I think these points are largely right. But I have to HOT TAKE a theory of my own. I think one of the problems is that people don't like people anymore.
We're used to looking away from people, avoiding the gaze, fearing objectification or worse. Eye contact is now "strange" to younger people. And Movies have responded by de-empahsizing the face and the body. You rarely see an appreciation onscreen of how the body moves, unless it's killing people (and in those cases, effects ensure you don't get a great look at the face anyway).
I think a lot of this has been supercharged by directors and editors so in love with their visuals that they're dismissive, even disdainful, of actors (and studios have encouraged this so they depend less on "movie stars"). I do think people WANT to look at faces, they WANT to linger on someone's physicality. We should let them do this. We should like people again.
Interesting! I definitely agree as far as bodies go. Bordwell actually talks about this, saying that the 'old' way of staging meant that actors had to act with their bodies way more than they do now.
I'm not sure I fully agree re faces, just because close-ups are so dominant in dialogue scenes. But more broadly, I fully get what you mean - it's easy to tell when a movie doesn't care about its characters. Thanks for the thoughtful comment!
Delighted that you mentioned the editing of Oppenheimer here; not only does the fast cutting offer a sense of propulsion, as you put it, but the overwhelming majority of those cuts occur whenever a character is in the middle of an action or a movement. Combine this with its non-chronological narrative - where moments in time itself are liberally plucked from the continuum as needed for the story - and the film echoes the perpetual motion of the very atoms that Oppenheimer leveraged in his work.
And whenever a cut is made on a more restful note? What does that say about the ceiling of human progress and capability, both collectively and individually, scientifically and emotionally? What do we do when our own motion turns out to be very much not perpetual?
This is fantastic. Whenever I show 2001: A Space Odyssey, my students love the monkeys but think the rest is too slow pace. Then I have to tell them about Bella Tarr and Tsai Ming-liang.
I wonder where the best place to start is to get the longer take muscles working without inviting the knee-jerk "this is boring" reaction. Maybe someone like Shyamalan?
Weirdly, I had really good luck with The Zone of Interest and Cache with more advanced students. They also like Portrait of a Lady on Fire, but like Cache, it's not really slow cinema.
Excellent piece covering ideas that have been in my mind for years. Let’s treat ourselves to a screening of Stalker tonight as a form of protest. Or if you don’t have the time, the opening shot of The Player.
Great piece. I hope the pendulum swings back, because there's a lot we're losing. I also hate how every shot has to be centered and super lit and made so it can be shown on vertical screens. Composition variety is the spice of life 💚 🥃
Really fascinating read! As someone who edits short-form docs full of rapid cuts and punchy graphics, watching slower films - like that 4-minute pie scene in 'A Ghost Story' - feels like a proper mental workout. But I’m drawn to them because they’re ultimately so grounding and rewarding. It’s like people-watching or meditating, but with emphasis on expression and visual art. Do you think that same effect applies to one-take films like Birdman or series like Adolescence?
Great thoughts, I just wrote a piece on Chantal Akerman that speaks to this slowness and the unfamiliarity we have with cinema/art that's not immediately engaging
I think these points are largely right. But I have to HOT TAKE a theory of my own. I think one of the problems is that people don't like people anymore.
We're used to looking away from people, avoiding the gaze, fearing objectification or worse. Eye contact is now "strange" to younger people. And Movies have responded by de-empahsizing the face and the body. You rarely see an appreciation onscreen of how the body moves, unless it's killing people (and in those cases, effects ensure you don't get a great look at the face anyway).
I think a lot of this has been supercharged by directors and editors so in love with their visuals that they're dismissive, even disdainful, of actors (and studios have encouraged this so they depend less on "movie stars"). I do think people WANT to look at faces, they WANT to linger on someone's physicality. We should let them do this. We should like people again.
Fromtheyardtothearthouse.substack.com
Interesting! I definitely agree as far as bodies go. Bordwell actually talks about this, saying that the 'old' way of staging meant that actors had to act with their bodies way more than they do now.
I'm not sure I fully agree re faces, just because close-ups are so dominant in dialogue scenes. But more broadly, I fully get what you mean - it's easy to tell when a movie doesn't care about its characters. Thanks for the thoughtful comment!
Mary Anne Doane has an entire book on close ups and scale called Bigger Than Life: The Close Up and Scale in the Cinema.
Sick - great recommendation - adding it to the list. Thanks!
Fascinating stuff here, Ed; thank you for this!
Delighted that you mentioned the editing of Oppenheimer here; not only does the fast cutting offer a sense of propulsion, as you put it, but the overwhelming majority of those cuts occur whenever a character is in the middle of an action or a movement. Combine this with its non-chronological narrative - where moments in time itself are liberally plucked from the continuum as needed for the story - and the film echoes the perpetual motion of the very atoms that Oppenheimer leveraged in his work.
And whenever a cut is made on a more restful note? What does that say about the ceiling of human progress and capability, both collectively and individually, scientifically and emotionally? What do we do when our own motion turns out to be very much not perpetual?
Oh wow that’s sick - I’d never thought about it that way! Thanks Charlotte
This is fantastic. Whenever I show 2001: A Space Odyssey, my students love the monkeys but think the rest is too slow pace. Then I have to tell them about Bella Tarr and Tsai Ming-liang.
Thank you!
I wonder where the best place to start is to get the longer take muscles working without inviting the knee-jerk "this is boring" reaction. Maybe someone like Shyamalan?
Weirdly, I had really good luck with The Zone of Interest and Cache with more advanced students. They also like Portrait of a Lady on Fire, but like Cache, it's not really slow cinema.
Had the same exact experience. I might show a full season of Tarkovsky.
You could screen Stalker every week!
Excellent piece covering ideas that have been in my mind for years. Let’s treat ourselves to a screening of Stalker tonight as a form of protest. Or if you don’t have the time, the opening shot of The Player.
WE RIDE
Falcons at our breast and the wind in our hair
Well done
Thanks Wesley!
Great piece. I hope the pendulum swings back, because there's a lot we're losing. I also hate how every shot has to be centered and super lit and made so it can be shown on vertical screens. Composition variety is the spice of life 💚 🥃
Really fascinating read! As someone who edits short-form docs full of rapid cuts and punchy graphics, watching slower films - like that 4-minute pie scene in 'A Ghost Story' - feels like a proper mental workout. But I’m drawn to them because they’re ultimately so grounding and rewarding. It’s like people-watching or meditating, but with emphasis on expression and visual art. Do you think that same effect applies to one-take films like Birdman or series like Adolescence?
Great thoughts, I just wrote a piece on Chantal Akerman that speaks to this slowness and the unfamiliarity we have with cinema/art that's not immediately engaging
https://www.thekinetoscope.com/p/the-cinematic-alchemy-of-chantal-akerman