CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Sphere Monk's Analysis Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sphere Monk's Analysis Thread

post #1 of 20
5/3/11 at 11:56pm
Thread Starter 

The single most valuable element that I've taken away from the articles and discussions here at CHUD is an increased ability to intelligently analyze the films I love so much. There is literally a metric digital ton of movie news available on the web, but I feel that the level of scrutiny with which movies are treated by the CHUD community really sets both the website and the forums apart from rest of the entire Internet. I remember that when I first found this website I could not stop reading the reviews, scouring the minds of the writers for details on their critical processes. I went through a whole year where I would read reviews alphabetically and multiple times trying to soak up as much knowledge as possible.

 

My experience with this site is the genesis of this thread. I have often thought of trying to start an analysis discussion here, but have been consistently puzzled as to choosing a starting point. In fact, I believe I have tried a similar topic before. However, my approach was ill conceived and the thread sunk rather quickly. Therefore, let me outline my intentions for this discussion in the hopes that some like-minded folks will feel inclined to chip in.

 

My objectives are threefold:

 

  1. Develop a solid guideline for my personal critical process as applied to film
  2. Test my process and ideas against the much smarter and more knowledgeable CHUD community
  3. Help others clarify their own analytical devices through discussion, debate, and (hopefully) humor

 

The last objective is especially important to me, because I feel that so many people who struggle with understanding film would truly enjoy a starting point to developing and more fully comprehending their own movie insights.

 

I will attempt to achieve these goals through choosing different films, analyzing them here, and hopefully receiving input regarding both my approach and its results.

 

So, without further delay, I begin.

 

---------------

 

Before choosing a film to analyze, I need to settle on a general approach. I am currently considering three major categories of analysis: narrative, visual themes, and metaphor. Right now, I'm thinking that each category will demand a separate viewing for the same film. Each topic will probably require a somewhat different approach as well.

 

Narrative. One technique I conceptualized to analyze narrative is to try and imagine the film through the specific lens of a few major characters. In other words, I will try to perceive how the story looks to a single character at a time. I will also need to consider the different elements of narrative such as point of view, voice, and structure. If anyone has suggestions on how to efficiently achieve a greater comprehension of narrative in movies, I would love to hear them.

 

Visual Themes. Embarrassingly, I have only recently realized that filmmakers may choose to communicate through visual themes such as shapes, color schemes, and symbols that may be entirely divorced from the story, setting, and dialogue. I honestly can't think of criteria or guidelines in this part of the analysis, and welcome any input.

 

Metaphor. Meta-content is probably my favorite element in critiquing movies. Yes, I am late to the irony party that hipsters have been apparently throwing behind my back for the better part of the last decade. Yes, I'm like the guy that starts wearing fanny packs five years too late. Still, I love theorizing about encoded messages in pop culture because, well... it's just a lot of fun! Everybody gets to have their own idea, and sometimes I find myself shocked at how differently I can look at a film which I have already seen countless times.

 

That's it for now, folks. Any input is appreciated. If you don't like the categories, now is the time to say something before I start actually trying to tackle a specific movie. Speaking of which, my next planned phase is to enumerate a short list of films to see if there's a community preference for discussion. Lacking netflix, the films I analyze will have to be limited to ones I own in my physical collection. Other than that, the sky is the limit!

Reply
post #2 of 20
5/4/11 at 1:16am

I think your thought process seems a bit schematic. After all, every movie feeds a different artistic aim, yes? Which is to say, I don't believe in some sort of qualitative sliding scale between something smaller and more intriguing to, say, Fast Five, but some films are compelling in different ways.

 

I'm pretty emotional in my evaluation of "great movies." Which is to say, I have triggers.

 

-Is this movie subversive? Does it paint a clear, superficial journey only to underline the concept that said journey is futile and/or harmful to innocents? I.E. "Robocop" playfully obscuring the fact that an actual Robocop is a TERRIBLE idea (sadly).

-Is this movie humanist? Does it believe in the very best of humanity, and does it paint a portrait of hope? Something like There Will Be Blood, with an absolutely demonic protagonist, still works, because I think there is beauty in the truth of his convictions, in his strict code, in his representation of larger ideas. Which brings us to...

