Originally Posted by
mappi
Arvind Srinivasan,
Long shots are been omitted by our film makers these days. They, along with the contemporain audience, started to fell that quiteness is lethargic without identifying it as a beauty. As mentioned by you, such visuals transport the audience inside the arena created by the film makers, earlier it happens inside the motion picture, deeper the involvement would be.
Take Quentin Tarantino. His films depict early long & silent shots, thus creating a premature ambience. In Inglorious Basterds, you have a house by the moutain and a SS car slowly creeps inside the frame. The beauty is the grandeur he displays by focusing from a single grass leaf. The shots stays longer than needed, but they depict pages of description within its existing time frame. Similarly, in Hateful Eight the arrival of a coach taken close from a staue covered with snow (similar to the 'grass effect' from Inglorious Basterds), I was completely blown away by his visual narrative technique.
But these days a teaser with overused cuts is lauded as one of the finest, where you happen to profit from nothing, but left with a noisy scrambled scenes like a broken egg on a hot pan. Gone are the days where a single character presented the whole film under one minute, the glorious westerns are long buried. I have adapted, a kind of degrade (LoL).
Karthik Subbaraj records some fabulous long takes too. In Jigarthanda, Bobby Simha opens the car door and without getting out washes his face with water from a bottle. The tower of a church in the background looks like a horn over his head. I like the modesty in Karthik Subbaraj : when a film fan highlighted it, the film maker replied expressing that it was neither in the script nor on the initial visual plan. So, a long shot can provide varied suprises. It can build a bridge for the audeince to interact.
Mysskin had assembled lovely long shots in his film works, I love them all, but he is a bit arogant when coming to accept other cinematic realisations. If everyone makes films like Mysskin, then variety goes for one-way travel vacation. Expression does not have limits, just have to change the straw of likeness while drawing in the entertainment.
In Uthama Villain, they bring in several contrast between the reel & real and had sincerely tried to pull a box within a box trick. The aerial shot of Manoranjan meeting his fans takes its time to settle behind the Superstar as he stretches both his hands coveying a religious symbol to potray himself as a God for his hardcore fans. All this takes its sweet time around outdoor & indoor shots squeezing in numerous objects inside the frame, including slow flying papers bits and timid bouncing lights, just to allow the audience to grasp the enviornment completely.
To get an idea is as difficult as conveying it visually. Similarly, Manoranjan walks and the camera swiftly captures all the details around, and every conversation takes its time to establish. They took real care not to make it a melodrama, but still static shots land on Manoranjan's face from time to time. On the other hand, Uthaman episode is a Comedy Musical. There is quick motion everywhere from flowing rivers to dancing ropes. Even the hard to notice erection of "Uthaman's Kudumi" (ponytail hairstyle) speaks speed. Also, during the pathos song, Uthaman and the Moon are placid, while the atmosphere moves along with various dancing artists.
Any film work will have or atleast try to hold fabulous depictions inside, the potrayal coming from various minds makes it even more beautiful and unique. Alas, some get noticed, others are mercilessly drained out.