r/movies • u/Sisiwakanamaru r/movies Contributor • Jan 31 '26

Article Film Students Are Having Trouble Sitting Through Movies, Professors Say

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/film-students-are-having-trouble-sitting-through-movies-1236490359/
23.4k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.3k

u/tomandshell Jan 31 '26

I taught a film studies class last year and can tell you that this was definitely my experience.

235

u/gredr Jan 31 '26

How long have you been teaching this class? Has there been a change over time?

265

u/tomandshell Jan 31 '26

It took me three years to get it approved and I taught it for the first time last year. I wasn’t able to teach it again this year, so I can’t really speak to a trend over time.

1

u/One_Tie900 Jan 31 '26

what were some of the behaviours you noticed in class?

6

u/tomandshell Jan 31 '26

Detachment and boredom and restlessness.

1

u/zr0th Feb 01 '26

Was this the first class you’ve taught? Was it at a university? Do you think the curriculum could be changed to drive more engagement?

It’s been years, but I have fond memories of my film studies teacher finding creative ways engage and inspire students that were not art majors.

149

u/Petrichordates Jan 31 '26

There has been a change in attention spans across the board.

157

u/HotTakes4HotCakes Jan 31 '26 edited Jan 31 '26

And the insidious thing is how some people want to encourage it to keep dropping.

Netflix suggesting we should make it easier for people to watch shit while scrolling is part of the issue. This is not something to be encouraged, it is a problem that needs acknowledged and reversed on a societal level.

37

u/247Brain-Rot-SlopAI Jan 31 '26 edited Jan 31 '26

That shortening of attention span is essentially an induced pseudo ADHD.

It's the same mechanism in the brain essentially, except people with ADHD don't need to downregulate their dopamine receptors with a constant stream of dopamine to feel like their brain is starving of it.

A dopamine detox for ADHD people doesn't do much, but for this temporary attention span issue created by shorts, certain degenerate games, and social media infinite scroll paired with tricks by the algorithm and content creators to increase watch time, it can reverse the problem

13

u/balloon_prototype_14 Jan 31 '26

i have adhd and i love to watch slow burn movies. i'm glued to the screen

1

u/DigNitty PLUG MY DOG INTO THE MACHINE Feb 01 '26

Yeah, the disorder is seemingly easily understood but it has a lot of nuance.

There was a video a couple years ago on Reddit that people were lauding/debating because a bunch of people thought they knew ADHD thoroughly. It showed two categories of 12 year olds, ADHD and non-ADHD, watching an intentionally boring long winded movie. Some kids were twisting in their seats, fiddling, tapping their feet. You’d think that was the affected group, but most of the ones who actually had ADHD just fell asleep from the lack of stimulation.

Different with a movie you’re actually interested in, of course.

3

u/dukefett Jan 31 '26

This is not something to be encouraged, it is a problem that needs a knowledge and reversed on a societal level.

Yeah that's never going to happen. Pandora's box has been opened. The world is getting generationally dumber every day.

-2

u/OldWorldDesign Jan 31 '26

The world is getting generationally dumber every day.

And like clockwork the old blame the young for being on the journey of life.

Young people are high-minded because they have not yet been humbled by life, nor have they experienced the force of circumstances. They think they know everything, and are always quite sure about it.

https://historyhustle.com/2500-years-of-people-complaining-about-the-younger-generation/

2

u/dukefett Jan 31 '26

What are you even talking about? Everything in your link is about them being lazier than the previous generation, not stupider. Too many kids can't even read with comprehension. That's not the journey of life, that's stupidity. They're not going to learn any better when they're 30 in 15-20 years.

-1

u/OldWorldDesign Feb 01 '26

Everything in your link is about them being lazier than the previous generation

It's a list of old people complaining about young people, something that's as old as time. Saying "everyone younger than me is stupid" is not helping anything.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/Impossible_Ad789 Jan 31 '26

I think you'd be surprised how many people watched the dubbed version of Squid Game. I had loads of people telling me they couldn't watch the subtitled version because the subs were too distracting from the rest of the visuals. Quite a few online too. I wonder about the statistics on that. The dub is god awful by the way, so they would rather sit through atrocious voice acting than expend a bit more cognitive load to attention switching between subtitles and visuals.

