1917's In Camera Editing
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 тра 2024
- Thanks to MUBI for their support! Get your 30 day free trial of MUBI here: mubi.com/thomasflight
1917 is made to look like it's a continuous take, but just because you're not cutting, doesn't mean you can abandon the function that editing normally provides a film. In this video I showcase how Director Sam Mendes and Cinematographer Roger Deakins, make up for the editing with a combination of cinematography, choreography, and set design.
With the support of Creative Europe - MEDIA Programme of the European Union
// My Patreon: / thomasflight
// STREAM THEORY PODCAST:
- SPOTIFY: open.spotify.com/show/42wXr01...
- iTUNES: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
// TWITTER: / thomasflight
// WEBSITE: www.thomasflight.com
// FACEBOOK: / thomasflight
// sponsorship and business inquiries: thomasflight@standard.tv
// questions, feedback, press, or anything else: contact@thomasflight.com - Фільми й анімація
Fascinating.
The one-shot technique of the movie makes one feel how very exhausting the soldiers must have been and how endless the war felt like.
I was an extra in this film, I was in the opening scene in the trenches honestly the amount of attempts it took to get one shot right was incredible
My lecturer disagreed with this point, made no sense as I disagreed with him. By cutting, you come out of it world and reposition yourself as the third character, well the camera is so we're looking through the eyes of the invisible character but anyway, if we are submerged the whole time, it has meaning to it, other than as my lecturer puts its style or substance, which is just not true.
Yes I felt tired and drained after watching the film
@@LouisHolliman that is so cool, like seriously. Lol like if I could I’d want to be an extra of this film…
The dislike is Colonel Mackenzie, who was angry he couldn't attack
Joaquin Phoenix is a better actor than Christian Bale though.
Bale better learn how to act instead of doing shitty weight lose/gain by drinking Joaquin's piss.
@@desipop3654 There's a whooooooole lot of room in between being Joaquin Phoenix level, and being a shitty actor. Christian Bale is most definitely closer to the former.
*attack them on the run. As they say. xD
I thought that was the point? Like your meant to hate him
The movie released on January 10 so if I’m correct on how the Oscars (I don’t think of them much so not sure) but shouldn’t it be in next years oscars?
1917 is one of the most stressful shit I've watched its right next to interstellar. And its not even the story its how endless information just come to your face at any given time
kind of like a video game
Both of them are my Favorite Films! Amazing experience in a theater.
I saw 1917 in 2020 mid February before covid. It was amazing. I had a good opportunity to see Interstellar in theaters in 2020 july. They were playing old movies since no new ones were released. Interstellar is definitely the best movie I've ever seen
@@yessir2163 Interstellar has been my fav movie, but now its Tenet. I recommend that if you like such movies :)
Interstellar is definitely one my favourite movies
The editors must have had a busy schedule editing this movie
yeah just three cuts. ifkr. takes hell of a time whew
Varunprasad Athi haha ye
Varunprasad Athi there are way more than 3 cuts in this movie.
@@connorwallis3325 He was joking, chill.
he was editing them as they were filming
Might be a little late but I thought it was worth highlighting. For me, one of the best parts of the movie was when he was getting shot at while climbing over the bridge. It was perfect in the way how you couldn't see the shooter at first. It's hard to explain but the tension of bullets getting shot all around the main character and slowly having to piece together where the shooter was felt so real and definitely a stand out moment. I think it might be one of my favourite movies
When that first shot struck the wall, I jumped, and immediately started trying to figure out where it was coming from. Even when the camera panned to the window, there was still the uncertainty if that was the sniper's actual position. It's a common tactic for snipers to set up in areas with multiple possible positions, and this movie seemed to know that. Also, the little mistakes in weapon handling all throughout the movie, things like grabbing the bolt instead of the stock or not using enough force to close the bolt, perfectly helped the immersion, making it feel much more like I was watching a panicked soldier trying to survive instead of an actor on a set
actually the bridge scene was my favorite scene of all. There's different tension that I felt to that scene and the scene of scho running in the field
As someone who has that kind of experience in real life, I can only say one thing. That's identical to how it can feel IRL, but of course with more adrenaline and your life at stakes.
The biggest struggle is almost always identifying where the shots are fired from. Especially when you have no to little cover. It can be horrible, and must've been so much worse back then when they didn't have medevac and the medical knowledge we have today!
