Intensified Continuity: Visual Style in Contemporary American Film

Author(s): David Bordwell

Source: Film Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 3 (Spring, 2002), pp. 16-28
Published by: University of California Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1213701
Accessed: 16/06/2010 18:12
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Film
Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
David Bordwell
Intensified
Continuity
V isual
S tyle
in
Contemporary
American F ilm
or manyofus, today'spopular Americancinema is
alwaysfast,
seldom
cheap,
and
usually
outofcon-
trol. Whatcomesto mind are endlessremakesand se-
quels, gross-out comedies,
overwhelming special
effects,
and
gigantic explosions
with the hero
hurtling
atthe camera
just
ahead ofa fireball.
Today'smovie,
we like to
say, plays
outlike itsown
coming
attrac-
tionstrailer.
Picking up
onthese
intuitions,
some schol-
ars
suggest
thatU.S . studio
filmmaking
since 1960 or
so hasentered a
"post-classical" period,
one
sharply
differentfromthe studio
era.'
Theyargue
thatthe
high-
concept blockbuster,
marketed inever more diverse
ways
and
appearing
in
many
media
platforms,
hascre-
ated a cinema ofnarrative incoherence and
stylistic
fragmentation.2
Yetthese
judgments
aren't
usually
based
upon
scrutiny
ofthe movies. S cholarswho have
analyzed
a
range
offilmshave
argued persuasively
thatinim-
portantrespects, Hollywood storytelling
hasn'tfun-
damentally
altered since the studio
days.3
If we
examine visual
style
over the last40
years,
Ithink
we're
compelled
to much the same conclusion. In
rep-
resenting space, time,
and narrative relations
(such
as
causal connections and
parallels), today's
films
gen-
erally
adhere to the
principles
ofclassical
filmmaking.
Exposition
and character
development
are handled in
much the
waysthey
would have beenbefore 1960.
F lashbacksand
ellipses
continue to be
momentarily
teasing
and
retrospectively
coherent. Credit
sequences,
openings,
and
montage sequences
can
displayflashy,
self-conscious
technique.
In
particular,
the
ways
in
which
today's
films
representspace overwhelmingly
adhere to the
premises
of"classical
continuity."
Es-
tablishing
and
reestablishing
shotssituate the actors
inthe locale. Anaxisofaction
governs
the actors' ori-
entationsand
eyelines,
and the shots, however differ-
entin
angle,
are takenfromone side ofthataxis. The
actors' movementsare matched acrosscuts, and asthe
scene
develops
the shots
get
closer to the
performers,
carrying
usto the heartofthe drama.4
S till, there have beensome
significant stylistic
changes
over the last40
years.
The crucial technical
devicesaren'tbrand
new-many go
back to the silent
cinema-but
recentlythey've
become
verysalient, and
they've
beenblended into a
fairly
distinct
style.
F ar
from
rejecting
traditional
continuity
inthe name of
fragmentation
and
incoherence,
the new
style
amounts
to an
intensification
ofestablished
techniques.
Inten-
sified
continuity
istraditional
continuityamped up,
raised to a
higher pitch
of
emphasis.
Itisthe dominant
style
ofAmericanmass-audience films
today.
S tylistic
Tactics
F our tacticsofcamerawork and
editing
seemto me
central to intensified
continuity.
S ome have beenre-
marked
uponbefore,
often
by
irritated
critics,
butmost
haven'tbeenconsidered
closely.
Above
all,
we haven't
sufficientlyappreciated
how these
techniques
work to-
gether
to constitute a distinctsetofchoices.
I. More
rapid editing
Everybody
thinksthatmoviesare
being
cutfaster
now,
buthow fastisfast? And faster
compared
to what?
Between1930 and
1960,
most
Hollywood
feature
films,
ofwhatever
length,
contained between300 and
700
shots, so the
average
shot
length (AS L)
hovered
around
eight
to elevenseconds. AnA-feature would
seldomboastanAS L oflessthansix
seconds;5
far
more commonwere filmswith
abnormallylong
takes.
F ilm
Quarterly,
V ol. no. 55, Issue no. 3,
pages
16-28. IS S N: 00 15-1 386. ?
2002
by
The
Regents
ofthe
University
ofCalifornia. All
rights
reserved. S end
requests
for
permission
to
reprint
to:
Rights
and Permissions,
University
ofCalifornia Press, JournalsDivision, 2000 Center S treet, S uite 303,
Berkeley,
CA 94704-1 223.
16
JohnS tahl'sBack S treet
(1932)
hasanAS L of19 sec-
onds,
while Otto
Preminger's
F allen
Angel (1945) av-
erages
33 seconds
per
shot.
Inthe mid- and late
1960s, several Americanand
British filmmakerswere
experimenting
with faster cut-
ting
rates.6
Many
studio-released filmsofthe
period
containAS Lsbetweensix and
eightseconds,
and some
have
significantly
shorter
averages: Goldfinger (1964)
at4.0
seconds; Mickey
One
(1965)
at
3.8;
The Wild
Bunch
(1969)
at
3.2;
and Head
(1968)
ata remarkable
2.7 seconds. Inthe
1970s,
whenmostfilmshad AS Ls
betweenfive and
eightseconds,
we find a
significant
number ofstill faster ones. Aswe'd
expect,
actionfilms
tended to be edited more
briskly
thanother
types(and
Peckinpah's
seemto have beencutfastestof
all7),
but
musicals, dramas, romances,
and comediesdidn'tnec-
essarily
favor
long
takes. The Candidate
(1972), Pete's
Dragon(1977), F reakyF riday(1977),
National Lam-
poon's
Animal House
(1978),
and Hair
(1979)
all have
AS Lsbetween4.3 and 4.9 seconds.
Midwaythrough
the
decade,
mostfilmsin
anygenre
included atleasta
thousand shots.
Inthe 1980sthe
tempo
continued to
pick up,
but
the filmmaker's
range
ofchoice narrowed
dramatically.
Double-digit AS Ls,
still found
during
the
1970s,
vir-
tually
vanished frommass-entertainmentcinema. Most
ordinary
filmshad AS Lsbetweenfive and sevensec-
onds,
and
many
films
(e.g.,
Raiders
of
the Lost
Ark,
1981;
Lethal
Weapon, 1987;
Who F ramed
Roger
Rab-
bit?,
1988) averaged
betweenfour and five seconds.
We also find several AS Lsinthe three-to-four second
range, mostly
inmovies influenced
by
music videos
and inaction
pictures,
such asPink
F loyd:
The Wall
(1982),
S treets
of
F ire
(1984), Highlander
(1986),
and
Top
Gun
(1986).
Atthe close ofthe
1980s,
many
filmsboasted 1500
shotsor more. There soonfollowed moviescontain-
ing
2000-3000
shots,
such asJF K
(1991)
and The Last
Boy
S cout
(1991). Bycentury'send,
the 3000-4000
shotmovie had arrived
(Armageddon, 1998; Any
Given
S unday, 1999). Manyaverage
shot
lengths
became as-
tonishingly
low. The Crow
(1994),
U-Turn
(1997),
and
S leepy
Hollow
(1999)
came inat2.7
seconds;
El Mari-
achi
(1993), Armageddon,
and S outh Park
(1999)
at
2.3
seconds;
and Dark
City(1998),
the fastest-cutHol-
lywood
filmI've
found,
at1.8 seconds. In1999 and
2000,
the AS L ofa
typical
filmin
anygenre
was
likely
to runthree to six seconds.8
Today,
mostfilmsare cutmore
rapidly
thanat
any
other time inU.S . studio
filmmaking. Indeed,
editing
rates
may
soonhita
wall;
it'shard to
imagine
a feature-
length
narrative movie
averaging
lessthan1.5 seconds
per
shot. Has
rapid cutting
therefore led to a
"post-clas-
sical" breakdownof
spatial continuity? Certainly,
some
action
sequences
are cutso fast(and staged
so
grace-
lessly)
asto be
incomprehensible.9 Nonetheless, many
fast-cut
sequences
do remain
spatiallycoherent, asin
the Die
Hard, S peed,
and Lethal
Weapon
movies. (The
illegibility
ofsome actionscenesis
partly
traceable to
misjudging
whatwill read well onthe
big screen, asI'll
suggestbelow.)
More
important,
no filmisone
long
actionse-
quence.
Mostscenes
presentconversations, and here
fast
cutting
is
applied principally
to shot/reverse-shot
exchanges.
How else could
OrdinaryPeople (1980)
attainanAS L of6.1
seconds, Ghost
(1991)
one of5.0
seconds,
and AlmostF amous
(2000)
one of3.9 sec-
onds? Editorstend to cutat
every
line and insertmore
reactionshotsthanwe would find inthe
period
1930-
1960.
