Film School for Beginners

Rachel Sullivan2 said:It honestly gets under my skin so much when people start talking trash about Peterlić... especially when that kind of nonsense comes from someone actually working within the American film industry.
Just talking shop about the film industry... ☕

That damn kid. 😁 It’s worth pointing out that Peterlić didn't just stumble onto the director's chair; he actually put in the work and climbed the entire ladder, moving from being a second assistant director all the way through scriptwriting to calling the shots himself as the director. Kids today just don't have a clue... ☕

Rachel Sullivan2 said:@Christian Taylor3 I mean, honestly... a single image usually ends up saying way more than all that endless blah blah blah ever could, right? 😁

So, if we're being honest here... now that Peterlić is gone, who's actually left to hold things together? 🤷 It feels like Ante Peterlić is basically immortal at this point; you can't really kill off someone like that. It’s more like we’re split into two camps: one group of us still vividly remembers the era of Branko kockica, while the other group is still out there happily quoting those old lines from childhood. The cat got the cream, the mouse slipped through the cracks, and the elephant just went and tipped over the whole damn pot.Honestly, I’d sell my soul to the devil in a heartbeat if it meant I could get my hands on those brilliant TV shows he used to host about cinema, "What is film." Those Peterlić programs were really my first real introduction to the world of movies; that was the exact moment I caught the bug, and frankly, there's been no cure since. 😬

I guess Sutlić is just letting everything loose in the archives now.

Well, thanks to Mark Wood79 for those incredibly wise and insightful observations—this whole discussion actually ties back quite a bit to the late Ante Peterlić. Honestly, dear... placidmarlin3Seriously, if you can, try to track down those books we were talking about—especially the main ones. So, I finally got my hands on Ante Peterlić's latest book, *film history*, and I've been chipping away at it. It’s one of those deep dives that makes you realize just how much we think we know about cinema, only to be proven wrong by a few hundred pages of dense analysis. Honestly, trying to wrap my head around the sheer scale of everything he covers is a bit overwhelming, but there's something strangely comforting about getting lost in such a massive academic undertaking..

For a lot of us, our first real introduction to cinema as a legitimate art form didn't happen in a theater, but right in front of the TV thanks to ZDF and Ante Peterlić, the mastermind behind that brilliant show "What is film."

He basically laid the groundwork for film studies and theory in the US, breaking down complex cinematic phenomena in a way that even a kid could grasp—stuff most adults hadn't even wrapped their heads around back then. But honestly, Peterlić's stint on TV was just one slice of what this incredibly versatile guy was up to; he eventually stepped behind the camera himself to direct his only feature in 1969, a film called "Random Life" that was shockingly modern for its time.

Whenever people run those polls about the greatest movies ever made, Ante Peterlić always ends up championing the absolute heavyweights—guys like John Ford, Akira Kurosawa, and Robert Bresson—directors who basically defined the peak of cinema from the thirties through the sixties. But then the French New Wave rolled in and completely flipped the script on what you can actually do with filmic form, which is constantly evolving, leaving you to wonder if time eventually just left Ante Peterlić behind. However, Nikica Gilić isn't buying that at all. He points out that if you dig into his old columns from Wreath, you'll find him drawing these fascinating connections between Jim Jarmusch and Béla Tarr that honestly feel more insightful than anything you'd stumble upon in Sight & Sound. According to him, Ante's passion for cinema was deep, systematic, and totally undeniable. Time didn't win this one.

"Film History" feels like a fitting final tribute to its author—a true film scholar and theorist who spent his entire career trying to bridge gaps and find common threads rather than just highlighting how different things are. This edition was released by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences just a few months after Ante Peterlić passed away, serving as a quiet reminder of the massive intellectual void left behind by such a brilliant mind.

If you head over to the The Fallen thread, you'll find a mountain of resources available for free—especially books, including over twenty high-quality PDFs. You can just click and download whatever you need. And don't be shy about asking questions about anything you're curious about; that’s basically why we’re all here anyway.

