101–110 of 248 posts
Is it a loss of attention span, or is the 2-hour feature film simply an outdated format for the current generation? The information density of a slow 1970s drama is incredibly low compared to the multi-stream environment they grew up in. They aren't necessarily 'dumber'; their brains are just optimized for high-frequency information processing, whereas cinema is optimized for immersion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm OK with you re-editing the movie as you watch it, but you can't say you watched the same movie as other people that don't do that.
Nobody watches the same movie, the same way no man steps into the same river twice. Some people have trouble following plot. Some people excuse themselves to use the bathroom. Some people have trouble catching all the dialog. Some people close their eyes during the scary parts. Different elements call up totally different associations in different people's brains. If you watch a movie a first time and then a second t…
Counterpoint from the article: > A handful of professors told me they hadn’t noticed any change. Some students have always found old movies to be slow, Lynn Spigel, a professor of screen cultures at Northwestern University, told me. “But the ones who are really dedicated to learning film always were into it, and they still are.” The article doesn't actually give any evidence attention spans are shortened. Many of the…
Once you know about "Save The Cat!" it becomes boring to watch a movie that follows the formula. I noticed even back in the 80s that too many movies ended in the "chase through the darkened warehouse". The movie will be doing fine, until somehow the hero and villain wind up in a dark, abandoned warehouse, ship, factory, whatever. Then they have a long, drawn out fight. Then the bad guy gets killed. Movie over? Nope.…
Introduction of character.
Dialogue.
Gratuitous sex scene.
Machiavellian discussion.
Reference to earlier episode.
Cliffhanger.
Is it a loss of attention span, or is the 2-hour feature film simply an outdated format for the current generation? The information density of a slow 1970s drama is incredibly low compared to the multi-stream environment they grew up in. They aren't necessarily 'dumber'; their brains are just optimized for high-frequency information processing, whereas cinema is optimized for immersion.
Is information density a meaningful metric for movies? I'm reminded of Kubrick's long pauses, or the space scenes in 2001, which are there to set the tone or give the viewer time to consider the situation, not to deliver information.
I love some of Tarkovsky, but some of it is very slow e.g. Nostalgia and Stalker.
If you really care about something, screen addiction does not interfere. A friend of mine has a terrible Instagram addiction, yet has developed for himself a certain degree of cinephilia lately -- we've watched long movies together in theaters and not once has he been on his phone during the screenings. When one has faith that sustained attention might hold more value than that gained by interruption, they tend to pr…
Good point. Maybe "film student" is the modern version of "studied art history".
Sounds about right.
Counterpoint from the article: > A handful of professors told me they hadn’t noticed any change. Some students have always found old movies to be slow, Lynn Spigel, a professor of screen cultures at Northwestern University, told me. “But the ones who are really dedicated to learning film always were into it, and they still are.” The article doesn't actually give any evidence attention spans are shortened. Many of the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once you know about "Save The Cat!" it becomes boring to watch a movie that follows the formula. I noticed even back in the 80s that too many movies ended in the "chase through the darkened warehouse". The movie will be doing fine, until somehow the hero and villain wind up in a dark, abandoned warehouse, ship, factory, whatever. Then they have a long, drawn out fight. Then the bad guy gets killed. Movie over? Nope.…
"Game of Thrones" was interesting because it did not follow any formula I could discern" Introduction of character. Dialogue. Gratuitous sex scene. Machiavellian discussion. Reference to earlier episode. Cliffhanger.
Almost every movie has a plot. How formulaic. How droll!
I find these sorts of discussions to be strange. Yes, stories follow specific methods to convey them. Yes, conflict is part of that.
I will agree that too formulaic is a sign of the times. I find that many 60s and 70s movies were the most creative this way.
The 30s often had movies that were just plays on film. The 50s were where the process of filmmaking gelled into reality. Not just how to make shots, but also the gear like steady cam, and an entire special effects industry, stuntmen, whole crops of professionals becoming uniquely skilled.
The 60s and 70s were the first generation of those which grew up with film as kids. The new medium was more understood. Experimentation ensued.
Then it became more formulaic. At least, it seems the way to me.
Counterpoint from the article: > A handful of professors told me they hadn’t noticed any change. Some students have always found old movies to be slow, Lynn Spigel, a professor of screen cultures at Northwestern University, told me. “But the ones who are really dedicated to learning film always were into it, and they still are.” The article doesn't actually give any evidence attention spans are shortened. Many of the…
Those are typically the movies where I just end up turning it off and reading a synopsis. Some movies just aren’t that good.