Admittedly, bybuilding dialogue
scenes outof
brief
shots,
the new
style
hasbecome
slightly
more
elliptical, utilizing
fewer
establishing
shotsand
long-
held two-shots. AsKuleshov and Pudovkin
pointed
out, classical
continuity
containsbuilt-inredundancies:
shot/reverse shotsreiterate the informationaboutchar-
acter
positiongiven
inthe
establishing shot,
and so do
eyelines
and
body
orientation. F or the sake ofintensi-
fying
the
dialogue exchange,
filmmakershave omit-
ted some ofthe redundancies
provided byestablishing
shots. Atthe same
time, though,
fast-cut
dialogue
has
reinforced
premises
ofthe
180-degree staging system.
Whenshotsare so
short,
when
establishing
shotsare
briefor
postponed
or
nonexistent,
the
eyelines
and an-
gles
ina
dialogue
mustbe evenmore
unambiguous,
and the axisofactionmustbe
strictlyrespected.
2.
Bipolar
extremesoflens
lengths
F romthe 1910sto the
1940s,
the normal lensused in
feature
filmmaking
inthe U.S . had a focal
length
of
50mm, or two inches.
Longer lenses,
from100mmto
500mmor
more,
were
commonly
used for
close-ups,
particularly
soft-focus
ones,
and for
following
swift
actionata
distance,
such asanimalsinthe wild. S horter
(wide-angle) lenses,
commonly
25mmor
35mm, came
into use whenfilmmakerswanted
good
focusinseveral
planes
or full shotsofa
cramped setting. During
the
1930s,
cinematographersincreasingly
relied onwide-
angle lenses,
a trend
popularized by
CitizenKane
(1941),
and the normal lenswasthereafter redefined
asone of35mmfocal
length. By
the
early1970s,
many
anamorphic processes
allowed filmmakersto use wide-
angle lenses,
and the lens'scharacteristic
distorting
ef-
fects
(bulging
onthe frame
edges, exaggeration
of
17
I.
JerryMaguire:
As
Jerry,
now
fired, leaveshisoffice, a
telephoto
lens
provides
anextreme
long
shot
distancesbetween
foreground
and
background)
were
flaunted insuch influential PanavisionfilmsasCarnal
Knowledge (1971)
and Chinatown
(1974).10 Thereafter,
filmmakersused
wide-angle
lensesto
provide expan-
sive
establishing shots,
mediumshotswith
strong
fore-
ground/background interplay,
and
grotesque close-ups.
Roman
Polanski,
the Coen
brothers, BarryS onnenfeld,
and a few other filmmakersmade
wide-angle
lenses
the
mainstay
oftheir visual
design.
Evenmore filmmakers turned to the
long
lens.
Thanksto influential
European
filmslike A Manand a
Woman
(1966),
the
development
ofreflex
viewing
and
telephoto"l
and zoom
lenses,
aninflux ofnew directors
fromtelevisionand
documentary,
and other
factors,
directors
began
to use a
greatmany
more
long-lens
shots. S ince the
long
lens
magnifiesfairly
distantac-
tion,
the camera canbe
quite
far fromthe
subject,
and
this
proved advantageous
in
shooting
exteriorsonlo-
cation. Evenoninterior
sets, long
lensescould save
time,
and
multiple-camera shooting, becoming
more
popular
inthe
1970s,
often
required long
lenses in
order to
keep
camerasoutof
range
ofone another. The
long
lenscould
suggest
either a
documentary
imme-
diacy
or a
stylized flattening, making
characters
ap-
pear
to walk or runin
place
(asinthe famousshotof
Benjaminracing
to Elaine's
wedding
inThe Gradu-
ate, 1967).12
The
long-focus
lensbecame and hasremained an
all-purpose tool,
available to frame
close-ups,
medium
shots,
over-the-shoulder
shots,
and even
establishing
shots
(F igs. 1-2). Altman,
Milos
F orman,
and other di-
rectors
might
use
long
lensesfor
nearlyeverysetup
in
a scene. The new lenses
yielded
several
stylistic
2. ... followed
by
a closer
long
shot, also filmed
in
telephoto.
byproducts,
such asthe
"wipe-by"
cut.13 Here a
long-
lensshot
picks
outa
figure,
and then
something
closer
to the camera
(traffic,
a tree
being
dollied
past)
slides
into
view;
cutasour view is
completelymasked;
when
the obtrusionleavesthe
frame,
we have a closer fram-
ing
ofthe
figure (F igs. 3-5). S imilarly,
the
long
lens
encouraged
the self-conscious
rack-focusing
thatcame
to
prominence
inthe 1960sand thatinmore recent
years
hasbeenorchestrated with
figure
movementto
create
shifting compositions
in
depth (F igs. 6-8).
F romthe 1960s
onward, exploiting
the extremesof
lens
lengths
became a hallmark ofintensified continu-
ity.
F or Bonnie and
Clyde,
Arthur Pennused lenses
from9.8mmto 400mm
(1967).'4
S everal movie-brat
directors
appreciated
the
advantages
of
long
lensesbut
also wanted to maintainthe 1940straditionof
deep-
space shooting.
S o F rancisF ord
Coppola,
BrianDe
Palma,
and S teven
S pielberg freely
mixed
long-focus
and
wide-angle
lenseswithina
single
film.'5 Robert
Richardson, interviewing
for the
job
of
cinematogra-
pher
onOliver S tone'sS alvador
(1986),
recallsS tone
asking,
"Ihave
only
one
question
for
you.
Can
you
cut
a
long
lens with a
wide-angle
lens?" Richardson
thought,
"Are
youkidding?
Ofcourse
you
can. No
problem."16
3. More close
framings
in
dialogue
scenes
F romthe 1930swell into the
1960s,
directorsoften
played
outstretchesofscenes ina
planamericain,
which cutoffactorsatthe knee or
mid-thigh
level. This
framing
allowed for
lengthy
two-shots
favoring
the
players'
bodies. After the
1960s,
such two-shotswere
often
replaced by"singles":
mediumshotsor close-
18
upsshowing only
one
player.
Ofcourse
singles
were
also a common
optionduring
the studio
years,
butin
recentdecadesfilmmakershave beeninclined to build
scenes
largely
outof
singles. S ingles
allow the direc-
tor to
vary
the scene's
pace
in
editing
and to
pick
the
bestbitsofeach actor's
performance.17
Ifa scene relieson
rapidly
cut
singles,
the film-
maker mustfind fresh
ways
to
emphasize
certainlines
or facial reactions. The standard tactic isto differenti-
ate shot
scales,
but
again, post-1960s
filmmakersfaced
a
compressed range
of
options.
The 1940sfilmmaker
could treata
single figure
in
plan
americain,
medium
shot
(waist-up),
medium
close-up(chest-up),
standard
close-up(full face),
and extreme
close-up(part
ofthe
face).
As
plans
americainsand ensemble
framings
be-
came less
common,
the normswere
re-weighted;
in
many
filmsthe baseline
framing
for a
dialogue
became
3. Jaws: Ina
telephoto
shot, Chief
Brodyanxiously
scansthe surf.
4. A
figure entering
fromscreen
rightprovides
an"invisible"
wipe-by
cut
5. ...
revealing
a closer view of
Brody.
a
roomy
over-the-shoulder mediumshot. S o the film-
maker
began
to work
along
a narrower
scale,
from
mediumtwo-shotto extreme
close-upsingle.
Whenwidescreen
processes
were
introduced,
film-
makersoftenfelt
obliged
to
rely
on
long
shotsand
medium
shots,
but
by
the late
1960s,
thanks
partly
to
Panavison's
sharper,
less
distorting lenses,
directors
could
present
closer widescreen
framings. Indeed,
the
wide format
gives
close
singles
a real
advantage:
the
tendency
to
place
the actor'sface off-center leavesa
fair amountofthe scene'slocale
visible,
which lessens
the need for
establishing
and
reestablishing long
shots.
Whenactors
change position,
a
reestablishing
shot
may
notbe needed: with
tightframings, performer
move-
mentisoftena matter of
"clearing"
a mediumshot.
(Actor
A exitsinthe
foreground, passing
infrontof
B;
hold onB for a momentbefore we cutto A
arriving
in
6. LA
Confidential:
Ina
long-lens
two-shot,
Exley
tells
his
captain
he'll break the
suspects.
7. Ashe turnsand
pausesdeterminedly,
we rack
focusto him.
8. He exits,
and a
slightreframing
downward discloses
the
skeptical
V incennesinthe
background.
19
another medium
shot.)
Now the
long
shotoftenserves
to
punctuate
a scene, demarcating phases
ofthe action
or
providing
a visual beatwhich
close-ups,
because of
their
frequency,
no
longer muster.'8 Indeed, the scene's
mostdistant
framing may
well come atthe
veryend,
asa caesura.
Most
important,
the
pressure
toward closer views
hasnarrowed the
expressive
resources available to
performers.
Inthe studio
years,
a filmmaker would
rely
onthe actor'swhole
body,
butnow actorsare
principally
faces.19 F or
AnthonyMinghella, "dynamic
blocking"
meansnot
choreographing
several
players
ina wide view but
letting
one
player step
into close-
up.20 Mouths, brows,
and
eyes
become the
principal
sourcesofinformationand
emotion,
and actorsmust
scale their
performances
across
varying degrees
ofin-
timate
framings.
