21st Century v 20th Century Films

[...]

Haven't finished the articles yet, but I'm not really convinced by the framing of the argument, that movies have adapted to better fit us so much as we and and culture adapt to each other as convention requires constant adjustment to stay fresh, too little change and it becomes predictable and dull, too much and it becomes confusing and annoying. Art doesn't sit still, but that doesn't mean its "improving" to better fit people, just that we change with it as we learn.

Oh, and no offense, but I am sick to death of talk of fractals and scientists trying to limit art to their domains when art doesn't work like science, in some ways almost the opposite, the irresolvable tension from contradictory things being simultaneously true being a key example of art's power.

[Wulff]

Form not formula, eh?

What jumped out at me was the bit about how shorter shots and increasing cuts isn't a symptom of decreasing attention spans.

[wba2]

Yah, more or less bullshit.

Greg explained art (and art's appeal) much better and more precise with "the irresolvable tension from contradictory things being simultaneously true being a key example of art's power".

[Zulawski]

Well, let's distinguish the data from the inferences made from the data, and the appeal of art from the measure of art. The field of aesthetics ask: With what accuracy can we ask how a change X in the artwork leads to a change Y in the spectator's experience? The fact that new methods has arrived to measure art - or describe it - that is, to specify the X in the sentence above – doesn't take away the appeal or appreciative aspects of art.

[flip]

What jumped out at me was the bit about how shorter shots and increasing cuts isn't a symptom of decreasing attention spans.

Haven't read the article, but I'd think that has more to do with greater ability to process visual information than with shortening attention spans.

[Wulff]

Yah, more or less bullshit.

Greg explained art (and art's appeal) much better and more precise with "the irresolvable tension from contradictory things being simultaneously true being a key example of art's power".

Can you list some films that provide good examples of contradictory things being simultaneously true?

[Wulff]

What jumped out at me was the bit about how shorter shots and increasing cuts isn't a symptom of decreasing attention spans.

Haven't read the article, but I'd think that has more to do with greater ability to process visual information than with shortening attention spans.

You should read the article. I'd be interested in your thoughts on it.

[wba2]

Yah, more or less bullshit.

Greg explained art (and art's appeal) much better and more precise with "the irresolvable tension from contradictory things being simultaneously true being a key example of art's power".

Can you list some films that provide good examples of contradictory things being simultaneously true?

Basically every scene in every movie, every piece in any artwork, etc.. One of the intrinsic "rules" of art is expressing paradoxical things, cause that's how life and nature functions.
Only one thing being true (at one time) is a human invention, grown out of societal structures.

If you have a tree in the background of a shot, it's at the same time a tree that has been photographed, a representation of a tree that has been photographed, the idea of a tree, other ideas/feelings being invoked (mood, metaphor, setting, etc.).
Art basically transforms stuff.

On a more obvious level, when you're watching an actor (even on stage) you're watching someone performing, as well as a living human being existing, as well as a character in a play, somebody being somebody else, etc. "Normally", (i.e. "logically", in society) there would already be a huge contradiction between someone acting and also "being" something else, but in our reception of art our mind/perception fuses these things easily, and these seeming "contradictions" even enhance our enjoyment and understanding.

On a basic level, with film it was the fact that you are/were actually watching the play of light, that is light being projectd through a strip of film onto a screen, but at the same time you were imagining a world akin to our own, people. If you are staring into your monitor, you are also experiencing something similar. Even though I'm typing on my keyboard, I'm also imagining writing, even talking to someone else.

Actual life is full of these things, like when you feel different (contradicting) emotions at the same moment. Yet, we are usually told (or simply learn) to filter and to focus, and to emphasize certain things in favor of others.

Currently, I'm watching Highwaymen, a netflix film about two guys hunting the Bonnie and Clyde gang, and while I hate the police and root for B&C, I also "feel" with the two guys, just because it's "their point of view", and I also enjoy Harrelson's and Costner's acting (two favorites of mine), etc.
Of course these are just a few basic examples, like watching a horror film and being scared (something one usually avoids) and enjoying this at the same time (cause you know you are not in actual danger), something each and every viewer can relate to.

