IAC DISCUSSION FORUMS

The one-minute movie has become a minor obsession in our hobby.


Some other movie makers do tell more serious tales in their one-minute movies.
It is not impossible. Think of the adverts on tv against smoking or drink-driving.

In the UK we usually use the form to tell a simple joke. The risk with a
one-line joke is that you can usually tell it on film in 10 seconds so we
end up with a lot of padding. We also tend to forget the usual "rules" of
film making about keeping shots under 3 seconds, varying angles and distance
etc. If anything a minute movie should work harder than any other length
to establish production values and sweep us up in its story.

The form lends itself to breaking rules, of course. Two winning movies I
know have a fixed camera and one shot throughout.

One of them is a documentary. It shows a street market in Mekong where in
the course of 60 seconds real time the busy market suddenly packs up, pulls
back revealing tracks, a train comes through, then they swarm back over the
tracks and the market continues.

The other, a fiction, shows two suburban garages, neighbours emerge in speeded-up
time, get out lawn mowers. One works the other will not start. The thwarted
gardener grabs his mobile and rings the other person's home. While the successful
gardener goes in to answer it the bad guy swaps mowers. The good guy emerges,
starts the "defective" mower at once and the bad guy still can't start the
one he has "borrowed". Good guy finishes the lawn and pops into his house.
Bad guy swaps mowers back but the one he has still won't start. Good guy
emerges and puts golf bag into his car, starts up and drives off. Bad guy
puts his defective mower in his car, jumps in ... and the car will not start!

All this is by way of saying that the entry call for the Croatian Minute
Movie Cup has just arrived. The festival is 26-27 May and deadline for entries
is 15th April. When Atta gets a chance to update the website the forms should
be available there. If you want one now I will send it as a pdf to you. Email
me on david.filmsocs@virgin.net

Dave

"Dave Watterson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:

We also tend to forget the usual "rules" of
film making about keeping shots under 3 seconds, varying angles and distance
etc.
Dave

I was not aware of a "rule" about keeping shots under 3 seconds!

I know that in this short-cicuited age, where everything has to happen fast,
we see a lot of fast cuts (often of less than one second), especially in
advertising.

However, there are many great films out there where the director has allowed
the shot to last for much more than three seconds, and many where the shot
may last for several minutes.

Just thought I would mention this ... no offense!!

"Peter" <symphony@pocoanimato.co.uk> wrote:

I was not aware of a "rule" about keeping shots under 3 seconds!

However, there are many great films out there where the director has allowed
the shot to last for much more than three seconds, and many where the shot
may last for several minutes.

I should have known that comment would get a reaction!

The "rule" - it would be better called a "guideline" - is that the vast majority
of shots in most types of British, American and Western European movies last
3 seconds or less.

There are exceptions where the shot effectively changes because someone partially
blocking the view steps aside, focus is rolled, we pan (with a subject!)
to a different view and so on.

Certainly if you hold a shot 5 seconds or more the spectators' eyes get restless
and prowl round the image. This can be used to good effect ... e.g. in 'The
Ipcress File' (I think) you see the Michael Caine character fairly near the
foreground and a set of streets behind him in near darkness. At 6 seconds
someone in the darkness moves ... and most of the audience spot it at once
because they were impatiently watching for something to happen. That makes
the audience feel involved in the spying game because they have spotted an
almost hidden movement.

There are a handful of other exceptional cases (e.g. 'Lawrence of Arabia')
and Japanese Cinema works differently, but even the 11+ hours of 'Lord of
the Rings' tells its tale in chunks of less than 3 seconds.

Like all film making "rules" it is a guide to what generally works and a
confident artist can ignore it if she or he chooses. The rest of us do well
to obey.

Dave the didactic.

An interesting topic and one that piqued my curiosity so I took three favorite
films of very different types and checked to see just how long the shots
lasted in selected areas

Fargo - part of the sequence in the bar setting up the scam, time 107 seconds,
17 shots average time 6.3 seconds. shortest 2 seconds, longest 15 seconds.
This is a two way conversation, one person one side of the table and two
on the other.

