Watch your step!

I’ve felt the itch to start this thread more times than I can count, and it all stems from an anecdote I stumbled upon ages ago in a book by Slobodan Novaković called *opening time*. It kept looping back in my head so often that I finally decided to track down a copy just so I wouldn't have to rely on my hazy memory to retell it. I eventually found it in the New York Public Library archives, and here is the beginning and the soul of that brilliant 1966 piece by Novaković regarding how we watch and interpret cinema.

Regarding how to guide kids on how to watch movies, there was quite a bit of debate among educators in Manhattan, and it all boiled down to one thing: how much right does an educator actually have to influence a young viewer's interpretation of a film? In other words, should they step in and steer the ship, or just let the kids discover whatever is hidden within the frame on their own terms?

During a discussion about whether we should explicitly define every single message and theme in a movie for kids, or if we should instead help them find what they personally deem important, the Swedish educator Sven Norlin shared a pretty sharp anecdote from his own experience. You see, Norlin was part of a UNESCO team investigating how people in remote, traditional communities—where formal education levels aren't much higher than those of children—perceive motion pictures.

The crew would screen standard films in rural villages somewhere in Africa, followed by discussions with the audience, many of whom were experiencing a "cinema" for the very first time. They were asked to describe what they saw, and boy, did they come back with all sorts of things. In one particular village, the locals collectively declared they were absolutely floored by some chickens they spotted in the movie; every single question and comment they had revolved entirely around those birds.

To the researchers, this seemed like a total breakdown in communication, because in that feature film, the chickens weren't a plot point, nor did they even really show up on screen.

They decided to run the exact same film again just to clear up the confusion, but the villagers stubbornly stuck to their guns about the chickens—to them, that was the main subject of the entire film. At that point, the crew decided to watch the film themselves, frame by agonizing frame. And sure enough, in one shot, tucked away somewhere in the "background," they managed to spot a few chickens, though it was a massive stretch. But while those chickens remained a trivial detail to the researchers, for the villagers, they were the heart of the story. Sven Norlin and his colleagues never quite figured out why.

As bizarre as the story is, it carries a heavy lesson: when watching the same film, different viewers will uncover different meanings!

Everyone watches their own movie.
Everyone finds their own chickens!
...

I needed to share this because it’s how I approach movies—I always see my own little chickens in every film. And honestly, that’s what I want from everyone else, too. I love hearing someone else's take, seeing what they actually caught on screen. It's not about arguing over who's "right" or "wrong," but rather expanding my own perspective and catching what I might have missed. Just show me your chickens.

Anyway, I intended this to be a thread dedicated to the art of watching and interpreting film.

Carl Bennett78 said:... ... ...

... ...
... ...

It’s an anecdote that, despite its absurdity, holds a lesson: even when watching the exact same film, viewers will uncover entirely different layers.

Everyone watches their own movie.
Everyone sees their own chickens in the movie.

I needed this just so I could say that I always spot my own little nuances in a film. And frankly, I expect everyone else to do the same.

If you’re going to bring up those little anecdotes here, you need to either provide some actual reasoning or just accept the consensus. That's how this works. Nothing but chicken, just like plain old chicken. Those chicks actually represent...

For example:
Did the audience actually grasp the medium delivering those events? Did they understand the "why" behind it—the actual purpose of watching a motion picture in the first place?

If that guy's story holds up...Somewhere in the rural backwoods of Africa.The film was mostly "big city," so they threw in some chicks in a backyard scene just to break up the urban sprawl.
So, it stands to reason that this would...
That one scene is the only part of the entire movie that actually makes sense to the audience.
(To truly understand her, one must engage—to talk, to debate.)
The most vital part of any film— The only "understandable" part. Actually...

Carl Bennett78 said:I enjoy hearing how others interpret things—what they actually saw. It’s not about arguing over who’s right or wrong. It's about expanding my own perspective and spotting what I might have missed. Point out your little details to me.

Use this thread to post your own personal interpretations of films.
It’s just like any other discussion about a movie. A topic about a film is just a topic about a film....
Is this thread intended to be about interpretations? For instance, does anyone actually care if they matter, or are they just useful for "personal use"?

Carl Bennett78 said:Basically, it’s designed as a space dedicated to watching and dissecting films.

Hmm.A thread dedicated to watching and interpreting film.'...
Could you clarify a few things? Just while we're still at the beginning.

