Letting people finish their thoughts is an art form. 🤷🏻‍♂️

I very much liked the part where Bill shouted 'Let me finish!' to Quentin after having talked over him every single time Quentin was trying to make a point.

Imagine lecturing Quentin Tarantino on film directing and editing.

I love how bill says “how is this?” Then Tarantino tries to explain and bill jumps in two words into Tarantinos explanation. On the other hand when QT says “it was so OBVIOUSLY” like everyone could see it

These two have taught me to not interrupt so much in real life

Imagine having such an amazing guest like Tarantino and you just railroad the entire conversation that’s insane

3:17 I love how when Quentin says, "yes, but," he sounds like a parent who's about to lose his mind but is trying to hold it together and be patient.

I respect Quentin Tarantino in this because he’s not arguing that the movie was good. He respects the shots, he’s arguing with people that don’t understand film. It’s a nuance thing. It’s a subtle thing that directors look for.

Forget the cuts and how they made it look seamless. What made the movie special is that you were following the characters in real time, as if you were right there with them the entire mission. It was truly a unique experience.

When I watched 1917 in the theater, I spent the first 15 minutes looking for the cuts, and that got tiresome and I decided to just enjoy the good story. There was nothing wrong with their shot "gimmick", it created immersion and I got engrossed in the visuals and storytelling.

At 4:00 Bill was going to reply I didn't go to film school but he then stops himself knowing that neither did Quentin lol. I almost wish he said it because quentin would have yelled "NEITHER DID I" .

There were plenty of African, Indian and other regiments of people with colour in 1st world war. Britain and France called in their colonies to fight.

Quentin's back in the video store arguing with customers.

1. Bill: Novice media maker, average film goer who doesn't know what question to ask 2. Judd : film nerd, listens attentively and understands the language 3. Quentin: cinema autuer who's seen the evolution of film throughout the decades trying to preach. It's like a hamster, a cat and a tiger trying to discuss dinner plans

We need Wolfenstein: The Movie, written, directed and produced by Quentin Tarantino

I like how Jud is just chilling with his comedy films. great directors the both of them

I love how Quentin can get SO passionate about something without getting really mad about it

This show was made so Bill can hear himself talk even more than just on Friday nights. Lol. Standing there questioning Tarantino about film directing is wild lol

Judd just sitting there like he’s watching his parents argue

Man just to be able to talk to Tarantino about movies would be such a treat.

Idk how you could even compare 1917 and Once upon a time in Hollywood. Both great in their own category but such different movies

How is Tarantino not losing his mind being interrupted constantly

I believe that the cuts are not for showing technica feats, but to transmit the urgency of the story, like Los Ángeles in the 60’s on Tarantino’s movie, the great thing is that most of us didn’t though about it because it was made to make the story work, not to show how good they are at making backgrounds for movies.

Listening to this video is like nails on a chalkboard. Everyone's talking over each other, its freaking chaos.

This saved so much time hearing everyone's opinion shouted over each other. This would've been a 30 minute video if they all got to finish their thoughts. Much appreciated!

I dont remember 1917 being advertised as having no cuts. It was promoted as having long takes which undoubtedly added to the immersion. Brilliant movie.

I could tell that there was 3 cuts. 1:when they came across the trap in the bunker. 2:the sniper in the 2nd floor window. 3:when he jumped into the river. Am I right? I loved this movie

"needs more feet" quentin tarantino

According to Mendes, the shortest unbroken shot was 39 seconds long, while the longest single continuous shot was 8-1/2 minutes long. The fact that it feel Like a half hour is impressive in itself

Quentin did not say he hated the movie. He said it wasn't done in one take.

Why do people keep propping up Bill Maher by showing up to talk to him…?

Just as a note, there were many people of color who fought in WWI. European countries brought in their colonial subjects into the fray in sizeable numbers. Also, black Americans fought in the war and were revered greatly by the French, who gave them equal treatment not received in 1917 America. So, Maher and Quentin aren't quite correct here.

