when the movie's average shot length is more than literally 3 seconds
#brucewillis #mnightshyamalan #videoessay
// Support me on Patreon: / cinemastix
// Follow me on Instagram: instagram.com/bydannyboyd?igs...
M. Night Shyamalan has had some misses in his career. But when he's on his directing game, the result tends to be something truly unique. Unbreakable, the 2000 film starring Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson, is no exception. A Superman story for the modern age, Unbreakable is a commentary on the superhero story structure that predates the golden age of superhero movies. And it knocks most of what followed it out of the water. Today, specifically, I'll be looking at how Shyamalan and his cinematographer Eduardo Serra used extraordinary long takes to help bring Unbreakable to life. Where most modern films have average shot lengths of under 3 seconds, Unbreakable has an average shot length of almost 19 seconds. And the result is something truly great.
Written & edited by Danny Boyd
Comparison of Murder on the Orient Express films: • yay, modern filmmaking...
How Cinema Is Evolving: www.wired.com/2014/09/cinema-...
I’m a completely independent creator, and proud of it. No staff, no overlords. You can support me and my work directly here: www.patreon.com/CinemaStix Thank you for helping make this journey possible :) -Danny
Do you have a list of the songs you used in this video? Great one btw!
@bigolbruhby8542 The song at the end is Tango de la muerte by Blood red sun. Have a beautiful day 👋
was just about to ask the same thing, a full list would be great@@bigolbruhby8542
@@Bluebirdfalling me?
Maybe you can figure out why the intro to the movie A Walk Amongst the Tombstones promised so much? It almost feels like it was directed by someone else. The rest of the movie felt average, but those first minutes, wow.
Shyamalan is the Benjamin Button of cinema. Starts as a mature, developed auteur, grows into a promising student filmmaker.
Insane analogy
Promising?
@@ttentionpls I not only have seen them, I've made them. And I stand by what I said.
@@ttentionpls Follow your own advice, there.
@@miguelbranquinho7235 Cheers.
Forcing your eyes to refocus every 3 seconds is a form of hypnosis.
I almost feel as if they do this to adjust to the lower average viewer attention span.
I coincidentally noticed this on one of those dime a dozen reality TV shows the other day. The shots shift so quickly it gave the impression that they make the TV shows for toddlers. I'm starting to wonder...
No, that's called disorienting mental torture.
@@Pyxytyit's almost like they are reinforcing this shorter attention span, or even manufacturing it.
@@pawelabrams and especially to children. "But it's a private company they can do whatever they want, if you don't like it start your own television media company"
It's heart-breaking watching Bruce speak with such clarity about the process of film-making.
ooff this shock me too, its very sad
Why is that?
@@ninjaduck3534 he is in a very delicate state of health now, can't even talk....
@@13XxgirlxX13 Wow I had no idea, just read more about it. Thank you for the info. It's good that he has family around
😭 so sad . The frailty of life . Makes this movie mean so much more.
Another similarity to Spielberg in Unbreakable is how Shyamalan considers the audience's POV when filming a scene. In the scene near the beginning where David is at the stadium and is chasing after the suspect, the camera can never quite see around the rounded walls of the stadium - the man is always just up ahead and out of the shot. Every time I saw this film in the theater nearly everyone in the audience leaned their head to one side as if they were trying to look around the corner, almost as if they were in the movie with David. It such a simple and and effective way to get the audience to buy into a story and is a technique that sadly seems to have been left behind.
Distant memories now, but I recall hearing someone on the crew of Rosemary’s Baby talking about the scene where we only see the back half of a woman talking on the phone due to the framing (literally, a doorway) and how they knew in the screening they’d done the right thing because everyone in the audience instinctively leaned to the right to try to see her.
That's when you know a scene is working 😉 I do that a lot while playing video game shooters.
What the hell happened with Shyamalan? After Signs he completely lost is groove. I'd really like to see him directing scripts that other people have written, I feel his talents as a director are held back by the challenges as a writer. That's the thing about Spielberg, he was very happy to direct other people's scripts.
I love the logic behind that. One of my pet peeves is when movies/shows use easy angles for cameras that no person in the real world ever has. Whenever you show a couple in bed, it's always shot straight down, from the ceiling. Nobody in real life is ever positioned directly above their bed, staring down at it. Or when people are in a movie theater, the shot is from the position of the screen, looking straight at the audience, while the movie is just audio. I love it when a film maker goes the extra mile and tries to bring the audience into the story, rather than just being lazy and letting the story happen.
@@Treblaine I thought The Visit was good. I didn't watch The Village though.
Unbreakable was ahead of its time in so many ways. I really do believe that had it come out like 10-15 years later, where social media and “superhero fatigue” were things, and more understood what it actually was, it would be more widely recognized for what it is; one of the best commercial films of the 21st Century.
