How does one read film? It wasn't until recently I realized that most visual metaphors go over my head.
I feel reading a film is similar to analyzing a work of text. A lot of the same devices are used story wise but visuals are a whole different story. Visuals are most commonly used to contribute to the story, environment, or used to help convey certain feelings or messages of the film
Kinda like reading context clues in a book. There's also literally nothing wrong with looking up the meaning if you don't get it. Art is subjective and not everyone will have the same reaction to everything. That's what makes art so beautiful.
>>63205924
Make up a bunch of bullshit that makes you seem smart. It's all complete nonsense. >>63207450
case in point
It just takes time and "practice" to read a film. There's visual metaphors, sure, but any or every element of a film can contribute to a feeling or idea, whether it's something an individual viewer sees or something the film makers intend to convey.
Read some film analysis, and watch a lot of non-shit movies, and you'll just get a "feel" for how to view a movie as something more than passing the time.
>>63205924
Don't bother, directors don't know what they're doing too. If they can play with the cut to hide some secret meaning but that's all
>>63205924
never be afraid of multiple viewings
i watched interstellar at release in a bad assed theater
i also just asked for it for Christmas with the intent of at least 3 more watches to capture what all is going on
>>63207450
Please leave /tv/, you're too pure.
>>63205924
Read and analyze books a lot until you put up on literary devices
Most people can't notice symbols and metaphors in real time when they're only paying attention 75% at most no matter how good the movie is
It's almost impossible to read any movie with respectable depth in a single viewing.
My process goes something like this:
Watch the movie for the first time as you would normally. Enjoy the story and cinematography, and don't focus on finding any hidden meanings or metaphors aside from the glaringly obvious.
Then I wait 3 days to a week and re-watch the movie. I already know the plot, the twists and the dialogue, so my mind will start picking up on other stuff - foreshadowing, visual metaphors, and so on. Then just keep re-watching the movie until you "get" it.
That's basically the process I used to truly understand Primer, for example (although it took me a lot more than two viewings).
>>63205924
There are a lot of tryhards out there who come up with shitty ways to interpret a movie. They say bullshit like "In this scene Deckard's in the dark, but Rachel's in the light, this must mean that she knows what's going on because she is illuminated".
Just pay attention to the film and how it affected you and why. That's pretty much it.
>>63207450
>le art is subjective meme
>>63207515
>and watch a lot of non-shit movies
What do you consider non-shit?
>>63207582
kek
>>63207851
how in the hell is art not subjective?
>>63207668
>Then I wait 3 days to a week and re-watch the movie. I already know the plot, the twists and the dialogue, so my mind will start picking up on other stuff - foreshadowing, visual metaphors, and so on. Then just keep re-watching the movie until you "get" it.
This is good advice. I just remembered that I picked up on a lot of things I missed before when I rewatched the Back to the Future trilogy.
I'm not sure I like the new AIM soldier uniforms. But captain america will beat the shit out if them regardless XD
>>63205924
By being aware that there's meaning in imagery you took your first step.
You'll get it sometimes, if you have the required background, some other times you won't get it right away.
How? Looking out for camera angles, lighting, colors, composition of the frame, etc etc. Everything's a tool the filmmaker can use to tell you something.
Sometimes he's not telling you anything and you give it your own meaning.
>>63207851
It's not a meme it's a fact.
>>63207978
>responding to bait
>>63208046
facts are subjective
>>63207954
there aren't a lot of movies that play at the "multiplex" type theaters or movies that vie for Oscars that are worth actually thinking about. Most mainstream/Oscar movies are not good for anything but passing time.
I'd look at legit top-1000 lists and just pick a film, and watch more from that director if you enjoyed it.
>>63208138
Your face is subjective.
>>63208162
you're a fucking idiot
>>63205924
It's impossible to understand a film wholly on one single watch, this is something a lot of people overlook. The first time you watch it, you're mostly paying attention to the plot, just getting a grasp of what happens on a very literal level. The second time you watch it, you start to pick up things like foreshadowing. Basically, every time you watch a film, you notice smaller and deeper aspects of it as you become more and more familiar with the plot, pacing, characters, and dialogue. You have a better grasp of the context each time and your brain has more time to wander and pick up things like visual metaphors and the finer nuances of how characters act. You should also give yourself time to really absorb it between the times you watch it, but not enough time that you forget stuff.
Basically it's a matter of persistence in addition to building a wider repertoire of films and even other media like literature.
>>63208238
continuing from this, I'd say that it's also important to watch multiple films by a given director. If you want to understand the visual metaphors and such in, say, 2001, it would help to also try and reach a level of understanding on various other things Kubrick has made, though they're not connected, directors have styles and tend to use similar metaphors and techniques from film to film.
>>63208232
why? You liked Birdman a lot?
>>63207450
Thanks for putting it this way, you're totally right
>>63207450
>Art is subjective
No. It's not. Some art CAN be subjective, but most tries to make allusions to a specific event, emotion, or idea.
You're a pleb
>>63208297
no..i turned it off because i didn't like it
and that was ok
you're an idiot because you have stated if something is popular or appreciated by a wide audience it automatically is to be disregarded or thought less of
you're a hipster self important douchebag
and/or a fucking idiot
have a nice day
>>63208341
>everyone experiences every emotion in exactly the same way
>any one person has a complete and total understanding of any one event and it's not colored by subjective perception, even to the people directly involved
>everyone has the same interpretation of every idea
>>63208341
When you understand what that means you will finally be a patrician.
>>63205924
Everyone reads it differently, through thier own bias, unless its an obvious metaphor, not open for interpertation
>>63208360
no, you've made assumptions. That's your mistake. There are plenty of popular movies that are either worth seeing, or even worth thinking about. What I said was that MOST movies at the multiplex or that are nominated by the Academy are not thoughtful/artistic/insightful, and that's true.
Again, I'm not talking about popularity, or saying popularity=low quality. Movies that are manufactured to make money or win favor at the Academy are not particularly interesting.
Please feel free to prove me wrong by showing that more than 50% of the movies nominated for Oscars or showing at the multiplex are artistic or intelligent.
>>63208162
What do you think of Big Trouble in Little China?
>>63208297
>You liked Birdman a lot?
I did until the ending.
Ambiguous endings should only be used for horror films.
>>63208341
That's different though
It's not about simply recognizing the allusions, its about recognizing why they were put there and what they convey.
