Two Ways To Film The Same Scene
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.พ. 2025
- Go to www.squarespac... for 10% off your first purchase.
GET MY BOOK: amzn.to/3ymfQPV
Support Nerdwriter videos: / nerdwriter Subscribe: bit.ly/SubNerdw...
Watch the most popular Nerdwriter episodes: • How Donald Trump Answe...
Facebook: / the-nerdwriter-3141415...
Twitter: / theenerdwriter
Patreon: / nerdwriter
SOURCES
www.theguardia...
Someone pointed out to me that the late David Bordwell once covered this topic on his blog. I hadn't seen Bordwell's post before making this video, but it's super cool that we were thinking about similar things, and that we both love Lubitsch! It's absolutely worth a read:
www.davidbordw...
MUSIC (via Epidemic Sound)
In Need of Christmas - Home For The Holidays
Growing Up Is Just a Trap - IVY-ROSE LYON FEAT. ANNICA SVENSSON
Paris with You - ADELYN PAIK
The Gift of Giving - HOWARD HARPER-BARNES
Watch More Nerdwriter:
Latest Uploads: • Video
Understanding Art: • What The Truman Show T...
Essays About Art: • What The Truman Show T...
Essays About Social Science: • How To Correct Donald ...
Popular Videos: • How Donald Trump Answe...
The Nerdwriter is a series of video essays about art, culture, politics, philosophy and more.
You were obviously looking at the technical differences between these movies, but what stood out for me when I saw "You've Got Mail" was how it was ALL about the two central characters, whereas the 1940 film gave time to the supporting characters and their plotlines. Is it also significant that in 1940 you could cast two top stars as "mere" shop assistants but now the stars have to be owners/managers of their own stores?
What I like about the 1940 version is that it's a rom com with two adept salespeople. (The end scene doesn't make as much sense why it is the way it is from someone who isn't a salesperson). The remake doesn't have that dynamic, and it makes some of the scenes play a little weird if I remember correctly.
I think the change was more to heighten the stakes. A rivalry between two shop assistants is intriguing, but a rivalry between business owners where one is at risk of losing her whole shop is much steeper. You may argue they didn't need to heighten the stakes, but you can see why that might be appealing to write. Plus, Ephron wanted to explore how one can fall in love with someone who is, on paper, their total opposite. Making them come from such different worlds and work in such different environments is part of that.
There were also more scenes filmed for the supporting characters originally, but the resulting film was over 3 hours long, which is a bit of a no-no for romcoms, so they decided to focus on the two central characters. I really like both film, but had to defend You've Got Mail a bit.
My recollection is that at the time, big box book stores putting local bookstores out of business was an ongoing concern that everyone knew about, so selecting a contemporary struggle makes a lot of sense.
*I mean, the ownership was to make the characters more invested, cuz one character path was to take the other character out of business, and in the case of Meg's character that would mean lose everything she had, as to Tom's character it was only losing a store*
Exactly! Today's romantic comedy implies lazy writing, which concentrates on the two leads, instead of showing life in all its diversity.
A lot of these changes are due to evolving technology too. Cameras used to be bigger, heavier, harder to move around. Film stock was expensive so it was more costly to do multiple takes. Editing took a lot more time when you had to literally cut and paste. It became more and more easy to shoot and cut more shots, especially when things moved over to digital.
Yeah, the change in technique has less to do with creative style than it's just the limitations of the technology. He is acting like cameras from the 50s and 60s were as good as they were in the 90s. Obviously directors style will change as technology advances.
@@MattSpoon07finally someone with sensibility. These essay people are acting like all the modern directors are stupid and doesn't know this.
@@MattSpoon07 I wouldn't say that with total conviction. In american filmaking the influence of Griffith was very strong during those years, which means favouring the staging and blocking.
The alternative way of thinking was that the core of filmmaking was editing, which was an idea mostly applied in european cinema because of the influence of Eisenstein.
So, there was also an element of certain ideology in the choices that a filmmaker made... like today, of course.
This was a good point.
I was going to drop in just saying film stock was way more pricier.
The biggest reason was the size of the camera and the constraints to record sound as part of the take. Film stock has always been expensive.
I've come to love the longer takes of older films lately, they feel so relaxing and organic.
Especially with every marvel movie does 800x takes of the same reaction in a shot/reverse shot. Just to hit some imaginary "perfect shot", in EVERY shot of the whole movie. Genuine, normal, reactions from quality actors just feels so good.
Also becuz every challenge and obstacle of old filmmaking, the immense cost of film and giant lumbering cameras and few flexible move-arounds and few effects always FORCE the directors and writers and actors to put so much effort and passion into that one square of footage and fill it up with as much artistic quality they can. If you dont have the excessive budgets and effects you really have to come up with a good story instead to entertain people. Constant over-editing allows certain movie to just gloss over that to wave their shiny keys in front of the audience
recommendations?
The Holdovers nails that vibe.
I love that the movies of old often had great dialogue bc they couldn’t rely on fast paced technology to try to hold the viewer’s attention. The most meaningful stories usually are older in that regard
One of many reasons I love older movies are the longer unbroken takes. Not only is it less distracting but enhances the immersion by allowing the audience to feel we are there witnessing a real event. That's because they are shot more like it's really happening.