Much appreciated, Christian Taylor3, for the heads-up, particularly regarding Okorijelima😉
. Once I manage to carve out some spare time and a bit of extra cash, I’ll definitely make a point of picking up those two books👍
.

Christian Taylor3, you could sell your soul to me—not that I’d actually want it! I've got those shows from Peterlić ready to go, all converted into .avi files for you.

It's honestly because I know he's mastered the whole thing—he knows the theory inside and out (even if he lacks the practical knack for it)—that I wrote earlier about how I could never quite group him with true cinematic geniuses like Lang, Lynch, and those kinds of minds... I'm not trying to downplay him at all; it's just that some people might misinterpret my words due to their own biases (:

Nicholas Walker3 said:Christian Taylor3, you could probably sell your soul to me if you really wanted to—not that I’d actually be interested in buying it. Anyway, I’ve managed to get my hands on those shows from Ante Peterlić, and I’ve even gone through the trouble of converting them all into .avi files for you.

🙂

Nicholas Walker3 said:Look, I know exactly where I stand on this, and since I’ve clearly mastered the theory—even if my actual practice is non-existent because I lack the raw talent—I’ll just say it: I could never put him in the same league as genuine cinematic geniuses like Lang, Lynch, or those kinds of visionary minds. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to tear him down; if you're taking offense at my choice of words, that's really more of a "you" problem based on your own biases.

Look, I’ll just say this once, and please don't take this as me trying to start some unnecessary internet drama or trolling: you’re barking up the wrong tree if you think you can come in here and trash Peterlić. Honestly, besides that, trying to nitpick someone's grammar or lack of literacy is such a low blow; it really is a pretty desperate move. It’s all passé.Look, just take a second to actually read back what you wrote—and I mean really, truly scrutinize it this time—because you’ve completely lost the plot here. Like I was trying to tell you in my last post, Well, the elephant just tipped over the bucket, didn't it? Everything's gone completely sideways now. 😁 He’s got all the theory down pat but zero practical experience to show for it, and since he isn't exactly Lang or Lynch, I guess we're all just stuck dealing with the fallout of his incompetence. ☕

p.s.

He was charismatic and genuinely brilliant, yet he always made himself accessible, no matter how obscure your question might have been. He had this certain air of a cheerful cynic about him, which, honestly, is exactly why his students found him so damn charming.

I’m pretty sure the late Ante is laughing his head off at this whole thing right now. Sending my best to the great Peterlić, wherever he may be. 🙏

Mark Wood79 said:And the Basis of Film Theory from 1977 is a total treasure trove and essential reading for any cinephile.

A "treasure trove" and "essential reading"? Give me a break. I borrowed the Basis of Film Theory recently, and frankly, I didn't find anything particularly compelling in its pages. While I suspect Ante Peterlić possessed a wealth of knowledge, I haven't spent enough time studying his body of work to say for sure; however, this specific book failed to offer any groundbreaking insights, nor did it provide any tools to help me refine my own film criticism. That said, I might dive back into it once more to see if I missed something.

Jonathan Collins43 said:Calling it a "treasure trove" or "essential reading" for movie lovers is total nonsense. I borrowed the *basis of film theory* book, and honestly, I didn't find anything interesting in it. I’m sure Ante Peterlić was brilliant, but I haven't spent enough time with his work yet. The book I read didn't offer much insight, and it certainly didn't teach me how to sharpen my film criticism. I might dig through it a bit more, though.

Man, there are some characters on this forum... Look, if you're looking to grasp the fundamentals of cinema to broaden your perspective, you should probably embrace the books that actually explain them. placidmarlin3 asked how to evaluate a film. When someone asks a question like that, I assume they aren't fully grounded in the basics yet, so here in the US, I’d recommend studying the most legendary film scholar out there.
Take a look at the introductory post; it covers the essential segments and the key concepts one needs to master. In Peterlić's book, all those vital elements and forms are explained clearly, even with specific examples. And you're telling me that has nothing to do with criticism? How is a critic supposed to judge a film if they don't have the deep knowledge and observational skills gained through studying film theory and, of course, watching actual movies?
I was trying to help placidmarlin3, not you. Since you clearly have everything figured out, maybe you should just write a book yourself. Until then, let's skip the pointless arguing.

