Film Students Losing Ability to Watch Full Movies

Recently, The Atlantic released a concerning article titled “The Film Students Who Can No Longer Sit Through Films.” Rose Horowitch, the writer, interviewed numerous professors across the United States who are increasingly vocal about this disturbing pattern. Her findings were profoundly discouragi

Recently, The Atlantic released a concerning article titled “The Film Students Who Can No Longer Sit Through Films.”

Rose Horowitch, the writer, interviewed numerous professors across the United States who are increasingly vocal about this disturbing pattern. Her findings were profoundly discouraging:

“I used to think, if homework is watching a movie, that is the best homework ever,” Craig Erpelding, a film professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, shared. “But students will not do it.”

I encountered comparable accounts from 20 film-studies professors nationwide. They explained that in the last ten years, and especially following the pandemic, their students have found it exceedingly difficult to concentrate on full-length films.

What is fueling this crisis in attention spans? The educators featured in Horowitch’s report identify a primary offender: smartphones.

For instance, the founding director of Tufts University’s Film and Media Studies program attempted to prohibit electronic devices during movie screenings, yet discovered the policy was nearly impossible to uphold. “About half the class ends up looking furtively at their phones,” she observed. Similarly, a professor in Cinema and Media Studies at USC described his students as resembling “nicotine addicts going through withdrawal…the longer they go without checking their phone, the more they fidget.”

The underlying process here involves what reading expert Maryanne Wolf terms cognitive patience, described as the capacity to sustain focused attention over time, postpone immediate rewards, and resist the urge to multitask.

Smartphones undermine this cognitive patience by stimulating specific neuronal clusters in our brain’s short-term reward circuitry. These clusters anticipate significant value from interacting with the device, essentially casting a “vote” for the distraction. This triggers a flood of neurochemicals that we perceive as an urge to pick up the phone. Over time, without regular practice in maintaining focus, we become entirely unaccustomed to prolonged attention.

It comes as little surprise, then, that an ever-growing number of individuals lack the cognitive patience required to endure a two-hour movie.

Yet, as I discuss in greater detail on my podcast this week, this particular challenge with films offers a pathway to addressing the broader problem of diminishing attention spans. Why not establish the ability to view an entire movie from start to finish as a key training objective in our quest to regain control over our minds? Much like a novice runner building up to their first 5K race, this represents an ambitious yet achievable milestone—perfect for launching a journey toward true attention independence.

If you decide to pursue this objective, how can you most effectively enhance your cinematic cognitive patience? I recommend the following three strategies:

1. Store your phone in another room entirely. This approach stops your short-term reward system from overwhelming you with disruptive impulses.
2. Choose higher-quality films to watch. When you experience something truly worthwhile, your brain’s long-term reward pathways will link movies more firmly to enduring satisfaction, which in turn makes it simpler to resist instant gratification during future viewings.
3. Employ the thirty-minute rule to ease through initial sessions. Prior to beginning the film, review a critique or breakdown that highlights its strengths. Then, every thirty minutes or so, pause to read yet another review or analysis. This technique redirects your mindset toward thoughtful engagement, helping you consistently uncover value and steering clear of the feeling that you’re merely enduring the film without purpose.

There’s a certain irony in my advice: using one screen to counteract the distractions of another. Nevertheless, it has become evident to me lately that while countless individuals are exasperated by the toll digital devices take on their cognitive faculties, they often lack practical methods to resist. Perhaps rediscovering the serene pleasures of cinema can play a vital role in crafting that resistance.

Technology and Distraction Updates: Examining AI Hype

I’m testing out a regular feature like this one, where I offer concise insights into news stories connected to technology, attention challenges, and the pursuit of deeper focus.

Based on the surge of anxious communications I’m now getting from acquaintances, the prevalence of AI vibe reporting appears to be escalating. My goal is to guide you through this cluttered information environment without succumbing to undue alarm. To illustrate, let’s examine a recent example. Last week, The Atlantic ran a sensationally toned piece called “The Worst-Case Future for White-Collar Workers.” I’ll dissect several key excerpts from it critically:

• “[T]he labor market for office workers is beginning to shift. Americans with a bachelor’s degree account for a quarter of the unemployed, a record.” The clear intent is to suggest this unemployment surge among degree-holders stems from AI wiping out knowledge-based roles. However, there’s no concrete data linking these phenomena. In fact, as various analyses point out, the downturn in opportunities for recent college graduates started long before the advent of generative AI tools.
• “Occupations susceptible to AI automation have seen sharp spikes in joblessness.” This exemplifies textbook vibe reporting. The writer avoids outright claiming that AI automation drives these unemployment increases—note the careful phrasing—but strongly insinuates it. Regrettably, current data does not back this up. As I’ve noted previously, layoffs in tech are more plausibly tied to post-pandemic hiring corrections. Comparable dynamics are unfolding in fields like advertising. On Friday, a New York Times piece by Cade Metz echoed this perspective.
• “Businesses really are shrinking payroll and cutting costs as they deploy AI.” Here’s another hallmark of vibe reporting: the phrasing suggests payroll reductions result directly from AI adoption. Yet, in reality, these are often coincidental. Many firms are experimenting with AI tools for staff, and some are simultaneously trimming headcounts (particularly those that overstaffed amid pandemic-era growth). Correlation does not imply causation—this is the age-old post hoc ergo propter hoc error.
• “In recent weeks, Baker McKenzie, a white-shoe law firm, axed 700 employees, Salesforce sacked hundreds of workers, and the auditing firm KPMG negotiated lower fees with its own auditor.” By juxtaposing these payroll cut examples right after AI discussions, the author subtly implies AI as the culprit, without stating it explicitly. A closer inspection reveals otherwise. Take Salesforce: Yes, they cut about 1,000 positions this month, but not due to AI-driven automation. It stemmed from an organizational realignment merging Agentforce and Slack under unified leadership. As one informed commentator put it: “Cross-team layoffs like these are not unusual for a company of Salesforce’s size, especially at this time of year, before announcing end-of-fiscal-year earnings.”

So, what’s the true story with AI and employment? Generative AI could indeed spark widespread job market transformations down the line. But we’re not witnessing that yet. The initial big changes may hit software development hardest, though the scale is still uncertain. (I’ll have more details shortly: I’m wrapping up an investigative piece drawing from conversations with over 300 programmers on their AI usage; the short version is: it’s far more nuanced than headlines suggest!)

For now, the genuine AI developments merit attention on their own merits. We don’t need journalists retrofitting data to fit preconceived narratives about inevitable trends.

Just to clarify: The latter portions of the article are solid. It thoughtfully considers potential governmental responses to large-scale economic shifts, penned by a respected reporter with deep expertise in the subject. It’s a worthwhile read overall—just tune out the hype in the intro.