1917 was edited by LEE SMITH.
Everyone is talking about Roger Deakins and Sam Mendes. That's great because they deserve recognition for their craft. Filming stretched out over the course of three months which included multiple setups, takes, and even reshoots. And the final task fell upon the editor LEE SMITH to weave the finished package together.
@@cicolas_nage I cannot totally agree because we do not usually get to know everything about the filming process. But the way I see it, Lee Smith did a great job. Remember Orson Welles' noire masterpiece Touch of Evil (1958) that begins with a startling three minute long take? It still seems daring today. Well, it wouldn't have been possible without Virgil Vogel and Aaron Stell, the editors. And the film is a classic. So is 1917.
See, film editors spend a long time perfecting and honing their craft. Editing determines the pace, and the mood of a film in many different ways. For example, the 'slow dissolve' can leave us lingering on a disappearing image for several seconds (for example, the last shot of Psycho (1960) when Norman Bates's face slowly becomes superimposed on the skull of his mother). The 21st century long shot editing is incredibly difficult for good many reasons. However, the majority of a film editor’s work is done alone. Despite that solitude, interpersonal skills are just as important as endurance is in an editor’s career. Like Mendes and Deakins, Lee Smith is equally important to 1917.
@@cicolas_nage Lee Smith was involved in pre-production and production to help Mendes and Deakins with planning!
@Siddhartha Mukherejee hi i personally worked on this project there not much todo in edit .all cut on this flim is stitching together . i was in stitching team .Each and every shot was preplanned and some shot took 4 months of planning
@@navaneethkrishna2864 www.imdb.com/title/tt8579674/fullcredits
where are you in the credits?
the only people i could find similar to your name is Shiva Krishna and Ramakrishna Medi
@@willow4187 This does not have to mean anything. I worked on 1917 as well and my name is not on IMDB either, because I never registered. And about the whole discussion about Lee Smith's editing and that he deserves more recognition: There is a reason why 1917 won the Oscar for Visual Effects but not Editing ;)
Man, imagine someone asking you who has not seen the movie which scene was your favourite.
this movie is such a masterpiece. I remember the first time i saw it in theatres, i had goosebumps practically the entire length of the film
Same here, they reached the next level in moive making and made all other movies of 2019 seem obsolete in comparison. Of course you needed to be in a dark theater with good surround sound to get the full effect.
I remember going into 1917 curious on how Mendez and Deakins would approach coverage in tight spaces like the trenches.
When Colin Firth calls them over to the 2nd table, I actually gasped at how simple and... obvious the solution to getting a reaction shot was.
I felt pretty dumb to not have figured out such elegant little blocking trick would've worked.
Thanks for a great video. :)
Yep, very obvious, characters only have to hold their surprise face for twenty seconds.
@@cszm5639 lol
@@cszm5639 Their surprise is from the second map which shows the aerials of Germans. That's more important.
everyone's giving props to the people working on the production, but a lot of my respect goes to the actors and people in the background on-screen that have to get it right or risk entire re-shoots
This movie had to have had a lot of shots and reshoots. There's no way there wasn't. There are a lot of cuts in the movie just like a normal movie, the difference is they're just hidden.
Have you heard the story of one of the final scenes with the trench run, The main actor and a extra collide throwing both to the floor, instead of just lying there the main actor carried on as that shot was very expensive to shoot due to all the explosives, that shot made it into the final film cause it show the chaos
Thomas Newman is a genius, the music in this movie is insane! Crazy that he lost the Oscar yet again...
I certainly preferred 1917's score over Joker
Pedro Eiras, when Schoffield is looking for McKenzie. If they had the sound direction of Dunkirk, oh my gosh the scene would be so intense.
I meant the scene when the first wave goes over...
@@NathanielWhittoUpdates *cough* feminism *cough*
@@amanpotdar oh shut up
I noticed a few commenters wrote they didn't like the film or felt the one shot was distracting. Personally, I loved the film and cried really hard. I also think the one shot was very well executed. Even though there were spiraling or overhead shots, and not every shot was seen from a perspective a person could have, it felt a lot like real life to me. When you think about it, are there any cuts in vision in real life? Unless we close our eyes and reposition ourselves, we don't really see one thing than the other with nothing in between, if that makes sense. Sight is a continuous movement broken up by blinking but blinking is too fast to actually perceive that "cut."
