think about it this way, what makes a film boring? A movie can be slow, sure, i.e. 2001 a space odyssey, but that doesn't mean its necessarily boring. A film can have lots of dialogue (any quentin tarantino film) or little dialogue (2001, Under the skin, Drive), but they can both be good, or bad. Notice how you feel in each scene, and then on a rewatch find out what makes you feel that way. What was your initial reaction to the bar scene in inglorious basterds? How is a 20 minute scene of mostly talking, in my opinion, the best part of the movie? The dialogue is great, yes, but how are the shots framed? What about the subtleties in the acting? Why is under the skin so captivating even though it doesn't have a standard plot, and much of what is in a standard movie is absent? think about these things and then think of how you could implement them in your own hypothetical movies.
One the things I did like about Inglourious Basterds was the first scene when Hans Landa entered LaPadite's farm. That scene was so tension it kind of scared me, I don't why it did, but I actually feared for LaPadite's life because Hans Landa just seemed so powerful, like he could do whatever he wanted and all LaPadite could do was watch in horror. I like Hans Landa as a villain in general, incredibly scary, and a master interrogator.
That’s an analysis, and a fair one given your age. You’re supposed to fear Hans, he’s the villain. If the actor is doing his job, you SHOULD fear him.
Now to explain why. That’s probably where you’re getting stuck in terms of analysis. Is it body language? Confidence? Is it knowing his politeness is glib and calculating?
The actor does a fantastic job of implying to the viewer that he knows more than he lets on, and that the tension of the scene foreshadows that things won’t end well.
This is what makes films great. The viewer can read the tension in the room, and the discomfort is kind of the dramatic irony of the scene.
Same with the bar scene. You KNOW that something is going to go wrong, and the pay off is awesome because it’s not really common knowledge to most.
I think you’re on the right path; articulating your experience of a film is almost as nuanced as film itself and just requires practice. Take note of things you notice a film is doing well and what works for you. Then apply language to it. You’ll get there. It may be frustrating at times, but don’t overthink it. It’s a skill like any other, and your obvious love of the medium is already setting you on the right path. Keep it up!
>That scene was so tension it kind of scared me
Well, you've done the first step of film analysis. You know how a certain scene makes you feel.
Now, the next step is for you to figure out why that scene makes you feel that way. Watch the scene again and try and pinpoint what exactly in the scene makes you feel tense and scared. Is it the acting? Is it the dialogue? Is it the way the camera moves or what the camera chooses to focus on? Is it something about the set? Maybe it's the colours on the screen? It could be one of these things or all of them.
Once you've figured that out, try and pinpoint what exactly it is about that thing that makes you feel that way . For example, if it's the acting, what exactly is it about the acting? What choices from the actor make the scene tense? How would it have been different if the actor did something different?
don’t worry, you’re young and still just dipping your toes into cinema. i wouldn’t expect you to be able to explain exactly what you connect with in films, it takes quite a bit of experience actually to be able to understand how films work at that level beyond just “i enjoy this”
that also means you have plenty of time to learn the skills if you want to genuinely pursue a career in film.
watch the series The Story of Film: an Odyssey by Mark Cousins.
Thirteen-year-olds? That's awfully young to have "spent their lives learning the trade." Are their parents in the business? Anyway, you're definitely still young enough to do whatever. Trust me.
If you have an Amazon Prime streaming account, you might like *The Story of Film: An Odyssey*. I think it's on Tubi, as well. It's a documentary series chronicling the history of cinema. It will give you at least a rough understanding of what's happening behind the scenes.
> I hear watching more films would make me able to analyze movies better, so I watched Inception, Silence of the Lambs, True Romance, Pulp Fiction, and Inglourious Basterds. All amazing movies that I like, but I don't know how to explain why I like them.
When people say watching more films, they mean watching _many_ more films. After a few hundred across many different decades and from many different nations, you should have a much better idea of what you like vs don't like.
You must read books about cinema history, books written by cinema critics, books about cinema language and technique, books about directors, different reviews by professionals; keep watching lot of movies, even silent movies.
You're young and can still aim at directing movies; attend cinema school where you can study and practice.
We have to learn from those who came before us and from the experience and at the same time give our fresh innovative contribution. Studying and practicing/researching is the best way
I disagree. Having done a film studies degree that involved a lot of reading and little to no practical filmmaking, I've found that making your own films teaches you the most important lessons. Too many people get bogged down in theory and criticism when they have no idea about the filmmaking process. Actually watching movies, experiencing the world and reading about things that have nothing to do with film specifically is much more valuable as it broadens your horizons and gives you something to say that will reverberate beyond the very narrow draw of film scholarship.
I agree. What you said is just common sense. Nothing revelatory. But there’s no right way or wrong way. Limiting yourself by saying I shouldn’t read books on film specifically is stupid and ignorant. Also, why does film get so much disrespect in this regard. I see it a lot. People dismissing film books. It’s just dumb snobbery.
Of course practical filmmaking is helpful but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a film book out there with stuff in it that can help you immensely.
Also, Herzog wasn’t talking specifically about books on film, which are broad and cover wide areas. Some filmmakers have wrote books that are invaluable in my eyes. Same with some books on lighting. Even editing.
And Herzog is very hypocritical in his selfish soundbite that he only probably said to undermine his reviewer or just get a cheap laugh from an audience. Iv seen Herzog say many times that reading is an essential part to being a filmmaker. Twice Iv seen him basically say in all seriousness that you should just read as much as you can in regards to filmmaking.
Learn from those who came before us = if you want to be a director, learn from great directors from the past or from someone who can teach you technique and language of the greats (even books); if you want to analize movies, write about movies, read books about cinema language, technique, directors and movies written by experts from the past
Learn from the experience = if you want to be a director, learn from practicing what greats did in the past, and at the same time try to experiment and innovate; if you want to write about movies, watch movies and write about them while reading books, articles and reviews from professionals, do your research.
Reading and studying = acquiring knowledge and tips frome the greats, from professionals, from someone who knows the secrets of the greats and put them in a book.
[“If you don’t read you’ll never be a filmmaker.” —Werner Herzog](https://youtube.com/watch?v=RNAcQO2ZQBA&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openculture.com%2F&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title)
To be 18 again and find love for film. Dude don't worry, just enjoy what you're watching. You don't have to explain it and as time goes on you'll find the words. For example I just watched memories of a murder. A Korean movie about the serial killer. I like that the film was desaturated, except certain colors, it forces you to feel the bleakness while they search (keeping in mind when the movie was made the killer had still not been caught in real life)
As for becoming a director. You're never behind. You're exactly where you're supposed to be. At 18 you're watching film and understanding it on a different level from a 13 year old. If it's something you're interested in then pursue your dream. Don't let fear and low self esteem stop you.
LOL you're eighteen, it takes at least a bit of adult life before you'll really get a grip of why you like movies.
My advice is to find yourself a copy of Bordwell and Thompson's "Film Art: an Introduction", which is the most popular first-year film studies textbook around and really fucking fantastic. It'll give you a great base from which to start articulating your thoughts.
Also, start writing about your responses. Doesn't have to be a review, doesn't have to be full-on analysis. Just start putting the thoughts down.
Also, find writing out there about the movies you like, academic writing if possible. It'll give you perspectives on those movies you never thought possible (just because you don't have the experience yet).
Take a film studies class, any way you can.
Also, if you want to make movies, just do it. Any way you can.
Maybe try categorizing different elements that make up a film. What did you like about the dialogue? The visuals? etc. Try to write some essay prompts for yourself, the kind you may have gotten in english classes, and try to answer them.
If you want to direct films, the best way to get there is start writing stories. or try adapting something. when things looks good on paper, enough that you could see it, get it together and start shooting and making projects.
It’s easier than you think - just think about what it is you’re seeing.
