TECHNES Encyclopedia Database

Sensitive to this marked intensification of rhythm, several cognitive science researchers began examining the subject as early as the 1970s. However, the various ways of conceptualizing cinema and audiovisual parameters within health and education studies reveal a tendency to reduce cinema to a set of variables detached from the network of formal characteristics that confer upon it a functional and contextual meaning. This difference in approach, likely emblematic of the broader divide between the arts and the sciences, is reflected in the fact that many of these studies are published within a network of journals and publications quite distinct from those of film and media studies, thereby revealing a fragmentation of expertise, methodologies, terminology, and knowledge.

Slow Content and Fast Content: A Question of Density?

Cinema is a general term designating a complex phenomenon composed of dozens of elements operating in relation to one another and shaping the experience of rhythm. Audiovisual rhythm is produced, among other things, through a combination of formal elements, including editing, camera movement, shot scale, sound, and so forth. David Bordwell, for example, identifies changes in focal length, as opposed to editing, as a key factor in the intensification of rhythm.^[2] As such, it is possible for a sequence containing no cuts whatsoever to possess an extremely rapid rhythm because of the speed of the dialogue, the sound effects, jerky camera movements, the camera’s proximity to the characters, movement within the image, or even the density of the image and narrative. Conversely, audiovisual content may be perceived as slow and meditative, even with one cut per second, if all other formal properties remain slow: the principal content remains, in a sense, fixed against a clear background. This phenomenon can in fact be observed in certain popular ASMR videos.^[3]

Moreover, audiovisual rhythm appears to operate across four distinct domains. The first, which has been extensively studied, corresponds to rhythm within the film itself. This notion encompasses, on the one hand, the frequency with which the film’s formal elements appear. This includes the average shot length, but also the full range of “technical events” visible on screen (zooms, cuts, voice-over narration, superimpositions, and so forth), that is, any cinematic element that disrupts the continuity of a single shot.^[4] On the other hand, this rhythmic dimension is also shaped by a film’s narrative rhythm. Thus, the movements of the actors, their rate of speech, and the density of information contained within the image all contribute to its constitution. We find here a line of thought inherited from Jean Mitry, according to whom the comprehension of audiovisual rhythm may be measured in terms of intra-shot visual “intensity,” dependent upon “the quantity of movement (physical, dramatic, or psychological) that [a shot] contains and the duration within which it occurs.”^[5] Moreover, the density of information within the image may also be considered according to its composition as either an open or crowded surface—“smooth” or “striated,” according to the definitions established by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. For these authors, the smooth would correspond to “the object of a close vision par excellence and the element of a haptic space (which may be as much visual or auditory as tactile),” whereas the striated “relates to a more distant vision, and a more optical space.”^[6] In this sense, the composition of an image would be capable of shaping the sensory dimension through which we understand the object of our gaze and, by extension, of altering the perceived duration of shots.

A second rhythmic dimension is produced by the technology used in filmmaking. This is a rhythm that we perceive unconsciously, an invisible rhythm that paradoxically enables us to see. It is the rhythm of image projection, or more precisely, that of individual frames. To create a convincing illusion of movement, these frames must pass before our eyes at a minimum rate of 16 frames per second. Since the advent of sound cinema in 1925, often associated with the Warner brothers, the cinematic standard has corresponded to 24 frames per second. However, before this norm became established in the film industry, the number of frames per second varied considerably. At present, a few films use higher frame rates – for example, those of the The Hobbit trilogy (2012-2014), which were released theatrically at 48 frames per second.

The context of reception also constitutes an important dimension in the perception of the rhythm of a filmic object. Whereas films were, for many decades, traditionally viewed in cinemas, and television programs on television sets, the past three decades have seen a gradual convergence of these two types of content, in terms of aesthetics, production values, and viewing environments (with the advent of VCRs, DVD players, and now digital streaming platforms). Indeed, it has now become difficult to distinguish between television and cinema in the wake of platforms such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and other online viewing services like YouTube. Moreover, the past decade has seen a proliferation of devices (mobile phones, tablets, laptops) capable of broadcasting audiovisual narratives, each of which presents unique challenges for the study of reception. These devices have radically transformed viewing conditions, such that the same film may be watched across multiple devices and in different spatial contexts. Furthermore, these technologies feature functionalities that imitate or produce an “intensification” of rhythm. Audiovisual narratives are now accessible via devices equipped with complex visual interfaces, overlays, pop-up windows, advertisements, multiple applications, video games, and so on, all capable of stimulating the viewer at different scales and affecting their perception of rhythm.

Finally, the viewer’s profile is also significant, insofar as children who are highly exposed to screens and familiar with conventions, such as continuity editing, adapt to them.^[7]

The Cognitive Approach

According to a team of researchers who conducted a study on the perception of editing, cuts may nevertheless generate a disruption in cognitive processing, such that viewers behave as if they were momentarily “blind” and require the action to be repeated in order to perceive fluid motion.^[8] During the viewing of contemporary audiovisual programs, children are therefore, according to this logic, exposed to a complex form of stimulation. However, this stimulation cannot be reduced to a single parameter, nor can it be easily compared when different but similar types of content are involved. The phenomenon is therefore difficult to test within a standard neuroscientific framework, whereas a single stimulus (such as a flickering light or the repeated presentation of a single image or pure tone) can be tested against different interpretations.

Moreover, the reception experience conducted in a neuroscience laboratory does not necessarily correspond to the experience of these same phenomena in different environments (cinema, home, car, etc.) and social contexts (viewing alone or with others), nor does it take prior viewing experience into account. As Koolstra and colleagues argue, “when a viewer knows a lot about a difficult subject that is presented, the viewer may not consider the program as fast-paced, whereas the same program may be judged as fast-paced by a viewer who has little or no knowledge of the content of the program.”^[9] Here, the researchers distinguish between an objective assessment of rhythm (for example, by calculating the number of shots per minute) and the perception of rhythm, which does not necessarily correspond to objective metrics. This is partly due to prior viewing experiences, which allow some viewers, including children, to rapidly interpret on-screen changes and construct a narrative, which then becomes the primary focus of attention.