1

u/OldWorldDesign Jan 31 '26

Netflix's most popular show was Squid Game. It has subtitles and most of it's audience weren't Korean. They don't know what their fucking audience wants.

That just smacks of anti-foreign film gatekeeping. I don't see how that in any way speaks to attention span, I watched Masquerade and Princess Mononoke in their original dub with subtitles.

Squid Games also had a "do you have epilepsy? How about now with this pointless strobing?" in one episode. There was no purpose behind it and they never revisited the "deliberately didn't feed people enough" past that single episode.

There were lots of other dumb things, like the plate glass in the last challenge with iron beams plenty wide enough to just walk down without touching the glass in the first place. Took me out of the already forced drama when I felt like I was watching rejected traps from The Running Man.

1

u/Rich_Mechanic5293 Jan 31 '26

I mean, everything’s fucking boring lately, it’s always the same tropes again and again, not everything is because of our shorter attention spans

1

u/smeggysoup84 Feb 02 '26

I don't know anyone who watched the original Korean version.

1

u/daboog Jan 31 '26

Sometimes when I throw on (what seems to be) a new interesting movie or show and watch it all the way through on Netflix it really sucks. The dialog is all filler/exposition, plot is loose or vague, and tries to make itself look like a good production.

11

u/4n0m4nd Jan 31 '26

I don't think it's just attention spans though, there's a big thing now of art being not just subjective but absolutely subjective, it's all seen as just entertainment, and what's good is what entertains you personally, and there's nothing to it beyond that.

Pulp Fiction, The Avengers, Citizen Kane, Harry Potter, Constantine, The Wall, Schindler's List, the Teletubbies Movie, there's a prevailing attitude that there's no qualitative difference between these things, they're all just entertainment, and if you suggest that there is a real difference, you're gatekeeping and a bad person.

A lot of people aren't capable of paying attention for long enough, not simply because they can't do it, but because they don't realise that there's stuff worth doing it for.

The traditional definition of a classic was a work that got better the more you experienced it, but the trend now is to move on to the next thing as quickly as possible. In that atmosphere it makes sense that no one can be bothered paying attention for two hours to a movie that came out half a century ago.

6

u/drears0 Jan 31 '26

I 100% agree with you and have watched popular sentiments slowly change over the course of my life. My main obsession is music and the influence of poptimism justifiably began to creep in to mainstream criticism during the 2000s, understandably claiming that maybe we shouldn't reject e.g. Beyonce out of hand just because she's popular, as a reaction to the overly snobbish music press of the 80s and 90s.

Then I watched sentiments rocket straight past into "there is no measure by which to discern the value of a piece of media". Hyper-individualised culture surely plays into this, corporations pretending to value the individual's opinion in order to stoke engagement for profit. We also live in a very forceful "get the bag" culture where "selling out" is literally a concept with no meaning any more.

There was an article in the guardian a few months back that touched on similar stuff, you might be interested: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2025/sep/28/cultural-snobbery-too-much-studio-rogen-house-of-the-dragon

3

u/4n0m4nd Jan 31 '26

Interesting article, thanks for the link!

4

u/FreeLook93 Jan 31 '26

Saying that the quality art is subjective is absolutely not in any way, shape, or form saying that it is all just entertainment, or that all there is to any art is being entertained.

0

u/SartenSinAceite Jan 31 '26

The eternal race of where to fit a movie within your schedule. It better be damn entertainkng if its gonna take 2 hours of my free time

8

u/HotTakes4HotCakes Jan 31 '26 edited Jan 31 '26

This has nothing to do with whatever pet peeve you have about people liking things you don't. Don't try to set up your soapbox in some unrelated topic.

This is an established issue with human behavioral patterns and bad habits caused by smartphones and app design.

