Film theory and criticism

[Lilith]

Anyone into film theory and criticism here?

It seems like whenever I watch a movie, I tend to use my own critical lens to deconstruct the entire movie. The movies I most thoroughly enjoy are the ones that I admire critically.

[Robotron]

I find it hard to enjoy a film if I don't enjoy it analytically. Although if you read most film "theory and criticism" it's completely intellectually and artistically bankrupt to the point where I'd say someone like Michael Bay is worth about ten film critics.

[karenk]

Yes. For the films I already like, when I read/watch interviews with the directors about the film, or watch it with narration I tend to like it 10X more. I like the kind of narration or interview with the director- when they explain the meaning behind use of colors, rhythm, etc.. One examle is the dvd for 'The Conformist' with Bertolucci's interview regarding the deepest motivations of the main character. There's lots of other great examples. I used to read about the films years ago but now they often include that kind of info as an extra to the dvd. Another thing that is really cool is some dvds (such as a Kurosawa narration I watched) talk about the composition of the frames and I think it's educational for taking photographs.

[Lilith]

I do find it interesting though, how cinema criticism can differ from culture to culture.

For example, I don't find Japanese horror movies all that brilliant, but even a lot of westerners relate to them as being "Intelligent" and what not.

In Indian cinema, how "good" a movie is often characterized by its commercial success, but critically they are oh so bad.

[wivesandknives]

In Indian cinema, how "good" a movie is often characterized by its commercial success, but critically they are oh so bad.

So true. Bollywood is general is a bit frightening to me, and I don't get how people can enjoy it.


And I'll analyze the crap out of most things, movies not excepted. It's pretty frustrating though, how most people I try to discuss movies with don't share the same sentiment. They're more like to go with how they 'felt' about it or focus on what I'd call fairly trivial things like the acting and plot.

[MoneyJungle]

So true. Bollywood is general is a bit frightening to me, and I don't get how people can enjoy it.


And I'll analyze the crap out of most things, movies not excepted. It's pretty frustrating though, how most people I try to discuss movies with don't share the same sentiment. They're more like to go with how they 'felt' about it or focus on what I'd call fairly trivial things like the acting and plot.

If acting and plot are somewhat trivial, what is not?

[Robotron]

If acting and plot are somewhat trivial, what is not?

I can't speak for wivesandknives, but I find aesthetics much more complex and interesting than acting will ever be, and plot is only interesting as a platform for layered narratives or ideas.

[MoneyJungle]

I can't speak for wivesandknives, but I find aesthetics much more complex and interesting than acting will ever be, and plot is only interesting as a platform for layered narratives or ideas.

I share your enthusiasm for stylistic statements in film but consider plot and acting to be among the foundations of a good film. I don't really understand separating any kind of narrative from the idea of plot, but I am admittedly not a student of storytelling. I agree that acting might receive more focus than it deserves, but I've yet to love a film in which I didn't believe the actors.

[MacGuffin]

I can't speak for wivesandknives, but I find aesthetics much more complex and interesting than acting will ever be, and plot is only interesting as a platform for layered narratives or ideas.

Yeah, that's crazy talk.

[Robotron]

I don't really understand separating any kind of narrative from the idea of plot, but I am admittedly not a student of storytelling.

All I meant by that was a story is generally only as interesting as it is complex, which often means the layers of narratives and the method of organizing said narratives within a story. There is no real difference between the words, I just use two for the sake of synonyms.

[wivesandknives]

I can't speak for wivesandknives, but I find aesthetics much more complex and interesting than acting will ever be, and plot is only interesting as a platform for layered narratives or ideas.

Well you're doing a badass job at it. ;)

I hate when people talking about film by going 'and then Tom Cruise went to the secret hideout and Angelina Jolie did..' blah blah. It shows a lot more focus on actors than the characters. Film is an art form, and should be appreciated on an aesthetic level. Of course there is the story, I think that's important too, how it is told, what the characters' roles are in it, etc. I have a number of favourites where I can honestly say the acting was terrible and the plot simple and predictable.

[MoneyJungle]

All I meant by that was a story is generally only as interesting as it is complex, which often means the layers of narratives and the method of organizing said narratives within a story. There is no real difference between the words, I just use two for the sake of synonyms.

So an uninteresting plot makes for a lesser movie? :devil: I am just caught up in the semantics of using the word trivial to describe plot and acting (which you never used). It strikes me as calling a car's tires trivial. The best films are well executed in all facets; plot, aesthetics and performance. (Already having the poster's remorse for using the word best to describe a subjective piece of art).