Magnolia - The police sequence that starts after the on screen title card
that says "Partly cloudy 82% chance of rain". Time 170 seconds, 29 shots,
average running time 5.8 seconds, longest 23 seconds, shortest 2 seconds.

Once Upon a time in the West - Opening sequence from the door opening to
the title "A Sergio Leone Film" Running time 119 seconds, 28 shots, average
4.25 seconds, longest 10 seconds, shortest 2 seconds. Later, during the station
sequence there is a shot when the train leaves that runs 30 seconds.

My conclusion, there is no 3 second rule.

The rule is that what is happening must hold the viewers interest either
pictorially, by dialog or by music. The length of the shot is determined
by how much information is to be delivered.

Ned C

"Dave Watterson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:
up with a lot of padding. We also tend to forget the usual "rules" of

film making about keeping shots under 3 seconds, varying angles and distance
etc. If anything a minute movie should work harder than any other length
to establish production values and sweep us up in its story.

To add furtherv fuel to this discussion for a detailed review of shot length
of a number of films, plus data on framing and camera movement go to

www.cinemetrics.lv/saltdb.php and for more detail read a piece by Michael
Brandt of Baylor University who gives the average shot length as 4.75 seconds

Ned C

"Dave Watterson" <dave.chatty@sample.net> wrote:

"Peter" <symphony@pocoanimato.co.uk> wrote:
I was not aware of a "rule" about keeping shots under 3 seconds!

However, there are many great films out there where the director has allowed
the shot to last for much more than three seconds, and many where the shot
may last for several minutes.

There are a handful of other exceptional cases (e.g. 'Lawrence of Arabia')
and Japanese Cinema works differently, but even the 11+ hours of 'Lord of
the Rings' tells its tale in chunks of less than 3 seconds.

Like all film making "rules" it is a guide to what generally works and a
confident artist can ignore it if she or he chooses. The rest of us do well
to obey.

Dave the didactic.

A personal view only, however -----
ELEVEN hours of L ord of the W's !! I saw the first one and thought it
was the biggest load of rubbish I had ever seen. Wanted to leave the cinema
after one hour, but my wife wanted to see the shots of New Zealand! She hated
the rest of the film too. AND, I've lots of wonderful shots of NZ - stills
and video - you only have to point the camera!

The obsession with very short shot lengths has been influenced by advertising.
Fast moving short shots have their place, but equally much longer shots do
as well. Have a look at my favourite, and in my opinion greatest film maker,
Ingmar Bergman.

"Ned C" <ned@ants.com> wrote:

An interesting topic and one that piqued my curiosity so I took three favorite
films of very different types and checked to see just how long the shots
lasted in selected areas

My conclusion, there is no 3 second rule.

The rule is that what is happening must hold the viewers interest either
pictorially, by dialog or by music. The length of the shot is determined
by how much information is to be delivered.

Ned C

Ned, I quite agree. In fact there is a film called (I think) "The Producers"
where the opening sequence is one long shot that last several minutes. Also
"Rope" by Hitchcock (not a bad fim maker) is supposed to be all one shot.
(In both these cases I think they cheated by cutting, in the case of "Rope"
when someone walks in front of the camera and blocks the light!)

Also that wonderful film by Orson Welles (A Touch of Evil) which is set on
the Mexico/USA border and where the opening is in one shot for at least two
minutes plus.

I'm sure there are many more.

Sorry Dave, I'm not trying to score points, and of course you were right
except for the 3 second "rule" bit!

"Peter" <sonata@pocoanimato.co.uk> wrote:

"Ned C" <ned@ants.com> wrote:

My conclusion, there is no 3 second rule.

Ned C

In fact, Dave, I think you actually mean that people should keep interest
going in their shots. You can have a long or very long shot that retains
interest by moving the camera positions by extreme amounts.

In "A Touch of Evil" Orson Welles does this by having the camera on a very
high crane, and following the action. The camera moves high accross roof
tops and then moves in to a couple getting into a car and driving off. It
follows the car and moves in for medium shots of a conversation going on
with the couple at a border control. It only cuts when there is a loud explosion
(sound only), and then only cuts to show another vehicle that has been blown
up.

