Hitchcock shot a film called Rope in the late 40s I think, which looks like it was all one take, and... there's a film, Time Code, that Mike Figgis made, which is four stories told, it was a screen split in four and in each of those quadrants was a long single take of a series of events that sometimes happened in the same place, and other times didn't. And there is this recent film, Victoria, which is one long take. The difference with Victoria, so I understand, is that it is really one long take. I think other films, certainly Hitchcock's film was not one long take, he would... the most he could shoot at any one time is 10 minutes, so he would have somebody back into the camera, and then they would back away from the camera, and there was an invisible edit at that point. Whereas Victoria is one, really one continuous take, but, I think they shot it a number of times, over a period of three or four days and then said, that's the best one. So the editing was reduced to simply the decision, that's the best one, we are going to go with that. And I haven't seen it, people tell me it's very powerful in the way that single-take films are powerful. Is that going to sweep the field? Are we going to make single-take films such as we made at the beginning of cinema? Editing was invented 14 years or so after the invention of motion pictures. Are we going to go back? I don't think so, because there are certain things that that film cannot do. You can't intercut Moscow, St Petersburg and Berlin in real time, I don't think. Maybe... I guess if you had camera crews... I don't know. Not as a single take from one camera.