I don't agree that they tie the hands of the editor, rather they demand better performances and camera work. We often see the results of the "fix it in post" approach not working.
Yes u r right, the other one makes the scene less dramatic , it makes it very generic
Funny, I just wrote the opposite. Neither is truer than the other, its just funny how we clearly perceive these ways of storytelling differently! I assumed my experience was similar for other viewers an more connected to the time we live in, and I'm happily surprised that I am again forced to get out of my bubble to try to see it your way and how that would work for you! Because clearly modern times is not the only variable!
I responded to the boat passing by, and I had to laugh because I realized it almost felt like a spoof to me, while in its own setting it probably is a very profound moment. Anyway, I love films, movies, and the art of storytelling through visuals. And the more I learn from other's ways of enjoying it, the more I can ravel in it's artistry!
Exactly! ...and very similar to my point.
The Shop Around The Corner is such an underrated classic. Jimmy Stewart & Margaret Sullavan were a great pairing. Glad it's getting more recognition in modern times.
Wouldn't say underrated, it's an all time Christmas classic.
The side characters were also great!
@@Monsterism not as much as It’s a Wonderful Life
@@DefenestrateYourself Yup also google It Happened one Christmas, and let me know what you think
@@MonsterismI watch it every year.
What is most striking to me is the difference in lighting. In the 40s film stock was less sensitive and lighting technology a lot more limited so they had to use huge lights hanging from the ceiling and the side that create this flat, even appearance and those tell-tale fake sharp - often multiple - shadows. In the 90s version the available dynamic range is so extreme they can use incidental lights in the background and make it look like it was captured IRL. And even though the leads are lit to textbook perfection, which is 100% fake, it still looks natural.
And only a few years later Michael Mann would film Collateral with an even more sensitive digital cameras and LED lights changing what can be done in cinema again.
I watched Sabrina (1954) and was struck by the beautiful lighting in that film. Although it looks more artificial and "stagy" It looks beautiful especially how they light Audrey Hepburn.
Yes, my eye was drawn to the lighting too. But despite the Ephron version looking more natural I actually prefer the older version in terms of lighting. There are certainly types of scenes that don't work well with everything lit evenly, but romcoms don't have too many of those, IMO.
I was really noticing the lighting, too. I was thinking that in the You’ve Got Mail scenes in the cafe, Tom Hanks is far more shadowy than Meg Ryan, especially in some shots. Half his face is in shadow at one point. Gives him a secretive air, I think, as if Meg Ryan can’t see him fully. Meanwhile, in her brighter clothing and better lighting, she is perfectly visible, as if wholly revealed to Tom Hanks. Maybe I’m reading way too much into this scene, but in any case, I can imagine that ability to film darker more naturalistic scenes allowed filmmakers to more subtly play with meaning in their lighting.
Films in the 2010 has become increasingly naturalistic especially indie movies. I think we should go more back to the 40's and 50's way of shooting. It gives the films a more special feeling, transported to a different world where people aren't lit or talking like the real world. The films become more magical. And for a romcom isn't that the goal. @@empratt5800
It's supposed to be art, not photojournalism.
Fun Fact: For You've Got Mail, All of Joe and Kathleen's e-mails were put on the movie's official website which Warner Bros. kept active until 2018.
Do you where I can read them Now?
@@keysburntgucci9016 probably the internet archive
@@keysburntgucci9016 The website is in the internet archive, but sadly the site used flash, so the archive redirects you to the warner bros site about the movie.
I'll keep digging.
@@keysburntgucci9016did you look for them?
Any way to read them now?
I think one of the most notable differences concerning the number of shots per scene is with dance scenes Fred Astaire insisted that cameras mainly showed his full body and had very few Cuts per dancing. Contrast that today when you never really get to see much in the way of dance moves from the dancers because everything is chopped up so much.
Replace the word "dance" with any other athletic activity and the statement remains true - running, fighting, climbing, etc.
In Dirty Hairy, Clint Eastwood has a scene (with no dramatic music or suspense imposed) where he has a conversation with a supporting actor, scales a 12 foot chain-link fence in wingtips, and lands on the other side to continue the conversation, then walks out of the scene toward the suspect (all in ONE shot). In a modern movie, like "Taken", that scene would be 1- done by a stunt double, 2- take about 30 shots, 3-have crazy dramatic music, and 4-Suck.
I feel like La La Land is a nice exception to that rule.
Exactly! In my point I use fight scenes (didn't think of dancing). It's that same thing-it was long-full body shots. You can't "cheat" in such a shot. In today's' (garbage) it's all "cheating" (dance and especially fighting). You and I could be GREAT dancing/fighting superheros today!..Hey! That gives me an idea for a new Superhero!!
@@furtim1 It depends on the type of fight scene: Chinese style fight scenes will show the entire choreographed fight with both fighters in frame until a strike lands and then the perspective jumps to the impact of the strike. That's what make kung foo movies like IP man so great.