The faster
cutting rate,
the
bipolar
extremesoflens
lengths,
and the reliance on
tightsingles
are the most
pervasive
featuresofintensified
continuity: virtually
everycontemporary
mainstreamfilmwill exhibitthem.
Although
I've isolated these factorsfor ease of
expo-
sition,
each tendsto
cooperate
with the others.
Tighter
framingspermit
faster
cutting. Long
lenses
pick
out
figures
for
rapid
one-on-one
editing.
The rack-focus
doeswithinthe shotwhat
cutting
doesbetweenshots:
itrevealsareasofinterest
successively(rather
thansi-
multaneously,
asinthe
deep-focus
classicsofWelles
and
Wyler).
All these
options
caninturn
support
a
fourth
technique.
4. A
free-ranging
camera
Whenwe do find
longer
takesand fuller
framings,
the
camera is
usually
inmotion. Camera movement be-
came a
mainstay
of
popular
cinema with the
coming
of
sound,
seennot
only
inthe
flamboyant tracking
or
crane shotwhich often
opened
the movie butalso in
those subtle
reframings
leftand
right
which
kept
the
characterscentered.
Today's
camera movements are
ostentatiousextensionsofthe camera
mobilitygener-
alized
during
the 1930s.
There
is,
for
example,
the
prolonged following
shot,
where we track a character
moving along
a
lengthypath.
These virtuoso shotswere
developed
in
the
1920s, became
prominent
atthe startofsound cin-
ema (The
ThreepennyOpera, 1931;
S carface, 1932,
and the
like),
and formed the
stylistic signature
of
Ophuls
and Kubrick. Bravura
following
shotsbecame
a fixed feature ofthe work of
S corsese,
John
Carpen-
ter,
De
Palma,
and other New
Hollywood
directors.
Partly
because ofthese influential
figures,
and thanks
to
lighter
camerasand stabilizerslike S teadicam, the
shot
pursuing
one or two charactersdowncorridors,
through
roomafter room, indoorsand outdoorsand
back
again,
hasbecome
ubiquitous.21
The same
thing
has
happened
with the crane shot, which
formerly
marked a film'sdramatic
high point
butwhich now
servesascasual embellishment. Itenlivens
montage
sequences
and
expository
moments: froma
high angle,
a scene
opens
with a car
arriving,
and thenwe crane
downassomeone
gets
outand walksto a
building.
"If
somebodygoes
for a
piss
these
days,"
Mike
F iggis
re-
marks,
"it's
usually
a crane shot."22
Today's
camera
prowls
evenif
nothing
else
budges.23 S lowly
or
swiftly,
the camera will track
up
to
a
player's
face
(the "push-in"). Push-insnot
only
un-
derscore a momentofrealizationbutalso build con-
tinuous
tension, aswhena shot/reverse-shot
passage
ishandled
byintercutting
two
push-ins.
The master
shotwill oftenbe an
inching
track forward or
sidewise,
the
"moving
master." Or the camera
may
arc
slowly
around a
single
actor or a
couple.24
A commonvariant
isto starta
sequence
with an
arcing
or
sidelong
move-
ment
past
a
foreground element,
a
building
or car or
tree,
with the camera
revealing
the
subject.
Whereasa
1930sscene
mightopen
ona
close-up
ofa
significant
object
and track
back,
contemporary
filmmakers
begin
with an
inconsequential part
ofthe set
and,
asifa cur-
tainwere
pulled aside,
the camera
glides
leftward or
rightward
to unmask the action.
By
the
mid-1990s,
a
very
common
way
to
present
people gathered
around
any
table-dinner
table,
card
table,
operating
table-was
byspiralling
around them.
The
circling
shots
might
be
long
takes
(the
sisters' lun-
cheoninHannah and Her
S isters, 1985)
or briefshots
(the
diner
opening
ofReservoir
Dogs, 1992).
The arc-
ing
camera also became a cliched meansof
showing
lovers
embracing (perhaps
asa
borrowing
fromV er-
tigo).
De Palma
gave
the
rotating
clinch anoverblown
treatmentinObsession
(1976),25
and itwas
parodied
in
Being
There
(1979),
when
Chauncy
Gardener learns
how to kiss
bywatching
a TV
couple embracing
ina
florid
360-degree tracking
shot.
Asa
figure
of
style,
the
free-ranging
camera
may
have been
popularized by
the late 1970shorror films
which
implied
thata
hovering, slightlyshaky
camera
mightrepresent
the monster's
point
ofview. Butthe
device
certainlypredates
the horror
cycle,
since un-
easilysidling
shotscanbe found inBullitt
(1968),
Chinatown, The
Long Goodbye (1973),
and All the
President'sMen
(1976).
Paul S chrader haseven
sug-
gested
thatunmotivated camera
movement,
so
promi-
nentin
European
directorslike
Bertolucci, became the
hallmark ofhis
generation
ofU.S . directors.26
Today,
20
everyone presumes
thata
long take, evena
long shot,
is
unlikely
to be a static one.
There ismore to
contemporary
film
style than
these
devices; a
complete inventory
would have to con-
sider atleastaxial
cut-ins,
desaturated and monochro-
matic color
schemes,
slow
motion,
and handheld
shooting.
And notall filmmakershave assimilated
the
style
inall
respects.
Like other S tar Wars
installments,
Episode
I: The PhantomMenace
(1999)
iscut
quite
fast,27 butitavoids
ultra-tightframings
and the roam-
ing
camera.
Baby-boomer
Lucasstickscloser to mid-
1960s
stylistic
normsthanto those of
Armageddon
and
The Matrix
(1999). Bycontrast,
M.
NightS hamalyan
employstoday'sframing techniques
but
keeps
hisshots
unusuallylengthy(18.2
seconds in
Unbreakable,
2000). Nonetheless,
takenasa
cluster,
these four tech-
niques
constitute
prominent
and
pervasive
featuresof
the current
style.
AnInternational Baseline
The
regularities
I've
plotted
are
fairlygeneral;
further
research could refine our sense ofhow
theydeveloped.
Evidently
the
style
didn't
crystallize
all atonce. Cut-
ting
accelerated
during
the
1960s,
whenthe
long
lens
and
flagrantrack-focusing
also became more common.
The reliance onmore
singles,
closer
views,
and wide-
ranging
camera movementsseemsto have
developed
in
sporadic
fashion
during
the 1960sand 1970s.
By
the
early1980s,
these
techniquescrystallized
into the
style
of
today,
and successful filmslike
S uperman
(1978),
Raiders
of
the LostArk
(1981), Body
Heat
(1981),
and Tootsie
(1982) probably
made itattractive.
Intensified
continuity
came to be takenfor
granted
in
film-school curricula and handbooks. Daniel
Arijon's
Grammar
of
the F ilm
Language,
a manual which
pro-
fessional directorssometimes consult in
planning
a
scene,
is
virtually
a
compendium
of the
emerging
staging
and
cutting styles.28
Later manuals
incorporate
instructionson
sidewinding
camera movements.29
S eenfromanother
angle, though,
the intensified
approach
hasan
ancestrystretching
back several
decades. A late silentfilmlike
BeggarsofLife (1928)
looksmuch like
today's
movies:
rapid cutting, dialogue
played
in
tightsingles, free-ranging
camera move-
ments. Kuleshov and
Pudovkin, with their insistence on
suppressing establishing
shotsinfavor offacial close-
ups,
ineffect
promoted
an
early
versionofintensified
continuity,30
and
today's
wilder
tracking
and
panning
shotsrecall those ofAbel Gance
(Napoleon, 1927)
and
Marcel L'Herbier
(L'Argent, 1928).
Whensound came
in,
bulky
camerasand
recording equipment
discour-
aged
fast
cutting
and flexible camera movements. With
the camera so difficultto move, even
just
to
change
setups,
directorswere inclined to
capture
the scene in
longish
takes. Thishabitremained in
place
for decades.
Inthe
1960s, it
seems, popular filmmaking began
to
recover some ofthe
fluidity
and
pace
ofsilentmovies.
I've concentrated onmass-market cinema, but
filmsoutside the mainstreamdon't
necessarilyreject
intensified
continuity.
Inmost
respects,
AllisonAn-
ders, Alan
Rudolph,
John
S ayles,
David
Cronenberg,
and other U.S .
independents
subscribe to the
style.
The
major distinguishing
mark of
off-Hollywood
directors
is
greater average
shot
length. QuentinTarantino, Hal
Hartley,
and WhitS tillman
typically
work with AS Ls
of
eight
to twelve
seconds, while
Billy
Bob
Thorton's
S ling
Blade
(1996)
hasa remarkable AS L of23.3 sec-
onds.
Long
takesaren'ttoo
surprising
inthe lower-
budgetsector; apart
fromanaesthetic commitmentto
centering
onthe
performances,
directorswho
planlong
takes
carefully
canshoot
quickly
and
cheaply.