I take the opposite view. We're very fortunate this movie came out when it did. It would never be made today precisely for the reasons you give. I always felt like Unbreakable showed us how a superhero arc could be a power storytelling vehicle, but basically no one capitalized on that idea. Batman Begins is probably the closest we got.
@@MikeAltogetherthat’s an interesting point. I think M. Night was at a point in his career contextually after The Sixth Sense though where he could get a studio to give him money for literally anything when he made this and his following few movies. That wore off after The Happening and The Last Airbender, but if he still had that power in say 2013 and made this exact movie instead of After Earth or whatever he was doing around then, I think more people would love it as much as you and I probably do. You’re probably right though that nobody would’ve had that power once superhero movies had been established. Even Nolan didn’t, really, and this might’ve been a movie that could unfortunately only have been made when it was, before it could be fully appreciated.
Honestly, I don't even think you can call it a superhero film. It's a film were the protagonist has super-human powers, but it's not what the film is about, and it diverges so far away from the norms of superhero films. It would be like calling a film a comedy just because it made you laugh: it takes more than a joke to make a comedy; and it takes more than super powers for a super hero film. Unbreakable (and it's sequels) is a good old-fashioned thriller, with slight supernatural elements, brilliantly executed.
Ferris Bueller's Day Off is a superhero film.
@@QuantumHistorianfair point. Although, when Unbreakable came out, there weren’t really many “superhero movies” to compare it to. Which is sort of my point, since people didn’t appreciate at the time how it covers that material, since that material wasn’t widespread yet. Maybe calling it a “comic book movie” is a better term though, since it undoubtably fits that description. In a way, it’s just a very basic comic book origin story (as Mr. Glass says himself), but executed with unique presentation. “Comic book movie” has become a dirty word recently with all the low effort cashgrabs we’ve been getting, and it was certainly a dirty word in 2000 when Batman and Robin was fresh in people’s minds, but it doesn’t have to be. I’d argue Unbreakable is as true to the spirit of a comic book superhero story as any film ever made.
As I recall, Shyamalan said he filmed Unbreakable this way because it was more like a comic book. Essentially that your average comic book only had so many panels with which to tell its story in so many pages, and that if you looked at a lot of them, there might be many lines of dialogue in text balloons over what would be a single static image on any given page (especially for exposition, when you're not focusing on emotional reaction). So basically, he was using the oner as a way to recreate the limited framing of the average comic book, and seeking to do what comics often did well with it as a result, which is to try and find the most dynamic framing of a scene possible while remaining completely still. What's interesting to me though is that Shyamalan wasn't the only person to think along this wavelength at the time. Because Ang Lee's Hulk film was also shot and edited to replicate an actual comic book. Using multi-cam footage to put multiple angles of a scene on a screen at the same time in order to replicate comic book panels for instance, and then literally transitioning from one scene to the next by freezing an image and crossing a "panel" to the next image in another. Whereas Unbreakable uses the idea of limited panels to mean limited numbers of shots, Lee uses the visual aesthetic of the panel itself, while including a great many shots in any given scene. What's fascinating to me is that you have two directors (both highly acclaimed at the time) and both inspired by the same general idea - to make a movie look more like an actual comic book, because both were directing "comic book movies" at the time - and they just took the concept in WILDLY different directions.
Truuuuuu
And building on that, about 17 years later, Into the Spider-Verse decided to animate on twos and draw on top of the 3D animated frame to achieve the very same goal in their own way. Admittedly, Lord and Miller had established a similar aesthetic in The LEGO Movie to imitate stop motion animation, which also has constraints on how complex and varied the shots can be.
Films like Batman & Robin, Sin City, games like Comix Zone, XIII, all approach the concept of comic book stylization in different way.
To me, this will always be Shyamalan‘s best work. The slow pace, the, deliberate camerawork, the inspiring score, Dunne‘s fight against depression. Wonderful stuff. It‘s up there with my all time favourites.
Same, it’s Shyamalan at his best as a writer and director. It’s a bit shocking to think that the same man made one of my favorite films of all time and several of the worst films I have ever seen.
M Night always has great character work, love him or hate him. Sometimes he’s just not cohesive. I think that’s what people are hung up on. He’s an undoubtedly inspiring filmmaker though imo
.
idk man, this movie is nothing compared to the beloved and well-received last airbender film
@@JJ-zo7jv I guess Avatar last air Bender inspired people to kill themselves. so inspiring filmmaker still.
I think having longer shots is an art in and of itself because it requires the actors to actually act. I'm not saying the actors in clips like the one with Bill Murray and Sigourney Weaver can't act (because they're of course both phenomenal actors). But with multiple cuts, that means several different shots from different takes can be spliced together and different line deliveries can be used. But if you have a raw, uncut, 20, 50, 100 second long scene, all you're left with is two people in a room together, acting with each other, sharing the space and bouncing off of each other. It brings it back down to the roots of stage acting, no cuts, just acting.