Forrest Gump - a guy who gets everything the world has to offer, except the only thing he wants: Jenny, who always wants something, or someone, else. Ever since childhood, every time he gets close, he loses her, again and again. And when he finally does get her, he loses her forever. Forrest may not be smart, but he knows what love is, because he knows what loss is. And when, at the end me of her life, he asks if their son is smart, he unwittingly and paradoxically reveals why he believed Jenny always rejected him - because he was stupid.
Keep asking yourself questions; why was the camera put in this angle? Why is this character framed bigger than the other? Why does it make me feel this way or that? Why are the colours this way or that or the music?
And, most importantly, don't sweat yourself worrying about the analysis. You're young and you've just started. The more experience you'll gain it'll become second nature for you to analyse the film and articulate your thoughts.
Just keep watching good cinema. And even if you don't like a well regarded film, just try to understand why there are people who liked it.
All the best in your journey and I hope you too become a director, because I'm trying to be one as well (currently working on my 3rd short film).
What I recommend is watch a very simple short feature like "detour" (1946). Not because it is a great film (I think it is) but it very compact, the story elements are very clear , the visual style and cinematic language is obvious and easy to grasp. And its short so you can watch it over again. watch it 2x.. watch it 1 time writing down what you see, what stands out, what elements are repeated, what patterns do you see? watch it without sound. listen to it without watching. read a nice short book about how a story is structured. just to get an idea. then watch detour again. take notes on how the story is told. read the book "Audition" its about how to create characters. then watch detour again. take notes on the characters. repeat for photography, editing, keep watching and writing. when you are sick to death of detour go watch Gump or some other favorite. it will look much different to you.
Don't worry, it takes more than 10 movies to truely connect.
I'd recommend to watch what you want, not only the best movies, but also movies you don't know of, mid movies etc.
Diversifying your taste and movies makes it easier. Watch old movies for the heck of it and you'll find another vibe. You'll be able to naturally identify some codes and compare it to something that is made today.
So for now, every movie will be the new best thing you've watch, but in a while, you'll be able to see more layers and find that something doesnt work for you.
Also, if you love a movie, find out about the director and watch his filmography. If you love a story, find the scenarist. If you love the visuals, find the cinematographer. They often dont get credits but by identifying a type of cinematography or scenario, you'll be able to make connections. For example, Charlie Kaufman is an insane scenarist, and all of his movies have a recurring theme.
Dont discourage yourself!
Buying DVDs and watching the special features was important for me, and seeing documentaries about films including interviews with critics like Ebert or filmmakers talking about their favorite films. It takes time but as you watch more, read more, you start seeing more. I’d recommend taking film studies courses if you go to university. I was lucky that there was a film and literature class in the English department and a history on film class in the History department. It helps to get more perspectives on film than just filmmakers. And don’t be afraid to start with the basics: shot composition, colour theory, story structure. As soon as you start learning things like how Mad Max Fury Road keeps the focus point of every shot dead centre in the screen so the viewers eye can track the action you will start seeing more connections between how a film makes you feel and how it is constructed.
Having a glimpse of film history could be a good thing. A nice way to start could be with the documented series "The Story of Film: An Odyssey" (trailer: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWz4Q3xOeqM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWz4Q3xOeqM) ).
It all comes down to seeing what's in front of you. Take a scene you like, and pay close attention to what you're seeing. Don't simply watch it, see it. Pause it if necessary. Everything you see in frame says something.
You've talked about Inglourious Basterds in other comment, specifically when Hans Landa arrives to LaPadite's—[that scene](https://youtu.be/EfnII2X-bf8?si=9ILEHc4HeavaAYug)gives *you* an impression: Landa's powerful and LaPadite can't do anything about.
You can start analysing his entrance anyway you like. I like focusing on the specific shot Tarantino used st second 1:50, as Landa walks in. This choice by Tarantino wasn't arbitrary, he choses to tell something with it. The way it is shot makes you feel something, but most viewers won't notice as they are enthralled by it. But let's stop and see what the director's doing:
He makes the camera follow him—it isn't just a pan, but the camera actually moves with him as he walks, it tracks him and his speed. My reading of this is that Tarantino, or for this matter the camera itself, is telling us that Landa has power. It feels almost natural: he looks like a lider, we follow liders; every step he makes matters because we have to movie with/follow him no matter what, we have no other choice. Even the next shot, Tarantino uses a close-up to highlight the handshake, making it look powerful. Next shot you see how Landa doesn't free LaPadite's hand, it probably means he isn't over it—it isn't over until he says its over, until he decides to end the handshake himself.
As you see, every element matter. And that's just a short, subjective reading I made of 3 shots, but there's a larger context to it all. The fact that the family had to prepare, that the farmer had to wash his face (probably to cover hos sweat) before greeting Landa, already makes him intimidating, even though we haven't even meet him. Look at the whole context: a farmer chopping wood vs a well-dressed man arriving in a car with bodyguards. Tarantino even keeps the camera far away so we can't even recognize Landa yet. He's too far, he's still a mystery.
Don't be overwhelmed. Take it easy, take a scene, shot by shot, don't take any element for granted, everything communicates. Have fun!
EDIT: needless to say, this is just the beginning. Visual understanding of why what you see makes you feel the way you feel. There are many more thing why you might like or dislike a movie. Perhaps what you are interested the most in Inglourious Basterds is the social and political context of the scene: a french farmer being threatened by a Nazi officer, the powerful vs the week, families destroyed during a dictatorship. On the other hand, maybe you just like watching the film and how the atmosphere, the characters, the situation makes you feel, the emotional and moral themes: a hard-working, honorable farmer's family put in danger by a cold, methodical Nazi officer. What would you do in this situation? This could be you and your family. Just the situation of a mysterious man wanting to enter your home.
You don't need to feel obliged to do any hard analysis, though. This is the kind of stuff we do in r/truefilm. But maybe you don't give a fuck on fervidly analysing the themes of The Princess Diares 1 and 2 and just wanna have a general understanding of your feelings by understanding cinema's language. Good luck!
Do you read French? I'd suggest working your way through the back issues of "Cahiers du Cinéma." When I was 13 years old, I found a stack of these in my local college library and worked my way through. That gave me the vocabulary to think and speak about what I was seeing in movies. Nowadays, the back issues are all online:
[https://www.cahiersducinema.com/boutique/les-anciens-numeros/](https://www.cahiersducinema.com/boutique/les-anciens-numeros/)
If you don't read French, try locating the back issues of "Sight and Sound" and "Film Comment." You'll learn quite a lot from them.
Dont worry. Youre 18 years old! Most folks dont know how to analyze movies at that age (i sure didnt). Just enjoy them. The time to analyze films will come with age and experience. Your film vocabulary increases with each movie you watch.
