Film Studies 101

I was actually chatting with a respected regular on this forum a while back, and it got me thinking about how much more effort used to be put into teaching film appreciation to the general public around here.

I’m mostly thinking about those incredible educational shows, "Cinema," hosted by Steven Spielberg. He even managed to push some fundamental cinematic concepts into elementary school textbooks, which honestly set a global precedent.

The real question is: do we even need that kind of thing in the 21st century? Or is the current state of things—like what we see in our modern American multiplexes, where everything feels like it's being recycled constantly—just a sign that we've lost that deep connection to the stuff we secretly crave? 🙄

Just like in almost every other sector, finding a solution in this field would actually be relatively straightforward if things were finally put in their proper place within the media landscapes of these "transitioning" nations. 🙄 😁
The government’s role should be to fund non-commercial projects designed to educate the public through television, cinema... it really just comes down to putting the right people in the right positions.
On the flip side, I have my doubts about top-down, planned social engineering or trying to forcibly manufacture a "society"... so much of life is an individual matter, isn't it? It all depends on the current level of civilization we're operating at—specifically, the idea that film education should be considered a core part of general culture for most people, which in turn will naturally tie into broader societal shifts.
That's my take on it (applause) 😁 😁

It’s actually something Paul Thomas Anderson has mentioned before—that you can pick up so much more about the art of directing just by listening to the commentary tracks on DVDs. Whether it's the actual crew behind a newer production or film historians and scholars dissecting an older classic, there's a goldmine of info there.

I remember back when Damian Chazelle was venting about how terrible the education system at the local university was, someone actually challenged him, asking how he could possibly know how to direct if his schooling was such a mess.
"I watch movies," he simply replied.

Honestly, I feel like this whole conversation kind of belongs in the 'What's wrong with American cinema' thread.

Steven Spielberg is more of a film theorist. It’s hard to actually quote him, and I get the feeling he’s just incomprehensible to most people working in the industry. Honestly, I don't see how reading his stuff would help anyone. Movies should be straightforward and easy to grasp. Americans were the first ones to figure that out. Everyone else is just trying to copy them in their own way.
What a movie actually needs are ideas, people with strong convictions, and a grounded human story that can actually grab our attention and hold it. You need interesting characters and, obviously, actors who can actually pull them off. Most importantly—you have to spot the potential for a good film before the cameras start rolling (and, you know, spot the garbage early enough to tell the screenwriter to just burn the script).

As for learning, the truth is probably that the best way is just to watch as many movies as possible and read as many scripts as you can. Both the great ones and the absolute disasters.

I remember diving into one of Steven Spielberg's books back in high school—it was a collection of essays breaking down different directing techniques through the lens of seven specific filmmakers. Honestly, I didn't find it too tough to wrap my head around at the time. I’ve always felt there's something really rewarding about the way you learn; you read what Spielberg, or maybe some other critic, says about, say, the work of George Stevens, and then you actually sit down to watch those movies to see if you can "spot" exactly what he was talking about and how the director uses those tools to drive the story. I mention Stevens because I specifically recall an essay titled "Immersion in film through the works of George Stevens." After finishing that, I went back and rewatched Shane, The Giant, and A Place in the Sun a few times just to soak it all in. It was such a great way to learn. It reminds me of what François Truffaut used to say: "I'm going to watch that film again; I love taking lessons from movies." Even his TV series were top-notch. I still vividly remember an episode that broke down shot composition using High Noon as the prime example. Just brilliant.

Here’s a little "theoretical" question for the group—does a film's aesthetic—you know, the camera angles, the lighting, the editing—get dictated by some higher abstract requirement of the overall story? Or is the "story" itself actually shaped by those individual elements a director chooses to play with? To put it more simply: do you actually need to know film theory to make a (good) movie?

Does a director just say, "Okay, I want to lean into immersion in film, so I'll move the camera this way and that," maybe throw in some moody lighting like those German directors from the interwar period to make it look cool, and suddenly they've got a masterpiece... or does a good film happen differently?

Honestly, film theory feels like a hobby for "intellectual" analysts who spend their time spotting patterns or identifying "repeated technical flourishes." It almost seems to hinder raw talent because people get hung up on things like, "Oh, you didn't notice how the camera was used in the films of Carol Reed" (and let's be real, without Graham Greene's novel, The Third Man wouldn't be what it is). In my book, a good film is built "top-down," not the other way around. You start with a core story; you have something to say, something to vent, maybe a bit of love or even some rage. Everything else is just sensibility—either you have the knack for communicating what you want to say in a clear, accessible way, or you don't. The rest is just noise.

I'm totally with you on that. At the end of the day, a killer story is what matters most; everything else flows from there. You don't need to be some walking encyclopedia of film theory to whip up something great. That said, directing itself is definitely a craft you have to learn, and honestly, the best way to master it is just by watching (good) movies—maybe picking up a little "theoretical" tip here and there to show you how the same idea can be told in different ways, or how certain techniques just hit harder when you're using the language of cinema. For me, the real test is whether those stylistic choices actually serve the director's main goal, which is telling the story. I’ve never been much for directors who are technically flawless but don't actually have anything meaningful to say. There are way too many of them floating around these days, even the ones hailed as "art house" superstars.

