The empty showboat of cinematic one-shots | Little White Lies

The emp­ty show­boat of cin­e­mat­ic one-shots

14 Apr 2025

Words by Finlay Spencer

Young person wearing dark jacket and light shirt, seated indoors.
Young person wearing dark jacket and light shirt, seated indoors.
Net­flix’s chart-top­ping Ado­les­cence is the lat­est in a long line of sin­gle-take sto­ries. But would it be any worse off with a trip to the cut­ting room?

When Philip Barantini’s Ado­les­cence hit screens, broad­sheet op-eds and Kier Starmer, the breath­less praise sur­round­ing it focused as much on the hyper­mod­ern sto­ry of a Tate-pilled teen as its laboured one-shot con­ceit, the film­mak­ers at pains to announce that each episode is, indeed, one-shot, no cuts… nada.

This fun­da­men­tal­ist adher­ence to the one-shot gained trac­tion in 2002, with Alexan­der Sokurov’s 96-minute pre-Sovi­et paean, Russ­ian Ark, a one-take Zoopla vir­tu­al tour of the Win­ter Palace and Russ­ian his­to­ry, host­ed by a French mar­quis. Not to be out­done, Sebas­t­ian Schip­per went one fur­ther with Vic­to­ria, a two-hour-plus run n’ gun through Berlin’s Kreuzberg dis­trict where Laia Costa’s tit­u­lar char­ac­ter moon­lights as a hedo­nis­tic bank rob­ber. Then came Ado­les­cence – and to a less­er extent Boil­ing Point – brag­ging, my long shot is big­ger than yours. Like cat­a­pult­ing a dog into space, these works are metic­u­lous­ly planned, tech­ni­cal­ly pro­fi­cient and zeitgeist-grabbing…but ulti­mate­ly a boon­dog­gle. Their only pur­pose is to impress an audi­ence into submission.

If form is con­tent (and it is), then Barantini’s Ado­les­cence attempts to sep­a­rate the two. The incel themes and one-shot flex­ing aren’t jux­ta­posed, or even dia­met­ri­cal­ly opposed; they are iso­lat­ed. The con­tent is impor­tant, the form a tech­ni­cal mar­vel”. Baran­ti­ni, who was urged to use the one-shot tech­nique by his pro­duc­ers, isn’t par­tic­u­lar­ly con­cerned with syn­er­gy between form and con­tent. He uses the one-shot as a plug-and-play tech­nique, apply­ing a veneer of depth to any sto­ry, eas­i­ly jus­ti­fied through real­is­m/ten­sion-build­ing/in­ten­si­ty. But, to what ends? Is Chan­tal Ackerman’s Jeanne Diel­man, a film com­posed of many long takes, any less metic­u­lous, tense or real­ist because it has cuts and doesn’t have a hand­held-to-drone hand-off?

To a cer­tain extent, all one-shots use form as a talk­ing point, a triv­ial did you know… for the water cool­er, whilst its con­tent is estranged. In Ado­les­cence, the con­tent is per­spec­tive­less and direc­tion­less. It scratch­es the sur­face because the form – to be impres­sive – requires seri­ous move­ment. A sta­t­ic cam­era won’t cut it, no time for slow cinema’s vibey poet­i­cism or ele­gant fram­ing. This is a one-shot we’re talk­ing about. We got­ta walk. Like a pup­py in a blos­somed field, the cam­era sniffs and darts. There’s always a new, more inter­est­ing, scent to fol­low. The for­mal ADHD reduces a com­plex top­ic to buzz­words and acknowl­edge­ments: Andrew Tate and his manos­phere. Baran­ti­ni, as he does in Boil­ing Point, hedges his bet that the audi­ence will be floor-jawed with a how’d they man­age that’ awe that they’ll for­get it’s emo­tion­al­ly shallow.

Woman with short, dark hair looking pensive in a dimly lit setting.