-What is this movie really about? If you go into a movie knowing what it is about, and walk about feeling that the film was STILL about that, I think the movie has failed. Like, is The Rocketeer about a hero with a jetpack fighting evil? Probably. But does it eventually focus on Cliff Secord not really needing the jetpack to fulfill his hero credentials? This is a cheesy and superficial example, but yes. A better one would be, oh, The Dark Knight is about a crimefighting superhero, right? Or is it about illegal survellience in the twenty first century, the sway of anarchy in an unstable world, and the failure of our appointed protectors?

-Class consciousness. Sometimes this is simply, how does our lead character pay the bills? How can they afford work and play? Fact is, most people are just getting by, so when you make a film about a middle class person, every penny should count, inasmuch as helping to create a real world these characters inhabit that you can believe in. If the goal is to be more fantastical, what are this person's necessities? How do they survive, how do they manage? Do they have concerns in their own life beyond, the bad guy is trying to kill me?

 

On a more specific level I remember Devin coming to the boards and explaining that, when he uses that scale of ten, every movie begins with a 10 because he has high hopes everytime the lights went out. I thought this was a disingenuous and ugly practice, as it meant that the "10" could only sink further as the critic would look at things to nitpick, failing to notice (as most critics do) what actually WORKS in the film instead of what doesn't. I felt like Devin's approach lacked nuance, it lacked the romance of the movies, entering with a blank slate (or an 0.0) and then searching hard for things to love. As a result, if need be, whatever guide I'm operating from begins with a 0, or zero stars, or an F, and makes its way upward.

Reply
post #3 of 20
5/4/11 at 11:08am
Thread Starter 

Gabe, you make some interesting points. Firstly, let me say that I think the "qualitative sliding scale" is just a way of letting an audience know how a particular critic feels in general about a specific film. I usually find myself completely ignoring any ratings system for a couple of reasons. One is that I don't read reviews until I have seen a film for myself. I like to compare and contrast my reading of a movie with critics whose judgement and analytical skill I trust. However, I fully understand the need for a ratings scale in a website like CHUD. I think most readers expect it by now and might skip a whole article of brilliant critique if it was missing.

 

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say my thought process is "schematic." Perhaps you meant methodical? I am trying to develop and clarify an approach which will help me get more out of my movie viewing experience. I have tried to pick my categories broadly, for the sake of flexibility. For instance, in my process each of your questions would fall under the Narrative analysis (except for the Dark Knight example). Questions about the story, subtext, and so on would be asked during my Narrative viewing of the movie. Your questions however, would not cover, say, the visual emphasis placed upon photographs in Blade Runner, the placement of the very pretty and consonant Blue Danube contrasted with the challenging and dissonant compositions of Ligeti in Space Odyssey, or the very clever foreshadowing of Donny's death in The Big Lebowski. I do like your "what's it all about" question, which would probably fall under the Metaphor category in my process. Perhaps my analyses should end with a sort of wrap up section, or how I think each element I've observed contributes to the whole meaning or impression of the film.

 

Lastly, I don't think I can agree that a critic who sticks to a personal approach is therefore being disingenuous. Every individual probably processes things like art a little differently from others? Furthermore, you say that you don't believe in sliding scales but state a preference over how they are used. I'm not quite sure I understand where you're coming from on this point.

Reply
post #4 of 20
5/4/11 at 11:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sphere_Monk View Post

Gabe, you make some interesting points. Firstly, let me say that I think the "qualitative sliding scale" is just a way of letting an audience know how a particular critic feels in general about a specific film. I usually find myself completely ignoring any ratings system for a couple of reasons. One is that I don't read reviews until I have seen a film for myself. I like to compare and contrast my reading of a movie with critics whose judgement and analytical skill I trust. However, I fully understand the need for a ratings scale in a website like CHUD. I think most readers expect it by now and might skip a whole article of brilliant critique if it was missing.