I also think that's why they chose to have the big "cut" in the film be when Schofield passes out. That's when the movement ceases, when the senses no longer seem to intake anything, not even sight (unless dreaming of course). Sleep acts as the ultimate "cut" in time in real life, so it makes sense why they take that route in the film. Sleep is the only true rest we have in life, from the world, from ourselves. Going in, I definitely knew they had to have an obvious "cut" somewhere, and I thought it'd probably come from one of the guys passing out. It was obvious, but looking back there is a lot of symbolic value to it, and in that moment I was shouting at Schofield to get the hell up. It was that tense for me.
Oh, and my fave moment from the film was when we only see Blake's brother's hand reaching for the dog tags from Schofield. It was so unsettling and full of raw emotion. It's not his face, it's body part, one that we don't associate with a specific person. Richard Madden had probably less than five minutes on screen but in that one moment wow. His hand said so much while he tried and failed to keep his face composed. Just gorgeous emotion. I'm so happy that the camera stayed on his hand for so long.
Anyway, great video as always. Like another commenter said, I too was shocked by the Colin Firth 2nd table scene. Sorry for the long comment, I just got too much time on my hands I guess!
Jackie Rosas i agree with all that! thank you for taking the time to bring up those points. i did love this movie but i kind of understand where other people are coming from with certain points. i just feel like just because it isn’t as heavy / focused on the character drama and development, a lot of people into that kind of story didn’t gravitate towards it as much. which is fine, i just think that doesn’t discredit this movie for the great stuff it does have.
@@godawful5600 Yeah, I agree. I also can see where people are coming from.
I think people tend to want more character development but that's what I liked about this film because the emotional realness from the actors superseded any of my desire for character development.
Through time, the soldiers who have fought our wars have become faceless, they become part of the masses. Even during the war, they aren't altogether known or acknowledged as individuals.
I think this film excels at showing two men who are part of the masses but become so much more to us through how they persevere. We see the richness of the lives they've left behind, in spite of never fully knowing their pasts. It's why Schofield, the man who has a wife and children but it's not revealed til the end, survives. He is the seasoned soldier when compared to Blake and he remains focused on surviving.
Blake is still a boy, searching for his brother in the cherry trees. He is ruled by his emotions in the beginning. It's why they rush off immediately. Instead of killing the German soldier like Schofield suggests, he chooses compassion, and ultimately dies because of it. However, this changes Schofield. Now he becomes less impartial to what's happening. It is no longer about surviving for the sake of survival or even his family. It's about honoring his dead friend and saving his brother's life. It's why he fights harder than before, why he goes the extra mile. For his friend.
We see hints throughout about Schofield's family, but it's not what matters. The mission does, the 1600 men whose lives are on the line, that's who matters. And in war, that seems to be what's prioritized. It's not just about the loss of life, it's about how many of those bodies can they use to fight the next battle, the next winnable battle.
That's why we don't really know who Schofield is fully or what fights for til the end. He just risked his life when he has a family at home. As so many other men did during the Great War. It's seen as a soldier's duty. And in a way, Schofield and Blake are not special. Blake was chosen because of his brother. Blake chose Schofield because they were friends. They're not remarkable soldiers and in the end Schofield's actions aren't marveled at by his superiors. It was his duty and now he rests . . . until the next battle.
I did it again. I went off. . . Lord. Anyway, thank you for the response! I really loved this movie, as you can see. lol
I guess your argument makes Hardcore Henry the best film ever
@@cszm5639 🤣🤣👏👏👏
No doubt those same commenters raved about Dunkirk which was boring and soulless by comparison as far as I am concerned.
1917 is without a doubt my favorite movie in recent times, it just feels so shockingly real, I cannot say enough how much this movie immerses you when you watch it, the acting is also unbelievably good, the two people who played the two soldiers that you follow throughout the movie shot it out of the park with how they changed along with the story, by the end you could FEEL how much the journey had affected them, not only this, but the soundtrack adds so much to the atmosphere, you may not notice it while watching since you are so focused on the current scene, but the music adds so much more emotion to each scene there is music in. Phew, that was a lot to write at 6 am, am happy I got to talk a bit about this masterpiece of a film though :)
What I'm fascinated by is the amount of practical effects in the movie. The explosions, the lights going over the ruined town and even more, the one I'm completely obsessed with, Blake's deathly pale face after he was stabbed. The quick work of the makeup team to be able to make him noticeably but realistically pale as he bleeds out is phenomenal and I really want a behind the scenes look at them doing the makeup for that scene as it was still going
I had a 4 hour break between shifts on the weekend and there’s a movie theatre near my second job. Instead of grabbing lunch I just went to see the movie since I’ve heard good things about it. My oh my. This film was an absolutely amazing experience in theaters.