[wivesandknives]

So an uninteresting plot makes for a lesser movie? :devil: I am just caught up in the semantics of using the word trivial to describe plot and acting (which you never used). It strikes me as calling a car's tires trivial. The best films are well executed in all facets; plot, aesthetics and performance. (Already having the poster's remorse for using the word best to describe a subjective piece of art).

I think there should be a distinction between plot and story. The plot is merely the events of a story, the story has more to it.

I'd also disagree about what makes a good film. As for the trivial thing, I feel comfortable saying that when considering the grander scheme of what film is, what we use it for, what it does etc. Which is another discussion so I won't hijack the thread. ;)

[OrionzRevenge]

Well you're doing a badass job at it. ;)

I hate when people talking about film by going 'and then Tom Cruise went to the secret hideout and Angelina Jolie did..' blah blah. It shows a lot more focus on actors than the characters. Film is an art form, and should be appreciated on an aesthetic level. Of course there is the story, I think that's important too, how it is told, what the characters' roles are in it, etc. I have a number of favourites where I can honestly say the acting was terrible and the plot simple and predictable.

Shameless personal thread promotion in: 3, 2, 1....FADE IN:

I have tinkered with writing a screen play a bit, and it helps me to visualize my scenes if I have an actor’s grace or a personality’s face in mind.

I , uh, have a recently finished a first act posted here for an up or down voters poll. HERE (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=33085), in fact. The four man characters that appear in the first act consist of 3 very famous and accomplished actors and one world leader… that is, in the directors cut of my mind’s eye. A lot of scripts have been written with an actor in mind for a role.

PS: The PDF file is perfectly formatted, however the Webpage is kinda suckie.
:) :) :)

[Curtis24]

I'm more interested in analysis of a film than criticism. I like to read how each director tries to manipulate both the audience's emotions as well as intellect; I'm not really interested in how well they're able to do so, more like how they try to do so.

[OrionzRevenge]

I'm more interested in analysis of a film than criticism. I like to read how each director tries to manipulate both the audience's emotions as well as intellect; I'm not really interested in how well they're able to do so, more like how they try to do so.

Yeah, I enjoy just going for the ride duing the first viewing of a good flick.
Second Time however, I want to fill in the answers before I see the director's interview.
:):):)

[wivesandknives]

The four man characters that appear in the first act consist of 3 very famous and accomplished actors and one world leader… that is, in the directors cut of my mind’s eye. A lot of scripts have been written with an actor in mind for a role.

PS: The PDF file is perfectly formatted, however the Webpage is kinda suckie.
:) :) :)

I think you're coming from another angle there. I mean I'm not sure I care what was going through the director's mind at all. My concern is what the audience gets from it, and if the characters are so flat that all people see is the actor then I'm not sure it's a good film. My point was mostly that people tend to review films in that way though, regardless of how good or bad they are.

Also, I'll check out your screenplay and see if I can offer anything on it. (:

[hitomirou]

Anyone into film theory and criticism here?

It seems like whenever I watch a movie, I tend to use my own critical lens to deconstruct the entire movie. The movies I most thoroughly enjoy are the ones that I admire critically.

Yes I do! I studied a bit of Film for 2yrs years ago.

Nowadays, I don't really have much time to deconstruct all aspects of a film. I just choose one or several aspects - be it sound, script, photography etc. But yes, the ones I thoroughly most enjoy are those I admire critically. I guess, criticizing a film is inherent in me sort of deconstruct it without really planning it. It's somewhat automatic.

[md5fungi]

People call me a movie snob just because I will rip apart a movie to its finest thread.

A good movie mentally or emotionally stimulates me to a high level, whether it's extremely thought-provoking, sad, humorous, etc. I think what happens to people though, is that since so many movies are just bland reiterations of each other with slightly different plots, a moviegoer will yearn for something that presents something literally, substantially different.

Realistic characters with realistic ambitions, fears, etc. are important, and critical is how they interact with themselves, their environment, and the other characters in the film.

I suppose it boils down to the filmmaker achieving as close as he can get to exactly what he wants. If the filmmaker's goal is to get everyone that watches it to be absolutely revolted, and he succeeds, the filmmaker has proven himself clearly competent.

[Technical]

What the fuck is "Film theory." I love many kinds of films, including impenetrable existential stuff like Two-Lane Blacktop and Aguirre: Der Zorn Gottes, but there's little more upsetting than a film snob. That title doesn't grant taste.