I've become so used to video essays ending with an ad read disguised as part of the essay that when Evan started his closing lines about watching this movie for the holiday season, I assumed he was delivering an ad for a streaming service. So I stopped the video and was about to go to something else when it occurred to me that I might be wrong. Sure enough, those lines really were part of the essay -- an actual conclusion, not a trick.
I wonder whether youtube video essayists who play this game realize how much they are encouraging viewers to regard their work with suspicion when they try to force-feed us ad reads.
Normally I'd agree but I don't feel that way anymore. He wrote a book so of course we would want to plug it. Likewise, many TH-cam channels are demonitized, so they might sell something. As long as it is not a generic NORD VPN or something, then I'm fine.
@@rmalsen3052 Sorry if I was unclear, but I don't have a problem with this video. My point is that the habits of other video essayists led to my misinterpreting the end of this video.
omg, I felt the same way and was flabbergasted when I saw this comment cause it looked like it read my mind
I was thinking the exact same thing lol
same
The Shop Around the Corner is easily my favorite Christmas movie. And now that it's Christmas Eve, it's finally time to watch it again.
For me one of the main advantages - and challenges - of the long take was that it required the actors to act together and interact. For from giving less information, the long takes gave a lot more than the modern approach of now one person, now the other. The "advantage" of the modern approach is that it can hide poor acting - ie interaction. A pleasure of the long take is that I can watch a scene more than once, concentrating - as I choose - now on one actor, now on another - or shifting my gaze from one to another, as I might watching people on real life. I disagree with the basic premise that the old films give less or slower information. In fact each moment gives far more to enjoy.
I completely agree, for a few years now, I've started to look at movies from an artistic analytical sense. And to place myself in the producers head, to understanding each shot. And I've come to realize how the slow dramatic up close moments can cheapen a movie if too much, and the more cuts there are usually harm the material.
Also the longer shots, take a courage and trust in actors I don't see anymore.
I like the two=shot because you can see how BOTH people are reacting. It's said that half of great acting is reacting. A single shot usually goes from one speaker to the other. TV's "Succession" did an interesting variant. They shot every scene with multiple cameras, so they could get reaction shots. Frequently, the camera stays on the reaction, not the speaker.
Well said...and similar to my point. However, if a director has to "hide" anything (which they often do) it's because there's less (good talent) in every department these days. There are too many productions and too many requirements for talent (in every department) which results in waterdown talent. Regardless of the business, if you only have twenty positions available, you're going to get to chose from the cream of the crop. If you have 20,000 positions to fill, well ain't no crop on the planet that's got 20,000 great "flowers."
I'm not certain if it's a 'real' long take, but I always loved the opening shot in Serenity. Gives you character introductions while also making the ship feel like this real place.
It doesn’t matter what time of year it is, I love watching “The Shop Around the Corner.”
The patter of each conversation between two actors has the same rhythm as the leading actors. I enjoy listening to the quips.
Jimmy Stewart and Tom Hanks are two of my favorite actors. But, I would award the win to Shop Around the Corner! There is just so much more to watch including things in the background. I think many black and white movies were shot like that. Oh I do enjoy You’ve Got Mail. What first caught my eye after Tom Hanks was the fact that both leads owned bookstores! I can get lost in bookstores!
“If the regular length of a shot is increased, one becomes bored, but if you keep on making it longer, it piques your interest, and if you make it even longer, a new quality emerges, a special intensity of attention.” - Andrei Tarkovsky
True!
I discovered The Shop Around The Corner about 4 years ago and it quickly became one of my favourites. I’ve also noticed and appreciated the style of directing that have more of a theatre influence, wider and longer shots that are often from a side angle almost positioned like a set. I feel it gives more influence to the scene and story. One Film I’ve just watched which is a perfect example of theatre directing and shots is “The Night of the Hunter” by Charles Laughton, the only film he directed and it’s basically a masterpiece
Your commentary covers something I've been thinking about for a while now. There's something that forces you to be more present with long shots, deliberate or not, aesthetic choice or invisible norm.
Shop Around the Corner is a wonderful film. As a enormous Jimmy Stewart fan, it's always in my rotation when I binge his work every few years. ❤
a big reason that longer shots stand out is because the rest of the movie doesn't use them a lot. if most of the shots in a movie are long we stop noticing after the 3rd or 4th shot
Right, it's the same exact reason that the shot-reverse shot sticks out in Shop Around the Corner. Something HAS to be the norm and the other the contrast.
He literally says this
4:50
You mention attention span for the scene and I LOVE how you used Meg Ryan's character logging into the internet because that is the perfect example. The internet. Nowadays, we watch stuff online. Websites load in a second. When a video buffers, we get annoyed at having to wait. But the internet speeds back then was measured in kilobites, I remember ours was a 28k connection. That would practically be considered torture today but that was just normal back then. We didn't watch videos online. It would take an hour just to load a grainy clip that's a few seconds long. Websites, if they loaded in less than 30 seconds, that would be considered quick.