This does not necessarily make it more of an art than a quick style, it just makes the art easier to see. When doing a quick style edit, it's harder to analyze on the spot, you feel the quality of it's good and confused if you don't, whether that's because of directing, editing, or acting
@@PengyDraws 100% agree. Definitely love some movies that have a quicker editing style as opposed to long takes
It's more where the art happens. Long shots put the burden on the actors and the quick ones on directors and editors.@@PengyDraws
A lot of money is usually involved, so it's less about art and more about dopamine releases triggered after each cut.
@@PengyDraws Generic response maybe, but one of the best examples is Social Network's opening scene. Fincher x Sorkin is a killer duo
When Shyamalan is at his peak, it is like reading a book. His movies unspool slowly and methodically. It’s pure bliss.
I will never forget watching Split opening weekend at a packed theater and absolutely losing my mind at the ending with maybe 10 other audience members and we all stood outside explaining to other strangers that it was a secret sequel to Unbreakable. The power of movies, man. One of my favorite theater experiences. M. Night was in his bag with that one.
It’s always surprised me how many people consider unbreakable to be one of their favorites. That’s a strictly subjective opinion so I don’t judge anyone for that, but it’s always surprised me. I’ve always considered it Shamalyn’s best, but still only a decent film. Above average, but nothing truly incredible. But for so many people, it’s an all time favorite. What a unique and interesting film.
How disappointing was glass for you? Awful for me
@@rudolphschmidt313 yea, that was a let down. Pretty cool seeing all the characters interact, but that’s about it for me. Only saw it once and don’t remember much. Pretty forgettable
Yeah, Unbreakable and Split were phenomenal. But Glass, especially the ending was gutted. Such a shame.
for me it was the music cue. I've listened to the Unbreakable score so many times that as soon as it kicked in at the end of Split, I was stunned. Probably the greatest trick he ever pulled. How in this age of internet spoilers, Bloggers, KZheadrs etc etc did I manage to get to the cinema without knowing that secret.
I was really looking forward to this one. Just how almost light and slow this movie was. Every scene felt like you were there watching real life. His best movie; in my opinion.
Big call 😉 but I’d def put it in my top 3.
signs just because of mel gibson
I was only 12 or 13 when this came out and it was the first film that ever made me feel differently than everything else I was allowed to see. My family basically only watched action movies full of A-list stars and quick cuts. When we left the theatre and my family hated it I was so disappointed. It was the most beautiful and touching film I'd ever seen.
Same experience. We watched The Sixth Sense and I didn't get it bc the movie isn't built logically, but Unbreakable is pretty straightforward and I absolutely loved it as a kid.
@@DarkAngelEU lil bro trying to blame the movie for not understanding ? Wasn't that complicated or deep.
@@chuggynation8275 No, the movie isn't explained as well for an 8 yo to understand immediately. I watched it again as an adult and the movie still has some parts that aren't easy to understand for people used to Hollywood movies.
"When we left the theatre and my family hated it I was so disappointed. It was the most beautiful and touching film I'd ever seen." But that must have been a seminal moment for you: you had an identity separate from that of your family. That's precious.
Same here.
This is the most underrated superhero movie in history - most people didn’t even realize it was actually a super hero movie until it was over.
Not just the most underrated... it's the best superhero movie in history. It does its own thing rather than being another POS copy and paste flashy Marvel movie. Mainstream superhero flicks are such trash compared to this. The only competition I can think of is Watchmen and Joker... both unique and very different from the norm.
@@majorpwner241 Chronicle, Captain Underpants, Kick Ass, The Batman, Spider-Verse, The Incredibles and you're overhere claiming all superhero films are the same just cause one studio has found a formula, stop being a clown.
Yeah, i remember when movies were actually watchable and didn't fatigue the eyes, and you wouldn't miss important information because you looked away for one second....oh and you could also actually hear the dialogue CLEARLY regardless of the score or SFX blaring at 110Db.
dude the audio-mixing for across the spiderverse was abysmal. All the poor kids in the audience were covering their ears from all painful it was. MOVIES SHOULD NOT DAMAGE YOUR HEARING. jfc
Or be able to see the movie instead of staring at a black screen saying to yourself, "Everyone is supposedly on screen, but I can only tell who is speaking by their voice."
M. Night showed such restraint and promise as a filmmaker back then. I’m glad he’s able to do his own thing now as a director, but I wish he had someone to reign him in and polish his scripts. Unbreakable was such a revelation when it came out. I wish a studio like DC would take a chance to replicate it with some character. You don’t need a big budget either
It's amazing how much tension and drama the film could create by a character merely falling into a swimming pool, and the shot of David climbing out of the pool is as epic as any flashy CGI pose. Not to mention the "final battle" taking place between two guys struggling in a suburban bedroom shows that you don't need big scale to build big stakes.
