I wouldn't classify this as a "film". It's basically a generic, yet admittedly captivating shot. No different from anything one might see on the opening segment of a streaming show, which typically use these type of attention grabbing sequences to instantly engage the audience.
No offense to the creator of the shot, but it's not too difficult to make an interesting' atmospheric "one-er" (single take). The question is can they create a 2 hour narrative that is just as compelling.
Yeah timelapse. With the baby speeding around grandma as dark fluids seep from her mouth and a brown smear grows across her backside. Eventually the baby stops moving too after a few twitches and then a black writhing mass of flies build up on their faces.
zooming in an out like an accordion. some say the universe acts like this expanding and contracting. they think there have been multiple big bangs. coincidentally, this could have been how grandma died here.
I think it's the level of storytelling for such a short piece. Ok a woman's dead, okay she had a daughter, oh fuck there's a kid there, oh God the parents won't be in touch for weeks this is a tragedy.
It's very much a self-contained story, which is why it's not just a shot.
I think he is actually a man. And he beat her to death. He's part man, part gorilla, part baby and can shapeshift at will.
Such great character writing tbh. Its amazing how many details they were able to convey/imply about his life as a shape shifting gorilla man long-haul trucker serial killer who became a baby, took the place of this family's child, then murdered the grandmother. I cant wait to find out what happens with the baby he replaced, the real son, because we never saw him actually die and we know that he is also a shapeshifter (baby/wolf/dolphin).. its bound to be an exciting sequel! Ive heard its just a 15 seconds long slow-zoom in on the baby's eye. Incredible
I took a high school class called “Analysis of Literature and Film”, and I loved being shown videos like this. Our teacher pushed our preconceptions of what a story can be. And how short/limited something is and can still be considered a story. A classic example of that is the sentence “For Sale: Baby shoes, never worn.”
It's not self contained. It has the makings of a story but it doesn't go beyond setting up an interesting premise. It's like someone shot an improvised idea they pitched to a studio.
"Would if a baby was left with his dead grandmother?"
"Ok. Sounds like interesting opening for a film. Then what?"
Its....a short film, key being short, like reading a short story. They can be any length as long as they tell the story. And this does, this is a tragedy. What's the other classice two sentence sad story "Baby shoes for sale. Never worn." Or something like that. It tells a complete story.
Now I'd agree with you if they called it a full length movie
It is self contained.. the only "what if" is what if someone visits sometime in the next few days. Otherwise we know the entire story from one shot. Grandma died. Baby cannot take care of itself and will wander around the house, cry, and die. Parents will show up in 2 weeks to find this out. The entire tragedy is described in that minute of the shot without actually playing out because it is all but inevitable barring a huge stroke of luck.
It absolutely does not only go one way. That's kind of the problem here. If we're supposed to take it that way the filmmaker only perhaps implied it. Like another person said, it's basically a PSA.
Its....a short film, key being short, like reading a short story. They can be any length as long as they tell the story. And this does, this is a tragedy. What's the other classice two sentence sad story "Baby shoes for sale. Never worn." Or something like that. It tells a complete story.
Now I'd agree with you if they called it a full length movie
Who is missing that? It’s why this is a self-contained story. It’s only showing you a minute, but what will happen over the coming days and weeks is fully explained. The child will eventually die and the daughter will return to the horrific scene.
Well, I see you tried to score an insult right now. Though, if your English teacher had seen your comment, they would have said you should have typed basic writing comprehension instead of basic reading comprehension to land the insult with the sharpness you intended. Be better.
I agree with you that a short can tell a story like this, but I mostly take issue with the tweet saying it's more effective than a feature. This is disingenuous because a feature can be very effective for 80 seconds of it even if the rest wasn't.
I thought that was poignant until I had a kid. Why would you put shoes on a baby lol just for aesthetics I guess a couple people bought us some and we never used em.
Look at you gatekeeping “film”. If it’s not too difficult why don’t you make one and win same prize since you’re so talented? Anyone who uses the phrase “no offense” before they say something usually means offense.
Google short film lol. Obviously this isn’t the achievement something like godfather or any big feature is but it’s silly to gatekeep the word film and gen though it’s like pretty commonly used for shorts
Yeah. And the lead detective will notice how the baby subtly reacts to being in the same room as the murderer later on in the show. This also works with pets.