You are spot-on with your comparisons. First off, I want to say that I would have loved the Judy Garland musical version better if Van Johnson wasn't in it. Gene Kelly would have been a better fit. They had chemistry together. That said, I always LOVED the "shop around the corner". The chemistry between Stewart and Sullivan was palpable, and it was blown off the screen with how the director captured it. I have always admired and appreciated Nora Ephron. Her updated version of this same plot which I hadn't known about the original (Hungarian play, "Parfumerie") was quite timely for the pivotal time it was made. I wonder if another update version was made now, would it be just a 38.3 second tiktok video?
There is another very important reason for the use of longer shots and more expressive camera positions and that is that the directors of the time did not have the final cut and still wanted to tell the stories without being cut or changed. John Ford was one of the directors who most perfected the technique of editing in filming, always trying to ensure that, if they tried to cut a shot, the story would not be understood.
This was a huge thing as well when Hitchcock was making Rebecca- David O Selznick was the producer and wanted the final cut, so Hitchcock did a lot of editing in camera to keep him from being able to make changes to his vision.
Shop around the corner was always a favorite.
I liked the technical commentary, and I agree with the guy who talked about the advances in technology making some things easier to do.
When I was a kid, and I was finally allowed to put my hands on an 8mm camera, and beg the use of a single reel of film, I wanted to make a little movie, but I wouldn't see the mistakes I was making until after the film was developed. I had some sense of staging and blocking, but I found out there were serious problems with lighting that I hadn't anticipated.
There were no resources for a second try.
I enjoyed "You've Got Mail" and I knew it was a remake or an homage, so I couldn't help but compare them.
The thing that struck me was the blatent change in what I considered a major theme.
It was no longer a humble love affair between a couple of poor employees, but between a rarefied couple of the ownership class. he owned a chain of bookstores and she owned a single, chic bookstore. Notice, they would not have reversed it to her ownership of a chain of bookstores and his ownership of a chic little bookstore. Maybe an antique bookstore. That would have violated the romantic trope that no matter how rich a woman is the man has to be much richer.
They certainly can't both be poor, as in the original.
Romance is not possible for poor people, so the poor had just better give up all hope.
The ideas they put in people's heads are as much about what they don't say.
What they would never say.
They would not have made it a movie about a man who manages a bookstore and a woman who works there.
There might have been a question of sexual harassment to deal with.
That would have added a twist if she levelled a complaint of sexual harassment against him before learning of his identity.
A good writer could make it funny.
Hollywood could no longer imagine a romance in one little shop around the corner, that is: a basically unimportant place, between basically unimportant people.
Did you notice how posh their environment is?
That's the most striking difference.
Hollywood was teaching women to have posh dreams.
Maybe their imaginations would make a lot of cuts and takes too.
Over the last five years or so, “Shop” has definitely become a new family favorite to watch at Christmas. I’m always excited to hear any discussion about the adaptations of this great story. Nicely done!
"All acting is reacting" overstates a bit but is mostly true. Shot reverse shot decides for the viewer when and whether they will see the actor delivering the line or the one reacting. It plays better on smaller screens than a 2-shot. OTOH longer takes and 2-shots feels more fly-on-the-wall. It increases the tension and presence and relies more on the actors to deliver the timing and feel that are especially key to this kind of comedy.
So you want others to tell you where to look, what to look at and what's good? Not me. I want actors to ACT. There is little to no "acting" in " Shot reverse shot."
One of my go to movies for the holidays.
You can't beat Jimmy Stewart for his subtle intensity. One of these days, I'll have to watch the others too
Amazing video, as always. Was curious about one point: What about silent films that had insane montages with the craziest fast editing I’ve ever seen? I feel like a lot of the style of the 30s and 40s movies is because of the introduction of sound. Suddenly things were filmed on sound stages and cameras couldn’t move and actors couldn’t move as much. I feel like then Hollywood movies BECAME more like theater as a result of this new technology. I think the points in the video still stand, but from what I’ve gathered, the introduction of sync sound recording had a huge influence on these later stylistic limitations.
Such a good point! Early sound recording put so many limitations on filming that it makes sense that framing "reset" to a stage set-up. Also, romantic silent films don't have the same long cuts as the 30s and 40s since there's a constant cutaway to the title cards.
I agree with your point about sound stages affecting camera shots. But I watch a lot of silent film and I disagree about the "craziest fast editing". It's not like modern music videos and ads where I don't even know what I saw in half the frames. In fact, a lot of them also had lengthy shots.
I knew this film was going to be nostalgic and appreciative of the 1944 version but I watched it and felt incredibly nostalgic over the coloring and lighting of Nora Ephron's version... it looks so beautiful and cinematic next to our current crop of commercial studio/streaming films
Yeah I really love the color and lightning of You've Got Mail, very "christmasy", being 1999, it still looks like it was shot yesterday, despite the technology changes over time, it's kind of a nostalgic mirror to the earlier days of the Internet.
ahhh nerwriter1, thank you for honoring jimmy stewart during the holiday season! a man special to my heart. i'm glad you chose to highlight a film no one talks about. much love during the holiday season to you and yours
Just caught The Shop Around the Corner at my local one screen theater and it was so wonderful. Jimmy Stewart is the most captivating actor.
