Approaching and Analyzing a Film

I find it difficult to watch films at times. I am a writer at heart and when generating a story, I am focused on the plot line. I tend to see more in words and in my own imagination rather than the directors intended focus in the composition of the film. I am now able to appreciate a director’s intent but educating myself with this class. By learning what the director wants you to see and how he can invoke the feeling using color and framing, I am able to look deeper into the story line of the movie.  

A story can play in a readers head like a movie except they are taking cues from the writers foreshadows and visual descriptions. When watching a movie it needs to be seen visually what the story is. I believe this is a difficult job for a director and when they can make you feel the story then their job is accomplished. 

When a director approaches a movie, it is intended that he or she will show you the story instead of telling it. It is up to them to create the scene, the shot, the excitement or whatever feeling is intended and make the viewer understand it.  The director is in charge if pulling emotions out of the viewer and setting the tone of whatever it is they are trying to convey. 

When approaching a film, you have the opportunity to reflect on the purpose of the film the first time around. When one is watching a movie the second time, they are allows to be less focused on the suspense and thrilling ride of the film but more apt to take the time to absorb the filmmakers art (Boggs, 2008, pg. 404). This means in order to appreciate this type of art in its entirety; multiple viewings are needed to achieve maximum analysis. 

Different films deserve different approaches depending on the level of ambition (Boggs, 2008, pg. 405). If you are viewing a comedy meant to entertain then you would be less critical of the art in the film and more focused on the dialogue and what is portrayed to make you laugh. If the film is cinematic then you should give it the full critique that it deserves by re-watching or breaking the film into segments to fully understand the directors’ intentions. 

Films can be approached in many ways when analyzing them. There are thematic approaches. When watching a horror film you expect to be scared and if you are watching a romance film that you would expect to be whisked away by love. If the movie gives you a genre and an expectation then when you review it should adhere to its claim of genre. If it doesn’t then the film might be less that what was expected and the review may be more negative in nature. 

The Auteur approach is a difficult one. When depending on a director to entertain you with a certain type of film you can be let down very easily if they attempt to stray from the original style that you are used to. More positive reviews have come from directors that have been able to make many movies but still retain the same art an style even though a film may possess a different mood or genre. Quentin Tarentino is one of those directors. He keeps the same artistic style with the movies that he creates and yet the genres range from crime dramas, war films, to martial art masterpieces. 

The humanistic approach is something that requires more depth and analysis of a film. When utilizing this approach you need to examine all aspects of the film such as the acting, cinematography, lighting, editing, and sound to get the full message (Boggs, 2008, pg. 411). This can be difficult to someone who is not trained but achieved with success once the knowledge is embedded in the viewer. 

Meaning of movies can be found in many ways. We could look at the surface of a movie and take the literal plot and morals that have been given to us through the screenplay. We can also take further meaning by analyzing the framing, characters, music, tone, and all other aspects that go into a scene.

I am a writer of literature at heart. I have to convey a story while imagining the scene in my head. My way of evaluating a film is to look at the scene and use words to describe what I am seeing and feeling. This tells me that it is something more that just special effects and the director went through great lengths to portray the characters, mood, and focus of the scene.

I tend to watch a film in full and enjoy the story. I enjoy watching books that have been made into films but sometimes it can have a negative consequence. When reading you get to enjoy the story in its fluid entirety. Most times, when adapting this to film some things that can be poetic and whimsical to a reader are left out in the adaptation. The changes are inevitable when transferring from literature to screen for the purpose of time and of course the directors’ art form (Boggs, 2008, pg. 430)

Sometimes the change in creative artists from literature to screen can have great effects on the story. Take for instance The Shining originally written by Stephen King. It was a story of a haunted hotel and it was made into a film originally by Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick made numerous changes to the story line making turning it into a psychological film. It was well received by critics as a wonderful film but the author of the story, Stephen King, rejected it as it did not contain the original elements. Adaptations do not necessarily mean that it will not be like the book. Stephen King was able to; decades later make a screenplay for the film and have it created in his vision. This version remained true to the literature but still left out many important parts for the value of viewer entertainment. 

Films can be made to make the viewer think about thinks bigger that the entertainment that it is supposed to provide. For instance, the horror film by Wes Craven, The Last House on the Left (original) was a horror film on the surface. Many people did not understand that it was allegorical to what was going on at the time. It was made to oppose the Vietnam War and that fact that we invaded. The premise was that the supposed innocent characters engaged in devious behavior. Once invaded, the actual killers were not allowed to leave without being killed off. 

Social and political stances can create some intense drama and horrific movies. You have to look deep into the art of the screenplay writer but hope that the director understands and collaborates with them to create the full concept of the stigmas that are to be portrayed in film. 

So many films can be made for so many reasons. The ultimate purpose of film is to entertain an audience. It is intended to get reactions from the viewer but they are also expected to sell to make the production cost of the movies back. 

When I review a film, the first thing I notice is the actors. If the acting is good then I will continue to watch. If the acting is just mediocre then I attempt to concentrate on the films plot and still give it a chance. If the acting is bad and the plot is shallow then most times I will shut the movie off and move on. I try to give all movies a chance and never try to judge it by the promotional art work or negative reviews that it was already given. I make sure that I can give it some sort of chance so that I can be entertained. A good movie is sometimes hard to find and there can be times when release after release is so similar or redundant that it seems like overkill. 

No matter what one person’s approach to watching films is they have the chance to be entertained. The viewer needs to select an interest and try to take it from that point throughout the feature. You can have a similar approach to watching movies and that may limit you as a viewer. It is best to watch films depending on one’s mood as a comedy can be uplifting or a horror film can be therapeutic if one is having a rough week. This is my approach in general and I like to keep an open mind on things that I am watching.

I seem to find the time to watch four to five movies a week in their entirety and sometimes it could be a film that I have already seen. I try to look for things in films that I have already seen that I didn’t notice before. I find it comical sometimes because I can actually pick up on mistakes in movies such as in Braveheart when you can see a van passing in the background as a blur when the movie is supposed to be placed in the late 1200 A.D. This is just an example of how analyzing a movie can bring forth things that are not noticed the first time you watch them. 

All this being said, different approaches need to be determined by the intention of the film. The ambition is important in what type of system you are going to use to rate it. I enjoy a story so if the film is allegorical or from literature I try to take the humanistic approach and compare it to what the film is attempting to portray. A movie can be watched once for pleasure and more for entertainment but to really get the grasp and full analytical concept of the film in comparison with an author and the director style, one must watch the movie multiple times with that intention. 

Films can take you away to a different world; far from the world that is reality. This is a great escape and a wonderful option that we have as human beings. Films can teach, heed warnings, make you laugh and make you cry. The intention is to entertain and for that brief amount of time that it takes to watch it; whisk you away into a life that is not your own. You can analyze the films over and over and still retain this almost magical aspect. The more you analyze, then the more you would expect from a director and it is up to us as viewers to determine if it was a great piece of art or not. The same goes for literature. They are both forms of entertainment with similar interests but different means of conveying it to an audience. 

References

Boggs M.J & Petric D.W. (2008) “The Art of Watching Films, 7th ed. McGraw-Hill