Remember that movies are HIGHLY produced works, each item in a scene, the color and angle of the lighting, the angle and perspective of the camera, the editing (types of cuts, speed of cuts), any sound you hear, etc, those were ALL specifically chosen, if not outright preplanned by the director and his team.
Since each is a choice, you can ask yourself, "why did they choose it this way?" Or next level, "How do these choices contribute to the story and/or emotionally manipulate me as a viewer?"
The suggestions for classes/essays are great because you will see people's responses to these questions and also teach you a bit of the "language" of how these elements are commonly used to evoke certain effects. But the ultimate analysis is up to you and asking yourself questions about what you are watching is the way to get there.
I also find that watching a first time attempting NOT to look for these things and then watching again very closely is my preferred path. I just be the hoi paloi on the first pass, then put on my critic hat (if I think it's worth it).
> Remember that movies are HIGHLY produced works, each item in a scene, the color and angle of the lighting, the angle and perspective of the camera, the editing (types of cuts, speed of cuts), any sound you hear, etc, those were ALL specifically chosen, if not outright preplanned by the director and his team.
This is true of good films, certainly, but films like the ones Roger Corman made, or Ed Wood, well, neither of those directors were friendly to the concept of second takes or wasting time in general. (Corman because he was immensely proud of how none of his films ever lost money, Wood because he simply wasn't that good of a filmmaker.) Similarly, cinéma verité projects are more friendly to things that just happen, and Dogme 95 leans into this as well: Naturalistic film, film without artifice, film without props brought in from elsewhere or lighting effects... it all reduces the number of choices the director can make and, therefore, the number of things which can be said to be the director's choice.
But, yes, the average mainstream (Bollywood/Tollywood/Hollywood) production is very highly managed and someone (possibly the director, possibly not) actually is in complete control over what ends up on screen, even if the film goes through multiple writers and directors and the editor is the only one who leaves a consistent mark.
I disagree. One of the things I think makes a good movie is the subtlety in which metaphor is used. It can't be too subtle or bash the viewer over the head. There's still a lot of metaphor going on in bad movies, but it's usually on the "bash the viewer over the head" end of the spectrum. And that makes it easier to recognize.
To me, bad movies lay bare the bones of how movies are made. You can much more clearly see what people were trying (and failing) to do with the film.
I think we're talking at cross-purposes, here, because I agree with everything you said.
Let's take Plan 9 From Outer Space as an example: Ed Wood had a very unsubtle anti-war (particularly anti-nuclear-war) message and he pounded it into our stupid minds (Stupid! Stupid!) but that isn't what I was saying. I'm saying that his gravestones were cardboard and obviously moved like cardboard. Was that intentional? No, it was incompetence and not recognizing the need to do another take when a special effect failure is obvious onscreen. You can't read anything textual into the flimsy gravestones because Wood didn't intend for them to do that; it's all paratext, of the "This is a badly-made movie" variety.
Sometimes, it's a bit ambiguous: The characters in the film use their handguns in ways that would cause any range safety officer to disembowel them for the good of the species. Is that intentional on Wood's part, to show how stupid (Stupid! Stupid!) they are, or is it just bad actors treating props like props? I'm inclined to think it's the latter; in a better film, I'd be more apt to give it the benefit of the doubt, but in a better film, it would be reinforced through other means.
In a good film, everything is intentional and serves some purpose in the story. In a great film, there's multiple stories and themes going on, so there's layered meaning and the film rewards re-watching and debate. In a poor film, the only symbols are the obvious ones, pointless and accidental stuff happens, and the film contradicts its themes without intending to.
True, but also John Hughes was notoriously fast at producing works. There are independent rumors [1] that he wrote first drafts for both Ferris Bueller's Day Off and The Breakfast Club in a day.
That's not to say he couldn't invest in explaining his motivations to the production designers, but sometimes a personality and idea is clear enough in your head, you can spill its' dialogue out without filters.