Animal Man would be awesome.
It is unfortunate he has gotten sloppy without said restraint. But there is no denying Glass was a satisfying conclusion to the trilogy, hands down his finest work in a decade and showing he’s still got it.
I feel like Logan had a similar feel
I think part of the reason why his later career has has not matched up to his early success was how harshly audiences turned on him after Signs and then The Village. Both were actually okay films but audiences hated them and torn him apart online. I think such a vitriolic reaction caused him to be unsure in himself and this lack of confidence impacted the quality of subsequent films. Some desperation for a hit even set in at some point.
One of favorite movies of all time! I love his explanation for the film: he was writing a typical 3-Act superhero movie, but every time he tried to write the 2nd Act, he kept wanting to flesh out the first Act more until he eventually decided to just make a full movie of just the first Act. I LOVE the slow pace of the film as it keeps us unsure about what is happening. Instead of telling us eveything, it lets us discover things along with the protagonist.
The best part of any superhero movie is the first act. Watching unkillable characters beat each other up for 40 minutes gets old real quick.
@@jlewicki16 I really dislike action movies but loved unbreakable for this reason lol.
Rarely has a director been so capable of such a wide spectrum of quality...
There are very few directors that have a movie outside of the M. Night bubble.
What I like about the extended shot length is how much *like a comic book* the film feels. You put all the characters in a scene in a frame, and then put all the dialog in that scene in various bubbles, but the frame, generally, remains the same. The long shots give that feeling and allows drama and tension to build in a way rapidly cut shots can't compare to.
Very good observation. When you read a comic, you can linger on single a panel and take in all the detail the writer and artist have to offer. Unbreakable lets us do that in film.
It allows you to think.
The fact that so many scenes were shot as though they were IN a frame of some sort (through a window, between doorways, framed between seat backs, between columns, bars of a gate, etc...) definitely subtly brought out the comic book allusion.
Agreed, this movie does that perfectly along with Watchmen (whether the movie is liked or not, it does it well) and Snyder's DC movies
Yeah, there's a video on youtube about how it's shot as if in frame like a comic book somewhere here. There's a ton of unbreakable video's actually, that's just how great of a movie it is.
I always felt the shot length and framing in Unbreakable evoked the breakdown of comic pages with every shot being a square on the page.
I love the longer shots. It makes the actor put effort into the scene, but not just that, you get to see other things that are normally taken out. Their reaction of being handed a something, facial expressions, the feelings and emotions in that moment, and more.
Everyone who's interested in this should watch Andrei Tarkovsky's "Stalker" from 1979. The movie had 142 shots in total, averaging over 1 minute per shot with some shots being over 4 minutes long. It's absolutely mindblowing, one of the most hypnotic films I've ever seen and really one of a kind. The pacing just brings you in like nothing else. "Stalker" is one of the most influential sci-fi movies of all time and is also the godfather of "anomaly-styled" games such as S.T.A.L.K.E.R. , Metro 2033 and movies like Annihiliation.
YOU ARE TELLING ME THERES A MOVIE? Oh my god, im getting it right now, one way or another.
@@InTheFogOfLondon also, there are two best bluray versions of the movie: Criterion and Potemkine. I tested out both and enjoyed Potemine more as it had better color grading, especially in some of the “sepia” scenes while Criterion would have a weird yellow color. Potemkine truly did a great job with their bluray release of “Stalker”.
I was looking for a comment related to Stalker. And I agree with all of the above. Insanely long shots at times, dragging out entire scenes, with the SHORTEST being, I believe, 40 seconds long. Re-watched it not too long ago. Though we mustn't forget about the original inspiration for everything - Roadside Picnic
If possible, watch it at a cinema screening. They're common enough, and really let you bask in the zone.
I highly recommend "Victoria". This movie was filmed with only one shot at all, more than two hours long. The camerawork is amazing and the acting is one of the best i have ever seen. They often even improvised the dialoge wich makes it incredible realistic. It pulls you in and never lets you go. It is a journey where you are actually part of the group and part of what is happening. And dont watch the trailer
I always felt that this movie was ''different''. I really think those long shots slows the movie and gives it a ''pondering'' vibe.
Another day, another praise for my favorite director. Even when his films aren’t that good, I still respect this absolute knockout artist. Dude is such a visionary. Love M. night so much
I second this emotion. My life has constant flashes of his scenes. The hand reaching out for Howard Brice in The Village. The alien on the rooftop in Signs....Mel Gibson telling his kids his best or first memory of them. Bruce Willis climbing out of the pool with a 1% strength left. Gibson speaking to his Wife for the last time and the the absolute skin shredding I felt when the Baby Monitor spoke after they climbed on the Car. Signs is my favourite film of all time (to much dismaying of my 'too cool for school' friends. It's good to meet a fellow Shyamalanadingdong. I'll leave you with this: Graham Hess: What are you thinking about? Bo: Why do you talk to Mom when you're by yourself? Graham Hess: Makes me feel better. Bo: Does she ever answer back? Graham Hess: No. Bo: She never answers me either. 😢
He always tries to do something different, even if it doesn't always work out at least it isn't the same as everyone else.
