
Monica Vitti: Auditoire loves Monica in L'Avventura (1960) because she is one of the best looking gal Auditoire has ever seen in whole of film history.
A few days ago I was asked intently by a fellow dormmate on why am I so interested in films. I evaded the question because i know it would take a million years to answer and for the purpose of opening a conversation, he went on asking me: "How do you analyze a film? I mean, given that i don't hold any degree in film, or worst, I am not even a film buff, how can i analyze a film without reading a film book?" I was dumbfounded, I don't know what to say. I know all of you might be thinking of the same question and you might be aware that there is a great void between film scholarship and mass audience, between a film critic and the man on the streets, a film theorist and his students. As part of the local film culture, i want to fill this gap by doing a little project entitled FILM DECONSTRUCTED: NOOBS' GUIDE TO FILM ANALYSIS.
I. WHO'S WHO?
You might be reading this perhaps because you want to crunch down or finish a film paper for a deadline or perhaps you have dreams of becoming a film critic and you don't have the money to go to a film school to learn all the stuff there is about filmmaking, film theory , film history and film aesthetics.
Or probably, you are just like me, a blogger who likes to watch good old movies, who wants to find a niche in the filmblogosphere for a film blog.
Or maybe you are a young filmmaker by heart but cannot afford the tuition fee for a film school, and you want to learn the basics of film aesthetics: cinematography, editing, staging, sound, and other stuff.
Film Deconstructed offers a guide for beginners on constructing film analysis. By presenting the very basics of film criticism, each of you will learn how to write about, discuss and analyze films like a pro. As part of my venture on offering free online film education to the critical and non-critical audiences and for those who are curious enough to ask: why film? Film Deconstructed will layout some of what I have learned in my three-year self-study on the discourse of film. I've read so much content from the film blogosphere, in an out of the day and NO ONE! have posted or blogged about a NOOB'S Guide to FILM ANALYSIS. For the first time ever, the discourse on film will be lay down in its simplest form from the very basic concepts to the most complex, so let's get started by answering some questions.
II. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)
1 | Why analyze a film?
Kristin Thompson once said in her book, Breaking the Glass Armour, that "when a film challenges us it warrants analysis." This is true. But what composes this challenge? We are normally challenge pretty much because the film has a disjointed narrative, unconventional characters, unflinchingly and deceptively beautiful visuals, or a hard-to-digest non-chronological order of story.
Films like Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind (2003) and Nolan's Inception (2010) are complex films themselves. But they require less analytical power compared to more complicated films like Godard's recent feature, Film Socialisme (2010) and Tarkovsky's The Mirror (1975). On the other hand we have films like Freddy Got Fingered (2001) and The Hottie and the Nottie (2008) which are incredibly easy to digest but are still challenging films for a critic in terms of generating a rather shrewd and intelligent analysis amidst their notoriety for being obnoxiously banal and unintelligent.
Sometimes, people analyze a film because they want to get out of that high art-low art complex wherein we judge the films via taste biases and prejudices and position. Some people do analyze films because they need it for school while others do it as a hobby because they find it enjoyable. Some find it a method to be a more active, responsible cinemagoer, by offering feedback about films. Some do it for a socio-political and artistic cause as in saving a national cinema from being inactive and repetitive, while others do it to elevate the discourse on film. Some people analyze films because they are paid to do so. For the rest, their objectives are a mixture of all of these: hobby, job, academic, socio-political, artistic etc. The point is every purpose involves some sort of analysis of film/s in any means possible.
Film Deconstructed accommodates each one of these motivations, providing the simplest route to becoming good, responsible cinema writers whose responsibility is to contribute to the film discourse and help in the study and preservation of our own national cinemas, and to generate the most original thought about a movie for everyone's dispense.
2 | What do we analyze in a film?
We analyze films in terms of many aspects: aesthetics, production, reception, distribution, regulation, politics, history, psychology, philosophy and economy around it. Film Deconstructed will start from the easiest aspect, aesthetics, and will climb to the top slowly with increasing level of generality and complexity.
Film aesthetics is about the form of the film. Aesthetics is composed of four core idea: cinematography, mise-en-scene, editing, and sound. All analysis are grounded by aesthetics mainly because it tackles about the film text itself. Understanding the form is easy for those who know the grammar of film, but for those who do not know anything about it, they will find it hard and complicated.