I absolutely loved 1917. The cinematography, the editing and the acting were top notch. Hell, it's on my list of my favorite movies of all time. I have seen it 3 times now, once in the cinemas and the twice on TV during quarantine.
So glad Roger Deakins won an Oscar for 1917
I'm not really into war movies but this won an Oscar so I gave it a try and I'm so glad I did. This movie blew me away. The cinematography alone is amazing but everything else is just as good.
The experience I had watching this film was an intense feeling of immersion. I felt I was there, with the main characters. I'm not that into films, but this is definitely one of my favourites.
that's so cool i just finished rewatching hitchcock's rope. i really need to get around to watching 1917 too
And you'll see the difference
@@mischabarattolo7598 difference? u mean the improvement in one-shot films?
@@milfsfilms also the diferrence between doing that when it was actually a technical challenge and now that computers solve everything in that aspect.
@@cszm5639 i've seen a breakdown of the editing in birdman before. i think i have an idea, but i'll still see exactly how it was done in 1917
1917 is a fucking masterpiece
The one awesome effect of the continuous shot is that it shows how long the journey was. Scenes with multiple cuts just make you lose the sense of time. the continuous shot made me realize that the whole journey didn't take like a week or a month but just few days. If the movie had cuts like other movies then the viewer wouldn't get the sense of time and just assume it took a very long time to send the message.
I’ve seen so many videos on this topic. Yet for some reason, I keep coming back to it. So fascinating.
Same, I watched the movie last week and can't get enough of it... it's a masterpiece
@@beatricemiloiu9419 lmao
This movie and Blade Runner 2049 are the most visually stunning movies I've ever seen. Roger Deakins is a god.
This is one of my favorite movies to come out in the last 5 years. I was blown away by the visuals and the storytelling. They did an amazing job.
Loved the film! Definitely seeing it again.
What I also love is that all the things mentioned, blocking, camera motivation, ect, happen in pretty much all other films, it just seams so well done in this one.
Awesome work on the video man. :-)
I've often found myself pondering a lot of the questions you answer in your videos regarding why a particular set of events occur in a shot/scene, and what they mean for the characters, the plot and their development. Your essays are amazing! Keep up the good work :)
Love your videos so much man. One of my favourite things to do is watch your vids on films I've seen a while ago and forgotten things about, like this, to remember how great they are and why. Thanks for the wonderful work you do, keep it up x
Roger Deakins is a genius,
So is Thomas Flight...
I discovered your channel through your Parasite videos and I'm so glad I subbed! Great, thoughtful content that was surprisingly educational about the ins and outs of film :)
Welcome aboard! Thanks.
@@ThomasFlight No problem! Excited to see what you have in store
I really think this movie has done something incredible... This movie had really long shots without any story content but they made such great film sets and the actors filled the scenes sooo well that this movie was never boring at all
I was super impressed with the camera work when I first watched this movie... and I normally don't even pay attention to that stuff
Using different objects and reasons to make the intended blocking purposeful and with flow and natural. Wow! And I love how they used the control of film on itself to represent the characters’ control of the situation. And great work, bro, as always. Well, what bothers me is why to limit itself to a constraint when it can be better without it. I found a lot of undiscovered potential in it. May be it is let down by the film being too conscious of itself(you know what I mean?). What do you say?
To be fair, this is a pretty new idea, making the entire movie look like a single take, so there are bound to be some missed opportunities as they try to figure out how best to use this style. I guarantee there will be more movies attempting this style, and after that, we will see it used to its fullest potential, provided Hollywood doesn't take it and butcher it
Great video, thanks for making this. The complexity of planning this sort of 'in-camera' editing is mind-boggling. All those decisions and performances that had to come together in one smooth movement...
my dad was part of the safety team for one of scenes filmed when the guy falls in the river this movie is honestly so good
One thing is clear: gimbals have been one of the most revolutionary devices ever created for cinematography. It all started with Stanley Kubrick with The Shining and that iconic scene in the corridor, when a steadicam system was used for the first time. 1917 has raised the bar to a whole new level, that's for sure.
