Tony Keats
20-10-2001, 21:21
If you were told there was an Anchor-Bay DVD available of a movie starring Bruce Campbell, which isn't part of the Evil Dead series, would that appeal to you?
If you were also told that the disc in question features a screen-specific commentary by Mr Campbell (with the director) and a minimalist score by his frequent cohort Joe LoDuca, would that make you salivate at all?.
What if the movie on this disc was an ultra-high concept effort where a 70 minute plot is seemingly filmed in one-take by a free-roaming steadicam (yet moving from real interiors to equally real L.A based exteriors). Would that be enough extra incentive to make you seek out a copy?
If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then I've got an undiscovered treat to recommend to you!.
Okay, okay, enough of this irritating beating around the bush.... Running Time is a sadly unheralded (genuinely independent) film directed by Josh Becker. It stars (and is partly financed by) the much beloved Brucie that I mentioned earlier. It's supposedly only the second movie in motion picture history to attempt to have no visible cuts or fades (Hitchcock's Rope being the other one). That 1948 attempt was all filmed on a soundstage though and many of the transitions were easily spotted. Running Time is 100% real location-wise and is arguably a lot more successful in terms of visual flow aswell (though obviously not in profit!).
It was actually declared unreleasable by the studios because 1) it's only 70 minutes, 2) it's black & white, 3) It's OAR is an uncroppable 1.33:1 and 4) it's filmed in 16mm and has a resolutely mono soundtrack. Luckily for the DVD buying public though, none of these things are barriers to private distribution (assuming you're open-minded of course).
The plot is basically a "guy gets released from prison, meets friend and attempts pre-planned heist and is subsequently on-the-run" affair (which in itself isn't particularly original or exciting). When you discover that all of this will happen "in one go" though and that you (the viewer) are more of a voyeuristic participant than just an indifferent spectator, it sounds infinitely more enticing doesn't it?!.
In practice, it's rather brilliant in places (and never lost my attention), but it has an unmistakable whiff of "this is a bit clunky" about it. Not in the direction though I have to say, the planning and execution of the one-take premise is a joy to behold and the majority of the editing is completely imperceptible. I would have bet good money on there being about 9 cuts in total (even then only because those moments were quite opportune, not because I saw anything untoward). In actual fact there are 30 edits! (according to the commentary), but you'd have real trouble pointing most of them out (without making assumptions anyway).
No, the clunkiness is in the occasionally below-par performances/dialogue (lots of which had to be looped afterwards) and the eventual resolution of the story (which I won't give away!). It's thoroughly gripping from a "what will they do with the camera next?" standpoint and if you can adopt that "how??" mindset throughout, then there's as much tension to be derived from the technical side of things as there is in the plot itself!.
Basically it's a very unorthodox film, which had no outside interference to struggle with and no target audience it needed to pander to. It had a refreshing idea as its starting-point which was executed very well (in a directorial sense). So, if you've got the (unconventional) stomach for it, you should maybe give it a go.
(Did I mention it has a commentary track featuring Bruce Campbell? BRUCE CAMPBELL I said!).
If you were also told that the disc in question features a screen-specific commentary by Mr Campbell (with the director) and a minimalist score by his frequent cohort Joe LoDuca, would that make you salivate at all?.
What if the movie on this disc was an ultra-high concept effort where a 70 minute plot is seemingly filmed in one-take by a free-roaming steadicam (yet moving from real interiors to equally real L.A based exteriors). Would that be enough extra incentive to make you seek out a copy?
If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then I've got an undiscovered treat to recommend to you!.
Okay, okay, enough of this irritating beating around the bush.... Running Time is a sadly unheralded (genuinely independent) film directed by Josh Becker. It stars (and is partly financed by) the much beloved Brucie that I mentioned earlier. It's supposedly only the second movie in motion picture history to attempt to have no visible cuts or fades (Hitchcock's Rope being the other one). That 1948 attempt was all filmed on a soundstage though and many of the transitions were easily spotted. Running Time is 100% real location-wise and is arguably a lot more successful in terms of visual flow aswell (though obviously not in profit!).
It was actually declared unreleasable by the studios because 1) it's only 70 minutes, 2) it's black & white, 3) It's OAR is an uncroppable 1.33:1 and 4) it's filmed in 16mm and has a resolutely mono soundtrack. Luckily for the DVD buying public though, none of these things are barriers to private distribution (assuming you're open-minded of course).
The plot is basically a "guy gets released from prison, meets friend and attempts pre-planned heist and is subsequently on-the-run" affair (which in itself isn't particularly original or exciting). When you discover that all of this will happen "in one go" though and that you (the viewer) are more of a voyeuristic participant than just an indifferent spectator, it sounds infinitely more enticing doesn't it?!.
In practice, it's rather brilliant in places (and never lost my attention), but it has an unmistakable whiff of "this is a bit clunky" about it. Not in the direction though I have to say, the planning and execution of the one-take premise is a joy to behold and the majority of the editing is completely imperceptible. I would have bet good money on there being about 9 cuts in total (even then only because those moments were quite opportune, not because I saw anything untoward). In actual fact there are 30 edits! (according to the commentary), but you'd have real trouble pointing most of them out (without making assumptions anyway).
No, the clunkiness is in the occasionally below-par performances/dialogue (lots of which had to be looped afterwards) and the eventual resolution of the story (which I won't give away!). It's thoroughly gripping from a "what will they do with the camera next?" standpoint and if you can adopt that "how??" mindset throughout, then there's as much tension to be derived from the technical side of things as there is in the plot itself!.
Basically it's a very unorthodox film, which had no outside interference to struggle with and no target audience it needed to pander to. It had a refreshing idea as its starting-point which was executed very well (in a directorial sense). So, if you've got the (unconventional) stomach for it, you should maybe give it a go.
(Did I mention it has a commentary track featuring Bruce Campbell? BRUCE CAMPBELL I said!).