Another aspect is Film Production. Production is about the step-by-step piecing together of a film which is composed of three major phases describing the status of film project: pre-production (where ideas are pieced together and a plan is made), shooting or production (where idea is filmed and the plan is executed), and post-production (where the film is polished and prepared for public or private viewing).
Reception is about how people react to films psychologically, physically, emotionally and the totality of its experience. It is concern with the transmission of the filmic information from the work of art to the viewers mind. This requires a bit of inputs from psychology and a whole lot of linguistics which we will cover shortly.
Distribution is about how the film is presented in mass public: is it through cinemas, DVDs, over the net? Questions like what type of distribution is used in the film and what is the response of the population to it in economic, social and political aspects.
Regulation is about how the film, as a form of expression, is regulated in terms of its content. It somehow touches the legal and ethical side of the film reception and distribution which deals about morality, philosophy and social impact surrounding the film.
Each of these will be discussed in Film Deconstructed intensely but with a sheer focus on the most basic: film aesthetics.
2 | Who analyze a film?

There are multiple other ways to analyze a film, but there is only one purpose for everyone: to talk about what the film is worth for. Right here in Auditoire, everyone will be accommodated according to their own motivations, each one is encourage to form their own conceptual track of their own. However, since my motivation for bringing up Film Deconstructed is to offer free online film education to the critical and non-critical audiences and for those who are curious enough to ask: why film?, the track that we are going to take is to create the best of film criticism in you using the most basic tools available in the web.
4 | How do we analyze films?
There are many ways to analyze a film (see above subsections). We can approach a film in multiple ways, using different strategies of rhetoric and exposition. But one of the most basic things that we have to keep in mind before we start the analysis is formulating a 'hypothesis'. This can be done by: one, problematizing the elements of the film as in asking "What is Orapronobis (1989) worth for?", two, relating the film with other films as in "What is the relationship between Wall-E (2009) and Princess Mononoke (1997)?", or three, relating the film to other related fields as in "What is the socio-historical significance of Jean-Luc Godard's Breathless (1960)?" After that you can start doing some research, some memory dig-up to make a method of how to tackle the film. After constructing a flow of attack, you can start writing your piece of criticism. The level of research can vary from easy research to tedious research depending on the scope and topic you are discussing. One can avoid the hassle by limiting the research to the film itself and talk more about its aesthetics. In that way, you only need the tools of aesthetics to make a review or a criticism.
III. Enjoy!
Writing about film is as enjoyable as sipping a cup of tea in the morning. It enables yours senses like never before. It's like cocaine with a twist if you know what i mean. You're eyes will sharpen and your ears will deepen and definitely your sense of taste will change after years of engaging in films. Once you love cinema, you can never go back!
Ciao!
****
Mike · 747 weeks ago
ang pelikula mula sa konsepto hanggang sa buong likha.
mula intensyon hanggang repleksyon, sadyang hinuhulma ito,
Tama, enjoy and learn. Di lang momentary escape.
AD! · 747 weeks ago
etchie8679 4p · 743 weeks ago
AD! · 742 weeks ago
How do you find the project? Im still about its content. Every film critic is inlove with writing and film. A cinephile however, a connoisseur of films, may or may not be a writer. hence, i am introducing this project to help those cinephiles who want to add a writing dimension to their works especially to our local ones because we do not have a very healthy culture of criticism here in the Philippines. And I am glad that you are still striving to write about films cause we badly need one like you.
Thanks for commenting!
I love your blog!
ADZZ!
etchie8679 4p · 740 weeks ago
Much of what I know about the technicality of film is actually the basics. I have no idea whatsoever on how films are made---except maybe, you have a script, a director, the cast, crew---the whole shebang. Yet the visual effect of a film is usually a product of a good story, being an avid reader myself, I picture the words in my head, playing with cinematic fluidity as if there is an enormous screen right in front of me. And I write about films practically because I love the process. Writing is cathartic. ***smuch as I don't proselytize nor impose my preferences to people, I guess I can admit my snobbery is one way to educate them. And I'm not making criticisms on the films that I've seen, I am simply voicing out an opinion. To some, the term "criticism" denotes negativity or some kind of violent retort.