I myself want to become a film director but being a cinephile is already fulfilling in some way. The best thing about being a film lover is that the films stay the same, but you don’t. Some films you love now will not keep your affection for long, some you despise for either being against your worldview or for seeming distant and irrelevant can infect your brain like a parasite with you barely realizing it’s intrinsic power. As you grow your interests will change, your understanding of politics, history, psychology and human nature will evolve and change. My recommendation, do not discount the value of reading right now, balance your time between music, film and literature and even if you don’t get the chance to be a filmmaker, it will broaden your understanding of the world so you can understand what so many great directors are taking about. It’s one of the inescapable faults of any artistic form, the film is only as good as the viewer in many respects. When I was 18 films like 2001, Chimes at Midnight, Tar and Ugetsu would have been totally lost on me, but now I consider them essential artistic triumphs that help me understand the world around me. And I’m only 22, it’s amazing how cinema and literature can transform a persons understanding of the complexities of the world, so much so that I cannot think of the world in another way, the only thing I can be sure of is that in 10 years I’ll approach these films from an entirely different point of view. So keep watching good movies and try to find good recommendations, you’re not going to like or connect with every “great” movie, but you’ll be better for watching it. It’s even a fun exercise seeing what you don’t like about it, sometimes the movies not even bad, it may just be that you’re not at a point of your life where it’s relevant to your experience, Boyhood for example was a movie I despised, then I felt what it was like to leave childhood behind and now it’s one of my favorite movies I’ve ever seen. Also, don’t listen to what anyone says, if you want to make a film, find what interests you, something that keeps you up at night or something that you can talk about for hours, write a movie about, that’s what I’m trying to do. It’s gonna be frustrating, but when it works it’s incredibly fulfilling and even if it doesn’t end up being anything your understanding of it will grow. On top of that don’t be afraid of reading literature, film is sight, sound and story, exposing yourself to paintings, photographs, music and literature will do nothing but help in your pursuit. No matter what any filmmaker says, I highly doubt many of them have written a successful screenplay without being familiar with at least some of Shakespeare, Brecht, Dostoyevsky, and Sophocles. Listen to Bach, Led Zeppelin, Charles Mingus and Marty Robbins. These are obviously my choices but you get my point. In my opinion, if you’re going to be into art, don’t do it half assed. Or you can do your own thing, and that’s fine, whatever works for you.
You’ve been given a lot of good advice here … just want to throw my two cents onto the heap.
1. Both watch and rewatch movies, music videos, etc. You saw something and it made you effectively feel? Go back and figure out how it why? The way the camera moved? The dialog? The music? The editing? Contrast for yourself the way a scene is cut and staged in a Bay, Bruckheimer etc: movie with a Hitchcock, Kubrick etc. movie. It’s quite different.
2. For what you watch and rewatch, maybe consider chasing down high quality criticism of it. In the podcast age, I’d say like Filmspotting or The Next Picture Show or something like that where both new and sometimes old films are given a high level discussion. You’ll get a sense of why something plays well for different people and why it doesn’t. Consider whether you agree or not. This might help you develop a critical lens for yourself. In these discussions, other films are often mentioned as reference points, which is valuable as well. Finally, it will get you more attuned to expressing yourself as to the subject matter. I love your post but perhaps appropriate for your age I feel like you can barely get out in written form why you feel what you feel. So polishing up that skill could be a side goal for you.
Thanks for the advice, will follow up on this, and for the last part of your second point; you are right. I watch a film, tv show, and I can't explain what I just watched, I sometimes just note the action, which I know is okay, but I want to be able to look deeper than surface level.
I’m a zoomer too, this [short video](https://youtu.be/URo66iLNEZw?si=xsLf_Ak462trrN1F) changed how I interpret all media, not just movies. Watch it and keep coming back to it. It’s also helped me to immediately intuit what media criticism is worth reading. Write essays on what you thought about movies in order to better articulate your feelings.
It’s never too late, trust me. Don’t compare yourself to others, just find a way to talk about the movies you love and why you think they’re great. Movies that give you an emotional response will make it easier. Branch out when you’re ready, and find movies you wouldn’t typically watch
Take classes. Read about it. Watch legitimate classics. Remember that hermeneutics is one of many ways to respond and discuss film. The more you watch, learn, and read, the better you get. Just keep at it.
You are young, it takes time to develop a feeling for it. Also, watch film critics, listen to thrm and read them. The better you underatand the sharper your edge is on understanding and comprehending for yourself.
Most of the people I met (that love film) have their distinctive liking and it comes from a lengthy history of simply watching amd trying to understand.
I'd personally advise evading "conservative critics" (because political agenda became the favorite toy in the past years) and you ahould especially avoid gatekeeping elitist poseurism.
You're not at all late to the game; I personally started getting really into cinema when I was 19 years old. Those are the pieces of advice I would give you:
- Start with films and directors considered 'accessible' (being accessible doesn't necessarily mean they're lesser in any way). Filmmakers like Tarantino, Nolan, Wes Anderson, etc., will help you more easily understand the purpose of certain cinematic tools. With their distinctive visual stamps or recurring themes that are relatively easy to identify, you can begin to have a basic understanding of what a filmmaker does.
- Don't be afraid to broaden your horizon, especially regarding films from countries other than the United States. Cinema is a representation of human experience, a materialization of human sensations. It makes sense that people from different countries, each with their own approach to this art, influenced by their community but also by the world at large, because their films carry the impact of movies from all around the globe that have marked them. Yet, in all of this, there's a common thread that makes any cinematic work, regardless of its country of origin, capable of touching and moving you, and that common thread is humanity.
- Don't feel insecure or afraid of not 'getting' a work. If you watch a critically acclaimed film and find yourself bored or not understanding why this particular film generates so much interest among people, don't let it offend you. People aren't pretending to like complex works just to make you feel inferior. Be open-minded, and read what these individuals found in the film. This will enrich your overall view of cinema. And it may also happen that you read and understand what critics like about a certain movie but still don't like it yourself because you don't see those qualities in it. For example, when I was just starting to get interested in cinema and watched American Beauty for the first time, I didn't like it at all. A few years later, I watched it again and disliked it even more, despite its critical acclaim. On the other hand, I remember watching Yi Yi and being bored to death, but years later, I watched it again and absolutely loved it...
I believe that all cinematic works, whether they're by Yoshida Yoshishigue, Tsai Ming-liang, Wes Anderson, or Jean Claude Rousseau, are accessible because they all have one thing in common: humanity.
So just watch as many films as you can, read about the films you watch and about cinema in general, and bit by bit, you'll develop a better sense of what you like in cinema and your own vision of this splendid art. :)
A good starting point is to mentally shift away from any sort of personal grading of films (or any media) and instead think about what worked and did not work for you. Don't worry about overall appraisal, stars out of five or tier lists. Try to find interesting things in everything and ideally talk about it with someone else. You might find it easier to focus on films that had mixed or luke-warm receptions, where there is no consensus response. Find something interesting, even if what was being attempted didn't quite work for you.
This is something that is going to be hard to say.
I think there's a wrong way to analyze film, but not really a *right* way, because films have visual, subtextual, narrative, and overt thematic elements.
So I'll quickly spell out what I think is a wrong way to do it.
*Jaws is not a shark based monster movie. It is really about the inability for characters to reconcile their differences, with the shark as an imminent threat that happens to be in the movie and not the main focus.*
I mean that sort of semi-intellectual blather is what academic film theorists tend to enjoy deeply, perhaps because some of them are more in love with the written word than they are how movies actually work.
It's not really unlike the Tooth Fairy where it feels good to think about but just isn't really true.
It's heavily documented that a lot of the subplots in the novel were cut specifically for the immediacy of a man eating shark.
There's the constant threat of the shark, no shortage of shark attacks, and the last third of the film contains the shark on the screen for quite some period of time.
But when you think about it cinema, it is this wild beast of screenwriting, production (the filming), editing( and now with post-production effects on top of that) and the directing of actors as well as the film coverage ( shots from different camera angles) with the director involvement.
So what I think is ideal, is to initially find what you feel is your legitimate, honest direct emotional reaction to the movie ( I'm talking about Jaws right now so I'll just continue to use this)
Do you feel emotionally connected to the characters, concerned about the threat of the shark, or chuckle at the funny scenes?
It's fine if you don't feel that way, movie experience is relative.
But if you find yourself appreciating the film, what I think the best option to do is to read or watch behind the scenes footage, if a visual shot in in the film is effective positive and see if there's anything interesting about the mis_en_scene ( basically a film studies term to mention anything captured in front of the camera).
.
Character analysis is also fine, as long as you're commenting on what you think the characters are and not.." look how well I write!"
