Advertisement
How to Watch a Movie
Fully appreciating the magic of cinema is a responsibility
 |
Movies are much more than mere entertainment. To most of us, they're the closest we come in our daily lives to an experience of magic. Within the dark catacombs of a theater, movies create their own mystique, where time and logic don't apply. There is no gravity to tie us to the world as we know it; we are held together only by the grace of the director's eye.
As Truffaut recognized, if a movie skillfully crafts this other world, it intensifies our lives. It creates a fool's paradise where we dream our way through all the events before us, immersed in the crazy continuum of present, future and past.
Movies are more than mind-altering experiences, however. The Italian futurists and surrealists realized early on that film had the capacity to be great art—in effect, moving paintings. The French, however,knew from the beginning that film is true art. Most Americans, obsessed with film grosses and the business end of cinema, have yet to fully grasp the fact that film is an art like no other.
Art, especially cinema, helps us understand the interrelationships between culture and society. It reveals a wealth of information about how our civilization works and even indicates cultural trends. True art is vitally important because it challenges us to think beyond ourselves and ponder the mysteries that have confounded humankind from the beginning. Who are we? Where do we come from? Where are we going? These are the questions that great cinema addresses.
Although films may entertain, they also educate, indoctrinate and even captivate the mind. The great films enlighten us and form much of the world's perception of what American culture is all about. Because of its importance, film should be studied not only by so-called film experts or reviewers, but by average moviegoers, as well. This means that each member of the film audience should strive to be a “critic.” It means that the viewer must stay alert and assume that every moment of every film is an intentional, relevant concoction of the dreamweavers.
Cinema should be viewed with greater thought than the vast majority of us give it . Realizing that a movie can be experienced from a variety of perspectives—cultural, ideological and aesthetic—the knowledgeable filmgoer should approach the experience with a receptive mind, open to the possibility of not only entertainment, but enlightenment.
If you as a viewer truly take film seriously, a notebook can come in handy. Don't be shy about writing down your observations while watching a movie. Encourage others to do the same. And whenever possible, try to see films with friends so the experience can be thoroughly discussed afterward.
Here are some basic elements to be aware of when viewing a film:
1) Direction. When watching a film, always ask: Does the director have control, in the sense that it is his or her vision you're seeing? As Hitchcock once said: “At times, I have the feeling I'm an orchestra conductor, a trumpet sound corresponding to a close shot and a distant shot suggesting an entire orchestra performing a muted accompaniment. At other times, by using colors and lights in front of beautiful landscapes, I feel I am a painter.”
Great directors such as Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Polanski, Kubrick and Scorsese, to name a few, have been accused of being “control freaks” when making their movies. Technicians as well as artists, these directors who maintain control have studied every aspect of the process. Every section of their films is developed and presented with precision. Nothing escapes a great director's eye, nor should it escape yours.
Suggested viewing: Citizen Kane (1941), Vertigo (1958) and Chinatown (1974)
2) Screenplay. Even a great director will struggle with his or her vision if the screenplay is not sound. The old saw is still true: “If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage.” What's on paper, then, is an essential element of film. Originality, creativity, logical narrative and plot, continuity, composition and development of three-dimensional characters are some of the key ingredients in a good screenplay. In other words, does the screenplay effectively communicate a story through dramatic action and dialogue? The so-called “acts of God” or leaps of faith used by many screenwriters to find bridges between scenes are not found in the best screenplays. Transitions in scenes should make sense. If not, film continuity fails.
Some of our greatest authors have written for the screen, including F. Scott Fitzgerald, William Faulkner and Graham Greene. Some newcomers who seem to have mastered the screenwriting craft include Alan Ball, M. Night Shyamalan, Andrew Kevin Walker and Darren Aronofsky.
Suggested viewing: The Big Sleep (1946), Amadeus (1984) and Fargo (1996)
3) Cinematography. Although they're much more, movies are primarily visual experiences. The Europeans (and a few Amercian legends such as Ford and Welles) understood this from the beginning. The great Italian directors such as Antonioni, Bertolucci and Fellini epitomized visuality in their films. The astute cinematographer understands the fundamental relationship between the camera and the human eye. Maybe more importantly, they realize the camera is an extension of the human eye. Thus, viewers should watch for cinematographers whose camera is never static; where the camera transforms itself into the eyes of the viewer.