Inter-
estingly, though,
whenan
independent goes
main-
stream,
the
cutting
is
likely
to accelerate. Jim
Jarmusch
moved fromthe one-take scenesof
S tranger
thanPar-
adise
(1984)
to
steadily
shorter AS Ls
(MysteryTrain,
1989: 23
seconds;
Night
on
Earth, 1991: 11.3
seconds;
Dead
Man, 1995: 8.2
seconds; Ghost
Dog.
The
Way
of
the
S amurai, 1999: 6.8
seconds).
Many
moviesmade outside North America use the
same
expressive
tactics I've
highlighted.
Werner
Herzog (Aguirre:
The Wrath
ofGod, 1972),
Rainer
Werner F assbinder
(e.g.,
Chinese
Roulette, 1976;
V eronika
V oss, 1982),
and cinema dulook directors
like
Jean-Jacques
Beineix
(Diva, 1981)
and LeosCarax
(Mauvais
S ang, 1986) employed
intensified
continuity
devices as
they
were
emerging
in
Hollywood.
The
techniques
canbe found inLuc Besson'sLa F emme
Nikita
(1990),
Jane
Campion's
Portrait
of
a
Lady
(1996),
Tom
Tykwer's
RunLola Run
(1998),
and sev-
eral ofNeil Jordan'sfilms. More
broadly,
intensified
continuity
hasbecome a touchstone for the
popular
cinema ofother countries. The new
style
wasa boon
for
marginal filmmaking nations;
close-ups,
fastcut-
ting,
sinuoushandheld camera
moves,
long
lenseson
location,
and scenesbuiltoutof
singles
were
friendly
to small
budgets.
In
Hong Kong during
the
1980s,
John
Woo and Tsui Hark reworked Western
norms, creat-
ing
a
flamboyantstyle
thatamountsto anintensifica-
tionofanintensification.31 In1999 a mass-marketfilm
fromThailand
(Nang Nak),
Korea
(S hiri;
Tell Me
S omething), Japan(Monday),
or
England (Lock, S tock,
and Two
S moking Barrels)
was
likely
to
display
all the
marksofintensified
continuity.
Itisnow the baseline
21
style
for both international mass-marketcinema and a
sizable fractionof
exportable
"artcinema."
S ome
Likely
S ources
What created this
stylistic change?
We
might be
tempted
to look to broad cultural
developments. Per-
haps
audiencestrained on
television,
computer games,
and the Internetcanabsorb
rapidly
cutmoviesmore
easily
thanearlier
generations?
Yetthere remainsthe
factthat
during
the silentera viewerswere
perfectly
able to assimilate AS Lsoffour seconds or less. As
often
happens,
we canfind the most
proximate
and
plausible
causesinnew
technology,
craft
practices,
and
institutional circumstances.
S ome
aspects
ofthe new
style
stemfromthe
per-
ceived demands of television
presentation.
Cine-
matographer
Phil Meheux remarks:
It'sa shame thatmostfilms
rely
so much on
tightclose-ups
all the
time,
filling
the screen
with anactor'shead like
youmight
for televi-
sion,
whenthere isso much more than
you
can
show. The
style
is
reallyjust
a resultofwhat
producers
wantfor video release.32
The belief thattelevisionfavorsmediumshotsand
close-ups
hasbeena
commonplace
in
industry
dis-
course for decades.33 One could add that
television,
usually
watched ina
distracting environment,
needsto
hold the viewer's attention
by
a
constantlychanging
visual
display-if
not
cuts,
thencamera movements. A
1968 TV
production
manual recommends thata di-
rector should seek out"animated visuals": "Can
you
dolly
into contractand concentrate the interest?
Dolly
outto
expand
the field ofinterest? Panfromone
part
ofthe
subject
to another? Arc around itfor a
progres-
sivelychanging
view?"34
It'salso
significant
thatTV
cutting
accelerated over
the same
years
thatfilm
cutting
did. Before the
1960s,
many
filmed TV
programs
had AS Lsoftensecondsor
more,
butinthe decadessince thenIcanfind no AS Ls
averaging
more than7.5 seconds. Most
programs
fall
inthe five-sevensecond AS L
range,
and a few
(1960s
"Dragnet" episodes,
"Moonlighting")
runbetween
three and five seconds.
(Ofcourse,
TV commercials
tend to be cutevenfaster: AS Lsof 1-2 seconds are
commonfor 15- and 30-second
spots.) Perhapscutting
ratesaccelerated
independently
inthe two
media,
but
wheninthe 1960sstudios
beganselling
their
post-1948
filmsto broadcast
networks, filmmakersknew thatall
theatrical featureswould wind
up
on
television,
and
this
may
have
encouraged
themto
stepup
the
cutting
pace. Reciprocally, rapid editing
ininfluential
early
1960sfilms
may
have
provided
a model for television
(particularly
commercialsand showslike "The Mon-
kees" and "Rowan& Martin's
Laugh-In"),
which in
turn
encouraged
theatrical filmsto be cutfaster.35
Televisioninfluenced the intensified
style
atother
levelstoo. F ilmhas
long
recruited directorstrained in
television,
so we
ought
to
expectstylistic carryovers.36
S ince the
1980s, flashytechnique
hasmade
TV -proven
directorsattractive to film
producers.
"These
guys,"
noted an
agent,
"are
risky
betsbut
they
offer a
higher
stylistic yield."37
Justas
important, many
new tech-
nologies
have
preformatted
a theatrical filmfor tele-
vision.
Complex
scenesare
"previsualized"
onvideo or
digital software, and actors' auditionsare
videotaped.38
The S teadicam'sviewfinder isa video monitor. Inthe
late
1970s,
filmcrews
began
to
rely
onthe video
assist,
which allowsthe director and
cinematographer
to re-
hearse scenesand watch a shotasitis
being
taken. The
processyields
animmediate readoutofthe
scene, but
video-assisted
shots,
lacking
indetail and framed for
the TV
format, may
favor loose
compositions
over
pre-
cise ensemble
staging.39
V ideo-based
editing,
firston
tape
or laserdisc and now on
computer,
isanother
way
to
shape
the
image
for television. Walter Murch notes
thateditorsmust
gauge
how faceswill look ona small
monitor:
The
determining
factor for
selecting
a
partic-
ular shotis
frequently,
"Can
youregister
the
expression
inthe actor's
eyes?"
If
youcan't,
you
will tend to use the nextcloser
shot,
even
though
the wider shot
may
be more thanade-
quate
whenseenonthe
big
screen.40
In
sum, video-based
production
tools
may
have rein-
forced filmmakers' inclinationto
emphasize singles
and closer
views, which are more
legible
invideo dis-
plays
all
along
the line.41
As
strong
aninfluence astelevisionwasoninten-
sified
continuity,
itis
probably
one ofseveral. We
shouldn't
forget
the
example
of
prestigious
filmmak-
erssuch asWelles and
Hitchcock, whose works
abound inthe
techniques
thatwould coalesce into in-
tensified
continuity.
Inthe 1960sand
1970s,
Bergman
and Cassavetes
proved
that
tightclose-ups
looked fine
inwidescreenformats.
S ergio
Leone did the
same,
along
with
flaunting
extreme lens
lengths
and
soaring
camera movements.
Peckinpah
and other 1960sdi-
rectorsshowed that
very
fast
editing
was
feasible, par-
ticularly
ifone were to alternate
already-seensetups
in
ABACABCfashion.
During
the
1970s, Altman
freely
intercut
"creeping zooms,"
prefigurations
ofthe omni-
22
presentpush-ins
of
today.42
Certaincanonized films
have
probably
had some influence too. The
great
set
pieces
offilm
history
tend to consistof
rapid-fire
mon-
tages(the
Odessa
S tepssequence,
the shower assault
in
Psycho,
the
opening
and
closing carnage
ofThe Wild
Bunch)
or virtuoso
following
shots
(the party
scene in
Rules
of
the
Game,
the ball inThe
Magnificent
Am-
bersons, the
opening
ofTouch
ofEvil).
The media'scelebrationof
rapid cutting may
have
made filmmakersfear thatstatic
long
takeswere outof
sync
with the audience. In1990 S corsese reflected rue-
fully,
"I
guess
the main
thing
that's
happened
inthe
past
ten
years
isthatthe sceneshave to be
quicker
and
shorter.
[GoodF ellas]
issortof
my
versionofMTV
... buteventhat'sold-fashioned."43
Rapid cutting
also
seemsto stemfrom
producers'
insistence thatthere be
many
alternative takesfor
postproductionadjustments.
