What follows is my method. I don’t claim it to be the right one for anyone but me.
I try to balance my subjective reaction with an objective analysis, but in a close call the subjective will be the more determining factor.
Objectively, I want to know whether the film succeeded in accomplishing what it set out to accomplish (or if it accomplished something else interesting by accident.) Is the comedy funny? Is the horror scary? Is the art film thought provoking? Are the tools of filmmaking being used in an original or stimulating way? Of course if it accomplishes something I’m morally or otherwise opposed to, that will adversely affect my opinion on the film.
Subjectively, what is my gut reaction? How am I responding to my experience as an audience? This can change over time and additional information and education on my part will be factors. If the film is more challenging and intellectually based, my gut reaction doesn’t cease to matter, but it does mean that contemplating and analyzing are in order to enrich the experience.
How does this relate to the rest of the director’s work
How does this fit in with the stars’ previous films and his screen persona
How does it fit into the genre that it labels itsefl
@Den
That’s interesting. But aren’t there times when you see a film with directors and actors that you’re unfamiliar with? How do you analyze those films?
@Brad
I don’t really have much to comment, except to say that I utilize two similar approaches. I would add that in the more subjective approach, I like to “turn off” the critical faculties as a much as possible and just get caught up in the film.
Intersubjectivity!
I analyze them thru genre or thru special circumstances
for instance, how does Its Pat! relate to other gender bender comedies
how does it relate to other SNL movies, it seems like a smaller release with one lesser know snl star so it could be lumped in with Stuart Smalley film or The Ladies Man. How does it do with those comparisons. Is it better than an average sketch of the series, ect
When it comes to horror films, I think I’m closer to Den’s methods of analysis through genre or special circumstances. Brad’s comments of the film’s success in what it sets out to accomplish makes sense to me, but I don’t use the horror movie=scary=succeeds, because I watch a lot of horror movies and only have been scared a few times. So I often look less at “how scary was it” and more about how I feel the film fits in with that particular subgenre. Did it do something different that made sense or worked (and that “something” could be anything: Pontypool, in my opinion, classifies as a different entry in zombie films, but the difference could be setting, plot points, style).
Another thing that influences me is whatever critical works I’m reading. I was reading Deleuze and Guattari around the time I watched The Tree of Life, so I kept thinking of the film as a representation of desiring machines and the earth as the body without organs. I doubt I’ll analyze this film the same way if I watch it again in 10 years.
I don’t think everyone has to have a method overall, but if you are going to analyze films you’ll most likely come up with a few methods that work for you.
I’m curious about the idea of “understanding” a film (and perhaps this was brought up in that other thread, so my apologies, Jazz). Does a person have to analyze the film to understand it??
@Den
Makes sense, Den. So when you’re watching or understanding, it’s always in relation to something else or within the context of something larger (like the director’s or actor’s oeuvre)? I definitely think this is an interesting and valid way of understanding films. I’m not sure I do this all the time though (atlhough I suspect I do this subconsciously at least).
@Nathan
Are you saying you analyze a film intersubjectively? I’d love to hear specifics on your process, unless you’re just yanking my chain. ;)
@Bijoux
Another thing that influences me is whatever critical works I’m reading.
I think this is a good point. I would add that the influence might come from not only critical works, but any sort of book, experience or even another film. We can’t help but relate what we’re thinking and experiencing with the movie we’re watching—or at least I can’t.
I’m curious about the idea of “understanding” a film (and perhaps this was brought up in that other thread, so my apologies, Jazz). Does a person have to analyze the film to understand it??
Well, the answer depends on how we define words like “understand” and “analyze.” Some level of analysis has to occur to understand a film, and if we want a deeper understanding of a film, then even more formal or systematic approach would probably be involved. So I guess my answer is yes—a person has to analyze a film in order to understand it? I sense you don’t agree with this, or have trouble with it. What don’t you like about this claim?
the great thing about my method is it makes any film at least vaguely interesting.
Yeah, I agree with that^.
Hmmmm….I’m not sure, really, Jazz. I have conflicting ideas on this issue, so thanks for providing your answer!! I definitely get your point about analyze= understand, but I’m not 100% sure I feel the same way. I think that films can be understood even if just looking at surface issues, but maybe that’s because I clearly remember a time when I never analyzed films, but I’d like to think I understood the films. On the other hand, I do feel like a person gains a “better” understanding of a film, maybe?, if analysis is used.