I think Tarantino is not giving 1917 enough credit. It was masterful editing and planning. It doesn’t take place in a building. It spans across lots of areas during a war. It’s nuts

The reason why the long cut makes sense in 1917 is because the story has a time limit or else something horrible will happen. I don't know why no one talks about that. It isn't a gimmick, it enhances the story.

Let's not forget the camera following Clive Owen through an urban warscape in Children of Men. There are other digitally assisted long takes in that movie but that one is truly skilled and climactic ...

Imagine having Tarantino as a guest but not letting him talk is criminal

Bill should release the edited version of these interviews which cut all his interruptions out. I might watch them then. He gets such interesting people on and he never shuts up or stops cutting them off.

I thought 1917 was amazing and that Bill articulated why that’s so perfectly. I also think Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was spectacular…

4:45 mins until he actually lets Tarantino make his argument.

In WW1 there was the campaign in east Africa, Carl Von lettow successfully pushed back the British. Also France had Tirailleurs who fought in Verdun, so it is valid to say people of colour took part in the conflict.

I could watch 1917 over and over again. It’s fascinating…

Saying people of color were not in WW1 might be the dumbest take ever.

Bill is confident about his ignorance. Way to learn something Bill. And way to rob the audience of a chance to learn something too.

why does Bill never let his guests talk 😂 man will ask a question and answer himself

WWI was full of POC, depending on the unit, as both the British and French made extensive use of Commonwealth/Colonial forces. 1917 is largely focused on just 2 guys though, and then (spoiler) just one of those guys, so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to discredit it on the grounds of not being diverse enough. Also, I admire Quentin Tarantino, but talking movies with him would get exhausting pretty quickly just based on all the technicalities alone.

0:15 In fact, African soldiers were involved in WWI, fighting alongside the French.

How did this conversation not reference Birdman? Beautifully executed real long takes blended seamlessly.

I just love two directors trying to explain to Bill how to hide cuts 😂

Love this podcast, watching Judd try to absorb Tarantino's essence.

I wonder if they've seen Boiling Point. It's a pretty simple movie showing one night of a busy restaurant, but the entire movie is literally shot start to finish with no cuts whatsoever. Pretty impressive feat.

When I buy a coat I don’t care about how many seems are on the inside or how many stitches were used, I care that it looks good on the outside and that it does it’s job. Likewise, I don’t care if there were more cuts in 1917 than it appears,, the fact is they did a great job of seamlessly tying them together to make a really immersive cinematic experience as a whole.

Judd got one word in edgewise in this conversation and it is perhaps the best point on the whole subject: one cut, a million, none of it is real.

Tarantino here reminds me of guitarists getting mad at people who gush about the intro to Sweet Child Of Mine - like "it's not hard to do, why are you so impressed!?" And people are just like "I like it, I think it's cool". It's just the way a great director enjoys a movie differently to the rest of us

Showing Quentin from that side angle when you know you have two other angles is so mean hahaha

Bill Maher is one of the most respected directors in cinema history

There was so much great about 1917 but too much was made of the long takes stuff. To me the most impressive thing about 1917 was the investment in George Mackay’s performance for so much of it which entirely worked. Schofield’s run is a classic piece of cinema and one of those scenes that will stick in my mind for many years.

1917 may not be one of my favorites but I’ll never forget the climax and the lead up to it. When Schofield finally pushes his way far into the trenches, the camera pans and you just see all the soldiers in formation and ready to to go. Fucking goosebumps.

Judd looking at Quentin like dude just stop

Tarantino never says he hated the movie! He literally says he liked it and was just annoyed with how much credits it for for having long cuts when it didn't actually have unbelievably long cuts.

for me the great achievement of the film is not the “visual long takes”, but the “narrative long takes”. telling an interesting story without boring moments without resorting to time lapses… is the great achievement

0:50 Tarantino: "no, you dont have to change your opinion, I just dont agree." a love people like this

I'd like to see Tarantino do a 'single shot' movie like that.

I don’t recall Mr. Tarantino using the word HATE.

I LOVED 1917.. BRILLIANT Movie!!!!

Over a million Indian soldiers, who were then part of the British Empire, served in overseas during WW1. Also, the Middle Eastern theater was a thing, but you wouldn't want history to get in the way of a joke.