I loved both of these movies and for some reason didn't know one was a direct remake of the other! 😅 As you said, the plot is so perfect for a romantic comedy; I thought they were both just utilizing the same tropes. This is such an interesting way to interact with film and film history. I've often used book-to-film adaptations as a way to study, but I think I'm now going to have to make a list of remakes over the decades. Oceans Eleven is one of my favorite examples, but I'll have to dig deeper to find more. What a great idea!
I haven’t really seen either movie, but just from the differences of the displayed in this video, I feel like both are useful in their own ways but that I would prefer the frequent back-and-forth shots as it physically creates a division between the actors that matches how they feel about each other. It feels a lot more like an argument than just a conversation.
Of course, long shots are always praised in cinema, because of its challenging nature for performance, camera operating, blocking, every detail of planning.
Shot reverse shot gives you a more intimate view of the actors, especially when done just over the shoulder of the person listening, it puts you in their perspective, and you partake in the pain when Meg Ryan calls you "nothing but a suit".
The same way you can look at "The Visit" or "The Visit of the Old Lady", that was adapted to screens and television quite a lot. And because of its grim plot, it sometimes it was made as a comedy
This video really drives home the point one of my cinema professors used to make. He was a huge fan of Orson Welles and the way he used the "plan sequence" which is often confused with the long take. The fact that Welles knew how to make things stand out even without zooming in on them or making it obvious was a treasure that much of modern cinema couldn't do without. I think this is how I learned to put in words what I loved about older movies, and it's especially refreshing to see that this kind of filmmaking still exists and has also transformed itself in different cultures of cinema across the world. Most people have no idea what a plan sequence is today, but they consume media in a very similar way that people in the 40s used to do. It makes you feel the very certain way you describe in this video, and I think that is something that any movie watcher can appreciate. Thank you for making this video, I'm certain this kind of conversation will hold up for years to come.
Lost time for movies this year, so this video was a really nice reminder to look out for and appreciate the details in filmmaking that I'd originally fallen in love with. Great video, glad to find this channel!
The other BIG change from the 1940 to 1998 version is the power dynamic. In the Lubich version, "Shop Around the Corner," Jimmy Stewart's character is a shop manager but without any hiring/firing authority, so he has no power over Margaret Sullivan's character -- they are essentially peers, so there is no potential power dynamic to influence the relationship that develops. In the Ephron version, Tom Hanks' character is with a Big Box Book store that is pressuring Meg Ryan's small local bookstore out of business, so he holds power over her. To me this makes the romance story less pure, as a viewer I can't help but wonder how such a power dynamic could influence the development of a relationship.
People today have become frantic, short tempered, and restless. One look at modern films shows this. Regardless of which came first to reveal these changes (society or film making culture), they certainly are apparent. Today, impatience everywhere.
This was masterfully done Evan -- one aspect that jumped out during the scenes you posted, though, was the extent to which I could 'see' Tom Hanks' character through what was on his face vs. Jimmy Stewart's who you really had to hear speak to get a sense of him. Your comparisons of the two periods of filmmaking are dead on -- it strikes me, though, that the films closer to our time period (or maybe it's the actors?) portray a great deal more without actual exposition -- and maybe that is, in fact, tied up in how they're shot.
Jimmy Stewart was such a good actor, I wish he did more movies.
I just started with The Shop last week. Watched Rear Window two days later and this weekend will be watching 'It's a Wonderful Life'. I just can't get enough of that smile and drawl.
The Shop Around The Corner is a beautiful movie. A longtime favorite that I stumbled upon AFTER You've Got Mail was produced. I enjoy both.
5:14 P E R F E C T ! ! LOL!! I don't know why this tickled my funny bone but that was extremely funny, of course as illustration of what you tried to explain about long shots, but man, that was genius!
And on the rest of the comparison, the way it was done in You've got mail, the 100+ shots (What?!) it really doesn't feel like that, because we are trained I guess to follow the characters who are speaking, and we expect some artistry there I guess, like the many shots in Bourne, somehow we get more immersed in the story, more at the scene than from afar like in a play.
Loved it to bits, thanks!
Bought your book a while back and finished it on a flight to Lisbon this week with the family for the holidays. Watched this video from there and now have The Shop around the Corner on my list.
One of the things about fewer takes is that the actors have to really be able to act. They have to be able to keep up the act for a long period of time. Shorter shots doesn't decrease the ability to act but it does release the worry because you can fix "it" in editing.
Yes, they're responding to each other instead of micro-managing their acting, often to the director's specifications.
In Dirty Hairy, Clint Eastwood has a scene (with no dramatic music or suspense imposed) where he has a conversation with a supporting actor, scales a 12 foot chain-link fence in wingtips, and lands on the other side to continue the conversation, then walks out of the scene toward the suspect (all in ONE shot). In a modern movie, like "Taken", that scene would be 1- done by a stunt double, 2- take about 30 shots, 3-have crazy dramatic music, and 4-Suck.
This doesn't take into account how the films are made. When doing the shot-reverse shot, they will set the camera up on the one actor, over the shoulder of the other actor, and do the whole scene (unless they need to relocate the fixed camera). Both actors are still playing their roles and reacting to each other. The production then does it again, for the other principle actor. Then they might do the whole scene in a two-shot, or other angles as decided by the director.