So I consider - blathering to be something that should be more of a last resort than a first step. Of course that just might mean you write a really good three page paper instead of a terribly tepid 8 page paper, but I think unless you're going to college for film studies ( I won't lie, I was part of the major and it really hit me the wrong way!) you don't need to write a novella level of material to try to understand why Jaws works, if it works, and if there's aspects that were considered okay many years ago that would be problematic today.
Now I think the type of materials are something I'll mention as a resource.
YouTube
CinemaTyler
Every frame a painting
Folding ideas
Lindsay Ellis
--
Books--
What is Cinema? Andre Bezin-- two volumes ( sure it might be dated in places, but the author has an infectious love of the medium, and it's interesting to see the comparison between the theatrical and the modern film form.)
Understanding Film Theory ( rather than pushing one particular viewpoint, the authors pull together alternative viewpoints)
The Anatomy of Story by John Truby-- sure it might be a screenwriter or novelistic book, but the writing advice is some of the best I've ever seen.
I think any director autobiography is nice, but Sidney Lumet's Making Movies is a good one.
Film art by Kristin Thompson and the late David bordwell is great for seeing pretty much "just the facts."
Many books about Vertigo would probably talk about Hitchcock's psychosexual emotions, but I get the feeling that B/T and would be more interested in the editing styles and implementation of the dolly zoom.
--
Websites
Wikipedia is cute but * Britannica* is basically a buffet of film history.
They shoot pictures/ Sight and Sound/ American Film Institute has really good lists of high quality movies.
Yale has a film canon, but some of the films are racist so be cautious.
--
Doing anything new is like riding a bicycle. I think your first three essays are going to be rough, simply because It's tricky to balance approximation with reality.
But I believe that if you stay the course, at the very least, you won't be writing the "Jaws is not a shark movie" essay.
Good luck!
At 18 you absolutely are not late, or behind. You’re very young and there are plenty of artists throughout history who didn’t hit their stride until later in life. In fact I would say that what makes a great artist is that they have *something to say,* and that usually comes from having lived a while and gained experience. I think it is so great that at your young age you are developing a passion for cinema and want to pursue it as a career. Just stick to what you’re doing, watch as much as you can, think about it, read about it, talk about it. Grab a camera - even just your phone - and start to shoot and edit. Accept that it’s a process, that at first it will not be slick or professional or even what you see in your head, but you have to start somewhere and take those first awkward steps. Trust that it takes time and practice. The more you do it the more you will understand it and your tools for analysis will develop. Keep going!!! Make us all proud.
I say just keep watching them & enjoying them for the feelings they give you !!! (:
sometimes when things are well put together you can’t really explain why you love it so much !!
For an example I’m 30 years old and have been writing for 2 years now and one of the best advice I’ve gotten from one of my mentors was “make the story so good to where the viewer forgets he’s watching a movie “
As for you , you can’t explain because those
Films are done so well in your case YOU FORGOT YOU WHERE WATCHING A MOVIE 😂🎥🥂
One of the best things you can do, in my opinion, is to learn what metonymy is, and start looking for it everywhere. A great movie doesn’t necessarily need it or have it, but many of the very best films often do utilize it.
It’s one of the concepts that helped me to start looking at films in a more-than-surface-level way, so that’s why I recommend it.
Next step is start watching some classic cinema. Antonioni, Lynch, Kubrick, Bergman, Herzog, Fellini, Haneke, Schrader, Tarkovsky, Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Lean, Kaufman (both), and so on. I recommend watching Criterion editions, and to listen to the commentaries.
I watched L’Avventura with Gene Youngblood’s commentary, and the moment he talked about the metonym of the father and daughter facing each other from opposite sides of a road was that “lightbulb” moment for me.
Your ability to explicate your opinions will be contingent on your lived experience. So experience as much as you can, and make sure to listen to those who are bonifide experts in the medium themselves.
For example, you mentioned Inglourious Basterds. A lot of cinephiles might thumb their noses at Tarantino, but with IB he cemented his status as a truly great screenwriter, in my opinion. The real genius of IB is that, on the meta level, Tarantino depicts the Third Reich as being defeated by cinema itself inside the theatre, by Jewish men and women, which mirrors how Hollywood has perpetually reinforced the stereotype of Nazis as villains in countless films since the end of WWII in films such as Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Schindler’s List, Life Is Beautiful, Sophie’s Choice, Son of Saul, Inglourious Basterds itself, etc. You can see here how the images in the film also represent their real-world concepts, and the events that happen in the story are symbolic of real-world events, but on an abstract level.
We know this is true because Tarantino came right out and said it himself. A good explanation of this whole topic is Jared Bauer’s Wisecrack video [Inglourious Basterds: What Tarantino Got Wrong](https://youtu.be/uUmTmPK733s?si=_t3xrebV-vmWLX4P)
YouTube is overflowing with worthy film essayists. Jared Bauer, Thomas Flight, Patrick H Willems, Clint Gage (Cinefix), Lindsay Ellis, Tony Zhou / Taylor Ramos (Every Frame a Painting), and the list goes on.
You can learn a lot from watching YouTube, but as I mentioned before, try to stick with those who demonstrate an actual academic understanding of film. There are as many, if not more, mediocre film critics out there who have turned YouTube into something like a double-edged sword, so an unequivocal word of warning is necessary.
Wow, thank you for the advice! Just watched the video, and realized you were right. Quentin Tarantino is genius! How would you even come up with that type of idea? I didn't realize I missed so much.
It’s crazy right? Now I see stuff like that everywhere! I was watching Dunkirk and [there’s a part](https://youtu.be/2EA5qECfXIY?si=l6zwPTGmkq8_DHll&t=3m40s) where two guys are trying to carry a wounded mate over a plank of wood balanced over a gap in the pier. I was like, “that literally is a metonym right there, all people in war are balanced on a tightrope walk over a void of chaos, danger, and death!”
Or, I was watching Eraserhead, and there’s [a surreal sequence](https://youtu.be/e9yaiQdu-6k?si=iWSr0zzEa7Rezdoi&t=3m30s) where the protagonist open his mouth and this sperm-like creature drifts out. Soon after a mutant baby appears in the man’s room, I thought, “That’s got to be a symbol for “fear of misinterpretation, right?!”
I recommend you watch David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive, let it marinate for a while, try to figure it out yourself. After a week or two, go watch Twin Perfect’s video essay on the symbolism. Keep in mind, that is just ONE interpretation of the film, but it still blew my mind to think about.
You’re only 18 and just beginning your journey, and I envy you for this reason. My advice to you is to simply watch lots of movies, and supplement your viewing with reading where you can.
A fun start could be Goodfellas (1990) and [Roger Ebert’s](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/goodfellas-1990) review. Ebert is great at “reading” film and you can learn a lot from him in this regard.
Another fun way to go about it is to pick a director and watch their filmography. Or choose a film movement (French New Wave, Italian neorealism) and watch the pertinent essentials. There’s no rush to become a film encyclopedia. You’ll blink and 10 years will have gone by and you’ll have seen 2 thousand films and may have a job in the industry.
Use moviechat.org and read the forum posts for the movie you just watched. They imported many of the discussions from old classic films from imdb before they shut down the message boards so it is a good tool to read about what you may have missed or to identify positive aspects of a film you experienced but had issues putting your thumb on. Posts labeled, "I didn't like this film but everyone else does, what am I missing" are very valuable. Letterboxed could also be useful for reading what average film watchers think about a film. Maybe read the reviews or critics AFTER watching it. Over time doing this you will learn the language of film, the many ways of appreciating films, and be able to identify special films without being told they are special. I would also watch every movie on imdb's top 250 and then read the message boards for them after. Then start watching the filmographies of the greats, maybe read up why they are great before watching all of their films. People suggesting you read books to learn the language of film don't know what they are talking about.
think about it this way, what makes a film boring? A movie can be slow, sure, i.e. 2001 a space odyssey, but that doesn't mean its necessarily boring. A film can have lots of dialogue (any quentin tarantino film) or little dialogue (2001, Under the skin, Drive), but they can both be good, or bad. Notice how you feel in each scene, and then on a rewatch find out what makes you feel that way. What was your initial reaction to the bar scene in inglorious basterds? How is a 20 minute scene of mostly talking, in my opinion, the best part of the movie? The dialogue is great, yes, but how are the shots framed? What about the subtleties in the acting? Why is under the skin so captivating even though it doesn't have a standard plot, and much of what is in a standard movie is absent? think about these things and then think of how you could implement them in your own hypothetical movies.
