I love tachistography: shots so short, they are more-or-less subliminal. Used intelligently, they can begin to approximate how humans look at things and think about them.
Classic examples: the drug trip in Roger Corman’s THE TRIP (1967) and appearances of demons in THE EXORCIST (Friedkin, 1973)
However, Wilson Bryan Key, author of several important books on subliminal advertising, finds tachistography to be manipulative and unethical.
I adore Yasujiro Ozu’s “pillow shots” and how he uses them to build up a mood and milieu. Many people have copied this effect, but none do it, I think, as well as Ozu.
How could I not favor Hitch’s vertigo shot, but I often admire and find myself thinking about long after the film, are the long takes.
Love: Long takes and split screens… Odd camera angles.
Dislike: Too many close ups and and the usual establishing shots.
(Aside: Thanks to David for the mention of “Tachistography”. I learned something new today.)
Wow. Tachistography has only two hits in google. Both are in (The Site formerly Known As) TheAuteurs.
“tachy” means “fast”
as in “tachycardia”== rapid heartbeat.
or tachyons=== fast-moving atomic particles
I like the use of shadows to let us know what’s happening (but not the abuse of it, obviously) for example The 400 Blows, when Antoine Doinel (kid) steals the glass of milk or in Aki Kaurismaki’s Ariel when Taisto digs.
I usually dislike stop motion and face close ups. Eek
Really? ;-)
“I love tachistography: shots so short, they are more-or-less subliminal. Used intelligently, they can begin to approximate how humans look at things and think about them.”
I was curious to see if there is anything interesting about it. Subliminal messages are not as interesting as some people think they are. I am also not sure why a film should try to imitate what happens at the neural level. Can you give me an example of its intelligent use?
@Hopelessly Addicted:
Jan Svankmajer used Tachistography in Food, Ingmar Bergman used it as well in Persona a couple of times.
Great thread! Although slightly lacking in the aural, here’s some sound techniques to balance things out.
Like: Highly designed but totally worldized sound – Null Extension (when used correctly) – Diegetic switching within a single shot.
Dislike: Vococentrism for the sake of convention – Any use of the Wilhelm scream.
Speaking of Jan Svankmejer, I absolutely love the sound design in his films. There’s a very tactile feeling to all the sounds—they’re just as much a part of the physical world of the film as the objects themselves.
Not sure if this is a specific technique, or just the way he liked to do things.
Wouldn’t Tachistography (according to David’s definition) be very similar to the Stream of Consciousness in literature?
According to David: “I love tachistography: shots so short, they are more-or-less subliminal. Used intelligently, they can begin to approximate how humans look at things and think about them.”
This makes sense to me. It would resemble the cognitive process; the manner which we go from consciousness, to sentience, to ideas, to imagination and vice-versa. Isn’t our thought process in fact, a blend of these very things, at different speeds and in different patterns?
I cannot think of a film I’ve watched where Tachistography has been used (I haven’t watched “Persona” or “Food”)… It would be interesting to watch.
@agustina
I would politely claim that, Yes! You have seen plenty of movies where extremely short cuts have been used…. let’s say, as a working definition, shots lasting nine frames or less at 24fps.
But that is the very nature of the tachistographic cut: it fills in little bits of information the Director wants you to have in order to piece together his story. But the wise cutter places it in a sequence in which it seems totally natural. Again, it is like the little glances we make in life— both outwardly and inwardly. (You’ve read some of the Murch material on eyeblinks and why we have them?)
By tachistography, I do not mean “heterogeneous material”, although it can be that. Heterogeneous material hearkens back to that supposed 1950’s “drive-in theater experiment” in which brief frames of “Thirsty? HAVE A COKE.” were flashed before the audience while they were presumably viewing another film on another subject. It is those kinds of experiments which suggest “unfair subliminal manipulation” and give tachistography a bad name.
No, usually the tachistographic cut will be part-and-parcel of the story’s milieu.
THE EXORCIST contains three notable moments in it of tachistography, and each time they are shots of grimacing demons. Pretty scary-looking, I’ll say. You either see them or you don’t, but they’re there. Either way, I think they heighten the fear inherent in the story.
Anyone remember Griffin Dunne pawing through that book on human burn victims in AFTER HOURS? The images are shown tachistographically… just long enough to clue the viewer that he is viewing something ghastly… but not long enough for us to form a conscious, awakened opinion of their content.
