Hitchcock once said “What is drama but life with the dull bits cut out.” It is a wonderful quote and expresses the premise for what makes up a lot of great cinema. It does not need to be fancy, far from it. A simple story well presented will always trump a poorly constructed complex one. Each story requires a different pace, yet there is a tend in modern films that is causing them to get faster. Modern audiences are becoming accustom to this and many have a dislike for “Slow Films”. Why is this? What makes a film slow? What is wrong with slow films? Is the pace of a film inherent to its quality?

What makes a film slow? Seems like an easy question to answer on the surface however the question is relatively complex and multifaceted. The obvious answer would be shot length and we will be exploring this concept in more depth. However a lot more goes into this, the writing and the way a film is structured plays a huge role. Stories generally flow better when they start slow and build up. Yet there are plenty of great examples of films that grab the audience’s attention in the opening scene (see below for some examples). The issue with this is by having peaked the audience’s attention and excitement you then need to retain this for the rest of the runtime. Having an opening like this also does something else; it stops the audience thinking too much. If you are being bombarded with information it is very hard to think about and process what is going on. With slower openings on the other hand the audience can pay attention to the nuances of the film and begin to gauge an understanding of the world they are entering. It allows characters to develop better as we can see how contextually the fit into this world. Tone setting is very important in the opening moments as well, the rest of the runtime can be used to express the story, yet the tone can only be set once.

The Dark Knight.

Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark

Fight Club

Trainspotting

Children of Men

Although story structure and writing play a role in what people perceive to be a slow film; what affects them the most is shot length and editing pace. The shot length and way film (primarily Hollywood) is edited has changed a lot over time. Older films have longer shot lengths; just to prove this point see below. Figure one is created from the work of Barry Salt it “includes more than 9300 English-language films. The decline for foreign language films (not shown) is about 40% as great, but is still a linear decline.” (James Cutting) Figure 2 shows work from James Cutting Et al. (2011) each dot representing 160 films. We see the same decline in average shot length; also have some other information. We see the visual activity index; this graph plots movement in each shot. We see this has had the opposite effect and gone up over time. This also adds to what modern audiences consider slow as clearly they are familiar with films that have more movement (be it camera or movement on the screen). There is an endless list of causes from these two trends of decreased shot length and increased shot movement. The transition from film to digital is a huge cause of this; cheaper shooting means more shots can be taken. Less time is needed to replay what has been shot. It also means that directors have access to more cameras to shot from multiple angles that many did not have access to in the past. Also the editing processes of digital verses film gives directors a lot more control so that they can make quicker cuts more easily.

What does all this mean though? It means that audiences are more accustom to faster and tighter edited films with more movement as this has become the norm. This can be looked at many different ways; more options to a director should almost always be a good thing. It gives them more creative control over there work, which allows them to express themselves better. However, for a large majority it seems to have had the opposite effect. It has made them lazy; if shots are shorter and cameras have more movement framing becomes less important. What is in the frame also has the same effect, why spend a lot of time meticulously placing props when the image is going to he shown for a lot less time. This shift also has an interesting effect on the way in which we watch films and our gaze. With every cut our eyes need some time to adjust to the new shot. When a new shot is shown our eye will centre most of the time and then find the closest reference point; a characters face for example. However, when shots are longer it gives our eyes time to wander around the frame a pick up on smaller details. These smaller details are what separate the good from the great directors. It is what separates film from other mediums like books; if they are not being used to their full potential then neither is the medium. Something it else it does is highlight the acting quality or lack there of. Bad acting can be hidden in short shots, while great actors will thrive in longer shots. Slow films feel more peaceful; they wash over you and have a sort of meditative effect. The longer images with less moment make them burn images into your memory something that is much harder to achieve with shorter shots.

We will briefly look at two contemporary films from one of my favourite years in modern cinema 2007. There Will Be Blood by Paul Thomas Anderson with an average shot length of 13.3 (average for 1950) and No Country for Old Men by The Coen Brothers with an average shot length of 4.9 (average for 1990-2000). Both films are directed by masters of there craft but with different purposes and for different effects.

There Will Be Blood is a much slower building film, the pace of the shots gets shorter as the film goes on. The slow building nature allows the character study of Daniel Plainview to be highly effective. The longer shot length gives Daniel Day Lewis performance time to shine; we not only get more out of his dialogue because of this, but also pick up things from non dialogue. Looks and emotions that can only be expressed though longer takes and very good acting. The shots although long are far from boring, the framing is fantastic. Even when movement is used it is subtle and done with a purpose. This means that each and every shot within the film holds weight and feels important. The slow building of the film has a narrative correlation; it represents the slow building of wealth that Daniel is accumulating. It gives us time to think about and form opinions on Daniel. The plot is somewhat simplistic however this gives us time to study the broader themes within the film of capitalism and greed.

No Country for Old Men on the other hand differs a lot; the plot of the film is way more complex. The average shot length is closer to that of films released that year. However the film uses all the tools at its disposal, from much longer shots for some of the more sombre moments. To quick cutting when the film has more action. The sombre moments still give the audience time to think while mixing in the action keeps the audiences attention. This gives the film really good pacing as it keeps the audience on the edge of there seat at all times. The camera movements in There Will Be blood reframe shots; however the Coen’s movement is much simpler. They employ more stationary shots which emphasise the stillness of the setting. While a lot of the camera movements are simple zoom ins on characters. The acting across the board feels more like a level playing field with all performances being great. This does mean that no one actor is given the time to shine in the way Daniel Day Lewis is, also partly due to the shorter shot length.

Is the pace of a film inherent to its quality? It would be ludicrous to say that either of these styles is better. Each have their merits, it is about why they are used and for what purpose. There is no one size fits all to cinema; each piece must be looked at independently. There are good and bad films from both these styles. However, dismissing a film just because it is slow seems unfair. Audience members who do this will be limiting themselves a lot and will never be able to full appreciate everything that cinema has to offer.

Links and Further Reading:

ASL Index: http://www.cinemetrics.lv/database.php?all

James Cutting Article perception, attention, and the structure of Hollywood film: http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~jec7/curresearch.htm

Nerdwriter1’s One Way to Deconstruct There Will Be Blood – Or Any Movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KlopLcNC1Y