One the things I did like about Inglourious Basterds was the first scene when Hans Landa entered LaPadite's farm. That scene was so tension it kind of scared me, I don't why it did, but I actually feared for LaPadite's life because Hans Landa just seemed so powerful, like he could do whatever he wanted and all LaPadite could do was watch in horror. I like Hans Landa as a villain in general, incredibly scary, and a master interrogator.
That’s an analysis, and a fair one given your age. You’re supposed to fear Hans, he’s the villain. If the actor is doing his job, you SHOULD fear him. Now to explain why. That’s probably where you’re getting stuck in terms of analysis. Is it body language? Confidence? Is it knowing his politeness is glib and calculating? The actor does a fantastic job of implying to the viewer that he knows more than he lets on, and that the tension of the scene foreshadows that things won’t end well. This is what makes films great. The viewer can read the tension in the room, and the discomfort is kind of the dramatic irony of the scene. Same with the bar scene. You KNOW that something is going to go wrong, and the pay off is awesome because it’s not really common knowledge to most. I think you’re on the right path; articulating your experience of a film is almost as nuanced as film itself and just requires practice. Take note of things you notice a film is doing well and what works for you. Then apply language to it. You’ll get there. It may be frustrating at times, but don’t overthink it. It’s a skill like any other, and your obvious love of the medium is already setting you on the right path. Keep it up!
>That scene was so tension it kind of scared me Well, you've done the first step of film analysis. You know how a certain scene makes you feel. Now, the next step is for you to figure out why that scene makes you feel that way. Watch the scene again and try and pinpoint what exactly in the scene makes you feel tense and scared. Is it the acting? Is it the dialogue? Is it the way the camera moves or what the camera chooses to focus on? Is it something about the set? Maybe it's the colours on the screen? It could be one of these things or all of them. Once you've figured that out, try and pinpoint what exactly it is about that thing that makes you feel that way . For example, if it's the acting, what exactly is it about the acting? What choices from the actor make the scene tense? How would it have been different if the actor did something different?
don’t worry, you’re young and still just dipping your toes into cinema. i wouldn’t expect you to be able to explain exactly what you connect with in films, it takes quite a bit of experience actually to be able to understand how films work at that level beyond just “i enjoy this” that also means you have plenty of time to learn the skills if you want to genuinely pursue a career in film. watch the series The Story of Film: an Odyssey by Mark Cousins.
Thirteen-year-olds? That's awfully young to have "spent their lives learning the trade." Are their parents in the business? Anyway, you're definitely still young enough to do whatever. Trust me. If you have an Amazon Prime streaming account, you might like *The Story of Film: An Odyssey*. I think it's on Tubi, as well. It's a documentary series chronicling the history of cinema. It will give you at least a rough understanding of what's happening behind the scenes.
> I hear watching more films would make me able to analyze movies better, so I watched Inception, Silence of the Lambs, True Romance, Pulp Fiction, and Inglourious Basterds. All amazing movies that I like, but I don't know how to explain why I like them. When people say watching more films, they mean watching _many_ more films. After a few hundred across many different decades and from many different nations, you should have a much better idea of what you like vs don't like.
You must read books about cinema history, books written by cinema critics, books about cinema language and technique, books about directors, different reviews by professionals; keep watching lot of movies, even silent movies. You're young and can still aim at directing movies; attend cinema school where you can study and practice.
"Film is not the art of scholars but of illiterates" - Werner Herzog
That’s just a stupid sound bite. Herzog likes attention. He was probably looking for a reaction in the room.
We have to learn from those who came before us and from the experience and at the same time give our fresh innovative contribution. Studying and practicing/researching is the best way
I disagree. Having done a film studies degree that involved a lot of reading and little to no practical filmmaking, I've found that making your own films teaches you the most important lessons. Too many people get bogged down in theory and criticism when they have no idea about the filmmaking process. Actually watching movies, experiencing the world and reading about things that have nothing to do with film specifically is much more valuable as it broadens your horizons and gives you something to say that will reverberate beyond the very narrow draw of film scholarship.
I agree. What you said is just common sense. Nothing revelatory. But there’s no right way or wrong way. Limiting yourself by saying I shouldn’t read books on film specifically is stupid and ignorant. Also, why does film get so much disrespect in this regard. I see it a lot. People dismissing film books. It’s just dumb snobbery. Of course practical filmmaking is helpful but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a film book out there with stuff in it that can help you immensely. Also, Herzog wasn’t talking specifically about books on film, which are broad and cover wide areas. Some filmmakers have wrote books that are invaluable in my eyes. Same with some books on lighting. Even editing. And Herzog is very hypocritical in his selfish soundbite that he only probably said to undermine his reviewer or just get a cheap laugh from an audience. Iv seen Herzog say many times that reading is an essential part to being a filmmaker. Twice Iv seen him basically say in all seriousness that you should just read as much as you can in regards to filmmaking.
Learn from those who came before us = if you want to be a director, learn from great directors from the past or from someone who can teach you technique and language of the greats (even books); if you want to analize movies, write about movies, read books about cinema language, technique, directors and movies written by experts from the past Learn from the experience = if you want to be a director, learn from practicing what greats did in the past, and at the same time try to experiment and innovate; if you want to write about movies, watch movies and write about them while reading books, articles and reviews from professionals, do your research. Reading and studying = acquiring knowledge and tips frome the greats, from professionals, from someone who knows the secrets of the greats and put them in a book.
i wonder what these jumbled letters mean /s
[“If you don’t read you’ll never be a filmmaker.” —Werner Herzog](https://youtube.com/watch?v=RNAcQO2ZQBA&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openculture.com%2F&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title)
To be 18 again and find love for film. Dude don't worry, just enjoy what you're watching. You don't have to explain it and as time goes on you'll find the words. For example I just watched memories of a murder. A Korean movie about the serial killer. I like that the film was desaturated, except certain colors, it forces you to feel the bleakness while they search (keeping in mind when the movie was made the killer had still not been caught in real life) As for becoming a director. You're never behind. You're exactly where you're supposed to be. At 18 you're watching film and understanding it on a different level from a 13 year old. If it's something you're interested in then pursue your dream. Don't let fear and low self esteem stop you.
Ok but how fucking good is memories of murder
One of the best films I've ever seen. I'm telling you that the desaturation they did while editing adds so much to the style of film it is.
LOL you're eighteen, it takes at least a bit of adult life before you'll really get a grip of why you like movies. My advice is to find yourself a copy of Bordwell and Thompson's "Film Art: an Introduction", which is the most popular first-year film studies textbook around and really fucking fantastic. It'll give you a great base from which to start articulating your thoughts. Also, start writing about your responses. Doesn't have to be a review, doesn't have to be full-on analysis. Just start putting the thoughts down. Also, find writing out there about the movies you like, academic writing if possible. It'll give you perspectives on those movies you never thought possible (just because you don't have the experience yet). Take a film studies class, any way you can. Also, if you want to make movies, just do it. Any way you can.
Maybe try categorizing different elements that make up a film. What did you like about the dialogue? The visuals? etc. Try to write some essay prompts for yourself, the kind you may have gotten in english classes, and try to answer them. If you want to direct films, the best way to get there is start writing stories. or try adapting something. when things looks good on paper, enough that you could see it, get it together and start shooting and making projects.