I don’t think I’d be able to get a word in if I was there. 😂 I love having/making conversation, but I hate interrupting so when I see other people trying to talk over me I’ll usually either quickly finish my point or surrender the stage entirely and just listen. Oh and also, I love 1917 so much. I’m impressed by all of it too, and I wonder if Quinten knew about some of the crazy CGI that went into concealing some of those cuts. Corridor Crew does a great job of pointing them out, they are *very* well done. But of course at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how it was accomplished. It just matters that the end product was gorgeous to look at and emotionally moving for me

i could sit here for an hour or two just listening to these guys talk. sure, Bill is interrupting a lot. sure, not all their thoughts are completed before they move on. but it just sounds like guys having a conversation, not much different how i talk with my friends. Tarantino is just so passionate about movies and i like hearing what he has to say purely because of how excited he is.

1917 was a marvel, All quiet on the western front was a masterpiece

Imagine filming this and releasing it publicly and thinking ‘yeah I look great in this’

People in the comments seem to not understand the point of this podcast. It’s not an interview show. It’s supposed to be friends getting together, drinking, smoking, and having conversations. This is how people talk to each other in real life.

“I couldn’t direct a line of ants to a melting Hershey bar” that is genius

I love to see him geek over this topic. He oozes passion for his work and the 7th art in general

Watch the German movie Victoria that was released in 2015. This movie was shot in one take and it's brilliant. They did several attempts until there was a version that was good enough. There are still some errors in the final version with wrong dialogue and sometimes a glimpse of the crew that you can spot in scènes if you look closer. But it is a great movie and highly recommended.

The great thing about talking movies with Bill Maher is that you sound like James Agee in comparison.

"When it rains in movies is not raining in real life??" - Bill Maher probably

There is a lot of cuts in 1917. The hardest one was of the two soldiers climbing out of the trench. There was no jump and they go full CG characters for a moment.

The invisible cuts were well executed though it's why the tension builds so effectively as an undercurrent continuing all the way through No Man's Land and the trip wire scene. In theaters the first time watching I remember 20 minutes in how on edge it felt like you were with them. Just awesome. I don't think Quentin is being snobby but the movie definitely deserves to be in the top tier.

Except in the German South West African campaign, African troops were a major factor in the Allied successes in their African campaigns. African troops were called on during the war not only to fight on African soil, but also to reinforce European armies on the Western and Middle Eastern fronts.

I would never argue with QT about movies. He knows it all and more than anyone. Id prefer to listen and learn

These guys should watch a Russian movie called Russian Ark. The whole film is one single take, and it's unbelievably complex. Mind blowing!

tarantino is probably right from a technical standpoint, but what 1917 brought as an experience was truly amazing for the actual viewers. Just goes to show that you can lose the thread when you get too deep into something.

1917 is far more than just a movie with no obvious cuts.