 

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say my thought process is "schematic." Perhaps you meant methodical? I am trying to develop and clarify an approach which will help me get more out of my movie viewing experience. I have tried to pick my categories broadly, for the sake of flexibility. For instance, in my process each of your questions would fall under the Narrative analysis (except for the Dark Knight example). Questions about the story, subtext, and so on would be asked during my Narrative viewing of the movie. Your questions however, would not cover, say, the visual emphasis placed upon photographs in Blade Runner, the placement of the very pretty and consonant Blue Danube contrasted with the challenging and dissonant compositions of Ligeti in Space Odyssey, or the very clever foreshadowing of Donny's death in The Big Lebowski. I do like your "what's it all about" question, which would probably fall under the Metaphor category in my process. Perhaps my analyses should end with a sort of wrap up section, or how I think each element I've observed contributes to the whole meaning or impression of the film.

 

Lastly, I don't think I can agree that a critic who sticks to a personal approach is therefore being disingenuous. Every individual probably processes things like art a little differently from others? Furthermore, you say that you don't believe in sliding scales but state a preference over how they are used. I'm not quite sure I understand where you're coming from on this point.


Well, I mean, if your method is your method, I can't knock it, but I think we all need to come up with our own ways to view the movie experience. What I examined was merely my "triggers," things that I look for.

 

And I was referring to Devin's method as disingenuous. Because if you're going to be talking film and analysis, why go into a film with knives and pitchforks ready to tear down the "ten" the more has begun with? How can you love movies when you serve criticism before praise? I see this attitude with a lot of critics, resulting in reviews discussing what "doesn't work" instead of "what does." I mean, if you're going into "Transporter 2" and noting that the film has no sense of danger or thematic content, you should probably expend some energy on how compelling and forceful a presence Jason Statham can be, and how every moment in Transporter 2 where he is onscreen you can't bring yourself to look away. Maybe the movie still gets a poor rating, but let's discuss what works, what the movie's trying to achieve, and if that goal is worthy.

 

As far as sliding scales, I don't believe in the SPECIFIC sliding scale that says, say, classy films are better-crafted than genre pictures. I did not care for Fast Five, but I think the film is near-equal with The King's Speech in what it achieves, and where it fails to succeed. A discussion for another time, perhaps, but one that breaks a time-honored notion of criticism. Though I do understand Fast Five has received overwhelmingly positive reviews. Which... doesn't quite make as much sense.

 

I forgot to mention one more pivotal trigger I look for in a movie.

-The "Other" - Since I am an American, I have to review films from my American perspective. And, in American society, when it comes to avatars of entertainment, the default is White Male. So the Other could be a woman, it could be a black man, it could be a handicapped person. And I try to focus on what the film's treatment and attitude of "the other" might be. As such, a film that exists in a believable multi-national world that realistically (or universally?) depicts the struggles faced by the Other in society  (or humanistically and realistically promotes the Rise of the Other) than I would grant praise to the particular film.

 

This emerges specifically when we're dealing with films that run roughshod over women, which most mainstream films tend to do, treating them as disposable baby-or-fuck vessels, mothers or whores. Which is why part of me was excited by the multi-culti approach of Fast Five but flummoxed by the toxic sexism.

 

I'm not entirely sure if I'm making my points well enough, because I'm using qualitative language to establish that, somewhere, without capable explanation, I must allow the objective and subjective sides of my personality to meet when discussing films. To be honest, I summarize it all as "thinking with my balls."

Reply
post #5 of 20
5/4/11 at 6:51pm

I have nothing analytical to add here, but I wanted to say I'm completely interested in this thread and how you (two so far) go about it.    And I really like the "Other" view idea.  As an "other" myself it never occurred to me to look at the movie with someone else's balls.

Reply
post #6 of 20
5/4/11 at 7:11pm

So, just so I'm clear - is this thread going to be about analysing films or about analysing film analysis?

Reply
post #7 of 20
5/4/11 at 7:56pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post

So, just so I'm clear - is this thread going to be about analysing films or about analysing film analysis?



Lets just say it's about practicing film analysis.

Reply
post #8 of 20
5/5/11 at 12:01am

I think we should start tackling some actual movies.  Monk?