They used steady-cam even before shining. In the movie Rocky. For Stallone's famous run in Philadelphia.
Exceptional! Been looking for something like this for 1917. Thank you for the amazing work as always!
This is called ‘blocking.’ It’s a basic tool of visual storytelling that was used on the stage and carried over into film. With editing technology, blocking became less of a requirement. Many filmmakers nowadays neglect it, hence the slew of shot-reverse-shot flat filmmaking. Films like this and Birdman highlight blocking with their decided lack of montage.
Louise X - Michael Bay and Zack Snyder are good at blocking too. It’s the only thing they’re good at; their issues are with story and aesthetic choice but their cinematography are solid technically speaking; that’s why they get a pass among industry professionals; they’re bad movies but they keep a lot of talented engineers and artists fed.
Blocking is a fundamental tool of any visual medium; it’s there whether you want it or not. The difference lie in how you decide to use it. Shot reverse shot is an idiot-proof preset that anyone can do with confidence; other cinematic styles are riskier and take experience, taste, and guts to set out on day of shooting with any reliability. Bear in mind, this is just a discussion of visuals. Story issues are a problem with the writer; camera issues are the director and DOP’s domain.
1917 was, IMHO, one of the four best war movies ever. The story and action was great, but about halfway through the flick you figure out that they are never going to cut. At that point, both the plot and the editing were exciting.
one of the best war movies ive seen since Saving Private Ryan.
I remember watching this movie and constantly expecting a cut just to realize it still wasn't the case. It was truly amazing and I was almost just focusing on that the whole time.
Always thoughtful. Thank You once again Thomas.
I haven't seen this film yet. But I really like how you talk about movies and the technicality of different aspects of the process. So I just subscribed
I haven't heard anything about this movie and it completely flew under my radar. Talking about the camera work and the motivation behind where it is looking at any given time made me really interested in watching it, so when you gave a spoiler warning around the 5 minute mark I had to pause it. I don't think I've ever cared about getting spoiled for a movie before, so you have done a really good job showing off the excellent work done for this movie.
I'll be back for the last 3 minutes of your video in about 2 hours.
Wow, what an amazing movie.
First time to this channel. Subscribed!
Thank you for giving me a new way to see this film.
2015 let's do a long scene for Spectre.
2017. Okay that went well. Let us a whole movie that way.
2002: Russian Ark. The one shot movie no one in the English speaking countries apparently knows about.
Your explanations are enlightening
Great breakdown. Very inspiring for our own films!
I saw this in theatre and was amazed
song at 7:45 is "Step Up" by Pete Rock and InI for anyone wondering
Awesome video!! I want more haha greetings from Argentina
Love the videos!
Wow I didn't even notice all these details in filming just to get the feel and experience of the story. Amazing.
episdode 1 of star wars pioneered using sections of different shots. one half of the frame was a shot of Liam standing up and the other half of the frame was obi reaction from a completely different take and mixing different of dialog from other shots as well.
The best directors are editors themselves. This movie was well-made.
Best actor: Cameraman
Love your content.
Thank your for a wonderful explanation. I appreciated the craft more because of this.
GREAT video!
IN the before times, this was last movie I saw in theaters before lockdown. so glad I got to see it in the theaters.
Amazing video!
Great essay, thank you.
This film was amazing, I was on the edge of my seat the whole time and not many films especially stand alone films have ever gotten me as emotionally invested or engaged.
This video is fantastic!
Super, thanks!!
This video highlights some swipe cuts that were used throughout the movie. But other, more sophisticated, cuts were used too. There's a shot where the two of them climb over a trench in No-man's Land and they used CG doubles to hide the cut. "VFX Artists React to Bad & Great CGi 29" explains it in more detail
there are more cuts in 100 seconds of a Bohemian Rhapsody scene than the entirety of 1917
I thought his friend was the main character until he died halfway through the movie
that was the point
I think I've commented this on like three of your videos. I hope you do some videos on Mad Men some day. If you haven't watched it, what are you waiting for? You'd make great content on it, and I for one, can't wait to watch it.