While A-listdirectorscan
argue
thata
flashytracking
shotcan
complete
several
scriptpagesefficiently,
there
are
manypressures
toward
multiplying
choicesinthe
editing
room. Even
independent producers
demand
coverage:
Christine
V achon,
for
example,
asksdirec-
torsto shootboth master shotsand closer
views, agree-
ing
with her editor's
complaint
that
"inexperienced
directorsare oftendrawnto
shooting important
dra-
matic scenesina
single
continuoustake-a 'macho'
style
thatleavesno
way
of
changing pacing
or
helping
unsteadyperformances."44 (F or
anolder view ofthe
gendering
of
style, compare
OrsonWelles: "A
long-
playing
full shotiswhat
alwaysseparates
the menfrom
the
boys."45) Againstproducers' advice,
S tevenS oder-
bergh initially
shotthe trunk scene inOut
ofS ight
(1998)
ina
single take,
buthe learned hisKuleshovian
lessonwhenhe saw the
preview
audience's interest
flag
atthatmoment. "WhatIshould have understood
isthat
every
time
you
cut
away
and came
back, you
bought
so
much, because the audience filled inthe
gap
for
you."46
Changing productionpractices
also made intensi-
fied
continuity
a
good
solutionto
particular problems.47
I've
already
mentioned how
long
lenses
helped
in
shooting
onlocationand
suggesting
a
documentary
look. As
production
schedules
got
shorter inthe
1970s,
directors
began
to filmmuch more
coverage, protecting
one-take sceneswith
cutaways.
The
prowling
shotwas
certainly
facilitated
by
1970s
body-braced
cameraslike
Panaflex, S teadicam,
and
Panaglide.
The
lightweight
Louma crane and later airborne remote-controlled cam-
erassuch as
S kyCam
made
swooping
boomshots
easy.
F ast
cutting
was
encouraged bytape-based editing
in
the
early
1980s
(used
chiefly
inmusic videosand the
filmsinfluenced
bythem)
and then
by
the arrival of
digital editing systems. Cutting very
briefshotsoncel-
luloid islabor-intensive and
complicated,
since trims
only
a few frames
long
can
easilygo astray. By
cut-
ting
on
computer,
filmmakerscan
easily
shave shots
frame
byframe,
a
process
knownas
"frame-fucking."48
F rame-fucking
isone reasonsome action
sequences
don'tread well onthe
big
screen. After
cutting
the car
chase fromThe Rock on
computer,
Michael
Bay
saw
it
projected,
decided thatitwent
by
too fast, and had
to "de-cut" it.49 "We see faster
rhythmseverywhere,"
remarksS teven
Cohan,
who edited one ofthe first
dig-
itally
cut
features,
LostinYonkers
(1993),
"which isat
least
partially
due to the factthatwe now have the tools
to make thatkind of
editing easy."50
S hot
scale, lens
length,
and
editing pace
were also
probably
affected
by
the demand for
multiple-camera
filming.
F romthe
early
1930sto the
early1960s, film-
makers
usually
worked with
just
one
camera, retaking
portions
ofthe scene fromdifferent
positions. Multiple-
camera
shooting
was
usually
reserved for
unrepeatable
actionssuch as
fires,
collapsing buildings,
or vehicles
plunging
offcliffs.51 Influenced
byKurosawa,52 1960s
directorslike Pennand
Peckinpah
shotscenesofcar-
nage
with several camerasfitted with
verylong
lenses.
Inthe 1960sand
1970s,
whenlocation
shooting
and
tight
schedules
required
faster
work, many
directors
beganusing multiple
camerasto cover
ordinary
dia-
logue
aswell. F or The F ormula
(1980),
several of
MarlonBrando'ssceneswere filmed with two cam-
eras. "When
youget
someone like that
earning big
dol-
lars
by
the
day,
there'sa lotof
pressure
to finish scenes
as
quickly
as
possible.
The second camera
helped
usdo
that."53 As
producers
demanded more
coverage,
extra
cameras
provided it,
which inturnmade the editor
more
likely
to assemble the scene outof
singles
taken
from
manyangles. Happily,
the new
lighter
cameras
were more maneuverable inmulti-camera situations.
During
the
1980s,
the B camera was
frequently
a
S teadicam,
roaming
the setfor
coverage,
and the flu-
idity
ofitsmovementsaround static actors
may
have
made
circling
shotsand
push-ins good
candidates
for inclusioninthe final cut.
By
the time Gladiator
(2000)
was
made,
a
dialogue
would be filmed
by
as
many
asseven
cameras,
some ofthemS teadicams. "I
was
thinking,"
the director of
photographyexplained,
"'someone has
got
to be
getting something good."'54
The search for
"something good"
ateach
instant,
from
a wide
range
of
angles,
will
predispose
filmmakersto
cutoften.
We could consider other causal
factors,
such asthe
influence of
machine-guncoming-attractionstrailers,
buta
particularlyintriguing possibility
is
changing
23
exhibition circumstances. BenBrewster and Lea
Jacobshave
suggested
thatinthe
period 1908-1917,
ascinema moved fromvaudeville housesto dedicated
venues,
screens
gotsmaller;
inorder to seemcorre-
spondinglylarger,
actorswere filmed fromcloser
positions.55
WilliamPaul has
argued
thatsimilar exhi-
bition
pressures
inthe 1920sinclined filmmakers
to
use more
close-ups.56
With the
twinning
and
plexing
of
the
1970s,
screensshrank
again,
and
perhaps
film-
makers
intuitively
moved toward
bigger faces, assum-
ing
aswell thatfaster
cutting
would read
adequately
on
smaller
multiplex
screens.
The AestheticsofIntensified
Continuity
All these circumstanceswarrantdetailed
inquiry,
and
they
need to be
integrated
with an
analysis
of
chang-
ing
sound and color
practices.
Butletthe
foregoing
stand asa broad outline. Whatconcernsme now are the
consequences
ofthe new
style.
Whataesthetic
possi-
bilitiesdoesit
openup
or foreclose?
Contrary
to claimsthat
Hollywood style
hasbe-
come
post-classical,
we are still
dealing
with a variant
ofclassical
filmmaking.
An
analysis
of
virtuallyany
filmfromthe
period
I've
picked
outwill confirma
simple
truth:
nearly
all scenesin
nearly
all
contempo-
rary
mass-marketmovies(and inmost
"independent"
films)
are
staged, shot,
and cut
according
to
principles
which
crystallized
inthe 1910sand 1920s. Intensified
continuity
constitutesa selectionand elaborationof
options already
onthe classical
filmmaking
menu.
Building
a scene outof
tight, rapidly
cut
singles
was
a
strategyadopted by
some B-filmmakers
(e.g.,
James
Tinling,
for Mr. Moto's
Gamble, 1938),
aswell as
by
Hitchcock. Autonomouscamera movementwaslike-
wise an
option, although
itwas
traditionally
reserved
for momentsof
high drama,
not
perfunctory
under-
scoring.
The
long
lenshad beenused for
close-ups
since the
1920s,
so itcould be
appropriated
for other
shotscales.
Granted, today
we find some untraditional mo-
ments-incoherent action
scenes,
jump-cutmontage
sequences.
Granted
too,
some moviemakers
play
more
daringly
onthe
fringes.
Oliver S tone's
post-JF K
films
are
probably
the most
disjunctive
made in
Hollywood,
intercutting
color and
black-and-white,
replaying shots,
inserting
anoccasional
long
shot
crossing
the axisof
action. ButS tone'saberrationsstand outas
such,
mo-
mentary
deviations froma
still-powerful
cluster of
normsto which evenhe
mostly
adheres.
I
don't, however,
wantto leave the
impression
that
nothing
has
changed.
Intensified
continuityrepresents
a
significant
shiftwithinthe
history
of
moviemaking.
Most
evidently,
the
style
aimsto
generate
a keenmo-
ment-by-moment anticipation. Techniques
which
1940sdirectorsreserved for momentsofshock and
suspense
are the stuffofnormal scenes
today.
Close-
ups
and
singles
make the shots
verylegible. Rapid
edit-
ing obliges
the viewer to assemble discrete
pieces
of
information,
and itsetsa
commanding pace:
look
away
and
youmight
missa
keypoint.
Inthe
alternating
close
views,
inthe
racking
focusand the
edgilydrifting
cam-
era, the viewer is
promised something significant,
or at
least
new,
ateach instant.
Television-friendly,
the
style
triesto rivetthe viewer to the screen.57 Here isanother
reasonto call itintensified
continuity:
even
ordinary
scenesare
heightened
to
compel
attentionand
sharpen
emotional resonance.
One resultisanaesthetic ofbroad butforceful
effects, often
showing
strainbutsometimessummon-
ing up
considerable
power.
The schemasofintensified
continuity
canbe handled inrich and varied
ways,
as
the filmsofJonathan
Demme, S pike Lee, David
Lynch,
John
McTieran, and Michael Mannillustrate. We have
subdued, tasteful versions
(Nora Ephron,
Ron
Howard,
F rank
Darabont,
AnthonyMinghella),
more
pumped-
up
ones
(the
Bruckheimer
films),
and even
parodically
deliriousones
(S amRaimi,
the Coen
brothers). Hong
Kong
directorshave
explored
the
style
with
particular
acuity. TonyLeung
Chiu-wai's
abruptentry
into the
MacaurestaurantinPatrick Yau'sThe
Longest
Nite
(1998)
and the
wineglass-breaking competition
in
Johnnie To'sA Hero Never Dies
(1998)
make
bold,
preciselychoreographed passages
ofintensified conti-
nuitymesmerizing.