[nonrandian]

I think you're coming from another angle there. I mean I'm not sure I care what was going through the director's mind at all. My concern is what the audience gets from it, and if the characters are so flat that all people see is the actor then I'm not sure it's a good film. My point was mostly that people tend to review films in that way though, regardless of how good or bad they are.

Also, I'll check out your screenplay and see if I can offer anything on it. (:

Really? I think it's far more concerning... the difference between both the directors intent, and the audiences interpretation. Both have a substantial effect on how the movie is perceived, both by the average viewer, and critics. Indeed, the average audience may hate a greatly directed movie, or a crappy movie may be preferred by audiences.

To judge the taste of another, or take that judgment into account... is irrelevant in regard to judging any form of art. However, to understand the perceptions of another, of both the average viewer, and the director, writer, actor, creator... is undeniably important to truly appreciating any work of art, and all of its elements; in this case, film. Not to mention, of course, seeing how these different perceptions and intentions interact with one another to create the final product.

This is my opinion, and nothing more, but i do find some reasoning behind it.

[jenocyde]

The directors get too much credit. Film is a collaborative process and I pay attention to everything from screenplay to post.

[Curtis24]

Anyone into film theory and criticism here?

It seems like whenever I watch a movie, I tend to use my own critical lens to deconstruct the entire movie. The movies I most thoroughly enjoy are the ones that I admire critically.

Sort of. I may be taking an Intro to Film Theory Class next semester. I'm surprised by how seriously the college takes it - it includes a Lab that's several hours long, and the Undergrad. Bulletin outlined a comprehensive track for a Film Theory Minor. Looking forward to the minor, as long as its not too much work.

I hope it focuses more on story and plot development than the technical aspects of camera techniques and such.

[kuranes]

What the fuck is "Film theory." I suppose that this thread is attempting to determine how one goes about judging film. Some of the criteria may be unique to film. Some may be similar to other modes of creativity/art. A question came up in a thread on the top science fiction books as to whether one should judge their "topness" on how influential they've been historically, or on whether they satisfy someone's immediate taste for pure entertainment. I'm guessing that you would opt for the latter, based on other posts you've made.

I noticed that Madrigal had posted ( twice in the same thread ! :banana: ) about her dislike for "Being John Malkovich". I enjoyed the movie myself. I don't expect all movies that I enjoy to be expressions ( indirect or direct ) of political intent/exposition, however; to say nothing of expecting those political attributes and views to be ones that I agree with. I liked this film for its sheer silliness. My favorite scene was one where they get off the elevator on a floor that is "Floor Three and a Half" or something like that. Naturally it had to have low ceilings. ;) The job and supervision in the "office" on the floor was equally absurd.

I've linked an article written by a guy named Carney where he complains about directors "like Hitchcock" who "disguise" their lack of substance behind facades of "puzzles" which appeal to "snobs" who are too young to know better about the true significance of life etc. I disagree with this guy; and his example - of how the meaning of a Picasso painting is unmistakable versus a "puzzle" movie's deliberate ambiguity - is so full of holes as to be a swiss cheese.
http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/newsevents/movsked.shtml
That's not to say there are no pretentious movies - with more meaning assigned to them later by critics than the original contained. ( I agree that Lynch's latest was a bit much, but I really liked "Mulholland Drive". )

Ultimately I suppose we are just "kicking the can" about a subject as slippery as this is, versus trying to come up with definitive benchmarks that will stand up to all questions of the present day, to say nothing of the future. However, even some vague guidelines may prevent unproductive discussions about whether a movie is "bad" because we , for example, dislike what a villain ( or even a hero or protagonist ) does during the course of the full plot. ( I've actually seen/heard people use this as a criteria when discussing a film.This immediately brings to mind a question of whether the film itself was "vulgar" or whether it was merely one of the characters acting out a vulgarity ? etc. )

[Harion]

The directors get too much credit. Film is a collaborative process and I pay attention to everything from screenplay to post.

they're supposed to get credit. especially if the film turned out to be a success both at the box-office and at the awards night. you'd be surprised how a perfectly good script can be fucked twice over by a very bad director. but take any standard script, not bad, not great, just ok, and any talented director worth his salt will be able to make that script into a spanking film.