In other words, there are lots of interesting things happening in the above
sequence, and Dave is really (I think) saying that we must keep our shots
interesting and hold our viewers attention, which is excellent advice.

Of course, in a one minute film, usually we are more likely to undertand
the points being made if there are many shots. Three seconds would make a
one minute film contain 20 shots. Some ads have shots lengths of less than
one second, so a one minute ad may well have 60 shots!!

"Peter" <sonata@pocoanimato.co.uk> wrote:

\
Ned, I quite agree. In fact there is a film called (I think) "The Producers"
where the opening sequence is one long shot that last several minutes.

Peter, Perhaps the film you were thinking of is The Player (Robert Altman)
where the opening shot is one continuous take lasting just under 9 minutes,
it involves a crane at the opening and then continues as a Steadicam shot
- obviously the Steadicam operator stepped off the crane platform. There
are three shots of "pitches" by film makers which are static during the take
each lasting more than 30 seconds. There is even a reference to "A Touch
of Evil" during the shot. This shot and Robert Altman are not exactly typical
Hollywood film. However, in my earlier note I commented on three films where
I measured the shot lengths, looking at my notes it is interesting that there
are no 3 second shots in there! So, Dave, what is the source of your "3 second
rule."

Ned C

"Ned C" <ned@3secrule.com> wrote:

"Peter" <sonata@pocoanimato.co.uk> wrote:

\
Ned, I quite agree. In fact there is a film called (I think) "The Producers"
where the opening sequence is one long shot that last several minutes.


Peter, Perhaps the film you were thinking of is The Player (Robert Altman)
where the opening shot is one continuous take lasting just under 9 minutes,
it involves a crane at the opening and then continues as a Steadicam shot
- obviously the Steadicam operator stepped off the crane platform.
Ned C

Ned, thanks - my brain cells are going! You are absolutely right, it was

"The Player" directed by Robert Altman. And he certainly was not one of the
usual Hollywood directors.

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!

"Dave Watterson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:

The one-minute movie has become a minor obsession in our hobby.
Some other movie makers do tell more serious tales in their one-minute movies.
It is not impossible. Think of the adverts on tv against smoking or drink-driving.

I agree, Dave, but it's not wrong to make funny one-minute movies. On the

contrary ! You should appreciate it. Humour is good for your health. There
are so many things in life that make us very sad. Watch the news on TV for
instance ... Also in my club the one-minute movie has become an obsession,
but some filmmakers who were not so productive in the past are now enthusiastic
and they are very creative in making films like that. Some members also enjoy
acting ! That's very positive ! Thanks to this kind of filmmaking they frequent
our club. This year there are even two filmmakers in my club who could not
shorten their "one-minute movies" to 60 seconds ! But what does this mean
? For the first time they have made short feature films ! In Bedford I would
like to see some one-minute movies with British humour ! British humour is
unique. Do you realize this ?

Every year we organize a Gala. Most of our films are documentaries. The one-minute
movies are funny intermezzi. You can hear people laugh. That's great, isn't
it ? But I agree. Next time I will try to make a serious one-minute movie.
This is a new challenge and perhaps that's what you wanted to tell us, Dave.
There is one "bad" thing about funny one-minute movies : most of them are
about sex. I have the feeling that some members in my club are a bit over-sexed.
In fact I shouldn't have told you this, Dave, because one of my own one-minute
movies is called "More sex, please !", but I'm happy with a blue award.


One more thing about the "3 seconds rule". I think it's a matter of feeling.
Let's say that you are making a film about the traffic, the skyscrapers and
other things in New York. The tempo must be "fast". As fast as the dynamic
music that you have chosen. So most shots are short. Do you remember Toshi
Sakurai's film about New York 6 or seven years ago ? In a film with pastoral
scenes the shots are longer. Imagine that you are filming the interior of
church. I think it's better to make the shots and "pans" a bit longer and
to use crossfades. The tempo is different. Pianissimo ! I guess that you
would also use religious music for it this to optimize the atmosphere of
devotion. Conclusion : the music that you have chosen is also essential for
the length of the shots. Do you remember Toshi's poetic film about a camel
market in India ? It was fantastic. Most shots were longer than 3 seconds.

