When you watch movies, do you watch them formalistically, analytically or symbolically?
If you don't like a movie is it because it didn't appeal to your way of engaging the medium?
>>67291764
I use my eyes.
>>67291808
So you're a formalist?
>>67291764
>formalistically, analytically or symbolically?
What's the difference?
>>67291764
I watch them for masterful and original uses of the formal aspects of cinema such as framing, camera movement, editing and the like. I rate movies based on if they do this or not, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy movies that don't. I just don't think they are great, according to my criteria.
>>67291764
Visual Appeal, Plot, Dialogue, Acting, and Music score are the five most important things I look for in a movie, usually if all of those are good i will enjoy the movie. It's all subjective anyways so it doesn't matter
>>67291944
Formalistically you will enjoy a movie if it pleases your aesthetical senses. It can be a movies style, how it is shot, production values. How good the cgi is.
Analytically you enjoy a movie because of its narrative techniques. The hero's journey, thematic structures, leitmotifs.
Symbolically you enjoy a movie through interoperation. What you think certain elements meant, how much you can use your cultural references to see similarities in other works, the discussion of characters, so on.
>>67292195
What if you enjoy a movie for what it is?
On first viewing it's all about the total experience.
Then the the analytical brain kicks in, & I divulge amongst loved ones & you fucks.
Second viewing has me watching set pieces & props,.
>>67292240
Then my second question can be applied, if you don't enjoy a movie, what are your basis for not enjoying that movie?
Let's say you are watching a Transformers movie, are you able to enjoy that movie for what it is or will you not bother at all.
Can you sit and watch a movie to look at what the producers attempted to do with special effects to see pretty images, or do you require more than that?
>>67292195
Symbolically is the cuck's way.
>>67291764
Formalistically, but I also consider the plot a formal instrument. I reject symbolism.
>>67292195
There's no difference between the second and the third one
>>67292388
There is, but I understand that it seems slim.
Think of it in terms of jungian analytical psychology and freudian psychoanalysis.
Jung, to the patient he treated with his own psychology, never looked at a dream as just a dream but attempted to connect the dreamer into a mythological narrative. Think Dustin Hoffman's role in 'Stranger than Fiction' when he tried to figure out which writer was writing Will Ferrel's story.
Freud on the other hand, looked at patients dreams as direct wishes and wants. A cigar was a penis and meant the dreamer had penis envy.
Someone that is analyzing looks at it from a distant, someone that interprets symbols does so from their own narrative.
Does my wank make sense?
>>67292529
No, I think psychobabble is mostly wank
I enjoy a film on every level, be it technical or story wise and symbolically/thematically
You can have an excellent film with shitty technical aspects but a solid story with strong themes, you can have an excellent film with little to no story but strong symbolism/themes and you can have a fun (but not great) film with great technical aspects but not much story
You cannot however have a genuinely good film without a strong thematic core
Formalistically on first viewing, then I search for symbols and whatnot on subsequent viewings.
The script is what matters most. A shitty script is a shitty story.
Can it be shot well? Yeah. I can appreciate the directing and the lighting and all that bullshit, but the story needs to be good.
Are there movies that are only enjoyable because of one aspect of it? Sure. Some movies are just comfy, even if they're not technically impressive or what-have-you. In the end, a series of images is still art and you can react to it in a number of ways.
>>67291764
I think it's the viewer's job to adapt to the movie instead of watching every movie with the same perspective, which means you might have to rewatch them until you understand how's the movie supposed to be seen. Then, when you understand what type of movie you are seeing, you start judging it.
So, I enjoy them if they are good at their respective type. I dislike them if they are bad at it.
If an analytical movie has a good narrative, it's a good movie. If a formalistical movie has beatiful shots, it's a good movie. If a symbolical movie presents interesting symbolism, it's a good movie.
>>67292195
I'm definitely a formalist, but interpretation to me is a key thing as well. However, if interpretation comes at the cost of making me somehow dislike a movies narrative (or the other way around) then I'll go easy one or the other if I feel like it's for the better. I can become a very apologetic viewer if I sense emotion through aesthetics that attract me in a fresh way.
Although, it go both ways. I can easily get stuck on minor details like an autist. In fact, I can usually tell whether or not I like a film before it's even halfway through its runtime.