Let’s look at a valid example of an "on-topic" post. 🤷

coppersailor28 said:Hmm, an topic dedicated to watching and interpreting movies...
Mind giving us a little more context—while we’re still getting warmed up?

In one of the last "special supplements," Kragić mentioned quite seriously how those French New Wave filmmakers actually got their start by watching American flicks at the film archive without subtitles because they didn't know English. There's definitely some truth to that. Since they couldn't rely on the dialogue, they had to obsess over the visuals and the rhythm, just catching glimpses of the plot here and there. That kind of raw, visual-first education ended up triggering the most inventive revolution in cinema history.

The more explicit a movie gets—both visually and verbally—the more it starts feeling like pornography. It narrows the scope of what it can mean.

On this subforum, we see this all the time: one person thinks a movie is garbage, while someone else thinks it's a masterpiece.

Here’s another snippet from that other Slobodan Novaković text I quoted earlier:

Metaphorical fragments, which the director doesn't even necessarily force upon you, give the viewer the freedom to interpret them however they want—you might even end up editing and re-editing them in your own head. Depending on how that internal montage turns out, viewers walk away with totally different takes on the content or the "message." For instance, after seeing Dušan Makavejev's "man being Tic," audiences often leave the theater with completely conflicting interpretations—some seeing it as a mockery, while others see it as a tribute to the working class! A modern director basically relies on the audience to step up and collaborate using their own sensibilities.

The actual spark for this thread was the wildly different ways people interpreted Nope and US. I also think we need to accept that everyone's perspective on a film is fundamentally valid; we should probably just focus on our own take instead of worrying about everyone else's business.

Carl Bennett78 said:We should also accept that everyone’s perspective on film is essentially equal—that we should focus on our own take rather than policing someone else's.

No, it isn't. Some people know more, others know less. Some understand more, others understand less.—simple as that.

I don't think those little kids who saw the movie for the first time and were totally mesmerized by the chicks—thinking they were just cute little birds—are some kind of valid metric for how an adult audience should actually perceive things. Sure, maybe there's some weird logic in a kid's head, but even then, it's a stretch.
I mean, "educated" kids (if you want to call them that) are at least somewhat more prepared for cinema than those little kids reacting purely on instinct...

So, yeah, a million different factors shape perception, but I honestly think we should be aiming for that ultimate level of analysis here on this film forum.

Basically, look at the movie as a whole.

Then again, who am I to tell anyone what they see when they watch a film? Honestly, letting people daydream is actually pretty healthy and encouraged.

Plus, it gets the discussion going, which is a good thing.

Carl Bennett78 said:We should also accept that everyone’s take on a movie is essentially equal; people ought to focus on their own interpretations rather than policing someone else's.

Exactly. If someone points out that those aren't chicks in the background but sparrows, the debate just hits a dead end.

It’s like when Jordan Peele goes on YouTube to debunk fan theories. It’s his way of saying there’s a specific vision he intended—it’s his film, not ours. That could be seen as another layer of Nope, I suppose... 😁

Patrick Martin said:...I mean, those little black kids seeing the movie for the first time...

It wasn't about some kids, it was more about grown "people from rural backwaters whose education level barely edges past that of a toddler."

Carl Bennett78 said:It wasn't about small kids; it was about grown "people from primitive backgrounds whose education level isn't much higher than that of a toddler."

Man, seriously 😁
it’s not even a stretch to say those two things are basically the same thing—they’re practically identical. At the end of the day, these people don't have the slightest clue what a movie actually is or what it stands for. If you want any kind of actual, high-level perception, you need some sort of foundation first. You can't just expect it to happen.

They'd be better off watching Terrence Malick; they could graze on those landscapes like cattle in a pasture.

northerncrane4 said:Nah, not really. Some people just know more than others. Some get it, some don't.

Heh, 🙂 I totally saw that coming from a connoisseur like you, which is why I added that little disclaimer about everyone's perspective being "basically" equal—because, honestly, there’s a grain of truth in what you're saying. But man, you could argue about that all day.

The thing is, sometimes having too much "film culture" actually gets in the way of just enjoying a movie. I remember when I was a kid, watching Guillermin's King Kong starring Jeff Bridges, and I thought it was an absolute blast. Then later on, I stumble upon some high-brow critic in a magazine absolutely tearing it to shreds. It gets even weirder when you see someone like Bernardo Bertolucci trashing it too, or complaining about how de Laurentis wastes money on stuff like that. 😁 Like, excuse me? Why though? 🙂

It really makes you wonder who actually wins in that scenario: the person who's genuinely having a great time with the movie, or the guy who thinks it's garbage just because he's got a massive library of cinema history in his head?