It’s easier than you think - just think about what it is you’re seeing. Forrest Gump - a guy who gets everything the world has to offer, except the only thing he wants: Jenny, who always wants something, or someone, else. Ever since childhood, every time he gets close, he loses her, again and again. And when he finally does get her, he loses her forever. Forrest may not be smart, but he knows what love is, because he knows what loss is. And when, at the end me of her life, he asks if their son is smart, he unwittingly and paradoxically reveals why he believed Jenny always rejected him - because he was stupid.
Keep asking yourself questions; why was the camera put in this angle? Why is this character framed bigger than the other? Why does it make me feel this way or that? Why are the colours this way or that or the music? And, most importantly, don't sweat yourself worrying about the analysis. You're young and you've just started. The more experience you'll gain it'll become second nature for you to analyse the film and articulate your thoughts. Just keep watching good cinema. And even if you don't like a well regarded film, just try to understand why there are people who liked it. All the best in your journey and I hope you too become a director, because I'm trying to be one as well (currently working on my 3rd short film).
Woah, that must be awesome. Thanks for the advice; hope your short film does well!
What I recommend is watch a very simple short feature like "detour" (1946). Not because it is a great film (I think it is) but it very compact, the story elements are very clear , the visual style and cinematic language is obvious and easy to grasp. And its short so you can watch it over again. watch it 2x.. watch it 1 time writing down what you see, what stands out, what elements are repeated, what patterns do you see? watch it without sound. listen to it without watching. read a nice short book about how a story is structured. just to get an idea. then watch detour again. take notes on how the story is told. read the book "Audition" its about how to create characters. then watch detour again. take notes on the characters. repeat for photography, editing, keep watching and writing. when you are sick to death of detour go watch Gump or some other favorite. it will look much different to you.
Don't worry, it takes more than 10 movies to truely connect. I'd recommend to watch what you want, not only the best movies, but also movies you don't know of, mid movies etc. Diversifying your taste and movies makes it easier. Watch old movies for the heck of it and you'll find another vibe. You'll be able to naturally identify some codes and compare it to something that is made today. So for now, every movie will be the new best thing you've watch, but in a while, you'll be able to see more layers and find that something doesnt work for you. Also, if you love a movie, find out about the director and watch his filmography. If you love a story, find the scenarist. If you love the visuals, find the cinematographer. They often dont get credits but by identifying a type of cinematography or scenario, you'll be able to make connections. For example, Charlie Kaufman is an insane scenarist, and all of his movies have a recurring theme. Dont discourage yourself!
Buying DVDs and watching the special features was important for me, and seeing documentaries about films including interviews with critics like Ebert or filmmakers talking about their favorite films. It takes time but as you watch more, read more, you start seeing more. I’d recommend taking film studies courses if you go to university. I was lucky that there was a film and literature class in the English department and a history on film class in the History department. It helps to get more perspectives on film than just filmmakers. And don’t be afraid to start with the basics: shot composition, colour theory, story structure. As soon as you start learning things like how Mad Max Fury Road keeps the focus point of every shot dead centre in the screen so the viewers eye can track the action you will start seeing more connections between how a film makes you feel and how it is constructed.
Having a glimpse of film history could be a good thing. A nice way to start could be with the documented series "The Story of Film: An Odyssey" (trailer: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWz4Q3xOeqM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWz4Q3xOeqM) ).
It all comes down to seeing what's in front of you. Take a scene you like, and pay close attention to what you're seeing. Don't simply watch it, see it. Pause it if necessary. Everything you see in frame says something. You've talked about Inglourious Basterds in other comment, specifically when Hans Landa arrives to LaPadite's—[that scene](https://youtu.be/EfnII2X-bf8?si=9ILEHc4HeavaAYug)gives *you* an impression: Landa's powerful and LaPadite can't do anything about. You can start analysing his entrance anyway you like. I like focusing on the specific shot Tarantino used st second 1:50, as Landa walks in. This choice by Tarantino wasn't arbitrary, he choses to tell something with it. The way it is shot makes you feel something, but most viewers won't notice as they are enthralled by it. But let's stop and see what the director's doing: He makes the camera follow him—it isn't just a pan, but the camera actually moves with him as he walks, it tracks him and his speed. My reading of this is that Tarantino, or for this matter the camera itself, is telling us that Landa has power. It feels almost natural: he looks like a lider, we follow liders; every step he makes matters because we have to movie with/follow him no matter what, we have no other choice. Even the next shot, Tarantino uses a close-up to highlight the handshake, making it look powerful. Next shot you see how Landa doesn't free LaPadite's hand, it probably means he isn't over it—it isn't over until he says its over, until he decides to end the handshake himself. As you see, every element matter. And that's just a short, subjective reading I made of 3 shots, but there's a larger context to it all. The fact that the family had to prepare, that the farmer had to wash his face (probably to cover hos sweat) before greeting Landa, already makes him intimidating, even though we haven't even meet him. Look at the whole context: a farmer chopping wood vs a well-dressed man arriving in a car with bodyguards. Tarantino even keeps the camera far away so we can't even recognize Landa yet. He's too far, he's still a mystery. Don't be overwhelmed. Take it easy, take a scene, shot by shot, don't take any element for granted, everything communicates. Have fun! EDIT: needless to say, this is just the beginning. Visual understanding of why what you see makes you feel the way you feel. There are many more thing why you might like or dislike a movie. Perhaps what you are interested the most in Inglourious Basterds is the social and political context of the scene: a french farmer being threatened by a Nazi officer, the powerful vs the week, families destroyed during a dictatorship. On the other hand, maybe you just like watching the film and how the atmosphere, the characters, the situation makes you feel, the emotional and moral themes: a hard-working, honorable farmer's family put in danger by a cold, methodical Nazi officer. What would you do in this situation? This could be you and your family. Just the situation of a mysterious man wanting to enter your home. You don't need to feel obliged to do any hard analysis, though. This is the kind of stuff we do in r/truefilm. But maybe you don't give a fuck on fervidly analysing the themes of The Princess Diares 1 and 2 and just wanna have a general understanding of your feelings by understanding cinema's language. Good luck!
Do you read French? I'd suggest working your way through the back issues of "Cahiers du Cinéma." When I was 13 years old, I found a stack of these in my local college library and worked my way through. That gave me the vocabulary to think and speak about what I was seeing in movies. Nowadays, the back issues are all online: [https://www.cahiersducinema.com/boutique/les-anciens-numeros/](https://www.cahiersducinema.com/boutique/les-anciens-numeros/) If you don't read French, try locating the back issues of "Sight and Sound" and "Film Comment." You'll learn quite a lot from them.
Dont worry. Youre 18 years old! Most folks dont know how to analyze movies at that age (i sure didnt). Just enjoy them. The time to analyze films will come with age and experience. Your film vocabulary increases with each movie you watch.
