An interpretation of: Attention and the Evolution of Hollywood Film
by James E. Cutting, Jordan E. DeLong and Christine E. Nothelfer
Psychological Science published online 5 February 2010
I like the fact that the author refers to all of this as the "invisible style" (p 2 of the article). I think that is an appropriate term as they tried to differentiate the information presented from the film maker's artistic style. Their methods of separating the two and looking for ways to segregate out scene transitions (fade, cutaways, etc.) was scientifically sound and very creative.
I wish I could say that there was a magic number: one that would give you the ideal shot length or fluctuations in shot length that would rivet the attention of your viewer. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I have listed below some quotes from the paper which I feel are salient and then I will attempt to string them all together to present my interpretation of this paper. Here goes:
p 2: Shots are the smallest film units to which viewers are asked to direct their attention...to control the viewer's eye fixations and attention.
p2: Shot relations promote the narrative and...create in the viewer the impetus to gather visual information. In other words, the rhythm of shot sequences...is designed to drive the rhythm of attention and information uptake in the viewer.
p2: Mean film length is 114 minutes.
p3: Film has become increasingly clustered in packets of similar shot length..with action sequences having a cluster of relatively short shot lengths and dialogue sequences a cluster of longer shots.
p4: paraphrase: Film noir does not demonstrate a pattern in the composition of shot lengths.
p6: The 1/f film form is an emergent, self-organizing structure, not an intentional one.
p6-7: How might the 1/f shot patterns entrain attention over periods of 1-3 hours? Most [of these shot patterns] concern instants, not longer stretches of time. Mind wanderings can be viewed as lapses of executive control as unrelated stimuli compete for attention resources. Such vacillations will be minimal when information load is high and will increase when information load is lowered...the theory of attention should be linked to a view that the mind is a complex system of interrelated parts that interact over multiple scales of time - milliseconds, second, minutes, hours, and intervals in between.
Now, putting all these quotes together, you will find my interpretation:
The authors were trying to see if the 1/f model, which is exhibited in all sorts of biological systems, could be applied to the structure of film, which after all, is viewed by the biological system of humans. They did show that there was a statistically significant correlation and that in fact, this model does fit. However, they are not promoting the concept that film makers should make their film, analyze their shot lengths as described in the paper and then apply all this math just to see if the correlation exists. That would tempt them to then adjust their film, and thus their artistic style, to fit the invisible style. And, they pointed out that just like all biological systems, the 1/f model evolved, and is continuing to evolve, over time. Like all systems, it is not stagnant. Hence there is no magic number.
Think of the human attention span as a series of waves, like the ocean, where the height of the wave represents increased attention levels. As you stand on the beach, you see little, low, single waves that come to shore. They are short lived and don't do much. Occasionally, lots of little individual waves coalesce into a larger, higher wave. It gets more of your attention and may last longer, but it's still a composite of individual smaller waves. Then every once in a while, there is a single big wave that crashes over you. (Even think more primal, in terms of your mother's heartbeat--the first music you hear and, hence, the most influential rhythm known to man.) Now that one really got your attention and had a big impact. The 1/f model, like the human attention span, is just like that. The information we absorb and process needs all of those wave types to keep us interested. Too much of only one type and we become bored and leave the beach for the lights of the boardwalk. But who do you know who doesn't enjoy just staring out at the waves and losing themselves in thought as they watch? Isn't that what you want your viewer to do when he watches your film? I think the authors are saying that you need all of these wave types expressed in shot lengths, to keep the information load to the brain high enough so that the viewer stays riveted to the narrative you are presenting.
Clearly action sequences have very short, sometimes choppy, shot length. These are those short bursts that command immediate attention but the brain cannot sustain that type of input for long without losing attention (see note #3 on p 7 regarding the film Wedding Crashers). The fact that dialogue scenes have longer shot lengths does not surprise me. You need a longer shot scene in order for the actors to speak their lines. Also, a dialogue scene is more thought provoking as opposed to an action scene, which is purely reactionary (for the viewer). It was interesting to me that the film noir genre does not exhibit a consistent pattern, but it fits the concept of that film style. It is supposed to keep you off balance and both the artistic and invisible style aid in that goal.
It is important to note that the 1/f model is not applicable to an entire film of 1-3 hours, just to individual shots. The wave analogy is more appropriate to the film as a whole. The author did not discuss how effective (or not) the 1/f model may be when applied to films of shorter overall length, and I think this may be quite relevant to you, as I suspect that independent films such as yours would probably be of shorter duration. While the 1/f model applies to shots, and films of any length are comprised of a series of shots, the fact that you are making a shorter film may afford you the ability to have more artistic than invisible style and still command the viewer's attention. I would be interested to know if any research has been done on this. But you also have to remember that many of the shorter films are, by design, more unbalancing to the human brain. This may be because of the emotional subject matter (a film about the crisis in Darfour, for example) or because the artistic style and goal of the film maker is to completely unsettle the viewer (a film made in the style of the Blair Witch Project). It may be more difficult to standardize these types of films in order to apply the model and see if it fits.
JoDa Hodge
DepartedHarvest.com
Attention and the Evolution of Hollywood Film
James E. Cutting, Jordan E. DeLong and Christine E. Nothelfer Psychological Science published online 5 February 2010 DOI: 10.1177/0956797610361679
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/02/04/0956797610361679
No comments:
Post a Comment