But, let’s take my Tree of Life example again. I read D&G, watch The Tree of Life, analyze the film, and then “understand” the film. A few years later, I read Laura Mulvey, watch The Tree of Life, analyze the film in a completely different way. Does each different analysis bring new understanding??
@ Den: I do like that about your method!!
@Bijoux
_ I think that films can be understood even if just looking at surface issues, but maybe that’s because I clearly remember a time when I never analyzed films, but I’d like to think I understood the films._
I’m suggesting that even in these situations some level of analysis is going on. You may not be aware of it as it doesn’t require much effort. Hollywood films tend to make the films intelligible with as little effort on the part of the viewers, but even these films require some level of analysis—i.e., the viewer figuring out what’s going on or piecing together parts of the film into a coherent whole. Again, the nature of this “analysis” may be so rudimentary that one may not be inclined to call this analysis.
But, let’s take my Tree of Life example again. I read D&G, watch The Tree of Life, analyze the film, and then “understand” the film. A few years later, I read Laura Mulvey, watch The Tree of Life, analyze the film in a completely different way. Does each different analysis bring new understanding??
Sure, why not? I would expect different insights when one uses a different approach. Moreover, I think people can get continually get something different from great works of art.
Intelligent analysis of a film comes from experience, not from technique. Technique is something that happens afterward, when you want to discuss it with other people, especially if you’re a critic. When I’m trying to privately sort out my own impression of a film, I just sort of think about it really hard, and reflect on how I felt and what I was thinking while watching it.
Sometimes it’s just a ‘click’ moment. The amount my ability to analyze literature improved in my junior year of high school was stark and even measurable: I took the SAT once and got 650 verbal. I took it again six months later and got 760 verbal. My ‘click’ moment for films happened at some point in the first Mubi DC. It’s just an issue of gaining the right experience that guides your thinking in the right direction.
I personally don’t give a fuck about any objective rationalization of movie. If I’m trying to share my opinion or work through my own thoughts why would I divorce myself from my reactions to it? One thing that I always try to do is make sure I’m aware of any cultural differences when I’m watching a film involving material which I am not intimately familiar with. I’m not a story focused person, so what is going on from that angle isn’t really a priority for me. Characterization and mood take top priority.
@Jazz – I’m yankin’ your chain a bit, but I do see intersubjectivity as a helpful way to appreciate different types of movies. An intersubjective approach allows us to focus in on different values within larger cinema. I may have a penchant for fascinating characters, but if I take an intersubjective approach I might be able to find ways to appreciate movies that lack this aspect.
A recent example might be my reaction to Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. The film did nothing for me whatsoever on a subjective level. The subject matter didn’t interest me and I didn’t think that it was breaking any new ground for the spy genre, at least on a narrative level. (As an aside, narrative construction is usually the most interesting thing to me in a movie. I enjoy didactic films a lot!) But an intersubjective approach allowed me to appreciate the precision of the film making and the inventive visual approaches taken throughout TTSS. So while it didn’t have any personal resonance for me, I have no problem telling people that it is very good in certain respects and well worth watching, especially if you’re into the genre.
Den’s approach seems to be related to intersubjectivity but with just a smaller scope of criteria It’s a good approach, though, one that is especially effective if you’re watching something you don’t expect to enjoy a lot. Last December, I caught myself up with a bunch of Ryan Gosling movies (how does this fit in with the stars’ previous films and his screen persona?). I knew I probably wouldn’t care for Lars and the Real Girl or All Good Things, but I was interested in Gosling, and saw the movies for that reason. As it turns out, I have no interest in seeing either of those two aforementioned films again, but I had a decent time watching them, because I allowed myself to focus on an intersubjective criteria – acting. The process of watching became less concerned with evaluating the totality of the film (though I still did that in the end) and more concerned with this one little aspect. Sometimes, as in The Believer, that one aspect can become the totality, so my interest in one intersubjective criteria paid off in discovering a movie that I think is very good on the whole.
@Jirin
Technique is something that happens afterward, when you want to discuss it with other people, especially if you’re a critic.
What do you mean by ‘technique?" And if you don’t mind, maybe you could share some of the techniques you employ.
