Your well researched, data driven articles always deliver fascinating content. Thanks for stimulating my brain cells once again. Some of your posits for reasons why are nonstarters because they don't stretch through the entire timescale of your data showing the effect. Digital cameras have been affecting the look of cinema for less than 20 years, so joined a trend, if at all, already in progress. Same for volume LED screen producions which only have been impactful for merely five years or so.
One potential contributing factor could be lens developments over the decades. Early era lenses had a look and styling of the image because of their limitations of costruction and coatings resulting in lower light level available. An average apeture of T5.6 or darker was common. This meant that a close-up of a face would naturally retain focus on the entire face. Lens maufactoring has brightened the availability of lens offerings significantly over your time period. This not only allows filmmaking in environments with much less lighting needed but also changes the look of those same close ups. A modern T1.2 or at the extreme T0.95 lens has an extremely shallow depth of field when wide open. That DOF would make a close up of a face that was in full focus with older lenses need to choose between having only the eyes in focus with a quick fall off of focus with the rest of the face, (blurry nose, ears, etc.) If that effect isn't the desired effect for the scene, the quick fix without relighting or changing apeture to stop down, is to back the camera away from the subject, thus placing more of the face within the sweet spot of narrow focus.
This might not even be a conscious chooice, but a matter of adopting to the equipment and prodution needs of the day. Meaning, we're getting smaller faced close ups as a biproduct of having too good lens options. Just a theory. Love all that you write, keep at it!
Seems plausible to me, Christopher. Another idea I had is with rise of hi-def cameras AND hi-def TVs since 2000, close-ups show too much detail in faces than are desirable: You can see the pores, wrinkles and makeup much clearer now than before. Modern lenses are sharper than before, compounding the problem, too. As a result, directors, cinematographers and yes, even actors, find themselves backing off tight close-ups. In any case, another great data dive, Stephen! While I hadn’t previously thought of this in reference to films, I’ve thought of the close-up conundrum in re sitcoms. Look at an episode of ALL IN THE FAMILY. Way tighter closeups than you get today. Going back to features, I think the aspect ratio issue might also play a role. Prior to 2000 one would frame for theatrical release (typically 1:85:1 or if anamorphic, 2.35:1) but the dirty secret was directors and DPs shot “tv safe” - literally with little pieces of tape on monitor indicating TV framing, knowing that at some point the film would be on TV or home video, which had a 4:3 aspect ratio. So once we knew TVs were 16:9 (modern hidef tvs), the “TV safe” area and aspect ratio changed to more of a rectangle. Hence the rectangularification (new word!) (or oblongifying ?) of modern framing. I THINK this change could lead to this close-up
effect over time particularly using the metrics that Stephen uses. Or not :). In any case, I think Stephen has finally hit on what German semiotics academicians in the 1930s (and AI now) were struggling with: How to define a language of cinema. Fascinating stuff!!
One thing you mentioned that might bear further scrutiny is how the recent reduction in face size might correlate with a reduction in amount of dialogue in those films. Or a reduction in dialogue in recent films in general. Maybe you’ve already looked at that?
Close-ups look great in black and white (Bergman!) when they literally become landscapes, but in HD color on a cellphone screen, they border on porn.
Another explanation could be that we see too many faces every day. In 1790, only about 1 in 20 Americans lived in urban areas, but this ratio changed to 1 in 4 by 1870, 1 in 2 by 1920, and 4 in 5 by the 2000s. The same happened in Europe. What do you see when you live in a big city? Faces, faces, faces, and way too close sometimes (the subway at rush hour...). I live in Manhattan, and when I walk, I often look either at the pavement or the sky. Call it face fatigue.
I think your first suspicion is plausible - that it's related to digital cameras. Are you able to get numbers for face size in films shot on 35mm vs digital? The turning point on the graph seems to be around 2001, when mainstream filmmaking began transitioning to digital.
It drives me CRAZY when modern filmmakers don't use a CU when the moment would obviously benefit from it. Key lines of dialogue in a scene are completely lost because they're still in a two shot or wider. In some instances, the actor's face is not even on screen and their line is mumbled, so the only way I get it is if I have captions on. Poor shooting and even worse editing in today's films are maddening.