I'm sure Greg can point you in more interesting directions.


One important observation I'd like to add to the "shot length" stuff: the length of a shot, while watching a film (or the nature of time itself, while concentrating on something) is also very much intrinsically different from person to person. You can observe this very easily on yourself, if you watch a film stoned, and watch it sober (or watch a film while you're sick or while you're not). You can try this with any drug of course, sugar or caffeine also works.
But basically, the degree of how you concentrate on something (and your technique of concentrating - for example if you are relaxing into something or if you are tense and alert) influences your perception.
The measurement of time in a scientific way doesn't correspond to an individual's perception of it.

It's also important to remember that science (like religion, but also like art) is a human invention, and doesn't correspond to the world as such or anything happening in the world or any actual "rules" of life and nature and the universe. And as human inventions go, science is operating on a somewhat different plane as art. While science strives to be "objective" (also a human invention, human concept), and to see/discover things "as they are" (another human concept), art is automatically subjective (and the more, the better) and tries to see/discover things that aren't necessarily connected to the world as we know and experience it. So while both try to enhance on our senses and our understanding of things, they use different tools, and have different concepts. The "rules" established through science are different from the "rules/goals" in art.

While an "irresolvable tension" can be a specific aim of a work of art, and its experience the aim of the person who's consciously processing it, this usually isn't the case in science. (I'm not a scientist though, so I could be somewhat wrong on some of those things).

[Joks Trois]

I would have to read the psychologist's actual work to know where is he is coming from, but here are some immediate impressions:

1)I think it's mistaken to divorce trends in creative fields from other forms of analysis, such as sociology, anthropology, economic etc. In fact, one of the limits of contemporary film analysis is that it doesn't really attempt to answer questions like 'what is this thing called cinema?' 'What's its relationship to other art forms?', 'Why do people respond to it?' etc. I think psychology could provide insights into these matters, but not at the expense of ignoring the other forms of analysis I mentioned above. It needs to be looked at more holistically.

2)The problem of calculation. There is no mistaking how calculated the film industry has become over the past few decades. Why are people responding to these obvious attempts at calculation/manipulation? What's its relationship to questions of libidinal economy? etc etc. I just don't buy the idea that it's just a result of the industry figuring out how 'people's minds work' over time and essentially 'giving them what they want', but you can't discount that this has happened within a very specific socio-historical-economic context and that we can trace its development to a degree by looking at changes in shot lengths, how trailers are cut etc. The difficulty is drawing meaningful inferences from it.

3)The attempt to dismiss arguments about short attention spans outright, to me, is usually based on the misguided perception that such a viewpoint is inherently elitist. This is a problem that needs to be dealt with, and I don't think it's just a case of people being able to process visual information quicker than before because most studies I've seen on this matter suggest that humans are really not that great at making sense of visual information they receive despite living in an increasingly visual culture.

[Joks Trois]

One important observation I'd like to add to the "shot length" stuff: the length of a shot, while watching a film (or the nature of time itself, while concentrating on something) is also very much intrinsically different from person to person. You can observe this very easily on yourself, if you watch a film stoned, and watch it sober (or watch a film while you're sick or while you're not). You can try this with any drug of course, sugar or caffeine also works.
But basically, the degree of how you concentrate on something (and your technique of concentrating - for example if you are relaxing into something or if you are tense and alert) influences your perception.
The measurement of time in a scientific way doesn't correspond to an individual's perception of it.

I'd agree with this on an individual level, but it's not at all helpful for understanding contemporary trends in film making, unless you think that the number of edits increased just 'because'.

It's an abstract argument that doesn't really deal with the calculation problem I mentioned above. The film industry has been very successful at calculating responses etc. If perceptions of time varied as much as you mentioned above, it wouldn't have been nearly as successful at doing this.

What makes sense on an personal level doesn't necessarily work in the aggregate.