Carl Bennett78 said:The real question is—who actually holds the upper hand here? Is it the person simply enjoying the movie, or the one who finds it trivial because they possess more knowledge and cinematic culture?

The latter. Next question. 😎

electriccanyon26 said:

Carl Bennett78 said:... We should also accept that everyone's perspective on a film is essentially equal, and everyone should just focus on their own observations rather than policing someone else's.

Exactly. If someone points out that those aren't chicks in the background but sparrows, the discussion just ends right there. ...

You're joking... Fine, let's be less categorical: you're probably joking.

I mean, if @Carl Bennett78's opinion (what you quoted) can only be interpreted as 'unreasonable,' then your response can only be viewed as either 'unreasonable' or sarcastic.

My current 'approach' actually violates @Carl Bennett78's rules for this thread:

Carl Bennett78: "I am seeing /describing/ my own observations, and I expect others to 'describe' theirs—not to /without/ argue over who is right.", ...

Even if the topic is slightly different here, keeping your mouth shut will mostly be an impossible mission because,
☕ as forum users at heart, ☕
we almost always want to prove we're smarter than we actually are.

So, if this thread is intended to be a
mix of blog posts with comments disabled,
then fine, goodbye and thanks for nothing...
I'm simply not the type of person who can sit idly by while someone online is wrong.

Correctly understanding a film is a kind of 'privilege.' That's why I think there's no point in shouting your version of a plot at people who are blind or deaf to it. It’s smarter to engage in intellectually honest cooperation to find the 'core truths' that explain the entire cinematic story, rather than just focusing on some two-minute scene.

Sure, an ignorant, drunk (or whatever) person might be happier than an educated, sober one... but if you ask me, screw that kind of 'happiness.'🤷

northerncrane4 said:That other one. What’s the next question? 😎

See, that was a rhetorical question, and honestly, the answer is just plain wrong. 🙂

But hey, that's the whole point of this discussion, isn't it? Everyone's got their own take on things. (Though, granted, on this specific topic, most people aren't seeing things *that* differently. 🙂)

Beyond that, anyone can decide at some point that a total piece of trash is actually high art, simply because they managed to find some deep meaning in it that everyone else missed. It's kind of like how those New Wave directors eventually gave a second life to classic American genre films and rescued certain overlooked directors from total obscurity.

coppersailor28 said:I’m just not the kind of person who can sit back and chill while someone online is dead wrong about something.

Because getting a movie right...

Good grief.

"Getting a movie right" 😲

Why don't you go ahead and write a new dogma film manifesto? Here’s a little template for you.

coppersailor28 said:You're joking... Okay, let me be less definitive: you're probably joking.

I mean, if @@Danteov opinion (what you quoted) can only be understood or judged as 'unreasonable,' then your response can only be viewed as either 'unreasonable' or sarcastic.

It isn't so much unreasonable as it is inconsistent. First, let’s stop pointing out everyone else's mistakes and just focus on our own. And yes, I'm joking—don't worry, people will catch on. 😉 Though, looking at this thread... it's as if we just joined the internet yesterday and forgot how to comment, debate, critique, or even communicate. We don't need to write academic papers here; we all know what's happening. But the OP managed to stir up quite a bit of confusion, likely from overanalyzing something that should be simple. First, the idea of newcomers finding inspiration in obscure genre films: these are serious directors. Their interpretation isn't the same as ours or those guys upstairs, for heaven's sake. Second, the quote clearly presents a dilemma about whether to point out interpretive errors to kids; not because the kids are right, but for pedagogical reasons—letting them learn to interpret correctly as they grow. Third, there isn't just one single correct interpretation, but there certainly is such a thing as an incorrect one. There is plenty to learn from, including here on this forum, unless you want to be treated like a child. And fourth, this doesn't feel like a genuine discussion about interpretation to me; it feels more like a meta-forum topic: let's agree not to try and convince one another, because... some people find that bothersome.

Carl Bennett78 said:

coppersailor28 said:I’m just not the kind of person who can sit idly by while someone on the internet is objectively wrong.

Because properly understanding a film...

Good grief.