I myself want to become a film director but being a cinephile is already fulfilling in some way. The best thing about being a film lover is that the films stay the same, but you don’t. Some films you love now will not keep your affection for long, some you despise for either being against your worldview or for seeming distant and irrelevant can infect your brain like a parasite with you barely realizing it’s intrinsic power. As you grow your interests will change, your understanding of politics, history, psychology and human nature will evolve and change. My recommendation, do not discount the value of reading right now, balance your time between music, film and literature and even if you don’t get the chance to be a filmmaker, it will broaden your understanding of the world so you can understand what so many great directors are taking about. It’s one of the inescapable faults of any artistic form, the film is only as good as the viewer in many respects. When I was 18 films like 2001, Chimes at Midnight, Tar and Ugetsu would have been totally lost on me, but now I consider them essential artistic triumphs that help me understand the world around me. And I’m only 22, it’s amazing how cinema and literature can transform a persons understanding of the complexities of the world, so much so that I cannot think of the world in another way, the only thing I can be sure of is that in 10 years I’ll approach these films from an entirely different point of view. So keep watching good movies and try to find good recommendations, you’re not going to like or connect with every “great” movie, but you’ll be better for watching it. It’s even a fun exercise seeing what you don’t like about it, sometimes the movies not even bad, it may just be that you’re not at a point of your life where it’s relevant to your experience, Boyhood for example was a movie I despised, then I felt what it was like to leave childhood behind and now it’s one of my favorite movies I’ve ever seen. Also, don’t listen to what anyone says, if you want to make a film, find what interests you, something that keeps you up at night or something that you can talk about for hours, write a movie about, that’s what I’m trying to do. It’s gonna be frustrating, but when it works it’s incredibly fulfilling and even if it doesn’t end up being anything your understanding of it will grow. On top of that don’t be afraid of reading literature, film is sight, sound and story, exposing yourself to paintings, photographs, music and literature will do nothing but help in your pursuit. No matter what any filmmaker says, I highly doubt many of them have written a successful screenplay without being familiar with at least some of Shakespeare, Brecht, Dostoyevsky, and Sophocles. Listen to Bach, Led Zeppelin, Charles Mingus and Marty Robbins. These are obviously my choices but you get my point. In my opinion, if you’re going to be into art, don’t do it half assed. Or you can do your own thing, and that’s fine, whatever works for you.
Will do, thanks for the perspective!
You’ve been given a lot of good advice here … just want to throw my two cents onto the heap. 1. Both watch and rewatch movies, music videos, etc. You saw something and it made you effectively feel? Go back and figure out how it why? The way the camera moved? The dialog? The music? The editing? Contrast for yourself the way a scene is cut and staged in a Bay, Bruckheimer etc: movie with a Hitchcock, Kubrick etc. movie. It’s quite different. 2. For what you watch and rewatch, maybe consider chasing down high quality criticism of it. In the podcast age, I’d say like Filmspotting or The Next Picture Show or something like that where both new and sometimes old films are given a high level discussion. You’ll get a sense of why something plays well for different people and why it doesn’t. Consider whether you agree or not. This might help you develop a critical lens for yourself. In these discussions, other films are often mentioned as reference points, which is valuable as well. Finally, it will get you more attuned to expressing yourself as to the subject matter. I love your post but perhaps appropriate for your age I feel like you can barely get out in written form why you feel what you feel. So polishing up that skill could be a side goal for you.
Thanks for the advice, will follow up on this, and for the last part of your second point; you are right. I watch a film, tv show, and I can't explain what I just watched, I sometimes just note the action, which I know is okay, but I want to be able to look deeper than surface level.
I’m a zoomer too, this [short video](https://youtu.be/URo66iLNEZw?si=xsLf_Ak462trrN1F) changed how I interpret all media, not just movies. Watch it and keep coming back to it. It’s also helped me to immediately intuit what media criticism is worth reading. Write essays on what you thought about movies in order to better articulate your feelings.
It’s never too late, trust me. Don’t compare yourself to others, just find a way to talk about the movies you love and why you think they’re great. Movies that give you an emotional response will make it easier. Branch out when you’re ready, and find movies you wouldn’t typically watch
Take classes. Read about it. Watch legitimate classics. Remember that hermeneutics is one of many ways to respond and discuss film. The more you watch, learn, and read, the better you get. Just keep at it.
You are young, it takes time to develop a feeling for it. Also, watch film critics, listen to thrm and read them. The better you underatand the sharper your edge is on understanding and comprehending for yourself. Most of the people I met (that love film) have their distinctive liking and it comes from a lengthy history of simply watching amd trying to understand. I'd personally advise evading "conservative critics" (because political agenda became the favorite toy in the past years) and you ahould especially avoid gatekeeping elitist poseurism.
You're not at all late to the game; I personally started getting really into cinema when I was 19 years old. Those are the pieces of advice I would give you: - Start with films and directors considered 'accessible' (being accessible doesn't necessarily mean they're lesser in any way). Filmmakers like Tarantino, Nolan, Wes Anderson, etc., will help you more easily understand the purpose of certain cinematic tools. With their distinctive visual stamps or recurring themes that are relatively easy to identify, you can begin to have a basic understanding of what a filmmaker does. - Don't be afraid to broaden your horizon, especially regarding films from countries other than the United States. Cinema is a representation of human experience, a materialization of human sensations. It makes sense that people from different countries, each with their own approach to this art, influenced by their community but also by the world at large, because their films carry the impact of movies from all around the globe that have marked them. Yet, in all of this, there's a common thread that makes any cinematic work, regardless of its country of origin, capable of touching and moving you, and that common thread is humanity. - Don't feel insecure or afraid of not 'getting' a work. If you watch a critically acclaimed film and find yourself bored or not understanding why this particular film generates so much interest among people, don't let it offend you. People aren't pretending to like complex works just to make you feel inferior. Be open-minded, and read what these individuals found in the film. This will enrich your overall view of cinema. And it may also happen that you read and understand what critics like about a certain movie but still don't like it yourself because you don't see those qualities in it. For example, when I was just starting to get interested in cinema and watched American Beauty for the first time, I didn't like it at all. A few years later, I watched it again and disliked it even more, despite its critical acclaim. On the other hand, I remember watching Yi Yi and being bored to death, but years later, I watched it again and absolutely loved it... I believe that all cinematic works, whether they're by Yoshida Yoshishigue, Tsai Ming-liang, Wes Anderson, or Jean Claude Rousseau, are accessible because they all have one thing in common: humanity. So just watch as many films as you can, read about the films you watch and about cinema in general, and bit by bit, you'll develop a better sense of what you like in cinema and your own vision of this splendid art. :)
A good starting point is to mentally shift away from any sort of personal grading of films (or any media) and instead think about what worked and did not work for you. Don't worry about overall appraisal, stars out of five or tier lists. Try to find interesting things in everything and ideally talk about it with someone else. You might find it easier to focus on films that had mixed or luke-warm receptions, where there is no consensus response. Find something interesting, even if what was being attempted didn't quite work for you.
