Written by Anthony Watkins
It is easy to observe that in the vast majority of Hollywood films today, there are many, many shots used to complete a scene and the overall film. In particular, action films are very fast cut to help accentuate the pace of the film and actions of the characters. Over the years, we as an audience have gotten used to these kinds of films and tend to overlook just how many cuts are involved in the final cut of the movie. Next time you watch a film, take note of this and you will probably be surprised.
However, films did not always use to be this fast cut. Throughout film history, there has been a steady progression from longer shots to quick cuts. In 1930 (and throughout the Classical Hollywood period), the average shot length was about 12 seconds. About 85 years later, the average shot length has been reduced to only 2.5 seconds, a fraction of the time from 1930. One possible reason for this shift is an ever- decreasing attention span from viewers. Every time a new shot is presented (or whenever the camera cuts) the audience is presented with something new and has to adjust to the new position or arrangement of the scene. This tends to keep them more interested. Longer shots, on the other hand, can cause viewers’ minds to wander as they maintain a single “view” (Wired).
This can work both ways. Longer shots can cause viewers to become bored, but interestingly they can also have the complete opposite effect. It is important to note that long shots are the most natural type of shot in film—we as humans experience life all through one shot. We cannot cut to a different place or position instantaneously like in a film. This was one reason (in addition to cameras only being able to hold a certain amount of film) that the earliest films in cinema were a single shot. It was not until several years after the birth of cinema that cutting became a norm in film. The long shot, though it has a tendency to be boring for viewing, can also be equated with not blinking. The audience is fixated on what is onscreen and is not allowed to look away. In this respect, the long shot maintains viewers’ attention and has a greater impact on them than the conventional film today.
Though fast cutting is indeed the convention of modern films, there are a few examples of films that have heavily (and successfully) utilized long shots. Two recent examples include Gravity (Cuarón, 2013) and Birdman (Iñárritu, 2014), both of which had the same cinematographer (Emmanuel Lubezki). Gravity opens with a 17 minute shot and has an average shot length of 46 seconds throughout the film (Screenrant). Birdman, the Academy Award winner for Best Picture at this year’s Oscars, is edited to look like the entire film is one single take. Ultimately, there are only 16 visible cuts in the film (IMDB). The film took after a similar aesthetic used by Alfred Hitchcock in Rope (1948). In that film, Hitchcock (who was limited to 10 minutes for a take due to the amount of film the camera held) used methods such putting the camera to the back of a character and then cutting, maintaining the illusion that it is the same shot.
However, films did not always use to be this fast cut. Throughout film history, there has been a steady progression from longer shots to quick cuts. In 1930 (and throughout the Classical Hollywood period), the average shot length was about 12 seconds. About 85 years later, the average shot length has been reduced to only 2.5 seconds, a fraction of the time from 1930. One possible reason for this shift is an ever- decreasing attention span from viewers. Every time a new shot is presented (or whenever the camera cuts) the audience is presented with something new and has to adjust to the new position or arrangement of the scene. This tends to keep them more interested. Longer shots, on the other hand, can cause viewers’ minds to wander as they maintain a single “view” (Wired).
This can work both ways. Longer shots can cause viewers to become bored, but interestingly they can also have the complete opposite effect. It is important to note that long shots are the most natural type of shot in film—we as humans experience life all through one shot. We cannot cut to a different place or position instantaneously like in a film. This was one reason (in addition to cameras only being able to hold a certain amount of film) that the earliest films in cinema were a single shot. It was not until several years after the birth of cinema that cutting became a norm in film. The long shot, though it has a tendency to be boring for viewing, can also be equated with not blinking. The audience is fixated on what is onscreen and is not allowed to look away. In this respect, the long shot maintains viewers’ attention and has a greater impact on them than the conventional film today.
Though fast cutting is indeed the convention of modern films, there are a few examples of films that have heavily (and successfully) utilized long shots. Two recent examples include Gravity (Cuarón, 2013) and Birdman (Iñárritu, 2014), both of which had the same cinematographer (Emmanuel Lubezki). Gravity opens with a 17 minute shot and has an average shot length of 46 seconds throughout the film (Screenrant). Birdman, the Academy Award winner for Best Picture at this year’s Oscars, is edited to look like the entire film is one single take. Ultimately, there are only 16 visible cuts in the film (IMDB). The film took after a similar aesthetic used by Alfred Hitchcock in Rope (1948). In that film, Hitchcock (who was limited to 10 minutes for a take due to the amount of film the camera held) used methods such putting the camera to the back of a character and then cutting, maintaining the illusion that it is the same shot.
Birdman (Iñárritu, 2014) is shot and edited to look like the entire film is one long shot, when in reality it is composed of several shots.
Like Birdman, Hitchock shot Rope (1948) to look like it was one continuous shot. He hid the cuts by having something dark (like a character's back) move in front of the camera.
So long shots have the power to mentally drain audiences or stimulate them. I personally enjoy watching a film that uses long shots, as it breaks the conventions of today’s movies and holds my attention better. Have you watched any films that utilize long shots? Do you find them laborious or stimulating to watch? Comment your thoughts below!
WORKS CITED
IMDB. 2015. 16 Apr. 2015. <http://www.imdb.com>.
Miller, Greg. “Data From A Century Of Cinema Reveals How Movies Have Evolved.” Wired. 8 Sept. 2014. 24 Apr. 2015. <http://www.wired.com/2014/09/cinema-is-evolving/>.
Schaeffer, Sandy. “Alfonso Cuaron’s ‘Gravity’ Features A 17-Minute Opening Shot.” Screenrant. 29 August 2013. 24 Apr. 2015. <http://screenrant.com/alfonsco-cuaron-gravity-opening-shot-long-takes-sandy-164262/>.
WORKS CITED
IMDB. 2015. 16 Apr. 2015. <http://www.imdb.com>.
Miller, Greg. “Data From A Century Of Cinema Reveals How Movies Have Evolved.” Wired. 8 Sept. 2014. 24 Apr. 2015. <http://www.wired.com/2014/09/cinema-is-evolving/>.
Schaeffer, Sandy. “Alfonso Cuaron’s ‘Gravity’ Features A 17-Minute Opening Shot.” Screenrant. 29 August 2013. 24 Apr. 2015. <http://screenrant.com/alfonsco-cuaron-gravity-opening-shot-long-takes-sandy-164262/>.
