What is the 21st Century?: Frame-Rate Follies

After a three year absence, the column returns as a bi-weekly look at issues in contemporary film culture and technology.

***

As implemented in Peter Jackson’s new The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, HFR—the 48-frames-per-second 3D process touted by Jackson and company as producing a crisper, more life-like moving image—occasionally looks stuttery and awkward. Static subjects look indistinguishable from their 24 fps counterparts, while motion tends to look sped-up in comparison; it sometimes gives the on-screen action the flavor of a poorly-buffered streaming video, and has earned the process comparisons to a poor PAL-to-NTSC transfer, a soap opera, a BBC production aired on public television, and an Xbox cutscene.

It’s easy to dismiss these comparisons as reactionary; we do, after all, live in a culture where “24 frames per second” is a synecdoche for cinema and where unusual frame-rates are associated with television and consumer-grade video. Proponents of the technology have chalked up negative reactions to "the shock of the new" (i.e. HFR doesn't "look bad" because it looks bad, but because viewers have been conditioned to watch movies at 24 fps). 

The technology's defenders have a point; HFR isn't a fundamentally bad technology. It is, however, fundamentally different, and thus requires a fundamentally different approach to filmmaking. In The Hobbit, however, its implementation is so careless that, for the most part, all the added frames do is undermine an already wobbly, ungainly film.   

The failure of The Hobbit's HFR / 48 fps, therefore, isn’t so much a failure of design as it is a failure of imagination. Imperfect technology can produce striking results (see: early color processes, the clattery sound design of early talkies, ghostly video), but only in the hands of filmmakers who can appreciate (and stylize) its shortcomings. Every technology has its limits (24 fps is no exception), and film style operates by either smoothing over these flaws (as classical Hollywood did) or exploiting them (as a lot of key avant-garde filmmakers have). 

The Hobbit’s problem is that it does neither. Instead, it attempts to fit 48 fps motion into a 24 fps visual grammar; the result is a visually-dissonant film that serves mostly as a showcase for the technology’s flaws, and which probably plays better at a halved frame-rate—which is how it is being shown in most theaters—than in its intended format. Without 24 fps' motion blur, action and editing rhythm are largely out-of-sync, quick camera movement looks jittery, and make-up looks like, well, make-up—which is a problem for a film where every single character is wearing a false nose, a false beard, or at least false ears. 

Take, for example, the stagier of the film's two (!) prologues, which features the elderly Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm) composing his memoirs. On storyboards, the scene probably looked cohesive—shots of Bilbo wandering around Bag End, looking at old mementos, sitting down at a table to write down his youthful adventures. But HFR's stop-start sense of movement breaks up any sense of cohesion; the shots seemed planned and timed according to the fairly even sense of movement of 24 fps, but within the more irregular rhythm of 48 fps motion, their purpose is undermined. 

Of course, movies haven't always run at 24 frames per second. In the first two decades of commercial film distribution, projectionists would take anywhere between 6 and 16 ½ minutes to crank through 1,000 feet of film. Once features came around, distributors started specifying fps rates on cue sheets—hand-outs put together for use by projectionists and musical accompanists. These varied from film to film—and were almost always different from the fps rates at which the films were actually shot. 

In light of Jackson's promise of a more "life-like" sense of movement, it should be noted that, during the early history of cinema, it wasn't widely assumed that film should accurately represent speed and motion; the goal was instead a deliberate stylization of movement. According to Kevin Brownlow's "Silent Films: What Was the Right Speed?" (Sight & Sound, Summer 1980)—a still-invaluable piece of research intended to shatter the then-prevalent myth that most silent movies were meant to be shown at 16 frames per second—the specified fps rates could even vary from reel to reel within a single feature; Brownlow quotes D.W. Griffith as indicating that Home Sweet Home (1914) should be shown at 16.6 fps for the first reel, 19 fps for the second reel, and 19-20.5 fps for the remainder of the movie—in other words, that the film's sense of motion should become more stylized as the plot progressed. 

By the mid-1920s, there were calls for standardization, and 24 frames per second was eventually settled on as both a shooting and a projection standard. Within the grammar of silent film—developed around a heightened sense of movement—24 fps shooting and projection seemed "slow." Style shifted to accommodate.  

The problem of The Hobbit, then, is a lack of accommodation. Quite a few important films from the last decade have played fast and loose with digital video’s sense of on-screen motion: Colossal Youth, which makes deliberate use of MiniDV’s slightly ghostly sense of movement and its wild grain; Public Enemies, where every shot presents a different sense of motion (look no further than the stunning “Little Bohemia” lodge sequence); Inland Empire, which mines the blurry, bleary motion of consumer-grade video for oneiric effects. Not one of these films moves or looks like 24-frames-per-second film is supposed to; The Hobbit looks conservative in comparison—and that's precisely the root of its problem.

Responses

7 responses to this post.  Join the discussion

  • Checkpoint Charlie

    Certainly my head didn’t hurt upon viewing INLAND EMPIRE as much as it had the few times I happened to see the trailer for The Hobbit!

  • Ryland Walker Knight

    Almost enough to get me in the seat to experience this oddity. But then I remember it’s 170 minutes long and it’s part one of three and the book was something I read in a weekend in middle school. Thx for the stellar elucidation (I’m trusting you…) of this “ungainly” thing’s very ungainliness.

  • a Smith

    I have yet to see this, but to the extent that I can, I agree completely. Since the announcement was made—before anyone had seen a single frame—there were people arguing sincerely for and against: some saying that the improved realism was the future, others that our responses to the effect could be gauged by our responses to similar experiences (including those to which the film’s look are being compared).

    Even if this is the future, it will need to be implemented in a way that pushes the current media or that results in a new one. And though this column interests me in trying to discern the 24fps grammar Ignatiy mentions, even without seeing it, the lack of imagination in its use seems evident by Jackson’s choice of 48 rather than another rate. With a little added compression, he could have shot at, say, 60fps. If an increased frame rate is going to make it better, why settle for a multiple of what we’re used to? Why not go all out if you’re trying for something new?

  • tomas.roges

    Excellent write up.

  • Christoph Hochhäusler

    It seems to me that most of the technological change in cinema is not growing out of artistic needs or desires but because it’s possible. The possible “wants” to get real (and the industry is happy to ‘help’). Only eventually people get ideas how to use the new stuff. I have not yet seen 48 fps but I wonder how to make it work. Ignatiy, could you be a little more … prophetic and sketch out what this new image could be good for? (Cinemascope good for funerals and snakes - first reaction of the old masters at the time)

    Christoph

  • Christoph Hochhäusler

    Francis Coppola said 1980:

    “I think there is something like new meaning growing out of technology – melodies we never heard before because they have not been possible before.”

    (sorry for the wobbly re-translation from German)

  • NICOLE86

    I agree with everything about this. Directors need to adapt to the technology as well. I took my mother for her birthday and the fast shots almost put her in a seizure.

Your opinion

Please login to add a new comment.