@Malik
If I’m trying to share my opinion or work through my own thoughts why would I divorce myself from my reactions to it?
I think there are some good reasons to not allow your personal reaction to the be the one and only factor in evaluating a film—but maybe you were being rhetorical?
@Nathan
An intersubjective approach allows us to focus in on different values within larger cinema. I may have a penchant for fascinating characters, but if I take an intersubjective approach I might be able to find ways to appreciate movies that lack this aspect.
Right.
The process of watching became less concerned with evaluating the totality of the film (though I still did that in the end) and more concerned with this one little aspect.
I think ignoring the totality of the film is the one drawback from Den’s approach—at least for me personally. Ignoring the totality of film—what it’s about, what its going for and whether it succeeds or not—just makes me uncomfortable, as it feels a little disrespectful to the film and the filmmakers. I don’t think people mean this in a disrespectful way, though.
Analyzing is a film is like analyzing any piece of fine art: we base it on its overall form and substance. Form, in its loose sense, pertains to both the narrative (what the story is about) and the look (comprised of all cinematic elements like cinematography, screenplay, acting, etc). Form, in short, is what the film is in its entirety. But since film is a piece of fine art, it must communicate certain human truths. This is why most films with moral values or those that simply inspire are regarded as a ‘work of art’. Message, in this sense, elevates the understanding of a film as we do not just take it as it is, but contemplate on what it is for.
Analyzing is a film is like analyzing any piece of fine art: we base it on its overall form and substance. Form, in its loose sense, pertains to both the narrative (what the story is about) and the look (comprised of all cinematic elements like cinematography, screenplay, acting, etc). Form, in short, is what the film is in its entirety. But since film is a piece of fine art, it must communicate certain human truths. This is why most films with moral values or those that simply inspire are regarded as a ‘work of art’. Message, in this sense, elevates the understanding of a film as we do not just take it as it is, but contemplate on what it is for.
@Jazz – I don’t think I’d be comfortable with ignoring totality, but intersubjectivity allows one to focus on more than just totality.
Oh man, Jazz hits another winner. I don’t know if I have the energy to give this question justice with my answer right now but I’ll throw out some ideas real quick and then return to the thread at a different time to try to be more precise.
I try to balance structuralism, semiotics, and individual interest.
Which is more technical than I think any viewer/reviewer/critic can even consistently maintain, and there’s a sort of history behind this that I’d like to flesh out in more detail, but am unable to right now. Basically when I first discovered the concept of structuralism it had a profound impact in my way of looking at a movie both technically and content-wise (because they inform each other) and it allowed me to center my thoughts about the ‘language of…’. Semiotics is just something I’ve been trained to receive for a long time. And try as I might and tying into that whole “Do you have to be interested in the concept of a film to like it?” thread, ultimately a science fiction or Japanese or surreal movie is going to compell me more than a romantic comedy, Italian, or character driven film.
—PolarisDiB
i don’t think i really do. i just let a film do it’s thing while i sit back and take it in. it’s a feeling more than picking a movie apart. i prefer not analyzing things most the time. maybe that’s why i am more easy to please.
I do like the idea of letting a film come to you, as opposed to actively picking it apart. You the viewer are along for the ride, let the film do the work, let it take you somewhere…instead of trying to wrestle and force the film to make sense to you personally.
Of course you should let the film come to you . . . but there’s a fine line between passive watchfulness and plain ol’ inattentiveness.
@Nathan
I don’t think I’d be comfortable with ignoring totality, but intersubjectivity allows one to focus on more than just totality.
FWIW, I use intersubjectivity within the context of the whole movie.
Also, I want to be clear that I don’t think Den’s approach necessarily leads to ignoring the totality of the film—I just think it’s something that could easily happen.
@DiB
I try to balance structuralism, semiotics, and individual interest.
I’m interested in hearing more, but can we get the structuralism and semiotics for dummies version?
@Jazz
Technique: Anything that ends with ‘ism’ or ‘ity’? Describing the movie, not how it relates to you, but by how it relates to the critical structures familiar to others. The art of translating your inner thoughts to the common dialog.
@Jirin
You’re talking about various theories and technical ideas related to criticism (e.g., formalism, etc.)? I think preventing these ideas from influencing the viewing would be quite difficult, if not impossible.
Are there certain theories that you find yourself translating your ideas to?