An other thing : A drunkard is holding a lamp-post. Long shot : 3-4 seconds.
He's cross-eyed. Close up of his face : 2 seconds. You fear that he will
fall down. He clings desperately to the lamp-post. Close up of his hands
: 1 second. The first shot (=long shot) is a bit longer because the viewer
must be conversant with the given situation. 3-4 seconds is enough. So the
followong shots that are "close ups" can be shorter. Hopefully you understand
what I mean. Do you agree with all this ?
Willy

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

I have the feeling that some members in my club are a bit over-sexed.

In fact I shouldn't have told you this, Dave, because one of my own one-minute
movies is called "More sex, please !"
One more thing about the "3 seconds rule".....

It just shows what you can do with editing!!!

Ken.

"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.

To help Davids lost plight!,
We held our results evening of The Holiday Competition last night. We had
9 entries. 8 of them were serious holiday films. 1 wasn`t. That was mine.
I did a film called `Fast Train to Paris`. About me, the wife and two friends
going on the Eurostar to Paris. Most of the film was filmed on the Eurostar
as this was the funniest. Try and film when your given `Too Much Free Wine!`.
I like to be different (as most of you know). I love the BBC, but seeing
club members films that have been made from holidays from Thialand, HongKong,
New Zealand, America, Russia and France. It used to mean that the furfest
you went on your holiday, the more likely of a win. Anyway the winners film
was filmed in Cornwall. Mine came 4th.

Anyway. The main reason for this reply was to say that the judge recomended
that the average length for a standard shot was 7 seconds! He must have been
on the drink! Way to long. The best length is 3 seconds, 4 at a push. It`s
different if there is a lot of action in the shot. It could last the whole
length of the film if it was interesting. But that is rare.

Ian Gardner.

One more thing about the "3 seconds rule". I think it's a matter of feeling.
Let's say that you are making a film about the traffic, the skyscrapers
and
other things in New York. The tempo must be "fast". As fast as the dynamic
music that you have chosen. So most shots are short. Do you remember Toshi
Sakurai's film about New York 6 or seven years ago ? In a film with pastoral
scenes the shots are longer. Imagine that you are filming the interior of
church. I think it's better to make the shots and "pans" a bit longer and
to use crossfades. The tempo is different. Pianissimo ! I guess that you
would also use religious music for it this to optimize the atmosphere of
devotion. Conclusion : the music that you have chosen is also essential
for
the length of the shots. Do you remember Toshi's poetic film about a camel
market in India ? It was fantastic. Most shots were longer than 3 seconds.

An other thing : A drunkard is holding a lamp-post. Long shot : 3-4 seconds.
He's cross-eyed. Close up of his face : 2 seconds. You fear that he will
fall down. He clings desperately to the lamp-post. Close up of his hands
: 1 second. The first shot (=long shot) is a bit longer because the viewer
must be conversant with the given situation. 3-4 seconds is enough. So the
followong shots that are "close ups" can be shorter. Hopefully you understand
what I mean. Do you agree with all this ?
Willy


Well,I certainly agree with all you've said above Willy, - the content of

the shot is all important in establishing the length of the scenes. I'm not
sure where Dave got the '3 second rule' from, but I suspect it's aimed at
the younger generation who are more used to being brought up in a faster
world, with quick and flashy TV commercials, pop videos, car chases in movies,
etc,etc. Some professional films are completely ruined by OVER editing, with
fast cutting and a restless camera all used to satisfy the 'short attention
span' brigade. A case in point being 'The Bourne Supremacy' which I'm sure
must have stuck to Dave's 3 second rule - this was an absolute turkey of
a film which left me feeling I had just watched a 90 minute TV commercial!
(the original 'Bourne Identity' was fine, by the way) In the end, I couldn't
care what happened to the characters or where the film was going. Too much
camera movement can be an irritant to some viewers and many professional
films will put in unnecessary crane shots, pans and zooms just because they
can! So yes Willy, the content is the all important thing, and your movies
(and I hope mine) reflect how the length of shot is to be determined.

Peter (normal pace) Rouillard
>