 

 

 

Reply
post #9 of 20
5/5/11 at 1:14am
Thread Starter 

Well, lets start tossing some names out there. Like I said originally, if I don't own the movie right now I won't be able to participate easily. But I certainly won't complain if anyone wants to come in here with some insight on the narrative, visual themes, or metaphors of whatever film.

 

So, here's an off-the-top-of-my-head list:

 

  • 'Round Midnight
  • 3 Women
  • Solaris
  • Andrei Rublev
  • Everything Is Illuminated
  • Stranger Than Paradise
  • The Fountain
  • There Will Be Blood
  • Moon
  • Blade Runner
  • Shutter Island
  • Kingdom of Heaven

 

As you can see, this is just a random potluck of movies. The common element is that they have each inspired an oddly compelling curiosity in me. I feel as if much of the content in these examples passes by my conscious mind while watching. I obviously own way more than just these movies, so random suggestions are definitely welcome as well. If I have legal unrestricted access to the film, I'll consider watching and analyzing it.

 

I have decided that each category deserves more than a single viewing. I don't think I'll be able to really spot what I'm looking for with fewer than two times through for each topic. Also, Gabe has inspired me to try and tie these categories together somehow. After I choose a film, I'll start with a description of my current opinions and impressions. I am hoping that this will be useful later on to see if my clumsy investigations really lead to anything.

Reply
post #10 of 20
5/5/11 at 5:15am

I'd like to read the takes on The Fountain.  I have been meaning to watch that for roughly ever. 

Reply
post #11 of 20
5/5/11 at 9:56am


Monk, it seems to me that your method is both overly schematic and not broad enough.  There are a thousand ways to approach a film, but the reality is that even the greatest only really stand out in a few areas.  A film that tries to push the boundaries of effects, character depiction, visual symbolism, conventional structure and allegorical content simultaneously is likely to be completely unwatchable.  Unless it's Alejandro Jodorowsky, in which case it will be completely incomprehensible, but oddly, disconcertingly watchable in small doses. 

 

To explain what I mean, I think this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sphere_Monk View Post

Before choosing a film to analyze, I need to settle on a general approach. I am currently considering three major categories of analysis: narrative, visual themes, and metaphor. Right now, I'm thinking that each category will demand a separate viewing for the same film. Each topic will probably require a somewhat different approach as well.

 

Narrative. One technique I conceptualized to analyze narrative is to try and imagine the film through the specific lens of a few major characters. In other words, I will try to perceive how the story looks to a single character at a time. I will also need to consider the different elements of narrative such as point of view, voice, and structure. If anyone has suggestions on how to efficiently achieve a greater comprehension of narrative in movies, I would love to hear them.

 

Visual Themes. Embarrassingly, I have only recently realized that filmmakers may choose to communicate through visual themes such as shapes, color schemes, and symbols that may be entirely divorced from the story, setting, and dialogue. I honestly can't think of criteria or guidelines in this part of the analysis, and welcome any input.

 

Metaphor. Meta-content is probably my favorite element in critiquing movies. Yes, I am late to the irony party that hipsters have been apparently throwing behind my back for the better part of the last decade. Yes, I'm like the guy that starts wearing fanny packs five years too late. Still, I love theorizing about encoded messages in pop culture because, well... it's just a lot of fun! Everybody gets to have their own idea, and sometimes I find myself shocked at how differently I can look at a film which I have already seen countless times.

 

That's it for now, folks. Any input is appreciated. If you don't like the categories, now is the time to say something before I start actually trying to tackle a specific movie. Speaking of which, my next planned phase is to enumerate a short list of films to see if there's a community preference for discussion. Lacking netflix, the films I analyze will have to be limited to ones I own in my physical collection. Other than that, the sky is the limit!

Needs to be broken down even further. 

 

Narrative - There is much more at work here than just character arcs, which is what you're focusing on.  Yes, in the best writing, every significant character has their own journey and perspective on the story as it progresses.  But that's only one part of narrative.  There's also pacing, the delivery of exposition without affecting it, world-building, believability (not the same as realism), the surprise factor (I avoid the term "plot twist" only because I think it has become too conflated with "twist ending" in recent times), and thematic harmony. 