And thanks for adding me up on your blog. I was trying to be an incognito as far as my blog is concerned. I still believe I don't write that well to be noticed by some. Hehe. I'll keep writing as long as I can, I might neglect my blog once in a while, but that doesn't mean I'll stop. If the curtains fall, I'll probably have my own reasons.
And your blog is wonderful. Intelligent. Academic. Introspective. Keep it up. :)
AD! · 740 weeks ago
We'll I think the first entry of this project is to remove the stigma from the term "criticism". To be called a film critic is to accept a social and cultural responsibility not only as an arbiter of taste but also as a cultural and art activist.
A lot of people mistake political criticism with art criticism. Political criticism is very different from art criticism. In political criticism, you takes sides, anti or pro. It's very polar, while in film criticism you don't take sides and the vantage point you are working with is detached from the object your are criticizing. Anyway, I will be writing an article on this.
On film aesthetics:
To my surprise, most of the critics working today are either from the language field or social science field and not from the film field. Most of them tackle only the context of the film and avoids the text. Some of them do not know the meaning of 'jump cut', 'fade in', 'diegesis' and other terms that are quite common elements of the film. Approaching a film without at least knowing the basic aesthetics principles can make one an insecure critic. It would lack the mastery of the film. It would also be difficult if you face a highly experimental film. Since most of the take of point of films like this one starts from the aesthetic. Then you work through the narrative then you can get the context of it.
It would also lessen the gap between the filmmaker and critic if you ascribe to aesthetics, since we all know that most of the filmmakers has somewhat attended 'film school' or learned the craft of filmmaking through attending workshops and all. Learning the nooks and crannies of the film enables the critic to fully understand not only the message of the film but also the working principle of the filmmaker.
my goal is to educate our readers who want to either be a filmmaker or film critic about how to work through a film text and discuss with them numerous ways to attack films. I uphold PLURALISM, a way of understanding cinema from multiple perspectives, from different point of views to form an approximate value of the whole as opposed to imposing that this and that are only ways to analyze a film. There are of course numerous methods, and each of them has issues, and each of these will be discusses throughout the project.
Thanks for the praise on AUDITOIRE! I'm very flattered. asus! i hope our blogs will air each of its own voice to help raise the discourse on world cinema to a higher level.
Thanks! Thanks! Thanks!
ADZ
etchie8679 4p · 740 weeks ago
So, I think the varying climate also contributed to the education of a critic. Ebert, Kael, Sarrris, Rafferty, Farber, Ehrenstein, Rosenbaum were not filmmakers to begin with. Yes, they delved into the business as a kind of immersion. But as the sociology of movies grows closer to commentary, anyone can be a critic. Anybody can voice out an opinion and say this or that, even without the luxury of "film education". It is preferable, of course, as it can serve as a backbone of opinion, yet it is not a requirement. Films are usually representation of society, of history, of life. I guess prodding into its mechanical components is tantamount to surgery being done on a person simply to know how he lived his life.
Anyway, I think I got carried away. I'm learning a lot from you and your blog. Hehe :D I didn't exactly anticipated that I would be "into films" nor write about them after I graduated. Seemed to me that I went for the choice of major to avoid anything mathematics. Hahaha. :D
AD! · 739 weeks ago
Thanks for bringing up this topic! this is such a good way to learn each other's viewpoint about film criticism and art of cinema. I am somewhat used to the idea "Art of the film" as a craft similar to building a house. You need tools, materials, subjects, inspirations, an area to worth with, actors, production staff to help you out with fleshing out the idea the designer/film director or producer wants to achieve. Its a highly collaborative art involving a set of different people working under so many circumstances: economics, f***ncial, cultural, political ones that may or maynot influence the film. Aesthetics is a product of such collaborative effort.
Analyzing aesthetics enables the critic to determine what construction principles have the production team or the filmmaker have in mind that time and what is the effect of his choices to the whole film. What are the dom***nt stylistic trend that's been occurring that time and have these trend affected the director in choosing which angle is better or which type of lighting is better? is one of the questions one can ask when faced by aesthetics.