[flip]

3)The attempt to dismiss arguments about short attention spans outright, to me, is usually based on the misguided perception that such a viewpoint is inherently elitist.

"People think this way because they're opposed to elitism" and "people think this way because they're elitist" are equally vacuous things to say. Neither has anything to do with what is actually true.

There isn't evidence attention spans are shortening, according to the literature I've seen about it. I haven't seen any literature about whether the increasing complexity of our visual environment has made newer generations better able to process visual information - that seems plausible to me, but I was just guessing.

[flip]

It's also important to remember that science (like religion, but also like art) is a human invention, and doesn't correspond to the world as such or anything happening in the world or any actual "rules" of life and nature and the universe.

This might be true depending on what you think reality is, but this reminds me of arguments I've seen in po-mo lit that science is just a human construction, just like art or religion, and its truth claims are no more valid than those of art or religion. That's not something any actual scientist would say. Science is a different category of enterprise; by the very definition of scientific method, the instant science doesn't correspond with reality, science is obligated to change. That constraint does not apply to art or religion. If you point a laser at a mirror, and you want to know what's going to happen, science will tell you. If you want to build a bridge that won't fall down, science will tell you how to do it. If you want to understand the human condition, the aesthetic experience, love or mortality, science is worthless. But I have no idea what someone can mean when they say science "doesn't correspond to the world". It corresponds perfectly to the world, to the extent that we've been able to discover it. Whether science has anything to say about the "rules" of life and nature and the universe, well that depends what you mean by "rules". If you want to understand the effect our physical actions will have on our environment, science provides us with "rules" that tell us. If you mean something more metaphysical or theological, well science doesn't purport to say anything about those things.

[flip]

You should read the article. I'd be interested in your thoughts on it.

I share a lot of the reservations expressed above. I don't think anyone looks at, say, how music changed in the Romantic period (longer forms, slower modulations, expanded harmonic language, etc) and claims that reveals anything about how successfully composers were attuning their work to human psychology. Maybe film is a different category because it's a commercial enterprise, but there are myriad reasons art forms evolve, and unless someone has evidence for the reason they cite, they're just making a guess.

[Joks Trois]

"People think this way because they're opposed to elitism" and "people think this way because they're elitist" are equally vacuous things to say. Neither has anything to do with what is actually true.

Opposition to presumed elitism is clear as day in the Anglosphere, especially in fields like cultural studies. It is a reactionary position in all pseudo-egalitarian socities whether it's Australia or the US, and it has a long history.

I don't buy the idea that people's attention spans aren't shortening to some degree . Our whole society has become reoriented around convenience and quick information. The notion that this doesn't negatively impact our attention is hard for me to believe, and a recent study I saw dismissed it by saying that attention is task dependent which sounds like a dodge.

But hey, I could be wrong.

[flip]

Opposition to presumed elitism is clear as day in the Anglosphere, especially in fields like cultural studies. It is a reactionary position in all pseudo-egalitarian socities whether it's Australia or the US, and it has a long history.

You seem to think I said "anti-elitism does not exist". I didn't say anything even similar to that.

[Joks Trois]

^^Yes, i actually realised my mistake after I posted it but didn't edit it. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I agree that they are both equally empty positions to take on matters, especially cultural ones.

I kind of get what WBA means when he talks about science the way he does. Scientists construct models/theories to understand the world and these are constantly tested etc, but when causation is difficult to establish, which it often is, science must then rely on creative interpretation of data that has arisen from studying 'natural' phenomena. In cases like this, we tend to just accept the best theory or theories available, but these theories may or may not correspond to the actual reality of the thing they are studying because of the knowledge gap. There is a tendency for dogmas to form around this limited base of knowledge that have practical consequences.

[Lencho of the Apes]

Actually, I thought what WBA was saying was this: " Science creates a world defined by the measurements of all things and energies and the precise mapping of their interactions... but the world science creates is only an abstraction derived from the totality of the 'real' world, and not an exact and perfect replica of it, because there are things in the real world that can't be quantified and do not enter into that system of thought."