F romanother
perspective,
the
premises
ofthe intensified
approach
canbe recastmore
ascetically.
Hal
Hartley,
for
instance,
uses
big
close-
ups
and
push-ins
to create
unexpected staging patterns.
Todd
Haynes' S afe (1995) heightens
the
artificiality
of
the
style byinjecting
small dosesofitinto a texture
thatfavorsstatic
long
shotsand
slight,
rather
geomet-
rical camera movements.
But
everystyle
excludescertain
options,
and in-
tensified
continuity
hascutitself offfromsome re-
sourcesofclassical
filmmaking.
F or one
thing,
asthe
range
of
likely
shot
lengths
has
narrowed, mainstream
directorshave been
discouraged
from
making
a two-
hour filmoutoffewer thanfive hundred shots. It'snot
thathe or she can'tuse a
long
take-indeed a
couple
ofthemseemde
rigueur
in
every
film-but a movie
built
primarily
outof
prolonged
shotsis
very
rare in
today'sHollywood. (S ignificantly,
Unbreakable's
long
takes
provided product
differentiationfor its
publicity
campaign.58)
24
F urther, byconcentrating
oncamerawork and edit-
ing, practitioners
ofintensified
continuity
have ne-
glected
ensemble
staging.
Two
staging options
have
come to dominate current
practice.
There'swhatfilm-
makerscall "stand and
deliver," where the actorsset-
tle into
fairly
fixed
positions. Usually
thisishandled in
singles
and over-the-shoulder
angles,
butwe
mayget
instead the
floating-head treatment,
with the charac-
tersfixed in
place
and the camera
drifting
around them.
Ineither
case,
ifthe charactersshiftto another
part
of
the
setting,
their movementisn't
usuallyaiming
atex-
pressive effect;
it'sa transitionto another
passage
of
stand-and-deliver. The alternative
staging option
is
"walk-and-talk,"
with a S teadicam
carrying
us
along as
characters
spit
out
exposition
onthe
fly.
Both stand-
and-deliver and walk-and-talk were used inthe studio
years,
of
course,
butso was
complex blocking,
asin
Lang's
and
Preminger'sdelicatelychanging
two-shots
or
Wyler'scheckerboarding
of
figures
in
depth.
S uch
blocking, however,
hasall butvanished from
popular
cinema.
PerhapsonlyWoodyAllen,
with hisavoid-
ance of
close-ups
and his
verylong
takes
(anAS L of
22 seconds for
Manhattan, 1979; 35.5 seconds for
MightyAphrodite, 1995),
offersanecho ofthistradi-
tion.59 "Inthe old
days,"
a
Hollywood agent
remarked
to
me, "directorsmoved their actors. Now
they
move
the camera."
With the lossofensemble
staging
comesa
greater
constraintonactors'
performances.
The
contemporary
stresson
close-ups
isnot
that, say,
ofthe Russianmon-
tage filmmakers,
who filled their filmswith
hands, feet,
and
props
in
dynamic
relationto the actors. Inintensi-
fied
continuity,
the face is
privileged, especially
the
mouth and
eyes.
Ifhandsare
used,
they
are
typically
brought up
toward the
head,
to be inthatcrucial
mediumshotor
close-up.
We lose whatCharlesBarr
calls,
inhisfundamental
essay
on
CinemaS cope,
graded emphasis.60 Eyes
have
always
beencentral to
Hollywood cinema,61
but
usuallythey
were accom-
panied by
cues
emanating
fromthe
body.
Performers
could
express
emotion
through posture, stance,
car-
riage, placement
of
arms,
and eventhe
angling
ofthe
feet. Actorsknew how to rise fromchairswithout
using
their handsto
leverage themselves,
to
pour
drinks
steadily
for
manyseconds,
to
give away
nervousness
byletting
a
fingertip
twitch.
Physiques (beefed-up,
semi-nude)
are more
franklyexposed
thanever
before,
but
they
seldom
acquire grace
or emotional
signifi-
cance. In
popular cinema,
it's
again
the
Hong Kong
filmmakerswho have best
integrated
intensified con-
tinuity
with a
respect
for the kinesisand
expressivity
ofhumanbodies.62
F inally,
intensified
continuity
hasendowed films
with
quite
overtnarration. Classical studio
filmmaking
wasnever
wholly"transparent": figures
intwo-shots
were
usuallyslightlypivoted
to the audience, and there
were
alwayspassages(montage sequences, beginnings
and
endings
of
scenes,
beginnings
and
endings
offilms)
which
acknowledged
thatthe scene was
addressing
a
spectator.
Yet
gestures
which earlier filmmakerswould
have considered
flagrantlyself-conscious-arcing
cam-
era, big close-ups,
the flourishesofa Wellesor Hitch-
cock-have become defaultvaluesin
ordinary
scenes
and minor movies.
Interestingly,
thismore outre tech-
nique
doesn't
prevent
usfrom
comprehending
the
story.
Having
become accustomed to a new overtnessofnar-
ration,
we seemto have set the threshold for ob-
trusiveness
higher.
And like earlier
generations
of
spectators,
we can
appreciate displays
of
virtuosity-
the
legerdemain
of
wipe-bycuts, the
soaring
exhila-
rationof
S kyCams.
F or such
reasons, the new
style
suggests
thatwe can't
adequately
describe the viewer's
activity
with
spatial metaphors
like
"absorption"
and
"detachment." At
anymoment, stylistic
tactics
may
come
forward, butviewersremaininthe
grip
ofthe ac-
tion. The mannerismof
today's
cinema would seemto
ask its
spectators
to take a
high degree
ofnarrational
overtness for
granted,
to leta few familiar devices
amplify
each
point,
to revel instill more
flamboyant
displays
of
technique-all
the while
surrendering
to
the
story'sexpressive
undertow. Itwould notbe the
firsttime audienceshave beenasked to
enjoy
overt
play
with formwithout
sacrificing depth
ofemotional
ap-
peal. Baroque
music and Rococo architecture come to
mind,
asdo Ozuand
Mizoguchi.
The
triumph
ofin-
tensified
continuity
remindsusthatas
styleschange,
so do
viewing
skills.
David Bordwell is
Jacques
Ledoux Professor ofF ilmS tud-
iesatthe
University
ofWisconsin-Madison. Hismostre-
centbook isPlanet
Hong Kong: Popular
Cinema and the Art
of
Entertainment.
Notes
This
essay
hasbenefited fromthe commentsof
Doug Battema,
Julie
D'Acci, Nietzchka
Keene, Jason
Mittell, and Jennifer
Wang.
Noel
Carroll, KelleyConway,
Paul
Ramaeker,
Jeff
S mith,
Kristin
Thompson,
and Malcolm
Turvey
offered detailed
sug-
gestions
onearlier drafts.
1. The idea of
Hollywood
"classicism" is
presented
at
length
inDavid
Bordwell, Janet
S taiger,
and Kristin
Thompson,
The Classical
Hollywood
Cinema: F ilm
S tyle
and Mode
of
Productionto 1960
(New York: Columbia
University
Press, 1985).
25
2. F or
example,
several
essays
in
ContemporaryHollywood
Cinema, ed. S teve Neale and
Murray
S mith (London: Rout-
ledge, 1998), presuppose
or
argue
for a
post-classical Hol-
lywood.
S ee in
particular
Elizabeth
Cowie, "S torytelling:
Classical
Hollywood
Cinema and Classical Narrative,"
178-190;
Thomas
Elsaesser, "S pecularity
and
Engulfment:
F rancisF ord
Coppola
and BramS toker'sDracula," 191-
208.
Murray
S mith offerssome useful clarificationsofthe
issue in"Thesesonthe
Philosophy
of
Hollywood History"
(3-20).
A
helpful
overview ofthe
position
isPeter
Kramer,
"Post-classical
Hollywood"
inThe
Oxford
Guide to F ilm
S tudies, ed. JohnHill and Pamela Church Gibson
(New
York: Oxford
UniversityPress, 1998),
289-309.
3. S ee Warren
Buckland,
"A Close Encounter with Raiders
of
the LostArk: NotesonNarrative
Aspects
ofthe
Holly-
wood
Blockbuster,"
inNeale and
S mith, 166-177; Kristin
Thompson, S torytelling
inthe New
Hollywood (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard
UniversityPress, 1999), 2-3, 344-352; and
Geoff
King, S pectacular
Narratives:
Hollywood
inthe
Age
of
the Blockbuster
(London: Tauris, 2000), 1-15.
4.
Principles
of
continuityfilmmaking
are
surveyed
inDavid
Bordwell and Kristin
Thompson,
F ilmArt: AnIntroduc-
tion, fifth ed.
(New
York:
McGraw-Hill, 1997),
284-300.
5. The
concept
of
average
shot
length
derivesfrom
BarryS alt,
F ilm
S tyle
and
Technology: History
and
Analysis,
second
ed.