I was just stunned watching this movie, at a total loss for words.
Great essay on 1917
This movie quickly became one of my favourites. The directing was genius!!
today I saw this video, put it in my watch later, went out and rented the movie on redbox, watched the movie, and now I’m back here.
This film is groundbreaking...I was totally immersed!
went to watch this with my friends at the cinema, I have a reputation of having great taste in movies now
In an alternate reality the cinematographer’s way of showing us the picture is just making Schoffield show us the picture.
This is why Roger Deakins is a genius and the "one-take" in Birdman was just a gimmick.
That ending background song was nice
Now do one on the cinematography of The Green Elephant.
A lot of it involves improvisation too.
I have zero idea how a movie is constructed... And I was blown away by what I thought was one long camera shot of 20 minutes...
1917 gave me the same tension that Gravity did, because it plays out in real time - it's so intense and exhausting in a great way! They're also very personal, singular stories of someone overcoming their own limitations on their own, through sheer will power, and choosing to fight ✨🌟🌙
THIS IS GENIUS!
To people complaining about the seamless editing and one shot approach didn't add anything to the overall experience of the movie, I completely disagree with you. Though the story seemed a bit stretched at some point during the movie, but those moments were added to get a complete perspective of the environment, the war torn places and the psyche of the soldiers at war. Not cutting any shot makes it more engaging and the main purpose is experiencing the events as a third person with the two leads, which was done excellently. While watching it in cinema, I genuinely felt most of the purposefully emotional elements significantly more than if the scenes had any cut, as you get attached to the situation even more.
When you make a good movie you don't need the audience to be a third person with the leads, they feel like they are the leads. One shots work great in action scenes to make you feel like you are into the movie, but you don't need to make the whole movie like that just to brag about it. Dialogue scenes work objectively better if you are free to cut and edit, and you don't need awkward conversations and a choreography around two tables to show a reaction twenty seconds later. Just make a good movie.
@@tonimashdane33498 Sam Mendes isn't a bad director, but I don't think any sane person would have him in his top five, even top ten directors ever. Comparing 1917 with Parasite is stupid. Parasite is a good movie that uses every tool and resource to serve a purpose: make the audience enjoy a movie. 1917 limits itself just to be advertised as a One-shot movie, in a time when that doesn't mean any kind of technical achievement since you can shoot scenes separately and merge them with cgi. It doesn't make you feel more "in the battlefield" than, say, Saving Private Ryan.
@@tonimashdane33498 "Like what Bong did with Parasite, he used every bit of resources and technology around him to convey something personal while making every stylish decision for the story he was telling" Well, no. Bong did so, but Mendes cound't do something as common as a shot/reverse shot because you only get your medal if your movie is a single shot, even when dialogue scenes are objectively better if you can edit. Just use each technique when it's right. Children of Men is a waaaaaaaaay better movie than 1917, and it uses everything a cinematographer has in his arsenal, long shots or normal editing, depending on what is better to make the audience be involved.
Corridor Crew have made a really good reaction video as well where they explain how the CGI "cuts" were made!
Thank you so much, i start to become film editor without school. 🙏
Please talk about the editing of City of God !!! Love your videos :)
Hey there friend! I actually worked as an actor on this film and had a couple short scenes, so I’ve got all the inside knowledge about how this was shot 😊. I’ve gotta say you absolutely nailed it! This is exactly how things were staged on set.
virtuosity on display. honored that we get to experience such excellence.
This is a really masterpiece Movie!🔝
Hey great video, I was just curious as to what you call "blocking" ?
This is honestly one of my favourite movies of all time.
fascinating!
the main theme is just as amazing.
then there are the digital transition effects most notably in the no mans land scene that are so seamless that you dont notice them as an effect. masterclass film making. compare this form of 'editing' to the machine gun cutting in Taken 3.
I think more movies, especially serious movies like this should be made in this style.
a lot of the cuts using objects passing by are the sime tricks hitchcock used in his movies especially in the movie rope which was done to look like the whole movie was just one continouse take/shot
Gonna be honest when the scene with the map at the beginning happened and they moved around my brain went like *w H a T*
This is one of my favorite films of all time
don't know much about the camera but damn was this a great movie
What is the background ambient music .. like at 1:30???