[wba2]

Yeah, I meant both. I think science is/can be very useful, also art (not really sure about religion, which I believe is basically useless, and an unnecessary dead end in human history). Both study, construct and interpret our (human) world, obviously, but the ideas of "correspondence to reality" can somewhat differ. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. And both tend to become stale when they get stuck in dogmas.

[...]

I should have guessed from the start that the articles wouldn't be making the same argument the speech by Cutting actually does since popular reporting on science and art sucks. I'm 48 minutes into the presentation and most of it is fairly unobjectionable in presenting the history of how movies evolved over time in their physical characteristics and in how they are shown and the basic building blocks of film language. The measures are the usual sort that someone like David Bordwell likes to write about, average shot length as measured from a selection of 150 films from the 30's to 2005 and then talking about the patterns of cuts within the films and how well they match to patterns of human attention as measured by different psychological studies on attention. The argument made is that in these select films the patterns of attention and editing are becoming more similar over time. That in itself is largely unarguable, assuming the data presented is correct, at least for these selected films taken as an averaged whole, but the argument starts to move into less solid footing as well, notably at the spot I stopped at, but even before, in trying to make claims over meaning of the data that isn't quite so clear at all.

I'm going to finish the video before saying anything more, but there are problems in the assumptions that might make the point he's attempting to make actually closer to counter indicated in some ways than true if what's he's said to this point is maintained as it seems it will be. We'll see.

[...]

Heh. Ended up pausing the video right before he was done with his presentation, so not much more was said before he took questions. The presentation is pretty enjoyable and largely unobjectionable for what it is, the question would be over the idea of whether films coming closer to duplicating how human attention works is "better" in some ways rather than perhaps even worse depending on what one is using as a basis for the claim of comparison. The talk, for example, makes mention of how "film noir" doesn't fit the patterns of attention he's talking about at all, the median shot construction being mostly noise, or virtually random seeming. Measuring movies by shot length and the interaction between shots in the movies without regard for content, as was the case in the study, is giving a purely visual accounting of the film, which he states as being the case up front, so there's no illusion about it being otherwise, but it aligns the idea of "matching" our standard patterns of attention being the better way to draw in the audience when it may very well be the less meaningful way of holding attention for coming closer to following a natural effect instead forcing a new pathway that works counter to normal patterns of attention.

That Hollywood movies, which to be clear are the basis of the study, increasingly better follow the natural flow of attention may make them easy to sit through without difficulty, but less meaningful or enjoyable in some sense for not presenting adequate challenge to our attention creating a different kind of investment in the films for the demands made on us. That Hollywood has gone to reliance on patterned blockbusters sold to international audiences, in this sense, suggests the ease of visual appreciation for better matching natural attention may speak to simplification of the product, the one size fits all ideal, rather than improvement in any other real way. There is little asked from the audience save for visual excitement which is, roughly speaking, innate so anyone can participate without being asked for more involvement then the minimal necessary to attend to the screen. Given that movies are "better" matching attention patterns right at the time "TV" started to steal audiences from movies without seeming to match the same visual patterns, at least as far as I can judge offhand, suggests the match of rhythm may in fact be counter-productive to deeper appreciation or investment in the works.

That would seem to better fit the history of art, where convention/familiarity leads to an ever increasing sense of predictability and loss in interest and there is the constant need for renewal through challenge and change to old formula to keep the art "alive" and important to the audience. Audience members will seek change at different rates as they come to the works from different histories, but the demand for change is nonetheless constant even as the desired pace of change may differ. Moving towards a less demanding, more "naturally" attuned form of movie making seems to be moving in the wrong direction for anything but eyecandy, not that Hollywood is all that concerned about anything but the money they make from selling candy for the most part, but the longer term prospects may not bode well with others willing to do more and competition from other industries like video games already stealing audience share.

Anyway, the talk is still makes a lot of interesting points, though it does give quite a bit of info people probably already know as well, so it might be worth a view if those latter bits don't annoy you and you can manage to keep your attention focused for an hour long video without any cuts. Heh

[Lencho of the Apes]

Anybody that wants to claim that living in a hyper-mediated environment makes people faster at processing visual information will have to explain to me why it takes so long for a cashier to figure out the monetary value of two quarters and two dimes.

