Brian Henderson, "The Long
Take"
Kara Petteway,
Ashly Dodge
9/16/2008
Henderson attempts to apply a new
theory to the long take, directly challenging the earlier ideas set forward by
film critic Andre Bazin. In classical film theory,
the montage is held in high regard,
specifically for its ability to show or underlay reality. In a sense, it is
more crafted. Henderson views the long take as a more expressive form of the
shot, and assumes that this is the reason why Bazin
pays little attention to it. The most important part of The Long Take is that it brings the idea of cutting to
attention. By investigating the styles different directors he argues that it
leads to recognition and analysis of new expressive categories. He argues
that the long take is necessary for mise-en-scene to
occur, and that this is not only an important part of expression, but of
individual director styles. He uses the examples of Murnau,
Ophuls, Welles, and Mizoguchi
to further his ideas. Interestingly enough, his definition of the long take
doesnt refer to only the length of the shot but also quality, composition, and
relation of the shot to other long takes. In his definition, long takes can be
edited by several different kinds of cuts, which he refers to as inra-sequence cuts. These cuts are meant to alter the
rhythm of the long take, which otherwise contains its rhythm internally.
Questions
1. How does
Hendersons definition of the long take and its cutting relate to the Antonioni
films that we have viewed so far?
2. Did you
find anything about his definition surprising? If so why?
3.
Considering the clear difference between Murnau and
other long take directors how do you fit Murnaus
style into this particular theory of the long take?
4. Do you
find anything problematic in its application to the Antonioni films?