Reddit reviews Film Art: An Introduction

Read “Narration in the Fiction Film”, by David Bordwell, and maybe “The Way Hollywood Tells It” if you’re in the mood. That’s it.

The Automoderator does not allow me to be concise, so I'll add some stuff.

The first book uses cognitive psychology principles to explain how movies work and how we interact with them. It's one of the best books I've ever read about film — and I'm a film major. David Bordwell is so much better than everyone else it's ridiculous. IT MAKES SENSE, it is accessible and will make you understand film in no time.

The second, by the same author, is a historical view of how American cinema evolved, from the very start to Matrix (I think). It's awesome, straightforward and precise.

Film Art: An Introduction is, in my opinion, a bit too basic for you, but you may use it if you feel overwhelmed.

I second Every Frame a Painting as a great channel for film theory/criticism. That guy is doing really top notch work.

I'm also a fan of the channel Filmmaker IQ. They do some great videos covering the theory and history of various technical developments in filmmaking (sound, editing, aspect ratios, digital video). The videos tend to dig into the hard science/math behind these things more than other straight history lessons would, so some people find them a little dry, but I appreciated it.

For books, David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson's Film Art: An Introduction is a pretty standard introductory text book on film theory. Sadly, like most textbooks, it is very expensive.

However, David Bordwell also runs a great website where he blogs frequently about contemporary and classic cinema. This is 100% free, and his essays are always worth reading.

If you want to dive deeper into the academic side of things, the book Film Theory and Criticism is a great curated (and often updated) collection of film essays running from the earliest days of silent film, up through the mid-2000s.

I think matagal nang merong "no outside food" na policy ang ilang sinehan as far as I can remember...I mean, maski nung uso pa yung mga standalone na sinehan (at noong apat pa lang ang malalaking SM malls sa Metro Manila). Nung mga late 1980s, madalas akong nakakakita ng mga sekyu na naninita ng mga pumapasok sa sinehan na may dala-dalang take out food (at lalo na ng mga bote ng softdrinks). Only difference siguro in this particular image is that SM Cinemas decided to reinforce the warning because, hey, they also need to make a business with their own cinema food (and tbh they're not really the only movie theater operators who are doing this).

Ika nga ng mga film scholars na sina David Bordwell at Kristin Thompson sa kanilang textbook na Film Art: An Introduction:

>Once the exhibitor has contracted to screen the film, the distributor can demand stiff terms. The theater keeps a surprisingly small percentage of total box office receipts (known as the gross or grosses). One standard arrangement guarantees the distributor a minimum of 90 percent of the first week’s gross, dropping gradually to 30 percent after several weeks. These terms aren’t favorable to the exhibitor. A failure that closes quickly will yield almost nothing to the theater, and even a successful film will make most of its money in the first two or three weeks of release, when the exhibitor gets less of the revenue. Averaged out, a long-running success will yield no more than 50 percent of the gross to the theater. To make up for this drawback, the distributor allows the exhibitor to deduct from the gross the expenses of running the theater (a negotiated figure called the house nut). In addition, the exhibitor gets all the cash from the concession stand, which may deliver up to 70 percent of the theater’s profits. Without high-priced snacks, movie houses couldn’t survive.
>
>“Selling food is my job. I just happen to work in a theater.” — Theater manager in upstate New York

(Incidentally, this passage also helps explain why cineplexes would love to fill all their theaters with just the latest Marvel Comics film. And also, kung bakit ang bilis-bilig ma-pull out ng mga indie films sa mga sinehan.)

​

not enough people watch David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson's Observations on Film Art series, they're the ones that write the books most amateur youtubers and film majors are cribbing from. their videos aren't flashy but they're very substantive.

Unfortunately they're behind a paywall by subscribing to filmstruck, but they post excerpts on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My7fxjUY2co

Film Art: An Introduction and The Way Hollywood Tells It by David Bordwell.