[Joks Trois]

Actually, I thought what WBA was saying was this: " Science creates a world defined by the measurements of all things and energies and the precise mapping of their interactions... but the world science creates is only an abstraction derived from the totality of the 'real' world, and not an exact and perfect replica of it, because there are things in the real world that can't be quantified and do not enter into that system of thought."

They are not opposites. Both are concerned with the problem/limitations of using abstractions/models to understand complex natural phenomena.

lol @ at your last point though. Hah. Perhaps the issue there is that they aren't given enough visual information. If they had to return 50 dollars in coins, for example, they might complete the task in record time

[St. Gloede]

100 yrs > 20 years

I know the conversation has moved on, but just wanted to say that this was the perfect retort.

And to bring the conversation back for the OP, I don't think anyone would honestly compare the 20th and 21st century yet, what people are likely talking about is their favorite period of film, or perhaps a general disappointment in recent cinema - and that is not too strange.

There are essentially 2 major eras that cinephiles are drawn to, the golden era (30s to early 60s) and what could essentially be called the new wave/auteur era (late 50s to early 80s). Those who love classic narrative cinema will adore the former for the incredible output of well crafted stories, while those who love creative/auteur cinema will adore the latter for the share abundance of fresh and unique takes on what cinema can be.

Disclaimer:
Now obviously, tastes differ, and you can have someone who only cares about straight narrative stories believe the 70s or the 80s was the best period of cinema. In fact many would. You will also find people loving any decade or period, the 90s alone has a massive bastion of hardcore supporters pushing it as the greatest decade of all time. Obviously there are people loving the 2000s and the 2010s, the 21st century as it stands, or maybe the 90s and onwards.

But with both of the two major periods frequently identified as the greatest period of cinema taking place in the 20th century, and no such period having been registered so far in the 21st century, the point I am making is that the odds are not even 100 vs 20, they are far, far more skewered.

Second disclaimer:
There will of course always, no matter what decade you are in, have a group of people who primarily/only watch films that are "new", and will always think the current decade is the best because it is "new" (or rather, that other films are "old"), but this demographic is rarely if ever properly present on a forum like this.

[Wulff]

I have nothing further to add at this stage. But I just wanted to thank you guys for your comments. I've enjoyed reading them. Thanks.

[...]

Here's a take on the changes a-brewin' in tv/movie world that's a pretty good summary of the current moment in US mass media.

http://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/avengers- ... nt-endgame

[liquidnature]

Here's a take on the changes a-brewin' in tv/movie world that's a pretty good summary of the current moment in US mass media.

http://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/avengers- ... nt-endgame

Just saw Endgame yesterday, good article, thanks for sharing. I don't have too much optimism for whatever the next incarnation of the medium looks like, but who knows.

[wba]

Nice article, but that's basically what has been happening since the (late) 50s when TV emerged as a big player, and what Godard and Co. were saying since the 60s.

[Wulff]

Here's a take on the changes a-brewin' in tv/movie world that's a pretty good summary of the current moment in US mass media.

http://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/avengers- ... nt-endgame

If the medium is the message what's the message?

In order for a film to become a near universal phenomenon it requires intelligent people to dumb themselves down. Therefore you'll never see more challenging films become universal phenomenons because that would require less intelligent people to smarten up. ☺

[...]

No, no, I'm sure the movie is smart, we just have to wait for the next episode to prove it, or maybe the one after that, or the one three years from now, but eventually it'll add up to something if we wait long enough or just forget what it is we were waiting for in the first place. Deferment of assessment as its own pleasure.

[wba]

No, no, I'm sure the movie is smart, we just have to wait for the next episode to prove it, or maybe the one after that, or the one three years from now, but eventually it'll add up to something if we wait long enough or just forget what it is we were waiting for in the first place. Deferment of assessment as its own pleasure.

That's exactly how TV works/worked.