It's in the editing where all these longer takes are cut down and assembled into what we see.
Yes the actors can pause and restart and work around fluffed lines probably a lot easier than a long two shot. But they are still acting the whole scene with each other.
Watched "You've got mail" last night. I had NO idea it was a remake! 😱
I think i remember hearing Chappelle only took this role because he was mad he passed on playing opposite Hanks in Forrest Gump. But if you've heard his quote about being offered the part of "Bubba", you'd understand why he turned it down.
Seasons Greetings to you Evan! I'm adding this one to my to-watch list along with other movie recommendations from your good self such as: In the Mood for Love, every frame a painting.
I just had my wife watch this a few days ago, my favorite “Christmas movie”! Great pick.
I'd never seen The Shop Around The Corner before, but I watched this video Christmas Eve morning and decided to make it our movie for the night. Wife and I loved it. So thank you.
This channel makes me want to go back to the 80s and 1)make my college film proffesor 10% as interesting as this and 2)make my dumb young self pay attention in film class and all the cool things about it and not a just class I took because it was an easy grade for football. Keep up the great work. My wife and I always enjoy watching the videos
I’ll have to check these out. I’m already such a huge fan of the musical “She Loves Me” and I’m always down to watch Jimmy Stewart in anything, he’s such an amazing actor in any roles he’s given; this vid definitely has me intrigued on this version of the story. Love this insight of both these comparisons, thx for this my friend!!🙌🏻
The 1998 version LOOKS amazing! The coulours and the lighting in that restaurant scene are magnificent!
It does! It looks so lush and cinematic, something that's severely lacking in commercial films nowdays
@@YssandThat's an interesting statement. What were the last movies you saw at a cinema?
I generally prefer an editing with long old school shots. I also prefer a balanced mix of static and dynamic shots. I think that movies from the 80s/90s onwards, with their quasi-psychedelic style of dynamic shots and hundreds of cuts in small intervals, have become too chaotic on the visual side and too weak on the dramatic/narrative side (I'm speaking in statistical terms and in comparative terms).
Oh wow. I just found this movie when scrolling the streaming platforms and decided to watch it based on a whim.
What a wonderful gift to see your thoughts, how they mirror my own, and that we were on the same page this holiday season when considering what to watch!
The discussion of the progression of pop culture attention span and story complexity was addressed wonderfully in "Everything Bad is Good For You", which is a personal favorite of mine but probably expressed in many forms by many observers.
Thank you for telling about this film! You've got a mail wasn't persuasive at all, but this one is heart- and eye-warming, a gem!
Love both movies! I agree that the amount of information in each is critically important and conveyed through their differing types and length of shots; I do think that as our tolerance for briefer and flashier shots increased, possibly some of the charm and quaintness of the earlier work decreased. Either way, love your take on it and subscribed to your channel to learn more; thanks!
4:04 yep, some movie stars in Mexican movies' golden age came straight from stage plays, particularly the itinerary troupe kind of plays that toured all over the country and learned what worked and what did not with most audiences. Best actors could hold long scenes perfectly acted with their lines impeccably delivered the way stories needed it, for either drama or comedy. If someone is interested in learning about it I suggest El Gran Calavera as one of the best examples.
Jimmy Stewart is slowly becoming my favourite actor. He is just so natural. Nothing feels forced when he is on screen.
You are definitly right about James Stewart, and I would like to add that when you watch more of his works and recognize his splendid talent you feel that everybody else are a bad copies and false immitators next to him, in other word he was the Original. I discoverd him rather lately and felt so decieved all these years was watching what so called A-lister actors,, while he was the real actor as an actor should be. Very unique human being and no one will ever be like him or even compared to him. May he rest in peace.
4:35 Films of the '80s and '90s were influenced by television in general because of VCRs. The small screen requires close shots so faces are big enough to see expressions, which necessitates shot/reverse shot. That isn't true in film unless you're concerned about your film being watched at home.
Was just scouring Spotify podcasts for something new, I wondered, "Does The Nerdwriter have a podcast?" My optimism skyrocketed, only to be met with disappointment-no podcast! Dude, whyyyyy noooot? It would be pure joy! Make it happen! 🎙🔥
Just finished reading your book yesterday and absolutely loved it. It was truly inspiring specially since I've been working on dealing with my own self-doubt and that last essay just did me in. Great job!! Keep up the great work!
You actually mentioned In the Good Ol' Summertime! I had seen that before You've Got Mail came out and in the years before the Internet, I had no idea The Shop Around Corner existed until then. Most youtubers will leave out the Judy Garland version and I'm so glad you included it here.
I got a paperback copy of your book of essays for Christmas, first one about Emerson started off amazing. Great work, happy to be able to read it :)
I just watched The Shop Around the Corner maybe a year ago, and just adored it. Of course it was a little weird having the action set in Budapest when so many of the actors had American accents, but I got over it quickly. Jimmy Stewart was such an incredible actor in that period, and only became a better one after his (no doubt harrowing) experiences in the war (that scene in It's a Wonderful Life where he blows up at his kids just gets me every time).