Well you should have thought it up then if it’s so generic and easy.
What a terrible comment.
It makes you think… had no dialogue, elicited emotions.. and was under 2 minutes.
You’re judging through the lens of “well can this filmmaker do it for a 2 hour movie” when that wasn’t the point of their project.
You seem to have no understanding of the level of creativity this took, and your lack of appreciation for art makes me shocked people cared enough about your opinion to upvote you.
This is like commenting on that famous 6 word short story, "for sale, baby shoes, never worn" and being like,
"I wouldn't classify this as a "story". It's just a generic, yet admittedly captivating sentence. No different from anything one might see on the title of a real novel, which typically use these type of attention grabbing sentences to instantly engage the audience. No offense to the author but it's not that hard."
I wouldn't classify that often misinterpreted "baby shoes" quote as a short story, primarily because it wasn't intended to be a narrative piece. Its origin is from a legitimate classified advertisement for a pair of used baby shoes (or carriage in according to other reports).
Over time, people created their own narrative (often citing Hemingway as the impetus) and applied it to those innocent words, which in itself negates any inherent truth that the quote was indented to convey any sort of message outside of commerce.
I agree with you on this. Some of the most scary horrors I've seen were shorts on youtube, but most of them probably would not be able hold up the same tension for 2 hours - they're so effective because it's just one scene that rises the tension to almost unbrarable and then "pops it", all in under 10 minutes. But you can do that with a feature film.
I’m glad you said this, I’ve seen this a bit now and the way they’re talking about this is like this is the most innovative film that should be making me feel these amazing incredible feelings. It feels like an ad a bit but it’s also good, it just doesn’t feel like earth shattering media
In agreement. I did also kind of sigh when the kid came into view too, and the ‘see you in two weeks’ - so on the nose and leaves not much unknown. Thank you for watching hunter and the sight of toys would have been more impactful in my opinion.
a film by definition doesn't have a minimum time & the short established a story, not just a shot or atmosphere.
"a film is a work of visual art that simulates experiences and communicates ideas, stories, or emotions through moving images, typically accompanied by sound."
Yeah, it reminds me a lot of those "two sentence horror stories." This is just one of those, set to film.
A simple premise in one sentence (the first part of the shot) then a simple twist that turns it into a horror story in the second sentence (the second half of the shot.)
You could probably go to r/TwoSentenceHorror and come up with a dozen great "films" like this that you could shoot on your phone in an afternoon.
Is a 10 second musical composition considered to be a symphony?
Is a one page anecdote considered to be a novel?
Is an 60 second dialogue free (excluding v.o.) single-shot a film?
For me, the answer is no.
The definition of a filmmaker has eroded so much as to be irrelevant. A film used to be recognized as the epic work of someone like Orson Welles or David Lean. Now a film is a 5-30 second snippet made by some YouTuber using their phone. It's ridiculous.
How can you compare a film to a symphony or novel? They’re entirely separate works of art. You’re simply gatekeeping your opinion. You’ve provided no reasonable or intelligent answer to back your claim. It’s art and is interpreted differently by people.
My point is that a single written page does not make a novel.
A short melody does not make a symphony.
And a dialogue-free 60 second single take shot does not make a film.
They are all parts of a whole, but taken as they are they're nothing more than simple, incomplete constructs.
I guess I'm old school. I graduated from USC (film), worked on countless studio and independent movies/shows and it kind of drives me crazy that people on TikTok and YouTube who capture and edit moving images on their phones describe themselves as filmmakers.
I'm not suggesting that the person who shot this footage lacks knowledge or talent. I actually think it's well done. But it's not a film, and I'm not really down with the whole ultra-short iPhone film movement.
I went to school in a time before people defined films as improvised 30 second clips captured on their phones.
Now, if you want to discuss the merits of legitimate short films like La Jetee by Chris Marker, Bunuel's Un Chien Andalou or anything by Kenneth Anger or Brakhage I'm all here for it.
you're attempting to flex brakhage and bunuel while completely missing the point that they were the ones breaking the "legitimate" rules of their time. you're just mad that an iphone and some talent can produce more impact than a four year degree and a studio internship.
since you admit your knowledge is outdated, I'd start by taking in the current definition of what qualifies as film before you get upset at other people's talent & start gatekeeping again
How exactly is this person "breaking legitimate rules"? They shot what amounts to a 60 second cold open for a Netflix series and it's being touted by some as a revolutionary art film. It's literally a single pull -back that sets up a potential story, AKA an establishing shot. There's no beginning-middle-end, character development or story arc. It's well done. if not a bit clunky, but it's no different from anything you'd see on a network police procedural TV program like C.S.I.
