In my last post, I discussed a couple of issues with the cinematography in The Bourne Ultimatum. However, while writing that post last night, I reminded myself of another movie-related issue I wanted to talk about: trailers.
I find most of today's spy, thriller, and action movie trailers basically unwatchable: there is simply too much action packed into every two-minute trailer. I know they're trying to grab our attention, but to a large extent, they've simply gone too far. In a modern trailer for movies in these genres, you're simply not allowed to actually watch anything; instead, it appears the objective is to see how many different shots of your movie you can fit into a two-minute window. So the "scenes" are incredibly short, leading to tons of cuts from one scene to another.
Just how bad has it gotten? I thought it might be enlightening to compare the Bourne Ultimatum trailer with some similar movies from the 1970s, and then one completely different type of movie from 1980.
The results show that, in movie trailers at least, our attention spans are being forced to decrease--there's just so much more stuff packed into the same amount of screen time:
| Movie | Released | Trailer time (seconds) | # of Cuts | Avg Seconds per Shot |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Bourne Ultimatum | 2007 | 130 seconds | 165 | 0.78 |
| French Connection | 1971 | 163 seconds | 116 | 1.41 |
| Day of the Jackal | 1973 | 117 seconds | 65 | 1.80 |
| French Connection II | 1975 | 175 seconds | 119 | 1.47 |
| Alien | 1979 | 107 seconds | 61 | 1.75 |
| Caddyshack | 1980 | 148 seconds | 81 | 1.83 |
| Notes: To count the number of cuts, I used a simple method, though it is subject to some error (probably +/- 10 cuts per trailer). While the trailer played, I pressed the "." key in a blank TextEdit document each time I saw a cut. I then used wc in Terminal to count the number of characters I had typed. For each trailer, I timed it from when the first actual movie scene appeared until the last shot cut out to closing credits. Click each movie title to watch the actual trailers I used for testing. | ||||
As you can see, the newest Bourne trailer allows your eyes only three quarters of a second per shot. And in that trailer, there are many shots that linger for a few seconds. So other scenes appear just briefly, sometimes flashing into view for only a few frames. The end result is a trailer that manages to do nothing more than annoy me, as I really can't get a good sense for the movie and its characters at all--but perhaps that's the point?
Contrast those figures with those of the 1970s' thrillers--they let each scene linger onscreen anywhere from 1.4 to 1.8 seconds. You'll find busy, fast-cut scenes within each of those trailers, but the big difference is that there are many slower-paced sections where you can actually get a sense for what the movie is about. Then there's Caddyshack, from another genre, obviously. But it's amazing watching that one after the others; it almost feels like watching a movie, given how much time you're given to watch each scene unfold!
For a look at where movie trailers are headed if this trend continues, look no further than music videos--I bet it'd be pretty easy to find one that doubled the Bourne trailer's cut number, though I don't want to take on the counting task!
In this particular case, I really do think the "good old days" were quite good, and I wish some modern filmmaker had the guts to do an "old school" thriller trailer. I'd love to have at least a second or two to focus on each scene as it plays out. Sadly, I think the days of the slower-paced trailer are behind us, and things are only going to get worse.
I think you're right for the most part, but there are other factors at play. For example, editing a film in the 70s versus today is RADICALLY different. With all the computer software and film digitization, making a large number of jump cuts is far easier.
This doesn't mean it should be done of course, but it begs the question: would the 70s auteurs have made "faster" movies if they had access to the technology of today? I think the answer may be yes, but there's really no way to know
Yup, definitely noticed this. Especially irritating with music videos. Watching one now, not a single cut over a second ... barrage, battering, blah!
Well done analytic critique. You are right of course, but Bourne is emblematic of our times. I take it as a warning of where we are now on this ride to oblivion. Caddyshack was so much more relaxing, and playful, and fun in a good way. Who wouldn't want to spend a summer vacation on that golf course with that crew? No one in their right mind would want to spend a lunch hour with Bourne, except a techno-fiend. I think the movie business is more control-freak than ever to where its absolutely obssessive. Try and converse with anyone immersed in the business in the local LA environs and they all try and seize control of whatever you say. Try "exactly!" they punctuate to what you are saying as if to correct you and take over your conversation like it was theirs in the first place. I can just imagine all the fun working on a modern film crew must be if you fall slightly out of pace with the maniacs in control. Look at Bogart films, i am sure they must have spent 3-5 seconds on some shots to develop a subtlety into a pronounced feeling. To me as an observer of our cratering culture Bourne woke me up to how out of step I have become today. Its kind of like being a hippie being dropped into a mosh-pit. To be even a little more cynical, short attention spans make good consumers of absolute junk as they won't be able to finely discriminate value, but instead go for image alone as a probably indicator of the quality of the product. The corporate machine can sell more products faster that way. The advertisers can jam in more ads. Those in final production control can have it all their way without any of the viewers personal life experience contaminents getting in thier way. Bourne was like the jolt cola's of film and it was interesting to me how effectively they could roller coaster a film through your mind bypassing almost all your filters. Imagine the average age of the crew making and producing it. It was a great programming experience at high speed with don't look back. The fact that they jammed in a few vague ethical points made it even more muscular. The mass public finds more action more addicting and advertisers like the revenue's generated. Charles Bronson started with shooting a few miscreants with a handgun in the first film, and by the third was using rocket launchers to kill entire motorcycle gangs like eating chicklets. Your points are valid, but the culture is on the run, or being pushed off a cliff and they expect us to take a seat on their high speed Amtrak. If we don't, no doubt they will soon make that illegal and find some excuse to drop us in a seclusion housing unit in Pelican Bay.
Comments are closed.