Suggested viewing: Shane (1953), Kundun (1997) and Signs (2002)
4) Editing. Good directors shoot much more film than they can possibly use. It's the editor's job to realize a film's potential. Creative editing is not merely visual, but aural. For instance, music or extraneous noise can be used to create the illusion of continuity. Astute directors are intimately involved in the editing process to assure smooth transitioning in the flow of the film and to ensure that their film creates a seamless whole. This is no small task, since the standard fiction feature can be composed of as many as 1,000 separate shots.
Suggested viewing: The French Connection (1971), Blue Velvet (1986) and A Pure Formality (1994)
5) Acting. Judging good acting is, of course, like recognizing obscenity—you simply know it when you see it. Some actors are consistent craftsmen, while others are largely the creation of strong directors. What we know about many exceptional performers is that they do not “act.” They return to us film after film, completely submerged in their characterizations. This intensity, combined with a memorable face, is what some have called “star quality.” Humphrey Bogart's craggy countenance, with his immobile upper lip, mannerisms and ticks, marked his appearances on the screen. There are others who hide themselves in their characters. Montgomery Clift, Marlon Brando and James Dean blazed the path for actors such as these. Robert De Niro, Christopher Walken, Meryl Streep, Al Pacino and Edward Norton exemplify this type of acting. Watch and identify the elements that constitute a great performance.
Suggested viewing: Bogart in The Maltese Falcon (1941), De Niro in Raging Bull (1980) and Ellen Burstyn in Requiem for a Dream (2000)
6) Lighting and Sets. As the German Expressionists have shown, the entire mood of a film can be determined by lighting, the way shadows fall, the type of sets used or the actual location where the film is shot. One cannot imagine The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari without these ingredients. The Hollywood film noir classics of the 1940s inherited this concept and created a magnificent, lasting and influential genre. The amount and style of lighting depends on the type of film being made, but the effect of hard lighting and shadows in horror films, for example, can create a stark, emotional response in the audience. This was used effectively in Hitchcock's Psycho, as a single, swaying light bulb reveals a mummified figure—to the audience's macabre delight. Kubrick and Welles were masters of the use of light. More recently, this skill can be seen in the work of director Ridley Scott.
Suggested viewing: The Third Man (1949), Blade Runner (1982) and Seven (1995)
7) Special (Visual) Effects. Movies have always had special
effects, but with
the pervasiveness of new technologies many believe that film has entered
a somewhat troublesome era. With computer-generated special effects,
young moviemakers increasingly believe that actors (and even stories)
are not required. The danger is that special effects in film are becoming
like fireworks—sound and fury,
light and noise, but no substance. If there is any threat to film as an art
form, it is the unrestrained use of technologically-heightened special
effects. Except for where it is absolutely essential to the plot, no
film's success should hinge on its effects.
Suggested viewing: Jurassic Park (1993), Forrest Gump (1994) and The Matrix (1999)
8) Soundtrack. Sometimes the best soundtrack is none at all; at other times, the right musical accent in a scene elevates the film and allows the viewer to relate to the characters or story on a deeper level. While a good soundtrack should never be overwhelming, many classic films would be far less memorable without their soundtracks. One example is Carol Reed's The Third Man. What would the film be without Anton Karas' haunting zither score? Amadeus is a similar case. Without the near-perfect touch of Mozart's music, the film would never be the classic that it is.
Though it's true that the best soundtrack is often so subtle that it is almost unnoticeable to a viewer's ears, the opposite can also be true. Who could argue that without the thumping beat of John Williams' Jaws score, that film's ability to scare would be far diminished.