>>67293072If we are all in agreement on this, then why is it okay to critique a movie after on? In a theater no less?
>>67293782someone answer me
>>67293782
>>67294165
I assume you are refering to this
>which means you might have to rewatch them until you understand how's the movie supposed to be seen.
the keyword is "might". most of the time, a movie's type is easily identifiable.
>>67294556And the many times where it isn't?
>>67295053
then criticizing the movie afterwards is not ok
![6130652[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/JxtEYjN.jpg "6130652[1].jpg")
>>67295115THEN WHY DO WE ALLOW IT
>>67295223
what do you mean? who is "we"? /tv/?
/tv/ are a bunch of plebs.
>>67291764
I'm a diehard formalist viewer. DIdn't know there was a term for it until now.
Thanx op!!
![leon-stansfield-everyone[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/nxvYzTd.gif "leon-stansfield-everyone[1].gif")
>>67295276
>who is "we"
?!?!?!
>>67295427
well it's not ok. it's the reason why I most movie critics (and critics in general) can't be taken seriously.
All three, but it has taken me a lot longer to appreciate formalistic qualities over time
Once you see something both epic and narrow in scope with say, good cinematography or mis-en-scene vs bad you get a sense of what you were overlooking
>>67295534
What is good cinematography? What is objectively good mise-en-scene?
What the hell am I supposed to be looking for. I watch some recommendations on here and all I might conciously recognize are a few artsy shots. Besdies that I don't get why aiming a camera down a hallway slightly angled is any more impressive than just pointing it fucking straight. Or why yellow lighting is supposed to be better than regular lighting for no reason. Often I'll see some of /tv/'s stills and it has no symbolic significance. It's just different.
>>67295632
You should understand/appreciate these things by default as the experiences of films go mounting on. Or you might have a problem.
>>67295632
>Often I'll see some of /tv/'s stills and it has no symbolic significance.
I suspect that's your problem. You're looking for something that isn't there. Not every thing has a hidden meaning behind it.
>>67295632
If you can be bothered, watch this review of Her, it might give you insight into seeing movies in other ways.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RISgjGPkA0
>>67295632
I understand where you're coming from, what worked for me is seeing something bad juxtaposed with something good
Done poorly, scenes will be drained of tension, drama, urgency, pace or whatever they're trying to accomplish
The colour thing tends to be a pretty easy one actually, easiest one to interpret is red which is almost always an undertone of the sinister or violent. Yellow or green might give place a sense of alienation or otherness. With variations for culture reactions to colour are pretty consistent
>>67295632
You need to look for these formalist element in context: do they serve a particular expressive intent within a film? A canted horizon has a very specific effect upon the viewer, depending on the filmmaker's purpose it could be working with you or against you. That's why many people (me included) are unable to separate formalistic/stylistic elements from the actual plot, since they seem to be inseparable and valueless when analysed in a vacuum.
>>67295856
This is pretty great, thanks a lot! My question from here would be
In this case we understand Her is a very artful project from the getgo. Everyone was ready to look for things like this and maybe even be readying themselves to look deeper into a shot. My question is, when critiquing more mainstream things like Marvel films, are we still looking for instances of this? These techniques seem to naturally be more fitting for a slower-paced introspective film. What can be done in terms of directing to put the polish on a simpler action hero tale? Is it not enough to make sure the pacing is tightened with the editing? Do critics just go into these with lowered expectations, or have all these techniques been flying over my head in even those movies? What about in animation? Are these deep meaningful shots ever applied to pixar films, for instance?
Also, any recommendations for similar videos? It's great to have my eyes opened up so I can move on from being stupid all these years.
>>67297841
I recently discovered that youtube reviewer, I think most of his videos are pretty great. I don't know of many others, sorry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXgFcNUWqX0
I think you possibly could look at a Marvel movie in the same way but given its audience they aren't really interested in that aspect of a movie.
With classic and CGI animation you don't have that lens, and even though you can edited such a movie I don't think it achieves the same effect. Cross cutting works in animation of course, so there is some element of it.
I'm reading some film theory right now, André Bazin to be specific and some on russian formalism, its easier to watch something but there's more stuff there to read.
>>67291764
I watched this movie in a small theater, this face legitimately and physically terrified me in context. As someone who finds 'horror' films hilarious at best, it was quite the accomplishment.
