this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
273 points (97.6% liked)

Asklemmy

43945 readers
646 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

So a view I see a lot nowadays is that attention spans are getting shorter, especially when it comes to younger generations. And the growing success of short form content on Tiktok, Youtube and Twitter for example seems to support this claim. I have a friend in their early 20s who regularly checks their phone (sometimes scrolling Tiktok content) as we're watching a film. And an older colleague recently was pleased to see me reading a book, because he felt that anyone my age and younger was less likely to want to invest the time in reading.

But is this actually true on the whole? Does social media like Tiktok really mould our interests and alter our attention? In some respects I can see how it could change our expectations. If we've come to expect a webpage to load in seconds, it can be frustrating when we have to wait minutes. But to someone that was raised with dial-up, perhaps that wouldn't be as much of an issue. In the same way, if a piece of media doesn't capture someone in the first few minutes they may be more inclined to lose focus because they're so used to quick dopamine hits from short form content. Alternatively, maybe this whole argument is just a 'kids these days' fallacy. Obviously there are plenty of young adults that buck this trend.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.one 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Ok well 2001 was kind of an outlier... you're not wrong. It was slow when I watched it in the 90s lol.

But, watch something like The Maltese Falcon. Which I did recently.

I had no issue following. It didn't plod along in my view (of course I'm middle aged and don't do tiktok). But it also wasn't rapid fire constant clamor. There was space to absorb and reflect as the story evolved. And you need that space because it's mentally challenging.

One thing that hit hard is how it is a good, interesting story above all else. Definitely gives theater vibes and made me realize how hollow a lot of movies are.

Anyway. There are lots of examples from the 60s and 70s that are slower paced and a lot less busy and chaotic than modern films for sure.

[–] OmegaMouse@feddit.uk 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

An older film I really recommend is Twelve Angry Men. No special effects or camera work. Just twelve jurors in a room discussing a murder case - and I was hooked throughout! Perfectly paced.

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

I've been meaning to watch that one.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

Yeah but there are also modern films and TV shows that could be considered "slow" and are fantastic. There's more media in general, and a larger portion is definitely catered to short attention spans, but there's still some great, "slow", shit.

[–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

2001 is fucking stellar and I can easily watch it all in one sitting. It’s a banger. I’m mid30s though and also don’t do social media, just forums.

“Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles”… I want to know how many kids can get through that these days.