I believe you could do this with Nora Ephron's Sleepless in Seattle too. The movie The Courtship of Eddie's Father is very similar to Sleepless. Shirley Jones is only across the hallway from Glenn Ford, but it may as well have been three thousand miles as with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan. There is a restaurant scene in both, where the little boy is not happy with the father's current girlfriend, that are quite alike. I always thought of the later film as an "unofficial" remake.
Wow. Thanks for this. I just watched the Shop and in many ways loved it more than You've got Mail (already a favourite). Now I will try Courtship. I am guessing I might like it more than Seattle
Thank for this insightful and elaborated review. I especially liked how you explain the use of space. A good video for teaching.
I had no idea about any of these movies or the fact that this story’s been remade but from the first 2 minutes I can already tell this is going to be just a brilliant video essay, love your work, always surprising in the best ways.
I completely forgot Dave Chapelle was in You've Got Mail! And I had no idea it was based on so many classic versions of the same story!
They should do a new version where they somehow meet and chat through AI technology or something.
I love these films so much! I first saw You’ve Got Mail and later saw the others on TCM. I wish there was a way to combine these two. You’ve Got Mail has the ultimate ending and growth of friendship, in my opinion, but Little Shop has so much class. 🥰
I’ve also seen In the Good Old Summertime. I feel like it’s a “musical” only in the loosest definition of the word. So if you, reader, have not seen it, don’t expect something like Singing in the Rain. 😅
Great timing! Just watched The Shop Around the Corner for the first time earlier today!
One of the few great recommendations I have now for the holidays. Thanks!
I recently found this movie over the holiday on tv and watched it. I really did like it and I have always liked you got mail. Meg Ryan fan. Thank you for your video. It was really interesting to learn about filming techniques.
Just found this video because someone stole part of it on tiktok with no credit to you.
I'm glad I was able to find this so I could watch the whole thing. Great video.
The musical is really good and was recorded professionally for PBS in 2016 if anyone wants to check it out.
I remember when "You've God Mail" released, I was a little obsessed with it. I was at University at the time, and driving an hour and a half one way, to and from my home and school. For about a month I would stop once a week at a theater on my route and watch this movie on my way home. And when it came out on DVD I bought it and watched every behind-the-scenes video and listend to the Director's Commentary.
I can't say for sure why the movie resonated so well with me, but I consider it a classic. And I do think it's a perfect movie to break down for learning to tell a story in beats, to craft a scene, to use measured pacing.
Thanks for this comparison. Now I'm going to go watch all of these films for Christmas.
Two of my favorite movies are The Shop Around and Corner and Trouble in Paradise. Both are Directed by Ernst Lubitsch! Thank you for this video!!
Great analysis. As you were saying that few current movie use long takes, I thought, "Yeah, but what about the "Maestro" Snoopy scene?" And then you cut to it. I laughed out loud!
Really love this video and choice of subject matter! A couple thoughts -- using the word "shot" is a little bit misleading, I feel like "cuts" more accurately describes what you're pointing out in these movies. Even though there may be 12 "cuts" in a given sequence, there might have only been two "shots" or "setups" that were spliced into 12 "cuts" -- I think another reason for this approach that you aren't including is that it frees up the filmmakers to make choices in post production to tell the story they're wanting. In those medium two-shots, you're locked into the performances given by the actors, which is fine and can be more impactful if the performances are great, but often times it's not as practical and sometimes results in a less impactful edit.
I LOVE You've Got Mail but I had no ide it was a remake. You did such an amazing job with this video (as you usually do) that I'm ready to give the original a watch before the end of the year. Thank you so much for this, and happy holidays to you too!!!
I'm not sold on the idea of movies being influenced by music videos and commercials. I feel like TV would be the key to differentiate 1940 and 1998. Especially the multi-cam sitcoms, where the editing style is more rapid.
March 2024 and I just discovered your channel. I love it! Congratulations on your great content. Can't wait for more
This is an interesting analysis. The methodology of making a film has changed so much.
video 3 minutes old, your comment 2 minutes old. So after at most 1 minute of watchtime you came to that conclusion?
@@frisianmouve Bro 😂
Being on set we use shot to mean times we changed the frame(for shot-reverse shot that’s only 2 shots even if the editors cut between them 8 times) so I was positively flabbergasted at the number of “shots” from you’ve got mail until you explained you were referring to the cuts.
I can attest! A shot is a single camera setup. Editing between four setups 123 times doesn't make it 123 shots, just 123 edits between four shots. This video is more of a commentary on editing pacing.
There was less film and capability to edit back in the day, so they chose to save money and use longer takes and less film. Editing between shot reverse shot every 4 seconds is incredibly easy to do with non-linear editing, which they had in 1998 with Avid.
When doing another video essay, be sure to accurately define what a shot and an edit is. Some kid new to Filmmaking will watch this and now have an inaccurate view of what a shot is. It doesn't take 123 shots to shoot a 9 minute conversation. Any location change is a new scene, even within the location. Outside is one scene. The walk to the table and conversation behind is one. The shift to both facing is another. These scenes edited together create a sequence of events. The sequence may be nine minutes, but it consists of multiple scenes.