This is what FILM POETICS hopes to investigates: that film aesthetics is highly historically dependent. The origin of new styles in cinema is the result of filmmakers trying to change the current stylistic system dom***nt that time.
Films are representations of society (but this representation is highly 'bias' of the director or producer, even documentaries have this 'bias' because the length and the information are still controlled by a creative medium) The thing i think with this claim is that films are good arguments of what a society should and should not look like. It's a rhetorical device wherein information about the societies customs, attitudes and spirit are regulated by the filmmaker.
Looking deeply into the mechanisms of how the director chooses his information to put into his film, how he applies the techniques to make a story about the character's memories, and what politics have been running around that time is somewhat the role of a good 'poetics' critic should have. My FILM DECONSTRUCTED series is dedicated to this approach.
Commentary film criticism, on the other hand, have no grounds for engaging to such analysis since most critics on this side of the coin rely much on their personal opinions instead of relying on tediously researched data about the film. Poetics criticism do entail an ample amount of research on the history surrounding the film. Hence, engaging on Poetics criticism makes each piece of critique INFORMATIVE and HELPFUL to other critics.
I did have applied Poetics Criticism with my analysis on LA GRANDE ILLUSION (1937) here: http://adrianmendizabal.blogspot.com/2009/07/la-g...
Some of the most comprehensive poetics criticism i've ever read is a book entitled POETICS OF CINEMA and OZU by David Bordwell, its free online. Download it here: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/pod/dod-idx?c=cjs...
check on its website: https://www.cjspubs.lsa.umich.edu/electronic/facu...
dodo dayao · 739 weeks ago
This is very interesting. I'll catch up later or tomorrow when I have more time. But will in the meantime post a ;link that might throw a spanner in the works:
http://www.coldbacon.com/writing/sontag-againstin...
Personally I'm not too keen on "analyzing" a film or any work of art for that matter, putting it up on a slab and dissecting its aesthetics, shots, etc. Doesn't work for me and I don't think it serves the film much, but that's just me. :)
Subjectivity is king in film writing, I think. Well, actually, for me, prose comes first above and beyond all else. You could say I'm more of the Commentary Film criticism school although I'm really more inclined to try on different forms of discourse. :D But I subscribe more to the notion that the viewer/film writer/critic must bring himself to the work and the movie courses through him, his worldview, his emotional state, the extent of his film knowledge, his sensibilities and tastes, his biases . . .at that time. I
As a film writer and really as a film fan, I've always felt it's my responsibility to constantly upgrade my own film knowledge, outside of the pieces I'm writing, but it's equally my responsibility not to use knowledge I received after watching a film I'm writing about to bear upon it, it's a little like contam***ting the scene of the crime for me, in some ways. I remember watching several documentaries and read piece on the making of Steven Spielberg's Term***l after seeing it (how it was a hommage to Tati and all that) and found it very fasc***ting and rather enlightening but in the end, it didn't change my opinion of the movie (I thought it was a little bland).
Anyway. I'll weigh in more after I've gone through all the posts. :)
Targrod · 739 weeks ago
Don't get me wrong, I still find crappy films, crappy ,but I had a habit of finishing each and every film I started watching. And maybe, that's the time I look for the positive in a film. I started a blog because of this. It was like reaching to friends and some strangers who roam the net about films that they might like. As I always believe that not all people want to watch the same film. So, it would be nice to promote the positive aspect of the film.
Targrod · 739 weeks ago
I don't want to get too academic since I am doing this as a hobby but I am open to new learnings that's why I became attracted with Cinephiles. Once in a while, I read things that are related with films and cinema, trying to learn a thing or two every month.
I wander to sites such as imdb, wiki, and filmsite to read about the trivial things on movies. I also found a blog by a Fil-am about giving his insights on the film he just saw and at the same time I stumbled at Filmschoolrejects and found the fun in the world of movies, films, and the cinema. I tried to pattern that to my blo site, it was almost a success since I was able to ask a few friends to give their input on films that they saw and they've created reviews on it. Much like me who has no background on films.
I find it really effective for you to reach all of us the basics. I'll continue reading from time to time.
I hope i'm not that chatty. lol.