a Steadicam Guild get together shortly after it came out. Yes, it's one continuous steadicam shot and it's almost an hour and a half.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Longest take in cinema history

The only one shot movie

 

There was no time for a retake. (they stopped first take after 1/2 hour or so)

 

Pressure!

 

Mike Brennan

[love my steady]

Goodfellas was a master work! fasten your seat belts and engoy the ride :D

[Loïc LEGROS]

Goodfellas was a master work! fasten your seat belts and engoy the ride :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

> Like Snake Eyes !!! incredible Larry McConkey !!!

 

Garret you've right > Valentin is incredible too > for us (young french operators) he is our "Maitre jedi" :ph34r:

[Nicholas M. Chopp]

Been watching Band of Brothers again this week, some great work in this series.

[bobgilles]

I am going to say the Chrone has done some of the most impressive stuff out there, I have had a commercial director show clips of his to me and say " I am looking for something like this". His car to car stuff is tops in the biz. Julian C's work on Nash Bridges was killer too, his scene covering a gunfight on opposing escalators was the most elaborate setup I have ever seen in an episodic, stupid show but killer operating!

[Dale Vance Jr.]

There is a lot of sloppy work in Russian Ark. It's impressive yes, but pointless.

[mattmarek]

drv, did you just create an account to make this post? if so, how about you give yourself a name?

 

as for saying there is a lot of sloppy work in russian ark, you can hold that opinion, but how about give some examples.

 

to say it's pointless, how about some reasons why you think it pointless??

 

one woman i talked to (not into film making or intrigued by steadicam at all) found that the way the film was shot, was able to draw her into the hermitage almost as if she were visiting the museum herself. without cuts, your brain doesn't have to make any assumptions about lost time or missed areas. she was just able to watch and enjoy the layout and pieces.

 

so what would you say to somebody that did not see the film from a technical standpoint? someone who just enjoyed the film for what it was? would you say 'oh see look, there's some horizon issues going on here'?

 

dont just blurt things out because you can. back your words up.

 

cheers

[Joshua Harrison]

Damn you and your eagle eyes, Abernathy!

 

Didja ever see my deliberate on-camera appearance with the rig in "Big Fat Liar"...?

 

I didn't see that movie Charles, but you can clearly see the Steadicam Op (I think it was Guy Bee) in Drop Zone in a shot near the end with the crowded scene. In the crowd you can see the Op just moving through the crowd of people.

 

Josh

[Peter Abraham]

I think there have been threads discussing who we saw in what film. Going back a ways, there is a movie with DeNiro and Streep. He plays a construction worker/foreman. She goes to visit him, and they're walking along a site- I think it's a partially built building. There are either huge panes of glass, or mirrors leaning against a wall.

 

There's Ted Churchill, clear as day, backing up as they walk along. Then, in The Untouchables, there's that classic moment of the Op being seen very close-up, arm holding Steadicam arm down, a bit of sled, and vest, as he pushes open the windows to Connery's apartment. POV shot, but hell, it's clear to see, especially in the theatre.

 

Lovely work? I caught a film called "The Missing" that Wil Arnot did A Cam/Steadicam on. What elegant work, beautifully framed. Some great dutches in there- rarely used with any thought or care, but here I saw one or two near the end that drove the moment home very well. Great work, man.

[Dale Vance Jr.]