I remember my first time watching this film, I was hooked, I couldn’t stop rewatching it. The fact that Elijah almost always appears through a reflection/some kind of glass absolutely blew me away as a little motif to sort of emphasise his fragility. I pointed it out to my dad and he said he didn’t even notice, which actually made me appreciate the film even more. It’s super subtle and you don’t pick up on it until you realise how well the shots are crafted. I watched it when I was a lot younger and think it was probably this film that opened my eyes, got me hooked on movies and made me realise just how far you could push creativity and sneak little themes into stories. Great video, I might have to give Unbreakable another rewatch! Thanks :,)
I really appreciate you making this. Ever since I saw this film at the age of 9 or 10, I have often remembered seeing Bruce Willis getting up out of the hospital bed, seeing something moving up and down in the foreground, and slowly realizing that is a man’s dying breaths, and understanding something in a pure emotion that few other filmmakers have been able to conjure. What a brilliant film, I’ll forgive Shyamalan anything for the rest of his career.
that blood slowly staining the sheet always stayed with me.
I love the subtle superhero hints, like putting his raincoat (which is basically the hero suit in which he does good deeds) back to the locker. I love the pacing, the quiet, the tension. Excellent film.
I think Shyamalan's style of directing with such "oners" was subconsciously (if not outright) the reason why he was compared to Spielberg back in the day. Another OG video essay channel, probably Every Frame a Painting, also had a similar video on Spielberg's oners, which I'm sure you've watched. They're shot in a way that feels so natural and that causes you to be more involved in the scene and in the story. These "oners" don't necessarily call attention towards themselves. This was more so the case with Spielberg than Shyamalan. Curious to know what you thought of his efforts with Split and Glass?
Yeah now that you point it out, Unbreakable has a lot of scenes that remind of Spielberg oners (but moreso, contrast them). Weirdly never thought about it, despite how much I love the style of Spielberg's oners.
"The average shart length of a Hollywood film..."
What many don't talk about is the shapes and colors in the film. Bruce willis is represented by the colors green and yellow, when he is trapped he is in a square framing, until he finds himself. Willi's character is represented by circle and liquidity. Mr. Glass is the opposite, his colors are blue and purple, he controls people in blue, his shape and framing is square. Bruce Willis and Sam Jackson are yin and yang, or hero and nemesis, they are conjoined opposites. To me this is one of the most perfectly shot movies ever made.
This is such a well written essay. I didn't even know how to begin putting my thoughts about Unbreakable's storytelling style into words back when it came out.
M Night used this technique in The Sixth Sense also. It completely exposes actors, both good and bad. Watching each actor is like watching a tightrope walker ... the tiniest error can be clearly seen. Willis is amazing and this movie is how you can tell he's one of the greats. Same with Jackson. Others not quite as much. M Night's shot setups here are absolutely brilliant and mesmerizing. I've found myself hit rewind quite a few times just to watch them again. They immerse you in the world of the movie, it feels like real life but more fantastical, like a comic book. Thought is put into everything: angles, zoom, pan, focus, but the camera stays in one place, just as if you were an observer. Please everyone make more movies that are superhero or thriller or fantasy or horror or sci fi but shot as art house films. The Arrival and Dune are other great examples of this approach.
I honestly am truly amazed a film like Unbreakable actually exists. There's quite literally nothing else like it in ALL of cinema.
If you do a deep dive into more obscure cinema, you'll find more like Unbreakable. But yeah, I fell in love with it from first viewing and went straight out and bought the DVD. Shyamalan's Unbreakable/Split/Glass trilogy is my favorite super hero saga put to film.
Any examples?@@smarmar400
@@smarmar400 Recommendations?
@@KevinL-hc5vq Trust me, I watch WAY too many movies.
@@sifatshams1113 Depends on what you're in the mood for, and how obscure and experimental you want to get.
Films like Unbreakable are why even after so many terrible movies, I still like Shyamalan as a filmmaker. When he's good, he's really damn good!
Somehow I had completely forgotten about Unbreakable. I saw it opening night in the theater and many times since that day, but it's definitely been a while. Thank you so much for this brilliant work of yours. It rekindled my love of older style cinema and the scene with his wife asking him the question at the door moved me to tears. As you said, Tarantino called it a Masterpiece, what an absolutely true statement. Liked and shared. Godspeed. 🙏🏼🌟
Great film. On a side note, M. Perry (RIP) told a pretty funny story about spending an entire evening/night partying with Shyamalan, only to find out in the end that the dude wasn't the director, just a random lookalike. The dude was happy as a clam though.
