Writing about film [post]

           In the article written by Karen Gocsik she expresses the differences between reviewing a film based on what is being “seen” and reviewing a film based on one’s knowledge in film writing and analysis. There are five kinds of film writing, and the first one I’d like to focus on is formal analysis. It is the procedural attempt at understanding a film, by breaking down components of a film and seeing how it serves as a purpose to theme/value/meaning. By noticing how one key part is significant, one can develop an understanding to how the whole film itself functions.

Another example is film history, which is basically a film that can illustrate the certain ideals of history through the film itself. This also focuses on the film and how it was made such as production issues, who the target audience is, and seeing how it contributed to history itself or reflected aspects of other cultures.

Next are ideological papers, which are known to promote sets of beliefs and biased opinions towards certain causes. Take for example political and propagandistic values, a good example would the Odessa Step Sequence which was very much politically influenced. With this method, it is convenient to come to an analysis in order to decipher the hidden meaning in a film.

Also, there are cultural studies which simply reflect cultural perspectives and backgrounds. Through this method, one can analyze how certain nations add their own unique taste on the films. All nations have different values and ways of production, and that can be seen through the understanding of where the film was developed and to see what kind of nation it takes place in. A film that was made in Hollywood would be much different than one per say made in India.

Hollywood - hip/hop battle with tough young rebels who don't care about education.

Bollywood - lots of pretttttty ladies in pretty dresses dancing spontaneously in unison.

Finally there’s discussion of auteur, which is grasping the director’s perspective and analyzing their vision regarding the film. This method is commonly used to refer back to theme, but that is based on the assumption that the film itself is like an open book. There is a solid line in where one cannot derail from, but that’s a common misunderstanding as many people are needed to make a film successful. It’s the collaboration of the director, the editors, and designers that make a film successful. 

     Annotating film sequences involves using abbreviations and labeling shots in order to understand the complexity of a shot. One can visually interpret what would be happening, and thus is open to making corrections or seeing new perspectives. When annotating, the film knowledge grows as one can now understand how different angles/shots/settings can make a scene better. This helps the director of the film, since they need creative criticism in order to appease the audience. The audience want their attention to be grabbed, and thus when shots seem irrelevant or out of place it can lead to the movie itself becoming a flop.

     To think beyond the film itself, is not to analyze much about the meaning and the content of th film, but what impact it had on you as the audience and how through which methods was this emotion reached. One must go deeper from what they see on the screen, and think of how the film was produced such as who the director was, and what their vision was. Also debating with other sources, such as reading other reviews, can help clarify or strengthen your observations on the film.