Why are old movies so much better? (1 Viewer)

[dany]

Ya know,it's just they way i type and grammar is'nt my strong point so being reminded by others is rude to say the least. Funny what some will do behind the screen as to in person. I do try.

 

[JeremyErwin]

There's a metric known as "average shot length"-- length of the film/divided by number of shots. The longer the shot, the more a cinematographer has to work at getting the framing perfect. Over time, average shot length has drifted from 10-15 seconds down to two or three. source. Perhaps asl can be correlated with your enjoyment of the film.

 

[MarkHastings]

If you showed a movie (with an average shot length of 3 seconds) to an audience in the 50's, their brains wouldn't be able to process things quick enough. Just as, when wacthing an older movie, it's hard for my brain to not want it to speed up.

That's a product of the times.

 

[JohnRice]

Most definitely the average shot length of most movies has been decreased. There is no doubt about that. It is the result of many things. The greater ability to edit for one, and simple laziness and poor filmmaking for another.

Looking through that list, I find a distinct bent toward reaching a conclusion and then finding the information to suppport it. A quick glance at the severe lack of modern movies shows the few which are included are titles such as The Incredibles, an animated feature; Infernal Affairs, an HK action flick; Leon, another action flick; Jabbarwocky, a vaudeville style satire, and so on...

If movies like Ran, A Room with a View, In the Bedroom, The Man in the Moon and countless others had been included, it would be more valuable.

 

[JeremyErwin]

Yes, he really wants people to download the software and add to the database...

Discussing asl as a means to evaluate cinema is just like discussing how hot a CD is as a means of evaluating an album, or discussing measurements as a means of evaluating a speaker. A well mastered CD may not be a good album. A flat speaker may not be a good speaker. But it's a starting point for more discussion.

 

[Mark Kalzer]

Yeah that's note I can agree on. Although I feel I must point that despite being only 22, allegedly a member of 'MTV Generation' (Not that we've ever got MTV in Canada in any form untill a few years ago) the first time I saw 'Moulin Rouge' I found the rapid editing visually jarring. So many of even the film's most simple sequences had such a rapid form of cutting that the cut itself almost began to attain an image that I was seeing more then any of the actual scene. After that initial viewing I have found its monotonous editing easier to watch, but I almost feel the filmmakers/editors could no longer perceive that jarring effect of their editing after seeing it so many times.

I know this 'MTV Style' editing is a result of the non linear editing systems now in place that reduce the act of editing to a simple point and click system, replacing the older scissors and tape practice that was more painstaking and allowed for much less trial and error. I'd say stylistically this has in some cases allowed filmmakers to be a little less inventive visually, as too many conventional films tend to rely mostly on closeups to tell their stories, and assemble their scenes as rapid cuts between closeups on every actor to construct their scenes.

Personally I come to cinema from the perspective of an actor on stage, and thus I enjoy cinema for its power of storytelling through characters. (I freely admit that John Luc Godard does nothing for me, which is almost sinful for the Carleton film major to say!) I get to feel that older cinema at least had a greater appreciation for the strength of acting. The lack of glossy effects and production values tended to force the actors to step up more then they have to today. Still I stop short of accusing all modern cinema of ignoring the strength of the performance. Certainly I would accuse Lucas of shortchanging the effectiveness of his actors in his Star Wars prequels, never finding that Han Solo equivalent characterization that the original trilogy had so much strength in, but I would also cite 'Lord of the Rings' as an example of a franchise film series that worked precisely because of the strength of the actors at the heart of it, without letting the impressive visual effects overwhelm the power of the actors.

I mention this in relation to editing because in effect, editing is constructing a performance. With the more rapid editing of today, it appears the scene may never have been most perfectly performed once all the way through, and instead we are being fed a compilation of the best performances of every beat of the scene. Rapid cutting between closeups allows the modern editor to pick precisely the best line reading, and there's nothing wrong with that I suppose.

Still in modern cinema I have greater respect for the director that does make use of long take, or film their dialog scenes with both actors within the same frame. It just allows the natural pace and flow of the scene come out more, while rapid cutting implies a sort of time compression. A film I saw yesterday, 'Children of Men' (Presently in limited release in North America but I strongly urge you all to see it when you get a chance) had some incredible long takes performed, which combine handheld camerawork with dozens of speaking actors, and dangerous looking on-set special effects. So it does happen still, and I applause the director of 'Children of Men' Alfonso Cuarón for taking the time to block such elaborate single take sequences. A lot of older movies also were lax on rapid editing between closeups partially because of less use of multiple camera angles, but again Hitchcock was one who was not shy about mixing lots of angles together in editing.

P.S. Thanks on the praisings there John Rice! I like to think that my writings do make sense!

 

[JohnRice]

Mark, I have been looking forward to seeing Children of Men. Once again, I highly recommend you see In the Bedroom, if you haven't already. I truly do think it embodies all that is great with modern film. Patience, ambiguity, great editing, great acting. It amazes me every time I see it. It is also distinctly painful in a way old movies didn't seem to have the willingness to be.

I also believe Moulin Rouge could have been more energetic through better filmmaking techniques and less rapid editing. While I still enjoy the movie, it could have been so much better.