Your well researched, data driven articles always deliver fascinating content. Thanks for stimulating my brain cells once again. Some of your posits for reasons why are nonstarters because they don't stretch through the entire timescale of your data showing the effect. Digital cameras have been affecting the look of cinema for less than 20 years, so joined a trend, if at all, already in progress. Same for volume LED screen producions which only have been impactful for merely five years or so.
One potential contributing factor could be lens developments over the decades. Early era lenses had a look and styling of the image because of their limitations of costruction and coatings resulting in lower light level available. An average apeture of T5.6 or darker was common. This meant that a close-up of a face would naturally retain focus on the entire face. Lens maufactoring has brightened the availability of lens offerings significantly over your time period. This not only allows filmmaking in environments with much less lighting needed but also changes the look of those same close ups. A modern T1.2 or at the extreme T0.95 lens has an extremely shallow depth of field when wide open. That DOF would make a close up of a face that was in full focus with older lenses need to choose between having only the eyes in focus with a quick fall off of focus with the rest of the face, (blurry nose, ears, etc.) If that effect isn't the desired effect for the scene, the quick fix without relighting or changing apeture to stop down, is to back the camera away from the subject, thus placing more of the face within the sweet spot of narrow focus.
This might not even be a conscious chooice, but a matter of adopting to the equipment and prodution needs of the day. Meaning, we're getting smaller faced close ups as a biproduct of having too good lens options. Just a theory. Love all that you write, keep at it!
Seems plausible to me, Christopher. Another idea I had is with rise of hi-def cameras AND hi-def TVs since 2000, close-ups show too much detail in faces than are desirable: You can see the pores, wrinkles and makeup much clearer now than before. Modern lenses are sharper than before, compounding the problem, too. As a result, directors, cinematographers and yes, even actors, find themselves backing off tight close-ups. In any case, another great data dive, Stephen! While I hadn’t previously thought of this in reference to films, I’ve thought of the close-up conundrum in re sitcoms. Look at an episode of ALL IN THE FAMILY. Way tighter closeups than you get today. Going back to features, I think the aspect ratio issue might also play a role. Prior to 2000 one would frame for theatrical release (typically 1:85:1 or if anamorphic, 2.35:1) but the dirty secret was directors and DPs shot “tv safe” - literally with little pieces of tape on monitor indicating TV framing, knowing that at some point the film would be on TV or home video, which had a 4:3 aspect ratio. So once we knew TVs were 16:9 (modern hidef tvs), the “TV safe” area and aspect ratio changed to more of a rectangle. Hence the rectangularification (new word!) (or oblongifying ?) of modern framing. I THINK this change could lead to this close-up
effect over time particularly using the metrics that Stephen uses. Or not :). In any case, I think Stephen has finally hit on what German semiotics academicians in the 1930s (and AI now) were struggling with: How to define a language of cinema. Fascinating stuff!!
One thing you mentioned that might bear further scrutiny is how the recent reduction in face size might correlate with a reduction in amount of dialogue in those films. Or a reduction in dialogue in recent films in general. Maybe you’ve already looked at that?
I have indeed https://stephenfollows.com/p/has-the-way-movies-use-dialogue-changed
Wow, fascinating. There goes that theory!
Close-ups look great in black and white (Bergman!) when they literally become landscapes, but in HD color on a cellphone screen, they border on porn.
Another explanation could be that we see too many faces every day. In 1790, only about 1 in 20 Americans lived in urban areas, but this ratio changed to 1 in 4 by 1870, 1 in 2 by 1920, and 4 in 5 by the 2000s. The same happened in Europe. What do you see when you live in a big city? Faces, faces, faces, and way too close sometimes (the subway at rush hour...). I live in Manhattan, and when I walk, I often look either at the pavement or the sky. Call it face fatigue.
Either that, or we're becoming less human.
I think your first suspicion is plausible - that it's related to digital cameras. Are you able to get numbers for face size in films shot on 35mm vs digital? The turning point on the graph seems to be around 2001, when mainstream filmmaking began transitioning to digital.
Mullets were in style in the 80s, went out of style from the mid-90s through the 2010s, and now they are back in style again. Back that camera up.
It drives me CRAZY when modern filmmakers don't use a CU when the moment would obviously benefit from it. Key lines of dialogue in a scene are completely lost because they're still in a two shot or wider. In some instances, the actor's face is not even on screen and their line is mumbled, so the only way I get it is if I have captions on. Poor shooting and even worse editing in today's films are maddening.