 

Metaphor - I jump here next because it's tied to narrative.  Any story that's worth half a damn will be about more than what it's about, if you follow me.  Good writing addresses concerns that are larger than the specifics of the plot, but does so without interfering with the plot's believability (again, not about realism).   Get carried away with this and you have a straight allegory, and I tend to side with Tolkien on that issue; if your story has a 1:1 correlation with real-word events, then just write about the real world already.  But when handled well, this serves the greatest purpose of fiction; to trick people into seeing the world around them through different eyes for a time.  This is without getting into the actual content of the message, which could be inspiring or touching or reprehensible in turn.

 

Visual Themes - This is admittedly my weakest area.  The wonderful thing about film is that it is a visual medium, and a picture is really worth a thousand words.  If the aim of fiction is to some extent to trick the audience, film takes full advantage of our tendency to believe what we see over what we are told.  Visual motifs, color schemes and shot compositions can drastically shape our perceptions of people and events, create urgency or intimacy without a word of dialogue, and basically manipulate us before we have the chance to register it consciously and resist.  How this is done is very complex, but didn't go to film school, so I'm not terribly knowledgeable about the subtleties of camera filters or depth of field or what have you.  Although I have found the AV Club's Scenic Routes series to be a nice intro for a layman.
 

 

Point being, there is are many, many ways to approach a film.  But trying to formulate a rigid and exhaustive approach to all of them is likely to prove, well, exhausting, and imo, to suck a lot of the fun out of experiencing movies.  I suggest focusing on a few points that stand out in a given movie, for good or bad, and try to study why they do/don't work the way they do.  For example, with The Fountain you can sort of forget about character (there's really only one that matters) and focus on theme and visual effects. 

 

Or not.  But that's more or less how I approach things.

Reply
post #12 of 20
5/5/11 at 11:35am
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post


Monk, it seems to me that your method is both overly schematic and not broad enough.  There are a thousand ways to approach a film, but the reality is that even the greatest only really stand out in a few areas.  A film that tries to push the boundaries of effects, character depiction, visual symbolism, conventional structure and allegorical content simultaneously is likely to be completely unwatchable.  Unless it's Alejandro Jodorowsky, in which case it will be completely incomprehensible, but oddly, disconcertingly watchable in small doses.

 

Point taken, but my intention is not to demand that movies be brilliant on all fronts, although that is a very interesting interpretation of my approach. I basically just want to see what is already there. The categories I picked make sense to me because a) most movies seem to be trying to tell a story of some sort, b) they're differentiated from books precisely because of their visual nature, and c) what you said about metaphor imparting more value.

 

 

Quote:
Narrative - There is much more at work here than just character arcs, which is what you're focusing on.  Yes, in the best writing, every significant character has their own journey and perspective on the story as it progresses.  But that's only one part of narrative.  There's also pacing, the delivery of exposition without affecting it, world-building, believability (not the same as realism), the surprise factor (I avoid the term "plot twist" only because I think it has become too conflated with "twist ending" in recent times), and thematic harmony.

 

Thank you, thank you. Seriously. Some of these are definitely going to be things I look out for in my narrative viewings: pacing, exposition, verisimilitude, and theme. The complete list would add character, setting, point of view, voice, and structure to the mix. This is exactly what I was looking for: suggestions on how to approach each category!

 

 

Quote:
Metaphor - I jump here next because it's tied to narrative.  Any story that's worth half a damn will be about more than what it's about, if you follow me.

 

I think I would place a caveat here. I think it is narrative which is tied to metaphor. Which is to say, narrative is not the only place you can find metaphor in a movie. Say, the constant visual theme of circles in The Hudsucker Proxy representing cyclical nature. Of course, there is also a theme of cyclical nature in the narrative (karma, starting at the bottom and ending up there again, etc), as well. Still, think of all the circles visually contained in the movie - the clock face, frisbee, and hoola hoop being the obvious ones. I bet there are more if one were to really look! Also, both the hoola hoop and frisbee (and buzz sucker) are such a vibrant red that they really pop from the screen, in my mind emphasizing both the visual metaphor and narrative theme of cycles. Which brings me back to my motivation for separating these elements from each other in my viewings. I am simply not smart enough to naturally or organically notice stuff like this during a film.