(London: S tarword, 1992),
142-147. All AS Lshere are
based on
watching
the entire filmand
dividing
its
running
length, given
in
seconds, by
the number ofshots. Both im-
ages
and intertitlesare counted as
shots, but
production
creditsaren't.
My
estimatesofstudio-era normsare takenfrom
Bordwell etal., Classical
Hollywood Cinema, 60-63. S alt's
resultsfromthe
post-1960 period
canbe found on
pp.
214-
215, 236-240, and 249 ofF ilm
S tyle
and
Technology.
WhereasS altseeksto condense the
average
shot
lengths
of
a
period
into a "Mean
Average
S hot
Length,"
Bordwell et
al.
argue
for
thinking
ofAS Lsas
occupying
a
range
of
prob-
able choice.
More
generally,
AS L isa
helpful
but
fairly
bluntin-
strument.
Naturally,
a filmwith one
long
take and 800 short
shotscanhave the same AS L asone with fewer but
ap-
proximatelyequal
shots. Other measuresofcentral ten-
dency,
such asmode and
median, would allow usto make
finer
distinctions,
but
measuring
the
length
ofeach shotin
a finished filmiswith
presenttechnologyvery
arduous.
6. The restofthis
essay
drawsitsevidence froma
corpus
of
400
Anglophone
filmsmade or distributed
by
U.S . studios
fromthe
years
1961-2000. F or each
decade,
Ichose 100
films, with each
year represented by
7-12 titles. The
corpus
wasnotthe resultofa random
sample;
strictrandomsam-
pling
isnotfeasible for a
body
offilmsbecause
vagaries
of
preservation
and canonsoftaste do not
give every
film
made an
equal
chance of
being
studied.
(S ee Bordwell et
al., Classical
Hollywood Cinema, 388-389.)
Ihave tried to
pick
filmsfroma wide
range
of
genres
and
directors,
though
the
sample
isbased on
major
releasesand
may
not
hold
good
for
exploitation
or
straight-to-video
titles.
7. F or a detailed discussionof
Peckinpah'srapid cutting,
see
Bernard F .
Dukore, S am
Peckinpah's
F eature F ilms
(Ur-
bana, IL:
University
ofIllinois
Press, 1999), 77-150.
8.
Barry
S altfindsa
shortening
inMeanAS L from11 sec-
ondsto about7 secondsinthe
period
from1958 to
1975,
and a
lengthening
to 8.4 secondsinthe
years1976-1987,
though
he ismore tentative aboutthe latter results(F ilm
S tyle
and
Technology, 265, 283, 296). Myresultsroughly
agree
with hisfor the first
period,
butfor the second Ifind
little evidence ofa
tendency
for shotsto
lengthen.
Icannot
explain
the
discrepancyfully,
buttwo factors
may
be rel-
evant.
F irst, S alt'sdecisionto seek a
single
MeanAS L, in-
stead ofa
range
ofmore and less
likelyoptions, may
skew
the resultbecause a few
verylong-take films, such as
WoodyAllen's, can
push
the
average up
farther thana few
very
fast-cutfilmscan
push
itdown. Ifmostfilmsofthe
pe-
riod come inataround six seconds, asS altbelieves, a few
filmswith 12-20-second AS Lswill
push
the mean
upward
more thaneven
many
filmswith 2-4-second AS Lscande-
press
it.
S econdly,
inthe
onlypublication
inwhich S althas
explained
his
viewing procedures,
he indicatesthatcount-
ing
the shots
during
the first30 to 40 minutesofa film
yielded
an
adequate
measure ofAS L
("S tatistical S tyle
Analysis
ofMotion
Pictures," F ilm
Quarterly28, 1
[F all
1974]: 14-15).
In
myexperience,
thisisn'ta
trustworthy
assumption
for
contemporaryfilms, since a
greatmany
of
themare cut
significantly
faster inthe final stretches. The
first55 minutesofJaws
(1975) yield
anAS L of8.8 sec-
onds, butthe filmasa whole hasanAS L of6.5 seconds. If
we
sampled only
the first35 minutesof
Body
S natchers
(1994),
we'd find anAS L of10.8
seconds, significantly
high
for the
period,
butthe AS L ofthe entire filmis
7.7 seconds.
Many
modemfilmmakersseem
deliberately
to
weight
the first
part
with
long
takesinorder to enhance
a fast-cutclimax.
Perhaps, then, some ofS alt's
figures
on1976-1987 filmsderive from
sampling onlyopening
portions.
9. Todd
McCarthy
remarksthatin
Armageddon
"director
Bay's
visual
presentation
isso frantic and chaotic thatone
oftencan'ttell which
ship
or charactersare
being shown,
or where
things
are inrelationto one another"
("Noisy
26
'Armageddon' Plays
'Con'
Game," V ariety[29
June-12
July1998]: 38).
10. S ee David
Bordwell, Onthe
Historyof
F ilm
S tyle (Cam-
bridge,
MA: Harvard
UniversityPress, 1997),
238-244.
11.
Telephoto
lensesare
long-focus
lensesthathave
optically
telescoped
the lenselementsso that
they
are
physically
shorter thantheir stated focal
length.
Thusa
prime
lensof
500mm
length
is
physicallylonger
thana
telephoto
lensof
equal
focal
length.
S ee Paul
Wheeler, Practical Cinema-
tography(Oxford: F ocal
Press, 2000),
28.
12. F or more onthis
trend, see
Bordwell,
Onthe
Historyof
F ilm
S tyle,
246-253.
13. V erna F ield usesthistermin
Tony
Macklinand Nik
Pici,
ed., V oices
from
the S et: The F ilm
Heritage Interviews
(Lanham, MD:
S carecrow, 2000), 243, where she discusses
the shotsinJawsshownin
F igs.
3-5.
14. JohnBelton, "The Bionic
Eye:
Zoom
Esthetics," Cineaste
9, 1
(Winter 1980-81):
26.
15. F or more
discussion, see
Bordwell, Onthe
Historyof
F ilm
S tyle, 253-260.
16. James
Riordan, S tone. The
Controversies, Excesses, and
Exploitsof
a Radical F ilmmaker
(New York:
Hyperion,
1995),
154.
17. S ee Jon
Boorstin,
Making
MoviesWork:
Thinking
Like a
F ilmmaker
(LosAngeles: S ilman-James, 1990),
90-97.
26
18.
"Dropping
back to the master shotor evenan
establishing
shotinthe middle ofa scene canletitbreathe, or alter-
nately
can
give
ita beatthatwill theninvest
your close-ups
with even
greater
force and
intensity" (Paul S eydor, "Trims,
Clips,
and S elects: Notesfromthe
Cutting Room," The
Perfect
V isionno. 26
[S eptember/October 1999], 27).
19.
Throughout
S ecrets
of
S creen
Acting (New York: Rout-
ledge, 1994),
Patrick Tucker assumesthatfilm
acting
isfa-
cial. He advisesactorsonhow to cheattheir facesto the
camera in
tightshots, how to reactin
close-up,
and how to
speak
in
close-up(44-45, 55-57, 75). Blocking,
he
remarks,
"isa
way
of
getting
the camera to see
your
face"
(129).
S ee also S teve Carlson, Hitting
Your Mark: What
Every
Actor
Really
Needsto Know ona
Hollywood
S et
(S tudio
City,
CA: Michael
Wiese, 1998), 23-47, 63-81.
20.
JayHolben, "Alter
Ego,"
American
Cinematographer 81,
1
(January
2000): 70.
21. F or a
discussion, see Jean-Pierre
Geuens, "V isuality
and
Power: The Work ofthe
S teadicam," F ilm
Quarterly47,
2
(Winter 1993-1994):
13-14. S ee also S erena
F errara,
S teadicam:
Techniques
and Aesthetics
(Oxford: F ocal
Press, 2001).
22. Quoted inMike
F iggis,
ed.,
Projections
10:
Hollywood
F ilm-makerson
F ilm-making (London:
F aber and
F aber,
1999),
108.
23. S everal
types
of
contemporary
camera movementsare dis-
cussed in
JeremyV ineyard, S etting Up
Your
S hots.
Great
Camera Moves
Every
F ilmmaker S hould Know
(S tudio
City,
CA: Michael
Wiese, 2000),
35-50.
24. F or The End
of
the Affair (1999),
Neil Jordan
sought
to
mark offflashbacks
byhaving
the camera circle the char-
actersinone direction
during
a scene setinthe
past;
the
camera arcsinthe
opposite
directionin
present-time
scenes.
S ee David
Heuring
et
al., "Impeccable Images,"
American
Cinematographer 81,
6
(June 2000): 92, 94.
25.
Nonetheless,
the camera movementsinObsessionlook dis-
creet
bycomparison
with the
extravagant
arcsaround the
transgressing couple
in
Body
Double
(1984).
26. S chrader on
S chrader, ed. KevinJackson
(London:
F aber
and
F aber, 1990),
211.
27. S tar WarsEpisode IV : A New
Hope (1977)
hasanAS L of
3.4
seconds, quite
shortfor the 1970s.