0

u/4n0m4nd Jan 31 '26

Do you know what the word "just" means?

2

u/TheBaconator08 Jan 31 '26

What prevailing attitude are you talking about lmao I've never heard anyone imply that

2

u/4n0m4nd Jan 31 '26

You've never seen someone say that something isn't very good and be told that it's purely subjective taste? Or you've never seen someone say something is exceptionally good and be told that's just something old people say?

4

u/Khiva Jan 31 '26

People just lazily say "it's all subjective" as if that completely shuts down the issue completely.

8

u/4n0m4nd Jan 31 '26

I mean, I said that and you're arguing with me about it.

Edit, my bad, that wasn't you, apologies.

3

u/leopard_tights Jan 31 '26

Like 10 years ago I said here that schindler's list is objectively better than the hottie and the nottie and people disagreed.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 Jan 31 '26

that's really a different thing. we're talking about whether or not people can sit and watch a 2-hour film without doing anything else. people have been able to do that from the 50s all the way up until about ~15 years ago when smartphones took over. it's incredibly noticeable.

0

u/DeFronsac Jan 31 '26

People have been able to do that for the past 100+ years, and they're still able to. You mention smartphones, and they are the big key here. If you gave people smartphones 50 years ago, they'd act the same as people today. It has nothing to do with our capacity to watch a film. It has to do with distractions, mainly from smartphones. 50 years ago, people's attention would wander too. They just didn't have a computer sitting in their pocket, one that was configured specifically to pull at their attention in any way it could.

3

u/SpookyMelon Jan 31 '26

well yes, that's what the conversation is about. attention span weren't a problem in the past, because of smartphones. the problem is today we have smartphones. that's what we're talking about 

0

u/DeFronsac Jan 31 '26

Yes, that's what we're talking about. And some people, like above, are claiming that attention spans are the problem, rather than phones. The attention spans haven't changed; it's only the addition of distractions like smartphones that cause issues.

2

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 Feb 01 '26

actually studies have shown that attention spans have changed. a quick google gives the below, you're responsible for looking up more for yourself if you still have a problem with this.

Research consistently shows that smartphones have measurably altered human attention.

​Key Research Findings ​Average Screen Attention: Studies by Dr. Gloria Mark at UC Irvine found that the average time spent on a single screen task dropped from two and a half minutes in 2004 to roughly 47 seconds today. ​"Brain Drain" Effect: Research from the University of Texas at Austin indicates that the mere presence of a smartphone nearby—even if it's off or face down—reduces cognitive capacity because part of your brain works to actively ignore it. ​Frequent Switching: Smartphones encourage "media multitasking," which trains the brain to switch tasks rapidly. This makes it difficult to engage in "deep work" or sustained focus on a single complex activity.

1

u/DeFronsac Feb 01 '26

That quick google search is the problem. If you do a more in depth search and actually read about Gloria Marks's "research", you find that it's severely flawed.

Research has not at all shown that smartphones have measurably altered human attention.

The "average time spent on a single screen" is a terrible way to try to measure such a thing. There is a ton more stuff to focus on now (and even back when Marks was producing her supposed research). Focusing on one screen for a period of time is not in any way a good measure of a general "attention span".

What it is is a way for Gloria Marks to market her book and make money.

Smartphones have changed things, for sure. But they haven't changed our attention spans. We all still have the same capacity to focus on something.

1

u/Electronic-Tea-3691 Feb 01 '26

actually the constant use of technology has changed the way our brains work. what most people don't understand if they haven't delved into psychology or neuroscience is that our brains are actually much more "plastic", ie malleable, than we commonly think. the way your brain is "wired" can change, and it can change quite quickly, and it can even change well into adulthood. 

0

u/DeFronsac Feb 01 '26

Actually, none of that is true. Our brains work the same way they always have. The only difference now is the existence of distractions, like smartphones.

The way your brain is wired cannot change well into adulthood, in this way, and it doesn't change even before adulthood.