You couldn’t accuse these digi-one-takes of lack­ing in oner­ous tech­ni­cal and strate­gic excel­lence. But for­mal­ly, it’s like watch­ing an iShowSpeed IRL stream direct­ed by some­one who’s watched too much Aaron Sorkin. They are long, unbro­ken, walk n’ talks. Like a stream, extras and passers­by look at the cam­era, or hes­i­tate, these imper­fec­tions passed off as an occu­pa­tion­al haz­ard for the oner. The form, with its real­i­ty-cap­tur­ing rai­son d’être, breeds dead nar­ra­tive air (long car jour­neys, police admin­is­tra­tion, dead work­place bantz). Iron­i­cal­ly, for Barantini’s Ado­les­cence, it cul­ti­vates the per­fect cli­mate for doom­scrolling. For all the talk about the one-take tense nar­ra­tive momen­tum’, its form often ren­ders it aching­ly pedes­tri­an and makes a bet­ter case for cuts than any edit­ed work could.

To Barantini’s cred­it, there’s some inter­est­ing inter­tex­tu­al­i­ty with Ado­les­cence and Alfred Hitchcock’s oner, Rope (which has five sneaky hid­den cuts). The lat­ter, based on a Patrick Hamil­ton play, itself based on a true sto­ry of a 14-year-old mur­dered by col­lege stu­dents, to prove their (very incel sound­ing) supe­ri­or intel­lect. Hitchcock’s cham­ber piece has far less nar­ra­tive dead air than the mod­ern one-shot, no pon­der­ing moves between loca­tions or redun­dant cor­ri­dor walks. I under­took Rope as a stunt,’ Hitch­cock told Fran­cois Truf­faut. Indeed, the film is a stunt, campy and OTT. It doesn’t pine for a faux real­ism – it’s not nat­u­ral­ly lit or shaky cam’d – instead, there’s expres­sion­ist neon light­ing and for­ays into make-shift off-screen nar­ra­tion. When Rupert Cadell (James Stew­art) believes he has the mur­ders banged to rights, Hitchcock’s cam­era glides with his voice to show the key bat­tle­grounds of the evening. Until Bran­don Shaw (John Dall) inter­rupts. A for­mal per­spec­tive lack­ing in the sprawl­ing but util­i­tar­i­an one-shots that followed.

How­ev­er, Mar­cell Ivanyi’s one-take Szél, run­ning at six min­utes, has maybe the most impres­sive syn­the­sis of form and con­tent in the sub-genre. Not try­ing to impress with its run­time or fine­ly tuned plan­ning, Ivanyi does what Baran­ti­ni does not: he cre­ates ten­sion. In a sin­gu­lar cir­cu­lar track­ing shot, three women gaze upon man-made destruc­tion. An uneasy, unre­al feel­ing, is aid­ed by a cast of emo­tion­less Bres­son­ic mod­els. Szél does not grab your lapels and announce itself as tense, it makes you lean in, ask ques­tions and dread. Rather than attempt­ing to fill its filler moments – the place where a cut would go – as Ado­les­cence and Vic­to­ria do with increas­ing­ly over­wrought emo­tion, it leaves you wait­ing in silence. Széls form makes the mun­dane tense. Hitch­cock and Ivanyi’s one-shot­ters suc­ceed because they have one thing in com­mon: they are not prof­fer­ing an unem­bell­ished and no-non­sense reality.

Are you inter­est­ed in beau­ty or just its rep­re­sen­ta­tion?’ asks The Euro­pean (Sergey Drey­den) in Russ­ian Ark. The 21st cen­tu­ry one-shots – Bird­man notwith­stand­ing – are con­cerned with the lat­ter. But their zero degree is as con­trived as any film, cuts or oth­er­wise. These works just exist with­in a logis­ti­cal frame­work instead of an edit­ed one; In Vic­to­ria, the char­ac­ters take a sojourn to a night­club to let police cars and actors get set to cap­ture them when they leave. Nor do the films stick the land­ing of their no-holds-barred real­ism; a com­mon theme with­in the mod­ern one-shot is a jejune use of non-diegetic sound as an emo­tion­al cheat code. A muf­fled haze or nee­dle drop indi­cate either stress or ecsta­sy. Between sound and the one-shot’s focus on logis­tics, they are as syn­thet­ic and selec­tive as any edit­ed work. There is no nat­ur­al or trans­par­ent style,” wrote Susan Son­tag. The mask is the face.”

You might like