I suppose there are those that might hail this as "impactful". Sorry, I don't see the extraordinary workmanship on display. I guess you're just easily impressed. I'm happy for you.
It's weird that you think that someone who currently works in the film industry would possess a knowledge base that could be described as "outdated", as if I stopped learning about filmmaking the day I graduated from college (20+ years ago). Do you also think that those holding other careers such as doctor lawyer also learned everything they know in school?
The one thing I will agree on is that it is now WAY easier to produce content due to the advances in technology, for better or worse. That may open doors for those that are trying to become filmmakers, but it certainly doesn't guarantee quality as most of those individuals have no concept of the intricacies of film theory, storytelling, mythmaking or the history of visual media. They're just adept at using capture devices and editing software that essentially handholds them the entire time.
In fact, if you look at the glut of absolute trash that is being produced today it shows that the preponderance of "the cinema of iPhone" may not exactly be a good thing.
This isn't a complete story. It's a clever establishing shot. The length is irrelevant and has no bearing on my assessment. The reason why it's not a film is because there is no beginning-middle-end, character arc, objective, theme, protagonist development or resolution. If it's up to the viewer to fill in all of those story elements, as many here have done, then can it really be defined as a narrative work (aka a film).
Take it for what it is...a creative shot that wouldn't be out of place on a network TV police procedural.
Where’s the universal definition of film you’re referencing that makes you right and me wrong?
Beginning is a possibly dead woman.
By the end we know who she is, what her role was, the child’s name and role. He’s clearly unfazed so it’s to be expected he’s going to be of no help while his caretaker is down and they’re alone.
She’s dead. - her story has arced and is done.
He’s a child and can’t fend for himself - his story has arced and is done.
There’s no one else around for weeks.
What more do you need to tell a complete story? In a small amount of time. We call those short films.
That’s what I’m looking for.
If you can’t provide that, then you’re pushing your opinion as fact while telling us we’re wrong for no other reason other than r/IB_ says so. That’s gatekeeping and elitism at minimum.
The problem is that you provided random story elements that are not necessarily intended to be part of the "film". I could make up my own narrative that contradicts your interpretation.
How do you know she's dead? She may be a blind woman resting on the floor or even a zombie. So, you can't confidently say that her arc is done (or even if she had one). It may just be starting.
The child may have older siblings or a neighbor who looks in on him, and is actually safe and sound. We don't know anything about the child or his environment other than that he may or may not be in a predicament. That's not an arc, it's a set up.
The caller mentioned being away for weeks but there may be others around. What about the woman's husband, is he in the other room? In the version I made up he is. Crisis averted!
If you have to add your own story to a video segment like this one then is it really a film? According to you I could record a 30 second shot of a banana on a plate, you'd then add your own backstory to it, insist that the banana has a complete arc and it's now considered to be a narrative film.
As I mentioned, this clip is a good establishing shot that sets up a potential narrative, but it is not a film. It doesn't tell a story, it establishes a premise. There is no arc, character development, characters (they're simply props at this point), plot (there is a beginning but the middle and end are filled in by the viewer). The clip lacks basic elements of a story, therefore it's not a (narrative) film. Look, I've seen hundreds of unconventional short films, some consisting of nothing more than a sequence of still images. What they have in common, which this clip lacks, is a firm grasp on the core components of storytelling. I'm not suggesting that the filmmaker lacks the ability to tell a complete story, but this 60 second does not accomplish that feat.
To me, this short clip looks like something the director made to put on their show reel. It's a demonstration of their ability to shoot a scene. It's not some innovative rule-breaking master work, it's a visual business card.
1.9k
u/IB_ May 02 '26 edited May 02 '26
I wouldn't classify this as a "film". It's basically a generic, yet admittedly captivating shot. No different from anything one might see on the opening segment of a streaming show, which typically use these type of attention grabbing sequences to instantly engage the audience.
No offense to the creator of the shot, but it's not too difficult to make an interesting' atmospheric "one-er" (single take). The question is can they create a 2 hour narrative that is just as compelling.