Minute Movie makers

[ned C]

"Dave Watterson" <david.filmsocs@virgin.net> wrote:

Hi Peter and Ned

If you care to get closer to 21st century movies ...

Check most contemporary movies and you'll find the shot-length getting shorter.
Even 'Star Wars'(1977) averaged 3.13 seconds per shot. 'Chicago'(2002) averages
2.5 seconds. There is a theory that the move from traditional cine cut-and-splice
to NLE systems is making Hollywood cuts even shorter.

There are, of course, lots of exceptions to the 3 second "rule". I mentioned
one type: shots where the camera moves - in effect we are given a different
shot at each movement even though the motor keeps running.

Barry Salt in his book 'Film Style & Technology: History & Analysis' demonstrated
how statistical analysis of a movie and a study of purely technical issues
like speed of film stock, quality of lenses etc can contribute to an understanding
of style. You cannot, of course, simply set down a list of do's and don'ts
which anyone could follow and become stylish. Any more than you could stick
me in a Hugo Boss suit and make me look smart.

The vast majority of amateur movies I see have sequences which become visually
boring because shots are held too long. Using a maximum of 3 seconds for
most shots is a good rule of thumb.

Dave the determined!

OK, here goes into the 21st Century, I chose two films that I think fall
closer to the needs of an intelligent audience. First "The Hours" I selected
one of the contemporary scenes as I suspect the early and mid 20th Century
scenes were cut to suit the era. The scene is where Meryl Streep delivers
the flowesr to Ed Harris, total length 199 seconds average shot length 3.6
seconds, longest, 16 seconds. Then "Perdition" the scene where young Michael
hides in the car to see what his father does for a living, total length 183
seconds, average shot length 5 seconds, longest 23 seconds. Interested in
the comment on "Chicago" I had a look at a 1979 musical, "All THat Jazz"
directed/choreographed by Bob Fosse who did the original stage choreography
for "Chicago", opening sequence, total length 81 seconds, average shot length
2.8 seconds longest shot 5 seconds, the death scene, total length 148 seconds
average shot length 3.6 seconds, longest shot 14 seconds.

So, the 3 second theory has some validity, and certainly makes more sense
than the 7 seconds that Ian heard recommended. However, it would be interesting
to to see a graph of how shot length changes as the film progresses and the
relationship to the action. Obviously there is a genre effect and a personal
style effect. My editing hero is Walter Murch so I have to have a look at
his work now. The problem for scifi films is that many of the special effects
do not bear close examination so they have to get out of them quickly.

An interesting topic, AND NOWI MUST GET SOME WORK DONE!!!!

Ned C

[Peter]

"Willy Van der Linden" <vanderlindenhig@telenet.be> wrote:

British humour is >unique. Do you realize this ?

Willy

That's because we are a joke!!

[Richard Rouillard]

"Peter" <goneaway@haha.com> wrote:

"Willy Van der Linden" <vanderlindenhig@telenet.be> wrote:

British humour is >unique. Do you realize this ?

Willy

That's because we are a joke!!

[Richard Rouillard]

"Richard Rouillard" <nsxbgsy71@newtelsurf.com> wrote:

This is a really fascinating subject. As for a 3 second rule I don't think
there is one; rather I would say it all depends upon the subject, the style
of the film and (most importantly) the content, both of the actual shot and
the film itself. Old silent movies on the "Perils of Pauline" type used an
accellerating pace, particularly when parellel action is used, to generate
mounting excitement. This style still exists, and can be very effective.
Old Russion masters such as Eisenstein and Pudovkin used montage where the
timing (and framing) of the shots were used to generate a mood, also used
by documentarists such as John Grierson and Basil Dearden in films like "Drifters"
and "Song of Ceylon"'; masterpieces by any standard.

Willy is right to say that landscape, or any shot which has a lot of detail
to convey can probably be held for longer on screen than the average close-up.
Having said that, a really good film actor can convey a huge range of emotions
very subtly, and such a shot can occupy quite a lot of screen time without
outstaying its welcome. Such a shot can convey tension very effectively if
the skill of the actor and director is good enough. My brother Peter is also
right when he says that a film can be over-edited and totally fail to generate
audience involvement (and tension as a by-product). All really great professional
directors and editors would say that there has to be a reason for a cut,in
other words the cut itself has to be motivated by what is happening (or is
about to happen) on screen. A very flashy "obvious" style of editing is appropriate
for MTV and some sequences in an action movie to generate excitement by use
of pace perhaps, particularly where special effects cannot sustain credibility
if they are held on screen for too long. Similarly it would be entirely inappropriate
for an intense emotional drama based on a realistic scenario to use that
style, great examples of a slower style of cutting are to be found in Bergman's
films for example, where complex emotions are conveyed by great screen actors
and deeply involve an audience, generating empathy for the characters onscreen,
without which a film of any type cannot really succeed
at a high level.

I saw a TV programme about David Lean where he was interviewed about his
films, and cited the example of the shot that introduced Omar Sharif in "Lawrence
of Arabia" where a long shot of a camel rider approaching the camera from
a distance (when the distortion of desert heat haze is exaggerated by use
of a telephoto lens) is shown, where the identity of the rider is witheld
from the audience for some time. Lean said that he lost his nerve on that
shot and shortened it more than he should have done. I would agree with him
as the mystery of that shot has become iconic and is one of the scenes that
stick in my mind from that film, and I agree that it should have been held
for longer for even greater effect.

In the case of film thrillers and comedies, pace and timing are all important,
and I'm sure we can all cite examples where a turgid pace has resulted in
a failure in terms of audience involvement; and by association tension or
comic enjoyment.

I would say that the only rule which applies in relation to shot length is
use that which works.