Speaking of long shots-there's a scene near the end of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest in which the camera lingers on the face of Jack Nicholson's character for what seems like A LONG TIME. There's no music, just ambience, and Jack's face shifting through several emotions as he reflects on the previous night's escapades and what that might mean for his future. It's one of my favorite scenes in cinema. Brilliantly acted.
Agreed, I've always loved this film. At the time I didn't realize it was shot length that differentiated it, but it works so well to contrast most superhero films and shows. I love how real it feels, how it supports the idea that its inconceivable Bruce's character is special, that ultimately the character isnt fantasical but exceptional... Admittedly with his own 6th sense, but otherwise just exceptional.
Unbreakable is one of my all-time favorites. Beautifully shot, powerful story, music, and message. Thank you for your insights, and I will watch it again with fresh eyes.
Unbreakable is one of my favorite films of all time. Sentimentally that father son moment with the newspaper near the end makes me tear up every time.
This was always my favorite Shyamalan film, but it hadn't occurred to me that a big part of it could be the visual storytelling just by way of camera motion or camera cuts (or the lack thereof). I love to learn something new so kudos, great work.
As an aside, can we just admire how good the film looks! Shooting on film definitely gives it a certain aesthetic.
I always felt like this movie was a masterpiece. Not only cinematically but also in storytelling. I love that it's real, and you don't realize what's going on until the end.
All of your video essays are outstanding. I'll rewatch this soon now.
i think it's funny that even film-focused video essays like this, which are clearly adept at identifying the technical formulations of cinematic language and how they emphasize or construct a particular thematic viewpoint, still follow the beat-for-beat conventions of a video essay style (over a decade old at this point) so methodically as to become become formally indistinguishable. it doesn't necessarily undermine the point, but guess what? video essays also have an associated set of discursive strategies and formal limitations that can be manipulated to emphasize or reinforce certain viewpoints or individual personalities, and churning out the same basic thematic/aesthetic regime for every single film-related criticism shows a real lack of creative self-reflection
Your channel makes movie nights in our household easier! After consuming your content we will seek out the films you feature and enjoy them in new ways thanks to your expert ability to introduce concepts and demonstrate them in immersive but easily understood ways! Thank you!
This was great! The thumbnail just showed Bruce Willis and the title I thought it was going to go over films in general, I'm more than pleased I found this as I didn't think I could appreciate Unbreakable more than I already did!
Keep doing your thing Danny Boy, these videos/essays are great
I LOVED Unbreakable. It really gives a PoV of someone coping with depression, but finding metaphorical (and literal!) strength and endurance through spiritual pain. I can relate to that because I was hit with bed-ridden depression after my longtime ex-girlfriend cheated on me. But then I found an outlet (ironically) by designing superhero and villain characters that somehow reflected aspects of my life. It was like holding a spiritual mirror to myself. It showed my who I once was, and who I could still be. I could "groom" myself in that mirror. Over time, my confidence restored, and I started doing martial arts and taking long walks, just absorbing nature and the simple things in life. I made new friends, got into regular partying, became reasonably extroverted, and not long after, became a DJ. Finally; I got control over my life. Through character design, I turned the mistakes in my life into clouds. Props if you get that reference. So I consider myself something between Mr. Glass and David Dunne. I started out frail and cynical, but became strong and found my calling.
Always held this one above Sixth Sense and it's in a select group of 10/10 movies for me.
Thank you for this apreciation of one of my favorite films!!!
God I love this channel. The topics, the depth of knowledge, the insights, the exposure to new films and I can't not mention the delivery! Almost sombre in tone, but deeply relaxing, has a way of penetrating straight into my brain. One of the few channels that I sit on my hands and wait for the next upload.
Dude, you make me want to watch movies and appreciate the artistry (or in some cases, lack of it) involved
Something I always loved about Unbreakable. (And I hope I'm remembering correctly.) There is the famous scene where his son almost shoots him. If a lesser director/writer made this movie today, the climax would have had the bad guy shoot him and reveal David is invulnerable. But the fight scene we got instead feels very raw and even more heroic. I think I last watched this film a couple years ago and it held up extremely well. One of my top ten favorite movies of all time.
I love and agree with everything about this except for one small part. at 3:45 when Willis answers the door. Yes it's true that it is indeed a depiction of her characters experience that matters, but what we (the viewer) are actually experiencing is Willis's PERCEPTION of her experience. That is why we see her face and not Willis's. Her cathartic display is meant for each one of us, as a viewer, to interpret it as we see it based on our own emotional experience, which is to say, the means to most successfully nurture the deepest sense of empathy towards the characters themselves :) Pure magic.