here's how i rate the contributions of people affecting the film:

overall director - writer - camera director - actors - casting director
and if producers just stick to financing the film and don't get in the way, they'd be up on the list of people making the film great

also, i get really riled up by film snobs, who won't admit a film's good unless only 1% of the population can understand it. i think any film that is able to affect people in a way that changes them is a good film. film snobs forget that the films have two main purposes: to entertain, and to educate and if it does any of the two (or both, which is even better), then i'd say the film is a success. which is why i can enjoy a Michael Bay film and still enjoy one made by Martin Scorcese, or Tarantino, or Kurosawa, or films written by Kaufman.
which is also why it's a lot of bull when you say actors and plot are trivial comparing to aesthetics. that's like saying attitude and personality are trivial and only the person's look is important. fucking elitist thinking you're so smart because "only you can understand the symbolism of this and that, and oh i loved it how the film was so minimalist, yada, yada..."
a film is good if the story is strong, and doesn't get overshadowed by "aesthetics." and a film is good if it touches many people and connects to them. let film snobs huddle in their sad corner and think they totally "have it" when all they do is intellectual masturbation.

[Technical]

I suppose that this thread is attempting...[Abyss of a post, which I looked into, and which looked into me]
I suppose that's theoretically possible, but Occam's Razor suggests that the meaning of the phrase "film theory," upon its first utterance here, hadn't even been considered.

[kuranes]

I suppose that's theoretically possible, but Occam's Razor suggests that the meaning of the phrase "film theory," upon its first utterance here, hadn't even been considered.I'm not sure what you're getting at. You're saying the OP didn't really have anything specific in mind when indicating their preferences ? That's a counter-intuitive approach one can take,for sure, although I would argue that Occam's Razor would suggest...... the more simple answer; namely that this person meant what they said.

[Technical]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. You're saying the OP didn't really have anything specific in mind when indicating their preferences ? That's a counter-intuitive approach one can take,for sure, although I would argue that Occam's Razor would suggest...... the more simple answer; namely that this person meant what they said.
It's about the phrase "film theory," which you've overlooked. The title included "film theory" and "criticism," but the OP only referred to criticism, and unsurprisingly, since nobody knows what "film theory" is.

[kuranes]

It's about the phrase "film theory," which you've overlooked. The title included "film theory" and "criticism," but the OP only referred to criticism, and unsurprisingly, since nobody knows what "film theory" is.I would say that "film criticism' and "film theory" may theoretically be distinct entities, but in practice there is a lot of overlap. Just like any subject, there can be theories about it, and I'm sure there are. A portion of those theories doubtless involve some of the considerations I mentioned in my post, which admittedly just scratches the surface, and some may not. You may not agree with the theories, but it is a fact that they exist. I still don't see how this has anything to do with Occam's razor.

http://www.amazon.com/Cinema-Studies-Concepts-Routledge-Guides/dp/0415367824/ref=pd_sim_b_2

[jenocyde]

they're supposed to get credit. especially if the film turned out to be a success both at the box-office and at the awards night. you'd be surprised how a perfectly good script can be fucked twice over by a very bad director. but take any standard script, not bad, not great, just ok, and any talented director worth his salt will be able to make that script into a spanking film.

here's how i rate the contributions of people affecting the film:

overall director - writer - camera director - actors - casting director
and if producers just stick to financing the film and don't get in the way, they'd be up on the list of people making the film great

also, i get really riled up by film snobs, who won't admit a film's good unless only 1% of the population can understand it. i think any film that is able to affect people in a way that changes them is a good film. film snobs forget that the films have two main purposes: to entertain, and to educate and if it does any of the two (or both, which is even better), then i'd say the film is a success. which is why i can enjoy a Michael Bay film and still enjoy one made by Martin Scorcese, or Tarantino, or Kurosawa, or films written by Kaufman.
which is also why it's a lot of bull when you say actors and plot are trivial comparing to aesthetics. that's like saying attitude and personality are trivial and only the person's look is important. fucking elitist thinking you're so smart because "only you can understand the symbolism of this and that, and oh i loved it how the film was so minimalist, yada, yada..."
a film is good if the story is strong, and doesn't get overshadowed by "aesthetics." and a film is good if it touches many people and connects to them. let film snobs huddle in their sad corner and think they totally "have it" when all they do is intellectual masturbation.

I hope that bolded part is to the collective "you" because I stated no such thing...

Either way, people are entitled to like whatever they like, for whatever reason they like.

[stuck]

What the fuck is "Film theory."


Really?

Every technical (lol) advance that you take for granted, jump cuts, montage, fades, those things all have names and sources. They were all invented. That is film theory.