Horror is definitely a good place for tachistography—- there are a lot of things we can hardly bear to countenance—- but it works well in any genre.
I think that reverse angle mid shots can really make a film drag :(
Likes:
> Long held shots that let the audience see what is happening. Hsiao-hsien, Tarr, Tarkovsky, et al.
> Camera movement when there is a meshing of form and content such as the use of camera movement in Ingmar Bergman’s ‘Monika’ vs none camera movement depending on the main character’s actions or Manoel de Oliveira’s ‘The Convent’ where there is literally one camera movement and it has meaning or Lars von Trier’s ‘Breaking the Waves’ where the handheld movement matches the woman character’s mindset. Or really slow camera movement like Angelopolous or Jansco where it has the effect of mesmerizing the audience almost like a long held shot will.
Dislikes:
> Slow motion can be really annoying if the director [or editor] uses it to make an emotional point when the point is already obvious. [Slow motion only gets a pass for wedding videos]. That said, Peckinpah did it right.
> Unnecessary [flashy] camera movements. Sometime a director [or DP] gets crazy with camera movement when it serves absolutely no purpose to either the story or the mood of the story. I’ll cut Scorsese slack because his movement usually says something about the state of the characters or the NY tough guy setting.
> Quick cut editing that is only designed to keep the audience engaged. Too many movies over the last 10 years fit this category.
DISLIKE
Most of the stuff Tony Scott does in Man on Fire.
Also, slow motion.
“I cannot think of a film I’ve watched where Tachistography has been used (I haven’t watched “Persona” or “Food”)… It would be interesting to watch."
It really hit me in Punch-Drunk Love, when Barry is alone in the warehouse and the rolling door is opened and light starts to flood in, it cuts to him cowering in fear ever so quickly and then in the next shot he’s back to normal. I think there are a couple more instances in that movie but can’t remember off the top of my head.
I think you can take any technique and make it good or bad. for example when Werner Herzog uses slow mo in Woyzeck its jaw dropping and awe inspiring. When Zach Snyder uses it Watchmen I’m really offended as a movie watcher and a comic book fan.
Now here’s a technique I hate. Really good movies don’t use it, but a lot of “dumbed down” movies and TV shows use it:
It’s like this:
Character A cracks a joke or makes a witty, ironic, sharp or dry statement.
Cut to… a reaction shot of his partner…. who laughs at the remark.
Cut to Character A again who continues speaking.
In other words, a reaction shot whose sole purpose is to show the audience that the recipient took the remark as a joke. As if the audience weren’t sure and needed to be prodded. I really hate these kinds of reaction shots. Because a good director, if he has set up relationships correctly, doesn’t need to clue the audience in that a statement was funny, dry, sharp or ironic; he trusts that his audience is smart enough to know that the remark was funny.
These reaction shots are somewhat insulting to a sophisticated viewer’s intelligence.
Those “heartwarming airplane movies” of the sort that Penny Marshall, Rob Reiner, Diane English, Nora Ephron make are full of these kinds of reaction shots. They create a lugubrious, saccharine atmosphere that audiences seem to like.
Like:
The Pillow Shots, moments of pure time and non narrative motives. (Ozu)
The Long Take. (Bela Tarr, Mizoguchi, Ophuls, Murnau)
Deep Focus (Jean Renoir)
Documentary-like cinematography (Rossellini and the neorrealist in general)
Gradual Plot elimination. (Antonioni in L’Avventura, very rare)
Documentary intercutting for political or even strange effects.
Travelling Shots.
Dislike
Close ups
Without Style (Buñuel, Ford)
I don’t like too much drama in general.
Like:
The Pillow Shots, moments of pure time and non narrative motives. (Ozu)
The Long Take. (Bela Tarr, Mizoguchi, Ophuls, Murnau)
Deep Focus (Jean Renoir)
Documentary-like cinematography (Rossellini and the neorrealist in general)
Gradual Plot elimination. (Antonioni in L’Avventura, very rare)
Documentary intercutting for political or even strange effects.
Travelling Shots.
Dislike
Close ups
Without Style (Buñuel, Ford)
I don’t like too much drama in general.
Zach Kaigler
I really enjoy long takes and rack focuses.