Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

The Longest Average Shot Lengths in Modern Hollywood

by A.D. Jameson
June 26, 2013 8:38 AM
  • |

Director Alfonso Cuarón likes long takes, preferring to cut his films as little as he can. His 2006 movie Children of Men features three relatively long single takes: the scene where Kee gives birth (3:19); the roadside ambush (4:07); and the final battle (7:34). (Here’s a video that features all of them, as well as every other take in the film that runs at least 45 seconds.) Now he’s preparing to release a new film, Gravity, which supposedly opens with a 17-minute-long take. (The first trailer was recently released, and can be viewed here.) What’s more, the rest of the film apparently contains only 155 other shots. Assuming that the movie runs 2 hours long (the actual run time hasn’t been announced yet), that would mean that each shot is, on average, slightly longer than 46 seconds apiece.

That’s extremely long for contemporary Hollywood, where shots typically don’t last longer than a few seconds each. For instance, Michael Bay’s Transformers movies are pretty rapidly cut, with Average Shot Lengths (ASLs) between 3 and 3.4 seconds.) But that’s not altogether unusual. For instance, Inception (2010) has an ASL of 3.1. (I made a video about that, here.) Scholars such as David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson have documented how, over the past thirty years, cutting in Hollywood films has gotten faster, resulting in ASLs of under 5 seconds. Foreign films have remained slower by comparison, and European filmmakers often bring those habits to Hollywood. Drive, for instance, which was directed by the Danish filmmaker Nicolas Winding Refn, features pretty long takes, and an ASL of 7 seconds/shot). But that’s still much faster than what Cuarón has just accomplished.

Advance word about Gravity got some friends and me wondering: what other contemporary Hollywood films have ASLs higher than 46? Or is Gravity going to set some new record?

To answer that question, I turned to the Cinemetrics Database, an online database for ASLs and other measurements for films. It’s important to note that the data there is submitted by volunteers, and very prone to errors. Furthermore, the database is also far from complete. Still, it’s a very useful tool. (The site also provides free software that anyone can download to use and to participate.)

Here’s what I did. First, I clicked “Show all,” so I could sort the films by ASL—simple enough. I saw right away that Russian Ark was #1, which makes sense. That 2002 film consists of only a single shot, and thereby yields an ASL of 5496.3). So far, the database appeared correct.

The next step was harder. I imported the sorted data into Excel, and began distinguishing the Hollywood films from the rest. This is important because, as already noted, lots of foreign films contain longer takes than their US counterparts. But we want to know how remarkable Gravity is going to appear in US cineplexes this summer. I took out a lot of works by familiar European names here: Béla Tarr & Ágnes Hranitzky, Theodoros Angelopoulos, Chantal Akerman, Hou Hsiao-Hsien, Kim Ki-duk, Pedro Costa, Jean-Marie Straub & Daniele Huillet, the Dardenne Brothers, Jafar Panahi, Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Tsai Ming-liang … (If you’re unfamiliar with their films, you’re missing out on some of the best movies being made today).

The next step was to weed out experimental/underground directors like Andy Warhol and George Kuchar, and older Hollywood directors like G.W. Bitzer and D.W. Griffith. Again, we want to compare Gravity to recent Hollywood films. Shot length slowed down a lot when sound was introduced, and has been speeding up over the past eighty-something years. For instance, Howard Hawks’s His Girl Friday (1940) has an ASL of about 15 seconds. (That said, an ASL of 46 would be remarkable even in Classic Hollywood.)

And here’s what I found (although keep in mind I wasn’t able to independently confirm any of this, and I had to weed out a lot of anomalies—the database really needs some cleaning up!)

1. Rope (1948, Alfred Hitchcock), ASL = 433.9

OK, this isn’t a recent recent film, but it has to be noted, as it’s most likely the highest ASL in Hollywood. Hitchcock used only 10 shots in making it (the film’s Wikipedia page lists them). (As you probably know, Hitchcock designed those shots, then edited them such that the finished film appeared to be a single take.)