The label film theory also encompasses sylistic trends, techniques of character development, plot, form, sound... there's quite a bit to discuss, even in such a young art form.

Wikipedia says it examines the film's relationship to reality (and says that what I'm talking about is "film analysis" :shrug: ). That may sound like it's going to be wanky, but you have to look at early film. People ducked under the image of a train heading towards them because they thought it was 'real'. By the same token, they had to be taught that a jump cut may mean that 'time has passed'. These things form a language, which we take for granted in the present.

If you have had the experience of watching a movie from your childhood and noticing how it's aged, you understand what role theory plays in film and tv. You have to understand the language (no matter how you learn it, academically or not) in order to subvert it.

That post may have been written by an idiot. As I understand them, both film analysis and film theory are pretty kewl.

[kble]

Suture.

Suture. (http://www.uwec.edu/ranowlan/suture.html)

Suture. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108260/)

Stitch.

[Harion]

I hope that bolded part is to the collective "you" because I stated no such thing...


uhh, yeah. why would you think i was addressing you? if you only commented about directors getting too much credit, and i quoted that and then completely went off tangent on another subject, why would you take offense at the other stuff i said? do you lump everything together that everyone's said in here once they touch on anything you said?

[Technical]

Really?

Every technical (lol) advance that you take for granted, jump cuts, montage, fades, those things all have names and sources. They were all invented. That is film theory.

The label film theory also encompasses sylistic trends, techniques of character development, plot, form, sound... there's quite a bit to discuss, even in such a young art form.

Wikipedia says it examines the film's relationship to reality (and says that what I'm talking about is "film analysis" :shrug: ). That may sound like it's going to be wanky, but you have to look at early film. People ducked under the image of a train heading towards them because they thought it was 'real'. By the same token, they had to be taught that a jump cut may mean that 'time has passed'. These things form a language, which we take for granted in the present.

If you have had the experience of watching a movie from your childhood and noticing how it's aged, you understand what role theory plays in film and tv. You have to understand the language (no matter how you learn it, academically or not) in order to subvert it.

That post may have been written by an idiot. As I understand them, both film analysis and film theory are pretty kewl.
Lol. That shit ain't film theory, that's film fuckin' fact.

[stuck]

Lol. That shit ain't film theory, that's film fuckin' fact.

Apparently it's "formalist film theory" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalist_film_theory) :P

[jenocyde]

uhh, yeah. why would you think i was addressing you? if you only commented about directors getting too much credit, and i quoted that and then completely went off tangent on another subject, why would you take offense at the other stuff i said? do you lump everything together that everyone's said in here once they touch on anything you said?


Who said I took offense? I *asked* a question. You quoted me and you addressed me, so it's not unreasonable for me to ask for clarification. A simple "no" would have sufficed.

And you can read my posts to find out if I've lumped anything anywhere, instead of asking such a nonsensical question.

[Madrigal]

I noticed that Madrigal had posted ( twice in the same thread ! :banana: ) about her dislike for "Being John Malkovich". I enjoyed the movie myself. I don't expect all movies that I enjoy to be expressions ( indirect or direct ) of political intent/exposition, however; to say nothing of expecting those political attributes and views to be ones that I agree with. I liked this film for its sheer silliness.
Heh. :D I didn't hate it because it wasn't political. I like all kinds of films, and there are universal "themes" that go beyond politics. I don't even mind a film expressing a view I don't agree with, as long as that view is expressed in a genuine and talented way. I'm against people watching movies with a dogmatic political attitude, I think you miss out on a lot that way.


also, i get really riled up by film snobs, who won't admit a film's good unless only 1% of the population can understand it. i think any film that is able to affect people in a way that changes them is a good film. film snobs forget that the films have two main purposes: to entertain, and to educate and if it does any of the two (or both, which is even better), then i'd say the film is a success.


I like this. However, as stuck_at_bronze said, lots of the language we think is basic now had required a learning process in the past. New forms can take a while to be understood but some of them are appropriated and become part of the masses' cultural baggage.

Sometimes aethetic novelty and experimentation can go with a conservative content, while more traditional forms can be used to convey a subversive message. Those both have value in different ways. At the end of the day I will have enjoyed the expermentation, but default to using a language that can be understood by many because my priority is the message.

I would go into a tangent about how socialist society would help the masses appropriate cultural knowledge and skills that are only enjoyed by a few now, including how to "read" film, but I don't feel like it.