I had a strong dislike of this film my first time through….but I associate that being late to the theater and missing the first 5 minutes. Watched from the beginning later and was absolutely dazzled. The supertitle at the beginning discussing comic books put it into an entirely new perspective. These long shots were almost exactly like reading the story in a graphic novel where the still picture has to convey a great deal and you only get so many frames per page. Brilliant.
Interesting. The length of a movie shot is something I've never really considered until recently. There is a musical artist known as 'Ren' and he does his videos in a single take. That is 8 minutes + of continual performance for something like 'Hi Ren' or for any of his other videos (like the Money Game trilogy/Violet's tale/the story of Jenny and Screech). And these are performances - he is not simply singing. They are - and I use the term sparingly - awesome...
I remember seeing this when I was quite young, and the immediacy and realness of it impressed me in a way other film's hadn't. There's a scene early in the movie, where the mother tries to comfort the kid with snacks while they wait for news of their father's fate, that really hit home to me. You feel that kid's dread as much as if you were sitting right there with him, and although I didn't realize it at the time, it's clear the cinematography plays a key role in immersing the audience in moments like these.
Unbreakable seemed a movie where the director wanted to prove that he could say everything without the actors help. It was brilliant.
Some of the examples here show how he did need the actors' help: he could not rely on his dialogue to drive the emotion of the scene; the reliance on reactions and non-verbals in oners puts much more on the actors to give what is needed without leaning on their words or on the director's ability to stitch it together from different shots and different takes in the editing room.
The film did clearly rely on both to bring their A-game more regularly to the set. The actors had to know the full long scene backwards and forwards and not slip up and ruin a take. The director had to not put so much reliance on putting the film together in the editing room, but had to make strong decision along with strong follow-through on set for it to work.
@@nathanruggles Do you remember that description of the Comic Book art by Samual Jackson!
@@mikebreeden6071 You mean to the customer in his gallery? Something about it not being a toy, but rather art? Are you saying that applies in some way here?
@@nathanruggles I think he was explaining it to Bruce Willis. Nah, doesn't apply here really. I just absolutely loved the scene... I like backstory.
To be fair to Ghostbusters Afterlife it had one of my favorite shots from the series in it, at the hardware store. Instead of cutting between Callie and the store owner, the camera was positioned so we can see both her getting paint supplies and the owner at the register at the end of the isle, tracking down the isle with her as they have their conversation. It wasn't a gimmicky "director flexing" long take either, just a reasonable length shot.
I really enjoyed your perspective on this. Unbreakable is definitely one of my favorites, and the cinematography (shot selection, look, etc) are part of that, but I hadn't considered what he did with length of shots. When David and his son kind of freeze in that "don't take another sip of that water" scene, the tension was certainly compounded by the camera work. The tilted shots and tilted posture of Mr. Glass were also notable, and akin to classic comic books.
The pacing really allows to emotion to breath and grow in the most delicate way possible... people with Shyamalan often thinks about the "twist" and the "thriller" of his films, but his unique capacity to portray deep emotions and stories about people is totally overlooked
i’m always trying to pin point the differences between films of 1900s and today and what made them feel so much more artistic and this is definitely a major component
great analysis. one of my favourite films. i think Split was a great way to do a sequel. by setting up the villain using the horror movie genre. i was severely disappointed by the ending of Glass, which sours unbreakable a little
Great timing on this video. I been watching the Bond films and you can see this progression from film to film. Brilliant video👏
As soon as you said superhero movie from 2000 I had to pause the video to watch it. I just finished the movie and then your video.. what a great decision it was. This Movie had me intensely staring at the screen throughout the whole movie. I was totally captivated by the story, the characters and the Visuals. Your video afterward gave me a bigger insight and appreciation for the movie and was as always interesting and entertaining, thank you!
I’d really love to see your take on Signs.
I haven’t seen it since it first came out, but I remember being disappointed. So suspenseful in parts, but then just seemed to run out of steam at the end. “Oh, turns out the aliens are allergic to water, and now they’re leaving. The end.”
M. Night Shyamalan reminds me of the last scene in moneyball. People like to clown on him and he seems so hurt by that. But what I hope he realizes, is he is actually amazing and every knows that!
wut
The comic book format was also an inspiration for the long shots, Shyamalan wanted each scene to feel like it was taken from a comic book frame - I believe he says this himself in the DVD commentary I watched when it first came out on DVD. It really is a great movie.
I never knew this about the movie and its long shots. I won't be able to forget it now! Very nice video. Explains so much. Cheers
Damn
I hate to be pedantic, but gently - these are ‘long takes’. ‘Long shots’ are when the characters are positioned far away from the camera, often also called ‘wide shots’. Love the video though!
thank you for explaining one of the reasons why i found Unbreakable so alluring!