Episode
V : The Re-
turn
of
the Jedi
(1983)
hasanAS L of3.5
seconds,
and
Episode
I: The PhantomMenace
(1999)
hasanAS L of3.8
seconds.
28.
Arijonpresumes,
for
instance,
thatthe director will
rely
on
tightclose-ups;
see Grammar
of
the F ilmLanguage (Lon-
don: F ocal
Press, 1976),
112.
29.
S ee,
for
example,
S tevenD.
Katz, F ilm
Directing
S hotby
S hot:
V isualizing fromConcept
to S creen
(S tudio City,
CA:
Michael
Wiese, 1991), 300, 315.
30. Lev
Kuleshov, "Artofthe
Cinema," inKuleshov on
F ilm,
trans. and ed. Ronald Levaco
(Berkeley,
CA:
University
ofCalifornia
Press, 1974), 67-109;
V . I.
Pudovkin, F ilm
Technique
and F ilm
Acting,
trans. and ed. Ivor
Montagu
(New York: Grove
Press, 1960),
87-109.
31. S ee David
Bordwell, Planet
Hong Kong. Popular
Cinema
and the Art
of
Entertainment
(Cambridge,
MA: Harvard
UniversityPress, 2000), 22-25, 162-168, and 224-245.
32.
Quoted inDavid
Williams,
"Reintroducing
Bond ... James
Bond," American
Cinematographer 76,
12
(December
1995):
39.
33. S ee the comments
gathered
inJack
Kuney, Take One: Tele-
visionDirectorson
Directing (New York:
Praeger, 1990),
12, 29, 45, 46, 119. S ee also F rederick Y. S mith, "Ram-
bling Thoughts
ofa F ilmEditor," AmericanCinemeditor
25, 2
(S ummer 1975): 18-19. Richard
Maltbyoffersa per-
ceptive
discussionofTV
style
and itsinfluence on1960s
and 70scinema inHarmlessEntertainment:
Hollywood
and the
Ideologyof
Consensus(Lanham, MD: S carecrow
Press, 1983),
329-337.
Despite practitioners' conceptions
ofthe two media,
we
probably
shouldn'tsee modemfilmas
simplyreplicat-
ing
TV
style.
With
respect
to shotscale, for instance, there
wasn'tand isn't
just
one televisual normfor filmto match.
Talk and
game
showsuse
long shots, while sitcomsand
soapsrely
onmediumshotsand
plans
americains. V ideo
games
are
characteristically
framed in
long
shot. Instead
of
blending
the broadcastmovie into the
programming flow,
filmmakers
may
have
sought
to create a distinctlook for
theatrical filmasseenonthe box, marking
itwith intense
close-ups
and
flamboyant
camera movesseldomfound on
other TV fare.
(S till later, itseems, showslike "The X-
F iles" tried to look like a 1990sfilmasseenon
TV .)
34.
ColbyLewis, The TV
Director/Interpreter (New York:
HastingsHouse, 1968),
164.
35. An
in-depth study
oftelevision
techniques
ofthe
period
I'm
considering
canbe found inJohnCaldwell, Televisual-
ity: S tyle, Crisis, and
Authority
inAmericanTelevision
(New Brunswick, N.J.:
RutgersUniversityPress, 1995).
36. Criticsofthe 1960softennoted how TV -trained directors
seemed to
carry
their habitsover to feature films. Anacer-
bic
example
isPauline Kael's"The
Making
ofThe
Group,"
inKissKiss
Bang Bang (Boston: Little, Brown, 1968),
es-
peciallyp.
100.
37.
Quoted
inJohnBrodie and Dan
Cox,
"New Pix a V idiot's
Delight," V ariety(28
October-3 November
1996):
85.
38. Onthis
practice,
see the remarksin
JeremyKagan,
ed., Di-
rectorsClose
Up(Boston:
F ocal
Press, 2000),
50-77.
39.
Cinematographer Roger
Deakinsoffersseveral comments
onhow
composing
shotsona video monitor
yields
lessat-
tentionto detail in
Cinematography: S creencraft,
ed. Peter
Ettedgui (Crans-Pres-Celigny,
S witzerland:
Rotovision,
1998),
166.
40. Walter Murch, Inthe Blink
of
an
Eye: A
Perspective
on
F ilm
Editing (LosAngeles: S ilman-James, 1995),
88.
41. Editor Paul
S eydor
notesthat
long
shotsand extreme
long
shots
might
notread well onhome TV
monitors,
especially
if
they
come atthe end ofa
scene, where
they
could be
mistakenfor an
establishing
shot
opening
the nextscene.
Although S eydor prefers
to retainsuch
shots,
he notesthat
many
editors
might
notdo so. S ee
"Trims, Clips,"
29.
42. S ee Paul
Mazursky's
commentsin
F iggis, Projections
10, 25.
43. Quoted inPeter
Brunette, ed., MartinS corsese Interviews
(Jackson, MI:
University
of
Mississippi Press, 1999),
155.
44. James
Lyon, quoted
inV achonand David
Edelstein, S hoot-
ing
to
Kill.
How an
Independent
Producer Blasts
Through
the Barriersto Make MoviesThatMatter
(New York:
Avon,
1998),
263.
45. OrsonWellesand Peter
Bogdanovich,
ThisIsOrsonWelles
(New
York:
HarperCollins, 1992),
201.
46. Ann
Thompson,
"S teven
S oderbergh,"
Premiere
(Decem-
ber
2000):
65.
27
47. F or informationonsome associated
technological
innova-
tions,
see
S alt,
F ilm
S tyle
and
Technology,
251-296.
48. S ee Peter Bart,
The Gross: The Hits, the
F lops-The
S um-
m.er ThatAte Hollywood (New
York: S t. Martin's, 1999),
232; David Kleiler,
Jr. and RobertMoses,
YouS tand There:
Making
Music V ideo
(New
York: Three RiversPress,
1997),
168.
49. David Ansenand
RayS awhill,
"The New
JumpCut,"
Newsweek (2
S eptember 1996):
66.
50. Quoted inThomasA. Ohanianand Michael E.
Phillips,
Digital F ilmmaking:
The
Changing
Artand Craftof
Mak-
ing
MotionPictures
(Boston:
F ocal
Press, 1996),
177.
51. Inthe silenteta,
WilliamC. deMille oftenused
multiple
camerasto
preserve
the
continuity
of
performance.
S ee
Peter Milne,
MotionPicture
Directing (New
York: F alk,
1922),
45-46. Much
later,
Richard
Lester, transferring
tele-
vision
practice
to film, became
noteworthy
for using mul-
tiple
camerasfor
dialogue scenes,
fromA Hard
Day
sNight
(1964)
onward (Andrew Yule,
Richard Lester and the Bea-
tles[New York: Primus, 1995], 14.
52. S ee
S tephenPrince, S avage Cinema: S am
Peckinpah
and
the Rise
of
UltraviolentMovies
(Austin,
TX:
University
of
Texas
Press, 1998),
51-56.
53.
Anonymous,
"The F ive F ilmsNominated for 'BestCine-
matography'
of1980," American
Cinematographer 62,
5
(May
1981): 503.
54. JohnMathieson, quoted
in
DouglasBankston,
"Death or
Glory,"
American
Cinematographer 81, 5
(May2000):
38.
55. BenBrewster and Lea
Jacobs,
Theatre to Cinema:
S tage
Pictorialismand the EarlyF eature F ilm
(New
York: Ox-
ford
UniversityPress, 1997),
164-168.
56. WilliamPaul, "S creening S pace: Architecture,
Technol-
ogy,
and the MotionPicture S creen," MichiganQuarterly
Review 35,
1
(Winter 1996): 145-149.
57. Noel Carroll discusseshow a
constantlychanging display
maintainsviewer attentionin"The Power ofMovies,"
in
Theorizing
the
Moving
Image (New
York:
Cambridge
Uni-
versityPress, 1996), 80-86, and "F ilm, Attention, and Com-
munication,"
inThe Great Ideas Today(Chicago:
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1996), 16-24.
58.
BenjaminS vetkeyreports
that30 scenesinUnbreakable
consistof
single
shots. "That'san
astounding thing
to have
ina film,"
remarksBruce Willis
("F ractured F airyTale,"
Entertainment
Weekly
[1 December
2000]: 38).
59. Allen
explains
thathe seldomcutswithina scene because
a sustained master isfaster and
cheaper
to
shoot,
actors
prefer it,
and he doesn'thave to
worry
about
matching
shots. S ee
Douglas McGrath,
"IfYouKnew
Woody
Like IKnew
Woody,"
New York
Magazine
(17 October
1994):
44.
60. CharlesBarr, "CinemaS cope:
Before and
After,"
F ilm
Quarterly16,
4
(S ummer 1963):
18-19.
61. S ee Janet
S taiger,
"The
Eyes
Are
Really
the F ocus: Photo-
playActing
and F ilmF ormand
S tyle,"
Wide Angle 6,
4
(1985):
14-23.
62. S ee Bordwell,
Planet
Hong Kong,
200-245.
28