Constructive criticism accepted? If you're trying to live up to your blog's name, then you're succeeding. Lines like "The cinematography was pretty decent. Nothing really ground-breaking, but it was a really pleasant movie to look at during some scenes." do very little to tell your readers anything. Who was the cinematographer? Did they do anything else of note? IMDB is your friend. In this case, Spanish cinematographer Oscar Faura; probably not many American readers are familiar with his work, as I believe it's his first English-language film. Same goes for the Norwegian director Morten Tyldum. What was interesting, or can you use more evocative language? Do you understand the visual language enough to recognize and describe things like tracking shots, handheld shots, framing, lighting? "I only have one minor complaint about this movie, which is the CGI." Cut off the "which is the CGI" part. I'm pretty sure no one calls it CGI anymore (just CG), and the phrase isn't necessary because you spend the rest of the paragraph talking about that very thing. Don't sound like Perd Hapley. Remember that it's not just about your impression of the movie, but why you felt that way. And, too, that you're writing about the film, not about how you felt about it. It's your opinion, sure, but there's a balance between putting yourself on the page and putting your recommendation or lack thereof on the page - the line between being Harry Knowles or Roger Ebert. Make the reader feel your joy...or pain...or indifference.

I used to be a semi-pro film critic and editor of other people's reviews. I learned a lot from reading the great critics - Pauline Kael, Roger Ebert - and from books about film. A Short Guide to Writing About Film, Film Art: An Introduction, How to Read a Film. All books I remember reading. And not just those, but books about writing. Particular favorites are The Elements of Style and Stephen King's On Writing. If you want to brush up on your knowledge of what you're seeing, Every Frame a Painting is a stellar look at film's visual language.

Some of the 'cannon' has probably changed since I was in college, check out this David Bordwell/Kristen Thompson's book which is essentially one of the more popular college film studies textbooks and is updated to change with the times.

For film history though, some of the basic timeline would go like this (am focusing more on directors than films):

Stage 1: Lumiere Brothers, Georges Melies, possibly Louis Feuillade and others

Stage 2: Edwin Porter, DW Griffith (the 'bridge' between early silents & development of conventional film grammar), Kuleshov - for the Kuleshov Effect

Stage 3: Silent innovators: Soviets (Eisenstein, Dovzhenko), Scandinavians (Dreyer, Stiller, Sjöström), Germans (Lang, Murnau, Pabst), 'International' directors who made films in too many countries to limit to one nation (Lubitsch, von Stroheim), America (DW Griffith still, Mack Sennett, Chaplin

Ha - I'm taking longer than this than I thought - but you get the picture.

Film Art: An Introduction by David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson.

Film related: Film Art: An Introduction

When I did a film course, the tutor recommended this as essential reading :

http://www.amazon.com/Film-Art-Introduction-David-Bordwell/dp/0073535109/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

But as you can see there are very mixed opinions on it. I would say if you can get hold of a second hand copy or have a look at one in the reference section of a library it could be useful. Otherwise it is very expensive for what you may gain from it.

I hope this is helpful. Here is the syllabus of an introductory film class I took in college, also here is our final exam.

You have a lot of movies picked out; which if you want to a build a repertoire of films for college is fine. But analyzing a film takes a ton of time. I remember an assignment where we had to describe in detail the mise-en-scene of five shots and it took me an hour. Throughout the semester we only watched six films. But almost every class we watched a few scenes from different movies and then discuss those in the context of that days topic. For example if we were discussing transition techniques we would watch examples of cuts, dissolves, wipes, fade in/out ect. If there are topics you are interested in I am sure you can find scenes that highlight those, or maybe people here can make recommendations.

Also having a good understanding of the fundamentals of film making is essential for later analysis. This is the textbook we used. It's a little expensive but since you are not taking a class I would highly recommend at least getting some sort of textbook.

If you want me to explain anything in the syllabus just ask.

Best of luck.

This book was, and still is, used in my university's intro to film studies class. I found it to be pretty readable and it used a lot of good examples (ranging from mainstream films to slightly more obscure ones). It's relatively affordable if you buy it used.

David Bordwell is also generally a good person to read from.