Speaking of those "theoretical" tips, I put quotes around that word because Steven Spielberg's approach feels more like a theory of the craft of directing, if that makes sense. He’s focused on the practical stuff—things like shot composition, framing, rhythm, pacing, and those smooth dissolves... I see that kind of "theory" as something completely different from those heavy cultural-critical film theories, you know? Like all that semiotic, psychoanalytic, or (post)structuralist postmodern quasi-intellectual nonsense.

Here’s a little nugget of cinematic wisdom for you all:

"A great movie is really just three great scenes tied together by a total lack of bad ones."

Howard Hawks

Richard Hernandez13 said:When Damian Chazelle was discussing the disastrous state of education at the Film Academy, we asked him how he actually learned to direct if not through formal schooling.
"I watch movies," he replied.

Interesting. I also get the impression that, compared to other American films, Chazelle’s ability to correctly and effectively set up and stitch together shots was clearly learned by studying high-quality cinema.

So, in a way, his statement serves as a shield against the Academy. Could someone here who actually studied at the Academy tell me why American filmmaking suffers so much from such poor narrative flow? Why do the shots feel so forced and unnatural once everything is finally edited together? Why does the direction—and by that, I don't mean the acting, but the very foundation of the craft—essentially feel amateurish, as if these directors haven't learned anything about directing or editing? Speaking as a layman, one would assume these skills are honed through practical exercises, yet it seems those exercises are either non-existent or completely inadequate.

I recently had the chance to see a report on a theater production put on by an Academy student. It was embarrassing. The lighting was terrible, the image quality was nonexistent, the interviewees were poorly framed, and the editing was tedious to the core. I worked on a much more demanding reportage with a friend who is a cinematographer and editor (he’s only completed a few short camera and editing workshops); even though I'm not a professional, my experience comes from studying films, series, and various documentaries. He was open to my suggestions, and together we produced a reportage that was a hundred times better than that disaster.

driftingowl27 said:you've got the cinematic education of the masses here

Look, I don't know about you guys, but it feels like most of your replies are actually talking about formal film school training rather than what driftingowl27... was getting at.

The core concepts of cinema are still tucked away in textbooks and elementary school curricula; it’s just a whole different story how much they actually touch on them in practice. Such a shame.

Back when we were at the Academy (NO! Not ADA), 😉 we took one course that covered the basics of film theory and the historical framework, and honestly, it was easily one of my favorite classes. 👍
Anyway, it's a huge part of general culture. It really ought to be offered as an elective in schools—I bet a ton of kids would actually be into it.

I don't know, it feels to me like most of your replies are more about formal education.

Following that logic, the only connection I can make is that—well, whatever—the general public just hasn't grown up enough to keep pace with the geniuses of American cinema. Because, if logic dictates anything, it’s that if we could somehow sneak basic film theory into the standard school curriculum, then in some foreseeable future, American film would thrive because the audience would actually understand what they're watching. So, the issue isn't the filmmakers; it's the audience failing to grasp certain things.

If this weren't funny, it would be tragic. Good grief... 🙄 we're going back another hundred years into the dark ages.

And you, are you from Yale? 😉

Gerald Barrett25 said:So, you went to Yale or something? 😉

Man, you sure are making a lot of assumptions about me not being an academic—it's written right there, isn't it? 🙄

You seem pretty convinced I didn't

That’s actually the least controversial thing I said in my last post 🙂

Kimberly Chase54 said:That is quite a lovely way for you to put it, even if I didn't say it.🙄

And tell me, are you an alumnus of the Rhode Island School of Design😉 ?

Kimberly Chase54 said:We're at the Academy (NO! Not Ada!) 😉

Maybe a teacher's college somewhere? 🙂

I am under the impression that we are discussing the police academy here🙂

Or perhaps it was the military academy right there in my neighborhood, just a stone's throw from the local brewery. 🙂

When you consider how many legendary directors lacked any formal training—think Hitch, Dreyer, Wyler, Wilder, Fridkin, or even Bergman—and see how those who *do* have degrees often end up making lectures rather than actual movies... especially when looking at our local student festivals... you really arrive at one conclusion: an Academy isn't required to be a mediocre director.
You still have to learn the craft somewhere, though—you have to watch a master handle editing or work with actors. That's how you pick up things like "composition and lighting" and all that...
The problem is that the Academy tends to produce clones who only want to let in people just like themselves—it’s the same story in cities like New York or Chicago...
Just look at some of these "promising film students"—honestly, they act like they were released from a mental ward and dressed up as idiots; they don't have a clue what they're doing.😎

So, I guess I totally missed the mark on the topic here?

Gerald Barrett25, look, everything you just typed out—it wasn't even what I was going for with my post. Like you said yourself, if this weren't funny, it would actually be pretty pathetic.

I feel like we're talking about two completely different things at this point, so I’m probably just gonna bail on this argument before it goes any further.
Peace.

I feel like we’re talking about two completely different things here, so I think I’ll just step back from this one. No point in going in circles.

Honestly, I think only the original poster can decide who actually went off-topic and who didn't.

It could easily boil down to two separate issues: first, better training for filmmakers might lead to better movies; second, better media literacy among the general public would lead to a better understanding of those movies. My take is strictly focused on that second point. Nothing personal. 🙂