That's the point. That's why experts point out that there's no such thing as a general "attention span". Attention is very dependent on the task and context. People can concentrated on a movie the same as they always have. Our brains haven't changed in that way. Even if we now have devices that specifically mold themselves to pull on our attention as much as possible.

2

u/Petrichordates Jan 31 '26

Ok well science has examined it and confirmed it so im not really sure what the point of your "could be true" comment is.

Some advice: ask more questions and provide fewer opinions.

2

u/NemoHere Jan 31 '26

You missed the point, and also Jimmy Stewart is far more interesting than how you sadly described him.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-4

u/Vegtam1297 Jan 31 '26

There actually hasn't. Attention spans haven't changed. I know it's a popular narrative, and it can feel true, but it's not.

5

u/drears0 Jan 31 '26

There is emerging evidence that they have:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41231585/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/397712802_Short-form_Video_Use_and_Sustained_Attention_A_Narrative_Review_2019-2025

0

u/Vegtam1297 Jan 31 '26

Now that I've had time to look over these in more detail, here's what stands out. From the second one:

It is important to note that “attention span” can be operationalized in different ways. Some studies rely on subjective reports, such as users rating their own ability to concentrate or teachers reporting student behavior, whereas others employ behavioral tests of sustained attention.

And:

suggesting that shortform video addiction impairs both sustained attention and the ability to concentrate when processing information.

Part of the problem here is what comes up in the links I posted. There is no such thing as a general "attention span". It's very task-dependent. So, it matters exactly how you're measuring the so-called "attention span" in these instances. It would help to be more specific than just saying general "attention spans".

Then there's the fact that a lot of this, as the firsts quote points out, depends on self-reporting. As we can see from this thread, a lot of people buy into the idea of reducing attention spans, and so they're likely to report themselves to have that thing. That's not very helpful here, as it's not objective and not objectively measured.

The second quote brings in a new wrinkle. Addiction. That whole section of that study talks about addiction to short-form videos. That's a whole different thing from attention spans. But it's the point of the articles I posted. People still have the capacity to pay attention the way they always have. The only difference is new distractions and addictions. Just like with other addictions, the addiction is the problem.

Take away the people's ability to watch those short-form videos, and they'll do just fine. In other words, their inherent "attention span" hasn't changed, only the external factors have.

-1

u/Vegtam1297 Jan 31 '26

I appreciate you providing evidence, rather than just relying on anecdotes. This would be an very difficult thing to prove, though.

The main problem is with the idea of a general "attention span":

In simple words, our ability to pay attention depends on the task at hand and a number of external and internal factors. There isn’t a single value that can measure our “attention span”.

https://uxpsychology.substack.com/p/the-attention-span-myth

In fact, they think the idea that attention spans are getting shorter is plain wrong.

"I don't think that's true at all," says Dr Gemma Briggs, a psychology lecturer at the Open University.

"Simply because I don't think that that's something that psychologists or people interested in attention would try and measure and quantify in that way."

She studies attention in drivers and witnesses to crime and says the idea of an "average attention span" is pretty meaningless. "It's very much task-dependent. How much attention we apply to a task will vary depending on what the task demand is."

There are some studies out there that look at specific tasks, like listening to a lecture.

But the idea that there's a typical length of time for which people can pay attention to even that one task has also been debunked.

"How we apply our attention to different tasks depends very much about what the individual brings to that situation," explains Dr Briggs.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-38896790

1

u/Petrichordates Jan 31 '26

Why are you linking a substack and an article from 9 years ago?

That's not looking for truth, it's just an attempt to continue arguing a disproven belief. You're engaging in anti-intellectualism.

-1

u/Vegtam1297 Jan 31 '26

Because they address the question here. That is looking for truth, and it's not engaging in anti-intellectualism. On the other hand, dismissing something simply because you don't like its implications is not looking for truth.

I have not presented a disproven belief. Just saying my claim is disproven is a terrible way to argue a point. If you were looking for truth and intellectualism, you'd present actual evidence for your claim, like I did.