>>67298207
I dont understand it
What is it first of all
And why did that guy turn into the face
>>67298207
That's the power of formalism, I consider Inland Empire to be a complete formalistic movie. It's funny to me to see people so many years after trying to figure out "what the movie is about", instead of just watching what is happening on screen.
>>67298098
Awesome stuff, thanks anon
>>67298207
Which movie?
>>67297841
>>67298098
With Marvel stuff, there is a lot of deliberate work to make the movies have "comic" moments, so it helps to have knowledge of how comics are presented in general, even if you haven't read any of the specific material.
The best example that comes to mind is the opening fight scene in Avengers 2 where the whole team is fighting in the snow. Eventually there is a shot where everyone is leaping or flying into the same frame with an action pose, and it's because that's exactly how many full panels in the comics would look, not because it's necessary for any reason in the movie. Without the context of the source medium, it would probably seem strange or even corny, but that's why context is helpful for enjoyment.
>>67298878
Is it something that's consistent all throughout, or something that might only happen once per movie? I thought the only pandering to comic fans would be through the script. As far as direction, I must have missed all of it because I was never able to get anything different from them than your standard action flick.
>>67299333
It's constant, especially the larger scenes. They happen to make good trailer footage too, so that's why people tend to think of it as being more shallow, but those kinds of shots are intentionally mirroring the layout of a comic.
![1099027159-8c77e816bbaadd6f09f729784eb86fed[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/PqNjvnP.jpg "1099027159-8c77e816bbaadd6f09f729784eb86fed[1].jpg")
>>67299444
interesting
>>67299333
>>67299444
>>67298098
Anyone know of other shots in breaking bad that use color that well? That blew me away. It's literally right in your face and I never even came close to picking up on it myself.
Shouldn't good movies just by default be formalistically pleasing? Like how could you sit through a movie that you know is aesthetically off-putting? Regardless of writing, a bad looking movie isn't fun to watch
>>67298098
the thing that confuses me most is when a shot has multiple notable colors. Like at 1:45. Wouldn't that make more sense for the yellow to be blue? Or just more red? Why have that breaking up the shot?
>>67298098
Or at 8:18. The white is used to make the red pop out more, but if that was the intent, why not have the whole room be less saturated than it is? He doesn't really pop out that much because there's that yellow against the blue for instance, and blue against black, and just a generally a lot poking out at you. When does it become a criticism against the film? It seems as if as long as the director is evidently making a concious effort to do so, they can't be critiqued for it because it displays the advanced intent. But what if I don't like that shot right there? Where is the line drawn?
>>67299837
Those are good questions to ask, I don't have the answer and I guess there is where your aesthetic sense clashes with the director.
The movie that got me interested in color is The Cook, the Thief, his Wife & her Lover
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXLRdeYFHss
The use of color is brilliant
>>67291764
I sorta watch for all three, sort of a gestalt approach, and then on rewatches I'll look for specific things, like I'll pay attention specifically to the narrative, or specifically to the technical aspects, or specifically to the symbolic implications, but I can't really avoid picking up on new things in all three areas you've defined, no matter how much I focus in.
I think I tend to care more about technical/stylistic elements more than narrative elements though, a movie with a shitty story can still be entertaining to me if the camera work or lighting stand out to me, but even if a movie has a great narrative, I'll be kind of bummed on it if it's shot or edited poorly.
Of course, there are some movies that I'll enjoy despite everything, I dunno sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, I guess, and of course sometimes the sum of the parts is much greater than the whole. I think it's important to consider how things come together, even if every aspect is shit, if it's well synchronized and works well together, it can work, same with how a movie that sounds great on paper can be shit because even though the style, narrative, and symbolic elements are all great, if it's out of sync, it's not gonna work out.
>>67299988
I hear what you're saying.
Collateral is like this for me, I think the movie drags at certain points, but this scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DKX-2pa-UE
with the coyote is just so comfy it makes the movie worth sitting through
>>67300066
The best way to explain it specifically for me is that I take film very seriously, I always take things apart and really try to understand movies and understand even their historical context to see them through a different lens than what I bring to them initially, but Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure is probably the movie I've seen the most times throughout my life, and it's always been intentional. It's a shit fucking movie when you take it apart, but every aspect of it somehow just works together and it ends up being enjoyable every time I watch it.
