Antonia... my project is a mix and balance of long takes AND quick cuts, as needed for drama, so yes, some cutaway. I make each shot (cut) a separate pz3, even if it is only a handful of frames long. It just happens that the shot I used in my Lin 1-minute was one cut. You gave good examples of long takes there. Naturally one of the most famous is the first shot in Altman's "The Player" (five minutes of action and characterization with no cuts as the camera tracks around the lot.) I would also cite the famous crane shot pull back in Gone With the Wind, the approach of the frozen walker in Dr. Zhivago (then finished with fast quick cuts at the close-up) and a similar crane shot pull back in High Noon. Psychologically, the filmmaker is asking the viewer to enlarge the scope of his/her focus and feeling and empathy, to take in more of the significance of this single unique moment. Often the director will hold for tension, then move the camera (not cut) to draw forth this psychological transition. Tracking uninterrupted conveys a sense of emphasis. It also builds tension, as the viewer keeps expecting a cut. Once he/she realizes there is to be no relief, he may surrender to the 'meaning' of that shot's importance. Naturally a case can be made for the power of a dramtic jump cut just where unexpected, or a quick-fire sequnce of cuts to convey violence, speed and risk. No problem. But my objection to the MTV "ethos" is when quick-cutting is championed as great -- relentless, radical and unrelieved. Before MTV and the like, people could not tolerate four/five cuts per second (and faster) with no shot longer than about 2-3 seconds. These days, this MTV style is so pervasive, younger people think anything with shots lasting 4,8,16, 30 seconds are, like, boring man! MTV (through the directors they championed) sigmificantly changed the tolerance level for cuts. I have been told by young people in my family (and outside) that I refuse to understand that QC(quick cut)people simply process information more quickly, and that this machine-gun cutting is an ADVANCEMENT over the slow uptake of prior "print-oriented" and linear-speech orienceted 'ways of knowing'. I reject this totally, especially when QC is presented as needed for the ENTIRE piece with no contrasting long cuts, and I DON'T think it is good story-telling. However, Wolf, you would find many more who come down on your side of this opinion than mine. I think Jackson's team had a balance, but still leaned towards too-fast cutting, especially in battle scenes. Every time he pulled back, at Helm's Deep for instance, I hoped he would hold long enough for the viewer to soak in the immensity. But no...the cut would always come too soon for my taste. There was not one satisfying shot of the entirty of the Huron Forest at Helm's Deep nor of the overall of the Battle of Pelanor Fields. [As an aside, and as a 45-year fan of the paced, descriptive, brilliant literature of J.R.R. Tolkien (I've read it aloud to two generations of kids), I am not a big fan of the movie, but that is not due to the cutting per se.] ::::: Opera :::::