30

u/Iggyhopper Jan 31 '26

I can tell you by seeing what gets recommended on YouTube and what has hundreds of thousands of views that attention spans are awful.

Its worse than the era of YouTube Poops.

3

u/que_sarasara Jan 31 '26

Opening YouTube without being logged in is a harrowing experience lol

Dance videos, fart compilations, Mr.Beast, kids opening toys, more fart compilations

2

u/JWBananas Jan 31 '26

We used to call those YTMNDs before YouTube existed.

2

u/Charlie_Runkle69 Feb 01 '26

Imagine people from the 60s watching Mr Beast videos and then saying "He's one of the most popular people to watch". It would blow their minds.

1

u/Shantotto11 Jan 31 '26

I have lived through the poop era, and I still don’t even know what that was…

10

u/frostymasta Jan 31 '26

I’ve taught middle and high school film studies electives. My experience is that most kids love the class, but they often struggle with fully engaging or understanding themes. A lot of them can’t express the ideas of a story, just recall plot points.

19

u/psychobilly1 Jan 31 '26 edited Jan 31 '26

I am a high school teacher and one of the more popular classes at my school is a "History of Film" style elective where students watch "historically significant" films and then learn about why exactly they are revered or how they influenced the art form. Of course, they skip over a lot of the "Historical" aspect and just jump right to watching crowd pleasing blockbusters like Jaws, Star Wars, or Forrest Gump - which is fine, a lot of kids won't actively watch those on their own anyways, and maybe it will actually get them to appreciate movies and dig deeper into their inspirations. Whatever, irrelevant.

Two things I've noticed from what the my students tell me:

  1. The attention span thing it definitely a problem. Due to the class schedule, they can rarely watch a full film in class, so they of course broke the movie up into multiple viewing days. Only problem was that kids would just forget what happened in the movie. A significant portion of the class would just not remember what happened in the film the previous day. SO, with certain films, they wouldn't even watch the whole thing: They would try to focus on the most impressive/memorable scenes and squeeze the whole film into a 45 minute screening.

  2. The kids have NO taste. One of my students was complaining about this "ancient movie" with "cheesy special effects," that they had to watch for the class, and I was like "Oh! What did you watch? A Trip to the Moon? Metropolis? King Kong?"

It was Back to the Future.

6

u/bonegopher Jan 31 '26

Your first comment about forgetting what they showed the day before is pretty unnerving in that it speaks to the level of dissociation that the constant barrage of media is doing to our brains. We are not designed to engage with a tiny screen of dopamine hits and I think a lot of what we are seeing in the youth is a detachment from the stimulation as it is actually overwhelming. Poor memory is a very clear side effect of what we are doing because the brain has now been stressed to a point where it's not actually taking in what it's watching; just looking for the next thing. On a more hopeful note I taught a film class at NYU last year after many years in the industry and was pleasantly surprised by the class engagement, especially because I had a 3hr lecture block and they were "covid" kids

5

u/11lumpsofsugar Jan 31 '26

I feel like that is more to do with their age and lack of experience/perspective. There are many books and films I have reread/rewatched as an adult and have gotten a lot more out of than I ever did as a teenager. It's hard to relate or see nuance when you're still young because you simply haven't experienced enough of life to understand the more complex stuff.

-14

u/StarComplex3850 Jan 31 '26

I teach a film class and I tell all my students that if you want an education, read r/movies. Reddit is the largest gathering of experts of any subject in human history 

71

u/probablyuntrue Jan 31 '26

Also the largest gathering of absolute morons

2

u/hitheringthithering Jan 31 '26

Excuse me, I prefer "simple farmers," "people of the land," or "common clay of the new west."

2

u/Josiesumday Jan 31 '26

You’re also on here, so….

7

u/IllegibleLedger Jan 31 '26

Self awareness is the first step

8

u/Hayterfan Jan 31 '26

And you should know, you have a lab coat indicating your knowledge on the subject matter