Thanks for saying so!

that's awesome! just on the right edge of the frame, yes?

Yeah right, haha, the one with the glasses and much thinner than the famous Sergio@@filmandmediastudieschannel

That's a great question. My inclination is to say that it's a bit of both. I do think it matters that these films were more limited in terms of budget than studio films, so you might want to limit your setups. Also shooting on location, with the possibility of more people in the background, might make it harder to shoot coverage and cut later. But I think it's worth considering the choices for longer takes and blocking as also aesthetically motivated, possibly in the Bazinian sense (of treating material reality as a whole) and also in the desire to make the films look and feel as different from studio films as possible. I'm sure there's production history and interview material that I haven't read that would provide a more satisfying answer, though. Personally, I've always felt that Italian Neorealist films, despite the trend you're talking about definitely being true, feel *less* indebted to the long take and blocking than the literature suggests. Like if you watch La Terra Trema, then you'll see a Neorealist film that really leans heavy into long takes, deep staging, and sophisticated blocking, but frankly not a lot of the canon quite looks like that. I think probably the reason I feel this way is that I got introduced to these films through Bazin, and was sort of conflating Bazin's interest in long takes and deep space (in Welles, Renoir, Wyler, etc) with his interest in the Italian Neorealists. And oh yeah French New Wave vid on its way lol

Thanks for replying! What you're saying makes sense. I'm sure it was more aesthetically motivated. From an execution standpoint, my guess is they took longer to rehearse/plan, but saved on film stock and editorial etc. Not to mention it was so ballsy and unconventional for it's time. Regardless of intent they were very effective shots. Also I didn't even think about the issue of continuity, not that they were all so concerned with it. There were a few shots in Ossessione that blatantly broke continuity. Not sure if that was intentional or something they saw in the footage later and chose to ignore or embrace. 8 1/2 has such long shots which are so well choreographed and beautiful. Wonder if Fellini was influenced by his neorealist predecessors? Can't wait for your French New Wave video. So greatly appreciate it. @@filmandmediastudieschannel

@@mikeageorgeis I'd hesitate to assume that the shots took longer to rehearse/plan, if only because one of the most remarked on features of Italian Neorealist cinema is an "improvised script." But again one would need to do a bit more research on production history to get a sense of what exactly that means with respect to, say, planning longer takes. That's cool about the Ossessione shots that break continuity - I'd be curious about them. And yes - Fellini was definitely influenced by the neorealists; he even had a hand in making those films. He's a co-screenwriter on Rome Open City and Paisa, and most people generally find that his first handful of films have distinct neorealist elements (up until Nights of Cabiria). And that's especially interesing considering how far away from realism his films like 8 1/2 will get - so the sequence shots is a nice connection.

I haven't done any research on the Italian reception of Ozu, so you certainly would know better than me based on what you're saying here. But I'd say there's a big difference between saying that Ozu is an 'influence' - which is a historical/empirical claim - and saying that Ozu is a 'precursor' to Italian Neorealism, which is merely a claim about aesthetic similarity. Ozu's "An Inn in Tokyo" is a good candidate for a 'precursor' given its themes. And the philosopher Gilles Deleuze will imply that Ozu and the Italian Neorealists were doing something similar in terms of how they overturn classical Hollywood narration. But also I'm kind of interested in questioning the legacy of thinking of Ozu's movies as slow, meditative, spiritual, undramatic, etc. that we get from folks like Paul Schrader (and in a sense, Deleuze). There's this recently translated book on Ozu by the famed critic Hasumi that, I've heard, kind of critiques some of these aspects of his Western reception. www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520396722/directed-by-yasujiro-ozu

@@filmandmediastudieschannel thanks for the very detailed answer. I do think Ozu's movies represent the real essence of Japanese way of life more than Kurosawas dynamic movies or Kenji Mitsoguchi stylish period dramas.