 

 

Quote:

Point being, there is are many, many ways to approach a film.  But trying to formulate a rigid and exhaustive approach to all of them is likely to prove, well, exhausting, and imo, to suck a lot of the fun out of experiencing movies.

 

Perhaps this is why I am instinctively choosing movies I already have experienced many times. Also, is what I'm suggesting really that rigid? Multiple viewings while keeping conceivably separable elements in mind? Is it possible that my writing style is imparting a sense of rigidity which is not necessarily present in what I'm trying to do?

 

----------

 

Quote:
I'd like to read the takes on The Fountain.  I have been meaning to watch that for roughly ever.

Well, that's Gabe's vote! Anyone else feel like participating this early? Other suggestions for the first film?

 

EDIT: Totally not Gabe's vote. Verber's vote. I am a moron.


Edited by Sphere_Monk - 5/5/11 at 11:55am
Reply
post #13 of 20
5/5/11 at 11:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sphere_Monk View Post

  • Solaris
  • Andrei Rublev
  • Stranger Than Paradise
  • The Fountain
  • There Will Be Blood
  • Moon
  • Blade Runner
  • Shutter Island
  • Kingdom of Heaven

 

I left the ones I've seen (SHAME ON ME). Though I would be interested if we applied our approach to movies that haven't been discussed on these boards so frequently. Or, better yet, a newer film that hasn't gone under the microscope yet. Could be fun.
 

Reply
post #14 of 20
5/5/11 at 12:05pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe T View Post

I left the ones I've seen (SHAME ON ME). Though I would be interested if we applied our approach to movies that haven't been discussed on these boards so frequently. Or, better yet, a newer film that hasn't gone under the microscope yet. Could be fun.
 



No way man! I'm sure you've seen way more than I have, at any rate. Newer films will be harder for me, because of money issues. If it's out on DVD I might be willing to get a copy, though. Any suggestions for newer, less scrutinized stuff?

 

Honestly, I really like the idea of doing The Fountain, because I feel like a lot of it went over my head. As Schwartz mentioned, though, the narrative analysis might be more than I'm capable of. Still willing to give it my best shot!

Reply
post #15 of 20
5/5/11 at 12:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sphere_Monk View Post

 

Point taken, but my intention is not to demand that movies be brilliant on all fronts, although that is a very interesting interpretation of my approach. I basically just want to see what is already there. The categories I picked make sense to me because a) most movies seem to be trying to tell a story of some sort, b) they're differentiated from books precisely because of their visual nature, and c) what you said about metaphor imparting more value.

 

 


 

Perhaps this is why I am instinctively choosing movies I already have experienced many times. Also, is what I'm suggesting really that rigid? Multiple viewings while keeping conceivably separable elements in mind? Is it possible that my writing style is imparting a sense of rigidity which is not necessarily present in what I'm trying to do?



It's not that I thought you were expecting every movie to be brilliant or ground-breaking on every front, just that practically speaking, it's going to be better to focus your attention on a couple of fronts for any given movie.   And that's not giving them short thrift or anything; it's just kind of silly to critique 2001 for its dearth of snappy dialogue, The Thing for a lack of complexity in its depiction interpersonal relationships, The Hangover not having visual motifs that reflect the underlying thematic content, or The Insider for having an insufficiently rousing action climax.  Those might all be valid criticisms of different types of movies, though.  It's just that you can't concoct some kind of holistic system for "movie analysis" without spending an inordinate amount of time examining the less interesting or relevant aspects of any given movie.  