The "rule to understand a film" 😲

Go ahead. write a new dogma film manifesto. Here is a template.

With all due respect, I don't see a single "rookie mistake" in your post—not yours, and certainly not mine. 🤷

Or perhaps that "rule to understand a film in your reply wasn't a typo, but rather you misread my post and decided to dismiss me entirely?
In that case, I agree with your sentiment that (to quote you)
"everyone should focus on their own business instead of worrying about others' mistakes".

(I'll read the stuff in the link 👍 ...though certainly not as a template for my own dogma film manifesto that you're suggesting I write)

Carl Bennett78 said:In those recent "special supplements," Kragić made this dead serious claim that the French New Wave happened because they were hitting up the film archive watching American movies without subtitles—and they didn't even speak English. There’s a grain of truth there. It forced them to obsess over visuals and rhythm since they could only catch glimpses of the plot. That kind of cinematic upbringing basically birthed the most inventive movement in film history.

Look, the Russian Formalists were obsessed with visuals and rhythm thirty years before that. It’s not about subtitles—it’s just how the language of cinema works. Most of those French "inventions" had already been done. If you want the real contribution from the French—even Godard—it’s all about style: the cool girls and guys, the sunglasses, the guns, the romance mixed with crime, pop soundtracks, the fashion, the posing... all that. They actually made movies feel like part of youth culture, and that changed everything.

Dennis Martin6 said:(...) the greatest contribution of the Frenchman (...)

If you had to pick just one—strictly your own opinion—what would be the single biggest contribution from one of those Frenchmen, specifically Chris Marker? I’m asking in all honesty here; I’m a complete ignoramus on the subject.

northerncrane4 said:So, what’s the next big question on the table? 😎

So, if we’re pivoting away from my last question about how much "film buff" knowledge actually matters, I want to dig into something slightly different: how much does a general, well-rounded education even play into the whole movie-watching experience? Like, is having a solid grasp of history, literature, or philosophy actually going to change the way you process what's happening on screen, or is that just overthinking it?

Arthur Brown6 said:So, if you’re asking me—and I mean strictly my two cents here—what would be the single biggest contribution from one of those Frenchmen, specifically Chris Marker, I’d have to say it’s his ability to weave memory and time together like he was playing with the fabric of reality itself. Honestly, I’m asking because I’m a total amateur when it comes to this stuff, but there’s just something about how he captures that fleeting, ghostly feeling of how we remember things that feels totally unmatched.

If you’re going to act like such an ignoramus, why on earth did you go posting on Final Cut that Chris Marker is some legendary French director? And honestly, what does that even have to do with what we're talking about here?

Carl Bennett78 said:If possible, how much does a general formal education actually matter when experiencing a film?

A formal general education matters just as much as it does in any other field—it provides the foundation you need to build your own knowledge. But I don't get why you’re tying your personal experience of a film—or any work, for that matter—to some potential idea intended by the author. If you view everything solely through your own lens, then honestly, it doesn't matter what you're watching.

electriccanyon26 said:It isn't so much irrational as it is inconsistent. First we point out everyone else's priorities, then we decide it's better if everyone just minds their own business.
And obviously I'm joking, don't worry, people will get it. 😉

Then again... looking at the direction this thread has taken... it's as if we all crawled onto the internet yesterday and forgot how to comment, debate, critique, or even communicate.
There's no need to write academic papers here; we all know what's going on. But the OP managed to stir up quite a bit of confusion, likely by overanalyzing something incredibly straightforward.

First,
the idea that newcomers draw inspiration from obscure genre films: we are talking about serious auteurs. Their interpretation isn't the same as ours or those idiots up there, for heaven's sake.
Second,
the quote provided clearly poses a dilemma regarding whether to correct children's interpretations; not because the kids are right, but for pedagogical reasons—letting them learn to interpret correctly as they grow up.
Third,
while there certainly isn't one single "correct" interpretation, there is also certainly such a thing as an incorrect one.

There is plenty to learn here, even on this forum, unless you prefer being treated like a child.

Fourth,
this isn't really a sincere discussion about interpretation to me. It feels more meta-forum: let's agree not to try and convince one another, because... well, some people find it bothersome.

Well observed. There are some 'priorities' in that post of yours. 👍

(By 'priorities' I mean it seriously—given Carl Bennett78's opening post, I actually like that term for that specific thing that carries actual weight/significance.)