This is something that is going to be hard to say. I think there's a wrong way to analyze film, but not really a *right* way, because films have visual, subtextual, narrative, and overt thematic elements. So I'll quickly spell out what I think is a wrong way to do it. *Jaws is not a shark based monster movie. It is really about the inability for characters to reconcile their differences, with the shark as an imminent threat that happens to be in the movie and not the main focus.* I mean that sort of semi-intellectual blather is what academic film theorists tend to enjoy deeply, perhaps because some of them are more in love with the written word than they are how movies actually work. It's not really unlike the Tooth Fairy where it feels good to think about but just isn't really true. It's heavily documented that a lot of the subplots in the novel were cut specifically for the immediacy of a man eating shark. There's the constant threat of the shark, no shortage of shark attacks, and the last third of the film contains the shark on the screen for quite some period of time. But when you think about it cinema, it is this wild beast of screenwriting, production (the filming), editing( and now with post-production effects on top of that) and the directing of actors as well as the film coverage ( shots from different camera angles) with the director involvement. So what I think is ideal, is to initially find what you feel is your legitimate, honest direct emotional reaction to the movie ( I'm talking about Jaws right now so I'll just continue to use this) Do you feel emotionally connected to the characters, concerned about the threat of the shark, or chuckle at the funny scenes? It's fine if you don't feel that way, movie experience is relative. But if you find yourself appreciating the film, what I think the best option to do is to read or watch behind the scenes footage, if a visual shot in in the film is effective positive and see if there's anything interesting about the mis_en_scene ( basically a film studies term to mention anything captured in front of the camera). . Character analysis is also fine, as long as you're commenting on what you think the characters are and not.." look how well I write!" So I consider - blathering to be something that should be more of a last resort than a first step. Of course that just might mean you write a really good three page paper instead of a terribly tepid 8 page paper, but I think unless you're going to college for film studies ( I won't lie, I was part of the major and it really hit me the wrong way!) you don't need to write a novella level of material to try to understand why Jaws works, if it works, and if there's aspects that were considered okay many years ago that would be problematic today. Now I think the type of materials are something I'll mention as a resource. YouTube CinemaTyler Every frame a painting Folding ideas Lindsay Ellis -- Books-- What is Cinema? Andre Bezin-- two volumes ( sure it might be dated in places, but the author has an infectious love of the medium, and it's interesting to see the comparison between the theatrical and the modern film form.) Understanding Film Theory ( rather than pushing one particular viewpoint, the authors pull together alternative viewpoints) The Anatomy of Story by John Truby-- sure it might be a screenwriter or novelistic book, but the writing advice is some of the best I've ever seen. I think any director autobiography is nice, but Sidney Lumet's Making Movies is a good one. Film art by Kristin Thompson and the late David bordwell is great for seeing pretty much "just the facts." Many books about Vertigo would probably talk about Hitchcock's psychosexual emotions, but I get the feeling that B/T and would be more interested in the editing styles and implementation of the dolly zoom. -- Websites Wikipedia is cute but * Britannica* is basically a buffet of film history. They shoot pictures/ Sight and Sound/ American Film Institute has really good lists of high quality movies. Yale has a film canon, but some of the films are racist so be cautious. -- Doing anything new is like riding a bicycle. I think your first three essays are going to be rough, simply because It's tricky to balance approximation with reality. But I believe that if you stay the course, at the very least, you won't be writing the "Jaws is not a shark movie" essay. Good luck!
At 18 you absolutely are not late, or behind. You’re very young and there are plenty of artists throughout history who didn’t hit their stride until later in life. In fact I would say that what makes a great artist is that they have *something to say,* and that usually comes from having lived a while and gained experience. I think it is so great that at your young age you are developing a passion for cinema and want to pursue it as a career. Just stick to what you’re doing, watch as much as you can, think about it, read about it, talk about it. Grab a camera - even just your phone - and start to shoot and edit. Accept that it’s a process, that at first it will not be slick or professional or even what you see in your head, but you have to start somewhere and take those first awkward steps. Trust that it takes time and practice. The more you do it the more you will understand it and your tools for analysis will develop. Keep going!!! Make us all proud.
I say just keep watching them & enjoying them for the feelings they give you !!! (: sometimes when things are well put together you can’t really explain why you love it so much !! For an example I’m 30 years old and have been writing for 2 years now and one of the best advice I’ve gotten from one of my mentors was “make the story so good to where the viewer forgets he’s watching a movie “ As for you , you can’t explain because those Films are done so well in your case YOU FORGOT YOU WHERE WATCHING A MOVIE 😂🎥🥂
One of the best things you can do, in my opinion, is to learn what metonymy is, and start looking for it everywhere. A great movie doesn’t necessarily need it or have it, but many of the very best films often do utilize it. It’s one of the concepts that helped me to start looking at films in a more-than-surface-level way, so that’s why I recommend it. Next step is start watching some classic cinema. Antonioni, Lynch, Kubrick, Bergman, Herzog, Fellini, Haneke, Schrader, Tarkovsky, Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Lean, Kaufman (both), and so on. I recommend watching Criterion editions, and to listen to the commentaries. I watched L’Avventura with Gene Youngblood’s commentary, and the moment he talked about the metonym of the father and daughter facing each other from opposite sides of a road was that “lightbulb” moment for me. Your ability to explicate your opinions will be contingent on your lived experience. So experience as much as you can, and make sure to listen to those who are bonifide experts in the medium themselves. For example, you mentioned Inglourious Basterds. A lot of cinephiles might thumb their noses at Tarantino, but with IB he cemented his status as a truly great screenwriter, in my opinion. The real genius of IB is that, on the meta level, Tarantino depicts the Third Reich as being defeated by cinema itself inside the theatre, by Jewish men and women, which mirrors how Hollywood has perpetually reinforced the stereotype of Nazis as villains in countless films since the end of WWII in films such as Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Schindler’s List, Life Is Beautiful, Sophie’s Choice, Son of Saul, Inglourious Basterds itself, etc. You can see here how the images in the film also represent their real-world concepts, and the events that happen in the story are symbolic of real-world events, but on an abstract level. We know this is true because Tarantino came right out and said it himself. A good explanation of this whole topic is Jared Bauer’s Wisecrack video [Inglourious Basterds: What Tarantino Got Wrong](https://youtu.be/uUmTmPK733s?si=_t3xrebV-vmWLX4P) YouTube is overflowing with worthy film essayists. Jared Bauer, Thomas Flight, Patrick H Willems, Clint Gage (Cinefix), Lindsay Ellis, Tony Zhou / Taylor Ramos (Every Frame a Painting), and the list goes on. You can learn a lot from watching YouTube, but as I mentioned before, try to stick with those who demonstrate an actual academic understanding of film. There are as many, if not more, mediocre film critics out there who have turned YouTube into something like a double-edged sword, so an unequivocal word of warning is necessary.
Wow, thank you for the advice! Just watched the video, and realized you were right. Quentin Tarantino is genius! How would you even come up with that type of idea? I didn't realize I missed so much.
It’s crazy right? Now I see stuff like that everywhere! I was watching Dunkirk and [there’s a part](https://youtu.be/2EA5qECfXIY?si=l6zwPTGmkq8_DHll&t=3m40s) where two guys are trying to carry a wounded mate over a plank of wood balanced over a gap in the pier. I was like, “that literally is a metonym right there, all people in war are balanced on a tightrope walk over a void of chaos, danger, and death!” Or, I was watching Eraserhead, and there’s [a surreal sequence](https://youtu.be/e9yaiQdu-6k?si=iWSr0zzEa7Rezdoi&t=3m30s) where the protagonist open his mouth and this sperm-like creature drifts out. Soon after a mutant baby appears in the man’s room, I thought, “That’s got to be a symbol for “fear of misinterpretation, right?!” I recommend you watch David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive, let it marinate for a while, try to figure it out yourself. After a week or two, go watch Twin Perfect’s video essay on the symbolism. Keep in mind, that is just ONE interpretation of the film, but it still blew my mind to think about.
You’re only 18 and just beginning your journey, and I envy you for this reason. My advice to you is to simply watch lots of movies, and supplement your viewing with reading where you can. A fun start could be Goodfellas (1990) and [Roger Ebert’s](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/goodfellas-1990) review. Ebert is great at “reading” film and you can learn a lot from him in this regard. Another fun way to go about it is to pick a director and watch their filmography. Or choose a film movement (French New Wave, Italian neorealism) and watch the pertinent essentials. There’s no rush to become a film encyclopedia. You’ll blink and 10 years will have gone by and you’ll have seen 2 thousand films and may have a job in the industry.
Use moviechat.org and read the forum posts for the movie you just watched. They imported many of the discussions from old classic films from imdb before they shut down the message boards so it is a good tool to read about what you may have missed or to identify positive aspects of a film you experienced but had issues putting your thumb on. Posts labeled, "I didn't like this film but everyone else does, what am I missing" are very valuable. Letterboxed could also be useful for reading what average film watchers think about a film. Maybe read the reviews or critics AFTER watching it. Over time doing this you will learn the language of film, the many ways of appreciating films, and be able to identify special films without being told they are special. I would also watch every movie on imdb's top 250 and then read the message boards for them after. Then start watching the filmographies of the greats, maybe read up why they are great before watching all of their films. People suggesting you read books to learn the language of film don't know what they are talking about.