Look up the 8 sequence method and you'll be introduced to one of the most used methods for screenwriting in Hollywood.
You'll be surprised to know that most scenes in films consist of three to five shots. Depending on budget, they'll use one to two, or up to twelve if they have to convey every piece of information by over shooting coverage. Every new camera setup takes time to find camera placement, fix the lighting, adjust audio, makeup, costumes, etc. Having even five can take at least two to three hours to shoot a scene, because setup, even for simple shots, can sometimes be complicated to make look good, and take at least 30-45 minutes to execute.
Feature films live and breathe on the quality of shots to convey information, and quality of pacing in editing. With a minimal amount shots, but quality of shots, you don't need that many to have a good edit. Less is more, because the sequence as a whole is what matters.
I agree that The shop around the Corner, Jimmy Stewart, is one of my favourite films. I did like You've got mail, but when I saw it -even for the first time - I was mentally comparing it.
I absolutely loved The Shop Around the Corner film. You've got mail is brilliant by Nora Ephron, and I wasn't aware of the Judy Garland film was about the same story. I haven't seen it in a long time. Not having TV, I rely on free films on TH-cam.
wow i watched nerd writer way back maybe 2016 or earlier? its been so long glad to see hes reached 3mil thats amazing and well deserved. he really does his videos with execellence.
I love this video
I really like your voiceover and the way I feel like I learned so much so easily
Cinema is something that I'm just starting to learn about, and I adore it
Keep it up :)
It's an irony the number of shots has increased while our attentions spans have supposedly reduced, it can actually be quite frenetic.
I recently watched Wheel of Fortune and Fantasy, and one of the obvious reasons it's such an amazing film are the very long shots. Every bit of dialogue counts and the actors are given time to use. Lacking fast cuts and intrusive reactions shots, it has a very natural and engaging flow, displaying one current weakness of the modern Hollywood style.
Shoot that film in 4 second shots and it would be a completely different result.
The reaction shot is indicative of our age. In placing us over the shoulder or literally in the middle of a conversation we are at the precipice of interacting with the scene, and we begin to listen to respond not to understand. The traditional, theatrical shot, as in The Shop Around The Corner, means we can reduce our cognitive load, forget about our reaction and instead our mind can observe and comprehend. The reason we have shorter attention spans is we've been cornered into thinking interaction is the key to understanding (or enjoying) anything, and it really isn't.
It's not ironic, it's logical - the more shots, the shorter the attention span for each shot.
@@zantas-handle It's more rapid visual information for apparently reduced powers of concentration to handle, and can be quite a hyperactive thing to keep up with. Perhaps we've moved to culture where showing really is more important than telling, at the expense of the understanding that telling once gave us.
@@jamesowen5702 Actually, I think the opposite is true on a cultural level - now we are TOLD what to think, who to support, what to accept. And if you don't accept what you're told, you're demonised as a 'Granny-killer' or a 'Putin Puppet'. People don't arrive at their opinions anymore through a process - they simply accept the opinion they're TOLD is 'virtuous' by the media, and they just post it as a little sticker on their Twit account!
Happy Holidays to you as well, Evan! Lovely and interesting video, thanks! (I'm a Lubitsch fan). I's serves as an excellent explanation, context is always important to valutate everything).
Shop Around the Corner is one of my favorite movies ever! Thanks so much for reminding us all how well it was made!
Thank you so much for the video. Because of this i watched 'You Got Mail' again to feel the Christmas Holidays. Thank you so much
We appreciate how well you've articulated your insights on this matter. Keep working hard.
Always love your videos.
I *think* that rapid edits really took sway with Sesame Street and the research they were doing.
Margaret Sullavan was a wonderful actress, hardly known today. "The Moon's Our Home" with Henry Fonda is a beautiful film that hardly anyone has seen -- I ran across it, and was amazed at how good it was -- if you want a recommendation.
Thank you, Nerdwriter for this amazing Christmas gift to us who follow your channel! Merry Christmas to you!
PS: i don't know if this is an "algorythm thing" but I have been feeling the urge of watching films from the 90's (when I grew up) and from the 40's, and your video has been a great way of connecting both, as well as recommending me a fil mthat I have never watched: The Shop around the Corner. Thanks! :)
Two side notes: at 2:06 its cool to see that even the lighting in these scenes is the same. Also, I'd love to see the modern version of this movie with Instagram or Bumble dating.
Love a bit of Jimmy Stewart. And Tommy Hanks.
Thanks for bringing back to attention (not the least to mine), that You've Got Mail was actually a remake. (Well, of a book adaptation which I learned today!). I heard about the fact during the original run - back in that 90s slew of gread Christmas classics along with Home Alone and, well Die Hard ;-)
Drama, it is said, is based around 20 perennial stories, but the one that Ephron and Lubitsch were using here is an icredibly smart and cute twist. The latter was really the master of wit and insinuation.
Legend has it that Billy Wilder kept a note at his work-desk which simply read: "What would Lubitsch do?"
Damn right.
I always knew that You've Got Mail was a remake of In the Good Old Summertime. But I don't remember if I've ever seen the original Lubitsch film, and I'm older than dirt. Thanks, Evan. Happy Holidays to you!