Unbreakable is still one of my most favorite movies of all time. Your analysis of the shot length and the point of view of the shots really highlights what makes it different.
Can you do a video about the show Sherlock?
maybe about how bad that show is
maybe about how bad that show is
Dog you don’t have to change the thumbnail and title a hundred times we get it you have a new video Jesus
love your work, Danny
I rewatched the Batman the Dark Knight recently and was annoyed by how quick the shots were. I had remembered it having so much more depth and mood, when this go around while watching, it was just fast past jump cut to jump cut, and then movie over. Side Note: the scene where Batman goes to save Rachel but it turns out to be Harvey, right when you see Batman open the door of the warehouse, you can hear Harvey start to scream "NO NO Not me!" But you couldn't see him yet (cause he is laying on the floor having fallen out of his chair), so you didnt know if he was in the room or over the shared speaker they were previously talking through. This scene starts with an over the shoulder tracking shot behind Batman, and if they had just stayed with that single shot until Harvey came into full view laying in the gassonline, it would have been so much more impactful. In addition would have laid more narritive behind his face being burnt the way it was. Currently its just a 3 second shot of him rolling face down in the gasoline. There was so much more that could have been done with that scene and many others. Making us feel hopeless rather than telling us there was no hope. That Batman chose the wrong warehouse to go to, and his choices had consequences. A simple long shot show all the barrles around him, us discovering alongside Batman that the Joker tricked all of us, and that Rachel was going to die. Then hearing her voice over the speaker as the ran out. Poetry!
Maan. I love Bruce Willis. Prayers to him and his family during his time of need. 😢 Excellent breakdown!!!!
Excellent. Thanks for the video. Great analysis.
wow, wat great take on this movie, I've ssen it long ago, never to realise there was such an unusual editing involved and such long shots !
Great video! Enjoyed it very much, thank you.
Awesome video. Love your short documentaries. I always felt Unbreakable was oddly underrated.
this is the first I've seen of you, thanks for this! Unbreakable is one of my favorite movies, as well as The Fifth Element. Do that one! Love Bruce Willis, so sad about his condition I wish him and his family all the best. I'm sure they're grateful they can focus on family and don't have to worry whatsoever about money or medical bills at all.
can't believe i'm just finding this channel. so glad this was recommended to me by yt. by the gods this content I want. cheers
Previous title felt more enticing to me. Banger video, btw. Thanks for the reccomendation
Excellent commentary! Loved it so much! Thanks for putting your thoughts out there!
such a great film. thanks as always Danny
I LOVE THIS FILM! I couldn’t wait to hear what you had to say about it, I can’t believe I never noticed how many long shots there are!! Keep up the good work king 👑🎉
Subscribed, very thought provoking and educational to watch! Thanks!
I came across your channel in my feed. This video made me a subscriber... thanks, keep up the great work.
Welcome! :) -Danny
I TOTALLY agree. One of my favorites, slower shots, they just work better for bringing you into the world where the story is told. 1917 is another wonderful example of this. But there was so much more that Shyamalan does with this movie and the overall message... it works on many layers. I struggle to find a moment in cinema that more sends chills throughout my body like the scene where David Dunn follows the sociopathic murderer to the top of the stairs and almost turns around but stops and decides to follow him on into the house, to confront him. By the time that happens, I am so in the world of the movie that I'm right there with him, feeling his fears, his doubts... and then his choice and his resolve. It's a full synchronization of emotion. I left the theater wondering what amazing gifts I might have buried under my desire to be normal. What could I be the best at that I never had the courage to really push myself to master? It really is one of the greatest films, despite its abrupt ending.
@CinemaStix Thank you for making these videos, I really enjoy them.
Thank you for watching them :) -Danny
Good day, This is the first time I've seen your work. It's very well done, very well composed. I enjoy your perspective, and appreciate the detail you've included. You must've done quite a fair deal of research and it was nice to learn some new information about an underrated older flick, not to mention the technical aspects of filmmaking you've included. Anyhow, thank you for your time and effort, and good luck in your future endeavors/aspirations. I look forward to catching up on the rest of your work, and will look forward to more videos in the future. Best, Bob
I remember seeing Unbreakable at the cinema back in the day. Didn't really know what to expect but it had a huge impact on me.
One of my favorite movies. Your videos are superb, you remind me of why I'm such a deep fan of cinema.
Most comprehensive explanation ofna technique i never knew existed. I knew this movie was special. Now i know why. Thank you danny.
Great video man!
i love how the scene at 2:43 is lit. both characters are in the frame, but the way his face is in shadow while hers is softly lit emphasises her reactions/experience
I have probably seen this movie 20 times in the theater. I live in a really small town and this was the one thing playing for months while I dated this girl. We needed a place to make out so we bought a ticket just about every Friday and Saturday for a long time and our parents just thought we liked to watch movies. I liked it whenever we actually looked up.