Many things can be true at the same time. 1. The movie was not filmed in 2 cuts. It was a neat effect that they did, but this should not be confused as something that is technologically miraculous. It's a stylistic choice... some people liked it, some people didn't... but that's just 1 aspect of the film. It was in my opinion a good fit, and I'm sure it was tedious at times to line things up just so. In my opinion, that was a great stylistic choice, a good execution of that choice... but that doesn't make or break a movie. 2. The "1 cut" style DID serve the movie narratively. It spoke to the relentlessness of war. Like I said, not everyone's cup of tea... but it was a respectable stylistic choice that I'm glad SOMEONE found the occasion to try, and executed it pretty well. 3. The stylistic choice of the 1-shot experience does have its drawbacks. Pacing in the movie was difficult. The director thought the tradeoff was worth it for the immersive aspect that it has to offer, and many of the audience agree, but Quentin doesn't. Oh well. It was a neat and daring experiment. It was a very unique movie. Bill Maher is hammering it home like that makes the movie objectively great, but there's PLENTY of daring experiments that didn't work. Remember how the first Hulk movie was ridiculed for the way it tried to superimpose freezeframes into real comic books to remind you the movie is reflecting a comic book story? Remember how they played with aspect ratio and ultimately it took the viewer out of the movie and now the film gets relentlessly made fun of? Well if you don't remember, the comic book thing was novel and kind of cool for about 5 minutes. It wasn't long until nobody was impressed anymore and just found it jarring and annoying. Same with the 1-shot thing, it was neat when people realized what was going on...but it was less neat when we had to sit through location transitions when the pacing is at its worst. I like the movie, but let's be honest about it... nobody remembers the movie for ANY OTHER REASON than the 1-shot aspect of it. You can't recite 1 line. You can't name 1 actor (except Benedict Cumberbatch who was in it for 5 minutes). Can you even really say what your favorite scene is (besides the climax and the ending)? That really leaves you with just the plane crash scene... which was cool for like 15 seconds. It was a cool movie. It was fine. I give it a 7 or 8 out of 10. It's interesting as a piece to study if you are a student of cinema. You can see the consequences of stylistic choices. You can see the movie's struggles with creating pacing, captivating dialogue*, and character development... but you can also see how that is baked into the cake when you pick such an inflexible framing device. *And if I were to guess... I think Quentin Tarantino is very much a dialoque guy. His movies certainly reflect that. It's pretty hard to have good dialogue when you're basically on a 24 hour hike alone through enemy territory. Not a lot of jabbering going on outside the first 20 minutes.

I'm sorry that Tarantino didn't elaborate on the only truly deliberate cut (change of shot) in "The Rope". It's a (simple) moment when the language of the film explodes, full of meaning. What bothers me about Sam Mendes' film is that the narrative - and its dramatic implications - seems to be locked inside a huge technical achievement. War movies always have a spectacular side, but when it overlaps human drama... it's not exactly my cup of tea.

Honestly, I was looking for the cuts during 1917. I knew the gimmick was there but the story had me the entire time.

More than one million Indian soldiers were deployed overseas to fight on behalf of the British Empire in the Indian Army during World War I. They fought in France and Belgium, Egypt and East Africa, Gallipoli, Palestine, and Mesopotamia. WTF is Maher talking about?

"Even my enemies don't think I'm a liar", Bill, as a friend, pants on fire

I love seeing these two guys argue about this , I love having these kind of conversations myself LOL I almost never go against Tarantino but I think it's silly of him to compare a movie with one take shot in an apartment compared to a war movie shot in one take

1917 was an experience I loved that year

Towards the end of this segment, Judd Apatow mentions how, out of all those who love film, only a few people get to that level... my thought went to "where they can make them", followed by "and the majority of those people shouldn't have that right" (and don't come across as loving or knowing film).

1917 is a wonderful film to experience, unfortunately some directors can't enjoy films without reducing them to the sum total of their cuts.

I didn't even notice it was supposed to appear as a one-cut shot until after like 40 minutes into the movie... I only noticed because there was no sub-plot. It was just one plot with the protagonist. But normally there's a supporting character with their own subplot.

There's a part in 1917 when the protagonist gets knocked out and it turns to night and the camera slowly trucks out the window into the bombed out Villa, right there it turns into a normal film for about ten seconds. Then it turns right back into watching my friend play resident evil 4.

I feel like the REASON for using the long takes/one-takes is more important for the film than how long the cuts are. In 1917, I think it really served its purpose, as it’s a literal journey following one-two people

I thought the cinematography in 1917 was marvelous, even if I put the "no cuts" gimmick aside. It was a very memorable cinema experience with a big screen and big speakers.

Tarantino is thinking of it from a filming perspective, but the audience doesn't really give a shit HOW it was filmed, they only care about how it looks. And if it looks like it's been done in one giant take, then it's still reasonably impressive as a concept, especially with everything that was going on in the movie. Maher's challenge to the examples Tarantino brought up are valid.

No one likes hearing Bill Maher talk more than Bill Maher.

The long take in Old boy, that was amazing, can't believe Tarantino didn't mention that.

I didn't even notice the lack of cuts I just watched and enjoyed the damn movie. It was really good IMO.

1917 was the movie of the year, no doubt. Was the only movie I bought that year and I am not repented to this day.