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sphere_Monk View Post

 

I think I would place a caveat here. I think it is narrative which is tied to metaphor. Which is to say, narrative is not the only place you can find metaphor in a movie. Say, the constant visual theme of circles in The Hudsucker Proxy representing cyclical nature. Of course, there is also a theme of cyclical nature in the narrative (karma, starting at the bottom and ending up there again, etc), as well. Still, think of all the circles visually contained in the movie - the clock face, frisbee, and hoola hoop being the obvious ones. I bet there are more if one were to really look! Also, both the hoola hoop and frisbee (and buzz sucker) are such a vibrant red that they really pop from the screen, in my mind emphasizing both the visual metaphor and narrative theme of cycles. Which brings me back to my motivation for separating these elements from each other in my viewings. I am simply not smart enough to naturally or organically notice stuff like this during a film.

 

 

I didn't say metaphor came entirely from narrative.  But you can't really separate visual metaphors from narrative ones; one should be reinforcing the other, or else you're going to have a really disjointed and confusing movie.

Reply
post #16 of 20
5/5/11 at 3:11pm

I'd love to read a discussion on The Fountain.  One of my favorite films from the past several years, the only guaranteed to draw tears from me each time I watch it.

Reply
post #17 of 20
5/5/11 at 9:50pm
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

 

It's not that I thought you were expecting every movie to be brilliant or ground-breaking on every front, just that practically speaking, it's going to be better to focus your attention on a couple of fronts for any given movie.   And that's not giving them short thrift or anything; it's just kind of silly to critique 2001 for its dearth of snappy dialogue, The Thing for a lack of complexity in its depiction interpersonal relationships, The Hangover not having visual motifs that reflect the underlying thematic content, or The Insider for having an insufficiently rousing action climax.  Those might all be valid criticisms of different types of movies, though.  It's just that you can't concoct some kind of holistic system for "movie analysis" without spending an inordinate amount of time examining the less interesting or relevant aspects of any given movie.  

 

Space Odyssey has a narrative, though. If dialogue isn't a big deal, I'm pretty sure some aspect of the narrative might yield some insight into the workings of the film. You're being oddly specific here, in my mind, while I'm trying to break up my viewing into only a few very broad categories. I won't have a checklist of every possible kind of story while I'm trying to analyze narrative. "Well, Everything is Illuminated fails as an action spectacle, a romcom, a zomcom, and it's just terrible as a post modern critique of the fascism inherent in superheroes." I mean. Yeah. I think we might be butting heads on the concept of "critical process." I'm not trying to be a movie critic. I'm not interested in whether a movie works and why or why not. All the movies I want to examine powerfully and unquestioningly work for me. Perhaps I misspoke when I used that term, though I think "analysis" fits.
 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
I didn't say metaphor came entirely from narrative.  But you can't really separate visual metaphors from narrative ones; one should be reinforcing the other, or else you're going to have a really disjointed and confusing movie.

 

I'm... not sure about that. I'll have to think about it. You really don't think it's possible to have some embedded imagery which is divorced from the narrative context? Maybe a message which is being sent separately from anything in the story? Sounds possible to me, but I'm not a filmmaker.

 

 

Quote:
I'd love to read a discussion on The Fountain.  One of my favorite films from the past several years, the only guaranteed to draw tears from me each time I watch it.

 

Sweet. I think I'll wait a little while longer, but right now it looks like The Fountain is the favorite. Let me just make a disclaimer. I in no way guarantee the quality of my analyses or observations. I'm pretty much just a guy that likes movies.

Reply
post #18 of 20
5/5/11 at 10:13pm

I actually taught The Fountain for a film class a couple of years ago. I guess I'd be up for that.

Reply
post #19 of 20
5/6/11 at 5:42pm
Thread Starter 

Well, I guess that makes it unanimous! I'm behind on a bunch of work, so it may take a few days for me to post my pre-analysis section. I think it would be good for me to post in stages to leave room for discussion about each of the categories. I'm looking forward to this, and I hope some of you guys feel inclined to participate!

Reply
post #20 of 20
5/7/11 at 9:26am

On a side note, if you're any kind of movie fan, you should really have a netflix account.  I survive without cable or even network TV hooked up because I have an Instant queque that never drops below 50 titles.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Sphere Monk's Analysis Thread