Definitely true, but also doesn't negate the fact that he may have "understood" the choices he made and their impact even while working fast. After all, improvising musicians, Bob Ross, and comedians often make great choices "in the moment". put more succinctly, the speed of a decision doesn't necessarily mean it was not well considered, at least in art.
This is one of the reasons I have respect for those involved in the filmmaking process. It's a LOT of blinkin' work.
We had a videographer come through to do a video on one of our software products. Kind of a "here's how it could be used" type a video.
At one point, I watched him record someone opening a cell phone 10 times in a row. Just a hand, and a cell phone, flipping it open. A cheap shot to be sure, 10 times is no big deal.
But that's get extrapolated to the entire production. The set up, the tear down, the repetition. Consider that, especially on TV, if you see a conversation between two people, cutting back and forth to their faces, odds are that scene was simply shot twice and edited together. You hear stories about how family scenes at a dinner table take all day to shoot because they have a single camera, so they shoot it over and over and over and over again, to capture all of the characters.
Then there's the waiting for the light, and other aspects of filmmaking that we, as consumers, get to take for granted.
> Remember that movies are HIGHLY produced works, each item in a scene, the color and angle of the lighting, the angle and perspective of the camera, the editing (types of cuts, speed of cuts), any sound you hear, etc, those were ALL specifically chosen, if not outright preplanned by the director and his team.
Movies are no different than anything else. Tons of choices have no meaning as people rush to get their jobs done on schedule and under budget. Sure, sometimes they were consciously decided but not even close to 100%
They do choose to include them. Not always for some greater Purpose, but nothing (more or less) gets in the film without the say-so of, usually, several people.
Exception for location filming without extensive preparation of the location, I suppose, but anything captured there is still included by choice, the location was selected on purpose, shot angles were selected to capture a certain background rather than another one for a reason, et c—even within the confines of natural-light outdoor shooting, there are usually still several options available that would look more-or-less equally good from a lighting perspective, but the one on screen is the one that was selected.
The point isn't that everything means something, but that the entire experience (in like 99.9% of films, anyway—close enough, and covering so much of mainstream cinema, that we may as well say "all of them") is crafted and curated. Not much makes it on the screen unless it's on purpose, barring mistakes like a boom mic dropping into frame or nobody noticing a Starbucks cup on a table in a Star Wars shoot. The character doesn't say something because they just happened to say it, but because one or more creative people crafted that statement (even if it's improv! That's still not actually the character coming up with it, because the character doesn't exist! And on top of it, the film doesn't necessarily include every improv'd line, so they're still curated).
Out of all the shirts in the world, someone selected that shirt for the character—they thought about it, and they picked it, probably at least for some combo of simple visual effect and fitting one or more people's idea of what the character might wear on this particular day. That sort of thing.
This means that it's rarely outright nonsensical to ask why something's in a film. That doesn't mean there's always some deep answer behind it, or that it's knowable or something that can reasonably be deduced or productively guessed-at from available evidence, but it means the question's always relevant.
Unless it’s a deliberate choice by the director, like how "Werewolf By Night" added cue marks even though it was shot digitally for a streaming service.
> Remember that movies are HIGHLY produced works, each item in a scene...
Your comment makes me think of the movie "Dark Star" where the crewmen sitting in front of these crappy prop control consoles flail away "working" by mashing all the buttons at random. hilarious!
Since each is a choice, you can ask yourself, "why did they choose it this way?" Or next level, "How do these choices contribute to the story and/or emotionally manipulate me as a viewer?"
The suggestions for classes/essays are great because you will see people's responses to these questions and also teach you a bit of the "language" of how these elements are commonly used to evoke certain effects. But the ultimate analysis is up to you and asking yourself questions about what you are watching is the way to get there.
I also find that watching a first time attempting NOT to look for these things and then watching again very closely is my preferred path. I just be the hoi paloi on the first pass, then put on my critic hat (if I think it's worth it).
Good luck!