"Intensified Continuity"

The Question: According to David Bordwell, explain how and why continuity has intensified in Hollywood Cinema. Also, consider whether anything has been lost with this change.

The four areas in which continuity has intensified in Hollywood Cinema are shot length, lens choice, close framing, and a free-ranging camera.

What I find fascinating is the gradually decreasing average shot length. As the shots became shorter and cuts became more frequent, films became more "intense". This can be considered an evolution as far as technological advances are concerned, but has film lost the flavor it once had with its once long takes? There is a socioeconomic influence on shot lengths' impact on how action-driven films are today. An appropriate analogy would be a car in the 1920s versus a car today. In my opinion, much like how all of the technological advances made in the world as a whole embodied inventions making communication and transportation much more quick and efficient, the film world grasped on to such changes to try to keep up with its rapidly moving audiences. Another factor, as Bordwell states, is that "when an independent goes mainstream, the cutting is likely to accelerate." This basically implies that everyone in the audiecne wants the same thing--a fast pace. Out of this socioeconomic factor comes the idea that in order to be a successful filmmaker independents must comply to the invisible boundaries set by mainstream filmmakers. Ultimately, technology is a driving force in decreasing average shot lengths because we as an audience (unless you're a sucker for old films) are accustomed to a more fast-paced life.

Technology also has its influences in other areas, as Bordwell discusses. Lens choices have been leaning toward long lenses, perhaps due to its use in close-ups, medium shots, over-the-shoulder shots, and even establishing shots, according to Bordwell. However, they have been mixed with other lenses, such as wide-angle lenses (i.e. Spielberg). I believe the long lens allows for more stylistic cinematography that makes a film more visually apealing, such as with rack focuses, which became more popular in the 1960s.

Another important aspect of intensified continuity in cinema is how all up in your face the actors are getting. In more sophisticated terms, the framing of shots is oftentimes very tight, especially during dialogue scenes. This puts a strain on the actors because all they have to try to get the director's point across is their face. Dialogue can be a very powerful source of communication in which facial expressions offer characerization. As Bordwell states, "Most important, the pressure toward closer views has narrowed the expressive resources available to performers...Mouths, brows, and eyes become the principle sources of information and emotion, and actors must scale their performances across varying degrees of intimate framing." But what about the rest of the actor? Body language in such dramatic scenes is limited to the face, which demands a lot of the actors. In some sense, this may be why some acting seems so unrealistic or cheesy. It is so much harder to act witih such limitations. With the use of the long lens there is therefore a technological influence on the commonly used close-up.

Long and wide shots are rarely static these days, as aforementioned. The demands of the general public are that the bigger the better because these are considered to be epic. One might say to a static long shot today that it can be compared in its fascination to "Arrival of a Train," but a tracking aerial view of the a horse running across the Fields of Pelennor in "The Lord of the Rings" would be considered eye-popping because it is as though the viewer is flying (I know I feel this way, at least). Bordwell states, "Today, everyone presumes that a long take, even a long shot, is unlikely to be a static one." Therefore, because life is much less "static" than it once was, there is more that the audience expects. Movement is naturally more compelling, which is why many youth of the modern day find many classic films boring in nature. Quite honestly, I find the realist film "Arrival of a Train" very boring (no offense to the filmmaker)because I am so used to something like "The ord of the Rings" or "Inception" in which there is much more to be seen and heard. However, someone at that time might consider "Arrival of a Train" a thrill because film was so new. Nonetheless, the use of movement in film has greatly increased as the cameras became lighter and devices were made to allow movement.

As Bordwell discusses, there is a sort of cause-and-effect in intensified continuity. The tighter framing leads to faster cutting (there is less information in the frame to process), long lenses allow for faster cutting (e.g. rack focus tells you what you are supposed to see, although it is visually appealing), and the free-ranging camera cannot help but follow the commotion provided by technology, producing in some sense even a domino effect. Ultimately, the films have increased in intensified continuity to such an extent that they are getting old. At least in my opinion, it is very rare to find a mainstream film that follow such stylistic elements without being repetitive like many other films out there today that stick close to the action. As far as answering the question goes, continuity has intensified in Hollywood Cinema through the cause-and-effect relationship posed by such elements as rapid editing, long lenses, tighter framing, and more camera movement because of the circular influence of technology in which technology allows for more in film and causes audiences to demand more, in turn.