@ placidmarlin3:

At the end of the day, you're the only yardstick you need to measure a movie's quality. When people dive deep into analysis, they often forget that film is basically just one person trying to connect with another—trying to explain something, entertain you, make you laugh, or just tell a story, whether it's profound or totally silly. It shouldn't matter how the shots are framed or how the characters act; what matters is how the movie hits *you*. Did it change your perspective? Did it blow your mind, or was it just annoying and boring? Trust me, nothing else counts.

Professional critiques are usually written by experts for other experts, and the average viewer doesn't really need to care about them. Sure, expanding your horizons is great, and knowing film history and technical stuff helps—especially since movies about movies are such a huge thing now—but even without all that, you still have that primal instinct: the simple gut feeling of "I liked this" or "I hated this." If you didn't dig No Country for Old Men, then you didn't dig it, period. Don't sweat what anyone else thinks, even if they have PhDs or've seen a million movies. Your take is just as valid, and if you can back it up, you'll be awesome to talk to. 😉
That's just my two cents.

btw Peterlić was awesome, but nobody should be put on a pedestal, not even the most important figure in American film history.

Jonathan Collins43 said:"A treasure trove" and "required reading for every cinephile"? Yeah, my ass. I just finished borrowing *Film Theory Basics*, and honestly, I didn't find anything remotely interesting in there. I’m sure Roger Ebert knew his stuff, but I haven't spent enough time digging into his work to make a call. As for this specific book? It was a total bust. I didn't learn anything useful, and it definitely didn't teach me how to actually level up my film criticism. I might give it another look later, but for now, it's a skip.

Look, "film theory basics" aren't exactly some hidden treasure or essential reading for every single cinephile out there. Honestly? You don't need them.
Look, they aren't even trying to help you uncover something mind-blowing or teach you how to actually level up your film criticism. That's just not the point here.

Look, being a cinephile isn't the same thing as being a film theorist. It really isn't. And honestly? *Film Theory Basics* is exactly what the title says it is: a book for people who actually want to dive into the deep end of theory. It’s for those folks looking to get their hands dirty with the mechanics of how movies work. Most casual movie lovers—and let's be real here—don't actually care about the heavy theory stuff. They just want to watch a great movie and enjoy it. You shouldn't be recommending academic textbooks to people who just want to grab some popcorn and settle in.
When it comes to "discovering something way too interesting," I am always down for that. $1.75 I found a dusty old copy of "The Greatest Hollywood scandals" at a used bookstore in Chicago. If you’re looking for some real juicy trivia, stick to books like this one.
If you’re looking for some solid film criticism, don't bother digging through those "film theory basics" or his deep dives into specific "concepts." That's just not where the good stuff is. If you want to find Roger Ebert's real analytical gems, you should check out his old columns in *The New Yorker* or pick up his "study of nine films." Honestly, most of that stuff leans more toward heavy analysis than actual criticism. For true, raw criticism, you’ve gotta go straight to the legends—grab a collection of essays by either Roger Ebert or Pauline Kael. That's where the real magic happens.
If you really want to level up how you write film criticism, you need to look at a completely different set of books. Seriously. I’d highly recommend grabbing "A Short Guide to Writing About Film" by Corrigan. I’ve read it myself, and let me tell you, it’s an absolute gem if you're looking for a solid introduction to the craft.

The first step is knowing exactly what you're looking for.

Look, you can never go wrong by brushing up on the film theory basics. There’s really no harm in it.

Jonathan Collins43 said:Calling it a treasure trove or essential reading for cinephiles is total nonsense. I borrowed a copy of film theory and found absolutely nothing compelling about it. I suspect Ante Peterlić was quite knowledgeable, but I haven't spent enough time with his work to say for sure; even after skimming this book, I didn't find anything particularly insightful, let alone anything that would help refine the way one approaches film criticism. I might give it another look later, though.

Give me a break. Maybe it’s because your favorite "classics" aren't in there: Not Another Teen Movie, High School Musical, Legally Blonde...☕