After that, editing speeds up considerably:

3. Down by Law (1986, Jim Jarmusch), ASL = 51.1

4. Elephant (2003, Gus Van Sant), ASL = 49.4

5. Bullets Over Broadway (1994, Woody Allen), ASL = 48.2

6. Last Days (2005, Gus Van Sant), ASL = 46.5

Actually, we’ve already encountered an omission. The #2 film isn’t in the database (yet)—that being Gus Van Sant’s Gerry (2002), the first part of a trilogy that also includes Elephant and Last Days. Gerry is one of my favorite of Van Sant’s films, and since I’ve seen it many times I know that its footage of Matt Damon and Casey Affleck wandering through different deserts doesn’t feature much cutting, The IMDb trivia page for the film claims that it consists of exactly 100 shots, which over 103 minutes would yield an ASL of 61.8. (Subtracting the credits would put it closer to 60 seconds per shot.)

So, given the data so far, Gravity looks ready to clock in at #7 in the list of Hollywood movies with the highest ASLs.

However, like I said, the Cinemetrics Database contains a lot of anomalous data. One entry that stood out was Blizzard, a 2003 children’s film about a magic reindeer, directed by Star Trek‘s own LeVar Burton (who played the blind engineer Geordi LaForge). There are two records for this film: 46.5 and 76.9. One entry I could overlook, but two raised my suspicions (even if their claims wildly differ). So I obtained a copy of the film and gave it a look. And I didn’t watch the whole thing, but I can report that, unless there’s some 15-minute-long shot lurking in there somewhere, its ASL is entirely typical—about 3–4 seconds per shot.

After that, Woody Allen has a lot of the list locked up:

8. Alice (1990, Woody Allen), ASL = 40.5

9. Sweetgrass (2009, Ilisa Barbash & Lucien Castaing-Taylor), ASL = 39.5

10.  Mighty Aphrodite (1995, Woody Allen), ASL = 34.6

11. Redacted (2007, Brian De Palma), ASL = 34.4

12. Don’t Drink the Water (1994, Woody Allen), ASL = 33.1

13. Everyone Says I Love You (1996, Woody Allen), ASL = 32.9 (another entry lists 31.9)

14. Shadows and Fog (1991, Woody Allen), ASL = 32.7

15. Celebrity (1998, Woody Allen), ASL = 32.1

16. September (1987, Woody Allen), ASL = 31.3

17. Slacker (1991, Richard Linklater), ASL = 31.1

18. Vernon, Florida (1982, Errol Morris), ASL = 30.5

19. Cloverfield (2008, Matt Reeves), ASL = 28.9

20. Husbands & Wives (1992, Woody Allen), ASL = 27.8

21. Manhattan Murder Mystery (1993, Woody Allen), ASL = 27.7

22. Another Woman (1988, Woody Allen), ASL = 26.9

23.  My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done (2009, Werner Herzog), ASL = 26.9

24. Gates of Heaven (1980, Errol Morris), ASL = 26

25. Mystery Train (1989, Jim Jarmusch), ASL = 25

26. Rules of Attraction (2001, Roger Avary), ASL = 24.9

27. Hannah and Her Sisters  (1986, Woody Allen), ASL = 24.5

28. Grizzly Man (2005, Werner Herzog), ASL = 24.4

This isn’t surprising. Woody Allen has long been noted for his reluctance to cut, and his preference for shooting whole scenes in single takes. This makes shooting the film more complicated, but it does allow actors more flexibility in their performances (since they can move about the set more freely), and greatly speeds up the editing process.

That said, it is odd that the sorted data didn’t include any Woody Allen film made after 1996. Their absence would indicate one of two things: that the man has changed his way of working (which I don’t think is the case), or that his later films have yet to be analyzed and included. I find the latter possibility more likely. (Also, note that the most recent film here is four years old, so it’s possible some recent titles are missing.)

I’ve seen every film on this list except for Sweetwater, Redacted, Cloverfield, and My Son, My Son, so I can’t vouch for them, but the rest looks correct. (Mystery Train also has two other entries that claim 24.1 and 23.9, respectively; either way, it probably ranks somewhere around 24.)