Suggested viewing: Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), The Graduate (1967) and Jaws (1975)
There are, of course, other elements of cinema that
can be just as significant as those mentioned here. The point is that
cinema is our most influential art form, and thinking viewers should
take care not to be mindless consumers of popular culture in general,
and cinema in particular. Although movies do divert us from the reality
of the everyday, they can do much more. We need only to develop the
critic within us in order to elevate our celluloid experiences. MM
SHARE THIS STORY |
TAGS |
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Del.icio.us
Reddit
YahooAdvertisement
COMMENTS | POST A COMMENT 
- Comment by TheLastSpottedOwl on 2/14/11 at 3:58 pm
I guess you had to put your USC BA to use somehow. It’s not your fault. You were badly taught. You memorized what your teachers said, merely. Ticket buyers go to movies for fun and escape, to see a world larger than their own, to root for the hero, to cry, to laugh, and to feel something their own lives do not permit them to feel. Take a notebook? For a bunch of intellectual snobs, sure, why not. For a guy who wants to take his gal out, or the people who sell shoes, or the fellow who tars a roof, they buy the tickets and they don’t want to think about a movie. When you got to the acting business though you have it all upside down. Again, you were badly taught. The actors you cite are by and large the best actors this country has produced and like most movie executives you reduce them to body parts. They do not “hide” anything, for the great actors it’s really happening to them. A characterization is what Brando did in “The Missouri Breaks” or Dean in “Giant.” You confuse the definition with “character” which is something entirely different (more appropriately called, a role). Then, you leave out Kazan. Some Hollywood political correctness I imagine. Shame on you. Using the media to set yourself up as an expert when you’ve done all the wrong research, or you’re just parroting your professors to get another “A” out of them.
- Comment by Isabella on 5/05/11 at 12:50 am
Good article [why, wherever I go, I have to run into snotty spottied owl I dont know!!}.
However, I think you left out the most important analysis, and it’s the very thing spotted owl completely fails to understand. The most vital critical faculty to be exercising is the one that asks “what message about values and morals does this film send?” In the last 40 years movies have in general descended to a level of mental sloth and filth unimaginable to viewers of the 50’s and before. Glorifying gore and war and visciousness [Lock Stock and two Smoking Barrels], adulation of pornography as a mainsteam (Californication, Four Weddings and Funeral) and too many others to remember, pushing low lifes as heroes {Pretty Woman}, and acceptance of anti individualist heroes and subservience to the majority (Forrest Gump) and God knows how many others.
People are careful what they put into their bodies, but not careful at all of what they let into their minds. And Spotted Own tradies just looking for “a good time” are the biggest and most vulnerable of all.
Keep your wits about you watching movies, as when you detect the vile and anti-value - leave, switch off. Out of self protection.- Comment by TheLastSpottedOwl on 6/20/11 at 10:08 am
Not everyone is the same, Isabella. So, the United States was created as a pluralist society. That means there is room for more than one idea. The Nazi’s tried to eliminate any ideas other than their own by burning books and murdering those who believed differently. Hitler was the first to see the propaganda possibilities of television. So, Isabella, that’s the company you keep. It’s very sad to realize that there are humorless people out there who cannot watch a movie without judgement and analysis. Yes, Oliver Stone movies are intentionally propagandized, as are those of Sean Penn and others; films intended to make a statement and act as propaganda for their agendas. I don’t personally choose to watch those films. It’s called Free Will. There are people who are so stupid as to allow their opinions and ideas to be formed by movies, Hitler was counting on it, as you do. Movies are not real. You don’t need to protect yourself from movies. You need to protect yourself from single minded tyrants who are compelled to dictate what can be seen or said. It is sad that you can’t just have fun. I’ll bet you can’t have an orgasm either; and if you can’t have one then nobody should! Ideas have consequences.
- Comment by David A on 12/06/11 at 5:05 pm
I can’t believe I am commenting on an article written almost ten years ago - but here goes..
TheLastSpottedOwl: you are a dork - and a sexually frustrated one at that, based on your comment to Isabella. The article sets out to encourage viewers to look beyond the 2D or 3D screen to consider the elements of film-making that many may not consider. This is not a opuscule of joylessness, so how you read this into the article is beyond me - as is the efforts you make towards malignment in an articles such as this that, for the reasonable reader, neither incites or invites malapropos commentary.
This story was published in the Fall 2003 MovieMaker Magazine. The headline was:
Fool's Paradise: How to Watch a Movie / Fully appreciating the magic of cinema is a responsibility
Order this issue | Subscribe to MM
posted 05.25.12
posted 05.22.12
posted 05.15.12
SITE DELIVERY OPTIONS