Structuralism for Dummies:
The structure/form of a film determines its meaning. A close-up ‘means’ something different than a wide shot, a longer take positions the viewer differently than rapid cutting. Mise-en-scene + audio = content, and an artists’ ‘intentions’ are determined by or insignificant to what is immediately available to be analyzed within the work, except maybe some amount of historical context of when the film was made.
Semiotics for Dummies:
Semiotics is ‘the science of signs’ the same way epistemology is ‘the science of knowing.’ It analyzes the relationship between the signifier and the signified. It means that an artist encodes meaning into a text and the audience decodes meaning from that text and the code is the sign. Red ‘means’ something different than green, and high contrast lighting informs a different world or character or perspective than soft lighting.
—PolarisDiB
^My Dummies explanation for Dummies:
I much prefer looking at the actual piece of art and determining its ‘meaning’ based on what is available in the ‘text’ than I do pouring through artists’ statements, biographies, and interviews to hear what they have to say about their piece of art.
—DiB
@DiB
That was pretty cool, thanks (although, the semiotics for dummies still leaves me a little puzzled. But I’m not blaming you! I’ve always had troubled trying to understand semiotics). I really like your approach as explained in your “dummies for dummies” version. The text is very important to me as well.
These are quite interesting responses to the question, and I find myself applying a variety of view points when approaching a work that I’ve seen several times, which is the beauty of this medium -the return to material several times with a different entry point can allow for multiple meanings, as suggested by several.
Although, when approached with a film for the first time, I do simultaneously consider my subjective emotional reaction, my intellectual response to semiotics, the narrative development, the story development, the formalist structure of the work, how each shot/sequence/structure relates to other previous works while also comprehending how exactly all these things change from moment to moment. Similarly to Dennis, it is also very important for me to comprehending a work in relation to previous work of much of the team (both above the line and below the line, as many times I am paying attention to the work of a Writer/Director/Producer/Star, but I am looking at a Sound Mixer/Gaffer/Foley Artist, etc.) In addition to this, it’s important for me to contextualize the work and what I’m observing (visually, audible and thematically) to a social, political, cultural and historical context. When watching Contagion, for example, I was comparing moments to the immediate issues of journalistic approach in times of crisis (like current storm coverage as well as historical points of reference like Louisiana) but also cinematic comparison to works like Kazan’s Panic in the Streets (1950) and Soderbergh’s earlier Digital works and other works with similar lenses and exposures that were shot on Red with a similar budget. What is also clear about this, is the need to comprehend the presentation, as and example, viewing a work in Digital format versus print allows for a different comprehension of the material presented because exposure value changes, saturation changes as does the way in which my eye responds to flesh tones. This definitely changes the manner in which I become viscerally excited or engaged, blood and violence become more horrifying in print where as a Digital presentation it remains cold and less emotional. Presentation, then is affected by screen size, distance, audience number & participation, sound mix, aspect ratio, print release date, color timing, etc… Audience reactions also help convey to me whether the effect of a film seems to be successful as entertainment, or have an effective pace, mood, direction of attention and tone.
While this is the case of my intellectual approach as a work unfolds before me, as the work’s running time is complete I then am able to take the work apart in sections, chucks, or pieces in which I compare and contrast how I see these various elements develop or change over time. This helps me comprehend thematic choices of importance, as well as begin to comprehend a meaning for the work. Ultimately, I believe I am attempting to recognize for myself what the filmmakers are really trying to convey, and what the ultimate conclusion addresses in reference to what is being conveyed. What is really important for me is recognizing the agenda of these filmmakers, with and approach to “listening,” rather than “reading,” where the emphasis is an attempts to comprehend how they utilize their approach of the medium, rather than my most familiar and instinctual means of comprehending a work. This often leads me to return to a work over and over, and in most cases I find myself drawn to works I dislike or don’t understand most -as I my means of trying to comprehend a maker’s intention can be more work as they are not communicating as clearly as those whom are more talented.
In any case, there is always something to glean from any maker, and most works have a way of communicating something that has not been communicated in the manner that was selected, which really makes every film quite a unique experience.
Jazzaloha
We had a discussion recently where someone said that every moviegoer should have a method for analyzing and understanding a film. Do people agree with this? What is your personal method of analyzing and understanding a film? Has it changed over time? Do you use more than one approach?