That said, Rules of Attraction has to be a mistake. It is a remarkable film for many reasons, featuring an extraordinarily wide variety of cinematic techniques: splitscreen, reversed footage, extensive slow motion, and more. And it does contain many wonderful long takes—but it also contains a sequence comprised of hundreds, if not thousands, of rapid cuts. My guess is that whoever was measuring the film chose not to count all the shots in that section, which is of course incorrect. (To get the ASL, you have to average the length of every shot in the film.)

I stopped analyzing the data at this point because after this the field starts getting increasingly cluttered, meaning the inaccuracies in the database render the results less meaningful.

So with Gravity‘s release, Cuarón looks ready to not only make his most languorous film to date, but also to take his place alongside long-take masters like Allen, Van Sant, Jarmusch, Herzog, and Morris.

Seventh place, to be exact.

A.D Jameson is the author of the prose collection Amazing Adult Fantasy (Mutable Sound, 2011), in which he tries to come to terms with having been raised on '80s pop culture, and the novel Giant Slugs (Lawrence and Gibson, 2011), an absurdist retelling of the Epic of Gilgamesh. He's taught classes at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, Lake Forest College, DePaul University, Facets Multimedia, and StoryStudio Chicago. He's also the nonfiction / reviews editor of the online journal Requited. He recently started the PhD program in Creative Writing at the University of Illinois at Chicago. In his spare time, he contributes to the group blogs Big Other and HTMLGIANT. Follow him on Twitter at @adjameson.

  • |

More: A.D. Jameson

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    


  • Direct movie | September 19, 2013 4:07 AMReply

    You will really love this!! I foud a website where you can download HD movies in high speed, No regisrations needed and its 100% free. its

  • Geof | August 12, 2013 11:57 AMReply

    One film missing that jumped out at me is Jarmush's "Stranger than Paradise" which consistes of almost no cutting in scenes. I checked the database and it isn't in there, but I think it would be near the top.

  • A D Jameson | September 27, 2013 1:05 AM

    You should analyze it and add it to the database!

    Also, recently I've been thinking of a different measure: how many scenes a film has (regardless of how many shots it has). Someone should start counting those as well...

  • Grace | June 28, 2013 5:48 PMReply

    You may also want to check out Derek Cianfrance's 'The Place Beyond The Pines"; Sean Bobbit (BSC) opens the film (:43) with a steady cam long take that has a length of 114 seconds with with (in my opinion) consistently average long (longer than average) takes throughout the movie...

  • A D Jameson | June 30, 2013 12:28 PM

    Thanks! I've been meaning to watch that one, and now have all the more reason to do so.

    I should clarify, though, that I'm not some kind of long-take fanatic. I like them, certainly, and admire the technical issues involved in pulling them off. For instance, I adore Miklós Jancsó's 1972 features RED PSALM (1972), which features only 27 takes, yielding an ASL of 193.3

    But more than anything, I prefer when cutting serves some purpose in the film (which of course may very well be the case in THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES).

    Cheers, Adam

  • Mark Rosoff | June 26, 2013 10:32 PMReply

    What about Citizen Kane?

  • A D Jameson | June 28, 2013 9:08 PM

    I just looked it up in the Cinemetrics Database, where the results are as follow: 4.9, 3.4, 5.3, 5.3. Yielding an average of 4.7 and a median of 5.1. Cheers, Adam

  • Todd | June 26, 2013 10:28 AMReply

    I recently read an interview with Werner Herzog where he said that modern movies use very quick cuts to trick the viewer into thinking something interesting is happening on the screen.

    I think directors (and studios/producers) lack confidence in both their material and their audience to risk lengthy shots for fear of being boring.

  • A D Jameson | June 28, 2013 9:12 PM

    There's definitely validity to that. I tend to think of cuts as a tool, though, and think there's nothing wrong with rapid cutting if there's a reason for it. It produces a particular effect. I wrote an article, for instance, where I compared a scene in INCEPTION with a scene in SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD:
    As it turns out, the cutting in that section of SCOTT PILGRIM was faster than the cutting in the scene in INCEPTION. But it was done much more effectively, I'd argue. And effect is what counts.

    Thanks for your comment! Cheers, Adam

Follow Us

Latest Tweets

Follow us

Most "Liked"

  • METAMERICANA: Outlaw Country Goes Psychedelic: ...
  • VIDEO ESSAY: R.I.P. Lauren Bacall