Hey Matt, My name is Dale... you seem to be pretty amped up on this so here is my view. Steadicam shots usually have a PURPOSE for the most part. Doing something just to do it does not make good art. Sure, it is impressive to wear a rig around for an hour and a half, but that does not make the work good. While I am not saying I am capable of such a feat is not really the point. It has been a while since I have watched the film so I am not in a position to cite specific examples, but I'm sure you know that when your body gets fatigued your work inherently becomes sloppier. There are not only horizon issues ALL over the place, there are what I felt just bad timing in the movements... Just like when you do a dolly move you time out the shot so the zoom, the dolly move, and the actor all come together at the same point... well you can't rehearse that kind of thing in an hour and a half shot.. Those are the things I saw... It does not mean I am right or wrong, just my opinion. While the PURPOSE of the steadicam in this movie was to make a continous shot movie, great.... that does not make it good AT ALL... for the most part I felt the movie was so tedious that is was just what it is... a feat in endurance. Not good filmaking either technically or storywise. As far as your friend enjoying the movie being "drawn in.." that is wonderful if the film had that effect on her. Myself, I have been drawn in to hundreds of movies that were made much better. Not in real time. So I would ask you since we are on a steadicam fourm... do YOU think the steadicam is GOOD, or maybe in retrospect just usable? I feel there is a difference. If you don't feel that the technical aspect of your work is as important as the reason for the pictures you are trying to capture, how do you feel about your own operating? You know when you nailed it... or if you blew a part of the shot. If the director wants to move on do you ask for another take or just carry on? So in closing, in MY VIEW is there is a lot of pieces of this film where if it were being done in takes they would have worked out the timing different, etc. Places where the operator was unhappy with his own work for just a beat or two. Places like that all over the movie. Like I said just because you can do it does not mean you will do it well my friend. Cheers

[paul magee]

Hey Dale,

 

Welcome to the board. Last names are also nice. I see you're an LA person do you operate there?

 

I think what makes " the ark " so special for me is the back story. I'm sure you can do a web search and find out more details about it but in a nutshell what you have is a multi national crew with language and cultural differences, an overprotective museum staff which would only provide the location for 1.5 days for prelight rehearsal and shooting, a cast of hundreds in different period wardrobe, Russian weather, equipment snaufus and brand new HD Capture equipment which consisted of a hard drive in a back pack carried by a tech wired to the steadicam operator and there was a limited quantity.

Given all that this makes this one of the most impossible hour and a half live shots I've ever seen. Is timing off in some places? - Everyone has different opinions. I'm amazed that it got made and think it's a wonderful piece with some great moments in it.

 

Getting back to the thread of best shots and staying with the live shot theme

?La Traviata Live from Paris,? on Great Performances a while ago was wonderful

Mr. Brown and others did a fantastic job, the death scene was incredible and the most important part for me was I forgot I was watching opera.

 

Paul Magee

Philadelphia, PA

[mattmarek]

hi dale, thanks for responding.

 

1st off. it is our jobs, to give the director or dop what he/she wants. have you ever been asked to give some 'looseness' to your frame? or given a shot last minute, in blowing wind with no flags, just because they really needed it? we may look at the end result and boo our efforts or boo the look (poor horizon, timing etc.) but if it's what the director/dop wanted, who are we to question? we are only trying to tell a story here. how many times have we seen GREAT steadicam work in some really crappy film or series? all the time. sure it's technicaly a great steadicam shot, but if the show stinks, it stinks!

 

sure there are moments in russian ark where the steadicam suffered. this was what not only the operator, but the entire crew were able to deliver us in a film that required a 1.5 hour shot.

 

do you think the audience notices these steadicam flaws? or is it only us minority of operators?

 

would you agree that there is some very poor steadicam work displayed in some very good films? did this poor work detract from the film or make it less so?

 

just some food on the table to think about and maybe discuss.

cheers

matt

[RonBaldwin]

I've always been a huge fan of Larry's work, as well as Chris Haarhoff's.

 

Chris did a wonderful, seemingly simple shot in Fight Club -- preceding Brad and Ed down a street then into a city bus, then bus drives off. Pretty amazing to navigate such a tight space and pull off such a stable frame.

 

As far as Larry's stuff...what else can be said? Except that alot of the cool stuff he's done has been with a BL. I can't imagine schlepping that much weight for that long let alone with a coax mag! The intro to Bonfire of the Vanities is worth the price of the dvd. On/off a golf cart, up an elevator, 5 minutes, 15 takes -- good stuff.

 

Also kudos to Guy Bee and Dave C. both did amazing stuff on ER. There's something to say about delivering good stuff 12 hrs a day, 5 days a week, 9 months a year.

 

Ron B